accomplished via an investigation into word prosody in Finnish, a language with fixed ..... dactylâ effect (Prince 1983) reported for English (among a host of other.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ
WORD PROSODY IN FINNISH A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in LINGUISTICS by Daniel Howard Karvonen March 2005
The Dissertation of Daniel Howard Karvonen is approved: _________________________________ Professor Junko Ito, Chair _________________________________ Professor Armin Mester _________________________________ Professor Jaye Padgett ______________________________________ Robert C. Miller Vice Chancellor for Research and Dean of Graduate Studies
Copyright © by Daniel Howard Karvonen 2005
Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................iv Acknowledgements .................................................................................................vi Chapter 1: Introduction............................................................................................ 1 1.1
Metrical stress theory ................................................................................ 9
1.2
Optimality Theory ................................................................................... 11
1.2.1 1.3
Metrical stress in Optimality Theory ............................................ 15 Introduction to Finnish ........................................................................... 16
1.3.1
Segmental inventory........................................................................ 17
1.3.2
Syllable structure.............................................................................. 20
1.3.3
Minimal word................................................................................... 23
1.3.4
The phonology of loanwords ......................................................... 25
Chapter 2: Rhythmic stress.................................................................................... 27 2.1
The basic pattern ...................................................................................... 28
2.1.1
Rhythmic constraints....................................................................... 31
2.1.2
The NOLAPSE constraint .................................................................. 34
2.2
Stress in long odd-parity words ............................................................ 39
2.2.1
Right alignment................................................................................ 47
2.2.2
Word-final hiatus avoidance .......................................................... 54
Chapter 3: Weight-based stress ............................................................................ 75 3.1
The basic pattern ...................................................................................... 75
3.2
Adjacent heavies ...................................................................................... 81
3.3
Final heavies ............................................................................................. 94
Chapter 4: Morphological stress........................................................................... 99 4.1
Inflectional suffixes and stress ............................................................. 101
4.2
Derivational suffixes and stress ........................................................... 112
4.3
Output-based stress ............................................................................... 113
4.4
The prosodic structure of compounds ................................................ 120
4.4.1
Morphological compounds .......................................................... 123
4.4.2
Pseudo-compounds ....................................................................... 147
Chapter 5: Conclusion .......................................................................................... 167 References................................................................................................................169 iii
Abstract WORD PROSODY IN FINNISH Daniel Howard Karvonen The primary focus of this dissertation is the interplay of rhythmic, weightbased, and morphological factors on surface stress in language. This is accomplished via an investigation into word prosody in Finnish, a language with fixed initial main stress, but a secondary stress pattern that is sensitive to word length, syllable weight, and morphological factors. The theoretical framework employed here is Optimality Theory (OT; Prince and Smolensky 1993, 2004; McCarthy and Prince 1993b). A major empirical finding of this dissertation is that the rhythmic pattern of secondary stress in Finnish differs from the traditional analysis of Finnish stress, which claims that all feet are left aligned in words in which neither syllable weight nor morphology are relevant. Instead, I show that the rhythmic pattern contains a right-aligned nonfinal
secondary
stress
peak.
This
pattern
is
visible
in
long
monomorphemic loanwords and foreign place names, a class of words that has received little attention in the literature until now. In analyzing rhythmic stress in Finnish, I adopt a completely gridbased approach, instead of using constraints that refer directly to the metrical foot. This approach has the advantage of capturing the surface pattern of
rhythmic stress via the simple interaction between stress-enforcing and stressprohibiting constraints. I propose a functional motivation for right-alignment of secondary stress and for NonFinality, the constraint that prohibits final stress. Secondary stress, like primary stress, serves a demarcative function, but final stress is prohibited due to an avoidance of stress clash at the phrasal level. Another major finding of this dissertation is that Finnish has a class of words called pseudo-compounds, words which are morphologically simplex but behave like compounds from a phonological point of view. Pseudocompounds are not unique to Finnish, but have been reported in languages as diverse as Pima and Icelandic. Speakers perceive long loans as phonological compounds due to a general requirement that prosodic words be binary. I propose an articulated prosodic structure distinguishing morphological and phonological compounds, which has implications for the morphological influence on stress in Finnish, an influence that I show is much less pervasive than previously thought.
Acknowledgements Like any project that is the culmination of so many years of work, this dissertation has benefited greatly from the help and support of many people. First and foremost, my sincere and profound thanks go to my dissertation advisor, Junko Ito, without whom this dissertation would have been a much lesser
piece
of
work.
Her
constant
and
unstinting
support
and
encouragement, especially across time and geographic distance (including phone calls to Japan), helped keep me on track and bring this work to completion. I am grateful for her excellent criticism, careful guidance, and her keen and unfailing ability to see clearly what was at issue and to help me move ahead when I was at a stopping point in my analysis. I am also very grateful to the other members of my dissertation committee, Armin Mester and Jaye Padgett. This dissertation has greatly benefited from their superb comments and unique views. Armin first suggested that I work on Finnish stress back in his second-semester graduate phonology course in 1996. At that time I never dreamed I would write my dissertation on this topic, but I am very happy that I did. Armin’s belief that the topic was interesting and worthwhile proved to be exactly right, and his extremely helpful and honest comments at various stages helped clarify many murky ideas. Jaye Padgett also offered many helpful comments and vi
suggestions and his ability to see past unclear arguments is greatly appreciated. Thanks to all three of you for providing such a wonderful environment in which to become a phonologist. I consider myself extremely lucky to have had the privilege to study linguistics at the University of California, Santa Cruz. It is without a doubt the best place to study linguistics on the planet, and I am sure the most beautiful, too. The warm collegiate atmosphere in the department, the dedication of the faculty to students, and the extremely high caliber of the students are without parallel. Thanks goes out to each and every one of the linguistics faculty for providing a rigorous, supportive, and comfortable place in which to do linguistics. I would also like to thank the ever-helpful and superb support staff in the Department of Linguistics at UCSC, including Tanya Honig, Sylvia Zito, and Connie Creel. Tanya Honig deserves special mention for making the administrative hassles of being a graduate student a breeze and for always offering her warm smile. If I could do it all over again, I would do it in a heartbeat, as my years at UCSC were among the best in my life. It is not without sadness that completing this dissertation marks my formal end as a student in the department. I was lucky to have started as a graduate at UC Santa Cruz in the fall of 1995, along with my soon-to-be friends Ryan Bush, Chris(tine) Gunlogson vii
and Adam Ussishkin (not to mention his predecessor, Adam Sherman, also a very nice guy). The Saturday homework sessions, the times we spent laughing our heads off, and their friendship will be remembered for a long, long time. It isn’t every class that gets dubbed “The Many-Headed Beast” by the faculty. A big thanks to Adam for flying all the way from Tucson to Santa Cruz for my dissertation defense – you are a true friend! Thanks to all of the other numerous graduate students in linguistics at UCSC for good times, moral support, and comments on my work. You are too numerous mention by name, but you know who you are! A thousand thanks go to the many native speakers of Finnish, who have suffered at the hand of my incessant questioning about the location of secondary stress in their language and offered their delicate judgments. Among them are: Heli Harrikari, Pekka Lehtonen, Pirjo Vainio-Lehtonen, Erkki Mäkelä, Pauliina Raento, Tapani Salminen, Aino Tarjanne, Ari Tarjanne, Maarit Tarjanne, Pekka Tarjanne, Satu Tarjanne, Virve Vainio, and Riku Väänänen. Thanks also go to members of Heli Harrikari’s Spring 2000 Introduction to Phonology and Morphology course at the University of Helsinki for their judgments. Special thanks go to Heli Harrikari for all of the time spent drinking coffee and talking about secondary stress at Wayne’s Coffee in downtown Helsinki during my year as a Fulbrighter. All final viii
judgments and conclusions regarding the stress pattern of Finnish are of course mine and mine alone. Suurkiitos teille kaikille avustanne! On a personal level, my heartfelt gratitude and love go to my parents, Howie and Joan Karvonen, for their love, belief in me, and support of me no matter what I have chosen to do or study in life. Thank you for giving me the freedom to explore and become the person I am today, and for supporting me even when it wasn’t crystal clear to you exactly what phonology was all about. Sadly, my father did not live to see me complete this dissertation, but he is and always will remain by my side no matter where I travel in this life. Finally, my thanks go to Alex, my partner in life, birds, running, mountain climbing, island hopping, and love. Thank you for your love and support and always believing that I would complete this dissertation despite the many years and various geographical locations that came in the way. Te amo con todo mi corazón!
ix
Chapter 1: Introduction This dissertation is concerned with prosody at and below the level of the prosodic word in Finnish, and as such one of its primary concerns is the location and pattern of stress in the language. Although primary stress in Finnish falls without exception on the initial syllable of the word, secondary stress placement is sensitive to both phonological and morphological factors. On the traditional analysis of Finnish stress, secondary stresses occur on nonfinal odd-numbered syllables counting from the left, as illustrated in (1), where syllable boundaries are marked by periods:1 (1)
General stress pattern in Finnish léi.pä vá.paa sú.la.ke má.ta.la
‘bread’ ‘free’ ‘fuse’ ‘low’
ká.len.tè.ri ‘calendar’ má.ka.rò.ni ‘macaroni’ mó.no.pò.li ‘monopoly’
Heavy syllables disrupt this regular binary pattern. Final heavy syllables2 optionally receive stress in trisyllabic words (2), and in quadrisyllabic and longer words, a heavy even-numbered syllable may optionally receive secondary stress if the syllable preceding it is light 1
Syllable division in Finnish is governed by the following considerations. Only a single consonant is allowed in the onset, so a VCCCV sequence is always syllabified as VCC.CV. Also, only the following VV sequences are diphthongs: ei, äi, ui, ai, oi, öi, yi, au, ou, eu, iu, äy, öy, ie, yö, uo. 2 Both CVV and CVC syllables act as heavy in Finnish, although there is evidence for distinguishing between the two, a point to which I will return later.
1
(Sadeniemi 1949, Carlson 1978, Hanson and Kiparsky 1996, Elenbaas 1999), leaving a sequence of two unstressed syllables word internally (3).3 (2)
Final heavies are optionally stressed ĹLL Ĺ L H ~ Ĺ L H Ĺ L L L Ĺ L L H ~ Ĺ L L H
(3)
ó.me.na ó.me.nàt ~ ó.me.nat ká.le.và.la ká.le.va.laà~ká.le.và.laa
‘apple’ ‘apples’ ‘Kalevala’ ‘Kalevala-PART’
ká.ta.ma.ràa.ni só.si.a.lìs.ti
‘catamaran’ ‘socialist’
Heavy syllables attract stress Ĺ L L H L Ĺ L L H L
Various researchers (Sadeniemi 1949, Carlson 1978, Hanson and Kiparsky 1996, Elenbaas 1999) have also claimed that morphological structure can influence stress placement. Certain suffixes (e.g., case endings and possessive suffixes) appear to attract secondary stress to the syllables preceding them, also creating a sequence of two unstressed syllables word internally. This stress pattern is optional, as shown in (4), resulting in two possible surface forms:
3
I employ the following standard abbreviations: L=light, H=heavy, the acute accent (e.g., á) denotes primary stress, and the grave accent (e.g., à) denotes secondary stress.
2
(4)
Suffixes optionally attract stress to the preceding syllable a. Ĺ H L L L b. Ĺ L L L L c. Ĺ H L L L d. Ĺ L L L L
ó.pet.ta.jà.si ~ó.pet.tà.ja.si ká.le.va.là.na~ká.le.và.la.na rá.vin.to.là.ni~rá.vin.tò.la.ni ót.ta.mi.à.ni~ót.ta.mì.a.ni
‘teacher-PX.2SG’ ‘Kalevala-ESS’ ‘restaurant-PX.1SG’ ‘take-INF-PL-PARTPX.1SG’
The stress shift illustrated in (4) clearly cannot be due to syllable weight, since none of the syllables bearing secondary stress are heavy. In the literature, two different morphological explanations for this stress shift have been proposed. Carlson (1978) suggests that the stress pattern seen in the left-hand member of each pair in (4) is due to a kind of weight-sensitive paradigmatic analogy. The explanation is as follows: since most case endings and possessive suffixes in Finnish are of the shape –CCV and since complex onsets are disallowed in Finnish, the first C of a –CCV suffix will always be syllabified in the coda of the preceding syllable, thus creating a heavy penultimate syllable, e.g., ká.le.và.la ‘Kalevala’ but ká.le.va.làm.me ‘Kalevala-PX.1PL’, with a shift from the third syllable, which is light, to the fourth syllable in accord with the pattern in (3) above. The idea of this approach is that the light -CV suffixes in (4), although -CV in shape, act as though they close the preceding syllable by analogy to the -CCV suffixes. This is inter-paradigmatic analogy, i.e., analogy across all suffixes of a certain type, e.g., all case endings or all possessive
3
suffixes as opposed to intra-paradigmatic analogy (analogy across different exponents of the same word). The second approach, suggested first in Hanson and Kiparsky (1996) and formalized in Elenbaas (1999), is that the stress shift in (4) is due to the “preaccenting” nature of the suffixes. Elenbaas formalizes this via an Optimality-theoretic alignment constraint, ALIGN-RSFX, which aligns the right edge of the prosodic word with the right edge of a foot, with the stipulation that the constraint is only active in words with case endings and possessive suffixes. In contrast to Carlson’s inter-paradigmatic approach, the alignment approach makes no reference to analogy between the -CV and -CCV suffixes. The idea to be pursued in this dissertation differs crucially from all previous accounts of Finnish stress, in that it turns the traditional analysis of Finnish stress on its head by proposing that the phonological, rhythmic pattern of stress in Finnish is different from what has traditionally been assumed. A central assumption of all previous accounts of Finnish stress is that in the default, rhythmic pattern of stress, all feet are aligned to the left edge of the word, with unparsed syllables in odd-parity words occurring at the far right edge of the word. On this analysis, in a monomorphemic fivesyllable word containing all light syllables, the form with all feet aligned to the left (Ĺ L) (L L) L would represent the rhythmic pattern of stress, while the 4
form with a foot aligned to the right of the word (Ĺ L) L( L L) would represent the morphologically-induced pattern. The idea that I am pursuing is that the form with the foot aligned at the right edge of the word, i.e., (Ĺ L) L (L L), actually
represents
the
rhythmic
pattern
of
stress
instead
of
the
morphologically-influenced one. On this view, the purported influence of morphology on stress is only apparent. The empirical evidence supporting this analysis comes from new data on the stress patterns of long monomorphemic words, including place names such as Tánanarìve ‘Antananarivo (former name)’ and kólesteròli ‘cholesterol’. Such words exemplify a crucial chunk of data that to my knowledge has remained uninvestigated up until now. The stress pattern of long monomorphemic words reveals that in odd-parity words, the default phonological pattern of stress in Finnish requires a nonfinal secondary stress peak aligned with the right edge of the word. This corresponds, in an interesting way, to the “initial dactyl” effect (Prince 1983) reported for English (among a host of other languages) in a word like abracadabra, which contains a secondary stress peak aligned to the left edge of the word. And importantly, I show that the forms with all feet left-aligned result from a constraint enforcing intra-paradigmatic analogy, i.e., analogy across exponents of the same word.
5
Complicating the picture of Finnish stress is the behavior of compounds. True morphological compound words in Finnish behave as expected, with the second member of the compound setting up a new domain for stress assignment. However, there is also a class of words in Finnish which act like compounds in terms of stress assignment (as well as other phonological phenomena) but which are morphologically simplex, a group that I will refer to as pseudo-compounds. As Kiparsky (2003) points out, although these two groups are metrically identical in their unsuffixed forms, when a case ending is added, the secondary stress patterns differ:4 (5)
Simplex words: right-aligned secondary stress ká.le.va.làs.sa ‘Kalevala-INESS’ ká.le.và.la5 ‘Kalevala’ ár.tik.kè.li ‘article’ ár.tik.ke.lìs.sa ‘article-INESS’ pró.fes.sò.ri ‘professor’ pró.fes.so.rìl.la ‘professor-ADESS’
4
These two groups of words are termed movable and fixed forms by Kiparsky (2003). Although proper names are capitalized in Finnish, I have chosen to use lower case for all example words for maximum clarity. 5
6
(6)
Compound words: no right-aligned secondary stress sá.la.sà.na ‘password’ sá.la.sà.nas.sa ‘password-INESS’ (sala = secret, sana = word) pé.li.hì.mo ‘passion for pé.li.hì.mos.sa ‘passion for gambling’ gambling-INESS’ (peli = game, himo = passion) kó.ti.kỳ.lä ‘home village’ kó.ti.kỳ.läs.sä ‘home village-INESS’ (koti = home, kylä = village) só.ta.tì.la ‘state of war’ só.ta.tì.las.sa ‘state of war-INESS’ (sota = war, tila = state, condition)
(7)
Pseudo-compound words: no right-aligned secondary stress á.la.bà.ma ‘Alabama’ á.la.bà.mas.sa ‘Alabama-INESS’ fí.lo.sò.fi ‘philosopher’ fí.lo.sò.fil.la ‘philosopher-ADESS’ és.pla.nà.di ‘esplanade’ és.pla.nà.dil.la ‘esplanade-ADESS’ In the simplex words in (5), the right-aligned secondary stress is purely
phonological on both the traditional all-feet-left approach (due to the creation of a heavy syllable by suffixing a –CCV case ending) and the current approach (which argues for default right alignment in odd-parity words). In the compound words in (6), no rightward stress shift occurs, due to the requirement that the initial syllable of the second element of the compound be stressed, resulting in secondary stress on the same syllable in both the unsuffixed and suffixed forms. Stress does not shift to the left in the suffixed forms of the pseudo-compounds in (7) either, despite the fact that pseudocompounds are morphologically simplex. Kiparsky accounts for the difference between these two types of words by positing an underlying lexical stress on pseudo-compound words. My proposal differs from this 7
account by showing that the location of secondary stress in pseudocompounds is largely predictable, and follows from a requirement that prosodic words be binary. Stress therefore need not be lexically specified in such forms. Prosodic word binarity, by placing both a minimal and maximal bound on prosodic word structure, predicts that only four-syllable pseudocompounds be marked in the lexicon, which I argue is done via underlying prosodic structure. This analysis formalizes the distinction between compounds and pseudo-compounds by reference to articulated prosodic structure, and thus constrains the domain of phonological processes like vowel harmony and nominal allomorphy to the domain of the prosodic word. This dissertation is organized as follows. In the present chapter, Chapter 1, an introduction to metrical stress theory and Optimality Theory is first presented, followed by an introduction to the basic phonological background facts of Finnish, including its segmental inventory, syllable structure, and minimal word effects. In Chapter 2, the rhythmic pattern of stress is analyzed, with significant attention given to the stress patterns of long monomorphemic light-syllabled words. In Chapter 3, the effect of syllable weight on secondary stress is discussed. In Chapter 4, the influence of morphology on secondary stress is considered, and the purported influence of morphology on stress is shown to be much less than previously thought. In 8
particular, a formal analysis of the prosodic structure of compounds and pseudo-compounds is presented, and the evidence for a recursive prosodic word in pseudo-compounds is motivated. Finally, Chapter 5 concludes the dissertation and offers directions for future research.
1.1 Metrical stress theory The origins of modern metrical theory can be ascribed to Liberman (1975), which expressed the view that word stress is best conceived of as a type of rhythmic relation of prominence among syllables. It is well-known that native speakers are able to make delicate judgments regarding various levels of word stress, but no invariant phonetic cues have been discovered that correlate with these prominences. Instead, stress is manifested via such diverse phonetic means as increased pitch, longer vowel duration, greater amplitude, and lack of vowel reduction. In early work in metrical theory, there were two competing models for representing stress as a relation of relative prominences: tree theory (Liberman and Prince 1977; Hayes 1980, 1984) and grid theory (Prince 1983, Selkirk 1984), with the bracketed grid model (Hammond 1984, Halle and Vergnaud 1987) being a hybrid model incorporating elements of both. In grid theory, prominence relations among levels of stress are represented via the two-dimensional metrical grid. The grid 9
representation below follows the convention of Halle and Vergnaud (1987) in marking stress levels with asterisks, but still represents the pure grid model of Prince (1983) and Selkirk (1984) since it lacks tree constituency bracketing: (8)
The metrical grid 2 * 1 * * * 0 * * * * ** Àpalàchicóla In the metrical grid in (8), each syllable receives a grid mark at the
lowest level, level 0 (which corresponds to the syllable level), while secondary stress is represented by an additional grid mark at level 1 (corresponding to the foot level), and finally primary stress by an additional grid mark at level 2 (the word level). By contrast, the bracketed grid model of Hammond (1984) and Halle and Vergnaud (1987) incorporates bracketing that mirrors the tree structure model employed by both Liberman and Prince (1977) and Hayes (1980, 1984): (9)
The bracketed metrical grid 2 * 1 (* * *) 0 (* *)(* *)(* *) Àpalàchicóla In (9), the bracketed elements correspond to elements of the prosodic
hierarchy – on level 0, the constituents correspond to metrical feet, while on 10
level 1 the bracketed structure corresponds to the prosodic word. Although arguments have been marshalled for the bracketed metrical grid (Hayes 1995), I follow recent work such as Gordon (2002) in adopting the pure grid representation of stress of Prince (1983) and Selkirk (1984) in my analysis of Finnish stress, and instead claim that prosodic constituents such as feet and prosodic words are derived from grid structure rather than being primitives of the theory. The main argument for adopting a pure grid-based theory of stress lies in the substance of formal constraints in Optimality Theory, the theoretical framework adopted here. Analyses which make use of constraints that refer to foot structure must also make use of grid-based constraints. By eschewing direct reference to foot structure in constraints involved in the computation of surface stress, a more compact and elegant system is achieved.
1.2 Optimality Theory The analysis of Finnish stress presented here is couched in the constraintbased framework of Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993, 2004; McCarthy and Prince 1993b; recent overviews of the theory are contained in Kager 1999 and McCarthy 2001), referred to henceforth as OT. Optimality Theory differs from earlier generative theories in that input and multiple 11
potential output forms are evaluated against a set of ranked constraints in a parallel manner, in contrast to rule-based serial frameworks which can produce intermediate stages of the derivation before arriving at the actual output form. In an OT grammar of ranked constraints for a given language, the optimal candidate (the surface candidate) is the candidate that minimally violates (or “best satisfies”) the ranked constraints. There are three primary components to the theory: Gen, Con, and Eval. Gen is a function that produces a potentially infinite number of candidates for evaluation by the constraint hierarchy. Although the number of candidates is infinite, an actual representation of an evaluation in practice usually contains only a set of the most likely candidates, i.e., those that violate the highestranked constraints minimally. Con is the set of universal constraints, which are available and present in all languages. Although constraints are universal, languages differ from one another in the specific ranking of the set of universal constraints. This ranking thus is what constitutes the grammar of the language. The third component, Eval, evaluates output candidates that are produced via Gen given a specific ranking of the constraints in a given language. The output candidate that best satisfies the constraint ranking is then selected as optimal and is predicted to be the surface candidate.
12
The evaluation of output candidates with respect to a given input and a ranked set of constraints can be shown visually by means of a tableau. A sample tableau showing the interaction of two constraints that are responsible for the pattern of secondary stress is given below: (10)
Sample tableau kólesteròli ‘cholesterol’ /kolesteroli/
NONFINALITY
) a.
kó.les.te.rò.li. b. kó.les.te.ro.lì.
ALIGN-R *
*!
In the tableau above, the ranking order of constraints is given from left to right, so that the constraint NONFINALITY is ranked higher than ALIGN-R. The constraint NONFINALITY here punishes any candidate that has stress on the final syllable of the word (candidate (10)b above), while ALIGN-R requires a stress peak to be aligned to the right edge of the prosodic word, and hence is violated by candidates (in a gradient manner) that do not have a rightaligned stress peak (such as candidate (10)a). The input is listed in the tableau above in the cell located in the upper leftmost corner, with the two output candidates are listed in rows beneath the input. The optimal (winning) candidate is designated by the pointing hand, and a violation of a constraint by an output candidate is marked by an asterisk (*) in the appropriate cell. A violation that removes a candidate from the evaluation is deemed a “fatal” 13
violation, and is marked by an exclamation point (!) after the particular violation mark that removes it from the competition. Shading is used in cells to show that the constraint is irrelevant since a higher-ranked constraint (here NONFINALITY) is decisive in selecting the optimal candidate. Two of the core notions in OT are: 1) the concept of constraint violability, i.e., the idea that all constraints are potentially violable, and that any constraint may be violated in a particular language in order to satisfy higher-ranking constraints, and 2) the notion of strict domination, which does not allow for relative strength of constraints but rather that domination implies total domination. Another important concept in OT relates to the fact that constraints can be divided into two main categories: faithfulness constraints and markedness constraints. Faithfulness constraints evaluate the mapping between the input and potential output forms, and non-identity between the input and the output results in a violation of such a constraint. Deletion of segments, insertion of segments, and featural change of a segment are all examples of violation of a faithfulness constraint. By contrast, markedness constraints are agnostic about the composition of the input; they refer solely to the wellformedness of the output candidates. The constraint NONFINALITY used in the tableau in (10) is an example of a markedness constraint, since it is only 14
concerned with the location (or non-location) of secondary stress in the surface form.
1.2.1 Metrical stress in Optimality Theory In the majority of work on stress within Optimality Theory, constraints are utilized that refer explicitly to the foot. Examples of such constraints are the familiar FT-BIN, FT-FORM, and PARSE-SYLLABLE: (11)
FT-BIN(ARITY): (Prince and Smolensky 1993, McCarthy and Prince 1993b) Feet must be binary.
(12)
FT-FORM=TROCHAIC/IAMBIC: (Prince and Smolensky 1993) Feet are trochaic/iambic.
(13)
PARSE-SYLLABLE: (Liberman and Prince 1977, Prince 1980, Hayes 1987, Prince and Smolensky 1993, Mester 1994) A syllable must be parsed by a foot.
In many analyses of stress, additional constraints are also needed which refer only to grid structure, such as constraints like NOCLASH and NOLAPSE which regulate stress clash and limit sequences of unstressed syllables: (14)
Grid-based stress constraints NOCLASH (Prince 1983, Selkirk 1984, Kager 1994) Adjacent stresses (adjacent syllables with level 1 grid marks) are prohibited. NOLAPSE A sequence of two adjacent unstressed syllables is prohibited.
15
While there is nothing a priori objectionable to using both foot-based and grid-based constraints in the analysis of stress, one might question whether there is overlap in coverage between the two types of constraints and seek a more restrictive approach. This dissertation takes the more restrictive approach and follows earlier work both in rule-based frameworks and more recent work in Optimality Theory (Walker 1997, Gordon 2002) by seeking to derive surface stress via constraints that refer solely to the metrical grid. This point will be discussed in further detail in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2. Despite this theoretical preference for a purely grid-based approach, the Finnish data presented here are equally compatible with a foot-based approach.
