‘TheDutchFootandtheChantedCall’‘TheDutchFootandtheChantedCall’ CarlosGussenhoven bron...

‘The Dutch Foot and the Chanted Call’

Carlos Gussenhoven

bronCarlos Gussenhoven, ‘The Dutch Foot and the Chanted Call.’ In: Journal of Linguistics 29 (1993),

p. 37-63.

Zie voor verantwoording: http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/guss001dutc01_01/colofon.htm

© 2002 dbnl / Carlos Gussenhoven

37

The Dutch foot and the chanted callCarlos Gussenhoven

University of Nijmegen

(Received 1 April 1992; revised 13 April 1993)

1. Introduction

Algorithms for the assignment of main word stress in Dutch have never beensystematically tested against foot-based segmental processes. 1 The assumptionhas apparently been that such processes do not exist. In this article, it is suggestedthat Dutch has at least four segmental rules that make reference to the foot, andthat Dutch has a chanted intonation contour whose realization is governed by footstructure. The evidence provided by all these processes largely confirms the morerecent proposals for Dutch foot structure, including Kager (1989) and Trommelen& Zonneveld (1989), except where they fail to conform to (1).

(1)Monosyllabic feet can only occur word-finally

The generalization in (1) rules out the structures in (2), which have been widelyassumed in the literature on Dutch; both have a non-final monosyllabic foot, withmain stress in (2a), and without main stress in (2b). The structures argued for in thisarticle are given in (3a, b), respectively. In recent treatments, the structure in (2a)is commonly assumed when the final syllable is closed, while the structure of (3a)is assumed when the final syllable is open (for example pínda ‘peanut’). It will beshown that, in final position, this is not a relevant distinction in the phonology ofDutch. Second, it will be shown that the structure in (2b) is confined to the lexicon,and that a postlexical foot-deletion rule creates the structure of (3b), which is therelevant structure for postlexical phonology. I will use the bracketed grid notation ofHayes (1991) throughout.

(2)

(Pwordlevel)

x)()(x

(Footlevel)

(x)(x)(x)(x)

bakta(b)nashar(a)

1 This material was presented at themeeting of theWord Prosody ThemeGroup of the EuropeanScience Foundation held in Salzburg on 10-12 October 1991. I should like to thank theaudience for treading softly on my intuitions. I gratefully acknowledge the useful comments Ihave received, on my presentation as well as on an earlier draft of this article, from GeertBooij, Judith Haan, Bruce Hayes, Harry van der Hulst, René Kager, Paul Kiparsky, Aditi Lahiri,Erwin Marsi and Mieke Trommelen. I have liberally made use of their judgements and theinformation they have given me. Any errors are my responsibility only. I should like to thankRichard Piepenbrock for his assistance with a search in the CELEX data base.

Carlos Gussenhoven, ‘The Dutch Foot and the Chanted Call’

38

(3)

x)()(x(x).. )(xbakta(b)nashar(a)

This article takes the realization of the Dutch vocative chant as its starting point. Itis described in section 2, in terms of the analysis of the English chant by Hayes &Lahiri (1992). The plausible assumption is made that the distribution of one of itstones is foot-based and, in section 3, the foot structure of a number of word typesis established on the basis of the way they are pronounced when chanted. Then,four segmental rules will be presented, and it will be shown that they confirm thestructures arrived at. In section 4, these results are compared with a number ofproposals in the literature. There, I also consider and reject the claim by Trommelen& Zonneveld (1989) that rightward stress shift in Dutch is foot-based. Section 5summarizes the results.

2. The ‘chanted call’

One of the best-known intonation contours of English is the tune which has beendescribed as the ‘calling contour’ (see Gibbon, 1976), the ‘vocative chant’ (Liberman,1975), the ‘stylized fall’ (Ladd, 1978) and, most recently, as the ‘chanted call’ (Hayes& Lahiri, 1992), which term I will adopt here. The tune is most easily evoked byimagining a speaker calling someone's name, although the meaning of this tune isbest characterized as ‘routineness’ (Ladd, 1978). In this section, the Dutch vocativechant is described in terms of the analysis given by Hayes & Lahiri (1992) for theEngish vocative chant. That analysis is given in section 2.1, and our analysis of theDutch tune is given in section 2.2.

2.1 Hayes & Lahiri 1992

2.1.1 The facts

2.1.1.1 Tones. The tonal facts of the English chanted call, as set out by Liberman(1975: 20), are summarized by Hayes & Lahiri as in (4). Illustrative data are givenin (5). (As Hayes & Lahiri observe, these utterances become more plausible if oneimagines them as names for pets.)

(4)(a) H(igh) begins on the main stress.(b) M(id) begins on the strongest stress after H.(c) If all syllables after the main stress are stressless, then M begins on the final

syllable.(d) If the main stress is final, it receives the HM sequence.(e) Pitches extend in time to the next pitch or the phrase end.


39

(5)

Examples (5a) and (5b) illustrate that the association of M is sensitive to thepostnuclear stress, which is on the penult in (5a), but on the last in (5b) (which isquadrisyllabic in American English). Examples (5c, d) illustrate how a stresslessfinal syllable attracts the M if no secondary stress intervenes between it and themain stress. In (5e), the two levels are realized on the same syllable, because mainstress is on the final syllable, while (5f) (from Liberman, 1975) illustrates that the Mlooks for the strongest stress after the main stress. Here, the word-internal secondarystress on -nath- has less stress than unaccented dear.

2.1.1.2 Duration. The lengthening of the first syllable of a pitch level is illustrated byHayes & Lahiri with the help of examples like those in (6), which show that the degreeof lengthening depends on the number of syllables that are associated with a pitchlevel. The most extreme lengthening occurs when both pitch levels are on the samesyllable, as in (6a). If a pitch level extends over exactly one syllable, it is less extreme,but obligatory, as illustrated in (6b-d). If it extends over two syllables, the lengtheningis optional, as in (6c-e). With three syllables, it is dispreferred, as in (6f, g), whilethe addition of a fourth syllable makes lengthening impossible (cf. (5f)).

(6)


40

Lastly, Hayes & Lahiri observe that the lengthening neutralizes the vowel-quantitydistinction between tense and lax vowels, as shown in (7).

(7)

['pɐ:li:]Polly!['pɔ:li:]Paulie!

2.1.2 Hayes & Lahiri's analysis

To account for the tonal facts, Hayes & Lahiri propose that the tune consists of thetone sequence H M. The emphasis in their analysis is on the durational propertiesof the tune. They point out that the data in (7) rule out an account in terms of theaddition of moras or Xs. Instead, they assume that the tone comes with a grid. Thegrid is intended to capture both the rhythmic facts (encoded as column height) andthe durational facts (encoded as the number of columns associated with a tone).Underlyingly, the representation of the English chanted call is as in (8).

