Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T13:30:09.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weight sensitivity and syllable codas in Srinagar Koshur1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2012

SADAF MUNSHI  and
MEGAN J. CROWHURST
SADAF MUNSHI*
Affiliation:
University of North Texas
MEGAN J. CROWHURST*
Affiliation:
The University of Texas at Austin
*
Authors' addresses: (Munshi) Department of Linguistics and Technical Communication, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #305298, Denton, TX 76203, USAsadafmunshi@unt.edu
(Crowhurst) Department of Linguistics, The University of Texas at Austin, CAL 501, Mailcode B5100, Austin, TX 78712, USAmcrowhurst@austin.utexas.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper describes and analyses the pattern of word stress found in the standard dialect of Koshur (Kashmiri) spoken in Srinagar. The significance of Koshur for studies of stress lies in that taken together, its pattern of stress assignment and a pervasive pattern of syncope conspire to produce a four-way syllable weight distinction that has sometimes been expressed as the scale CVːC>CVː>CVC>CV. The interesting feature of this type of scale is that closed syllables, CVːC and CVC are preferred as stress peaks over open syllables with vowels of the same length. Other researchers have noted that in languages with this scale, or the abbreviated ternary version CVː>CVC>CV, CVC syllables behave ambiguously with respect to stress. They seem to be heavy in relation to CV when CVː syllables are absent. In a stress clash context however, CVC defers to CVː. ‘Mora-only’ accounts of other languages with this scale have interpreted the ambiguous behaviour of CVC as evidence that CVC syllables are bimoraic where their behaviour seems to group them with CVː but monomoraic elsewhere (e.g. Rosenthall & van der Hulst 1999, Morén 2000). To account for the CVːC>CVː effect, mora-only accounts have been forced to assume that CVːC are trimoraic. We show that a mora-only analysis does not offer a satisfying account of the Koshur facts, and we argue instead that the origin of the CVC>CV and CVːC>CVː effects is the presence of a coda that branches from the final mora of a syllable, making the closed syllables more harmonic as prosodic heads. Under this view, branchingness emerges as another dimension of the mora, along with moraic quantity and the quality of segments linked to moras, which contributes to syllable prominence.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , July 2012 , pp. 427 - 472
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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.)

Footnotes

[1]

We are grateful to Barbara Bullock, Scott Myers, audiences at the University of North Texas and the University of Texas at Austin, Nigel Fabb and Ewa Jaworska in their editing roles at JL, and two anonymous JL referees for useful feedback at various stages of the paper's development.

