Head Dependence in Stress‐Epenthesis Interaction

Abstract

I kill you' b. /ček/ → čéka 'stagger' mayákte 'you kill me' /khuš/ → khúša 'lazy' wičháyakte 'you kill them' /čap/ → čápa 'trot' owíčhayakte 'you kill them there' cf. /kte/ → kté 's/he, it kills'This pattern of stress-epenthesis interaction presents a clear counterexample for the Bottom-Up theory: a-epenthesis is syllabically conditioned; and since the organization of syllables into stress feet proceeds from the bottom-up, the epenthetic syllable should be stressed according to the regular pattern of peninitial stress. But this is not correct for Dakota, which calls into question the explanation that the theory offers for other languages. In order to account for the Dakota pattern, stress assignment must be ordered after a-epenthesis, and once rule ordering is admitted in the theory, the account of the Swahili pattern is no different from the Rule Ordering approach.We are left, it would seem, with some version of the Rule Ordering theory, and there is a reason for rejecting this theory as well. Epenthetic syllables do not always behave in a uniform way in relation to stress. They can be ignored in some environments, and yet incorporated into the stress pattern in others. Stress-epenthesis interaction in the Papuan language Yimas is like this, and as we will see in detail below, such patterns point to a real flaw in the Rule Ordering approach.In Yimas, the main stress regularly falls on the initial syllable of a word (3a). Epenthesis into this position, however, creates exceptions to regular initial stress, pushing stress forward a syllable (3b).

Ternary Constituents Are a Consequence of Mora Sluicing

“…This constraint is analogous to Alderete (1999)'s HEADDEP constraint. HEADDEP also dominates PROJECTµ, and this ranking is responsible for creating a ternary constituent.…”

Lexical Classes in Phonology

“…These kinds of investigations (see Of particular interest is a recent proposal developed by Peperkamp and Dupoux (2003) First, if epenthetic vowels were perceptually given and hence indistinguishable from non-epenthetic vowels for speakers of Japanese, there would be no way they could be treated differently by the phonology for some purpose. However, they are treated differently in accent assignment, where we see clear evidence for the operation of a constraint of the HEADDEP variety (Alderete 1995(Alderete , 1999) militating against accent falling on vowels without a correspondent in the source word (see Katayama 1995Katayama , 1998 The Yokohama kotoba in the column on the left should be compared with the current used variants of these loanwords listed on the right. Where we find final epenthesis in the currently used loanword, the Yokohama version of 'cream' contains a final moraic nasal, and the codas for the numbers 'five' and 'eight' are simply deleted.…”

The internally layered foot in Dutch

“…The cross-linguistic observation that segments in the head of a prosodic constituent are preserved to a greater extent than segments in a non-head domain has lead scholars to propose positional faithfulness constraints preserving feature specifications specifically in prosodic heads (e.g., HEAD-IDENT[FEATURE]; McCarthy 1995; Alderete 1995Alderete , 1999Beckman 1998). The concrete definition of the positional faithfulness constraint on foot-heads is given below:…”