(8)

Hayes & Lahiri propose (9) as a constraint on grids, which they offer as theirinterpretation of the rhythmic nature of speech (cf. ‘Clash Avoidance’ and ‘LapseAvoidance’ in other work). As a result of (9), representation (8) will be expanded ifthere are no free syllables after the beats. In such a case, (9) minimally requiresone beat to be added, with an option for a second beat. The added beats associatewith the preceding strong syllable. This accounts for the durational facts: the morebeats a syllable associates with, the longer it will be.

(9)Obligatory Offbeat Condition

Any strong beat must be directly followed by a weak beat.


41

Implementation of (9) will be referred to as BEAT SPLITTING. The pitch levels areaccounted for by (10), TONE SHARING.

(10)Tone Sharing

When a beat is split, all parts of the beat retain the tone of the original.

Association of the grid follows the description in (4): the strong beat with H associateswith the main stress, and the strong beat with M associates with the strongest stressafter H, or with the last syllable if there are only stressless syllables. The preciseway the beats of the chanted call are mapped onto the stresses in the text is notmade explicit by Hayes & Lahiri, but some grid-matching procedure is envisaged.In (11), a derivation is given, with (i) illustrating the result of the grid-matchingprocedure, and with (ii) and (iii) illustrating Beat Splitting and Tone Sharing,respectively. In (12a, b), two illustrative surface representations are reproduced.

(11) en (12)

2.2 The Dutch chanted call

Tunes of the type exemplified by the English chanted call occur in many languages.Hayes & Lahiri describe the Bengali counterpart, showing how it differs from theEnglish tune in the way the pitch levels are distributed over the syllables in the word.The Dutch chanted call differs from both of these, most strikingly in the fact that, inone very common variant, it may have more than two level pitches. 2 First considerthe examples in (13), which

2 I am indebted to Bob Ladd for pointing this fact out to me.


42

would appear to suggest that the Dutch chanted call follows the same pattern asthe English one. Also the neutralization of vowel quantity observed by Hayes & Lahirifor English appears to occur in Dutch, as shown in (14). In these examples, [α] is alax, short vowel, while [a] is a tense, long vowel, usually given as [a:]. (The vowelsystem of Dutch consists of a set of five lax vowels, [ι, ν, ε, α, ɔ], which are short,and a set of ten tense vowels, [i, y, u; e:, ø:, o:; εi, œy, αu; a:], which are long, exceptfor the close series [i, y, u]; and diphthongal, except for [i, y, u] and [a:]. It also hasa reduced vowel [ə]. In this article, I will from now on use the length mark only toindicate lengthening as created by some rule, not to indicate membership of thetense class.)

(13)

(e) lach]v-erig]Adj-e]Obl

(14)

‘cat + DIM’['kα:tjə:]Katje!‘proper name’['ka:tjə:]Kaatje!

The data in (15) show that unlike English, Dutch allows more than two level pitches.The difference between (15a) and (15b) is that the penult has [ə] in (15a), but a full[α] in (15b), the main stress being on the first syllable in either case. The differenceis easily accounted for by the different foot structures: while ‘widow’ is a single foot,‘almanac’ consists of two feet, [αlma] and [nαk] (for example Van der Hulst, 1984).Every (unaccented) foot after the accented syllable can trigger a new pitch level inthis way, as shown by (15c), a compound with the accent on the first constituent(‘fake’). As can be seen, both unaccented feet of ‘almanac’ trigger the formation ofa pitch level, as does the final (weak syllable.

(15)


43

Let us first give an analysis of the contour in the terms of Hayes & Lahiri's proposal.The important implication of the difference between the data in (15) and thecomparable English data in (5a, f) is that in Dutch the last syllable ALWAYS has aseparate pitch level. That is, it has a boundary tone, not some other tone landingthere by default, as is the case in English. The intermediate pitch levels evidentlycannot be accounted for by postulating underlying tones, as their number varies asa function of the text (see Pierrehumbert, 1980: 76). These levels can be obtainedby spreading the initial H to every following foot, and by subsequently applying atone-splitting operation, to ensure that every foot has its own H. The ObligatoryOffbeat Condition (9) and Tone Sharing (10) then apply as in English. In order tocreate the terraced realization of the consecutive H tones, we stipulate that thesetones undergo the sameDownstep implementation rule as do downstepped accentedH*'s (Van den Berg, Gussenhoven & Rietveld, 1992). Since downstepped contoursneed to appeal to the presence of a morpheme [DOWNSTEP] in order to implementthe pitch lowering, there seems to be no reason for not stipulating that Hs in thechanted call trigger downstep. This option is given in (16). 3

(16)

The representation in (16) matches up with the text such that H goes to the accentedsyllable, and L to the last syllable. If this syllable is not a foot, (16) will provide theappropriate stress level. If it is a foot, (16) applies in the ‘matching’ sense, asenvisaged for (4). In order to create the intermediate levels, we need H-SPREADING,as given in (17).

3 Alternatively, under an assumption that Downstep is triggered by particular tonal configurations(Beckman & Pierrehumbert, 1986; Hayes & Lahiri, 1991), the first H would have to be replacedwith a HL unit (cf. Yip, 1989), which would spread as such to following feet, as suggested tome by Paul Kiparsky. The context for Downstep could then be ‘After HL’.


44

(17)

The description is summarized in (18). The examples in (19a-c) are self-explanatory.

(18)(a) Associate H and L(b) H-Spreading (17)(c) H-Splitting(d) Beat Splitting (9)(e) Tone Sharing (10)(f) (Phonetic implementation) Downstep H after H (in the chanted call)

(19)


45

3. The Dutch foot

In this section, the realization of the Dutch chanted call is investigated as a functionof the prosodic structure of the word. First, words with the main stress on the penult(‘trochees’) and words with the stress on the antepenult (‘dactyls’) are discussed,so as to ascertain what foot structures occur after the main stress. (I will continueto use scare quotes when using these terms in these senses.) The conclusion willbe that a ‘trochee’ is a single foot, regardless of the segmental composition of thefinal syllable, and that a ‘dactyl’ contains two feet, a binary foot followed by amonosyllabic foot, unless the last syllable contains schwa, in which case the ‘dactyl’is a ternary foot. In addition to the chanted call, evidence will be presented basedon four segmental processes and on the distribution of [h]. Next, the foot structurebefore the main stress is investigated by considering the behaviour of the chantedcall in words with one syllable before the main stress (‘iambs’), and words with twosyllables before the main stress (‘anapaests’). In support of the findings here, thedurational characteristics of the prestress syllable in ‘iambs’ are discussed. Here,the conclusions will be that this syllable loses its foot postlexically, and that the firsttwo syllables of an ‘anapaest’ form a binary foot.

