Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T04:02:57.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The perfect prosodic word in Danish

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2015

Junko Ito  and
Armin Mester
Junko Ito
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Stevenson College, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA. ito@ucsc.edu; mester@ucsc.edu
Armin Mester
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Stevenson College, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA. ito@ucsc.edu; mester@ucsc.edu
Get access

Abstract

The Danish stød, a kind of glottal prosody associated with certain syllables, as in barʔn ‘child’ (cf. stødless barnlig ‘childish’), has long been the target of intense phonological investigation. In this paper, we show that its analysis requires an understanding of the prosodic constituent structure of Danish, and of the essential role of the perfect prosodic word (coextensive with one foot). After motivating this notion on independent grounds, both in other languages and in the context of acquisition, we show that the Danish stød system, analyzed in Optimality Theory, provides a window on the workings of the perfect prosodic word, regulating the presence and absence of stød in some of the much-discussed cases in the literature. In conclusion, we discuss the status of the perfect prosodic word in the light of recent developments in phonological theory, such as Match Theory.

Keywords

Danishstødglottal accentperfect prosodic wordmoraic trocheeHL trocheeMatch Theory
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , May 2015 , pp. 5 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2015 

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

Alderete, John D. 1999. Head dependence in stress–epenthesis interaction. In Hermans, Ben & van Oostendorp, Marc (eds.), The Derivational Residue in Phonological Optimality Theory, 29–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Andersen, Poul. 1954. Dansk fonetik [Danish phonetics]. In Hjelmslev, Louis & Andersen, Poul (eds.), Fonetik, 305–354. København: Rosenkilde og Bagger. [= Chapter XV of Nordisk Lærebog for Talepædagoger]Google Scholar
Anderson, John, Ewen, Colin & Staun, Jørgen. 1985. Phonological structure: Segmental, suprasegmental and extrasegmental. Phonology 2, 203–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basbøll, Hans. 1972. Some remarks concerning the stød in a generative grammar of Danish. In Kiefer, Ferenc (ed.), Derivational Processes, 5–30. Stockholm: Research Group for Quantitative Linguistics.Google Scholar
Basbøll, Hans. 2003. Prosody, productivity and word structure: The stød pattern of Modern Danish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26, 5–44.Google Scholar
Basbøll, Hans. 2005. The Phonology of Danish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, Ryan & Henderson, Robert. 2013. Accent in Uspanteko. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31, 589–645.Google Scholar
Caballero, Gabriela. 2006. ‘Templatic back-copying’ in Guarijío abbreviated reduplication. Morphology 16, 273–289.Google Scholar
Cassimjee, Farida & Kisseberth, Charles W.. 1998. Optimal domains theory and Bantu tonology: A case study from IsiXhosa and Shingazidja. In Hyman, Larry M. & Kisseberth, Charles W. (eds.), Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Tone, 33–132. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. & Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1983. CV Phonology: A Generative Theory of the Syllable. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. & Pater, Joe. 2008. Weighted constraints and gradient restrictions on place co-occurrence in Muna and Arabic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26, 289–337.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine. 1996. The prosodic structure of early words. In Morgan & Demuth (eds.), 171–184.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine. 2011. The acquisition of phonology. In Goldsmith et al. (eds.), 571–595.Google Scholar
Downing, Laura. 2000. Morphological and prosodic constraints on Kinande verbal reduplication. Phonology 17, 1–38.Google Scholar
Elfner, Emily. 2012. Syntax–Prosody Interactions in Irish. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Fikkert, Paula. 1994. On the Acquisition of Prosodic Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University. [Published as HIL Dissertations 6. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.]Google Scholar
Fikkert, Paula. 1995. A prosodic account of truncation in child language. In Dressler, Wolfgang U., Prinzhorn, Martin & Rennison, John R. J. (eds.), Phonologica: Proceedings of the 7th International Phonology Meeting 1992, 77–86. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John [A.], Riggle, Jason & Alan, C. L. Yu (eds.). 2011. The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 2nd edn.Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gouskova, Maria. 2007. The reduplicative template in Tonkawa. Phonology 24, 367–396.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1997. Projection, heads, and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 373–422.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 2001. Optimal clitic positions and the lexicon inn Romance clitic systems. In Legendre, Géraldine, Grimshaw, Jane & Vikner, Sten (eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Syntax, 205–240. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grønnum, Nina & Basbøll, Hans. 2007. Danish stød: Phonological and cognitive issues. In Solé, Maria-Josep, Beddor, Patrice Speeter & Ohala, Manjari (eds.), Experimental Approaches to Phonology, 192–206. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grønnum, Nina, Vazquez-Larruscain, Miguel & Basbøll, Hans. 2013. Danish stød: Laryngealization or tone. Phonetica 70, 66–92.Google Scholar