1.3 Introduction to Finnish Finnish belongs to the Finno-Ugric branch of the Uralic language family, whose better known members include languages such as Hungarian, Estonian, and Sami, along with over twenty other languages spoken primarily in the former Soviet Union. Finnish is spoken by over five million people and is one of the official languages of the Republic of Finland (along with Swedish), where it is spoken by approximately 92% of the population as a first language. The primary variety of Finnish investigated here is standard spoken Finnish as spoken by inhabitants of the greater Helsinki region. 16
1.3.1 Segmental inventory There are eight vowel phonemes and thirteen consonant phonemes found in native Finnish words, as shown in (15) and (16) below. I depart from standard IPA transcription in a few instances and instead follow Finnish orthographic conventions, since Finnish spelling is largely phonemic: I employ [ö] for IPA [ø], [ä] for [æ], [v] for the labiodental glide []; and [d] for the flap []. (15)
Vowel inventory of native Finnish words Front i y e ö ä
High Mid Low (16)
Back u o a
Consonant inventory of native Finnish words
Stops Flaps Frics Nasals Trills Laterals Glides
LabioBilabial dental p
Dental t d6
Palatal Velar k
s m
Glottal
h
n r l v
j
6 [d] is of very limited distribution in native words. It only occurs word medially and in the majority of cases only as the weak variant of [t] in qualitative consonant gradation. [d] is also alveolar, while [t] is dental. Suomi (1980) and Karlsson (1983) suggest that [d] is best analyzed as the flap []. It would thus differ from the trill [r] in the number of contacts of the tip of the tongue with the alveolar ridge. [] involves a single contact, while [r] contains two to three taps (Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996). Evidence for the sonorant status of [d] comes from various dialects of Finnish, where [d] is realized as [l], [r], or is elided completely.
17
Additionally, the consonants [b], [g], [f], and [š] (IPA ) can occur in words of foreign origin. Finnish contrasts length in both vowels and consonants. All vowels can occur as either short or long.7 Consonants can be either singleton or geminate, except for the glides [v] and [j] and the glottal [h], which do not occur as geminates in standard Finnish but can be geminated in certain dialects (Rapola 1966). The nasal [] also has a limited distribution since it only occurs word-medially, and only either as a geminate (orthographic ‘ng,’ e.g., sangen [saen] ‘very’) or as a singleton followed by the velar stop [k] (e.g., sanko [sako] ‘pail’). In addition to the vowels in (1), there are eighteen diphthongs, shown below (all long vowel combinations also exist, but are excluded from the chart):
7
All sequences of long vowels do not occur with equal frequency, however. The long mid vowels [ee, öö, oo] are uncommon in native words, since it is generally agreed that they diphthongized and underwent the changes *ee > ie, *öö >yö, and *oo > uo in late ProtoFinnic (Karttunen 1970, Karlsson 1983). Long mid vowels occur not infrequently in loanwords, however, e.g., seepra ‘zebra,’ idiootti ‘idiot,’ and likööri ‘liqueur’.
18
(17)
Diphthongs in Finnish V2
y
V1
↓
→
y ö ä i e u o a
öy äy iy ey
ö yö
ä
i yi öi äi ei ui oi ai
e
u
ie
iu eu
o
a
uo ou au
The main restriction on diphthongs in Finnish is that V2 must be high, ruling out potential diphthongs whose second member is low or mid, such as [ua] or [ao]. Also, since Finnish has a front/back system of vowel harmony, diphthongs that would violate harmony, like [oy] or [öu], are excluded.8 The shaded diphthongs [yö], [ie], and [uo] constitute exceptions to the requirement that V2 be high. They developed from the long vowels /öö ee oo/ in late Proto-Finnic (see fn. 7). This can be thought of as a dissimilatory process whereby the first member of the diphthong has become high.9 The long vowels [öö], [ee], and [oo] exist in modern Finnish, but chiefly in loanwords and in newly coined words. Besides the long vowels and 8
The vowels [i] and [e] are “neutral” and can therefore occur with both front and back vowels. However, when [i] and [e] are the only vowels in a root, a front vowel suffix is selected. For more discussion, see Välimaa-Blum 1999 and Ringen and Heinämäki 1999. 9 A possible reason why the long vowels became rising diphthongs instead of falling diphthongs is due to a functional drive to preserve contrast: since [öy], [ei], and [ou] already existed, the long mid vowels became [yö], [ie], [uo] in order to avoid homophony.
19
diphthongs listed in (3) above, all other VV sequences are syllabified heterosyllabically.
1.3.2 Syllable structure In native Finnish words, the maximum syllable template is CVCC, with restrictions on word-internal and word-final codas. Onsets in Finnish can only consist of a single consonant in native words, while recent loanwords may contain two and even three consonants in the onset, especially in wordinitial position: (18)
Onsets in native words vs. loanwords Native words mu.na ‘egg’ sil.mä ‘eye’ ta.lo ‘house’
Loanwords stres.si pre.si.dent.ti ksy.lo.fo.ni
‘stress’ ’president’ ‘xylophone’
Word finally, codas may consist of only a single consonant, which is restricted to being coronal: (19)
Place restriction on word-final codas10 askel manner nainen
‘step’ ‘continent’ ‘woman’
olut taivas
‘beer’ ‘sky’
While native words admit only a single consonant in the onset and only a coronal consonant in the coda word finally, word-internal codas can 10
In the spoken language, complex codas occur word finally. The asymmetry between wordfinal and word-internal codas in the standard language is striking.
20
contain up to two consonants (Karlsson 1983, Keyser and Kiparsky 1984, Prince 1984, Ito 1986), although there are restrictions on these word-medial coda clusters. In general, sonority within the coda must fall; the first consonant must be [+sonorant] and the second consonant [-sonorant], as illustrated in (20): (20)
Word-internal clusters a. b. c.
lp.p ls.t ns.s
help.po pals.ta kans.sa
‘easy’ ‘column’ ‘with’
The three examples in (20) exhibit the three general types of licit wordinternal coda clusters. In a CVC1C2C3V word, C1 must always be [+sonorant]. If C1 is either a liquid or a nasal, C2 can be the first part of a geminate p, t, k, s (as in (20)a); or if C1 is l or r, it can be followed by st, sk or ts (as in (20)b). If C1 is a nasal, C2 can then be p, t, k, or s, and C3 must then be s (see (20)c) The basic pattern is illustrated in the following tables (licit segments are marked by a ‘+’):
21
(21)
Word-medial liquid + C2C3 clusters C3 p p
C2
t
k
+ +
t
+
k
+ +
s
(22)
s
+
+
Word-medial nasal + C2C3 clusters C3 p p
C2
t k
t
k
s
+
+ +
+ +
s
+ +
In order to account for these facts, we can simply adopt a constraint like the Sonority Sequencing Principle (SSP) (Jespersen 1904, Selkirk 1984, Clements 1990, Benua 1995, among others), which requires rising sonority contours (and disallowing plateaus) from the syllable margin to the peak. A version of the SSP is given in (23):
22
(23)
Sonority Sequencing Principle (SSP) Sonority rises in complex onsets and falls in complex codas. Since this constraint is never violated in Finnish, it sits at the top of the
constraint hierarchy, undominated. When ranked above FAITH (here CONTIGUITY), it will correctly prohibit a medial cluster like -lms- from surfacing. This can be seen for the hypothetical input malmsi below: (24)
Inviolability of the SSP /malmsi/ a. mal.mi b. mal.si c. malm.si
SSP
FAITH
* * *!
In (24), it is indeterminate which consonant is deleted in order to conform to the SSP. I leave the matter unresolved, but barring details of implementation, we can assume that the SSP is responsible for ruling out many word-internal coda clusters.11
1.3.3 Minimal word In Finnish the word must contain at minimum two vocalic moras and can thus be either of the shape (C)VV or (C)VCV (Hanson and Kiparsky 1996, Harrikari 2000):
11 Also unresolved are cases where sequences of two consonants over a syllable boundary are prohibited, like *tp and *pt. Syllable contact may be at work here, but the situation is not as clear as one might hope.
23
(25)
Example words satisfying the minimal word requirements maa suo yö12
‘land’ ‘marsh’ ‘night’
kala utu lumi
‘fish’ ‘mist’ ‘snow’
The fact that CVC syllables do not satisfy the minimal word requirement in Finnish has been taken as evidence for a distinction between CVV and CVC in terms of syllable weight, an observation originally made in Harrikari (2000) and taken up further in this dissertation in the discussion of weight-based stress in section 3.2. Specifically, although CVV words like maa ‘land’ exist, a subminimal CV word like mi ‘what’ is augmented to mikä, and similarly, the stem of the CVC word ken ‘who’ only surfaces in inflected forms when at least bimoraic, e.g., kenen ‘whose’, kenellä ‘who-ADESS’ (the nominative incidentally surfaces as kuka). CV and CVC thus qualify as subminimal in Finnish and only function words like ja ‘and’ and se ‘it’ surface as monomoraic. This distinction between CVV and CVC syllables is mirrored in the stress system of Finnish, and there is good evidence for a distinction between CVV and CVC syllables in terms of syllable weight, as CVV syllables attract stress more readily than CVC syllables, as discussed in detail in section 3.2.
12
Recall that yö is a diphthong in Finnish. Thus, yö satisfies word minimality by being VV.
24
1.3.4 The phonology of loanwords Like all languages, Finnish has various strata of loanwords, based upon the age and source language of the loan. Phonologically, loanwords in Finnish behave differently from native words in several important ways. For the most part, older loans respect the same phonological constraints that native words do. For example, the relatively old Swedish loan strand ‘shore’ is ranta in Finnish, in which the initial cluster simplifies in accord with the prohibition on initial clusters in native words, the d is devoiced, and a stem-final vowel is appended. Modern Finnish speakers with no special linguistic training cannot discern such old loans from native words. The phonology of recent loans (which are currently primarily from English), however, can differ quite markedly from that of native words. Some of the main ways loans differ from native words are as follows: (26)
Phonology of loans in Finnish • Presence of non-native segments (b, g, f, š) • Lack of qualitative consonant gradation (e.g., p Æ v, t Æ d) • Obligatory gemination of stem-final voiceless stops • Presence of complex initial clusters Although loans differ segmentally from native words in the ways
listed above, for the most part they appear to conform to the same prosodic constraints that native words do. For example, in native words main stress is 25
invariably initial. Loans also always have initial main stress, regardless of the location of stress in the original language. By contrast, in the closely related language Estonian, native words have invariable initial primary stress, while loans can have main stress on a noninitial syllable, e.g., revolutsióon ‘revolution’. Because of their length, many long loanwords in Finnish are analyzed by speakers as phonological compounds, even though they are simplex from a morphological point of view. This has nothing to do with their status as loanwords per se, however, but is rather a function of their length, since there is a size restriction on the length of native roots. This is discussed in detail in Section 4.4.2.
26
Chapter 2: Rhythmic stress The stress pattern of Finnish has been described and analyzed by many researchers, among them: Setälä (1898), Laurosela (1922), Sadeniemi (1949), Carlson (1978), Hanson and Kiparsky (1996), Karvonen (1996), Alber (1997), Harms (1997), and Elenbaas (1999). Among these researchers, there is a certain amount of disagreement with respect to the location of secondary stress. The present study builds on this previous body of work while at the same time aims to reconcile the disparate reports of Finnish stress that exist in the literature by relying on judgments from a larger number of speakers, and also crucially bringing to light more complete data on the stress patterns of monomorphemic words, a class of words that has until now remained largely uninvestigated. Previous analyses have either been single-speaker studies or have involved only a handful of speakers, or have relied on data from previous accounts of Finnish stress. Perhaps most significantly, the stress pattern seen in the new data presented here prompts a fresh look at the basic rhythmic pattern of stress in Finnish, and consequently a reanalysis of the purported impact of morphology on stress. Because secondary stress in Finnish is potentially sensitive to both syllable weight and morphological structure, it is necessary to first examine 27
the stress pattern of monomorphemic words containing only light syllables so that the basic, underlying rhythmic pattern of stress in Finnish can be determined. I will use the term “rhythmic stress” throughout to refer to this basic, alternating stress pattern in which neither syllable weight nor morphology plays a role. Unless the stress pattern of such words is investigated fully, one cannot rule out the potential influence of syllable weight or morphology on the observed surface stress pattern. Previous work has either not investigated monomorphemic light-syllabled words in great enough depth or has made claims about rhythmic stress in Finnish using polymorphemic words as examples. As we will see, the stress pattern of long monomorphemic words provides crucial evidence, long overlooked in the literature, that challenges the traditional view of rhythmic stress in Finnish. The picture that emerges is fundamentally different from the one that has been reported in the literature on Finnish stress.
2.1 The basic pattern Setting aside for the moment both morphologically complex words and words containing heavy syllables outside the initial foot, the basic stress generalizations for monomorphemic words in Finnish containing light syllables of up to four syllables in length are as follows: 28
(1)
Rhythmic pattern of stress: basic generalizations • • • •
Initial main stress Secondary stress on odd-numbered syllables (counting from left) No adjacent stresses No final stress
The basic stress pattern of such words is thus quite regular, with alternating peaks and troughs. While the impact of syllable weight on stress will be discussed later, in Chapter 3, it is important to note at the outset of the discussion of rhythmic stress that main stress is completely impervious to syllable weight. For example, a L H L word like kániini ‘rabbit’ has stress on the initial syllable, despite the fact that the second syllable is heavy and might be expected to attract stress in a quantity-sensitive language. Even though LH trochees are generally dispreferred in quantity-sensitive languages, the existence of initial LH trochees in Finnish shows that the constraint requiring main stress to be initial must be undominated. Given the initial foot’s insensitivity to syllable weight, I will employ ‘X’ as a cover symbol for a syllable that may be either heavy or light, and the examples given here contain words of varying syllable weight within the initial foot. As we will see in Chapter 4, heavy syllables do attract stress beyond the domain of the initial foot, making Finnish a partially quantity-sensitive language, since secondary stress placement is sensitive to syllable weight. 29
Given the basic stress generalizations listed in (1), the basic, rhythmic stress pattern in words of four syllables or less is shown in the forms below: (2)
Stress in monomorphemic light-syllabled words up to four syllables in length X X
X X L
X X L L
ká.la vá.paa kéi.häs13 síi.ka má.ta.la tá.ri.na kó.te.lo káu.pun.ki mó.no.pò.li ká.len.tè.ri
‘fish’ ‘free’ ‘spear’ ‘whitefish’ ‘low’ ‘story’ ‘container’ ‘city’ ‘monopoly’ ‘calendar’
There is only one possible stress pattern in words of four syllables or less, since, speaking in foot-based terms, all syllables are simply maximally parsed into disyllabic feet. Since final syllables in odd-syllabled words are stressed only if heavy, monomorphemic trisyllabic words with final syllables contain only a single, initial primary stress. In quadrisyllabic words there is a secondary stress on the third syllable, as in mónopòli ‘monopoly’, kálentèri ‘calendar’. As discussed in section 1.1, there are two main proposals for modeling stress in metrical theory — one which refers explicitly to foot structure, and another which models stress as resulting from the relative well-formedness of 13
Due to typographical considerations, stress marks will be marked on the first member of a diphthong, although it is naturally assumed that the entire syllable bears stress.
30
representations containing grid marks (Prince 1983, Selkirk 1984). Common to both grid-based and foot-based frameworks is the view that stress is essentially a rhythmic phenomenon (Hayes 1985), a regular pattern of alternating peaks and troughs, which can be potentially interrupted by factors such as syllable weight and morphological constituency. In this dissertation, I follow recent work in metrical theory in OT (such as Gordon 2002) by adopting fully a grid-based framework, and do not employ constraints that refer directly to the metrical foot. In this grid-based view of stress, the foot is not a primitive of the theory, but instead foot structure is derived from the interaction of constraints that modulate the tension between the requirement that syllables be stressed on the one hand, and the requirement that they remain unstressed on the other.
2.1.1 Rhythmic constraints The basic stress pattern in Finnish of words three syllables or less in length follows from the following system of undominated (for now) rhythmic constraints:14
14
The undominated status of these constraints only holds in monomorphemic light-syllabled words. As we will see during the discussion of weight-based stress in Chapter 3, it will be necessary to rank NONFINALITY lower in order to account for stress on final heavy syllables, and in Chapter 4, we will see that NOCLASH can be dominated in compounds.
31
(3)
Basic stress constraints LEFTMOST (cf. Cohn and McCarthy’s (1994) RIGHTMOST) Align(PrWd, L; Head(PrWd), L)15 The main-stressed syllable is initial in the prosodic word. NOCLASH (Prince 1983, Selkirk 1984, Kager 1994) Adjacent stresses (adjacent syllables with level 1 grid marks) are prohibited. NONFINALITY (see Prince and Smolensky 1993) The final syllable of a word is stressless (a final syllable lacks a level 1 grid mark).
Note that none of these constraints refers directly to foot structure. LEFTMOST aligns the head of the prosodic word with the left edge of the prosodic word, thus ensuring that main stress is initial. NOCLASH bans adjacent stressed syllables (i.e., it prohibits adjacent grid marks of equal prominence), and the constraint NONFINALITY prohibits final stress from surfacing in a trisyllabic form such as mátala ‘low’.
15
Note that this formulation of LEFTMOST is the opposite of the standard formulation (such as that used in Cohn and McCarthy’s 1994 analysis of Indonesian) in that the prosodic word is the first argument and the head of the prosodic word is the second argument. Alignment theory assumes universal quantification over the first argument and existential quantification over the second argument, so that the formulation here reads “Align the left edge of every prosodic word with the left edge of a head of some prosodic word”. Reversing the arguments yields the following prose formulation: “Align the left edge of every prosodic word head with the left edge of some prosodic word”. This latter formulation is somewhat problematic in that the constraint will be vacuously satisfied if the word simply lacks a prosodic word head. In most cases, the anti-lapse constraint NOLAPSE will independently rule out these candidates, but in order to avoid this potential problem I assume the formulation listed in (3).
32
The constraints NOCLASH and NONFINALITY thus militate against stress in certain configurations, hence enforcing troughs, while LEFTMOST forces a stress peak to occur in a particular location. An important aspect of the current grid-based approach is that instead of encoding foot binarity directly in a constraint such as FT-BIN, which requires feet to be binary, it is the conflict between stress-requiring and stress-prohibiting constraints that yields the normal, alternating stress pattern seen in binary stress systems. This analysis by no means denies the existence of feet, but rather sees feet as derived metrical constituents. The surface stress pattern of Finnish thus results from fairly simple constraints regulating the well-formedness of rhythmic structure. As the tableau in (4) shows, any option besides stressing the initial syllable in a disyllabic form results in a violation of at least one of the constraints listed in (3):
33
(4)
Basic stress pattern in disyllabic forms kala ‘fish’ /kala/ ) a. ká.la
LEFTMOST, NOCLASH, NONFINALITY
b. ka.la c. ka.lá
*! LEFTMOST *! LEFTMOST *! NONFINALITY *! NOCLASH *! NONFINALITY *! LEFTMOST *! NOCLASH *! NONFINALITY
d. kà.lá
e. ká.là
In trisyllabic forms, no additional constraints are required. LEFTMOST requires primary stress to be initial, final syllables cannot be stressed due to NONFINALITY, and NOCLASH prohibits adjacent stresses: (5)
Basic stress pattern in trisyllabic forms matala ‘low’ /matala/ a. má.ta.la )
LEFTMOST, NOCLASH, NONFINALITY
b. ma.ta.lá c. ma.ta.la d. ma.tá.la e. má.tà.la f. má.ta.là
*! LEFTMOST, *! NONFINALITY *! LEFTMOST *! LEFTMOST *! NOCLASH *! NONFINALITY
2.1.2 The NOLAPSE constraint The stress pattern of quadrisyllabic words requires an additional constraint. With the constraints proposed thus far, a four-syllable word with secondary 34
stress on the third syllable will fare equally well as one with no secondary stress at all. This is shown in the tableau below in (6), in which both candidates (a) and (c) satisfy LEFTMOST, NOCLASH, and NONFINALITY equally: (6)
Basic stress pattern in quadrisyllabic forms kalenteri
)
‘calendar’ /kalenteri/ a. ká.len.tè.ri
*! NOCLASH
)
b. ká.lèn.te.ri c. ká.len.te.ri d. ká.len.te.rì e. ka.len.te.ri f. ka.lén.te.ri
*! NONFINALITY *! LEFTMOST *! LEFTMOST
LEFTMOST, NOCLASH, NONFINALITY
The additional constraint required here is the anti-lapse constraint NOLAPSE, which limits spans of unstressed syllables. Work on both binary and ternary stress systems has shown a need for some type of anti-lapse constraint, although varying formulations of the constraint have been proposed in the literature. Some formulations of the anti-lapse constraint refer to foot structure in their definitions, e.g., LAPSE (Green and Kenstowicz 1995) and *FTFT (Kager 1994), while others instead refer directly to the metrical grid, e.g., *LAPSE (Elenbaas 1999 and Elenbaas and Kager 1999, Gordon 2002) and *EXTENDEDLAPSE (Gordon 2002). All of these anti-lapse constraints limit intervals between stress peaks, but in subtly different ways.
35
The version to be used here is the most basic one, which simply bans a sequence of two unstressed syllables: (7)
The anti-lapse constraint NOLAPSE A span of two adjacent unstressed syllables is prohibited. The NOLAPSE constraint thus sets an upper bound on spans of
unstressed syllables, in effect requiring the existence of a stress peak to break up an interval of two stressless syllables. I assume that violations of NOLAPSE are assessed gradiently; a sequence of two unstressed syllables violates NOLAPSE once, while a sequence of three unstressed syllables violates it twice, once for each (overlapping) interval of two stressless syllables. In a monomorphemic four-syllable word in Finnish, adding NOLAPSE to the constraint system thus ensures that secondary stress will occur on the third syllable, breaking up a lapse of unstressed syllables: (8)
Basic stress pattern in quadrisyllabic forms with NOLAPSE kálentèri ‘calendar’ /kalenteri/ a. ká.len.tè.ri )
LEFTMOST, NOCLASH, NONFINALITY, NOLAPSE
b. ká.lèn.te.ri c. ká.len.te.ri d. ká.len.te.rì e. ka.len.te.ri f. ka.lén.te.ri
*! NOCLASH, *! NOLAPSE *!* NOLAPSE *! NONFINALITY, *! NOLAPSE *! LEFTMOST, *!** NOLAPSE *! LEFTMOST, *! NOLAPSE
36
Without the NOLAPSE constraint, candidate (c), which has only an initial primary stress, would satisfy the undominated constraints LEFTMOST, NOCLASH, and NONFINALITY. By limiting lapses of unstressed syllables, NOLAPSE forces secondary stress to occur on the third syllable, the actual surface form in the language. Like the constraint LEFTMOST, NOLAPSE is also a stress-enforcing constraint, since it constrains the length of stressless sequences, by forcing a stress peak to occur. Unlike the undominated constraints LEFTMOST, NONFINALITY, and NOCLASH, NOLAPSE is not undominated in Finnish. It must be ranked below NONFINALITY, since in trisyllabic words a word-final lapse of two stressless syllables is tolerated in order to avoid a word-final stress peak: (9)
Lapse tolerated word finally: NONFINALITY >> NOLAPSE matala ‘low’ /matala/
NONFINALITY
) a.
má.ta.la b. má.ta.là
NOLAPSE *
*!
The anti-clash constraint NOCLASH must also dominate NOLAPSE, since stress clash never occurs in order to minimize a sequence of unstressed syllables:
37
(10)
NOCLASH >> NOLAPSE kólesteròli ‘low’ /kolesteroli/
NOCLASH
) a. kó.les.te.rò.li b. kó.les.tè.rò.li c. kó.lès.te.rò.li
NOLAPSE *
*! *!
Everything else being equal, exhaustive parsing occurs in even-parity words, due to the influence of NOLAPSE, while in odd-parity words, NOLAPSE will always be violated, due to high-ranking NONFINALITY and NOCLASH. An important additional point about the grid-based constraint NOLAPSE is that it obviates a foot-parsing constraint such as the familiar PARSE-SYLLABLE (Liberman and Prince 1977, Prince 1980, Hayes 1987, Prince and Smolensky 1993, Mester 1994), which requires that all syllables be parsed by metrical feet. The version of NOLAPSE adopted here is identical to PARSE-SYLLABLE in terms of how violations are counted, but the formal substance of the two constraints differs. PARSE-SYLLABLE is a syllable-counting constraint since it counts unfooted syllables as violations, while NOLAPSE is blind to foot structure and instead simply counts sequences of unstressed, rather than unfooted syllables. Elenbaas (1999) argues that both NOLAPSE and PARSE-SYLLABLE are required in the analysis of Finnish stress, although the version of NOLAPSE used there is defined differently and thus violations of the constraint are
38
crucially reckoned differently from PARSE-SYLLABLE. Elenbaas uses the following definition of NOLAPSE: (11)
The anti-lapse constraint *LAPSE (Elenbaas 1999, Elenbaas and Kager 1999) Every weak beat must be adjacent to a strong beat or the word edge.
This formulation of *LAPSE thus allows sequences of two unstressed syllables, but rules out three adjacent unstressed syllables. A potential criticism of Elenbaas’ analysis is that since both PARSESYLLABLE and *LAPSE are required, the resultant constraint system is a mixed one, containing both grid-based and foot-based constraints. The present analysis, in assuming a simplified version of NOLAPSE and also doing away with other foot-based constraints like FT-BIN, avoids such a hybrid system by assuming grid-based constraints only.
2.2 Stress in long odd-parity words The stress pattern in words of four syllables or less is straightforward and uncontroversial, and follows from the basic constraint system posited above. In pentasyllabic and longer words of odd parity, however, an additional factor arises. Long morphologically simplex words of odd parity are of crucial importance in determining the underlying rhythmic stress pattern in a 39
language with binary, alternating stress, since there exist two logically possible ways of dealing with the “extra” syllable in such words. With primary stress on the initial syllable, there are two possible locations for secondary stress in a monomorphemic light-syllabled word of five syllables in length, as follows: (12)
Logically possible stress patterns in pentasyllabic words a. b.