3.1 ‘Trochees’

Words with the main stress on the penult have only a single pitch level, if a syllableis added to attract the boundary L of (10). That is, regardless of its segmentalcomposition, the final syllable of such words fails to undergo H-Spreading. Examples,with VV, VC and VCC stem-final syllables, are given in (20). The final syllablerepresents the diminutive suffix.

(20)Two levels

‘crowd’[mø(:)tətjə:méute-tje‘eel’[pá(:)lιηkjə]páling-kje‘peanut’[pí(:)ndatə:]pínda-tje‘kayak’[ká(:)jαkjə:]káyak-je‘suit of armour’[hα]:)rnαsjə:]hárnas-je‘island’[εi(:)lαntjə:]éiland-je


46

As pointed out to me by René Kager, such words contrast with compounds. Acompound like wándàad ‘misdeed’ will have three levels when diminutivized, whichis explained by the fact that the syllable daad represents a Pword, and hence a foot.

3.2 ‘Dactyls’

We have seen in section 2.2 that words with the main stress on the antepenultappear to behave differently depending on whether their last syllable is reduced orfull. The difference becomes apparent if at least one more syllable follows to takethe boundary L. ‘Dactyl’-final full-vowelled syllables trigger the formation of a newpitch level, as shown in (21b), but ‘dactyl’-final weak-vowelled ones do not, as shownin (21a). The added syllable is the diminutive suffix.

(21)(a) Two levels

‘widow’[υé(:)dywətjə:]wéduwe-tje

‘Asia’[á(:)zijətjə:]Ázië-tje

‘medium’[mé(:)dijəmpjə:]médium-pje

(b) Three levels

‘Panama’[pα(:)namà:tjə:]Pánamà-tje‘alibi’[á(:)libì:tjə:]álibì-tje‘elephant’[ó(:)lifὰ:ntə:]ólifànt-je

3.2.1 Derived ‘dactyls’

As is to be expected, the attachment of suffixes with schwa (as opposed to a fullvowel) does not lead to the creation of new pitch level, since such syllables areadjoined to the last foot of the base. Equally unexpectedly, the attachment of afull-vowelled (stress-neutral) suffix to a ‘trochee’ will begin a new foot. For instance,the diminutivized agentive noun [[['υαndəl]v a:r]N tjə] N ‘walk + er + DIM’ has threepitch levels. There is, however, one interesting exception. When the deverbalnominalizing suffix -ιη is attached to a ‘trochee’, it triggers a new level, as is to beexpected of a syllable with a vowel other than schwa; but when that ‘trochee’ endsin a vowel, it does not. There is therefore a contrast between (22a) and (22b).

(22)



47

The explanation of this difference in behaviour is somehow to be found in the relationbetween the weight of the final syllable and the presence of an onset: Kager &Zonneveld (1986) observe that underived trisyllabic feet, like those in (21a), arecharacterized by an onsetless final syllable with schwa. (The glide that appearsbetween these two syllables results from a postlexical rule.) Apparently, also [ι]counts as a reduced vowel after an unstressed syllable, but only if its syllable hasno onset. I will return to this observation in section 3.2.3.

To summarize, the data for ‘trochees’ and ‘dactyls’ suggests that Dutch words withthe main stress on the penult end in disyllabic feet, regardless of the segmentalcomposition of the syllables. (I reserve judgement on some words with super-heavyfinal syllables, that is, those ending in VVC or (V)VCC, like likdoorn ‘corn in foot’,which may be compounds. See Trommelen & Zonneveld, 1989.) Words with themain stress located on the third syllable from the end have a final monosyllabic foot,provided it is not a reduced, onsetless syllable. These foot structures are given in(23).

(23)

(x )(x )(x )(x . . )(x .) (x)(x . )σ σ σσ σ σσ σwe du wePa na mapin daA zi ëal ma nakhar nas(ver) ta xi ingo li fantei land

In support of the analysis of ‘trochees’ and ‘dactyls’, we now turn to the lexical rulethat lengthens [i, y, u] before [r] (Pre-r-Lengthening), a lexical rule inserting [ə]between noun stems and the diminutive suffix (ə-Insertion), a postlexical rule thatdevoices [j] after [p, t, k] (j-Devoicing), a postlexical rule breaking up certainconsonant clusters (Svarabhakti), and the distributional pattern of [h].

3.2.2 Pre-r-Lengthening

Pre-r-Lengthening lengthens tense [i, y, u] before [r]. While [bit] ‘beetroot’ has thesame duration as [bιt] ‘bit’, which has a lax vowel, [bi:r] ‘beer’ is durationally thesame as [be:r] ‘bear’; similarly, [brysk] ‘brusque’ contrasts with [by:rt] ‘neighbourhood’.The data in (24) make it clear that the rule is not syllable-based: (24a, b) have the[r] in the same syllable, but (24c, d) show that [r] may also follow in the next syllable.The possibility of a word-based rule is excluded by (25). In (25a, b), the tense vowelappears in an initial monosyllable before a foot beginning with [r], while in (25c, d)the tense vowel ends a binary foot before [r]. No lengthening takes place in thesecontexts. It is concluded that the rule is foot-based, and that lengthening


48

takes place when [r] follows in the same foot. (The length mark is used to indicatethe result of Pre-r Lengthening.)

(24)

‘algae’[υí:r](a)‘Oliver’[ólivì:r](b)‘slut’[slú:ri](c)‘barrel organ’[pi:rəmənt](d)

(25)

‘pirate’[pirát]*[pi:rát](a)‘hurray’[hurá]*[hu:rá](b)‘corduroy’[kɔrdyrɔj]*[kɔrdy:rɔj](c)‘admiral’[αtmirál]*[αtmi:rál](d)

The prediction of our analysis is that [i, y, u] are long when occurring before [r] inthe second syllable of a ‘trochee’, regardless of the segmental composition of thissyllable. This prediction is borne out in (26). The rule is formalized in (27), whichassumes that short [i, y, u] are linked to the first of two consecutive V-slots. (Theempty second V-slot accounts for the distributional behaviour of [i, y, u] as longvowels; the representation of [i] contrasts on the one hand with [ι], which is linkedto the only V-slot of its syllable, and on the other with [i:], which is linked to twoV-slots underlyingly, and which vowel appears in loans like analyse, Hermans, 1992.)

(26)

‘incense’[υí:rok](a)‘scoundrel’[dú:rαk](b)‘sorrel’[zý:rιη](c)

(27)

The rule must be lexical. Ablauted past tense verb stems fail to undergoPre-r-Lengthening. For example, bedierf [bə'dirf] ‘spoiled’ and wierp [υirp] ‘threw’have short [i]. We will return to this point in section 3.3.