Hansen, Aage. 1943. Stødet i dansk [The stød in Danish] (Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. Historisk-Filologiske Meddelelser 29:5). København: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Hay, Jessica S. F. & Diehl, Randy L.. 2007. Perception of rhythmic grouping: Testing the iambic/trochaic law. Perception & Psychophysics 69, 113–122.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1985. Iambic and trochaic rhythm in stress rules. In Niepokuj, Mary, VanClay, Mary, Nikiforidou, Vassiliki & Feder, Deborah (eds.), Parasession on Poetics, Metrics, and Prosody (BLS 11), 429–446. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heger, Steffen. 1980. Stødregler i dansk [Stød rules in Danish]. Danske studier 1980, 78–99.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1951. Grundtræk af det danske udtrykssystem med særligt henblik på stødet [Foundations of the Danish pronunciation system with particular focus on the stød]. Selskab for nordisk filologi. Aarsberetning for 1948–49–50, 12–24.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Zoll, Cheryl. 2005. Reduplication: Doubling in Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko. 1983. On the Danish stød in prosodic structure. Ms.,University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin. 1992. Weak layering and word binarity (Linguistic Research Center Working Paper LRC-92-09). Santa Cruz, CA: University of California Santa Cruz. [Published also in Takeru Honma, Masao Okazaki, Toshiyuki Tabata & Shin-ichi Tanaka (eds.). 2003. A New Century of Phonology and Phonological Theory: A Festschrift for Professor Shosuke Haraguchi on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, 26–65. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.]Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin. 1996. Rendaku I: Constraint conjunction and the OCP. Handout of presentation at the Kobe Phonology Forum. ROA-144-0996. Rutgers Optimality Archive, Johns Hopkins University. [http://roa.rutgers.edu]Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin. 1997. Stødet i dansk [The stød in Danish]. Handout of presentation at the 1997 Scandinavian Summer School in Generative Phonology, Hvalfjorður, Iceland.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin. 1999. Realignment. In Kager, René, van der Hulst, Harry & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.), The Prosody–Morphology Interface, 188–217. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin. 2007. Prosodic adjunction in Japanese compounds. In Miyamoto, Yoichi & Ochi, Masao (eds.), Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics: Proceedings of FAJL 4 (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 55), 97–111. Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin. 2012. Unaccentedness in Japanese. Ms., University of California Santa Cruz. [http://people.ucsc.edu/~mester/papers/2012_ito_mester_unaccentedness_8_2012.pdf]Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin. 2013. Prosodic subcategories in Japanese. Lingua 124, 20–40.Google Scholar
Kager, René. 1989. A Metrical Theory of Stress and Destressing in English and Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kager, René, Pater, Joe & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.), Constraints in Phonological Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kawahara, Shigeto. 2006. A faithfulness ranking projected from a perceptibility scale: The case of [+voice] in Japanese. Language 82, 536–574.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 2007. Salience and similarity in loanword adaptation: A case study from Fijian. Language Sciences 29, 316–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical phonology and morphology. In Yang, In-Seok (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm, vol. 2, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1995. Livonian stød. Handout of presentation at TREND Phonology Workshop, University of California Santa Cruz. [To be published as: Paul Kiparsky, 2015. Livonian stød. In Kehrein, Wolfgang, Boersma, Björn Köhnlein, Paul & van Oostendorp, Marc (eds.), Segmental Structure and Tone. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.]Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2010. Reduplication in Stratal OT. In Uyechi, Linda & Wee, Lian-Hee (eds.), Reality Exploration and Discovery: Pattern Interaction in Language & Life. A Festschrift for K. P. Mohanan, 125–142. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles W. 1994. On domains. In Cole, Jennifer & Kisseberth, Charles W. (eds.), Perspectives in Phonology, 133–166. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kubozono, Haruo, Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin. 2008. Consonant germination in Japanese loanword phonology In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Current Issues in Unity and Diversity of Languages: Collection of the Papers selected from the CIL 18, held at Korea University in Seoul, on July 21–26, 2008, 953–973. Seoul: The Linguistic Society of Korea.Google Scholar
Kurisu, Kazutaka. 2005. Gradient prosody in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 14, 175–226.Google Scholar
Liberman, Anatol. 1982. Germanic Accentology I: The Scandinavian Languages. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark & Prince, Alan S.. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 249–336.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1983. A Grammar of Manam. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Macaulay, Monica & Salmons, Joseph C.. 1995. The phonology of glottalization in Mixtec. International Journal of American Linguistics 61, 38–61.Google Scholar