(X X) (L L) L (X X) L (L L)
Mester (1994) uses the term “prosodic trapping” to refer to cases such as these where one syllable remains unfooted. Previous work on Finnish stress has unanimously claimed that the pattern in (12)a represents the default rhythmic pattern of stress, with all feet aligned to the left edge of the word and the unfooted (trapped) syllable occurring finally in the word, instead of the pattern in (12)b, which has a right-aligned foot and the unfooted syllable word medially. Importantly, the claim that the left-aligned pattern is the default rhythmic one has been made based on the existence of only a limited set of words, or, worse yet, morphologically complex words have been used to provide evidence for this claim. Neither Carlson (1978) nor Hanson and Kiparsky (1996) contains any pentasyllabic light-syllabled monomorphemic words, and in Appendix B in Elenbaas (1999), there is only 40
a single exemplar of a pentasyllabic word of the type X X L L L: érgonòmia ‘ergonomics’. The other pentasyllabic X X L L L words listed in Elenbaas (1999) contain case endings, possessive suffixes, or the agentive suffix -ja, all of which could potentially influence the placement of stress. A likely reason for the lack of attention paid to the stress patterns of long monomorphemic words in Finnish is that although light-syllabled monomorphemic words of four or less syllables in length are fairly abundant in Finnish, pentasyllabic and longer monomorphemic words are much fewer in number, and many of them are loanwords or foreign place names. Despite their non-native origin, long loanwords and foreign place names can be of crucial importance in revealing the underlying rhythmic stress pattern in a language. In the literature on English stress, place names of Native American origin such as Apalachicola and Winnipesaukee have figured prominently in establishing the basic rhythmic pattern of stress, since they are of sufficient length to illuminate directionality effects (e.g., see Hayes 1982) and are crucially monomorphemic, ruling out any possible interference from morphology. Although usually polymorphemic in the source language, long loanwords and place names of this type are normally not perceived as
41
morphologically complex by speakers of the borrowing language16, and hence are prime candidates for revealing rhythmic stress patterns that may be obscured in morphologically complex words and words of shorter length. In English, long monomorphemic words of odd parity are of particular interest since they can reveal the directionality of foot alignment. For example, while the six-syllable (and hence even-parity) Florida place name Apalachicola is simply exhaustively parsed into three binary feet as might be expected, (Àpa)(làchi)(cóla); in the pentasyllabic New Hampshire lake name Winnipesaukee, secondary stress occurs on the initial syllable and primary stress on the penultimate syllable, leaving a word-internal lapse of two stressless syllables, (Wìnni)pe(sáukee). This effect, dubbed the “initial dactyl” by Prince (1983), has also been reported to occur in languages as diverse as Indonesian, Spanish, Polish, and Swedish. Although often the stress patterns of long monomorphemic words are not investigated fully, such words are of vital importance in determining the underlying rhythmic pattern of stress of a language. For example, in English, the initial dactyl pattern demonstrates that some type of alignment constraint must be active, requiring the initial foot to be aligned with the left edge of the prosodic word.
16
This assumption is widely shared, although psycholinguistic evidence supporting this claim would naturally be most welcome.
42
Returning to Finnish, although pentasyllabic monomorphemic words containing all light syllables outside the initial foot are relatively uncommon, they do exist17, although, as mentioned previously, they have largely been ignored in previous analyses of Finnish stress. In foot-based terms, these words fall into two groups: those with a final unfooted syllable and those containing a medial unfooted syllable (unfooted syllables shaded for clarity): (13)
Pentasyllabic words with a final unfooted syllable: X X L L L mí.nis.tè.ri.ö té.le.vì.si.o díp.lo.mà.ti.a póst.po.sì.ti.o bý.ro.krà.ti.a ér.go.nò.mi.a fó.no.lò.gi.a bí.o.lò.gi.a psý.ko.lò.gi.a á.na.tò.mi.a kó.a.lì.ti.o íns.ti.tù.ti.o kré.ma.tò.ri.o kón.di.tò.ri.a skán.di.nà.vi.a mé.lan.kò.li.a ín.do.nè.si.a é.pi.dè.mi.a kó.mi.sà.ri.o skít.so.frè.ni.a ór.to.pè.di.a
‘ministry’ ‘television’ ‘diplomacy’ ‘postposition’ ‘bureaucracy’ ‘ergonomics’ ‘phonology’ ‘biology’ ‘psychology’ ‘anatomy’ ‘coalition’ ‘institution’ ‘crematorium’ ‘bakery, coffee shop’ ‘Scandinavia’ ‘melancholy’ ‘Indonesia’ ‘epidemic’ ‘police lieutenant’ ‘schizophrenia’ ‘orthopedics’
17
The reason such words are relatively rare, as pointed out by Itkonen (1957) and (Anttila) 1997, is that there is a general preference in Finnish for adjacent syllables to differ in weight.
43
(14)
Pentasyllabic words with a medial unfooted syllable: X X L L L tá.na.na.rì.ve bí.ha.ra.mù.lo kó.re.o.grà.fi18 lék.si.ko.grà.fi kó.les.te.rò.li dó.de.ka.èd.ri í.ko.sa.èd.ri tés.tos.te.rò.ni ó.li.go.pò.li dér.ma.to.lò.gi fár.ma.ko.lò.gi gý.ne.ko.lò.gi án.tro.po.lò.gi kón.kis.ta.dò.ri mág.ne.to.fò.ni fór.mal.de.hỳ.di á.sa.hi.kà.wa án.tro.po.sò.fi á.ra.bi.kù.mi só.si.o.nò.mi ík.ty.o.nò.mi
‘Finnish name for Antananarivo, capital of Madagascar’ ‘Biharamulo (city in Tanzania)’ ’choreographer’ ’lexicographer’ ‘cholesterol’ ’dodecahedron’ ’icosahedron’ ’testosterone’ ’oligopoly’ ‘dermatologist’ ‘pharmacologist’ ‘gynecologist’ ‘anthropologist’ ‘conquistador’ ‘tape recorder’ ‘formaldehyde’ ‘Asahikawa (city in Japan)’ ‘anthroposophist’ ‘gum arabic’ ‘graduate of degree program in sociology’ ‘ichthyologist’
The words in (14), which contain medial unfooted syllables, have in particular received scant attention in previous work on Finnish stress.19 As mentioned above, previous work has assumed that the default rhythmic pattern of stress is one with all feet left aligned, based on the existence of 18
The syllabification of foreign words sometimes diverges from the normal syllabication algorithm used for native Finnish words. Normally, all VCCV sequences are syllabified with the first consonant in the coda of the preceding syllable and the second into the onset of the following syllable (VC.CV), but a word like koreografi is often syllabified with both consonants in the onset, i.e., ko.re.o.gra.fi. 19 Kiparsky (2003) includes some words of this type, but stipulates them as having lexically marked secondary stress on the penult.
44
words such as érgonòmia ‘ergonomics’, which has a final unfooted syllable. Elenbaas (1999) uses this single word, érgonòmia, to support the claim that the alignment constraint ALL-FT-LEFT (McCarthy and Prince 1993a) is operative, which requires all feet to be aligned to the left edge of the prosodic word. However, the forms in (14), with a medial unfooted syllable, clearly violate this constraint, since all feet are not left-aligned. Instead, the final foot appears to be aligned with the right edge of the prosodic word. These right-aligned words thus pose a problem for the standard analysis of Finnish stress, since not all feet are aligned with the left edge of the prosodic word. As many of the words are loanwords, one explanation for the stress patterns might involve some type of faithfulness to the location of stress in the source language. However, no such regular correlation exists. Many of the words in (13) and (14) were borrowed into Finnish from Swedish, which itself borrowed them from some other European language. Finnish-speaking Finns are all very familiar with Swedish, since it is a required subject in school, Swedish being one of Finland’s official languages alongside the majority language Finnish. In Swedish, primary stress in words of foreign origin is often final (in comparison with primary stress in native Swedish words, which is usually initial), e.g., fonologí ‘phonology’, kolesteról ‘cholesterol’. In Finnish, however, secondary stress may or may not occur on 45
the syllable that has primary stress in Swedish. For example, the stressed syllables coincide between the Swedish kolesteról ‘cholesterol’ and the Finnish kólesteròli but not between Swedish fonologí ‘phonology’ and Finnish fónològia. The fact that there is no systematic relation between stressed syllables between the two languages suggests that stressed syllable faithfulness is not at work. An additional reason weakening such an analysis is that some of the right-aligned words in (14) are foreign place names, and as such are from languages that few Finnish speakers would have knowledge of. Pentasyllabic light-syllabled place names such as Tananarive, Asahikawa and Biharamulo are uniformly pronounced by Finnish speakers with penultimate secondary stress, regardless of the location of stress in the original language. Furthermore, nonsense words of the shape CVCVCVCVCV are also consistently pronounced by Finnish speakers with penultimate stress, further weakening a stressed syllable faithfulness approach. Another possibility is that each of the right-aligned words in (14) such as kólesteròli ‘cholesterol’ is simply lexically marked as having penultimate secondary stress. Although viable, such an analysis overlooks a very obvious phonological
generalization,
namely,
that
the
forms
in
(13)
with
antepenultimate stress all have a final onsetless syllable, while the final syllables in the penult-stressed forms in (14) all have onsets. The fact that the 46
two groups of words partition so neatly into two groups based on their phonological shape strongly suggests that a phonological explanation is behind the phenomenon. All else being equal, a phonological explanation is more desirable than an approach requiring an ad hoc lexical specification. In the following sections, a phonological explanation for the phenomenon will be proposed.
2.2.1 Right alignment The existence of monomorphemic light-syllabled words of odd parity such as those listed in (14) forces a re-evaluation of the rhythmic pattern of stress in Finnish. On the standard analysis, the only factors that can disrupt alignment of all syllables to the left edge of the prosodic word are syllable weight and morphological structure. The standard analysis would thus require that the right-aligned words in (14) be lexically specified for secondary stress, since there is no plausible phonological reason to expect rightward stress alignment in such forms. The proposal to be made here eschews stipulative lexical specification and instead seeks a phonological explanation for the pattern of stress in pentasyllabic monomorphemic light-syllabled words. In fact, the current analysis turns the standard analysis of Finnish stress on its head by claiming that the forms with right-aligned stress (X X L L L) actually
47
exemplify the default rhythmic pattern of stress in Finnish, while the leftaligned stress pattern in (13) (the generally accepted default rhythmic pattern: X X L L L) does not represent the default rhythmic pattern of stress but instead results from the combined effects of NONFINALITY and avoidance of final vowel hiatus. The existence of the new data presented here not only forces a reanalysis of the traditional view of Finnish stress but also has important ramifications for the analysis of weight-based and morphological stress in the language, as we will see in Chapters 3 and 4. It also makes very different predictions from those made under the all-feet-left approach. As we will see, the ad hoc lexical specifications required and incorrect predictions made on the standard all-feet-left approach will show that it is no longer a tenable analysis. Let us begin with the analysis of monomorphemic light-syllabled pentasyllabic words with right-aligned stress such as kólesteròli ‘cholesterol’. If we assume, as the present analysis does, that the right-aligned forms in (14) exemplify the default rhythmic pattern of stress in Finnish, some mechanism is required to ensure that this right-aligned secondary stress peak is located as far to the right as possible without being final in an odd-parity word. The proposal here is quite straightforward. I assume that the presence of a rightaligned secondary stress peak in odd-parity words is due to a Generalized 48
Alignment (McCarthy and Prince 1993a) constraint, here ALIGN-R, which ensures that a pentasyllabic form like kólesteròli has a secondary stress peak located as far to the right as possible: (15)
Right alignment of secondary stress ALIGN-R (PrWd, level 1 grid mark) Align a level 1 grid mark with the right edge of the prosodic word.
This constraint is never completely satisfied in light-syllabled words in Finnish, since final light syllables never receive stress. ALIGN-R thus crucially interacts with NONFINALITY, which prohibits stress on final syllables. Ranking NONFINALITY over ALIGN-R thus results in secondary stress occuring as close as possible to the right edge in a pentasyllabic word without being final: (16)
Right-aligned nonfinal secondary NONFINALITY >> ALIGN-R20 kólesteròli ‘cholesterol’ /kolesteroli/
stress
in
NONFINALITY
) a.
kó.les.te.rò.li. b. kó.les.te.ro.lì.
odd-parity
words:
ALIGN-R *
*!
ALIGN-R is also in conflict with the opposite-edge alignment constraint ALIGN-L, which aligns a secondary stress peak (level 1 grid mark) with the left edge of the prosodic word:
20
Each of the two candidates shown in (16) also violates NOLAPSE.
49
(17)
Left alignment of secondary stress ALIGN-L (PrWd, level 1 grid mark) Align a level 1 grid mark with the left edge of the prosodic word.
ALIGN-L thus replaces the constraint ALL-FT-LEFT on previous foot-based accounts. In Finnish, ALIGN-R must be ranked above ALIGN-L, since the rightmost secondary stress peak is always aligned as close as possible to the right edge of the prosodic word without being final: (18)
Right-edge stress alignment in odd-parity words: ALIGN-R >> ALIGN-L kólesteròli ‘cholesterol’ /kolesteroli/
) a.
kó.les.te.rò.li. b. kó.les.tè.ro.li.
ALIGN-R *
ALIGN-L ***
**!
**
The following schema thus ensures that a secondary stress peak occurs as far to the right as possible in monomorphemic light-syllabled words, without being final: (19)
Right-aligned nonfinal secondary stress NONFINALITY | Å Rightmost, but not final ALIGN-R | Å Right-, not left-aligned secondary stress ALIGN-L
An obvious question to consider is what kind of motivation there might be for right alignment of secondary stress. From a functional point of view, an 50
answer can be found by appealing to what Trubetzkoy (1939) referred to as the “demarcative function” of stress. In languages like Finnish with fixed initial primary stress, such as Icelandic and Czech, a primary stress peak serves as a clear word boundary marker, signalling to the listener the beginning of a new word. There is experimental evidence to corroborate this claim. Iivonen, Niemi, and Paananen (1998) analyzed the correlation between fundamental frequency (F0) peaks and primary stress in recorded Finnish television and radio broadcasts. They found that 73% of F0 peaks occurred on the primary stressed syllable, suggesting that F0 peaks are very often reliable indicators of word boundaries. We might then expect secondary stress to serve a similar demarcative function, by marking the end of the word. How exactly could a secondary stress peak signal the end of a prosodic word? Since final secondary stress is prohibited on light syllables in Finnish, the closest a secondary stress peak can come to the right edge of the prosodic word is on the penultimate syllable. In even parity words, secondary stress will always occur on the penultimate syllable (due to maximal parsing), but in an odd-parity pentasyllabic word like kólesteròli ‘cholesterol’, for example, secondary stress could potentially fall on either the third or fourth syllable, but, as we have seen, the data clearly shows that secondary stress always occurs on the 51
penultimate syllable in such words, thus favoring a word that is well-aligned at both edges. Penultimate secondary stress (i.e., a right-aligned nonfinal secondary stress peak) thus can be thought of as a way for the listener to identify the end of a prosodic word, which would then be confirmed if the final stressless syllable is followed by a primary stress peak. Finnish thus requires words to be well-aligned at both edges; a primary stress peak must occur at the left edge of the prosodic word, while a secondary stress peak must be located as close as possible to the right edge of the prosodic word, without being final. Pursuing this line of thought, one might speculate about a functional motivation for the prohibition against final stress in Finnish, encoded on the present analysis in the constraint NONFINALITY. Individual words are rarely spoken in isolation and most often occur embedded in utterances preceded and followed by other words. If a secondary stress peak were allowed to occur word finally in Finnish, it would therefore often be immediately followed by a primary stress peak in the following word, which would result in stress clash on the phrasal level, as illustrated in the diagram below:
52
(20)
Stress clash on the phrasal level Clash ↓ ↓ [σσσσσ]Wd [σσσ]Wd
The motivation for high-ranking NONFINALITY in Finnish can thus be thought of as resulting from the same basic preference for alternating, rhythmic stress and avoidance of stress clash seen on the word level (where it is encoded in the constraint NOCLASH) as viewed from the level of the next highest prosodic constituent, the phonological phrase. Seen from this perspective, rhythmic stress in Finnish thus can be derived from the interaction between just two kinds of constraints: alignment constraints, which align word edges (such as LEFTMOST and ALIGN-R); and constraints requiring adjacent grid marks to be non-identical, namely, NOCLASH and NOLAPSE. Since the default rhythmic stress pattern in Finnish has a right-aligned secondary stress peak, why then does stress occur on the third syllable and not the fourth in words like télevìsio ‘television’ and fónològia ‘phonology’? As I will show in the following section, the antepenultimate secondary stress pattern in such forms does not represent the default rhythmic pattern of stress in Finnish, but instead follows from a special type of hiatus resolution, specifically, avoidance of word-final vowel hiatus. 53
2.2.2 Word-final hiatus avoidance Taking up the stress pattern in the left-aligned pentasyllabic words in (13) such as télevìsio ‘television’, what such words have in common is that they all end in a final onsetless syllable. Some examples are given again below:
(21)
Pentasyllabic words with antepenultimate stress mí.nis.tè.ri.ö té.le.vì.si.o díp.lo.mà.ti.a póst.po.sì.ti.o bý.ro.krà.ti.a ér.go.nò.mi.a fó.no.lò.gi.a
‘ministry’ ‘television’ ‘diplomacy’ ‘postposition’ ‘bureaucracy’ ‘ergonomics’ ‘phonology’
On the segmental level, these words all end in a –CV.V sequence, where the two vowels are heterosyllabic and hence hiatal. Although Finnish has a rich inventory of diphthongs, there are many VV sequences which are non-diphthongal, e.g., -ia-, -ea-, -ao-, etc., and therefore result in hiatus (see section 1.3.1 for further discussion). The basic generalization with respect to stress in pentasyllabic words with final vowel hiatus is that they are never stressed on the penult, even though penultimate stress occurs in pentasyllabic forms, provided the syllable has an onset, as we have already seen in forms in (14) such as kólesteròli ‘cholesterol’, where the location of secondary stress was shown to result from the effects of ALIGN-R. 54
The clear-cut patterning between penultimate and antepenultimate stress in pentasyllabic forms thus does not appear to be random; rather, it seems reasonable to seek a phonological explanation for the phenomenon. Why should penultimate stress be prohibited in pentasyllabic words with final vowel hiatus? I argue that repulsion of secondary stress from the penult in such words results from a special type of hiatus avoidance, specifically, avoidance of vowel hiatus when final within the prosodic word. This kind of hiatus avoidance differs from the usual hiatus repair strategies which occur on the segmental level, such as deletion, insertion, coalescence, and gliding. Instead, the proposal to be made here views hiatus avoidance in words with final heterosyllabic –VV sequences as avoidance of hiatus at the prosodic rather than at the segmental level, and crucially assumes a recursive prosodic word structure for such words. Given this recursive structure, repulsion of stress from the penult to the antepenult in words with final vowel hiatus can be seen to follow straightforwardly from the general prohibition against final stress in Finnish, NONFINALITY, evaluated at the level of each prosodic word. Specifically, I assume that such words have the following structure: (22)
Prosodic word recursivity in forms with final vowel hiatus on the surface [[ministeri]Pwd ö]Pwd
55
Evidence for this claim comes both from other kinds of hiatus resolution in Finnish as well as from the stress patterns of even-parity words with final vowel hiatus, which also show an avoidance of penult stress. Let us first examine the general evidence that hiatal configurations are dispreferred in Finnish, by looking at a phonological process that repairs hiatal configurations at the segmental level. It is well known that many languages avoid vowel hiatus, although the strategies for repair differ from language to language. The most common strategies for hiatus resolution are deletion, insertion, coalescence, and gliding, processes that are typically believed to occur in order to satisfy a preference for syllables with onsets, encoded in OT via the constraint ONSET. As argued in Rosenthall (1994), hiatus resolution can be modeled by ranking ONSET over Faithfulness constraints which militate against segmental deletion or featural change (in the case of coalescence or gliding), although more recent work has shown that not all hiatus resolution is onset-driven (Orie and Pulleyblank 1998, Borroff 2003). Colloquial Helsinki Finnish has a process of vowel assimilation which appears to be driven by avoidance of vowel hiatus (Kiparsky 1993, Anttila 2000). In this process, the second of two adjacent heterosyllabic unstressed vowels assimilates to the first, resulting in a surface
56
long vowel. The process targets hiatal VV sequences where the second vowel is low: (23)
Vowel assimilation in colloquial Helsinki Finnish ea, eä → ee
pi.me.ä → pi.mee ni.me.ä → ni.mee ai.no.a → ai.noo ta.lo.a → ta.loo yr.jö.ä → yr.jöö
oa → oo öä → öö
‘dark’ ‘name-PART’ ‘only’ ‘house-PART’ ‘Yrjö (name)-PART’
Vowel assimilation can thus be seen as a process of hiatus resolution, since the hiatal configuration is resolved by becoming a long vowel on the surface. The cases of assimilation shown above occur in both derived and nonderived environments, the derived environments represented here by the examples with the partitive case marker -a/-ä (bolded for clarity). In cases of hiatus where the first vowel is high, assimilation occurs in derived environments, but is blocked in nonderived environments, as the examples below illustrate: (24)
Vowel assimilation blocked in nonderived -ia words ia → ii
lasia → lasii BUT asia → *asii
‘glass-PART’ ‘matter’
Instead of viewing hiatus avoidance as being driven from a need to satisfy the constraint ONSET, Anttila’s analysis makes use of markedness constraints prohibiting hiatal ia and ea as well as a root faithfulness constraint FAITHROOT, as follows: 57
(25)
Colloquial Helsinki Finnish vowel assimilation constraints *E.A *I.A FAITHROOT
Avoid /ea, oa, öä/ hiatus. Avoid /ia, ua, yä/ hiatus. No assimilation (faithfulness to roots).
Anttila derives the distinction between -ea and –ia words in terms of their derived versus nonderived environment behavior by interleaving the faithfulness constraint FAITHROOT between the two anti-hiatus markedness constraints, as follows: *E.A >> FAITHROOT >> *I.A. (26)
Vowel assimilation in –ea words in nonderived environments pimeä ‘dark’ /pimeä/
*E.A
) a. pimee b. pimeä (27)
FAITHROOT *
*I.A
*!
Blocking of vowel assimilation in –ia words in nonderived environments asia ‘matter’ /asia/ a. asii
) b. asia
*E.A
FAITHROOT *!
*I.A *
How does vowel assimilation relate to the pattern of stress in words with final vowel hiatus? Note that while word-final -ia sequences in words like fónològia are potential inputs to the process of vowel assimilation, assimilation is blocked in nonderived environments in such words due to high-ranking faithfulness, and assimilation is not available as a hiatus repair strategy. However, we might imagine that if hiatus cannot be avoided at the segmental 58
level in such words due to high-ranking segmental faithfulness, perhaps it can be avoided at the prosodic level. How exactly might this work? As noted above, I claim that words with final hiatal –VV sequences in Finnish have a recursive prosodic word structure, as follows:21
(28)
Prosodic word recursivity in forms with final vowel hiatus [[ministeri]Pwd ö]Pwd The motivation for this structure is the need to avoid word-final
hiatus. Admitting recursive prosodic word structure thus can be seen as a means of hiatus resolution on the prosodic level, akin to segmental means of hiatus resolution like deletion, insertion, glide formation, and assimilation. Since the hiatal iö sequence in (28) is separated by a prosodic word boundary, hiatus thus does not occur finally within the domain of either prosodic word. Prosodically speaking, insertion of a prosodic boundary marker thus serves a
21 Further support for allowing recursivity of prosodic structure comes from a possible alternative analysis of final hiatus avoidance in Finnish as final onsetless syllable extrametricality. Inkelas (1989) views extrametricality as a mismatch between morphological and phonological words, as shown below for the word ministeriö ‘ministry’:
(i) [ministeri]P ö [ministeriö]M The obvious question is what prosodic constituent dominates the prosodic word in order to incorporate the extrametrical syllable ö. Although the current analysis does not make use of extrametricality and instead appeals to hiatus avoidance in order to motivate recursive prosodic structure, the intuition that a prosody/morphology mismatch is at issue is shared by both approaches.
59
similar function to insertion of a consonant in order to satisfy the constraint ONSET. There is a good amount of evidence that recursivity of prosodic structure must be allowed in phonological theory. Earlier work in prosodic structure theory argued in favor of the Strict Layer Hypothesis (Selkirk 1981, 1984; Nespor and Vogel 1986), which holds (among other things) that prosodic structure is nonrecursive, i.e., that each member of the prosodic hierarchy must immediately dominate the next lower member of the hierarchy. Subsequent work has shown, however, that the prohibition against nonrecursivity must be relaxed (Ladd 1986, 1992; Inkelas 1989; McCarthy and Prince 1993ab; Green 2002; Ito and Mester 2003), in order to allow for certain prosodic constituents (including the prosodic word) to be recursive. I follow this line of work by admitting recursive prosodic structure into the theory and assume the following violable constraint, which prohibits recursive prosodic structure: (29)
NONRECURSIVITY No prosodic constituent can dominate a constituent of the same category.
Since hiatus in words like ministeriö ‘ministry’ is repaired via insertion of prosodic structure, I assume that NONRECURSIVITY crucially interacts with a constraint banning word-final hiatus, *FINALHIATUS: 60
(30)
*FINALHIATUS Final vowel hiatus is prohibited within the prosodic word.
The specific reference to the prosodic word in the definition above is crucial. A recursive prosodic word structure in which a hiatal sequence is separated by a prosodic word boundary thus satisfies this constraint, since hiatus is not final at the level of either prosodic word. The fact that secondary stress in words with final vowel hiatus occurs on the antepenult rather than the penult follows from the combined effects of *FINALHIATUS and NONRECURSIVITY and the
independently-needed
constraint
NONFINALITY,
which
prohibits
secondary stress on final syllables. Since NONFINALITY is undominated, and prosodic structure is inserted in order to avoid prosodic word-final hiatus, *FINALHIATUS must dominate NONRECURSIVITY: (31)
Insertion of prosodic structure in order to avoid prosodic word-final hiatus
televisio ‘television’ /televisio/
NONFINALITY
*FINALHIATUS
) a. [[té.le.vì.si.]o] b. [té.le.vi.sì.o]
NONRECURSIVITY *
*!
While both candidates (a) and (b) satisfy NONFINALITY since secondary stress in non-final within each prosodic word, candidate (b) violates *FINALHIATUS by allowing final hiatus within the prosodic word. Since the actual surface candidate, candidate (31)a, avoids final hiatus via insertion of a prosodic word boundary, *FINALHIATUS must dominate NONRECURSIVITY. It is 61
important that NONFINALITY be crucially evaluated at the level of each prosodic word. In candidate (a), secondary stress is prohibited on the final syllable o since it is final in the superordinate prosodic word, while secondary stress is prohibited on the penultimate syllable si since it is final in the lower prosodic word, as shown below: (32)
Evaluation of NONFINALITY in words with final vowel hiatus Stress prohibited due to NONFINALITY ↓ ↓ [[télevìsi]Pwd o]Pwd This understanding of NONFINALITY, as evaluated at the level of the
prosodic word, thus requires a minor modification to the definition proposed earlier: (33)
NONFINALITY (revised definition) The final syllable in the prosodic word is stressless (the final syllable in a prosodic word lacks a level 1 grid mark). The domain of the evaluation of stress (i.e., grid marks) is thus still
limited to the prosodic word in Finnish, but since recursive prosodic structure is allowed, a constraint which assesses the well-formedness of the stress grid like NONFINALITY can be evaluated at multiple levels. As we will see in Chapter 4, there is independent evidence in Finnish for the need for prosodic structure to be recursive, in order to understand the phonological behavior of pseudo-compounds versus standard morphological compounds. 62
It is important to note that vowel hiatus is not avoided across the board in Finnish, it is only prosodic word-final vowel hiatus that appears to be subject to repair by prosodic means. For example, vowel hiatus is allowed in the initial foot of the word when vowels which do not form diphthongs occur adjacent to one another, e.g., dí.a.lò.gi ‘dialogue’, lé.o.pàr.di ‘leopard’, ví.o.lèt.ti ‘violet’. This is of course due to the force of the undominated constraint LEFTMOST, which requires that primary stress always be initial. Any attempt to avoid hiatus prosodically in such cases would result in stress shift, resulting in a fatal violation of LEFTMOST. The claim that antepenult stress results from final hiatus avoidance in Finnish is supported not only by the related hiatus repair evidence above, but also by the stress patterns in four- and six-syllable words with final hiatus. Consider the following four syllable words with final hiatal -VV sequences: (34)
Stress in four-syllable words with final hiatus sín.fo.ni.a pró.so.di.a á.te.ri.a kó.me.di.a kómp.pa.ni.a glók.si.ni.a fán.ta.si.a
‘symphony’ ‘prosody’ ‘meal’ ‘comedy’ ‘company’ ‘gloxinia’ ‘fantasy’
63
The Finnish speakers I consulted felt that the words above have only a single primary stress, and no secondary stress at all, as compared to foursyllable words in which the final syllable has an onset, such as mónopòli ‘monopoly’ and kálentèri ‘calendar’, which have secondary stress on the penult. On an analysis where words with final hiatus have a recursive prosodic word structure, this is exactly what would be expected, since stress would be prohibited on both the final syllable and the penult, due to NONFINALITY:
(35)
No secondary stress in quadrisyllabic words with final hiatus [[sínfoni]Pwd a]Pwd Viewed from the level of the inner prosodic word [sínfoni],
quadrisyllabic words with final vowel hiatus behave exactly like other monomorphemic trisyllabic words, since they have only a single primary stress. On an analysis that includes no reference to final hiatus avoidance, however, such as the standard all-feet-left analysis, the lack of stress on the third syllable in words such as sínfonia ‘symphony’ remains a mystery. Six-syllable monomorphemic words with final hiatus behave in a similar manner, with secondary stress falling on the antepenult, just as it does in the five-syllable forms we saw in (13).