3.2.3 ə-Insertion


In Kooij (1982), it has already been proposed that the rule inserting schwa betweenthe stem and the diminutive suffix in Dutch is foot-based: this schwa is inserted onlyif the stem ends in a monosyllabic foot (see also Van der Hulst, 1984: 124, who alsogives an earlier unpublished reference Van der Hulst, 1981, and Booij, 1984). Theproposal suffered a setback in Trommelen (1983: 13, 31), who argued against theidea on the ground that segmental


49

conditions need to be placed on the rule, and that the specific form of these feetwas not independently supported. It is true that the rhyme must consist of a laxvowel and a sonorant consonant. Research on prosody-based rules has shown,however, that simultaneous reference to prosodic constituents and segmentalinformation is commonplace (Kahn, 1976; Nespor & Vogel, 1986). As for the objectionthat the required foot structure is not independently motivated, we have shown thatthe feet required for diminutive ə-Insertion are independently required by the chantedcall and Pre-r-Lengthening, while below we will see that j-Devoicing also requiresthese structures. The sensitivity of ə-Insertion to foot-structure is illustrated in (28).Here, the (a)-examples trigger the rule, while the ‘trochees’ in (28b) do not.

(28)

DIMINUTIVESTEM(a)‘ring’[rιηətjə][rιη]‘sun’[zɔnətjə][zɔn]‘walk’[υαndəlιηətjə][υαndəlιη]‘horizon’[hórizɔnətjə][hórizɔn]‘eel’[pálιeta;kjə][pálιη](b)‘album’[αlbΥmpjə][αlbΥm]‘python’[pítɔntjə][pítɔn]‘Satan’[sátαntjə][sátαn]

Trommelen (1983: 47) observes that words of the type (28b) are sometimes givenwith inserted schwa by native speakers. It is noted, however, first, that the formswithout schwa are always considered to be well formed; second, that schwa-fullforms are only given for words with [ɔ, α] before the final sonorant consonant, like‘python’, ‘Satan’, which are recent borrowings, and rare; third, that such data havebeen elicited, not observed. It is possible that native speakers are simply insecurewhen asked to give the diminutive forms of such words. It should be borne in mindthat all other words ending in [-ɔntjə, -αntjə] contain stems ending in [-nt], and thatthe regularity that words ending in [-αn, ɔn] take schwa (such as [kαn] ‘jug’, [stádiɔn]‘stadium’) must be very strong. That fact that schwa-less forms for ‘python’, ‘Satan’are well formed at all therefore constitutes strong evidence in favour of our rule (29).

(29)


50

Interesting confirmation of the analysis is provided by the diminutive form of[ɔntsény-ιη] ontzenuwing ‘refutation’, a noun formed by suffixing [-ιη] to the verb[ɔnt-zényυ]. Haverkamp-Lubbers & Kooij (1971) give it as [ɔntsény-ιηkjə], that isWITHOUT inserted schwa. There is no obvious way in which this word distinguishesitself from the words in (28a). If we assume, however, that ‘refutation’ is a singlefoot, like ‘taxi-fication’ (see (22a)), the failure of ə-Insertion is precisely what onewould expect, given the foot-based nature of the rule. This analysis predicts theabsence of a consonant in the onset of the final syllable (see (23)). That is, underlying[υ] of [zényυ] must be deleted when [-ιη] is added, so as to cause the resultantsegment string to conform to the pattern of (22), third column. It can in fact bedemonstrated that the [w] of ontzenuwing is a postlexically inserted glide. Onephonetic difference between an underlying labial glide and an inserted one is that,in the onset, the underlying one can be labio-dental rather than bilabial (seeZwaardemaker & Eijckman, 1928: 154). In ontzenuwing, the labio-dentalpronunciation is indeed excluded, showing the [w] is inserted. Consistent with thisis the fact that a ‘chanted’ realization of the diminutivized form has two levels, justas does (22a).

3.2.4 j-Devoicing

The third rule which provides evidence for our analysis of Dutch foot structure isj-Devoicing. Syllable-initial [pj, tj, kj] display strong devoicing of [j] in words like [kɔpje,sχαtje, pαkje] ‘cup + DIM’, ‘darling + DIM’, ‘packet + DIM’. Initially in the word, thedevoicing is not obligatory. This is shown in (30). Now notice that in ‘trochees’ like[djɔkja] ‘Jokjakarta’ the devoicing is obligatory, as shown in (31), which is evidencethat they form single feet. The prediction is also that in ‘dactyls’ like bárbecùedevoicing of [j] is not obligatory, while in an otherwise similar word in which the thirdsyllable has schwa, like mónnikje ‘monk-DIM’, the devoicing is obligatory again. Thisis correct, and shown in (32). These facts are explained if we assume that j-Devoicingis obligatory if the cluster is foot-internal rather than foot-initial, assuming the footstructures in (23). The rule is given in (33).

(30)

name[pj]/[pj][pjɔtər]name[tj]/[tj][tjért]name[kj]/[kj][kjεld]

‘cat + DIM’*[tj], [tj][kαtjə]‘cup + DIM’*[pj], [pj][kɔpjə]‘tray + DIM’*[kj], [kj][bakjə]

(31)

‘soy sauce’*[tj], [tj][kítjαp]‘Jokjakarta’*[kj], [kj][djɔkja]


51

(32)

‘barbecue’[kj]/[kj][bαrbəkju]‘monk + DIM’*[kj], [kj][mɔnəkjə]

(33)

3.2.5 Svarabhakti

Clusters of [r, l] plus a consonant other than [t, s] are variably broken up by [ə] inmany varieties of Dutch, as in [αr(ə)m, dεl(ə)ft, εr(ə)kər] ‘arm, Delft, bay-window’.This rule, referred to as Svarabhakti, has generally been characterized assyllable-based (Trommelen, 1983; Booij, 1984; Nespor & Vogel, 1986), the claimbeing made that the cluster must be tautosyllabic. Trommelen & Zonneveld (1989:140) accommodate words like [εr(ə)kər] under this analysis by leaving the last schwaof a word unsyllabified, causing the preceding consonant(s) to be included in thecoda of the preceding syllable. This analysis is questionable, as it presupposes thatthe final syllable is syllabified only after the postlexical rule of Svarabhakti hasapplied. This means that Final Devoicing, a postcyclic lexical rule, is incorrectlypredicted to apply in words like vrede [vre:də] ‘peace’. Moreover, in non-standardwestern varieties, Svarabhakti also applies in ‘trochees’ with a full vowel in the finalsyllable, as Aditi Lahiri pointed out to me. In Amsterdam Dutch, for instance, it freelyapplies in the ‘trochees’ in (34a). In (34b), by contrast, where the liquid and theconsonant are not inside the same foot, Svarabhakti never applies. The data canbe explained by assuming that stressed syllables add the initial consonant of afollowing weak syllable to their coda; in standard Dutch, but not in the westernvarieties, the weak syllable must be schwa (René Kager, personal communication;see also Berendsen & Zonneveld, 1985). This solution assumes an ambisyllabic [k]in ['εr(ə)kər] in Dutch generally, and ambisyllabic [m] in ‘Helma’ (34a) in the west.All varieties then have the same syllable-based rule of Svarabhakti. The requiredresyllabification rule creating ambisyllabic consonants in the western varieties ofcourse confirms the analysis of ‘trochees’ as binary feet. Alternatively, Svarabhakticould be formulated as a foot-based rule. Whatever solution is chosen, 4 referenceto the foot will have to be made.

4 The formulation of Svarabhakti is possible without reference to the feature [- coronal] if coronalclusters are first made to share a place node, after which such clusters cannot be broken up.


52

(34)

name['hεl(ə)ma](a)‘the Balkans’['bαl(ə)kαn]‘Volvo’['fɔl(ə)fo]‘karma’['kαr(ə)ma]

‘harpoon’*[hαrə'pun][har'pun](b)‘balcony’*[bαbə'kɔn][bαl'kɔn]‘sulphyte’*[sΥlə'fit][sΥl'fit]‘Turkey’*[tΥrə'kεiə][tΥr'kεiə]

3.2.6 The distribution of h

Lastly, there is a distributional fact that can be shown to confirm the conception offoot structure presented here, of which I was reminded by Harry van der Hulst. Thesegment [h] never occurs foot-internally in Dutch. Instead of [h], we find the productsof HOMORGANIC GLIDE INSERTION wherever the glottal consonant might beexpected to appear foot-internally on the basis of the spelling. In (35a), [h] ispronounced: in all cases, it is not foot-internal. By contrast, [h] does not appear inthe ‘trochees’ in (35b), regardless of the quality of the final vowel or of whether it isclosed or open. (I suspect [P] has the same distributuion as [h]; this question requiresexperimental investigation.)

(35)

‘hat’[hút]hoed(a)‘Abraham’[ábrahὰm]Abraham‘John’[johαnəs]Johannes‘messenger’[herɔut]herautname[níjə]Niehe(b)

‘aloha’[alówa]aloha

‘John’[jówαn]Johan

3.3 ‘Iambs’

We continue our investigation by returning to the chanted call, and turn our attentionto words with an initial pretonic syllable (‘iambs’). When an ‘iamb’ occurs in secondposition in a compound, which structure has the main stress on the first constituent,its first syllable does not trigger the formation of a new pitch level. In the nominal


compounds in (36a), the initial syllable of the second constituent continues the pitchlevel that was started on the main stress of the first constituent. By contrast, in (36b),which has ‘trochees’ instead of ‘iambs’ in second position, the initial syllable of thesecond constituent does trigger a new pitch level. Observe that the durational factsare independent of the word boundary: lengthening is not obligatory for the first pitchlevel of (36a), since it is followed by the pretonic syllable of the second constituent,which undergoes Tone Sharing.


53

(36)

These facts suggest that Dutch initial syllables do not form monosyllabic feet.Regardless of the presence of a full vowel, or of a coda, such syllables fail to triggerH-Spreading (17). The footless status of the initial syllable does not depend on thesewords being disyllables: the initial syllable in [kαntínə] ‘canteen’ is treated in exactlythe same way (cf. [bədrεifs-kαntìnə] ‘factory canteen’).

3.4 Anapaests

Words with two syllables before the word stress, like [tιləfón] ‘telephone’ allowH-Spreading (17) to apply to the initial two syllables. If we use such a word as asecond constituent of a compound, the level started on the first constituent may beinterrupted, and a new level be formed. It is to be noted that a realization with acontinued pitch level is also natural. Both variants are given in (37). I will return tothis point in section 4.1.

(37)

In words with three syllables before the main stress, like càrdiolóog ‘cardiologist’,màrihuána, a separate pitch level appears on those syllables in post-tonic position,as in nép-màrihuàna ‘fake marihuana’. This confirms the existence of initial ternaryfeet. In (38), the foot structures of ‘mattress’, ‘canteen’, ‘telephone’ and ‘marihuana’are given in (38).


54

(38)

( x )( x)( x )( x)(x . .)(x . )(x . )(x)(x . )(x)σ σ σ σ σσ σ σσ σ σσ σma ri hu a nate le foonkan ti nema tras

While after the main stress, the proposed footing is independently supported by anumber a phenomena, the proposed footing before the main stress is not as amplysupportable by other rules or distribution patterns. However, interesting evidencecan be found in durational facts.

3.4.1 Pre-stress foot structure: Foot Deletion and Footless VowelShortening

Our analysis will be uncontroversial where words with two or three syllables beforethe main stress are concerned. In fact, the non-final ternary foot of ‘marihuana’ isindependently supported by the distribution of [h]. In (39), we see that the thirdsyllable is not [hu], as it might have been on the basis of the spelling, but [u], showingthat syllable is foot-internal. And the initial two syllables of an ‘anapest’ do indeedform a foot, as shown by Pre-r-Lengthening. I repeat (24d) in (40).

(39)

‘marihuana’[màrijuwána]

(40)

‘barrel organ’[pì:rəmənt]

It is the footless status of initial prestress syllables that may appear problematic.For example, the presence of [h] in initial position in ‘iambs’ suggests that this syllableis a foot, since [h] typically occurs foot-initially (see (35)). Our suggestion is that thissyllable is indeed a foot in the lexicon, and that defooting is a postlexical rule. Themain argument for this solution is based on the observation that when [r] follows atense vowel in an initial prestress syllable, there is no durational distinction between[i, y, u] and the other (long) tense vowels. In this context, these vowels are long incareful, dictation-style speech, but are shortened in ordinary speech. This is shownin (41).

(41)

NormalVery formal‘Saarbrücken’[zarbrýken][za:rbrýken](a)‘festoon’[χirlαndə][χi:r'lαndə](b)


‘estate agent's fee’[kur'táζə][ku:rtáζə](c)

Pre-r-Lengthening applies in the lexicon: recall that ablauted past-tense verb formsalso fail to undergo Pre-r-Lengthening, that is, these forms are exceptions to therule. The fact that the words in (41) can be pronounced with long pre-r vowels incareful, dictation-style speech indeed suggests that Pre-


55

r-Lengthening applied to them, and that in the lexicon the initial syllable must be afoot. (As already shown by ə-Insertion in diminutives, foot structure is available inthe lexicon; see Booij, 1988; Inkelas, 1989.) The shortened forms are accountedfor by assuming that postlexical Foot Deletion is reflected in variable durationalreduction of the stray syllable. Indeed, all such initial defooted syllables aredurationally reduced, regardless of segmental composition.While this shortening of unfooted syllables may be seen as resulting from phonetic

implementation rules, there is one context in which a categorical shortening wouldappear to take place. The relevant data are given in (42). They show that indictation-style speech, long tense vowels are indeed long in open prestress syllables,as in (42a, b), but that in ordinary speech styles they merge with short tense [i, y,u], as shown in (42c), as well as with short lax vowels, as in (42d).