Martinet, André. 1937. La phonologie du mot en danois. Bulletin de la Societé Linguistique de Paris 38, 169–266.Google Scholar
Matthei, Edward H. 1989. Crossing boundaries: More evidence for phonological constraints on early multi-word utterances. Journal of Child Language 16, 41–54.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2003. OT constraints are categorical. Phonology 20, 75–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2008. The gradual path to cluster simplification. Phonology 25, 271–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J., Kimper, Wendell & Mullin, Kevin. 2012. Reduplication in Harmonic Serialism. Morphology 22, 173–232.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan S.. 1990. Foot and word in prosodic morphology: The Arabic broken plural. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 8, 209–283.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan S.. 1993. Generalized Alignment. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology, 79–153. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan S.. 1994. The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality in prosodic morphology. In Gonzàlez, Mercè (ed.), NELS 24, 333–379. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan S.. 1995. Faithfulness and Reduplicative Identity. In Beckman, Jill, Dickey, Laura Walsh & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18, 249–384. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Morgan, James L. & Demuth, Katherine (eds.). 1996. Signal to Syntax: Bootstrapping from Speech to Grammar in Early Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.Google Scholar
Mudzingwa, Calisto. 2010. Shona Morphophonemics: Repair Strategies in Karanga and Zezuru. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Myers, Scott. 1987. Tone and the Structure of Words in Shona. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Odden, David. 1995. African tone languages. In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 444–475. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe. 2004. Bridging the gap between perception and production with minimally violable constraints. In Kager et al. (eds.), 219–244.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher, Pater, Joe, Jesney, Karen, Bhatt, Rajesh & Becker, Michael. 2010. Harmonic Grammar with linear programming: From linear systems to linguistic typology. Phonology 27, 77–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan S. 1983. Relating to the grid. Linguistic Inquiry 14, 19–100.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan S. 1990. Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization. In Ziolkowski, Michael, Noske, Manuela & Deaton, Karen (eds.), Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology, 355–398. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan S. & Tesar, Bruce. 2004. Learning phonotactic distributions. In Kager et al. (eds.), 245–291.Google Scholar
Raimy, Eric. 2000. The Phonology and Morphology of Reduplication (Studies in Generative Grammar 52). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Riad, Tomas. 1998. Curl, stød, and generalized accent 2. Fonetik 98, 8–11. [Institutionen för lingvistik, Stockholms universitet]Google Scholar
Riber Petersen, Pia. 1973. An instrumental investigation of the Danish stød. Annual Report of the Institute of Phonetics 7, 195–234. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Rischel, Jørgen. 1970. Consonant gradation: A problem in Danish phonology and morphology. In Benediktsson, Hreinn (ed.), The Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics: Proceedings of the International Conference of Nordic and General Linguistics, 460–480. Reykjavik: Vísindafélag Íslendinga.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology 3, 371–405.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1996. The prosodic structure of function words. In Morgan & Demuth (eds.), 187–213.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2009. On clause and intonational phrase in Japanese: The syntactic grounding of prosodic constituent structure. Gengo Kenkyuu 136, 35–73.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2011. The syntax–phonology interface. In Goldsmith et al. (eds.), 435–485.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul. 1995. On the internal structure of the constraint component Con of UG. Handout of presentation at The University of Arizona, March 1995.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul. 1996. The initial state and ‘Richness of the Base’ in Optimality Theory. ROA-154-1196. Rutgers Optimality Archive, Johns Hopkins University. http://roa.rutgers.edu.Google Scholar
Tesar, Bruce & Smolensky, Paul. 1998. Learnability in Optimality Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 29, 229–268.Google Scholar
Thorsen, Nina G. 1974. Acoustical and perceptual properties of the Danish stød. Annual Report of the Institute of Phonetics University of Copenhagen: ARIPUC 8, 207–213. Copenhagen. Institut for FonetikGoogle Scholar
Vazquez-Larruscain, Miguel. 2011. Specification of length in Danish: Contrast, distribution, and alternations. Ms., LANCHART, University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1987. Danish long vowels. Ms., MIT. [www.hum.au.dk/engelsk/engsv/papers/vikn87u.pdf, accessed 29 January 2015]Google Scholar
Yu, Kristine M. 2010. Laryngealization and features for Chinese tonal recognition. INTERSPEECH–2010, 1529–1532.Google Scholar
Zec, Draga. 1988. Sonority Constraints on Prosodic Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Zec, Draga. 1999. Footed tones and tonal feet: Rhythmic constituency in a pitch accent language. Phonology 16, 225–264.Google Scholar