The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 221–268 | Cite as

Prosodic structure and suprasegmental features

Short-vowel stød in Danish
  • Pavel Iosad
Open Access
Original Paper


This paper presents a phonological analysis of a glottalization phenomenon in dialects of Danish known as ‘short-vowel stød’. It is argued that both short-vowel stød and common Danish stød involve the attachment of a laryngeal feature to a prosodic node—specifically the mora. In the case of short-vowel stød that mora lacks segmental content, as it is projected top-down due to local prosodic requirements, not bottom-up by segmental material. I show that this device provides an account of the distribution of short-vowel stød as arising from the interplay of constraints on metrical structure (both lexically stored and computed by the grammar) and the requirement for morae to be featurally licensed. The analysis provides further evidence for the analysis of ‘tonal accents’ and related phenomena in terms of metrical structure rather than lexical tone or laryngeal features, and contributes to our understanding of the relationship between segmental and suprasegmental phonology in Germanic languages.


Danish Stød Suprasegmentals Tonal accents Metrical phonology Moraic theory 


  1. Almberg, Jørn. 2001. The circumflex tone in a Norwegian dialect. In Nordic prosody: Proceedings of the VIIIth conference, Trondheim 2000, eds. Wim van Dommelen and Thorstein Fretheim, 19–28. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  2. Andersen, Poul. 1958. Fonemsystemet i østfynsk. På grundlag af dialekten i Revninge sogn. (Udvalg for folkemaals publikationer. Serie A 14). København: J. H. Schultz forlag.Google Scholar
  3. Apalset, Asbjørg. 1978. Apokope og circumfleks i Leksvikmålet. In På leit etter ord: Heidersskrifttil Inger Frøyset, ed. Ingeborg Hoff, 11–26. Oslo, Bergen, Tromsø: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  4. Avery, Peter, and William J. Idsardi. 2001. Laryngeal dimensions, completion, and enhancement. In Distinctive feature theory, ed. T. Alan Hall (Phonetics and Phonology 2), 41–71. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  5. Bals Baal, Berit Anne, David Odden, and Curt Rice. 2012. An analysis of North Saami gradation. Phonology 29(2): 165–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Basbøll, Hans. 2003. Prosody, productivity and word structure: The stød pattern of Modern Danish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26(1): 5–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Basbøll, Hans. 2005. The phonology of Danish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Beckman, Jill. 1998. Positional faithfulness. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  9. Bennett, Ryan. 2012. Foot-conditioned phonotactics and prosodic constituency. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
  10. Bennett, Ryan. 2013. The uniqueness of metrical structure: Rhythmic phonotactics in Huariapano. Phonology 30(3): 355–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2011. Cyclicity. In The Blackwell companion to phonology, eds. Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume, and Keren Rice, vol. 4, 2019–2048. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2012. The architecture of grammar and the division of labour in exponence. In The phonology and morphology of exponence: The state of the art, ed. Jochen Trommer (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 41), 8–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2013. The Spanish lexicon stores stems with stem vowels, not roots with inflectional class features. Probus 25(1): 3–103.Google Scholar
  14. Bjerrum, Marie. 1949. Felstedmaalets tonale Accenter. Århus: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  15. Börjars, Kersti, and Pauline Harries. 2008. The clitic-affix distinction, historical change, and Scandinavian bound definiteness marking. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 20(4): 289–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bradfield, Julian. 2014. Clicks, concurrency and Khoisan. Phonology 31(1): 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bradshaw, Mary. 1999. A cross-linguistic study of consonant–tone interaction. Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  18. Broselow, Ellen, Su-I Chen, and Marie Huffman. 