(42)

NormalVery formal‘ready’[parát][pa:rát](a)‘anal’[análə][a:nálə](b)‘pirate’[pirát][pirát](c)‘annals’[αnálə][αnálə](d)

Of course, (42c) is straightforwardly accounted for, because (42c) never met thestructural description of Pre-r-Lengthening: [i] and [r] are in different feet in thelexicon, hence [i] is not long, even in careful speech. Durationally, then, this form isequivalent to (42d), which has a lax vowel. What is unexpected is the merger inordinary speech styles between long and short vowels, since if durational reductionaffects both types of syllable in equal measure, as indeed we must assume, thenthe first syllables of (42a, b) should be shorter than those in (42c, d). However, thereseems to be no quantity difference at all. This suggests that open-syllabledappendices lose a V-slot. Since short vowels are lexically provided with a codaconsonant, which will be ambisyllabic if only one consonant separates it from thenext vowel (Van der Hulst, 1985), the representations of long and short vowelsremain distinct after the loss of the V-slot, which accounts for the subtle qualitydifference that remains between shortened [a] and [α]. I give the rule in (44). FootDeletion, which precedes (44), is given in (43). The idea here is that with the ‘x’ alsothe constituent brackets are deleted. The representations of ‘anal’ and ‘annals’ aregiven in (45a, b), respectively.

(43)

(Foot Deletion x →Ø/(__)(x(σ

(44)Footless Vowel Shortening V → Ø / ω((… V__) σ …)ω


56

(45)

3.5 Summary

The investigation of Dutch foot structure on the basis of the chanted call and ofPre-r-Lengthening, ə-Insertion, Svarabhakti, j-Devoicing, the distribution of [h] andthe durational reduction of initial prestress syllables has led to the following twoconclusions:

1. Contrary to what other proposals claim, trochees are single binary feet,regardless of the composition of the final syllable. 5

2. Initial monosyllabic feet are deleted postlexically.

Together, these conclusions amount - postlexically - to the generalization with whichwe started this article. In the following section, some attention is paid to previousproposals, and an argument is rejected for the traditional view that words like hárnascontain two monosyllabic feet.

4. Comparison with earlier proposals

Stress has been a very productive area in the Netherlands. Since the early 1980sthere have been a number of proposals for the derivation of Dutch word stress. In(46), I list representative foot structures as given in or inferred from a number ofpublications. (The abbreviated references are, respectively, Van der Hulst &Moortgat,1981; Neijt & Zonneveld, 1982; Van der Hulst, 1984; Kager, 1985; Langeweg, 1988;Lahiri & Koreman, 1987; Kager, 1989; Trommelen & Zonneveld, 1989.) Theparentheses indicate foot boundaries, while the square brackets indicate extrametricalelements. Observe that in earlier proposals extrametrical syllables were assumedto be included in the preceding foot in surface structure, but that the later proposalshave extrametrical feet in final position.The explanation for the rather large differences between these proposals is that

it is only the main stress and the occurrence of schwa that provide easily accessiblephonetic evidence for foot structure: the main stress must be a foot head, and schwais categorically weak. By contrast, full vowels without main

5 After completing this article, I learned that Geert Booij proposes an analysis of Dutch stressin a forthcoming monograph on the phonology of Dutch which is entirely in keeping with ourconclusion here.


57

stress might or might not be feet. It is interesting to see that despite the fact that theproposals have virtually exclusively been based on stress facts, and have ignoredevidence of the type presented in this article, the historical trend is clearly towardsthe foot structure as proposed here, and summarized in (47). For instance, exceptfor ‘trochees’ with closed second syllables (harnas and kayak), the representationsin (46g) largely correspond with those in (47), with ‘violin’ even having a stray initialsyllable.

(46)(a) H & M 81

(wé)(du we)(hár)(nas)(ká)(yak)(sám)(ba)(vi)(óol)(o)(to)(máat)(ál)(ma)[(nak)](pá)(na)[(ma)]

(b) N & Z 82

(wé du we)(hár nas)(ká yak)(sám ba)(vi)(óol)(o to)(máat)(ál ma nak)(pánama)

(c) H 84

(wé du [we])(hár nas)(ká)(yak)(sám ba)(vi)(óol)(o to)(máat)(ál ma)(nak)(pána[ma])

(d) K 85

(wé du [we])(hár)(nas)(ká)(yak)(sám ba)(vi)(óol)(o to)(máat)(ál ma)(nak)(pána[ma])

(e) Lg 88

(wé du we)(hár nas)(ká)(yak)(sám ba)(vi)(óol)(o to)(máat)(ál ma)(nak)(pána)(ma)

(f) L & K 87

(wé du)[we](hár)(nas)(ká)(yak)(sám ba)(vi)(óol)(o to)(máat)(ál ma)(nak)(pána)[ma]

(g) K 89

(wé du [e])(hár)[(nas)](ká)[(yak)](sám [ba])vi(óol)(o to)(máat)(ál ma)[(nak)](pána)[(ma)]but: (kan) (tóor)


(h) T & Z 89

(wé du [e])(hár)[(nas)](ká)[(yak)](sám [ba])(vi)(óol)(o to)(máat)(ál ma)[(nak)](pána)[(ma)]

(47)

(wé du e)(hár nas)(ká yak)(sám ba)vi(óol)(o to)(máat)(ál ma)(nak)(pána)(ma)and: kan(tóor)

It is not, in fact, difficult to modify the more recent analyses so as to create thestructures of (47). For instance, Trommelen & Zonneveld (1989) assign foot structurewith the help of a quantity-sensitive trochee (a heavy plus light, or a light plus lightsyllable, or else a heavy or light, assuming degenerate feet are allowed; Hayes,1981) from the right (see also Kager, 1989). The facts of Dutch stress are, briefly,that main stress falls on one of the last three syllables if the penult is open, and onone of the last two if the penult is


58

closed. Two assumptions produce the desired results. The first is that Dutch treatstense vowels (generally analysed as VV) as light, and VC as heavy. The second isthat after the erection of foot structure, the final syllable is marked as extrametrical,so as to prevent the word-level prominence-assignment rule from placing the primarystress on a final monosyllabic foot (‘late extrametricality’). Words like Pánama areprovided with a lexical foot on the final syllable, so as to force parsing from thepenult. (The pattern *Panáma, which results if the final syllable is not prespecifiedas a foot, is the more common pattern for VX-VV-VV.) Lexical specifications aregiven in (48a). In (48b), quantity-sensitive trochees are built, with ‘late extrametricality’applying in (48c), so that in (48d), the word-level prominence goes to the correctsyllable. 6

(48)

(x)(a)VVVVVVVCVCVVVCmapa nanasharbasamVCVCVVVCVVVCtarbralginakmaal(x)(x .)(x)(x).)(x(b)VVVVVVVCVCVVVCmapa nanasharbasam(x)(x)(x)(x).)(xVCVCVVVCVVVCtarbralginakmaal(x)(x .)(x)(x))(x(c)[VV]VVVV[VC]VC[VV]VCmapa nanasharbasam(x)(x)(x)(x).)(x[VC]VCVV[VC]VVVCtarbralginakmaal)(x)(x)(x(d)(x)(x.)(x)(x).)(x[VV]VVVV[VC]VC[VV]VCmapa nanasharbasam)x()(x(x)(x)(x)(x).)(x[VC]VCVV[VC]VVVC

6 Final main stress is achieved by suspending extrametricality, either by lexical marking or, inthe case of superheavy syllables, which appear only finally and are frequently mainstressed,on the basis of syllable composition.


tarbralginakmaal


59

As said in section 3.5, a rule defooting initial monosyllabic feet will create the requiredappendix. The non-distinctness of ‘trochees’ with open final syllables and ‘trochees’with closed final syllables could be achieved by post-stress destressing (cf. the ClashResolution Hypothesis of Hammond (1984), or our generalization in (1), which couldbe elevated to a constraint), followed by stray adjunction. An analysis in terms ofthe foot templates of Hayes, 1991, requiring a parse with the help of a moraic trochee(Lahiri & Koreman, 1987) could be brought in line with (47) in the same way. Thenet effect is that Dutch obeys (1).

4.1 Rightward stress shifts

Dutch has both leftward and rightward stress shifts: the prominence patterns ofwords may be reversed from w-s to s-w in positions before a following main stress,and from s-w to w-s in positions after a main stress (Kager & Visch, 1988). Becauserightward shift data have been used to argue for the traditional analysis of Dutchfoot structure, I will show how these data fit into the present analysis. The conclusionwill be that rightward shifts in ‘trochees’ involve lexically based prosodicrestructurings.Trommelen & Zonneveld (1989) claim that their analysis of Dutch foot structure

(see (46g)) is supported by the facts of rightward stress shift. Recall that in theiranalysis ‘trochees’ are binary feet only if the word-final syllable is open: samba is asingle foot, but harnas and kayak each consist of two feet. If rightward shift amountsto a foot-based relabelling of relative prominence, rightward shift should apply in‘trochees’ with closed final syllables, but not in ‘trochees’ with open ones. In (49),from Trommelen & Zonneveld, this is indeed the case. However, in (50), thisgeneralization is shown to have exceptions in both directions. On the one hand,there are many words with final open syllables that do undergo the shift pásta, tóffee,and on the other, there are words with closed final syllables that do not undergo itléraar, óorlog, hárnas.

(49)

‘Bos atlas’Bós atlàsátlas‘ship's compass’schéeps kompàskompás‘annual premium’*jáarpremìeprémie‘auxiliary spark’húlp bougìebougíe

(50)

NO RIGHTWARDSHIFT

RIGHTWARDSHIFT

‘itinerary’réis-schèma‘toothpaste’tánd-pastà‘postal giro’póst-gìro‘licorice toffee’dróp-toffèe‘dancing master’dáns-lèraar‘youth hostel’jéugd-herbèrg‘price-war’bróod-òorlog‘forced labour’dwáng-arbèid


‘breastplate’bórst-hàrnas‘Bos atlas’Bós-atlàs‘archduke’áarts-hèrtog‘archbishop’áarts-bisschòp


60

The existence of a relation between syllable weight and rightward stress shift, firstnoted in Kager (1989: 296), in itself is not at issue: there are only two cases in whichopen final syllables are strengthened but rather more in which that syllable is closed(though here, too, such cases are the exception rather than the rule, at least in myown speech). The shifts are clearly lexically determined, and are more likely as thecompound is more frequent or older, and the final syllable ‘heavier’. Novel compoundswith ‘trochees’ as their second member, which by their nature are not listed, do nothave a stress-shifted pronunciation. As may be expected, there is variation betweenspeakers. For instance, borst-harnas is given with shift by Trommelen & Zonneveld(1989), but only occurs without in my own speech. It is dubious if a case for foothoodcan be based on these facts. Rather, there would appear to be variable restructuringfrom ‘trochees’ to ‘iambs’ when occurring as the right-hand member of a compound.In (51), I give the representations of ‘hostel’ (not right-shifted) and ‘youth hostel’(right-shifted).Restructuring to initially defooted ‘iambs’ predicts that the realization of the chanted

call will be sensitive to whether the ‘trochee’ has been right-shifted. This is correct.The items that have undergone the restructuring from (51a) to (51b) behave exactlylike embedded ‘iambs’. Thus ‘youth hostel’ has two levels, not three (see (36)).

(51)

)(xx )((x )(x ).(x )(x. )bergherjeugd(b)herberg(a)

It is generally assumed that ‘dactyls’ undergo rightward shift when used as thesecondmember of a compound. Trommelen & Zonneveld (1989) adduce this allegedrightward shift in support of their foot-based formulation of such a rule. Theirprediction, therefore, is that the ‘dactyls’ in (52b) are neutralized with the ‘anapaests’in (52a) (p. 250) when used as the second member of a compound.

(52)

?strándmarathòn

márathon(b)véld pelotònpelotón(a)

‘beachmarathon’

‘fieldplatoon’

?stáatsalmanàk

álmanakdórpsmaniàk

maniák

‘statealmanac’

‘village fool’

‘statealmanac’

‘village fool’

?dórpsdominèe

dómineefílm matinèematinée


‘countryvicar’

‘filmmatinée’

?fílmcamerà

cámeramélkchocolà

chocolá

‘film camera’‘milkchocolate’

I do not believe that this neutralization in fact takes place. In ‘film camera’, forinstance, the final vowel [a] does not appear to be as long as the final vowel in ‘milkchocolate’. The realization of the chanted call, moreover,


61

speaks against a neutralization. H-Spread (17) treats ‘dactyls’ and ‘anapaests’differently: when they appear as second members in a compound, the initial (weak)foot of ‘dactyls’ can be skipped, but not the initial (strong) foot of ‘anapaests’. In(53a), with chocolá in second position, the level on choco need not be realized. Thefoot came of cámera in (53b) is not so skippable, however. These data suggest thatrightward shift does not generally occur in ‘dactyls’. Thus, while the foot structureassumed by Trommelen & Zonneveld for ‘dactyls’ is the same as that arrived at inthis article, it is not independently confirmed by any stress shift data. Since there isno general rightward stress shift in ‘dactyls’, the case for a foot-based rule isweakened further.

