Abstract

For the North Germanic opposition between two tonal accents, it has been claimed that Accent 2 has a lexical tone, that Accent 1 has a lexical tone, that both accents are marked tonally in the lexicon, or that the accent opposition is based on two types of feet. Based on evidence from compounding, we argue that the opposition between Accent 1 and Accent 2 is equipollent, and that this is best expressed in a foot-based approach since each lexical item will necessarily receive a foot. Elaborating on previous metrical work on tonal accent, we assume that binary feet can be built on moras (= Accent 1) or syllables (= Accent 2) and show how this successfully captures compound accentuation in Central Swedish and Urban East Norwegian. Our foot-based analysis is in line with recent work on tonal accent that calls into question the claim that all tonal contrasts within syllables must be due to the presence of lexical tone. In addition, our analysis addresses issues surrounding the phonology of compounds in general, and prosodic effects of compounding in particular.

Highlights

  • This paper aims to contribute to two ongoing debates in phonological theory

  • This, we argue, follows straightforwardly from our foot­based approach; all that is required is to refer to the principle of binarity: Accent 1 in final stressed syllables is permitted since two moras are sufficient to build a binary moraic trochee

  • While the templatic restrictions in question are not identical to what we propose for Central Swedish and Urban East Norwegian, they demonstrate how the metrical structure of individual prosodic words can be affected by compound formation

Read more

Summary

Introduction

This paper aims to contribute to two ongoing debates in phonological theory. On one hand, it discusses the long­standing question of how so­called ‘tonal accent’ in North Germanic should be represented phonologically. For North Germanic, Morén­Duolljá (2013) argues that Accent 1 is a monosyllabic foot, and Accent 2 is a recursive disyllabic foot In this approach tonal opposition emerges from different associations of the same intonational tones to these two types of feet. Based on evidence from compound accent, arguably one of the most intricate accent­related analytical challenges in North Germanic (see §2 for data and generalizations), we show that both Accent 1 and Accent 2 can be phonologically active This in turn, we argue, implies that the opposition between Accent 1 and Accent 2 must be equipollent, not privative.

Data and Generalizations
Metrical Analysis
Comparison and Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.