64
(36)
Six-syllable words with secondary stress on the antepenult: X X L L L L ób.ser.va.tò.ri.o lá.bo.ra.tò.ri.o kón.ser.va.tò.ri.o dé.kom.po.sì.ti.o én.syk.lo.pè.di.a dér.ma.to.lò.gi.a gý.ne.ko.lò.gi.a gé.ron.to.lò.gi.a hér.pe.to.lò.gi.a bíb.li.o.grà.fi.a
‘observatory’ ‘laboratory’ ‘conservatory’ ‘decomposition’ ‘encyclopedia’ ‘dermatology’ ‘gynecology’ ‘gerontology’ ‘herpetology’ ‘bibliography’
Again, the stress pattern of these words follows straightforwardly if we assume that such words have a recursive prosodic word structure and hence behave like pentasyllabic words from the level of the inner prosodic word
and
therefore
have
a
right-aligned
secondary
stress
peak:
[[ób.ser.va.tò.ri]o]. Secondary stress is prohibited from occurring on the final syllable o and the penultimate syllable ri due to NONFINALITY, and secondary stress falls on the syllable to due to ALIGN-R, which requires a right-aligned secondary stress peak in the prosodic word, just as it does in a pentasyllabic word like kólesteròli ‘cholesterol’. On the all-feet-left analysis (such as Hanson and Kiparsky 1996 and Elenbaas 1999), however, this stress pattern is clearly problematic, since such an analysis predicts that a six-syllable word should simply be optimally parsed into three binary feet, with secondary stresses on the third and fifth syllables, yielding the unattested ób.ser.và.to.rì.o instead of 65
the actual surface form ób.ser.va.tò.ri.o, which has a single secondary stress on the fourth (antepenultimate) syllable. From a syllable parsing perspective, the six-syllable forms in (36) clearly fare very poorly, since even-parity words would generally be parsed exhaustively into feet, leaving no unfooted syllables. The following tableau illustrates how the lack of secondary stress in a four-syllable word with final vowel hiatus results from the interaction of NONFINALITY, *FINALHIATUS, and NONRECURSIVITY:
(37)
Final hiatus avoidance in four-syllable words
sínfonia ‘symphony’ /sinfonia/
NONFINALITY
*FINALHIATUS
) a. [[sín.fo.ni].a] b. [[sín.fo.nì].a] c. [sín.fo.nì.a] d. [sín.fo.ni.à]
*!
NONRECURSIVITY * *
*! *
*!
Candidates (c) and (d) violate *FINALHIATUS by allowing final hiatus within the prosodic word. Candidates (a) and (b) both avoid word-final hiatus via insertion of prosodic structure, but candidate (b) fatally violates NONFINALITY since secondary stress occurs on the syllable ni, which is final in the lower prosodic word. By having a recursive prosodic word structure and avoiding secondary stress on the final syllable and the penult, candidate (a) satisfies both *FINALHIATUS and NONFINALITY. And since secondary stress on 66
the syllable fo is ruled out due to the clash avoidance constraint NOCLASH, the word surfaces with only a single primary stress. In six-syllable words with final vowel hiatus, alignment also becomes relevant, since there are two potential candidates which avoid final hiatus via recursive prosodic structure while at the same time satisfying NONFINALITY (tied candidates boxed in bold):
(38)
Final vowel hiatus avoidance in six-syllable words
óbservatòrio ‘observatory’ /observatorio/ NONFINALITY
*FINALHIATUS
) a. [[ób.ser.va.tò.ri.]o] ) b. [[ób.ser.và.to.ri.]o] c. [ób.ser.và.to.rì.]o] d. [ób.ser.va.tò.ri.o] e. [ób.ser.và.to.rì.o]
NONRECURSIVITY * *
*!
* *! *!
Six-syllable words with final vowel hiatus thus behave identically to pentasyllabic words from a prosodic standpoint. As in all words of oddparity, ALIGN-R will decide the competition in favor of the right-aligned candidate, although the ranking between NONRECURSIVITY and ALIGN-R cannot be determined, since NONRECURSIVITY is always violated in order to avoid final vowel hiatus:
67
(39)
Right-alignment in six-syllable forms with final vowel hiatus óbservatòrio ‘observatory’ /observatorio/
) a. [[ób.ser.va.tò.ri.]o] b. [[ób.ser.và.to.ri.]o]
ALIGN-R **
NONRECURSIVITY *
***!
*
Note that six-syllable words which do not have a final onsetless syllable surface with secondary stress on the third and fifth syllables as expected, e.g., kínemàtogràfi ‘cinematographer’. In foot-based terms, such words are simply fully parsed into three feet, since final onsetless syllable extrametricality is not at issue. The fully parsed candidate thus satisfies all the constraints: (40)
Full parsing in even-parity words with no final hiatus
kínemàtogràfi ‘cinematographer’ /kinematografi/ NONFINALITY, *FINALHIATUS, NONRECURSIVITY
) a. [kí.ne.mà.to.grà.fi]
ALIGN-R
NOLAPSE
*
b. [kí.ne.ma.tò.gra.fi]
**!
**
As illustrated in the tableau in (40), a candidate that does not have binary, alternating stress such as candidate (b), kínematògrafi, will incur fatal NOLAPSE and ALIGN-R violations. Forms in which there is no reason (such as final hiatus avoidance) to disrupt the default alternating binary stress pattern thus will always be exhaustively parsed into disyllabic feet. The claim that the default pattern of phonological stress in Finnish includes
a
right-aligned
nonfinal secondary 68
stress
peak
and
that
antepenultimate stress occurs in words with final –VV hiatus due to avoidance of final vowel hiatus is also supported by optional stress patterns in Estonian, a Finno-Ugric language closely related to Finnish. The intricacies of the stress system of Estonian have been analyzed in detail by Prince (1980), Kager (1994), and Hayes (1995), based on data from Hint (1973). The basic generalizations of Estonian stress are very similar to Finnish, but with a few complications, namely the presence of three degrees of length in vowels and consonants (compared to two degrees of length in Finnish) and the fact that primary stress can be noninitial in certain loanwords (unlike Finnish, where primary stress falls without exception on the initial syllable, even in loanwords). Otherwise, native Estonian words contain trochaic feet with initial primary stress and secondary stress on odd-numbered syllables (counting from the left), with word-final stress only on final heavies. I focus here on the basic pattern, and abstract away from the analysis of overlong (the third degree of length) and heavy syllables, which can disrupt the basic rhythmic pattern of stress. Hint (1973) reports that on the basic rhythmic pattern of stress in Estonian, odd-parity words with all light syllables have two alternative output forms, as follows:
69
(41)
Basic pattern of Estonian stress a. X X L b. X X L L c. X X L L L
ósava ’skillful-GEN’ ósavàma ’more skillful-GEN’ pímestàvale~pímestavàle ’blinding-ILL’ (cf. pímestav-NOM’, pímestàva-GEN’
Both Kager and Hayes account for the right-aligned pímestavàle case through similar means: via the mechanism of weak local parsing in Hayes’ theory and via the constraint *FtFt in Kager’s analysis, which is the OT reflex of weak local parsing and prohibits adjacent feet. The Estonian pattern looks very similar to the Finnish data, and since the languages are very closely related, a plausible analysis of the variation illustrated in (41)c could be similar to the one proposed here for Finnish, i.e., that the right-aligned variant pímestavàle represents the rhythmic stress pattern with a right-aligned secondary stress peak, and to preview the analysis of output-based stress somewhat, the left-aligned variant pímestàvale results from faithfulness to stress in the related base word, here the genitive pímestàva (for discussion of this phenomenon in Finnish, see section 4.3). If the pattern were the same as in Finnish, one would expect pentasyllabic light-syllabled place names in Estonian to have only one stress pattern, the right-aligned one. Further work on the basic rhythmic stress pattern of Estonian is clearly needed in order to fully answer this question. This preliminary hypothesis, if correct, would further strengthen the analysis of Finnish stress proposed here. 70
An obvious general question to ask is why final vowel hiatus should be avoided. A possible answer is proposed by Gordon (1999), who discusses several cases of onset-sensitive stress. Gordon explains onset sensitivity to stress assignment in terms of auditory perception, as follows. The auditory system reacts to a stimulus most strongly after 1) silence, or 2) a stimulus of lesser intensity. Since vowels have greater intensity than consonants, a vowel receives what Gordon terms a “perceptual boost” when preceded by a consonant, while a vowel lacking a preceding onset consonant receives no such perceptual boost. From a functional perspective then, an onset consonant serves to demarcate the edge of a syllable. Since a final onsetless syllable (which is equivalent to saying the second of two word-final hiatal vowels) is thus not easily perceived as a distinct syllable, it could potentially be skipped over by a listener, rendering a penultimate onsetful syllable final from a perceptual standpoint. The proposal here formalizes this notion in terms of the existence of a prosodic word boundary, which is inserted in order to break up final vowel hiatus. The prosodic word boundary of the inner prosodic word in words with final hiatus would then correlate to the perceived word boundary on the part of the listener. Recapping the discussion in this section, the distribution of penult versus antepenult secondary stress in long monomorphemic words follows 71
from the effects of constraints requiring right-alignment of secondary stress (ALIGN-R), and prohibiting final vowel hiatus (*FINALHIATUS), along with the independently needed constraints that prohibit final stress (NONFINALITY) and minimize sequences of unstressed syllables (NOLAPSE). In the absence of word-final vowel hiatus, odd-parity words contain a right-aligned nonfinal secondary stress peak, resulting in secondary stress on the penultimate syllable. In odd-parity words with final vowel hiatus, secondary stress occurs on the antepenult, since such words behave like even-parity words from a prosodic standpoint. The stress patterns of pentasyllabic and hexasyllabic words with and without final vowel hiatus are shown below: (42)
Secondary stress in forms with and without final vowel hiatus No final hiatus
5-syllable a. kó.les.te.rò.li (ALIGN-R active)
6-syllable b. kí.ne.mà.to.grà.fi
Final hiatus
5-syllable c. té.le.vì.si.o
6-syllable d. ób.ser.va.tò.ri.o. (ALIGN-R active)
In (42), the forms which are situated diagonally from one another have similar stress patterns. Thus, the five syllable kólesteròli ‘cholesterol’, which shows the effects of ALIGN-R and contains a right-aligned secondary stress peak, behaves similarly to the six-syllable óbservatòrio ‘observatory’, since óbservatòrio contains a recursive prosodic word structure, making it behave 72
like a pentasyllabic word when viewed from the level of the lower prosodic word. Similarly, due to final vowel hiatus, the pentasyllabic télevìsio ‘television’ behaves like the even-parity kínemàtogràfi ‘cinematographer’ and hence has regular binary alternating stress since the fifth and final syllable o is located outside the inner prosodic word. The important point here is that words with final hiatal -VV sequences, which previous accounts have used as evidence to argue for leftward alignment of feet, thus cannot represent the rhythmic pattern of stress in Finnish, but instead have stress patterns that result from the presence of a recursive prosodic word and the general prohibition against final stress, NONFINALITY, as evaluated at the level of each prosodic word. The approach taken here thus unifies the seemingly unrelated stress patterns of four-, five-, and six-syllable words with final hiatal -VV sequences and crucially avoids the problem of lexical specification for right-aligned words such as kólesteròli ‘cholesterol’, which would be required on the all-feet-left approach. The ranking of the constraints proposed to capture the pattern of rhythmic stress in Finnish is as follows: (43)
LEFTMOST
NONFINALITY NOCLASH *FINALHIATUS Undominated | \ / | ALIGN-R NOLAPSE NONRECURSIVITY | ALIGN-L 73
Concluding this section, the evidence presented here strongly supports the view that the rhythmic pattern of stress in Finnish has a right-aligned secondary stress peak and that antepenultimate stress occurs in words with final vowel hiatus due to the presence of a recursive prosodic word. With the rhythmic pattern of stress thus established, we need to take a fresh look at weight-sensitive stress in Finnish, since heavy syllables attract stress and thus disrupt the underlying, regular, rhythmic pattern of stress in the language.
74
Chapter 3: Weight-based stress 3.1 The basic pattern Up to this point I have focused on the rhythmic pattern of stress in Finnish where syllable weight is not an issue. In many languages, heavy syllables attract stress, causing disruptions to otherwise binary stress patterns. It has long been noted that heavy syllables attract stress in Finnish also, but only outside the domain of the initial foot. This is due to the undominated ranking of LEFTMOST, which requires that stress always be initial, even at the expense of creating the cross-linguistically bad LH trochee. The lack of quantity sensitivity within the initial foot of the word is illustrated by the forms below, which show the full range of logically possible syllable types in the initial foot, but invariant initial primary stress: (1)
No quantity sensitivity within the domain of the initial foot Disyllabic forms L L L H H H H L
ká.la vá.paa kéi.häs síi.ka
‘fish’ ‘free’ ‘spear’ ‘whitefish’
75
Trisyllabic forms L L L L H L H H L H L L
má.ta.la ká.nii.ni káu.pun.ki úut.te.ra
‘low’ ‘rabbit’ ‘city’ ‘hard-working’
Quadrisyllabic forms L L L L L H L L H H L L H L L L
mó.no.pò.li ká.len.tè.ri ár.tik.kè.li és.pla.nà.di
‘monopoly’ ‘calendar’ ‘article’ ‘esplanade’
Outside the initial foot, heavy syllables attract stress. This can be seen most clearly in odd-parity words, since there is more than one logically possible location for secondary stress. Recall that the rhythmic pattern of stress in Finnish argued for in Chapter 2 has a right-aligned secondary stress peak, so that the predicted location for the “left over” syllable is medial in a pentasyllabic form with all light syllables: (2)
Rhythmic stress in pentasyllabic words: (X X) L (L L) lék.si.ko.grà.fi kó.les.te.rò.li dó.de.ka.èd.ri
’lexicographer’ ‘cholesterol’ ’dodecahedron’
However, if the third syllable is heavy in a five-syllable word, stress shifts to the left, leaving the final syllable unfooted:
76
(3)
Heavy syllables attract stress: (X X) (H L) L á.la.bàs.te.ri hé.li.kòp.te.ri gé.ne.ràat.to.ri sí.mu.làat.to.ri ó.pe.ràat.to.ri pá.li.sàn.te.ri tá.ber.nàak.ke.li pó.ly.ès.te.ri á.lek.sàn.te.ri
’alabaster’ ‘helicopter’ ‘generator’ ‘simulator’ ‘operator’ ‘palisander, jacaranda’ ‘tabernacle’ ‘polyester’ ‘Alexander’
An important point to consider is that in previous work on Finnish stress, the stress pattern of odd-parity words with secondary stress on heavy penults such as kátamaràani ‘catamaran’ was seen as evidence to argue for the stressattracting properties of heavy syllables. On the present analysis, however, a word like kátamaràani receives penult stress via a constraint that has nothing to do with quantity sensitivity, namely ALIGN-R. In such forms, quantity sensitivity is not at work at all, since ALIGN-R is of course completely blind to syllable weight: (4)
Quantity-sensitivity only apparent: ALIGN-R forces right-aligned secondary stress Ĺ L L H L ká.ta.ma.ràa.ni só.si.a.lìs.ti má.te.ma.tìik.ka ím.mu.ni.tèet.ti á.pe.ri.tìi.vi á.ma.nu.èns.si
‘catamaran’ ‘socialist’ ‘mathematics’ ‘immunity’ ‘aperitif’ ‘assistant’ 77
Although the location of secondary stress in such forms may appear to be due to the stress-attracting properties of heavy syllables, this is only apparent. ALIGN-R aligns a secondary stress peak to the right edge of the prosodic word, regardless of syllable weight, in much the same way that primary stress occurs on the initial syllable regardless of the weight of the peninitial syllable. Returning to the present analysis, the attraction of stress to heavy syllables can also be seen in six-syllable forms, where the presence of a heavy syllable forces non-exhaustive parsing and results in two non-contiguous unfooted syllables: (5)
Heavy syllables attract stress: (X X) L (H L) L sýn.te.ti.sàat.to.ri ád.mi.nist.ràat.to.ri ák.ku.mu.làat.to.ri fá.si.li.tàat.to.ri ká.ta.ly.sàat.to.ri kól.la.bo.ràat.to.ri á.po.ca.lỳp.ti.ca
‘synthesizer’ ‘administrator’ ‘battery’ ‘facilitator’ ‘catalyst’ ‘collaborator’ ‘Apocalyptica (name of a Finnish band)’
This effect shows that a constraint like the Weight-to-Stress Principle (WSP), which requires that heavy syllables be stressed, appears to be active in Finnish: (6)
WEIGHT-TO-STRESS PRINCIPLE (WSP) (Prince 1990) Heavy syllables are stressed (If heavy, then stressed). 78
What is particularly interesting about Finnish is that the constraint responsible for heavy syllables being stressed exerts its influence only under certain circumstances, and is crucially dominated by higher-ranking constraints. As noted above, a heavy syllable can occur in a weak position in the initial foot of the word. For example, in kániini ‘rabbit’, the second syllable nii is heavy, yet it remains unstressed, thereby violating the WSP. If the heavy second syllable in kániini were to receive primary stress instead of the initial syllable, a violation of LEFTMOST would occur. Since LEFTMOST is undominated (main stress in Finnish always being initial), this provides evidence that LEFTMOST crucially dominates the WSP, as shown below:22 (7)
LEFTMOST >> WSP kániini ‘rabbit’ /kaniini/
LEFTMOST
) a.
ká.nii.ni b. ka.níi.ni
WSP
* *!
Although the initial foot is quantity-insensitive in Finnish, the WSP is clearly active outside the domain of the initial foot. Recall that monomorphemic forms with all light syllables outside the initial foot like kó.les.te.rò.li ‘cholesterol’ have a right-aligned secondary stress peak. By contrast, in a pentasyllabic word like á.la.bàs.te.ri ’alabaster’, the third syllable is stressed 22
Both candidates in the tableau satisfy the undominated constraints NONFINALITY and NOCLASH.
79
since it is heavy. This shows that the WSP dominates ALIGN-R, the constraint which enforces a right-aligned secondary stress peak: (8)
Quantity sensitivity in pentasyllabic forms: WSP >> ALIGN-R alabasteri ‘alabaster’ /alabasteri/
WSP
ALIGN-R
*!
** *
)a.
á.la.bàs.te.ri b. á.la.bas.tè.ri
In (8), both candidates leave one syllable unfooted (hence violating NOLAPSE); the only difference is in the location of secondary stress. Since the heavy syllable bas is stressed instead of the light syllable te, the WSP must be ranked above ALIGN-R. Six-syllable forms show the same effect: (9)
Quantity sensitivity in six-syllable forms: WSP >> ALIGN-R23 sýntetisàattori ‘synthesizer’ /syntetisaattori/
WSP
) a.
ALIGN-R
**
sýn.te.ti.sàat.to.ri b. sýn.te.tì.saat.tò.ri
*!
*
Note that the winning candidate, candidate (a), violates not only ALIGN-R, but also incurs two violations of NOLAPSE, since it has two sequences of adjacent stressless syllables. NOLAPSE must thus be ranked at least below the WSP, although there is no crucial data to ascertain the relative ranking of NOLAPSE and ALIGN-R.
23
Undominated NOCLASH will rule out the potential candidate sýn.te.ti.sàat.tò.ri.
80
3.2 Adjacent heavies The WSP as formulated above makes only a two-way distinction in syllable weight, light versus heavy. This is based on the standard view in moraic theory (McCawley 1968, Prince 1976, Prince 1983, van der Hulst 1984, Hyman 1985, McCarthy and Prince 1986, Hayes 1989, Ito 1989, Zec 1988) in which each element of the rhyme projects a mora and syllables are maximally bimoraic, or, in exceptional cases, trimoraic. CV syllables are thus monomoraic, while CVC and CVV syllables are bimoraic. However, languages differ as to their treatment of CVC syllables: in some languages CVC syllables pattern with CVV syllables, in others they pattern with CV syllables. To account for this difference, Hayes (1989) proposes the parameter of Weight-by-Position, which assigns moras to vowels obligatorily but to coda consonants optionally, on a language-specific basis. This proposal allows for flexibility in the treatment of CVC syllables, but still allows only a two-way distinction in syllable weight, with CV versus CVC/CVV syllables on the one hand and CV/CVC versus CVV syllables on the other:
81
(10)
(11)
Only vowels project moras Light
Heavy
CV CVC
CVV
Both vowels and consonants project moras Light
Heavy
CV
CVV CVC
In Finnish, evidence from both stress facts and minimal word effects argues for a three-way distinction in syllable weight, with CVV syllables acting heavier than CVC syllables, and CVC syllables heavier than CV syllables. Finnish is not alone in this regard; Gordon (1999) discusses other languages which have more finely articulated scales of syllable weight, with three- and even four-way distinctions in weight. Such languages prove difficult to analyze within traditional moraic theory, since it only allows for a two-way distinction in syllable weight. Some additional mechanism is thus required in order to handle such systems. Before exploring what this mechanism might be, however, let us first examine the evidence for a three-way distinction in syllable weight in Finnish. The first piece of evidence comes from minimal word effects. As discussed in section 1.3.3., words must be minimally (C)VV or (C)VCV in 82
Finnish. (C)VV words thus satisfy the minimal word requirement; (C)VC words do not. This effect is unexplained if CVV and CVC syllables are both treated equally heavy from the perspective of syllable weight. Evidence for a weight distinction between CVV and CVC syllables can also be seen in the placement of secondary stress. In pentasyllabic and longer words containing adjacent CVC and CVV syllables word medially, the CVV syllable is always stressed regardless of the linear order of the two heavy syllables: (12)
Word-medial CVC.CVV sequences: CVV stressed hó.ri.son.tàa.li ín.stru.men.tàa.li dí.ag.nos.tìik.ka24 fólk.lo.ris.tìik.ka jóur.na.lis.tìik.ka nó.vel.lis.tìik.ka ó.no.mas.tìik.ka pé.ris.tal.tìik.ka é.le.men.tàa.ri.nen sák.ra.men.tàa.ri.nen ád.mi.nis.tràat.to.ri
‘horizontal’ ‘instrumental’ ‘diagnostics’ ‘folkloristics’ ’journalism’ ’short story writing’ ‘onomastics’ ’peristalsis’ ‘elementary’ ‘sacramental’ ‘administrator’
24
Forms such as diagnostiikka show quantity sensitivity effects only if the s is syllabified into the coda and not the onset word internally. Normally, VCCV sequences are syllabified VC.CV in Finnish, but the syllabification of loanwords sometimes differs from that of native words in that word-medial complex onsets are allowed.
83
(13)
Word-medial CVV.CVC sequences: CVV stressed á.ka.tèe.mik.ko á.na.lỳy.tik.ko ín.for.màa.tik.ko nú.mis.màa.tik.ko sé.mi.òo.tik.ko ké.li.àa.kik.ko ký.ber.nèe.tik.ko má.te.màa.tik.ko psó.ri.àa.tik.ko skít.so.frèe.nik.ko sýs.te.màa.tik.ko
‘Academy member’ ’analyst’ ‘information specialist’ ’numismatist’ ’semiotician’ ‘celiac disease sufferer’ ‘cyberneticist’ ’mathematician’ ’psoriatic’ ’schizophrenic’ ‘systematist’
(cf. ákatèmia)25 (cf. ánalỳysi) ( cf. ínformàatio) (cf. númismatìikka) (cf. sémiotìikka) (cf. kéliàkia) (cf. kýbernetìikka) (cf. mátematìikka) (cf. psóriàasi) (cf. skítsofrènia) (cf. sýsteemi)
If CVV and CVC syllables both count as heavy in Finnish, we would expect a consistent stress pattern in the forms in (12) and (13). The failure of the WSP, which treats unstressed CVC and CVV syllables equally, can be seen in the tableaux below: (14)
Correct result obtains when CVV occurs after CVC hórisontàali ‘horizontal’ /horisontaali/
)a.
hó.ri.son.tàa.li b. hó.ri.sòn.taa.li
WSP * *
ALIGN-R
* **!
25 The related words are given here to illustrate the fact that the stress pattern of the words in the left-hand column is not derived from these base words, since secondary stress is not necessarily on the same syllable in the pairs of related words.
84
(15)
Incorrect result obtains when CVV occurs before CVC ákatèemikko ‘academic’ /akateemikko/
/ a. á.ka.tee.mìk.ko
WSP *
b. á.ka.tèe.mik.ko
*
ALIGN-R
* **!
