| ROA: | 309 |
|---|---|
| Title: | Morphologically Governed Accent in Optimality Theory |
| Authors: | John Alderete |
| Comment: | This dissertation has been significantly revised in the Routledge Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics series; available at www.routledge-ny.com. |
| Length: | 251 |
| Abstract: | This dissertation examines the influence of morphological factors on stress and pitch accent. Two basic types are recognized. In root-controlled accent, inherent accent in a root overrides inherent affix accent; as a result, affixal accent is only realized in words with unaccented roots. In affix-controlled accent, the presence of a particular affix triggers one of several accentual mutations in the stem: deletion of accent (or a 'dominance effect'), insertion of an accent (often known as pre- or post- accentuation), and accent shift or 'flop'. I argue that these two types of accentual behavior, despite important differences, are united under the rubric of faithfulness constraints in Optimality Theory. Root-controlled accent is a consequence of the privileged faithfulness status of roots over affixes, as has been shown in other empirical domains such as vowel harmony. Affix-controlled accent is due to a novel type of constraint, anti-faithfulness, which evaluates a pair of morphologically related words and requires an alternation in the shared stem. The principal case of root-controlled accent studied in this dissertation is the Uto-Aztecan language Cupeño. In addition, I show how the accentual systems of Japanese and Russian fall within the scope of root faithfulness constraints. The study of these cases leads to a substantive restriction on the range of edge effects in accent systems, and clarifies a role for root accentedness in blocking morpho-accentual processes. A number of properties of affix-controlled accentual processes are identified and shown to follow from the anti-faithfulness thesis. Affix-controlled accent is (I) morphologically triggered, (II) stem-mutating, and (III) grammar dependent. (I-II) follow from the assumption that anti-faithfulness operates on related words: forcing an alternation in a pair of words ensures that affix- controlled accent is morphological because it contrasts two word classes. Furthermore, as a relation between words, anti-faithfulness only affects the interval of a word which occurs throughout a paradigm, namely the stem (II). Finally, anti-faithfulness does not fully specify how a pair of words should differ accentually; its specific effects therefore depend on the larger grammar in which it is embedded (III). Affix-controlled accent in Russian, Japanese, Cupeño, Limburg Dutch, and Aguaruna (Jivaroan) is investigated in a series of case studies. I argue that anti- faithfulness constitutes an integrated theory of the diverse morpho-accentual phenomena found in these languages, explains the important differences between the accentual properties of roots and affixes, and establishes parallels with non-accentual affix-controlled phenomena. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Morphologically Governed Accent in Optimality Theory .............1 1.1.1 Goals...........................................................1 1.1.2 Synopsis of Theoretical Arguments ..............................4 1.1.3 Overview of the Dissertation ...................................11 1.2 Lexical Accent and Prosodic Faithfulness .........................12 1.2.1 Remarks on the Notion 'Accent' .................................12 1.2.1.1 Observations .................................................12 1.2.1.2 The Representation Question ..................................15 1.2.2 A Theory of Prosodic Faithfulness ..............................17 1.2.2.1 The Constraints ..............................................17 1.2.2.2 Application of the Constraints ...............................19 1.2.2.3 Consequences for Culminative Accent ..........................22 2. ROOT-CONTROLLED ACCENT IN CUPENO 2.1 Introduction .....................................................28 2.2 Theoretical Background: Root and Affix Faithfulness .............30 2.3 Root Stress Inventory ............................................33 2.3.1 The Data .......................................................34 2.3.2 The Analysis ...................................................35 2.4 Overriding Root Stress ...........................................38 2.4.1 Data and Observations ..........................................38 2.4.2 The Analysis ...................................................42 2.4.3 Extending the Analysis .........................................47 2.5 Discussion of Alternatives .......................................54 2.5.1 A Level-Ordering Account .......................................54 2.5.2 A Cyclic Analysis ..............................................56 2.6 Summary and Implications .........................................58 3. RESTRICTED EDGE EFFECTS IN ROOT-CONTROLLED ACCENT SYSTEMS 3.1 Restricted Edge Orientation ......................................60 3.1.1 Factorial Typology .............................................60 3.1.2 Empirical Issues ...............................................64 3.2 Extended Case Study: Modern Russian .............................66 3.2.1 Preliminaries ..................................................67 3.2.2 Noun Stress: The Basic Patterns ...............................68 3.2.3 Extending the Analysis: Verb Stress and Prefixed Words ........74 3.3 Extended Case Study: Tokyo Japanese .............................80 3.3.1 Background .....................................................80 3.3.2 Analysis of Japanese Word Accent ...............................83 3.3.3 Analysis of Noun-Noun Compounds ................................85 3.3.4 Influences of Prefixation on Word Accent .......................96 3.4 Summary and Conclusion ...........................................109 4. TRANSDERIVATIONAL FAITHFULNESS AND ANTI-FAITHFULNESS 4.1 Morphemic Sources of Accentual Regularity ........................113 4.2 Transderivational Correspondence Theory ..........................116 4.2.1 Introductory Remarks ...........................................116 4.2.2 Transderivational Faithfulness in Stress Neutral Affixation ....119 4.2.2.1 Theoretical Assumptions ......................................119 4.2.2.2 Application to Stress Neutral Affixation .....................121 4.3 Transderivational Anti-Faithfulness ..............................128 4.3.1 Introduction ...................................................128 4.3.2 Transderivational Anti-Faithfulness ............................131 4.3.2.1 Theoretical Assumptions ......................................131 4.3.2.2 Application to Exchange Processes ............................135 4.3.3 Implications of Transderivational Anti-Faithfulness ............141 5. THE ROLE OF TRANSDERIVATIONAL ANTI-FAITHFULNESS IN MORPHO-ACCENTUAL PHENOMENA 5.1 Towards an Integrated Theory of Affix-Controlled Accent ..........147 5.1.1 Properties of Affix-Controlled Accent ..........................147 5.1.2 Affix-Controlled Accent as Prosodic Anti-Faithfulness ..........150 5.2 Dominance Effects as Transderivational Anti-Faithfulness .........153 5.2.1 The Problem ....................................................153 5.2.2 The Proposal: Dominance Effects as the Negation of MAX-PROM ...156 5.2.3 Case Study: Dominance Effects in Russian .....................163 5.2 4 Implications ...................................................173 5.2.5 Discussion of Alternatives .....................................182 5.3 Pre/Post-Accentuation as Transderivational Anti-Faithfulness .....190 5.3.1 The Problem ....................................................190 5.3.2 The Proposal: Pre- and Post-Accentuation as Negation of DEP-PROM .....................................................193 5.3.3 Implications ...................................................200 5.3.3.1 Strict Base Mutation in Pre- and Post-Accentuation ...........200 5.3.3.2 Dominant/Recessive Pre-Accentuation in Tokyo Japanese ........204 5.3.3.3 Factorial Typology ...........................................207 5.3.4 Discussion of Alternatives .....................................210 5.4 Accent Shifts as Transderivational Anti-Faithfulness .............216 5.4.1 The Problem ....................................................216 5.4.2 Dragging Tone Mutation in Limburg Dutch: Evidence for NO-FLOP ......................................................218 5.4.2.1 Data and Observations ........................................218 5.4.2.2 Tone in Monomorphemic Words ..................................220 5.4.2.3 Tonal Mutation in Derived Words as ÂNO-FLOP-TONE .............223 5.4.3 Case Study: Accent Shift in Tokyo Japanese ....................227 5.4.4 Extended Case Study: Accent in Aguaruna .......................234 5.4.4.1 Distribution of Accent in Underived Words ....................235 5.4.4.2 Vowel Deletion and Accent Shift ..............................237 5.4.4.3 Accent Shift in Derived Words ................................245 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...........................................................251 |
| Type: | Dissertation |
| Area/Keywords: | Morphology,Phonology |
| Article: | Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 |