Abstract
Secondary stress in Hungarian has been subject to considerable debate. Proposals include a basic quantity-insensitive trochaic pattern (Kerek 1971), a quantity-sensitive pattern (Szinnyei 1912), and a distinction between secondary and tertiary stress (Hammond 1987). These claims have been made on the basis of impressionistic transcriptions, without acoustic measurements, and they are unsupported by phonological evidence (Kálmán & Nádasdy 1994). We examine a phonological argument for the existence of secondary stress by Varga (2000), and argue that his ndings are inconclusive. We also present the results of our pilot acoustic studies, showing no correlation between non-primary stress and vowel duration, pitch or intensity. We conclude that evidence for Hungarian secondary stress is lacking.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
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.