When the CVV syllable occurs after the CVC syllable, as in (14), the correct result obtains, but when it occurs before the CVC syllable, the constraint ranking makes the wrong prediction, as illustrated in (1). As the tableaux in both (14) and (15) show, a version of the WSP which treats CVV and CVC syllables as being equal in weight will pass the competition down to the lower-ranked constraint ALIGN-R, which always selects the candidate with a right-aligned secondary stress peak. The right-aligned candidate is thus always predicted to be optimal in cases where the WSP cannot decide the competition. However, as the data in (12) and (13) show, ALIGN-R is not the constraint responsible for the surface stress pattern. Instead, secondary stress always occurs on the CVV syllable in cases where a CVV and CVC syllable are adjacent to one another, suggesting that relative syllable weight is more important than right-alignment in such words. This phenomenon is not limited to pentasyllabic words. In six-syllable forms, CVV syllables also attract stress over adjacent CVC syllables:
85
(16)
Six-syllable forms with adjacent heavies é.le.men.tàa.ri.nen sák.ra.men.tàa.ri.nen ád.mi.nis.tràat.to.ri
‘elementary’ ‘sacramental’ ‘administrator’
With a coarse-grained WSP that treats CVV and CVC syllables equally, the surface candidate is predicted to lose not only due to an ALIGN-R violation, but also due to violations of NOLAPSE: (17)
CVV syllables attract stress in six-syllable forms
élementàarinen ‘elementary’ /elementaarinen/
/
WSP
a. é.le.mèn.taa.rì.nen b. é.le.men.tàa.ri.nen
NOLAPSE
*
ALIGN-R *
*
**!
**
In (17), both candidates violate the WSP, but candidate (b), which is the actual surface form, incurs two violations of NOLAPSE in addition to violating ALIGN-R twice, while the fully-parsed and right-aligned candidate violates ALIGN-R only once, satisfies NOLAPSE, and hence is predicted to be optimal. Clearly, each candidate’s violation of the WSP, one for leaving a CVV syllable unstressed and the other for leaving a CVC syllable unstressed, do not appear to be on an equal footing. Such forms provide evidence that leaving a CVV syllable in a weak position in Finnish is somehow worse than leaving a CVC syllable unstressed. A constraint like the WSP, which makes a simple binary distinction in syllable weight, light versus heavy, seems to be 86
too coarse-grained. We thus need some way of distinguishing between violations of the WSP with respect to CVV versus CVC syllables, such that violations of unstressed CVV syllables are reckoned more seriously than violations of unstressed CVC syllables. As noted above, stress phenomena in other languages besides Finnish argue for three and even four levels of syllable weight. Based on crosslinguistic investigations into weight-sensitive stress, Gordon (1999) proposes the following universal hierarchy of weight for stress (see also Prince 1983; R=sonorant, O=obstruent): (18)
Universal hierarchy of weight for stress 1 ↓
2 ↓
3 ↓
CVV
CVR
CVO
Heaviest
←⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯→
CV Lightest
Most languages have only a single cutoff point in the hierarchy, such that all syllable types to the left of the cutoff are heavy and all those to the right are light. For example, a language in which only long vowels and diphthongs count as heavy would have a cutoff at point 1, while a language which treats only CV syllables as light would have a cutoff at point 3. Since Finnish has a three-way distinction in syllable weight, it simply has two
87
cutoff points instead of one, at points 1 and 3, subdividing the hierarchy into heavy, medium, and light syllables: (19)
Relative syllable weight in Finnish Heavy CVV
Medium CVR
Light
CVO
CV
Given that a richer typology of syllable weight than the binary distinction heavy versus light is empirically necessary, it is clear that the WSP is simply a stand-in for a family of scalar constraints regulating weight-based syllable prominence. Following a proposal made by de Lacy (2002) for expressing such scalar markedness constraints, we might imagine that the WSP can be split into a family of syllable weight markedness constraints, militating against stressless syllables of various types:26 (20)
The WSP decomposed *{CVV} CVV syllables are stressed (i.e., no unstressed CVV syllables). *{CVV, CVR} CVV and CVR syllables are stressed.
26
For a similar case of CVV syllables being stressed over CVC syllables in Kashmiri, Moren (2000) motivates an analysis in which the WSP dominates WEIGHT-BY-POSITION, which requires coda consonants to be moraic. This analysis successfully allows for a three-way distinction in syllable weight, but cannot be extended to more fine-grained distinctions in syllable weight, such as those discussed in Gordon (1999).
88
*{CVV , CVR, CVO} CVV, CVR, and CVO syllables are stressed. *{CVV, CVR, CVO, CV} CVV, CVR, CVO, and CV syllables are stressed. An important aspect of de Lacy’s proposal is that such scale-referring markedness constraints are always inclusive: the constraint that encodes the most marked configuration, *CVV, is included in every other constraint. As a consequence of this assumption, such scale-referring constraints are freely permutable in the constraint hierarchy. Since Finnish makes no distinction between coda sonorants and obstruents with respect to stress, the two constraints *{CVV, CVR} and *{CVV, CVR, CVO} can be conflated and will be replaced by the constraint *{CVV, CVC} in the analysis presented here. Splitting up the WSP in this way and ranking *{CVV} over *{CVV, CVC} yields the correct results in the six-syllable élementàarinen ‘elementary’: (21)
*{CVV} >> NOLAPSE, ALIGN-R /elementaarinen/ a. é.le.mèn.taa.rì.nen
*{CVV}
*{CVV, CVC}
*!
**
) b. é.le.men.tàa.ri.nen
**
89
NOLAPSE
ALIGN-R *
**
**
In (21), *{CVV} must be ranked at least above NOLAPSE or ALIGN-R, since both candidates violate *{CVV, CVC} equally. Note that this ranking successfully accounts for the pentasyllabic hórisontàali ‘horizontal’ and ákatèemikko ‘academic’ cases as well: (22)
Attraction of CVV over CVC syllables in pentasyllabic words /horisontaali/
*{CVV}
) a. hó.ri.son.tàa.li b. hó.ri.sòn.taa.li (23)
*!
*{CVV, CVC}
NOLAPSE
ALIGN-R
*
*
*
*
*
**
Attraction of CVV over CVC syllables in pentasyllabic words /akateemikko/
*{CVV}
) a. á.ka.tèe.mik.ko b. á.ka.tee.mìk.ko
*!
*{CVV, CVC}
NOLAPSE
ALIGN-R
*
*
**
*
*
*
In (23), the attraction of stress to the CVV syllable shows that *{CVV} must be ranked over ALIGN-R. An important additional case to consider is when heavy syllables of identical weight occur adjacent to one another. Forms with adjacent word-medial CVV syllables do not seem to exist in Finnish, but forms with adjacent CVC syllables exist. Again, pentasyllabic words of the shape X X H H L are crucial here, since the location of the unfooted syllable in odd-parity words indicates directionality effects. There 90
are two potential outcomes in such pentasyllabic words: (X X) (H H) L or (X X) H (H L). Since both outputs violate the constraint *{CVV, CVC} equally by leaving a single CVC syllable unstressed, a lower-ranked constraint will favor one candidate over the other. This is an important point, since different analyses make different predictions in such cases. The prediction made by the analysis proposed here is that ALIGN-R is active in such cases and will choose the candidate with the medial unfooted syllable. By contrast, the traditional analysis of Finnish stress (such as Elenbaas 1999 and Kiparsky 2003) makes a different prediction. Since ALIGN-R is relevant only for words with case endings and possessive suffixes on the traditional analysis, ALL-FT-L will select the candidate with all feet aligned to the left of the word, leaving the unfooted syllable in final position. Note that *{CVV} is not relevant in such cases, since no CVV syllables are involved. The predictions of the two analyses using schematic candidates are illustrated below: (24)
Traditional analysis: ALL-FT-L decides the competition in cases with adjacent heavies /X X H H L/
) a. (X X) (H H) L b. (X X) H (H L)
*{CVV, CVC} *
NOLAPSE
*
*
91
ALL-FT-L
* *!
(25)
Current analysis: ALIGN-R decides the competition in cases with adjacent heavies NOLAPSE
ALIGN-R
a. (X X) (H H) L
*{CVV, CVC} *
*
**!
) b. (X X) H (H L)
*
*
*
/X X H H L/
As (24) and (25) show, both candidates fare equally with respect to *{CVV, CVC} and NOLAPSE, and a lower-ranked alignment constraint (either ALL-FT-L or ALIGN-R) will select the optimal candidate. The empirical evidence from Finnish suggests that the right-aligned candidate is indeed the surface pattern in cases with adjacent CVC syllables: (26)
Adjacent heavies of identical weight: X X H H L kón.so.nan.tìs.mi óbs.ku.ran.tìs.mi bó.na.par.tìs.mi ló.go.sent.rìs.mi ét.no.sent.rìs.mi á.na.bap.tìs.mi
‘consonantism’ ‘obscurantism’ ‘Bonapartism’ ‘logocentrism’ ‘ethnocentrism’ ‘Anabaptism’
This set of data thus shows that the right-aligned analysis proposed here makes the correct prediction in cases with adjacent heavies. The emergent effect of ALIGN-R in such cases can be seen in the tableau below:
92
(27)
Emergent effects of ALIGN-R in cases with adjacent heavies of identical weight /konsonantismi/ a. kón.so.nàn.tis.mi
) b. kón.so.nan.tìs.mi
*{CVV, CVC} *
NOLAPSE
ALIGN-R
*
**!
*
*
*
In (27), both candidates violate *{CVV, CVC} equally by leaving a CVC syllable unstressed and also violate NOLAPSE equally by leaving a sequence of two stressless syllables. The relatively low-ranked ALIGN-R thus decides the competition in favor of the candidate with the right-aligned (but not final) secondary stress peak. The emergence of quantity-sensitivity outside the domain of the initial foot can thus be characterized by the following schema (WSP serving here as a stand-in for the decomposed syllable weight constraints proposed above): (28)
Quantity-sensitivity only emerges word internally LEFTMOST | Å Heavy syllables allowed in weak positions in initial foot WSP | Å Heavy syllables stressed word-internally ALIGN-R Å Right-aligned secondary stress with adjacent heavies
The ranking above crucially accounts for the presence of the otherwise illicit (Ĺ H) trochees in word-initial position, and at the same time the absence of them word-internally, beyond the purview of undominated LEFTMOST. The 93
analysis proposed here also makes the prediction that in cases with adjacent heavy syllables, secondary stress will occur on the second of the two syllables due to the effects of ALIGN-R, a prediction borne out by the data.
3.3 Final heavies Thus far we have considered quantity sensitivity only word internally. In word-final position, heavy syllables also attract stress, but only optionally (Hanson and Kiparsky 1996, Elenbaas 1999):27
(29)
ó.me.na ká.ne.li má.ta.la á.te.rì.a rá.vin.tò.la té.le.vì.si.o
‘apple’ ‘cinnamon’ ‘low’ ‘meal’ ‘restaurant’ ‘television’
ó.me.nàt ~ ó.me.nat ká.ne.lìn ~ ká.ne.lin má.ta.làa ~ má.ta.laa á.te.ri.àt ~ á.te.rì.at rá.vin.to.làt ~ rá.vin.tò.lat té.le.vì.si.òt ~ té.le.vì.si.ot
‘apples’ ‘cinnamon-GEN’ ‘low-PART’ ‘meals’ ‘restaurants’ ‘televisions’
In the discussion of rhythmic stress in Chapter 2, we saw that the lack of final secondary stress in an odd-parity word like ó.me.na ‘apple’ follows from highranking NONFINALITY, a constraint which is undominated in light-syllabled words. NONFINALITY interacts with the constraint NOLAPSE, which puts a check on sequences of unstressed syllables:
27
For a more detailed account of variation, see Karvonen (1996) and Elenbaas (1999).
94
(30)
NONFINALITY >> NOLAPSE ó.me.na ‘apple’ /omena/
NONFINALITY
NOLAPSE *
) a. ó.me.na b. ó.me.nà
*!
When the nominative plural ending –t is attached to the light-syllabled omena ‘apple’, stress on the resulting final heavy syllable is optional. This can be shown to follow straightforwardly from ranking the WSP (used as a cover term
here
for
the
decomposed
weight-sensitive
constraints)
over
NONFINALITY: (31)
Stress on final heavies in odd-parity words ó.me.nàt ‘apple’ /omenat/ a. ó.me.nat
WSP *!
NONFINALITY
) b. ó.me.nàt
*
Since stressing of final heavies is optional, the constraints WSP and NONFINALITY must be allowed to be freely ranked, which is the OT counterpart of optional rule application. This means that the rankings WSP >> NONFINALITY and NONFINALITY >> WSP are both operative: (32)
Lack of stress on final heavies in odd-parity words ó.me.nat ‘apple’ /omenat/
NONFINALITY
) a. ó.me.nat b. ó.me.nàt
*! 95
WSP *
In (32), the winning candidate (a) also violates NOLAPSE, which, as we saw in the discussion of light-syllabled words, must be dominated by NONFINALITY. Turning to even-parity words, we can see that the same solution straightforwardly accounts for optional stress on final heavies: (33)
Lack of stress on final heavies in even-parity words rávintòlat ‘restaurants’ /ravintolat/ NONFINALITY a. rá.vin.to.làt *!
) b. rá.vin.tò.lat (34)
WSP *
Stress on final heavies in even-parity words rávintolàt ‘restaurants’ /ravintolat/
WSP
) a. rá.vin.to.làt b. rá.vin.tò.lat
NONFINALITY *
*!
In (34), the winning candidate again violates NOLAPSE, since it leaves a sequence of two syllables unstressed. Another case in which a heavy syllable is not stressed, in violation of the weight-based constraint WSP, is when two heavy syllables are adjacent to one another. The existence of HH trochees in Finnish in words such as téu.ras.tà.mo ‘slaughterhouse’ is an example of this. If the weight-based constraints were to be fully obeyed at all times, adjacent stressed heavy
96
syllables would result. However, this would violate the undominated constraint NOCLASH, which prohibits adjacent stresses: (35)
NO CLASH >> WSP téurastàmo ‘slaughterhouse’ /teurastamo/ NO CLASH
) a. téu.ras.tà.mo b. téu.ràs.ta.mo
WSP
* *!
In the tableau in (35), candidate (b) satisfies WSP, since the heavy syllables teu and ras both receive stress. However, it violates NOCLASH, since these heavy syllables are adjacent. Candidate (a) avoids clash, but in doing so violates the WSP. Since candidate (a) is the actual output form, NOCLASH dominates WSP. The final ranking of the constraints is as follows (WSP is used here as an abbreviation for the weight-based constraints):28 (36)
NONFINALITY NOCLASH *FINALHIATUS Undominated LEFTMOST | / \ / | WSP / NOLAPSE NONRECURSIVITY | / ALIGN-R | ALIGN-L
28 The variable ranking between the weight-based constraints (WSP) and NONFINALITY is not shown in this diagram. Also, the ranking NOCLASH >> WSP is not represented in this diagram.
97
As (36) shows, the weight-based constraints, which require that heavy syllables be stressed, is often not satisfied on the surface in Finnish, making the language appear to be only partially quantity-sensitive with regard to stress. However, when the four undominated constraints do not conflict with the weight-based constraints, their effects are visible on the surface, resulting in an avoidance of LH trochees word-internally and optional stressed final heavy syllables.
98
Chapter 4: Morphological stress The analysis of Finnish stress developed thus far has focused solely on monomorphemic words, in order to control for any potential morphological influence on stress. In Chapter 2, the underlying rhythmic pattern of secondary stress in monomorphemic words was established, and in Chapter 3, an analysis of the influence of syllable weight on the underlying rhythmic stress pattern in Finnish was developed. With the analyses of rhythmic and weight-sensitive stress as a foundation, the present chapter examines the influence of morphology, and to a lesser extent, the stress pattern of related base words, on secondary stress placement. Section 4.1 examines the evidence for the claim made in previous work on Finnish stress that the rightward stress shift seen in words with inflectional suffixes such as case endings and possessive suffixes is morphologically driven. I show that the influence of morphology in such forms is only apparent, and crucially rests on the flawed assumption that all feet are aligned to the left in the rhythmic pattern of stress. On the present analysis, no appeal to morphology is necessary for such forms, since they simply exemplify the default rhythmic pattern of stress which has a rightaligned nonfinal secondary stress peak. I first review some previous analyses, 99
which argue for a morphological explanation for rightward stress shift in such forms, and demonstrate the advantages of the current approach. Next, in section 4.2, I review some of the claims made in the literature that certain derivational suffixes, like inflectional suffixes, are also stress-attracting. I show that again, no reference to morphology is necessary on the present analysis, since the stress pattern in such forms follows straightforwardly from a rhythmic stress pattern with a right-aligned nonfinal secondary stress peak. In section 4.3, I argue that an optional, less favored left-aligned stress pattern that occurs in words with inflectional suffixes follows from faithfulness to the location of secondary stress in the unsuffixed base word, which is handled via an Output-Output Correspondence (Benua 1997) approach. In section 4.4, the stress pattern of compound words is investigated. In Finnish, as in many languages, compounds differ from morphologically simplex words in that each member of the compound consists of a separate prosodic word. Finnish also has a group of words I term “pseudocompounds”, words which are morphologically simplex but behave phonologically as compounds. To capture the three-way distinction among compound words, simplex words, and pseudo-compound words, a model of articulated prosodic structure distinguishing the three kinds of words will be proposed. 100
4.1 Inflectional suffixes and stress The claim that certain inflectional suffixes, most notably case endings and possessive suffixes, appear to attract secondary stress to the syllable preceding them was first systematically investigated in Carlson (1978), although the influence of morphology on secondary stress placement was mentioned even earlier in Sadeniemi (1949). The data below illustrate the phenomenon in question: (1)
Apparent rightward stress shift in suffixed forms: X X L L L a. ó.pet.ta.jà.si b. ká.le.va.là.na c. rá.vin.to.là.ni d. ár.tik.ke.lì.ni
‘teacher-PX.2SG’ (cf. NOM-SG, ó.pet.tà.ja) ‘Kalevala-ESS’ (cf. NOM-SG, ká.le.và.la) ‘restaurant-PX.1SG’ (cf. NOM-SG, rá.vin.tò.la) ‘article-PX.2SG’ (cf. NOM-SG, ár.tik.kè.li)
Comparing the stress patterns of the base words (in parentheses) to the suffixed forms in (1), it appears that secondary stress shifts rightward when a suffix is added. This observation crucially assumes, as the traditional analysis does, that in the rhythmic pattern of stress, all feet are aligned to the left edge of the prosodic word. On such an analysis, it is clear that syllable weight cannot be responsible for the stress shift, since the syllable receiving secondary stress is light. The all-feet-left approach thus requires some other mechanism to explain this rightward stress shift. Previous analyses (such as Carlson 1978, Kiparsky and Hanson 1996, and Elenbaas 1999) all appeal to 101
morphological solutions to explain this stress shift, solutions which will be discussed in further detail below. On the analysis of rhythmic stress developed in this dissertation, however, the influence of morphology on stress in the forms in (1) is only apparent. The rightward stress shift seen in odd-parity words with inflectional suffixes simply represents the basic rhythmic pattern of stress in monomorphemic words described and analyzed in Chapter 2. As demonstrated
there,
secondary
stress
in
light-syllabled
odd-parity
monomorphemic words always occurs as close as possible to the right edge of the prosodic word without being final, leaving a word-internal lapse of two unstressed syllables, as exemplified by a pentasyllabic word such as kólesteròli ‘cholesterol’. The suffixed forms in (1), although polymorphemic, thus simply illustrate the underlying rhythmic pattern of stress, rendering any reference to morphology unnecessary. The reason previous analyses argue for a morphological explanation for the stress pattern seen in suffixed forms is due to at least two factors. The first is the erroneous assumption that all feet are left aligned in monomorphemic light-syllabled forms, an assumption which results from an incomplete investigation of the rhythmic pattern of monomorphemic words in Finnish. As discussed in Chapter 2, the assumption that all feet are left 102
aligned is based on the stress patterns of a handful of words, all of which have final vowel hiatus, e.g., érgonòmia ‘ergonomics’. The current study, which contains a more complete investigation into the stress pattern of stress of monomorphemic words, reveals that the underlying rhythmic stress pattern of monomorphemic words has a right-aligned nonfinal secondary stress
peak,
as
in
the
pentasyllabic
kólesteròli
‘cholesterol’,
and
antepenultimate stress in final hiatal forms like érgonòmia is due to a different mechanism. Given that the current analysis differs in such a fundamental way from previous analyses of Finnish stress, all of which propose a morphological explanation for stress in odd-parity suffixed forms, it is important to first review these analyses in some detail to show why they are no longer tenable in light of both the new stress data and the resultant analysis of rhythmic stress developed in Chapter 2. As noted above, Carlson (1978) is the first to offer an explanation for why case endings and possessive suffixes seem to attract stress to the syllable preceding them. Again, Carlson’s analysis is based on the assumption that all feet are left aligned in monomorphemic light-syllabled forms. Given this assumption, it is unexpected that stress moves rightward in suffixed forms of odd parity, since syllable weight cannot be responsible for the stress shift. The following example illustrates the phenomenon. In a four-syllable word whose 103
third and fourth syllables are light, such as opettaja ‘teacher’, the normal stress pattern when unsuffixed is ó.pet.tà.ja. However, when a case ending or possessive suffix is added, the fourth syllable receives stress, leaving a sequence of two unstressed syllables word internally: (2)
Rightward stress shift in suffixed forms regardless of syllable weight a. ó.pet.ta.jà.k.si teacher-TRANSL’ ó.pet.ta.jà.m.me b. ó.pet.ta.jà.na ‘teacher-ESS’ ó.pet.ta.jà.ni
‘our teacher’ ‘my teacher’
Carlson notes that both the translative ending -ksi and first person plural possessive suffix -mme in (2)a are of the shape –CCV and hence serve to close the penultimate syllable, making it heavy. Therefore, under the standard all-feet-left approach, the rightward stress shift in such forms is simply due to the preference for heavy syllables to be stressed over light ones. In the examples in (2)b, however, the essive and first person singular possessive suffixes are both –CV and therefore do not close the preceding syllable, even though the penultimate light syllable receives secondary stress. Clearly, there is no straightforward phonological explanation for the stress pattern of these forms. An all-feet-left approach would predict secondary stress on the third syllable in the forms with light suffixes, not the fourth, as in the monomorphemic five-syllable word ér.go.nò.mi.a ‘ergonomics’ (although the current analysis of course offers a different explanation for stress in such forms). 104
Carlson suggests that the apparent stress-attracting property of light -CV suffixes is a result of paradigmatic analogy to the heavy syllable creating -CCV suffixes. Since the majority of the case endings and possessive suffixes are of the shape -CCV, and since only a few are -CV, Carlson suggests that the –CV suffixes simply act like the -CCV suffixes by paradigmatic analogy to them, i.e., they act as if they are –CCV and hence close the preceding syllable. The chart below shows the distribution of “heavy” versus “light” case endings and possessive suffixes (light –CV suffixes boxed for clarity): (3)
Case endings and possessive suffixes Case endings29 -ta/-a -na -ksi -sta -ssa -Vn -lta -lla -lle -tta
PARTITIVE ESSIVE TRANSLATIVE ELATIVE INESSIVE ILLATIVE
Possessive suffixes -ni -si -nsa -mme -tte -nsa
1SG. 2SG. 3SG. 1PL. 2PL. 3PL.
ABLATIVE ADESSIVE ALLATIVE ABESSIVE
29
Finnish actually has five other cases in addition to the ones listed above: nominative, accusative, genitive, comitative, and instructive. The nominative has no ending of its own, and the genitive ending –n, the accusative endings –n and –t, and the instructive ending -n each consist of a single consonant only and thus do not add an extra syllable, so no stress shift occurs when they are added to a stem. The comitative ending –ine- not only adds an additional syllable, it must also be followed by a possessive suffix. Since it is a fairly rare case in Finnish, Carlson presumably does not discuss it and therefore it has been left out of the table above.
105
Carlson’s conception of paradigmatic analogy is thus not analogy across exponents of the same word, but rather across morphemes of the same class, namely, case endings and possessive suffixes in the case at hand. Carlson does not implement the analysis formally, but the intuition is clear, and one can see how this might be formalized given recent work in paradigmatic analogy, although no such analysis will be attempted here. Another way to view this is by analogy across all suffixed forms of the same word. What is similar about all of the forms in (2) is that all have secondary stress on the same syllable. Another suggestion, put forth in Kiparsky and Hanson (1996), is that the Finnish case endings and possessive suffixes are “preaccenting”, i.e., they do not receive stress directly but instead attract stress to the syllable preceding them. Although Hanson and Kiparsky do not formalize this idea, one can imagine how this might be implemented in a constraint-based theory: one could either simply posit a constraint requiring case endings and possessive suffixes to be preceded by a syllable with secondary stress, or derive the preaccenting quality of suffixes via constraint interaction. Since final stress in Finnish is already prohibited by NONFINALITY, perhaps it interacts with a constraint requiring stress on case endings and possessive suffixes. A good candidate is MORPHEME-TO-STRESS, a constraint proposed in 106
Fitzgerald (1997) to account for stress in polymorphemic words in the Native American language Tohono O’odham. Fitzgerald’s definition of MORPHEMETO-STRESS
resembles that of the WEIGHT-TO-STRESS principle (WSP); whereas
the WSP is defined as “if heavy, then stressed”, MORPHEME-TO-STRESS is defined as “for every morpheme, there exists some stressed syllable within its domain”. Although this constraint works in Tohono O’odham, it fails to do the trick in Finnish due to its categorical nature — either stress falls within the domain of the morpheme or it does not. Stress on the syllable preceding the morpheme would therefore satisfy the constraint no better than stress anywhere else in the word. The problem is illustrated in the tableau below, where ranking NONFINALITY over MORPHEME-TO-STRESS ensures that a secondary stress peak not occur word finally. However, since the essive morpheme –na can never be stressed since it is final, secondary stress on any other syllable violates the constraint equally: (4)
NONFINALITY >> MORPHEME-TO-STRESS ateriana ‘meal-ESS’ /ateria + na/ a. á.te.ri.a.nà
NONFINALITY
MORPHEME-TO-STRESS
*!
) b. á.te.ri.à.na ) c. á.te.rì.a.na
* *
107
Elenbaas (1999), building on the insights of both Carlson (1978) and Hanson and Kiparsky (1996), proposes a formal Optimality-theoretic analysis of the apparent stress-attracting behavior of case endings and possessive suffixes using Alignment Theory. Instead of using a categorical constraint such as MORPHEME-TO-STRESS,
Elenbaas
proposes
the
alignment
constraint,
ALIGN-RSFX, which aligns a foot to the right of the prosodic word, building in the specific reference to morphology (here case endings and possessive suffixes) into the definition of the constraint. Elenbaas’ definition is given below: (5)
Morphologically-driven alignment in suffixed words ALIGN-RSFX:
ALIGN-R (PRWDSFX, R, FT, R). Align the right edge of the prosodic word with the right edge of a foot, for a case or possessive suffix.
This constraint requires that the right edges of words containing case endings or possessive suffixes be aligned with the right edge of a foot. The alignment constraint thus keeps stress as close as possible to the case endings and possessive suffixes without being final. By crucially ranking ALIGN-RSFX over ALL-FT-L, Elenbaas accounts for the apparent preaccenting nature of these suffixes:
108
(6)
ALIGN-RSFX >> ALL-FT-L ateriana ‘meal-ESS’ /ateria + na/
ALIGN-RSFX
) a. (á.te.)ri.(à.na) b. (á.te.)(rì.a.)na
ALL-FT-L
**** *!
**
As Elenbaas notes, this approach differs from Carlson’s since it does not refer to paradigmatic analogy, but instead is rooted in Hanson and Kiparsky’s notion of preaccentuation, since a right-aligned foot will always result in a final –CV suffix being preaccented. Although the ALIGN-RSFX constraint is analytically successful, one might question its explanatory value. Why should a foot be aligned with the right edge of a word only when a case ending or possessive suffix is added? Why specifically should these endings cause rightward stress shift? Another potential criticism of this constraint is its universality – it appears to be fairly language-specific. A less language-specific approach couched in alignment theory would be to propose a general alignment constraint aligning edges of morphemes and feet. The relevant constraint here might be ALIGN-L (Morpheme, Foot): (7)
ALIGN-L (Morpheme, Foot) The left edge of every morpheme coincides with the left edge of some foot.