References

REFERENCES

Baertsch, Karen. 2002. An optimality theoretic approach to syllable structure: The Split Margin Hierarchy. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baertsch, Karen & Davis, Stuart. 2003. The split margin approach to syllable structure. In A. Hall, Tracy & Hamann, Silke (eds.), ZAS Papers in Linguistics 32, 1–14. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung.Google Scholar
Benua, Laura. 1995. Identity effects in morphological truncation. In Beckman, Jill, Urbanczyk, Suzanne & Walsh Dickey, Laura (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18), 77–136. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rakesh M. 1989. Syllable weight and metrical structure of Kashmiri. Ms., University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Broselow, Ellen, Chen, Su-I & Huffman, Marie. 1997. Syllable weight: Convergence of phonology and phonetics. Phonology 14, 47–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckley, Eugene. 2009. Locality in metrical typology. Phonology 26, 389–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchward, C. Maxwell. 1940. Rotuman grammar and dictionary. Sydney: Australasia Medical Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Crowhurst, Megan. 1996. An optimal alternative to conflation. Phonology 13, 409–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowhurst, Megan & Michael, Lev. 2005. Iterative footing and prominence driven stress in Nanti (Kampa). Language 81, 47–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, John. 1981. Kobon (Lingua Descriptive Series 3). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul. 1997. Prosodic categorisation. MA thesis, University of Auckland.Google Scholar
Elenbaas, Nine & Kager, René. 1999. Ternary rhythm and the Lapse constraint. Phonology 16, 273–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elias-Ulloa, José. 2004a. Quantity (in)sensitivity and underlying glottal-stop deletion in Capanahu. Coyote Papers 13, 15–30.Google Scholar
Elias-Ulloa, José. 2004b. Variable syllable weight and quantity-insensitive allomorphy in Shipibo. In Bateman, Leah & Ussery, Cherlon (eds.), North Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS) 35, 171–186.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew. 2001. Syncope induced metrical opacity as a weight effect. In Megerdoomian, Karine & Bar-el, Leora A. (eds.), West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 20, 206–219. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew. 2002a. A factorial typology of quantity insensitive stress. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20, 491–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Matthew. 2002b. A phonetically driven account of syllable weight. Language 78, 51–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gouskova, Maria. 2003. Deriving economy: Syncope in Optimality Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1987. An essay on stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1985. A metrical theory of stress rules. New York & London: Garland. [Based on author's Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, 1980.]Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1989. Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 253–306.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 1985. A theory of phonological weight. Foris, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kachru, Braj B. 1969. A reference grammar of Kashmiri. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Kachru, Braj B. 1973. An introduction to spoken Kashmiri. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Kager, René. 1993. Alternatives to the iambic-trochaic law. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 11, 381–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kager, René. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kager, René. 2001. Rhythmic directionality by positional licensing. Presented at the 5th Holland Institute of Linguistics Phonology Conference, Potsdam. [Handout, available as ROA-514 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.]Google Scholar
Kager, René. 2005. Rhythmic licensing theory: An extended typology. The 3rd Seoul International Conference on Phonology, 5–31. Seoul: The Phonology-Morphology Circle of Korea.Google Scholar
Kelkar, A. 1968. Studies in Hindi-Urdu. Poona: Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1996. Quality-sensitive stress. Rivista di Linguistica 9, 157–187.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. ‘Elsewhere’ in phonology. In Anderson, Stephen R. & Kiparsky, Paul (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 93–106. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Kung, Susan S. 2007. A descriptive grammar of Huehuelta Tepehua. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Kung, Susan S. & Crowhurst, Megan. 2008. Weight-sensitive stress in Huehuetla Tepehua: A typological novelty. Presented at the Annual Meeting of The Society for the Study of Indigenous Languages of the Americas, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Leer, J. 1985. Toward a metrical interpretation of Yupik prosody. In Krauss, Michael (ed.), Yupik Eskimo prosody systems: Descriptive and comparative studies, 159–173. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1979. Formal problems in Semitic phonology and morphology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2000. The prosody of phase in Rotuman. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18, 147–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2003. OT constraints are categorical. Phonology 20, 75–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan S.. 1986. Prosodic morphology. Ms., University of Massachusetts & Brandeis University.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan S.. 1993. Generalized alignment. In Booij, Geert & Marle, Jaap van (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2000, 79–149. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan S.. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman, Jill, Urbanczyk, Suzanne & Walsh Dickey, Laura (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18), 249–384. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar
Morén, Bruce. 1999. Distinctiveness, coercion and sonority: A unified theory of weight. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland at College Park.Google Scholar
Morén, Bruce. 2000. The puzzle of Kashmiri stress: Implications for weight theory. Phonology 17, 365–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene. 1989. On clashes and lapses. Phonology 6, 69–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piggott, Glynne. 1983. Extrametricality and Ojibwa stress. McGill University Working Papers in Linguistics 1, 80–117.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan S. 1980. A metrical theory for Estonian qusntity. Linguistic Inquiry 11, 511–562.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan S. 1983. Relating to the grid. Linguistic Inquiry 14, 19–100.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan S. & Smolensky, Paul 1993. Optimality Theory (Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science Technical Report 2). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Rosenthall, Samuel & Hulst, Harry van der. 1999. Weight-by-position by position. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17, 499–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidel, A. 1900. Die Sprache van Ufiomi in Deutsch-Ostafrika. Zeitschrift für afrikanische und oceanische Sprachen 5, 165–175.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul. 2006. Optimality in phonology II: Harmonic completeness, local constraint conjunction, and feature domain markedness. In Smolensky, Paul & Legendre, Géraldine (eds.), The harmonic mind: From neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar, vol. II: Linguistic and philosophical implications, 27–160. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Street, John. 1963. Khalka structure. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Publications.Google Scholar
Vaysman, Olga. 2009. Segmental alternations and metrical theory. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Wiltshire, Caroline R. 2006. Pulaar's stress system: A challenge for theories of weight typology. In Mugane, John, Hutchison, John P. & Worman, Dee A. (eds.), The 35th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, 181–192. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Woodbury, Anthony. 1987. Meaningful phonological processes: A consideration of Central Alaskan Yupik Eskimo prosody. Language 63, 685–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zec, Draga. 1995. Sonority constraints on syllable structure. Phonology 12, 85–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zoll, Cheryl. 1996. Parsing below the segment in a constraint based framework. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar