The focus prosody of Chichewa and the Stress-Focus constraint: a response to Samek-Lodovici (2005)

Downing, Laura J.; Pompino-Marschall, Bernd

doi:10.1007/s11049-013-9192-x

Cited by 22 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are syntactic options such as cleft structures and scrambling of word order [6][7][8][9][10]; there may be relevant morphological markers [11][12][13]; and there are prosodic changes in phrasing or in the phonetic implementation of the focused element and the surrounding material [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24].…”

Section: Introduction mentioning

confidence: 99%

A crosslinguistic study of prosodic focus

Lee

Wang

Chen

et al. 2015

2015 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the production and perception of (contrastive) prosodic focus, using a paradigm based on digit strings, in which the same material and discourse contexts can be used in different languages. We found a striking difference between languages like English and Mandarin Chinese, where prosodic focus is clearly marked in production and accurately recognized in perception, and languages like Korean, where prosodic focus is neither clearly marked in production nor accurately recognized in perception. We also present comparable production data for Suzhou Wu, Japanese, and French.

show abstract

Section: Introduction mentioning

confidence: 99%

A crosslinguistic study of prosodic focus

Lee

Wang

Chen

et al. 2015

2015 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The chapter concludes by questioning whether or not separate Phonological Phrase and Intonation Phrase domains are necessary within the hierarchy of prosodic constituents in Chichewa. The authors reference key phonetic research by Downing & Pompino-Marschall (2013), which shows a pattern of cumulative penultimate lengthening, evidence the authors argue supports a pattern of recursive Intonation Phrase structures, instead of separate Phonological Phrase and Intonation Phrase units.…”

Section: Prosodymentioning

confidence: 80%

Laura J. Downing and Al Mtenje (2018). The phonology of Chichewa. (The Phonology of the World's Languages.) Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. xvi+294.

Franich

2018

Phonology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This book provides a comprehensive overview of the phonology of the Chichewa language, a Bantu language, as it is spoken in Malawi.* The book is the second in the Phonology of the World's Languages series on a Bantu language, the first being on Kimatuumbi, spoken in Tanzania (Odden 1996). Downing & Mtenje (the second author is a native speaker of Chichewa) provide broad coverage of phonological phenomena typical of Bantu languages, and African languages more generally. The book contains extensive data from Chichewa, and is written overall in a very accessible style, so as to be useful not only to specialists working on African languages, but also to students and other researchers interested in understanding Bantu phonology and its place in phonological typology. The authors themselves indicate that the book is meant to provide a relatively 'theory-neutral' account of the phonology of Chichewa; as I will demonstrate throughout this review, there is considerable variation in the amount of theory discussed from chapter to chapter, as well as how committed the authors are to particular theoretical models.

show abstract

“…However, certain penult vowels are lengthened as a correlate of phrasal stress. (See Downing & Pompino‐Marschall for an overview of penult lengthening as a cue to stress in Bantu languages.) Following work such as Kanerva , Selkirk , and Truckenbrodt , , we posit that each lengthened penult syllable is the metrical head of a prosodic‐phrase domain, and a prosodic‐phrase domain follows the word with the lengthened vowel.…”

Section: What Does Phonology Know About Syntax?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Phasal Syntax = Cyclic Phonology?

Cheng

Downing

2016

Syntax

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses three central questions in the phonology-syntax interface: What does phonology know about syntax? Does phrasal phonology "know" about syntax directly or indirectly (i.e., mediated by prosodic constituents such as Intonation Phrase)? When does the phonology-syntax interaction take place? Most current phase-based theories of the interface assume a strict cyclic model of derivation, in which the output of each spell-out domain directly feeds the phonology. We argue instead for an indirect model in which phonology is mainly conditioned by phase edges and accesses syntax only when the syntactic derivation is complete. We motivate the model mainly with data from Bantu languages that have played a leading role in the development of current theories of the phonology-syntax interface.

show abstract

The focus prosody of Chichewa and the Stress-Focus constraint: a response to Samek-Lodovici (2005)

Cited by 22 publications

References 43 publications

A crosslinguistic study of prosodic focus

A crosslinguistic study of prosodic focus

Laura J. Downing and Al Mtenje (2018). The phonology of Chichewa. (The Phonology of the World's Languages.) Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. xvi+294.

Phasal Syntax = Cyclic Phonology?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About