Universals of Prosodic Structure

  • Irene Vogel
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 76)

Abstract

The systematic study of prosodic structures is relatively recent, and the study of universals of these structures is even more recent. This paper presents a total of ten possible universals, some of which have been extracted from the original presentation of prosodic phonology in Nespor and Vogel(1986). Additional universals have been proposed based on further examination of the model as well as certain proposed modifications, in particular with relation to the Strict Layer Hypothesis. The universals are presented and analyzed in relation to three categories: (a) general properties of prosodic structure, (b) the geometry of prosodic constituents, and (c) prosodic structure phenomena. Several areas in which potential universals have been challenged are examined, and the more general question is discussed of what it means for a theory if apparent counter-examples are presented.

Keywords

Prosodic phonology phonological constituents non-isomorphism strict layer hypothesis recursive constituents 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, Stephen. 2005. Aspects of the Theory of Clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Basbøll, Hans 197. Grammatical boundaries in phonology. Aripuc 9: 109–135.Google Scholar
  3. Basbøll, Hans. 1981. On the function of boundaries in phonological rules. In Phonology in the 1980’s, ed. Didier Goyvaerts, 245–269. Ghent: Story-Scientia.Google Scholar
  4. Bickel, Balthasar, and Kristine Hildebrandt. 2007. Word domains. Cross-linguistic challenges for the prosodic hierarchy: evidence from word domains. Ms. University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
  5. Booij, Geert. 1996. Cliticization as prosodic integration: the case of Dutch. The Linguistic Review 13: 219–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Booij, Geert. 1999. The role of the prosodic word in phonotactic generalizations. In Studies on the Phonological Word, ed. Tracy A. and Ursula Kleinhenz, 47–72 Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  7. Booij, Geert. 2007 [2nd edition]. The Grammar of Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Carter, Richard Jr. 1974. Teton Dakota Phonology. PhD. Dissertation. University of New Mexico. Published as University of Manitoba Anthropology Papers. 10.Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Clements, George N. 1978. Tone and syntax in Ewe. In Elements of Tone, Stress and Intonation, ed. Donna Jo Napoli. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dixon, Robert M. W., and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald. 2002. Word: a typological framework. In Word eds. Robert M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikenvald, 1–41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Downing, Laura. 1999. Prosodic stem and prosodic word in Bantu. In Studies on the Phonological Word, eds. Tracy A. Hall and Ursula Kleinhenz, 73–98. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  15. Flack, Katherine. 2007. The Sources of Phonological Markedness. PhD. Dissertation. University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  16. Greenberg, Joseph, Charles Osgood, and James Jenkins. 1963 [1966 second edition]. Memorandum concerning language universals. In Universals of Language, ed. Joseph Greenberg, xv–xxvii. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hall, Tracy A. 1999. The phonological word: a review. In Studies on the Phonological Word, eds. Tracy A. Hall, and Ursula Kleinhenz, 1–22. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  18. Hall, Tracy A., and Ursula Kleinhenz (eds.). 1999. Studies on the Phonological Word. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  19. Hockett, Charles. 1963 [1966 second edition]. The problem of universals in language. In Universals of Language, ed. Joseph Greenberg, 1–29. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hayes, Bruce. 1989 [1984]. The prosodic hierarchy in meter. In Rhythm and Meter, eds. Paul Kiparsky, and Gilbert Youmans, 201–260. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 1992. Weak Layering and Word Binarity. Ms. University of California at Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
  22. Jackendoff, Ray, and Stephen Pinker. 2005. The nature of the language faculty and its implications for the evolution of language. (Reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky). Cognition 97: 211–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kabak, Baris, and Irene Vogel. 2001. Stress in Turkish. Phonology 18: 315–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ladd, D. Robert. 1996. Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Neeleman, Ad, and Hans van de Koot. 2006. On syntactic and phonological representations. Lingua 116: 1524–1552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nespor, Marina, Teresa Guasti, and Anne Christophe. 1996. Selecting word order: the Rhythmic Activation Principle. In Interfaces in Phonology, ed. Ursula Kleinhenz, 1–26. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
  27. Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 1982. Prosodic domains of external Sandhi rules. In The Structure of Phonological Representations, vol. 1, eds. Harry van der Hulst, and Norval Smith, 225–255. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  28. Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 1983. Prosodic structure above the word. In Prosody: Models and Measurements, eds. Anne Cutler, and D. Robert Ladd, 123–140. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Nespor, Marina and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Odden, David. 1990. Syntax, lexical rules and postlexical rules in Kimatuumbi. In The Phonology-Syntax Connection, eds. Sharon Inkelas, and Draga Zec, 259–277. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Peperkamp, Sharon. 1997. Prosodic Words. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
  32. Pinker, Stephen and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. The faculty of language: What’s Special about it? Cognition 95: 201–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Repetti, Lori. To appear. The Prosodic Structures of Northern Italian Dialects. Amsterdam: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  34. Rice, Keren. 1990. Predicting rule domains in phrasal phonology. In The Phonology-Syntax Connection, eds. Sharon Inkelas, and Draga Zec, 289–312. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Schiering, René, Kristine Hildebrandt, and Balthesar Bickel. 2007. Cross-linguistic challenges for the prosodic hierarchy: evidence from word domains. Ms. University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
  36. Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1972. The Phrase Phonology of English and French. Ph.D. Dissertation: MIT Press. (Published in 1980 by Garland Press)Google Scholar
  37. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1980. Prosodic Domains in Phonology: Sanskrit Revisited. In Juncture, eds. Mark Aronoff, and Mary-Louise Kean, 107–129. Saratoga: Anma Libri.Google Scholar
  38. Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1981 [1978]. On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. In Nordic Prosody II, ed. Thorsten Fretheim, 111–140. Trondheim: TAPIR.Google Scholar
  39. Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3: 371–405.Google Scholar
  40. Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1995. The prosodic structure of function words. In Papers in Optimality Theory, eds. Jill N. Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey, and Suzanne Urbanczyk, 349–370. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics. Amherst, MA: Linguistics Department.Google Scholar
  41. Selkirk, Elizabeth. 2000. The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing. In Prosody: Theory and Experiments, ed. Merle Horne, 231–261. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  42. Simon, Horst, and Heike Wiese (eds.). To appear. Expecting the Unexpected: Exceptions in Grammar. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs Series. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  43. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 219–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vogel, Irene. 1984. On constraining prosodic rules. In Advances in Nonlinear Phonology, eds. Harry van der Hulst, and Norval Smith, 217–233. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  45. Vogel, Irene. 1994. Phonological Interfaces in Italian. In Issues and Theory in Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages XXIII, ed. Michael Mazzola, 109–125. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Vogel, Irene. 1999. Subminimal constituents in prosodic phonology. In Issues in phonological structure, eds. Stephen J. Hannahs and Michael Davenport, 249–267. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  47. Vogel, Irene and Eric Raimy. 2002. The acquisition of compound vs. phrasal stress: the role of prosodic constituents. Journal of Child Language 29: 225–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vogel, Irene. 2008. The Morphology-Phonology Interface: Isolating to Polysynthetic Languages”. In Selected Papers from the 12 th International Morphology Meeting [Special Issue of Acta Linguistica Hungarica 54:2], eds. Ferenc Kiefer and Péter Siptar. Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irene Vogel
    • 1
  1. 1.University of DelawareDelaware

Personalised recommendations