109
Such an analysis does away with the specific reference to morphology required by the ALIGN-RSFX constraint and can be argued to have a functional explanation, i.e., that by aligning the left edge of a morpheme to the left edge of a foot, the morpheme becomes prosodically more prominent. In Finnish, this constraint would never be fully satisfied on the surface with case endings and possessive suffixes, since satisfaction of this constraint would only be possible if the final syllable is stressed, and, as we have seen, final stress is ruled out independently via high-ranked NONFINALITY: (8)
NONFINALITY >> ALIGN-L ateriana ‘meal-ESS’ /ateria + na/ NONFINALITY ALIGN-L (Morpheme, Foot) a. (á.te.)ri.a.(nà) *! *
) b. (á.te.)ri.(à.na) c. (á.te.)(rì.a.)na
*!*
Although ALIGN-L would never be satisfied on the surface due to higher-ranked NONFINALITY, the gradient nature of alignment constraints ensures that the left edge of the foot not fall too far to the left in such forms, thus resulting in penultimate stress, the correct surface stress pattern in suffixed words. The biggest problem shared by the paradigmatic analogy and alignment approaches sketched above is that they rest on the assumption that 110
the default rhythmic pattern of stress has all feet aligned to the left edge of the prosodic word. On the all-feet-left approach, the stress pattern of pentasyllabic monomorphemic words such as kólesteròli ‘cholesterol’ is unexpected, and presumably can only be accounted for via lexical specification. Another potential problem faced by these approaches is a specific reference to morphology, in the case of Elenbaas’ constraint ALIGN-RSFX, even reference to specific types of morphemes such as case endings and possessive suffixes.
While
there
is
nothing
inherently
objectionable
about
morphologically-driven stress, a phonological explanation should be preferred over a morphological one, all else being equal. The more serious of these two problems is obviously the existence of numerous monomorphemic words such as kólesteròli ‘cholesterol’ with penultimate stress instead of the expected antepenultimate stress. Given these considerations, it is clear that the viability of the standard all-feet-left analysis of Finnish stress is to be seriously questioned and that the right-edge-aligned analysis presented here has significant advantages over the all-feet-left approach.
111
4.2 Derivational suffixes and stress In this section, a claim about the stress pattern of words with derivational suffixes is suggested, which requires no reference to morphology. In earlier accounts of Finnish stress (Sadeniemi 1949, Carlson 1978) it was suggested that certain derivational suffixes, in addition to inflectional suffixes such as case endings and possessive suffixes discussed in section 4.1 above, have an impact on secondary stress placement. These suffixes include the deverbal adjectival suffix –maton and the gerundive -minen. Again, the evidence comes from the stress pattern in pentasyllabic forms, where secondary stress occurs on the penult: (9)
Apparent rightward stress shift with derivational suffixes ká.las.ta.mì.nen (cf. kalastaa ‘to fish’) pú.he.le.mì.nen (cf. puhella ‘to talk to’) ú.noh.ta.mà.ton (cf. unohtaa ‘to forget’) tót.te.le.mà.ton (cf. totella ‘to obey’)
‘fishing’ ’talking’ ‘unforgettable’ ‘disobedient’
Assuming an all-feet-left analysis, the stress pattern in these words is unexpected. Carlson again appeals to paradigmatic analogy to explain the phenomenon. For the gerundive –minen forms, he appeals to the fact that although the syllable mi is light in the nominative, in the partitive form of the word the syllable is heavy and thus stress-attracting, e.g., nominative kalastaminen versus partitive kalastamista. Similarly, Carlson explains stress on 112
the light –ma in –maton by analogy to the genitive form of the suffix – mattoman, where the syllable is heavy. Although these paradigmatic explanations are plausible, a preliminary claim pending further investigation into the stress patterns of such forms is that the stress pattern in these words simply follows straightforwardly from the effects of ALIGN-R on the current approach, rendering any reference to morphological constituency necessary. If correct, this lends further support to the view that secondary stress is less affected by morphological structure than previously thought.
4.3 Output-based stress In the previous sections it was argued that the purported influence of inflectional and derivational suffixes on secondary stress placement in Finnish is epiphenomenal, and is due to erroneous conclusions about the rhythmic pattern of stress, in particular the claim that all feet are left-aligned in the basic pattern. On the current approach, the right-aligned stress pattern in words with inflectional and derivational suffixes follows straightforwardly from the basic, underlying, rhythmic pattern of stress in the language, which includes a right-aligned nonfinal secondary stress peak.
113
In words with inflectional suffixes, such as case endings and possessive suffixes, an additional, optional, left-aligned stress pattern has been reported in the literature in addition to the right-aligned pattern analyzed above. Both stress patterns are shown below:
(10)
Optional stress patterns in odd-parity suffixed forms Right-aligned (X X L L L) ó.pet.ta.jà.si á.te.ri.à.na rá.vin.to.là.ni ót.ta.mi.à.ni
Left-aligned (X X L L L) ó.pet.tà.ja.si ‘teacher-PX.2SG’ á.te.rì.a.na ‘meal-ESS’ rá.vin.tò.la.ni ‘restaurant-PX.1SG’ ót.ta.mì.a.ni ‘take-INF-PL-PAR-PX.1SG’
Although both stress patterns are possible, speakers tend to express a preference for the right-aligned pattern. On the standard all-feet-left approach, the left-aligned pattern in (10) represents the default rhythmic pattern of stress, while the right-aligned pattern has a morphological explanation behind it, namely, that inflectional endings are stress-attracting. On the present analysis, however, the right-aligned pattern (which was considered the morphological pattern on the standard all-feet-left approach) is the rhythmic pattern, leaving open the explanation of the location of secondary stress in the left-aligned forms:
114
(11)
Present analysis of variation in suffixed forms Rhythmic ó.pet.ta.jà.si á.te.ri.à.na rá.vin.to.là.ni ót.ta.mi.à.ni
? ó.pet.tà.ja.si á.te.rì.a.na rá.vin.tò.la.ni ót.ta.mì.a.ni
‘teacher-PX.2SG’ ‘meal-ESS’ ‘restaurant-PX.1SG’ ‘take-INF-PL-PAR-PX.1SG’
The left-aligned stress pattern thus requires some additional type of explanation on the current approach. The idea to be proposed here is that the expected rightward alignment of stress due to ALIGN-R is optionally blocked due to faithfulness to the secondary stress peak in the base form of each suffixed word. The base form of the word is the unmarked nominative form, as shown below for each of the suffixed words in (11) (syllables with secondary stress shaded for clarity): (12)
Optional faithfulness to stress in the base Base ó.pet.tà.ja á.te.rì.a rá.vin.tò.la ót.ta.mì.a
‘teacher’ ‘meal’ ‘restaurant’ ‘take-INF-PL-PAR’
Inflected form ó.pet.tà.ja.si ‘teacher-PX.2SG’ á.te.rì.a.na ‘meal-ESS’ rá.vin.tò.la.ni ‘restaurant-PX.1SG’ ót.ta.mì.a.ni ‘take-INF-PL-PAR-PX.1SG’
Since the base word of each of the words above is quadrisyllabic and has stress on the third syllable, the left-aligned stress pattern shown here with third-syllable stress can be ascribed to faithfulness to the secondary stress peak of the base form. This left-aligned pattern appears to be an emergent pattern, due to the preference of speakers for the right-aligned forms. This 115
type of faithfulness is not the usual kind of input/output faithfulness, but instead involves identity between morphologically related output forms, a kind of paradigm uniformity effect. In OT, the main proposals for capturing paradigm uniformity effects involve correspondence constraints requiring identity between related output forms (Benua 1995, 1997; McCarthy and Prince 1995; Burzio 1996; Kenstowicz 1996; among others), a subtheory termed Output-Output (OO) Correspondence Theory. OO-correspondence constraints were originally proposed to handle reduplication effects that could only be ascribed to phonological identity between the base word and the reduplicant. Subsequent work has extended the proposal to handle other cases of phonological identity such as morphological truncation, stem-based affixation, and cases of prosodic faithfulness that are purely output-oriented. The constraint to be used here, following work by Benua (1997) and Alderete (1999), is OO-PROS-FAITH, which requires morphologically related output forms to be identical in terms of prominence, i.e., identical in terms of grid structure: (13)
OO-PROS-FAITH Given two strings S1 and S2 that stand in correspondence, prominences in S1 must be identical to those in S2 (S1 and S2 must be identical in terms of grid structure). In words which exhibit variable stress patterns, like the suffixed forms
above, the constraint OO-PROS-FAITH must be freely ranked with respect to 116
the constraint responsible for right alignment of secondary stress, ALIGN-R. Ranking OO-PROS-FAITH above ALIGN-R yields the left-aligned pattern: (14)
Faithfulness to secondary stress in the base: OO-PROS-FAITH >> ALIGN-R opettajana ‘teacher-ESS’ Input: /opettaja + na/ Base: [ópettàja]
OO-PROS-FAITH
ALIGN-R
)a. ópettàjana b. ópettajàna
** *
*!
In the tableau in (14) above, the relevant base word is given along with the input30, since the OO-PROS-FAITH constraint evaluates faithfulness between the base and potential output forms. Ranking OO-PROS-FAITH above ALIGN-R thus ensures identity between the base and the suffixed form in terms of stress. By contrast, the ranking ALIGN-R >> OO-PROS-FAITH yields the usual right-aligned rhythmic stress pattern, thereby resulting in nonidentity of stress between base and suffixed form: (15)
Rhythmic stress: ALIGN-R >> OO-PROS-FAITH opettajana ‘teacher-ESS’ Input: /opettaja + na/ Base: [ópettàja] a. ópettàjana
) b. ópettajàna
ALIGN-R
OO-PROS-FAITH
**! *
30
*
In Benua (1997), this is handled instead via recursive constraint hierarchies. See the analysis there for further details on the proposal.
117
At the core of OO-correspondence theory is the notion that outputbased identity involves identity to a base. In Finnish, the left-aligned stress pattern that occurs in suffixed words of odd-parity words in (12) can be seen to follow from faithfulness to the secondary stress peak in the base word, which, in a serial-based framework, is the output from the previous cycle. In the examples in (12), the base word is the nominative form of the word (or a less morphologically complex related suffixed word). Since output-based faithfulness always involves faithfulness to a specific base, a prediction made by OO-correspondence theory is that in cases where no base is available, only the rhythmic pattern of stress should be possible, since there is no base to be prosodically faithfully to. This is exactly what happens in monomorphemic light-syllabled words of odd-parity in Finnish. Since no base exists for such words (they are in effect their own bases), speakers find only the rightaligned stress pattern acceptable, and the left-aligned stress pattern ungrammatical: (16)
No variation in pentasyllabic words lacking a base bí.ha.ra.mù.lo (*bí.ha.rà.mu.lo) kó.re.o.grà.fi (*kó.re.ò.gra.fi) kó.les.te.rò.li (*kó.les.tè.ro.li) tés.tos.te.rò.ni (*tés.tos.tè.ro.ni) dér.ma.to.lò.gi (*dér.ma.tò.lo.gi) kón.kis.ta.dò.ri (*kón.kis.tà.do.ri) mág.ne.to.fò.ni (*mág.ne.tò.fo.ni) fór.mal.de.hỳ.di (*fór.mal.dè.hy.di) 118
‘city in Tanzania’ ’choreographer’ ‘cholesterol’ ’testosterone’ ‘dermatologist’ ‘conquistador’ ‘tape recorder’ ‘formaldehyde’
The constraint OO-PROS-FAITH is thus irrelevant in such forms, and they therefore surface with right-aligned secondary stress due to ALIGN-R, as expected, regardless of the ranking between the two constraints. The lack of a base for such words is shown in the tableaux below: (17)
No variation in pentasyllabic monomorphemic words regardless of ranking kolesteroli ‘cholesterol’ Input: /kolesteroli/ OO-PROS-FAITH Base: --
)a. kó.les.te.rò.li
*
b. kó.les.tè.ro.li
**!
Input: /kolesteroli/ Base: --
ALIGN-R
)a. kó.les.te.rò.li
*
b. kó.les.tè.ro.li
ALIGN-R
OO-PROS-FAITH
**!
The output-based analysis of this pattern thus makes the correct prediction in pentasyllabic forms both with and without inflectional endings. Again, although the all-feet-left approach successfully accounts for the variation in forms with inflectional endings, the only possible way to handle the right-aligned pattern seen in light-syllabled monomorphemic forms such as kólesteròli on the all-feet-left approach is via lexical specification, since right-aligned secondary stress on the all-feet-left analysis is claimed to occur only in morphologically complex forms.
119
4.4 The prosodic structure of compounds In sections 4.1 and 4.2, we saw that inflectional and derivational suffixes appear not to influence the placement of secondary stress, and that such words behave exactly the same as morphologically simplex words with regard to stress placement. Although morphology does not influence secondary stress placement in words with inflectional or derivational suffixes, morphological structure can have an impact on the location of secondary stress in compound words. Compounds are words which consist of two or more independent stems or words. Cross-linguistically, it is well-known that compound words may have stress patterns that differ from those of morphologically simplex words, although in some languages compounds behave identically to simplex words in terms of stress placement. Finnish clearly belongs to the former group of languages, those in which compound structure can disrupt the regular, rhythmic pattern of stress. Compare the stress patterns in the following segmentally identical words:31 (18)
Adjacent stress tolerance in compounds Noncompound Compound
31
píi.le.vä píi.lè.vä
‘hiding’ (from piillä = to hide) ‘diatom (a type of (pii = silicon, levä = alga)
This example is due to Jukka Korpela.
120
alga)’
The noncompound píilevä consists of a single morphological word, the verbal stem piille- followed by the derivational adjectival suffix –vä, while the compound píilèvä consists of two distinct morphological words, pii ‘silicon’ and levä ‘alga’. The secondary stress peak in the compound píilèvä in (18) clearly violates NOCLASH, a constraint that was shown to be undominated in morphologically simplex words in Chapter 2. In compounds, the basic generalization with respect to stress is that the initial syllable of each constituent always receives stress (either primary or secondary), irrespective of its overall position in the word and whether or not it would be stressed independently via rhythmic or weight-based constraints. As we will see in this chapter, compounds can also violate constraints such as ALIGN-R and the WSP in order to preserve stress on the initial syllable of each constituent of a compound. In addition to true morphological compounds, Finnish also has a group of words I will refer to as “pseudo-compounds”32, words which are morphologically simplex but behave like morphological compounds from a phonological point of view. Consider the stress patterns of the following three sets of words which behave differently under case suffixation:
32
Kiparsky (2003) refers to such words as “quasi-compounds”.
121
(19)
Simplex words – stress shifts to right ká.le.và.la ‘Kalevala’ ká.le.va.làs.sa ‘Kalevala-INESS’ ár.tik.kè.li ‘article’ ár.tik.ke.lìs.sa ‘article-INESS’ pró.fes.sò.ri ‘professor’ pró.fes.so.rìl.la ‘professor-ADESS’
(20)
Compound words – no stress shift sá.la.sà.na ‘password’ sá.la.sà.nas.sa pé.li.hì.mo ‘passion for pé.li.hì.mos.sa gambling’ kó.ti.kỳ.lä ‘home village’ kó.ti.kỳ.läs.sä só.ta.tì.la ‘state of war’ só.ta.tì.las.sa
‘password-INESS’ ‘passion for gambling-INESS’ ‘home village-INESS’ ‘state of war-INESS’
Pseudo-compound words – no stress shift á.la.bà.ma ‘Alabama’ á.la.bà.mas.sa fí.lo.sò.fi ‘philosopher’ fí.lo.sò.fil.la és.pla.nà.di ‘esplanade’ és.pla.nà.dil.la
‘Alabama-INESS’ ‘philosopher-ADESS’ ‘esplanade-ADESS’
(21)
In the simplex words in (19), stress shifts to the right when a case ending is added due to the alignment constraint ALIGN-R, which requires a secondary stress peak to be located as close as possible to the right edge of the word without being final. By contrast, in the morphological compound words in (20), rightward stress shift does not occur under suffixation, due to the requirement that stress occur on the initial syllable of each member of the compound. Although morphologically simplex, the pseudo-compounds in (21) behave phonologically like morphological compounds, since no rightward stress shift occurs, as it does in the simplex words in (19). The difference between simplex words and compound words on the one hand, and compounds and pseudo-compounds on the other, thus requires further explanation. 122
This section is organized as follows. In 4.4.1, I first motivate an analysis of true morphological compounds based on articulated prosodic structure, namely one in which compounds differ from simplex words and words with inflectional and derivational suffixes via the presence of multiple prosodic words, which are dominated by a recursive prosodic word. In 4.4.2, I discuss the prosodic structure of pseudo-compounds. Although pseudo-compounds differ morphologically from true compounds since they consist of only a single morphological word, I argue that they are similar to true compounds by being mapped onto multiple prosodic words. This analysis thus makes a three-way distinction between simplex words, compounds, and pseudocompounds; crucially captures the similarity between compounds and pseudo-compounds in terms of their phonological behavior; and also helps to fill a gap in the typology of logically possible types of morphological to phonological mappings seen in compounds in languages of the world.
4.4.1 Morphological compounds Let us first examine the prosodic structure of compound words. As mentioned above, the most obvious way in which true morphological compounds differ from simplex words (including words with inflectional and derivational suffixes) in Finnish is that the initial syllable of each constituent of a compound always receives stress (either primary or secondary). This is 123
true regardless of the overall position of the syllable in the word, and may result in violations of both rhythmic and weight-based constraints. For example, stress clash (which never occurs in simplex words) may surface in a compound when one of the constituents of the compound is monosyllabic. This was shown above in (18), repeated here as (22): (22)
Adjacent stress tolerance in compounds Noncompound Compound
píi.le.vä píi.lè.vä
‘hiding’ (from piillä = to hide) ‘diatom (a type of (pii = silicon, levä = alga)
alga)’
As illustrated by the noncompound variant píilevä in (22), the default rhythmic stress pattern in a trisyllabic word containing a final light syllable is one with initial primary stress and no secondary stress. When the identical segmental string is analyzed as a compound consisting of the morpheme pii ‘silicon’ followed by the morpheme levä ‘alga’, however, the second syllable receives secondary stress, due to the requirement that the initial syllable of each member of a compound be stressed. In this way, the primary stress peak of individual stems is preserved under compounding in Finnish, although the primary stress of the second member of the compound becomes secondary, since prosodic words (both simplex and compound) in Finnish may contain only a single primary stress (via the undominated constraint LEFTMOST).
124
Since stress on the initial syllable of each constituent of a compound is fixed, another characteristic of compounds is that the rightward stress shift which normally occurs in order to satisfy rhythmic and weight-based constraints may fail to occur in compounds: (23)
Fixed stress in compounds: ALIGN-R violated lú.mi só.ta lú.mi.sò.ta lú.mi.sò.ta.na
(24)
‘snow’ ‘war’ ’snowball fight’ ‘snowball fight-ESS’
Fixed stress in compounds: ALIGN-R and WSP violated33 a. vé.ro.na.lài.nen b. vé.ron.à.lai.nen34
‘person from Verona’ (verona + lainen) ’taxable’ (veron + alainen)
In (23), the suffixed form lúmisòtana violates ALIGN-R since secondary stress remains on the first syllable of the second member of the compound and does not shift rightward to the syllable ta, as it would if it were a simplex word like the pentasyllabic kólesteròli ‘cholesterol’. In (24)b, the form véronàlainen ’taxable’ violates ALIGN-R in the same way and also violates the WSP, since the heavy syllable lai remains unstressed. 33
This example is also due to Jukka Korpela. Note that compound structure affects syllabification as well. A word-medial CVC sequence would normally be syllabified with the consonant in the onset of the second syllable: V.CV. However, since the n in veronalainen with the meaning of “taxable” belongs to the first member of the compound, the -n is syllabified into the coda, leaving the following syllable onsetless. Another example of this is autonomistaja (auton + omistaja) ‘car owner’, where the genitive suffix -n again belongs to the first member of the compound. This effect, while not the focus of the analysis here, could straightforwardly be handled via an alignment constraint aligning the edges of morphemes with syllable edges. 34
125
Phonological processes, such as stress assignment and vowel harmony, are bound to certain domains; domains which cannot be defined directly in morphological or syntactic terms, but instead require reference to constituents which are prosodic in nature and are hence largely independent of the syntactic structure of the string. In generative phonology, these prosodic constituents are generally believed to belong to the prosodic hierarchy (Selkirk 1981, 1984, 1986; Nespor and Vogel 1986). The prosodic hierarchy is a hierarchical organization of phonologically-motivated constituents which modulate the mapping between the phonological and syntactic components of the grammar. I assume a fairly standard version of the prosodic hierarchy, as follows:35
35
Not all researchers agree as to the number of constituents in the prosodic hierarchy. Some propose a constituent intermediate between the prosodic word and the phonological phrase, the clitic group; and others include a constituent below the syllable, the mora. As nothing in my analysis crucially hinges on the inclusion or non-inclusion of these constituents, I assume a simpler version of the hierarchy, although my analysis is compatible with other versions of the prosodic hierarchy as well.
126
(25)
Prosodic Hierarchy ι | α | ω | F | σ
Intonational phrase Phonological phrase Prosodic word Foot Syllable
The main argument for the existence of independent prosodic categories is that certain phonological processes (such as stress assignment, umlaut, vowel harmony, etc.) crucially make reference to prosodic domains that are not isomorphic to known syntactic or morphological constituents (Nespor and Vogel 1986). Central to the theory of prosodic constituency is also the notion that the prosodic word is the member of the prosodic hierarchy that mediates between the phonological and morphological components of the grammar via mapping rules, while other prosodic constituents, such as the foot and the syllable, are purely phonological in nature. The nonisomorphism between morphological and phonological constituents can be illustrated by examining how compound words are mapped onto prosodic structure. As Nespor (1999) points out, while compounds always consist of two (or more) morphological elements; whether 127
two stems, two words, or a word and a stem; phonologically they may consist of either one or two prosodic words, based on morphological compound type and also the particular language involved. The two possibilities are illustrated below: (26)
Compound structure a.
MWd
MWd
b.
PWd
MWd
PWd
MWd
PWd
Evidence for distinguishing the two types of structures comes from the domain of application or non-application of phonological phenomena. The scenario schematized in (26)a would hold for a language (such as Greek or Japanese) in which both compounds and simplex words form a single prosodic word. In such languages, phonological processes make no distinction between simplex words and compounds. A language in which the domain of phonological processes is coterminous with the domain of the morphological word would have the configuration shown in (26)b, where each morphological word is mapped onto a separate prosodic word. This is the case in languages like Finnish and Turkish. In Finnish, the morphological
128
word must be coterminous with the prosodic word since stress assignment and vowel harmony do not span the domain of the entire compound. Evidence for claiming that compounds contain two prosodic words in Finnish comes not only from stress assignment, but also from vowel harmony. Finnish has a front/back system of vowel harmony. In a simplex root, all vowels must be either front or back, and suffixal vowels harmonize to the vowels in the root. A root containing any of the front vowels ä, ö, or y thus takes front vowel suffixes, while a root with any of back vowels a, o, or u takes back vowel suffixes. The ‘neutral’ vowels i and e can occur with either front or back vowels in a root, but when they occur alone, the suffix is front, revealing their true nature as front vowels. In the extensive case system of Finnish, suffixes thus come in both a back and front vowel variant. For example, the inessive case ending surfaces as either -ssa or -ssä and the essive case as either -na or –nä, depending on the vowels of the root: (27)
Vowel harmony Back talo talossa monopoli monopolina tila tilassa
‘house’ ‘house-INESS’ ’monopoly’ ‘monopoly-ESS‘ ’space’ ‘space-INESS‘
Front kylä kylässä värttinä värttinänä peli pelissä
129
‘village’ ’village-INESS’ ’spindle’ ‘spindle-ESS’ ’game’ ‘game-INESS’
Compounds behave differently with respect to vowel harmony, since each constituent of the compound sets up its own harmonic domain in which vowel harmony applies. In a disharmonic compound, suffixes thus harmonize with the final constituent: (28)
Vowel harmony in compounds mýrkky káasu mýrkkykàasu mýrkkykàasussa
‘poison’ ‘gas’ ’poison gas’ ‘poison gas-INESS’ (*mýrkkykàasussä)
In the compound myrkkykaasu ‘poison gas’ in (28), the first constituent myrkky contains the front vowel y while the second constituent kaasu contains the back vowels a and u, hence the back vowel variant of the inessive suffix – ssa is selected. We have already seen in section 4.1 that inflectional suffixes do not influence stress placement, providing evidence that an inflected word (a stem plus an inflectional suffix) consists of a single prosodic word. If we assume that each constituent of a compound comprises a separate prosodic word, and that inflectional suffixes belong to the same prosodic word as the stems to which they attach, the domain of vowel harmony can thus be defined as being limited to the prosodic word. There is independent evidence that the prosodic word is the domain of vowel harmony. In an experiment conducted by Suomi, McQueen, and Cutler (1997) and replicated by Vroomen and Tuomainen (1998), Finnish speakers 130
consistently segmented words preceded by a disharmonic prefix more easily than words with a harmonic prefix, suggesting that a harmonic domain boundary serves as a word boundary cue. In the core experiment, speakers were presented with the word hymy ‘smile’, which contains the front vowel y, preceded by the stressed nonsense syllables pu and py, i.e., PUhymy and PYhymy (capital letters here denote primary stress). Since the initial syllable of the word hymy was unstressed in the token words, the influence of primary stress on word boundary identification was thus controlled for. Speakers consistently found it easier to detect the word hymy in PUhymy, that is, when preceded by a disharmonic prefix. The results thus suggest that, like primary stress, vowel harmony serves as a reliable way for speakers to demarcate word boundaries. The choice of suffix allomorphy also argues for a one-to-one correspondence between morphological and phonological words in Finnish. The shape of the partitive plural ending in Finnish is often dependent on the length of the stem. For example, disyllabic words containing the back vowel a in both syllables have the partitive plural ending –oja: kala~kaloja ‘fish’, aika~aikoja ‘time’. By contrast, trisyllabic words with the vowel a in the last two syllables take the partitive plural ending -ia: loistava~loistavia ‘brilliant’, matala~matalia ‘shallow’. In a trisyllabic compound like työpaja ‘workshop’ 131
(työ ‘work’, paja ‘smithy’) the disyllabic ending -oja is chosen, resulting in työpajoja, since the second part of the compound consists of its own prosodic domain. If työpaja were instead a single prosodic word like loistava, we would expect the partitive plural to surface as työpajia. There is thus a preponderance of evidence in Finnish for each constituent of a morphological compound in Finnish to contain a separate prosodic word, not only from the domain of stress assignment, but also from the domain of vowel harmony and stem allomorphy. A logical next question to ask is: what prosodic constituent dominates the two prosodic words in a compound? I assume that the individual prosodic words in a compound are dominated by a recursive prosodic word. There is independent evidence for the need for recursive prosodic words in Finnish, as we saw in the analysis of words with final vowel hiatus in section 2.2.2. As discussed there, the argument that the Strict Layer Hypothesis must be relaxed in order to allow for recursivity of prosodic structure in certain cases has a good deal of support in the literature. In syntax, recursion is a common phenomenon. From the morphological side, I assume that the individual morphological words of a compound are dominated by a recursive morphological word, a structure that is mirrored in its prosodic structure. I thus assume the following structure for true morphological compounds in Finnish: 132
(29)
The structure of morphological compounds in Finnish MWd
MWd
MWd
PWd
PWd
PWd Given that recursion is potentially costly from a theoretical standpoint, another possibility that must be considered is that the individual prosodic words which form a compound are dominated by the constituent next highest up in the version of the prosodic hierarchy assumed here, the phonological phrase. This solution is problematic, however, given the expected relative prominence of elements in a phonological phrase in Finnish. In the literature, a correlation between syntactic branchingness and the relative prominence of elements within a phonological phrase has been noted by various researchers (Selkirk 1984, Nespor and Vogel 1986, Duanmu 1990, Truckenbrodt 1995, among others). In languages which are primarily rightbranching (i.e., head-initial), the relative prominence relation within a 133
phonological phrase is normally weak/strong; in left-branching (head-final) languages, the relative prominence is the reverse, strong/weak. Since Finnish, like English, is a right-branching language, we would expect the stronger prominence to be rightmost in a phonological phrase. However, the stress pattern of compounds clearly shows that the leftmost (initial) element of a compound is the most prominent, just as it is in a prosodic word, e.g., sálasàna ‘password’, kótikỳlä ‘home village’. A clear contrast between the relative prominence relations in a prosodic word versus a phonological phrase in Finnish can be illustrated by how the identical segmental string talonpoika is parsed under both prosodic word and phonological phrase readings, as shown below (relative prominences shown here by grid marks for the sake of clarity): (30)
Relative prominence in prosodic words vs. phonological phrases
Prosodic word:
Phonological phrase:
x [x x ]ω talonpoika ‘peasant’ x [x x ]α talon poika ‘boy of the house’ (talo = house, -n = GEN, poika = boy)
As shown above, when the string talonpoika is parsed as a compound with the noncompositional meaning of ‘peasant’, the prominence relation is strong/weak, with primary stress on the initial member of the compound and 134
secondary stress on the initial syllable of the second member of the compound. When it is parsed as a noun phrase (and hence a phonological phrase), however, the prominence relation is weak/strong, and the noun poika ‘boy’ has greater relative prominence. In Finnish, this distinction is encoded in the orthography as well – compounds are always written as a single word with no space between constituents, while noncompounds are written separately. Since compounds thus behave exactly like simplex words in terms of prosodic prominence by having the strongest prominence located at the left edge of the constituent, I assume that they are dominated by a recursive prosodic word, as proposed above. We will return to this question again in conjunction with the discussion of the prosodic structure of pseudocompounds in section 4.4.2. As we will see there, pseudo-compounds also appear to contain a recursive prosodic word, but the internal prosodic structure of pseudo-compounds differs somewhat from that of morphological compounds, accounting for their divergent behavior with respect to vowel harmony. With the analysis of the prosodic structure of compounds in place, we now turn to examine how this proposed structure results in the surface stress pattern seen in compounds. The existence of multiple prosodic words in a compound follows from an alignment constraint which requires that 135
morphological and phonological words be properly aligned. Given this structure, the stress pattern of compounds then follows straightforwardly from the constraints already posited for the stress pattern of simplex words. The NOCLASH and ALIGN-R violations seen in compounds are thus only apparent, and are not violations when viewed from the vantage point of the innermost prosodic word. Since languages differ in terms of whether morphological compounds can be mapped onto a single or multiple prosodic words, some mechanism is required to ensure that each morphological word is mapped to a unique prosodic word in a language like Finnish. As mentioned above, this can be handled via an alignment constraint. We can begin by assuming that the following constraint is active in Finnish, which requires that the left edge of each morphological word be aligned to the left edge of a prosodic word: (31)
ALIGN-MWD-L (MWord, L; PWord, L) The left edge of every morphological word coincides with the left edge of a prosodic word. Evaluating the two possible morphology to prosody mappings in
compounds considered above, a structure in which each morphological word is mapped to a distinct prosodic word satisfies the constraint, as shown below in (32)a. However, ALIGN-MWD-L is violated in a structure in which two morphological words are mapped onto a single prosodic word, even though 136
the first morphological word is properly aligned, since the second morphological word is misaligned, as shown by the structure in (32)b: (32)
Morphology to prosody alignment – satisfaction of ALIGN-MWD-L a.
MWd1
MWd2
PWd
b.
MWd3
MWd1
MWd2
PWd
MWd3
PWd
PWd √ ALIGN-MWD-L satisfied
X ALIGN-MWD-L violated
In (32)a, the left edge of each of the three morphological words is aligned with the left edge of a prosodic word. However, although MWd1 and MWd2 are properly aligned in (32)b, MWd3 is misaligned, thus violating ALIGN-MWD-L. Since ALIGN-MWD-L is only concerned with the left edge of the morphological word, there is an additional structure that will satisfy ALIGN-MWD-L, one which contains only two prosodic words, one inside the other:
137
(33)
[ X [Y]ω]ω In order to make a necessary distinction between morphological
compounds and pseudo-compounds, which will become clear below, I assume an additional alignment constraint to rule out the structure in (33). This constraint aligns the right edge of the morphological word with the right edge of a prosodic word, thus ensuring that morphological structure be mirrored perfectly in prosodic structure: (34)
ALIGN-MWD-R (MWord, R; PWord, R) The right edge of every morphological word coincides with the right edge of a prosodic word. The alignment constraints ALIGN-MWD-L and ALIGN-MWD-R appear
to be undominated in Finnish, since every morphological word must be mapped onto a unique prosodic word. Assuming both constraints thus correctly rules out the structure in (33), since the right edge of the first morphological word is not aligned with the right edge of a prosodic word. This is shown in the tableau below: (35)
Mirroring of morphological and prosodic structure via alignment /{{X} + {Y}}/
ALIGN-MWD-L ALIGN-MWD-R
) a. [[X]ω[Y]ω]ω b. [X [Y]ω]ω
*!
An additional candidate must also be considered at this point. Assuming
that
the
two
alignment 138
constraints
ALIGN-MWD-L
and
ALIGN-MWD-R are active, as well as the constraint NONRECURSIVITY, which militates against recursive prosodic structure, a candidate that perfectly aligns morphological and prosodic words but avoids recursive prosodic structure would incorrectly be chosen as optimal (indicated here by the backwards-pointing hand): (36)
Nonrecursivity of prosodic structure /{{X} + {Y}}/ ALIGN-MWD-L ALIGN-MWD-R NONRECURSIVITY a. [[X]ω[Y]ω]ω *! b. [X [Y]ω]ω
*!
( c. [X]ω[Y]ω Like candidate (a), candidate (c) satisfies the morphology-to-prosody alignment constraints but also satisfies NONRECURSIVITY by not having a recursive prosodic word. Since the evidence presented here argues in favor of a recursive prosodic word for compounds, there must be a constraint that forces recursion, since the ALIGN-MWD constraints clearly do not force recursion by themselves. An answer can be found by appealing to Prince and Smolensky’s (1993) constraint LX≈PR, which requires that each morphological word correspond to a prosodic word.36 Prince and Smolensky note that another way of expressing LX≈PR is via alignment constraints like the ones proposed here, but as the discussion above shows, something else besides 36
In an analysis of prosodic words in Dutch, van Oostendorp (2002) uses the constraint MIRRORING, which is roughly equivalent to Prince and Smolensky’s LX ≈ PR.
139
alignment is required to force complete mirroring of morphological and prosodic structure, illustrating that LX≈PR cannot be completely subsumed by alignment constraints, since alignment allows more than one morphological word to be aligned to the same prosodic word and thus does not necessarily result in complete mirroring of structure. What LX≈PR does that alignment does not is require that each lexical word be coterminous with a prosodic word, thus evaluating the morphology-to-prosody mapping at the level of the entire word instead of looking solely at word edges.37 Following Prince and Smolensky’s original formulation, I assume that LX≈PR is defined as follows: (37)
LX≈PR Every morphological word must be isomorphic to a prosodic word. Since candidates that satisfy LX≈PR will always also satisfy both
ALIGN-MWD constraints, LX≈PR is undominated in Finnish, and I subsume the alignment constraints in subsequent tableaux under LX≈PR and will make no further reference to the ALIGN-MWD constraints.
Since LX≈PR is the
constraint that forces recursion by requiring that the recursive morphological word correspond to a prosodic word, it must be ranked above NONRECURSIVITY:
37
Another potential solution would be to expand on Truckenbrodt’s (1999) WRAP constraint, which requires syntactic constituents to be contained in a phonological phrase. While phonological phrases are not at issue in the current analysis, WRAP might be extended to be a constraint family, requiring syntactic units to be contained within prosodic units.
140
(38)
Mirroring of morphological and prosodic structure forces recursion /{{X} + {Y}}/
LX≈PR
) a. [[X]ω[Y]ω]ω b. [X]ω[Y]ω c. [ X [Y]ω]ω d. [X Y]ω
NONRECURSIVITY
* *! *! *!*
*
In (38), the input contains three morphological words, so any candidate that does not contain three perfectly aligned prosodic words will violate LX≈PR. The only candidate that satisfies LX≈PR, candidate (a), does so at the expense of violating NONRECURSIVITY. LX≈PR interacts with the rhythmic constraints already proposed for the analysis of simplex words in Finnish. For example, NOCLASH is undominated in simplex words, but may be violated in compounds when one of the constituents is monosyllabic. NOCLASH must thus be ranked below LX≈PR, since it is more important for words to be properly aligned than to avoid adjacent stressed syllables. This can be seen in the compound word píilèvä ‘diatom’ from (22) above, which has two morphemes underlyingly: (39)
LX≈PR >> NOCLASH piilevä ’diatom’ /{{pii} + {levä}}/
)
a. [[píi]ω[lèvä]ω]ω b. [píilevä]ω
LX≈PR
*!
141
NOCLASH *
The effect of ranking LX≈PR over NOCLASH is that stress clash is prohibited completely only within the domain of each of the two innermost prosodic words. NOCLASH also interacts with LEFTMOST, the constraint that requires main stress to occur on the initial syllable in simplex words in Finnish. In compounds, LEFTMOST not only ensures that main stress occur on the initial syllable of the entire compound, it also ensures that stress occur on the initial syllable of each member of the compound, even though stress on noninitial constituents is secondary. This follows from the definition of LEFTMOST, repeated here below: (40)
Prosodic word internal head alignment LEFTMOST (cf. Cohn and McCarthy’s (1994) RIGHTMOST) Align(PrWd, L; Head(PrWd), L) The main-stressed syllable is initial in the prosodic word. LEFTMOST does not refer directly to level of stress, primary or
secondary, but instead is defined in terms of the headedness of the prosodic word, by requiring that the left edge of the prosodic word be aligned with the head of a prosodic word. In a compound, each prosodic word has its own head, although only the head of the initial prosodic word in a compound surfaces with primary stress, with all other heads having secondary stress. The distinction between primary versus secondary stress in the domain of the 142
compound as a whole also follows from the definition of LEFTMOST. On the definition here, the head of the leftmost constituent in a compound is the head of the entire higher (recursive) prosodic word, resulting in primary stress on the head of the initial constituent of the compound. The fact that adjacent stresses are tolerated within the higher prosodic word is due to the interaction of NOCLASH with undominated LEFTMOST, showing that LEFTMOST must be ranked above NOCLASH. This can be seen in the compound píilèvä ‘diatom’: (41)
LEFTMOST >> NOCLASH piilevä ‘diatom’ /{{pii} + {levä}}/
LEFTMOST
) a. [[píi]ω[lèvä]ω]ω b. [[píi]ω[levä]ω]ω
NOCLASH *
*!
In (41), both surface candidates satisfy undominated LX≈PR since each contains three prosodic words. Candidate (b) avoids clash by leaving the initial syllable of the second prosodic word unstressed, but in so doing violates undominated LEFTMOST. The requirement that the initial syllable of each constituent be stressed thus results in stress clash on the level of the higher, recursive prosodic word. Since LX≈PR and LEFTMOST are always satisfied on the surface and are hence undominated, no ranking can be established between them, as shown below: 143
(42)
LX≈PR, LEFTMOST >> NOCLASH piilevä ‘diatom’ /{{pii} + {levä}}/
LX≈PR
LEFTMOST
)a. [[píi]ω[lèvä]ω]ω b. [[píi]ω[levä]ω]ω c. [píilevä]ω
NOCLASH *
*! *!
When the input is not a compound, stress clash does not occur on the surface, since the underlying morphological word maps onto only a single prosodic word. This is shown below for underlying /piilevä/ ‘hiding’: (43)
Clash avoidance in simplex words piilevä ‘hiding’ /{piilevä}/ a. [píilèvä]ω
LX≈PR
LEFTMOST
NOCLASH *
) b. [píilevä]ω Both candidates in (43) satisfy LX≈PR and LEFTMOST, but the unmotivated secondary stress peak in candidate (a) violates NOCLASH. Therefore, candidate (b), which has a single primary stress, wins the competition.38 The constraint LX≈PR also interacts with ALIGN-R, which requires a secondary stress peak to be located as close as possible to the right edge of the 38
An additional candidate not shown here deserves mention. By containing three prosodic words, the potential candidate [[píi]ω[lèvä]ω]ω would seem to violate only NOCLASH and hence tie the surface candidate [píilèvä]ω. However, although [[píi]ω[lèvä]ω]ω satisfies LX≈PR since the single underlying morphological word maps onto to a prosodic word and also satisfies LEFTMOST by stressing the initial syllable of both prosodic words, it contains unmotivated prosodic structure (i.e., the second prosodic word) and hence must violate a high-ranked constraint prohibiting insertion of prosodic structure.
144
word without being final. Compare again the behavior of the simplex quadrisyllabic words below to quadrisyllabic compounds when an inflectional case ending is added: (44)
Simplex words – stress shifts to right ká.le.và.la ‘Kalevala’ ká.le.va.làs.sa ‘Kalevala-INESS’ ár.tik.kè.li ‘article’ ár.tik.ke.lìs.sa ‘article-INESS’ pró.fes.sò.ri ‘professor’ pró.fes.so.rìl.la ‘professor-ADESS’
(45)
Compound words – no stress shift sá.la.sà.na ‘password’ sá.la.sà.nas.sa (sala = secret, sana = word) kó.ti.kỳ.lä ‘home village’ kó.ti.kỳ.läs.sä (koti = home, kylä = village) só.ta.tì.la ‘state of war’ só.ta.tì.las.sa (sota = war, tila = state)
‘password-INESS’ ‘home village-INESS’ ‘state of war-INESS’
Although the simplex words in (44) are identical to the compounds in (45) in terms of both syllable count and syllable structure, the rightward stress shift in simplex words which occurs due to the effects of ALIGN-R is blocked in compounds. This is because the compounds in (45) contain two prosodic words (plus a recursive prosodic word), each of which is bisyllabic in the unsuffixed form. Since each prosodic word must have a stress peak aligned to its left edge due to undominated LEFTMOST, the effects of ALIGN-R are masked in such forms. Compare how the compound sálasànassa ‘in a password’ and the simplex kálevalàssa ‘in the Kalevala’ fare with respect to ALIGN-R and the undominated constraints LX≈PR and LEFTMOST. In the compound sálasànassa, LX≈PR and LEFTMOST require that the output contain three prosodic words, 145
and that the initial syllable of each member of the compound be stressed, resulting in stress occurring too far to the left, in violation of ALIGN-R: (46)
No rightward stress shift in compounds: LX≈PR, LEFTMOST >>ALIGN-R
salasanassa ‘password-INESS’ /{{sala} + {sana + ssa}}/ LX≈PR a. [sálasanàssa]ω *!
LEFTMOST
) b. [[sála]ω[sànassa]ω]ω
ALIGN-R * **
c. [[sála]ω[sanàssa]ω]ω
*!
*
In the properly aligned candidate (46)b, secondary stress must occur on the initial syllable of the second prosodic word due to LEFTMOST, thereby resulting in the lack of rightward stress shift which would occur in a pentasyllabic simplex word. By contrast, in the suffixed simplex word kálevalàssa, secondary stress surfaces on the penult, since the output contains only a single prosodic word: (47)
Rightward stress shift in simplex words: LX≈PR, LEFTMOST >>ALIGN-R
kalevalassa ‘Kalevala-INESS’ /{kalevala + ssa}/
LX≈PR
) a. [kálevalàssa]ω b. [kálevàlassa]ω
LEFTMOST
ALIGN-R * **!
Since the input in (47) contains only a single morphological word (a stem plus the inflectional suffix –ssa), candidates (a) and (b) satisfy both LX≈PR and LEFTMOST, since both contain a single prosodic word and have stress on the initial syllable. ALIGN-R therefore decides the competition in 146
favor of candidate (a), which has a secondary stress peak aligned as far to the right without being final. To sum up this section, the phonological behavior of compounds in Finnish requires that each morphological word be mapped onto a separate prosodic word, and that the initial syllable of each member of the compound be stressed. Given these requirements, constraints that are satisfied in simplex words, such as NOCLASH and ALIGN-R, may be violated in compound words due to the presence of multiple prosodic words and the attendant requirement that stress be initial in each prosodic word. In the following section, we turn to the prosodic structure of a different but related class of words, pseudo-compounds, which differ from both simplex words and compounds in terms of their phonological and morphological behavior, differences that I will show can be explained in terms of their prosodic structure.
4.4.2 Pseudo-compounds In this section, we turn our attention to the prosodic structure of pseudocompounds. In addition to true morphological compounds such as those discussed in the previous section, Finnish also has a group of words I will refer to as “pseudo-compounds”, words which are morphologically simplex but behave like morphological compounds from a phonological point of 147
view. One of the ways in which pseudo-compounds differ from morphologically simplex words phonologically is that stress does not shift when a case ending is added. Consider again the stress patterns of the two sets of monomorphemic words below when a case ending is added: (48)
(49)
Simplex words – stress shifts to right ká.le.và.la ‘Kalevala’ ká.le.va.làs.sa ár.tik.kè.li ‘article’ ár.tik.ke.lìs.sa pró.fes.sò.ri ‘professor’ pró.fes.so.rìl.la
‘Kalevala-INESS’ ‘article-INESS’ ‘professor-ADESS’
Pseudo-compound words – no stress shift á.la.bà.ma ‘Alabama’ á.la.bà.mas.sa fí.lo.sò.fi ‘philosopher’ fí.lo.sò.fil.la és.pla.nà.di ‘esplanade’ és.pla.nà.dil.la
‘Alabama-INESS’ ‘philosopher-ADESS’ ‘esplanade-ADESS’
Although both sets of words are morphologically simplex and are identical in terms of syllable count and syllable structure, the rightward shift of secondary stress to the penult seen in the simplex words in (48) does not occur in the pseudo-compounds in (49). This is unexpected given that ALIGNR requires a right-aligned nonfinal secondary stress peak in monomorphemic odd-parity words. The lack of rightward stress shift is even more surprising when the addition of a suffix such as the inessive –ssa/-ssä creates a heavy syllable, as in álabàmassa. What is striking about the pseudo-compounds such as alabama ‘Alabama’, filosofi ‘philosopher’, esplanadi ‘esplanade’ is that they behave like morphological compounds, as if the strings bama, sofi, nadi, and tehti each were separate prosodic words, even though there is no obvious 148
morphological basis for such an analysis. A pseudo-compound like Alabama thus behaves phonologically exactly like a true morphological compound such as lumisota ‘snowball fight’ since in both words the secondary stress appears to be fixed on the third syllable, even when a new syllable is created via case ending suffixation, which would normally result in a right-aligned secondary stress peak due to ALIGN-R in an odd-parity monomorphemic word. Pseudo-compounds in Finnish are without exception loanwords, since the majority of native roots are disyllabic, with a much smaller number being trisyllabic. There are also a few native roots which are quadrisyllabic, but they all appear to have final vowel hiatus and hence behave like trisyllables due to the absence of secondary stress as we saw in Section 2.2.2, e.g., áteria ‘meal’. Given the trisyllabic upper bound on native roots, it seems natural that speakers would perceive long loanwords as phonological (but crucially not morphological) compounds, composed of two or more parts. When asked for secondary stress judgments in long monomorphemic words, native speakers in fact often mention the similarity to compounds. Sadeniemi (1949) observes that in such words, stress appears not to be rhythmic, but rather seems to often be fixed on the syllable that is stressed in the donor language. Kiparsky (2003) similarly claims that stress is fixed on a given syllable in 149
pseudo-compounds,
instantiated
via
lexical
specification
of
stress
underlyingly. This fixed stress is thus similar to the fixed location of stress in morphological compounds. A feature of both of these approaches is the unpredictability of the location of fixed stress in pseudo-compounds. For example, Kiparsky claims that in five-syllable pseudo-compounds, stress can occur on either the penult or the antepenult. However, it appears that the location of the fixed secondary stress peak in such words is actually by and large predictable and need not be lexically prespecified. Rather, the location of the “fixed” stress in a pseudo-compound follows from the analysis already developed for rhythmic stress in Chapter 2, namely, the interaction between NONFINALITY and ALIGN-R coupled with the avoidance of penult stress in forms with final vowel hiatus. All of the long monomorphemic words analyzed there are in fact pseudo-compounds. And, as discussed there, the location of stress in the donor language only some of the time corresponds to the location of secondary in Finnish, compare Swedish fonologí ‘phonology’ to Finnish fónològia, weakening Sadeniemi’s claim that stress in loans is fixed on the same syllable as in the donor language. The intuition that long loanwords are parsed by speakers as phonological compounds can be captured via a constraint requiring prosodic words to be both minimally and maximally binary. Following earlier work by 150
Ito (1990) and Ito and Mester (1992) for Japanese and Ussishkin (2000) for Modern Hebrew, I formalize this constraint as Prosodic Word Binarity (PRWD-BIN): (50)
PRWD-BIN A prosodic word must branch at some level, but branching must be binary. On this definition, a prosodic word will satisfy this constraint
provided it branches at either the syllable level or the foot level. The following diagrams illustrate how various prosodic configurations satisfy the constraint: (51)
Satisfaction of PRWD-BIN: minimality
a. √ PrWd | Ft / \ σ σ
b. √ PrWd / \ Ft Ft
c. √ PrWd / \ Ft σ
d. √ PrWd | Ft | σ / \ µ µ
e. * PrWd | Ft | σ | µ
The only configuration that violates PRWD-BIN is (51)e, since it is unary at all levels, even down to the level of the mora. On the other end of the spectrum, PRWD-BIN rules out tertiary branching by placing a limit on the maximal size of prosodic words:
151
(52)
Violation of PRWD-BIN: tertiary branching * PrWd / | \ Ft σ Ft On this definition, a prosodic word can be minimally bimoraic, such as
maa ‘land’, or tie ‘road’, but maximally quadrisyllabic, such as kalenteri ‘calendar’. All pentasyllabic words thus violate the constraint, since they consist of two feet plus an adjoined syllable. A pentasyllabic word thus must be broken up into two prosodic words in order to satisfy word binarity, but there are two possibilities: 3 + 2 or 2 + 3. However, in Chapter 2 the distribution of stress in pentasyllabic monomorphemic words was shown to be entirely predictable: final -CVV words have antepenultimate stress, while final -CV words have penultimate stress. Some examples are given again below: (53)
Pentasyllabic words with a final unfooted syllable: X X L L L mí.nis.tè.ri.ö té.le.vì.si.o díp.lo.mà.ti.a bý.ro.krà.ti.a ér.go.nò.mi.a fó.no.lò.gi.a
‘ministry’ ‘television’ ‘diplomacy’ ‘bureaucracy’ ‘ergonomics’ ‘phonology’
152
(54)
Pentasyllabic words with a medial unfooted syllable: X X L L L bí.ha.ra.mù.lo lék.si.ko.grà.fi kó.les.te.rò.li tés.tos.te.rò.ni dér.ma.to.lò.gi kón.kis.ta.dò.ri mág.ne.to.fò.ni fór.mal.de.hỳ.di
‘city in Tanzania’ ’lexicographer’ ‘cholesterol’ ’testosterone’ ‘dermatologist’ ‘conquistador’ ‘tape recorder’ ‘formaldehyde’
Assuming a high-ranking PRWD-BIN, all of the above words must be pseudo-compounds since they are pentasyllabic – if they were single prosodic words they would be composed of two feet plus an adjoined syllable, thus violating the constraint. This is borne out by the data, which shows that all pentasyllabic words exhibit pseudo-compoundlike behavior. When a light case ending is added to a pentasyllabic loanword, stress remains fixed on the same syllable as in the nominative: (55)
Fixed stress in pseudo-compounds under suffixation nominative
essive
kólesteròli fórmaldehỳdi
kólesteròlina fórmaldehỳdina
‘cholesterol’ ‘formaldehyde’
Since the resultant word has six syllables, we would otherwise expect full parsing and secondary stresses on the third and fifth syllables. A particularly interesting distribution concerning pseudo-compounds can be seen with respect to four-syllable words. While pentasyllables are obligatorily 153
parsed into two prosodic words via PRWD-BIN, a quadrisyllabic word could potentially be parsed as either a single prosodic word or as two prosodic words while satisfying PRWD-BIN: (56)
Satisfaction of PRWD-BIN in quadrisyllabic words a.
PrWd / \ Ft Ft / \ / \ σ σ σ σ ka len te ri
b.
PrWd / \ PrWd PrWd | | Ft Ft / \ / \ σ σ σ σ ka len te ri
c.
