Abstract
While classic theories utilize the comparison between cómp[ɛ]nsate going to comp[ə]nsátion and cond[ɛ́]nse going to cond[ɛ]nsátion to argue that stressed vowels are immune to reduction in multiple affixations (e.g., SPE), this paper presents a corpus-based case study that looks into this quantitative interaction between vowel reduction and stress shift during English -ion nominalization and offers discoveries that go against the classic claim. After analyzing 1,047 verb-noun target pairs extracted from the CELEX2 dictionary corpus, this study claims that vowel reduction only partially depends on its stress-bearing feature and that the suffix type, the stress shift pattern, vowel tenseness, and crucially some lexically specific constraints also predict vowel reduction. This finding is further supported by an OT analysis and a statistical model. As a quantitative study that relies on an exhaustive list of English samples to derive theoretical analysis, this research not only provides new insights into this long-lasting debate but also aims to highlight the significance of incorporating large data samples for a complete understanding of phonological phenomena.
Highlights
With rich investigation looking into the pattern of English stress assignment through multiple affixations (e.g., Burzio, 1994; Chomsky & Halle, 1968; Marvin, 2013; Shwayder, 2015), one long-lasting puzzle at this morphophonological interface is vowel reduction and its relation to stress shift, i.e., stress reassignment
This paper presents the first corpus-based quantitative case study that looks at the relation between vowel reduction and stress shift in verb-noun pairs formed via the English -ion nominalization
While the classic theory is that stressed vowels are immune to reduction in subsequent cyclic affixations, inspired by the exceptions against this claim (e.g., Burzio, 2007; Pater, 2000), this study provides concrete examples that suggest that vowel reduction only partially depends on the stress assignment or reassignment
Summary
With rich investigation looking into the pattern of English stress assignment through multiple affixations (e.g., Burzio, 1994; Chomsky & Halle, 1968; Marvin, 2013; Shwayder, 2015), one long-lasting puzzle at this morphophonological interface is vowel reduction and its relation to stress shift, i.e., stress reassignment. While the existing OT constraints are versatile enough to cover numerous kinds of derived words, the particular paradox brought up in (1) and (2) awaits a definitive explanation and it is worthwhile to see if specific examples like -ion and -ation nominalizations can offer us more insights into the general relation between vowel reduction and stress assignment. Zooming into this paradox, the two instances in (2) target phonological rules about the stressed vowels instead of the unstressed ones.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 callDisclaimer: 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.
