Fixed stress as phonological redundancy

Prosodic Rephrasing and Violations of the Phase Impenetrability Condition

“…In this regard, the correlates of final stress and prosodic word-hood are identical; see (3) (Kornfilt 1996;Newell 2008;Göksel 2010;Güneş 2015;Kabak 2016, among others). Although this situation could be viewed as evidence-alongside the evidence discussed by Athanasopoulou et al (2017) and Vogel (2020)-that "final stress" is not lexically encoded and is therefore a redundant concept for Turkish, I remain non-committal on the issue of whether word-level stress plays an active role in Turkish prosodic grammar (see Kabak 2016 for a detailed discussion). 3 In Turkish, prosodic prominence arises via variation in pitch levelling rather than via pitch accentuation on words without a lexical accent (Levi 2005;Kamali 2011;Güneş 2013).…”

Acoustic properties of word and phrasal prominence in Uzbek

“…Uzbek and Turkish belong to the same (Turkic) language family and are described as having essentially the same type of stress system (i.e., canonical final stress with certain types of exceptions); however, it turns out that the acoustic properties of stress in the two languages differ considerably. Turkish, like other languages with predictable stress, tends to have relatively weak stress cues (e.g., Athanasopoulou et al 2017, Vogel 2020, exhibiting a minimal acoustic distinction of the final stressed syllable from the penult unstressed syllable. That is, it has been found that in languages with predictable stress, since the position of word stress is independently known, there is less need to enhance the stressed syllable than in languages with unpredictable stress such as Spanish and Greek (e.g., Vogel et al 2016, Ortega-Llebaría & Prieto 2010, Arvaniti 2007.…”