Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T06:46:54.885Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Serialism and locality in constraint-based metrical parsing*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2010

Kathryn Pruitt
Kathryn Pruitt
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper proposes a model of stress assignment in which metrical structure is built serially, one foot at a time, in a series of Optimality Theory (OT)-style evaluations. Iterative foot optimisation is made possible in the framework of Harmonic Serialism, which defines the path from an input to an output with a series of gradual changes in which each form improves harmony relative to a constraint ranking. Iterative foot optimisation makes the strong prediction that decisions about metrical structure are made locally, matching attested typology, while the standard theory of stress in parallel OT predicts in addition to local systems unattested stress systems with non-local interactions. The predictions of iterative foot optimisation and parallel OT are compared, focusing on the interactions of metrical parsing with syllable weight, vowel shortening and constraints on the edges of prosodic domains.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , December 2010 , pp. 481 - 526
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alber, Birgit (1997). Quantity sensitivity as the result of constraint interaction. In Booij, Geert & de Weijer, Jeroen van (eds.) Phonology in progress: progress in phonology. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. 1–45.Google Scholar
Alber, Birgit (2005). Clash, Lapse and Directionality. NLLT 23. 485–542.Google Scholar
Anttila, Arto (1997). Deriving variation from grammar. In Hinskens, Frans, van Hout, Roeland & Leo Wetzels, W. (eds.) Variation, change and phonological theory. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 35–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Arto (2002). Morphologically conditioned phonological alternations. NLLT 20. 1–42.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul (1997). How we learn variation, optionality, and probability. Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences of the University of Amsterdam 21. 43–58.Google Scholar
Crowhurst, Megan & Hewitt, Mark (1995a). Directional footing, degeneracy, and alignment. NELS 25. 47–61.Google Scholar
Crowhurst, Megan & Hewitt, Mark (1995b). Prosodic overlay and headless feet in Yidiɲ. Phonology 12. 39–84.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1977a). A grammar of Yidiɲ. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1977b). Some phonological rules in Yidiny. LI 8. 1–34.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1988). A grammar of Boumaa Fijian. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Elfner, Emily (2009). Syllabification and stress-epenthesis interactions in Harmonic Serialism. Ms, University of Massachusetts. Amherst. Available as ROA-1047 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Frampton, John (2007). Weak local parsing in a theory without foot inventories. Ms, Northeastern University. Available (September 2010) at http://www.math.neu.edu/ling/pdffiles/WLP.pdf.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger (1987). An essay on stress. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, Kenneth C. & Hansen, Lesley E. (1969). Pintupi phonology. Oceanic Linguistics 8. 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Kenneth C. & Hansen, Lesley E. (1978). The core of Pintupi grammar. Alice Springs: Institute for Aboriginal Development.Google Scholar
Hanson, Kristin & Kiparsky, Paul (1996). A parametric theory of poetic meter. Lg 72. 287–335.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1991). Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Ms, University of California, Los Angeles. Revised version published as Hayes (1995).Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1995). Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1997). Anticorrespondence in Yidiɲ . Ms, University of California, Los Angeles. Available (September 2010) at http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/yidiny/anticorresp.pdf. Revised version published as Hayes (1999).Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1999). Phonological restructuring in Yidiɲ and its theoretical consequences. In Hermans, Ben & van Oostendorp, Marc (eds.) The derivational residue in phonological Optimality Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 175–205.Google Scholar
Hercus, Luise A. (1969). The languages of Victoria: a late survey. 2 vols. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Hercus, Luise A. (1986). Victorian languages: a late survey. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Hint, Mati (1973). Eesti keele sõnafonoloogia. Vol. 1: Rõhusüsteemi fonoloogia ja morfofonoloogia põhiprobleeemid. Tallinn: Eeste NSV Teaduste Akadeemia.Google Scholar
Hung, Henrietta (1993). Iambicity, rhythm, and non-parsing. Ms, University of Ottawa. Available as ROA-9 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Hung, Henrietta (1994). The rhythmic and prosodic organization of edge constituents. PhD dissertation, Brandeis University. Available as ROA-24 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Hyde, Brett (2002). A restrictive theory of metrical stress. Phonology 19. 313–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyde, Brett (2007). Non-finality and weight-sensitivity. Phonology 24. 287–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jesney, Karen (forthcoming). Positional faithfulness, non-locality, and the Harmonic Serialism solution. NELS 39. Available as ROA-1018 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Kager, René (1992a). Are there any truly quantity-insensitive systems? BLS 18. 123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kager, René (1992b). Shapes of the generalised trochee. WCCFL 11. 298–312.Google Scholar
Kager, René (1993). Alternatives to the iambic-trochaic law. NLLT 11. 381–432.Google Scholar