PrWd / \ Ft PrWd / \ | σ σ Ft ka len / \ σ σ te ri
In (56), prosodic word binarity can be satisfied in one of three ways: by an analysis as a single prosodic word containing two feet (a), or as a compound containing two prosodic words dominated by a recursive prosodic word (b), or as prosodic word dominating a foot and a prosodic word, which in turn dominates a foot (c). For reasons that will become clear below, I argue that quadrisyllabic words have either the structure in (a), making them simplex words, or (c), making them pseudo-compounds. As Kiparsky (2003) shows, there is variability as to pseudo-compound status among four-syllable words. The relevant data are given again below: (57)
Simplex words – stress shifts to right ká.le.và.la ‘Kalevala’ ká.le.va.làs.sa ár.tik.kè.li ‘article’ ár.tik.ke.lìs.sa pró.fes.sò.ri ‘professor’ pró.fes.so.rìl.la 154
‘Kalevala-INESS’ ‘article-INESS’ ‘professor-ADESS’
(58)
Pseudo-compound words – no stress shift á.la.bà.ma ‘Alabama’ á.la.bà.mas.sa fí.lo.sò.fi ‘philosopher’ fí.lo.sò.fil.la és.pla.nà.di ‘esplanade’ és.pla.nà.dil.la
‘Alabama-INESS’ ‘philosopher-ADESS’ ‘esplanade-ADESS’
There is no phonologically predictable way to distinguish between simplex words like kalevala and artikkeli versus the pseudo-compounds alabama and filosofi. But this is exactly what prosodic word binarity predicts: since there is more than one configuration that satisfies the constraint, it is expected that certain quadrisyllabic words might be analyzed as simplex words while others are analyzed as pseudo-compounds. With pentasyllabic words, however, there is no such structural ambiguity, since prosodic word binarity forces multiple prosodic words. Appealing to prosodic word binarity thus correctly zeroes in on the locus of unpredictability, limiting it to quadrisyllabic monomorphemic words only. This is a significant advance over previous accounts, which specify stress lexically for all long monomorphemic words. From a learnability perspective, speakers need only learn which quadrisyllabic loanwords are pseudo-compounds, since the location of secondary stress in pentasyllabic pseudo-compounds is entirely predictable. How can we distinguish between quadrisyllabic pseudo-compounds and simplex words, given that they are identical to simplex words from a morphological perspective? Prosodically, pseudo-compounds act as if they 155
contain two prosodic words, just like regular morphological compounds, yet there is no morphological motivation for more than a single prosodic word, since LX≈PR forces multiple prosodic words only when there are multiple morphological words underlyingly. Since it is impossible to predict why a word like professori ‘professor’ acts like a simplex word while filosofi ‘philosopher’ acts like a pseudo-compound, this difference must somehow be marked in the lexicon. Kiparsky (2003) distinguishes pseudo-compounds from simplex words via lexical specification of stress. Pseudo-compounds have lexically marked (in Kiparsky’s terms, fixed) secondary stress on a particular syllable while simplex words have no underlying specification and receive stress through usual rhythmic means (in Kiparsky’s terms these forms have movable stress). The current proposal also marks the distinction between pseudo-compounds and simplex words in the lexicon, but does so in terms of prosodic structure, rather than by specifying stress. I assume that in the lexicon, pseudo-compounds differ from simplex words via the presence of an underlying prosodic word, as shown below: (59)
Underlying distinction between simplex words and pseudo-compounds …
/professori/ /filo[sofi]ω/ …
Positing prosodic structure instead of stress underlyingly has the advantage of maintaining the view that stress is computed on the surface, and 156
results from the interaction among constraints modulating rhythmic prominence, constraints which may require reference to prosodic constituents such as the prosodic word. Given this underlying distinction between simplex words and pseudo-compounds, the difference in surface stress emerges via constraint interaction and requires no additional constraints, as shown in the tableaux below: (60)
Surface stress in simplex words under suffixation39
professorilla ‘professor-ADESS’ /{professori + lla}/ LX≈PR
LEFTMOST
NONFINALITY
) a. [prófessorìlla]ω b. [prófessòrilla]ω c. [prófessorillà]ω (61)
ALIGN-R * **
*!
Surface stress in pseudo-compounds under suffixation
filosofilla ‘philosopher-ADESS’ /{filo[sofi]ω + lla}/ LX≈PR
LEFTMOST
NONFINALITY
) a. [fílo[sòfilla]ω]ω b. [fílo[sofìlla]ω]ω c. [fílo[sofillà]ω]ω
*! *!
ALIGN-R ** *
*
As shown in (60), ALIGN-R is the active constraint in simplex words, resulting in secondary stress on the penult, i.e., as close as possible to the 39
In (60), it may appear that the suffixed form’s winning candidate violates PRWD-BIN, since the prosodic word appears to contain a foot, followed by an adjoined syllable, followed by a foot. This can be handled by a more sophisticated understanding of prosodic word binarity and potentially appealing to a kind of paradigmatic effect. In essence, if a speaker knows independently that a word like professori ‘professor’ is not a pseudo-compound, prosodic word binarity is irrelevant in computing the surface form for suffixed forms of simplex words. In a formal sense, this would require some type of access to the unsuffixed nominative form, which would show the lack of multiple prosodic words.
157
right edge of the word without being final. In the pseudo-compound in (61), by contrast, the presence of the underlying prosodic word results in LEFTMOST deciding the competition in favor of candidate (a), which has secondary stress on the initial syllable of the internal prosodic word, despite incurring two ALIGN-R violations. In this way, pseudo-compounds behave identically to morphological compounds, since in both types of words the internal prosodic word results in ALIGN-R violations in order to satisfy LEFTMOST. Pseudo-compounds not only behave differently from simplex words in terms of stress assignment, but also in terms of vowel harmony, which has led various researchers (Sadeniemi 1949, Välimaa-Blum 1987, Ringen and Heinämäki 1999, and Kiparsky 2003) to suggest that speakers perceive pseudo-compounds as compounds. As in true compounds, in pseudocompounds the second prosodic word can set up a new domain for vowel harmony. In contradistinction to true compounds, however, this process is optional, so that both front and back suffixes are possible in disharmonic pseudo-compounds, as shown below: (62)
Vowel harmony in simplex words, compounds, and pseudo-compounds
ártikkèli ártikkelìlla (*ártikkelìllä) ‘article-ADESS’ pálapèli pálapèlillä (*pálapèlilla) ‘jigsaw puzzle-ADESS’ (pala = piece, peli = game) Pseudo-compound: árkkitèhti árkkitèhdillä~árkkitèhdilla ‘architect-ADESS’
Simplex word: Compound word:
158
In section 4.4.1, the domain of vowel harmony was argued to be the prosodic word. Since a simplex word like artikkeli ‘article’ consists of only a single prosodic word, the back variant of the adessive suffix –lla is selected since the word contains the back vowel a along with the neutral vowels e and i and hence constitutes a back harmony domain. In a compound such as palapeli ‘jigsaw puzzle’, which consists of two prosodic words, pala and peli, the suffix harmonizes with the closest (final) constituent peli. Since peli consists of the neutral vowels e and i, which require a front suffix when they occur alone, the front suffix –llä is selected. By contrast, in the pseudocompound arkkitehti ‘architect’, both a front and back vowel suffix are possible. Since arkkitehti contains the same vowels as the simplex word artikkeli, the claim made above that in a pseudo-compound like arkkitehti, the sequence tehti consists of a prosodic word explains the choice of a front-vowel suffix. However, if the prosodic structure of pseudo-compounds were identical to that of morphological compounds, we would not expect a backvowel suffix to also be possible, since only the immediately adjacent constituent has influence over the choice of a suffix in a compound, by incorporating the inflectional case ending into its prosodic word. How then are we to understand the optionality seen in disharmonic compounds? I argue that the distinction between compounds and pseudo159
compounds with respect to vowel harmony follows from a distinction in prosodic structure, which follows from the analysis already proposed here. Note that on the surface, the prosodic structure of a pseudo-compound differs subtly from that of a morphological compound, as shown below: (63)
Surface distinction between compounds and pseudo-compounds Compound word: Pseudo-compound:
[[sála]ω[sànalla]ω]ω [fílo[sòfilla]ω]ω
Compounds contain two prosodic words dominated by a recursive prosodic word, due to the requirement that both the left and right edges of morphological words be aligned to the same edges of prosodic words. The morphological structure of a compound is thus mirrored perfectly in its prosodic structure. By contrast, a pseudo-compound contains only a single morphological word as well as a prosodic word underlyingly. The underlying prosodic word surfaces faithfully, along with a larger, recursive prosodic word aligned at both edges to the underlying morphological word due to LX≈PR. Exploiting the distinction in prosodic structure between compounds and pseudo-compounds, we can understand the variation in suffixal harmony in pseudo-compounds in terms of the domain of vowel harmony,
160
the prosodic word.40 Let us reexamine the structures in (63), repeated here below, with prosodic words labelled: (64)
Compound word: Pseudo-compound:
[[sála]ω1[sànalla]ω2]ω3 [fílo[sòfilla]ω4]ω5
In the pseudo-compound above, both ω4 and ω5 are domains of harmony, while in the compound example, only ω1 and ω2 are, and the outermost prosodic word, ω3, is not a harmonic domain, even though it is a prosodic word. One way to understand the blocking of harmony is ω3 is view prosodic boundary crossing. The restriction can be formalized as follows: (65)
Vowel harmony The domain of vowel harmony is the prosodic word, provided that a right prosodic word boundary does not intervene within that domain. In the compound example, vowel harmony is blocked from applying
within the outermost prosodic word since the right edge of the initial prosodic word intervenes, thereby closing off the domain. In the pseudocompound, by contrast, there are two possible domains for vowel harmony. A right prosodic word boundary is not encountered in the outermost prosodic word until the end of the pseudo-compound. The possible vowel harmony domains are thus as follows:
40
Thanks to Junko Ito for bringing this point to my attention.
161
(66)
Harmonic domains in compound and pseudo-compounds
Compound word:
Pseudo-compound:
←VH→ ←VH→ [sànalla]ω2]ω3 [ [ sála ]ω1 ↑ (Right PrWd boundary blocks harmony in ω3) ←⎯ VH ⎯⎯→ ←VH→ [fílo [ sòfilla ]ω4]ω5
This distinction in prosodic structure thus allows the generalization to remain intact that the domain of vowel harmony is restricted to the prosodic word, modulo the restriction on right boundary crossing. There is additional evidence for the prosodic distinction between pseudo-compounds proposed here. In a compound in Finnish, the initial member of the compound has inflection, arguing for an analysis as an independent prosodic word. In most compounds, like salasana ‘password’, each member of the compound occurs in the nominative case, which has no ending but may be distinct from the stem of the word. In other compounds, the initial member of the compound may be a case other than the nominative. For example, in talonpoika ‘peasant’, the initial member of the compound is in the genitive case. In a pseudocompound like arkkitehti ‘architect’, by contrast, there is no evidence for positing that the initial sequence arkki comprises an independent prosodic
162
word, since it can never be inflected, while the final sequence tehti of course can. Recapping the discussion, simplex words, compounds, and pseudocompounds in Finnish thus differ in terms of their morphological and prosodic structure, as shown below (the periods in the P-structure indicate where the morphological content is located): (67)
Morphology to prosody mapping of simplex words, compounds, and pseudocompounds Simplex words M-structure: P-structure: In
simplex
{ [
Compounds
X } …. ]ω
words
and
Pseudo-compounds
{ {X} {Y} } [ [.. ]ω [.. ]ω ]ω compounds,
there
{ X } [ .. [ .. ]ω ]ω is
a
one-to-one
correspondence between morphological and prosodic constituents. Pseudocompounds contain an additional prosodic word due to the presence of the underlying prosodic word, and the single underlying morphological word thus is split by a prosodic word boundary on the surface. This articulated prosodic structure thus accounts for the similarity of pseudo-compounds to true compounds on the one hand, since both are composed of multiple prosodic words, yet accounts for the differences on the other, since the single prosodic word in a pseudo-compound is dominated by a recursive prosodic word, while the recursive prosodic word of a compound dominates two 163
prosodic words due to the presence of two morphological words underlyingly. Additionally, significant generalizations can be gained by assuming a maximality condition on prosodic word size – the location of secondary stress in pentasyllabic words is predictable based on phonological shape and the requirement that such words contain two prosodic words. And, the fact that only quadrisyllabic words exhibit variation with respect to pseudocompound status is predicted once prosodic word binarity is assumed, since more than one prosodic structure is possible while still satisfying word binarity. Pseudo-compounds are not limited to Finnish, they have been reported in such diverse languages as Icelandic (Árnason 1999) and Pima (Riggle and Munro 2004). In Icelandic for example, the evidence for a pseudocompound analysis for certain morphologically simplex words comes not only from stress assignment, but also u-umlaut (Árnason 1999). Although it is clear that more work on pseudo-compounds needs to be done, the presence of pseudo-compounds is actually expected, given the logical possibilities of morphology-to-prosody mapping. There are several advantages to the recursive prosodic word structure proposed here for pseudo-compounds in Finnish. First, no new constituents 164
need be added to the prosodic hierarchy. Such constituents have been proposed in the literature (e.g., the colon, see Halle and Clements 1983, Hammond 1987, and Green 1997), but they appear to be limited in scope and many are potentially re-analyzable as recursive prosodic word structures. Second, the optional behavior of vowel harmony in pseudo-compounds receives a natural explanation given the possibility of recursive prosodic word structure and the resulting structural distinction between compounds and pseudo-compounds. When the suffixal vowel harmonizes with the second member of the pseudo-compound, the domain of vowel harmony can be considered to be restricted to the domain of the innermost prosodic word; when the suffixal vowel harmonizes with the first member of the compound, the domain of harmony can be considered to be the outermost prosodic word, since no right prosodic word boundary is crossed. An advantage of this analysis is that it allows for variation in the domain of vowel harmony while still restricting the domain to the prosodic word. If the outermost prosodic word were instead some other prosodic constituent, it would be difficult to explain the optionality of vowel harmony and one would need to declare that vowel harmony occur at a level other than the prosodic word, for which there appears to be no evidence. Finally, by positing underlying prosodic structure 165
in pseudo-compounds, the compoundlike behavior of pseudo-compounds follows from independently motivated constraints, instead of from ad hoc lexical specification of stress. Finally, from a typological perspective, the prosodic structure of pseudo-compounds proposed here fills a logically missing gap in work on the prosodic structure of various compound types in the literature. As Ito and Mester (2003) show in their study of compounds in Japanese, a very rich typology of compound types is required in order to account for the prosodic behavior of compounds in Japanese. These structures include recursive prosodic structure and various morphology to prosody mappings. Given this typology, it seems warranted that more than the usual garden-variety morphology-to-prosody mappings are possible. Further work in this area will shed further light on the full range of compound types.
166
Chapter 5: Conclusion One of the central empirical findings of this dissertation is that the default rhythmic pattern of stress in Finnish is one which has a right-aligned nonfinal stress peak, so that in odd-parity monomorphemic words containing all light syllables, the unfooted syllable will always occur word medially. This claim is supported by the stress patterns of long monomorphemic words, which clearly show the existence of a right-aligned nonfinal secondary stress peak. Previous analyses of Finnish stress have claimed that in such words all feet are aligned to the left edge of the prosodic word and that morphology has a large role in determining the surface stress pattern. The claim the current analysis makes that the default rhythmic pattern has a right-aligned nonfinal secondary stress peak has broad implications for the entire analysis of Finnish stress, as well as the analysis of compounds and pseudo-compounds. As I have shown, the stress-attracting property of inflectional suffixes is epiphenomenal, and can be described by purely rhythmic means. Importantly, the analysis of Finnish stress presented here shows that rhythmic factors, syllable weight, and morphology all have an impact on surface stress, and each set of factors should be examined separately in order to understand the complex interplay among them. 167
From a theoretical standpoint, this dissertation adds to the literature on metrical theory by arguing for a purely grid-based approach to stress, with foot structure derived from more basic constraints defined in terms of the metrical grid. It also expands the understanding of weight-sensitive stress, by showing that Finnish contains a three-way distinction in syllable weight, instead of the usual two-way distinction. Finally, the analysis of pseudocompounds offers insight into how such words can be modeled by explicit reference to prosodic structure, and by appeal to a constraint requiring prosodic words to be maximally binary.
168
References Alber, Birgit. 1997. Quantity sensitivity as constraint interaction. In Phonology in progress - progress in phonology: HIL phonology papers III, ed. Geert Booij and Jeroen van de Weijer, 1-45. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. Alderete, John. 1999. Morphologically governed accent in Optimality Theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Anttila, Arto. 1997. Variation in Finnish phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif. Anttila, Arto. 2000. Derived environment effects in colloquial Helsinki Finnish. Ms., Boston University, Boston, Mass. Árnason, Kristján. 1996. How to meet the European standard: Word stress in Faroese and Icelandic. In Papers from the 2nd Workshop on Comparative Germanic Phonology: Nordlyd 24, 1-22. School of Languages and Literature, University of Tromsø. Benua, Laura. 1995. Identity effects in morphological truncation. In Papers in Optimality Theory, ed. Jill N. Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey, and Suzanne Urbanczyk, 77-136. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Benua, Laura. 1997. Transderivational identity: Phonological relations between words. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Borroff, Marianne. 2003. Against an ONSET analysis of hiatus resolution. Ms., SUNY, Stony Brook, N.Y. [Available on Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu, ROA 586-0303.] Burzio, Luigi. 1996. Multiple correspondence. Ms., Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. Carlson, Lauri. 1978. Word stress in Finnish. Ms., MIT, Cambridge, Mass. 169
Clements, G.N. 1990. The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Papers in laboratory phonology 1: Between the grammar and physics of speech, ed. John Kingston and Mary E. Beckman, 283 – 333. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cohn, Abigail, and John McCarthy. 1994. Alignment and parallelism in Indonesian phonology. Ms., Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. and University of Massachusetts, Amherst. de Lacy, Paul. 2002. The formal expression of markedness. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Duanmu, San. 1990. A formal study of syllable, tone, stress and domain in Chinese languages. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Elenbaas, Nine. 1999. A unified account of binary and ternary stress: Considerations from Sentani and Finnish. Doctoral dissertation, University of Utrecht. Elenbaas, Nine, and René Kager. 1999. Ternary rhythm and the lapse constraint. Phonology 16:273-329. Fitzgerald, Colleen. 1997. O’odham University of Arizona, Tucson.
rhythms.
Doctoral
dissertation,
Gordon, Matthew. 1999. Syllable weight: Phonetics, phonology, and typology. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Gordon, Matthew. 2002. A factorial typology of quantity insensitive stress. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20:491-552. Green, Anthony Dubach. 1997. The prosodic structure of Irish, Scots Gaelic, and Manx. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. Green, Anthony Dubach. 2002. Word, foot, and syllable structure in Burmese. [Available on Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu, ROA 551-1002.]
170
Green, Anthony Dubach, and Michael Kenstowicz. 1995. The Lapse constraint. Ms., MIT, Cambridge, Mass. [Available on Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu, ROA 101-0000.] Halle, Morris, and G. N. Clements. 1983. Problem book in phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Halle, Morris, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1987. An essay on stress. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Hammond, Michael. 1984. Constraining metrical theory: A modular theory of rhythm and destressing. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Hammond, Michael. 1987. Hungarian cola. Phonology Yearbook 4:267–9. Hanson, Kristin, and Paul Kiparsky. 1996. A parametric theory of poetic meter. Language 72:287-335. Harms, Robert. 1997. Finnish structural sketch. Bloomington: Indiana University, 1964. Reprint, London: RoutledgeCurzon. Harrikari, Heli. 2000. Segmental length in Finnish - studies within a constraint-based approach. Doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki. Hayes, Bruce. 1980. A metrical theory of stress rules. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. [Published 1985, New York: Garland] Hayes, Bruce. 1982. Extrametricality and English stress. Linguistic Inquiry 13:227-276. Hayes, Bruce. 1984. The phonology of rhythm in English. Linguistic Inquiry 15:33-74. Hayes, Bruce. 1985. Iambic and trochaic rhythm in stress rules. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. M. Niepokuj et al., 429-46. Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley. 171
Hayes, Bruce. 1987. A revised parametric metrical theory. In Proceedings of the Northeastern Linguistic Society 17, 274-289. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Hayes, Bruce. 1989. Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 20:253-305. Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hint, Mati. 1973. Eesti Keele Sõnafonoloogia I [The word phonology of Estonian I]. Tallinn: Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia. Hyman, Larry. 1985. A Theory of Phonological Weight. Dordrecht: Foris. Iivonen, Antti, Tuija Niemi, and Minna Paananen. 1998. Do F0 peaks coincide with lexical stresses? A comparison of English, Finnish, and German. In Nordic prosody: Proceedings of the VII Conference, Joensuu 1996, ed. Stefan Werner, 142-158. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Inkelas, Sharon. 1989. Prosodic constituency in the lexicon. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif. Itkonen, Terho. 1957. Mellakoihin vai mellakkoihin? Yleiskielemme eräiden taivutushorjuvuuksien taustaa [Mellakoihin or mellakkoihin? Some background on variability in declension in the standard language]. Virittäjä 61, 259—286. Ito, Junko. 1986. Syllable theory in prosodic phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [Published 1988, New York: Garland.] Ito, Junko. 1989. A prosodic theory of epenthesis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7:217-259. Ito, Junko. 1990. Prosodic minimality in Japanese. In Proceedings of CLS 26 II: Papers from the parasession on the syllable in phonetics and phonology, ed. Karen Deaton, Manuela Noske, and Michael Ziolkowki, 213-239. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill. 172
Ito, Junko, and Armin Mester. 1992. Weak Layering and Word Binarity. Report 92-09, Linguistics Research Center, University of California, Santa Cruz. Revised version published in A new century of phonology and phonological theory: A festschrift for Professor Shosuke Haraguchi on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, ed. Takeru Honma, Masao Okazaki, Toshiyuki Tabata, and Shin-ichi Tanaka, 26-65. Tokyo: Kaitakusha, 2003. Ito, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2003. Japanese morphophonemics: Markedness and word structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Jespersen, Otto. 1904. Lehrbuch der Phonetik. Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner. Kager, René. 1994. Ternary rhythm in alignment theory. Ms., Utrecht University. Kager, René. 1999. Optimality theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Karlsson, Fred. 1983. Suomen kielen äänne- ja muotorakenne [The phonological and morphological structure of Finnish]. Porvoo: WSOY. Karttunen, Frances. 1970. Problems in Finnish phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington. Karvonen, Daniel. 1996. Secondary stress in Finnish. Ms., University of California, Santa Cruz. Kenstowicz, Michael. 1996. Base-identity and uniform exponence: Alternatives to cyclicity. In Current trends in phonology: models and methods, ed. Jacques Durand and Bernard Laks, 363-393. Paris: CNRS, and University of Salford: University of Salford Publications. [Available on Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu, ROA 103-0000.] Keyser, Samuel, and Paul Kiparsky. 1984. Syllable structure in Finnish phonology. In Language sound structure, ed. Mark Aronoff and Richard Oehrle, 7-31. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
173
Kiparsky, Paul. 2003. Finnish noun inflection. In Generative approaches to Finnic and Saami linguistics, ed. Diane Nelson and Satu Manninen, 109-161. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications. Korpela, Jukka. Onko suomen kirjoitusjärjestelmä ihanteellinen? [Is the writing system of Finnish ideal?] 11 Nov 2004. . Ladd, Robert. 1986. Intonational phrasing: The case for recursive prosodic structure. In Phonology Yearbook 3, ed. John Ohala, 311-340. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press. Ladd, Robert. 1992. Compound Prosodic Domains. Occasional Papers of the Linguistics Department, Department of Linguistics, University of Edinburgh. Ladefoged, Peter, and Ian Maddieson. 1996. The sounds of the world’s languages. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. Laurosela, Jussi. 1922. Foneettinen tutkimus Etelä-Pohjanmaan murteesta [A phonetic study of the Southern Ostrobothnian dialect]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Liberman, Mark. 1975. The intonational system of English. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Liberman, Mark, and Alan Prince. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8:249-336. McCarthy, John. 2001. A thematic guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press. McCarthy, John, and Alan Prince. 1986. Prosodic morphology. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst and Brandeis University. McCarthy, John, and Alan Prince. 1993a. Generalized alignment. In Yearbook of Morphology, ed. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 79-153. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
174
McCarthy, John, and Alan Prince. 1993b. Prosodic morphology I: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst and Rutgers University. [Also available as Technical Report #3, Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.] McCarthy, John, and Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Papers in Optimality Theory, ed. Jill N. Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey, and Suzanne Urbanczyk, 249-384. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. McCawley, James D. 1968. The phonological component of a grammar of Japanese. The Hague: Mouton. Mester, Armin. 1994. The quantitative trochee in Latin. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12:1-61. Moren, Bruce. 2000. The puzzle of Kashmiri stress: Implications for weight theory. Phonology 17:365-396. Nespor, Marina. 1999. Stress domains. In Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe, ed. Harry van der Hulst, 117-160. Berlin: Mouton. Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. Orie, Olanike Ola, and Douglas Pulleyblank. 1998. Vowel elision is not always onset-driven. Ms., Tulane University, New Orleans, La. and University of British Columbia, Vancouver. [Available on Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu, ROA 290-1298.] Prince, Alan. 1976. ‘Applying’ stress. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Prince, Alan. 1980. A metrical theory for Estonian quantity. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 511-62. Prince, Alan. 1983. Relating to the grid. Linguistic Inquiry 14:19-100. Prince, Alan. 1984. Phonology with tiers. In Language sound structure, ed. Mark Aronoff and Richard Oehrle, 234-244. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 175
Prince, Alan. 1990. Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization. In Papers from the 26th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, volume 2: Parasession on the syllable in phonetics and phonology, ed. Michael Ziolkowski, Manuela Noske, and Karen Deaton, 355-398. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill. Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms., Rutgers University and University of Colorado, Boulder. [Published 2004, Malden, Mass.: Blackwell] Rapola, Martti. 1966. Suomen kielen äännehistorian luennot [Lectures on the historical phonology of Finnish]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura. Riggle, Jason, and Pamela Munro. 2004. One morpheme, two reduplicants: pseudo-compounds in Pima. Handout of talk given at the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Boston, Mass., 10 January 2004. Ringen, Catherine, and Orvokki Heinämäki. 1999. Variation in Finnish vowel harmony: An OT account. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17:303-337. Rosenthall, Samuel. 1994. Vowel/glide alternations in a theory of constraint interaction. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [Available on Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu, ROA 126-0496.] Sadeniemi, Matti. 1949. Metriikkamme perusteet [The fundamentals of Finnish metrics]. Helsinki: Otava. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1981. On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. In Nordic Prosody II, ed. Thorstein Fretheim, 111-140. Trondheim, Norway: Tapir. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3:371–405. 176
Setälä, E. N. 1898. Suomen kielioppi [Finnish grammar]. Helsinki: Otava. Suomi, Kari. 1980. Voicing in English and Finnish stops: A typological comparison with an interlanguage study of the two languages in contact. Turun yliopiston suomalaisen ja yleisen kielitieteen laitoksen julkaisuja 10, Department of Finnish and General Linguistics, University of Turku. Suomi, Kari, James McQueen, and Anne Cutler. 1997. Vowel harmony and speech segmentation in Finnish. Journal of Memory and Language 36 (3):422-444. Trubetzkoy, Nikolai S. 1939. Grunzüge der Phonologie [Principles of Phonology]. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30:219-255. Ussishkin, Adam. 2000. The emergence of fixed prosody. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz. Välimaa-Blum, Riitta. 1987. Finnish vowel harmony as a prescriptive and descriptive rule: An autosegmental account. In Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL 86), ed. F. Marshall, A. Miller and Z. Zhang, 511522. Columbus: The Ohio State University Välimaa-Blum, Riitta. 1999. A feature geometric description of Finnish vowel harmony covering both loans and native words. Lingua 108:247-68. van der Hulst, Harry, and Norval Smith, eds. 1984. Advances in nonlinear phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. van Oostendorp, Marc. 2002. The phonological and morphological status of the prosodic word adjunct. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 11:209-236.
177
Vroomen, Jean, and Jyrki Tuomainen. 1998. The roles of word stress and vowel harmony in speech segmentation. Journal of Memory and Language 38:133-149. Walker, Rachel. 1997. Mongolian stress, licensing, and factorial typology. Ms., University of California, Santa Cruz. [Available on Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu, ROA 172-0197.] Zec, Draga. 1988. Sonority constraints on prosodic structure. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
178