(53)

5. Conclusion

In Dutch, words with the main stress on the penult end in binary feet, regardless ofthe segmental composition of the final syllable, and words with the main stress onthe antepenult have a final monosyllabic foot, provided the final syllable is not anonsetless syllable with [ə] or, in derived words, [ι]. Evidence for these representationsis provided by the realization of the ‘chanted call’, by the lexical rules ofPre-r-Lengthening and ə-Insertion (which inserts [ə] between monosyllabic feet andthe diminutive ending), and the postlexical rules j-Devoicing and Svarabhakti, aswell as by the distribution of [h]. Regardless of its segmental composition, a singlesyllable before the main stress is unfooted postlexically, and is included in the Pwordas an appendix. Evidence for this aspect of foot structure comes from the realizationof the vocative chant and durational reduction effects. Rightward stress shifts withinthe word, which have been analysd as s-w → w-s relabellings of feet, are shown tobe confined to disyllables with the main stress on the penult, and to involve lexicallydetermined restructurings of a binary foot to a combination of appendix plusmonosyllabic foot.More recent proposals for Dutch foot structure are in better agreement with the

foot structures argued for in this article than are the proposals made in the early1980s. Since all previous proposals have been based on stress facts (as opposedto segmental and intonational facts) our analysis finds additional support in thecircumstance that consecutive proposals have


62

tended to produce foot structures that are increasingly like the ones proposed here(see also note 5).

Author's address: University of Nijmegen, Vakgroep Engels-Amerikaans,Erasmusplein 1, NL 6525 HT Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

References

Beckman, M. & Pierrehumbert, J.B. (1986). Intonational structure of Englishand Japanese. Phonology Yearbook 3. 311-340.Berendsen, E. & Zonneveld, W. (1985). Nederlandse schwa-invoeging op z'nDeens. Spektator 14. 166-196.Berg, R. van den, Gussenhoven, C. & Rietveld, A. (1992). Downstep in Dutch:implications for a model. In Docherty, G.J. & Ladd, D.R. (eds.) Papers inlaboratory phonology II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 335-367.Booij, G.E. (1984). Syllabestruktuur en verkleinwoordsvorming in hetNederlands. GLOT 7. 207-226.Booij, G.E. (1988). On the relation between lexical phonology and prosodicphonology. In Bertinetto, P.M. & Loporcaro, M. (eds.), Certamen phonologicum.Turin: Rosenberg & Selier. 63-76.Gibbon, D. (1976). Perspectives on intonation analysis. Bern: Lang.Hammond, M. (1984). Constraining metrical theory: a modular theory of rhythmand destressing. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Haverkamp-Lubbers, R. & Kooij, J.G. (1971). Het verkleinwoord in hetNederlands. Publikaties van het Instituut voor Algemene Taalwetenschap,Universiteit van Amsterdam.Hayes, B. (1981). A metrical theory of stress rules. Doctoral dissertation, MIT,Cambridge MA. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club. Publishedby Garland Press, New York, 1985.Hayes, B. (1991). Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Draft.UCLA.Hayes, B. & Lahiri, A. (1991). Bengali intonational phonology. NLLT 9. 47-96.Hayes, B. & Lahiri, A. (1992). Durationally specified intonation in English andBengali. In Carlson, R., Nord, L. & Sundberg, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1990Wenner-Gren Center Conference on Music, Language, Speech, and Brain.78-91.Hermans, B. (1992). On the representation of quasi-long vowels in Dutch andLimburgian. In Bok-Bennema, R. & van Hout, R. (eds.) Linguistics in theNetherlands 1992. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 75-86.Hulst, H. van der (1981). A lexical-prosodic approach toward stress in Dutch.Unpublished paper.Hulst, H. van der (1984). Syllable structure and stress in Dutch. Dordrecht:Foris.Hulst, H. van der (1985). Ambisyllabicity in Dutch. In Bennis, H. & Beukema,F. (eds.) Linguistics in the Netherlands 1985. Dordrecht: Foris. 57-66.Hulst, H. van der & Moortgat, M. (1981). Prosodische fonologie en deaccentuatie van Nederlandse woorden of: leeft het Nederlands op grote voet?


Verslag 150e Vergadering van de Nederlandse Vereniging voor FonetischeWetenschappen. 1-25.Inkelas, S. (1989). Prosodic constituency in the lexicon. PhD thesis, StanfordUniversity.Kager, R.W.J. (1985). Cycliciteit, klemtoon, en HGI. Spektator 14. 326-331.Kager, R.W.J. (1989). A metrical theory of stress and destressing in Englishand Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Kager, R. & Ellis Visch (1988). Metrical constituency and rhythmic adjustment.Phonology 5. 21-71.Kager, R. & Zonneveld, W. (1986). Schwa, syllables, and extrametricality inDutch. The Linguistic Review 5. 197-221.Kahn, D. (1976). Syllable-based generalizations in English. Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Linguistics Club.


63

Kooij, J. (1982). Epenthetische schwa: Processen, regels, domeinen. Spektator11. 315-325.Ladd, D.R. (1978). Stylized intonation. Lg 54. 517-540.Lahiri, A. & Koreman, J. (1987). Syllable weight and quantity in Dutch. WestCoast Conference on Formal Linguistics 7. 217-228.Langeweg, S.J. (1988). The stress system of Dutch. PhDDissertation. Universityof Leiden.Liberman, M. (1975). The intonational system of English. MIT Dissertation.Reproduced by Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1978.Neijt, A. & Zonneveld, W. (1982). Metrische fonologie: de representatie vanklemtoon in Nederlandse monomorfematische woorden. De Nieuwe Taalgids75. 527-547.Nespor, M. & Vogel, M. (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Pierrehumbert, J.B. (1980). The phonetics and phonology of English intonation.MIT Dissertation. Published by Garland Press, New York, 1990.Trommelen, M. (1983). The syllable in Dutch: with special reference todiminutive formation. Dordrecht: Foris.Trommelen, M. & Zonneveld, W. (1989). Klemtoon en metrische fonologie.Muiden: Coutinho.Yip, M. (1989). Contour tones. Phonology 6. 149-174.Zwaardemaker, H. & Eijkman, L.P.H. (1928). Leerboek der Phonetiek. Haarlem:Bohn.


Date post:	03-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

‘TheDutchFootandtheChantedCall’‘TheDutchFootandtheChantedCall’ CarlosGussenhoven bron...

Documents