Kager, René (1994). Ternary rhythm in alignment theory. Ms, Utrecht University. Available as ROA-35 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Kager, René (1999). Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kager, René (2001). Rhythmic directionality by positional licensing. Handout of paper presented at the 5th Holland Institute of Linguistics Phonology Conference, Potsdam. Available as ROA-514 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri (2006). The insufficiency of paper-and-pencil linguistics: the case of Finnish prosody. In Butt, Miriam, Dalrymple, Mary & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.) Intelligent linguistic architectures: variations on themes by Ronald M. Kaplan. Stanford: CSLI. 287–300.Google Scholar
Key, Mary Ritchie (1968). Comparative Tacanan phonology: with Cavineña phonology and notes on Pano-Tacanan relationship. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kimper, Wendell (2010). Domain specificity and Vata ATR spreading. Paper presented at the 34th Penn Linguistics Colloquium.Google Scholar
Kimper, Wendell (forthcoming). Locality and globality in phonological variation. NLLT.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (forthcoming). Paradigm effects and opacity. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2000). Harmonic serialism and parallelism. NELS 30. 501–524.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2002). A thematic guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2003). OT constraints are categorical. Phonology 20. 75–138.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2006). Restraint of analysis. In Baković, Eric, Ito, Junko & McCarthy, John J. (eds.) Wondering at the natural fecundity of things: essays in honor of Alan Prince. Santa Cruz: Linguistics Research Center. 213–239. Also in Sylvia Blaho, Patrik Bye & Martin Krämer (eds.) Freedom of analysis? Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 203–231.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2007a). Hidden generalizations: phonological opacity in Optimality Theory. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2007b). Slouching towards optimality: coda reduction in OT-CC. In Phonological Society of Japan (ed.) Phonological Studies 10. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. 89–104.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2008a). The gradual path to cluster simplification. Phonology 25. 271–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2008b). The serial interaction of stress and syncope. NLLT 26. 499–546.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2010a). An introduction to Harmonic Serialism. Language and Linguistics Compass 4. 1010–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2010b). Studying Gen. Journal of the Phonetic Society of Japan 13:2. 3–12.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (forthcoming). Autosegmental spreading in Optimality Theory. In Goldsmith, John A., Hume, Elizabeth & Leo Wetzels, W. (eds.) Tones and features. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Available (September 2010) at http://works.bepress.com/john_j_mccarthy/100.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John & Prince, Alan (1986). Prosodic morphology. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst & Brandeis University.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1993a). Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology 1993. 79–153.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1993). Prosodic morphology I: constraint interaction and satisfaction. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst & Rutgers University. Available as ROA-482 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Pruitt, Kathryn (forthcoming). Sources of phonological structure. In Broekhuis, Hans & Vogel, Ralf (eds.) Linguistic derivations and filtering: minimalism and Optimality Theory. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Moreton, Elliott (2004). Non-computable functions in Optimality Theory. In McCarthy, John J. (ed.) Optimality Theory in phonology: a reader. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell. 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pater, Joe (forthcoming). Serial Harmonic Grammar and Berber syllabification. In Borowsky, Toni, Kawahara, Shigeto, Shinya, Takahito & Sugahara, Mariko (eds.) Prosody matters: essays in honor of Elisabeth Selkirk. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Payne, David L., Payne, Judith K. & Santos, Jorge Sanchez (1982). Morfología, fonología, y fonética del Ashéninca del Apurucayali (Campa-Arawak preandino). Pucallpa, Peru: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (1980). A metrical theory for Estonian quantity. LI 11. 511–562.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (1983). Relating to the grid. LI 14. 19–100.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (1985). Improving tree theory. BLS 11. 471–490.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (1990). Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization. CLS 26:2. 355–398.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (2002). Arguing Optimality. In Carpenter, Angela C., Coetzee, Andries W. & de Lacy, Paul (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory II. Amherst: GLSA. 269–304.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (2004). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schütz, Albert J. (1978). English loanwords in Fijian. In Schütz, Albert J. (ed.) Fijian language studies: borrowing and pidginization. Suva: Fiji Museum. 41–50.Google Scholar
Schütz, Albert J. (1985). The Fijian language. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1984). Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tesar, Bruce (2004). Using inconsistency detection to overcome structural ambiguity. LI 35. 219–253.Google Scholar
Tesar, Bruce & Smolensky, Paul (2000). Learnability in Optimality Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, Matthew (2008). Optimal interleaving: serial phonology–morphology interaction in a constraint-based model. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar