Prominence in Beat Structure

• Authors: Geoff Schwartz
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The sonority scale is generally invoked in order to provide an account of possible syllable or beat structures - the more sonorous a segment the more likely it is to serve as a nucleus. Auditory considerations, however, point to the primacy of onsets instead of nuclei as the most perceptually prominent segments in a syllable. Prominence Phonology (Schwartz, in preparation) considers the structure of a beat to be based on the interaction of two preference scales - one for onset prominence, and one for nuclear prominence. This paper presents the auditory properties of the two scales, and describes how the interactions between them may affect beat structure. These interactions can offer a plausible account of the "empty nucleus", and provide a formal vehicle in describing the application of Natural Phonological processes. The connection between beat structure prominence scales and the representation of segments in Prominence Phonology is also discussed, with implications for the interface between phonetics and phonology.

Keywords

EN

phonetics-phonology interface; Natural Phonology; element theory; auditory representations

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Journal: Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics
• Year: 2007
• Volume: 43
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 129-152

Dates

published

2007-08-01

online

2007-08-07

Contributors

author

Geoff Schwartz

• Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań

References

• Bertinetto, P.M. 1989. "Reflections on the dichotomy ‘stress v syllable timing’". Revue de phonetique appliqué 91/93. 99-130.
• Blevins, J. and A. Garrett. 2004. "The evolution of metathesis". In Hayes, B., R. Kirchner, and D. Steriade (eds.). Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 117-156.
• Blevins, J. 2004. Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.[WoS]
• Bregman, A.S. 1990. Auditory scene analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Crosswhite, K. 2003. "Spectral tilt as a cue to word stress in Macedonian, Polish, and Bulgarian". Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona. 767-770.
• Delgutte, B. 1997. "Auditory neural processing of speech". In Hardcastle, W. J. and J. Laver (eds), The handbook of phonetic sciences. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. 509-538.
• Delgutte, B. and N. Kiang. 1984. "Speech coding in the auditory nerve IV: Sounds with consonant-like dynamic characteristics". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 75(3). 897-907.
• Donegan, P. J. 1979. On the Natural Phonology of vowels. [PhD Dissertation, Ohio State University.] Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 23. [Republished 1985. New York: Garland Publishing Company.]
• Donegan, P. 2002. "Phonological processes and phonetic rules". In Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K. and J. Weckwerth (eds.), Future challenges for Natural Linguistics. Munich: Lincom. 57-81.
• Dressler, W.U. 1985. Morphonology. Ann Arbor: Karoma.
• Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K. 1995. Phonology without the syllable. Poznań: Motivex.
• Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K. 2002. Beats and Binding Phonology. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
• Goldrick, M. 2000. "Turbid output representations and the unity of opacity". Proceedings of NELS 30. 231-245. [Also available as ROA 368-1299.]
• Gordon, M. 2004. "Syllable weight". In Hayes, B., R. Kirchner and D. Steriade (eds.), Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 277-312.
• Gordon, M. 2005. "A perceptually-driven account of onset-sensitive stress". Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23. 595-653.
• Greenberg, S. 1996. "Auditory processing of speech". In Lass, N. (ed.), Principles of experimental phonetics. St. Louis: Moseby-Year. 362-408.
• Harris, J. 1994. English sound structure. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Harris, J. and G. Lindsey. 1995. "The elements of phonological representation". In Durand, J. and F. Katamba (eds.), Frontiers of phonology: Atoms, structures, derivations. Harlow, Essex: Longman. 34-79.
• Johnson, K. 1997. Acoustic and auditory phonetics. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
• Lehiste, I. and G.E. Peterson. 1959. "Vowel amplitude and phonemic stress in American English". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 31. 428-435.
• Lively, S.E., D.B. Pisoni and S.D. Goldinger. 1994. "Spoken word recognition: Research and theory". In Gernsbacher, M. (ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics. New York: Academic Press. 265-301.
• Lowenstamm, J. 1996. "CV as the only syllable type". In Durand J. and B. Laks (eds.), Current trends in phonology: Models and methods. Salford, Manchester: ESRI. 419-441.
• Maddieson, I. 1997. "Phonetic universals". In Hardcastle, W. and J. Laver (eds.), The handbook of phonetic sciences. Cambridge: Blackwell. 619-640.[WoS]
• Malczak, K. 2006. The implicational nature of phonostylistic processes. [Unpublished MA thesis, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań.]
• Ohala, J. 1981. "The listener as a source of sound change". In Masek, C. S., R. A. Hendrik and M. F. Miller (eds.), Papers from the parasession on language and behavior. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 178-203.
• Pierrehumbert, J. 1999. "What people know about sounds of language". Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29(2). 111-120.
• Schwartz, G. In preparation. Phonology for the listener and language learner.
• Selkirk, E. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Stampe, D. 1973. A dissertation on Natural Phonology. [Unpublished PhD dissertation, University ofChicago.] [Republished with annotations 1979. New York: Garland Publishing Company.]
• Steriade, D. 2006. Contour correspondence: evidence from cluster interruption. Talk given at the Third Old World Conference in Phonology. Budapest.
• Traunmüller, H. 1994. "Conventional, biological, and environmental factors in speech communication: A modulation theory". Phonetica 51. 170-183.
• Wright, R. 2001. "Perceptual cues in contrast maintenance". In Hume, E. and K. Johnson (eds.), The role of speech perception in phonology. San Diego: Academic Press. 251-277.
• Wright, R. 2004. "Perceptual cue robustness and phonotactic constraints". In Hayes, B., R. Kirchner and D. Steriade (eds), Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 34-57.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10010-007-0007-2