1997. Syllable weight: Convergence of phonology and phonetics. Phonology 14(1): 47–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bye, Patrik, and Paul de Lacy. 2008. Metrical influences on fortition and lenition. In Lenition and fortition, eds. Joaquim Brandão de Carvalho, Tobias Scheer, and Philippe Ségéral (Studies in Generative Grammar 99), 173–206. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  20. Caballero, Gabriela. 2011. Morphologically conditioned stress assignment in Choguita Rarámuri. Linguistics 49(4): 749–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Clements, G. Nick, Alexis Michaud, and Cédric Patin. 2010. Do we need tone features? In Tones and features: Phonetic and phonological perspectives, eds. John A. Goldsmith, Elizabeth Hume, and W. Leo Wetzels (Studies in Generative Grammar 107), 3–24. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  22. Dahlstedt, Karl-Hampus. 1962. Det svenska vilhelminamålet: Språkgeografiska studier över ett norrländkst nybyggarmål och dess granndialekter. Del 2: Kvantitet. Apokope (Skrifter utgivna genom Landsmåls- och folkminnearkivet i Uppsala. A: Folkmål 7.2). Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
  23. Dalen, Arnold. 1985. Skognamålet. Ein fonologisk analyse. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
  24. Dalton, Martha, and Ailbhe Ní Chasaide. 2005. Tonal alignment in Irish dialects. Language and Speech 48(4): 441–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. de Lacy, Paul. 2006. Markedness: Reduction and preservation in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dresher, B. Elan, and Aditi Lahiri. 1991. The Germanic foot: Metrical coherence in Old English. Linguistic Inquiry 22(2): 251–286.Google Scholar
  27. Dresher, B. Elan, and Harry van der Hulst. 1998. Head-dependent asymmetries in phonology: Visibility and complexity. Phonology 15(3): 317–352.Google Scholar
  28. Ejskjær, Inger. 1965. Stød i andet sammensætningsled i typen fortis-semifortis i danske ømål. Acta Philologica Scandinavica 27(1–2): 19–67.Google Scholar
  29. Ejskjær, Inger. 1967. Kortvokalstødet i sjællandsk (Udvalg for folkemaals publikationer. Serie A 22). København: Akademisk forlag.Google Scholar
  30. Ejskjær, Inger. 1970. Fonemsystemet i østsjællandsk. På grundlag af dialekten i Strøby sogn (Udvalg for folkemaals publikationer. Serie A 24). København: Akademisk forlag.Google Scholar
  31. Ejskjær, Inger. 1990. Stød and pitch accents in the Danish dialects. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 22(1): 49–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ejskjær, Inger. 2006. Glottal stop (stød, parasitic plosive) and (distinctive) tonal accents in the Danish dialects. In Germanic tone accents: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Franconian Tone Accents, Leiden, 13–14 June 2003, ed. Michiel de Vaan (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 131), 15–24. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
  33. Elstad, Kåre. 1979. Det nordnorske circumflekstonemet. In Nordic prosody, eds. Eva Gårding, Gösta Bruce, and Robert Bannert (Travaux de l’Institut de linguistique de Lund 13), 165–174. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
  34. Faarlund, Jan Terje. 2009. On the history of definiteness marking in Scandinavian. Journal of Linguistics 45(3): 617–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fischer-Jørgensen, Eli. 1989. Phonetic analysis of the stød in Standard Danish. Phonetica 46(1): 1–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Geist, Hanne Louise. 1976. Enklitisk stød i sjællandsk. In Studier i dansk dialektologi og sproghistorie tilegnede Poul Andersen, eds. Kristian Hald, Christian Lisse, and John Kousgård Sørensen, 91–100. København: Akademisk forlag.Google Scholar
  37. Golston, Chris, and Wolfgang Kehrein. 2015. A prosodic theory of vocalic contrasts. In The segment in phonology and phonetics, eds. Eric Raimy and Charles Cairns, 65–102. Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar
  38. Grønnum, Nina. 1998. Intonation in Danish. In Intonation systems: A survey of twenty languages, eds. Daniel Hirst and Albert Di Cristo, 131–151. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Grønnum, Nina, and Hans Basbøll. 2001. Consonant length, stød and morae in Standard Danish. Phonetica 58(4): 230–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Grønnum, Nina, Miguel Vazquez-Larruscaín, and Hans Basbøll. 2013. Danish stød: laryngealization or tone. Phonetica 70(1–2): 66–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gunnar Ólafur Hansson. 2001. Remains of a submerged continent: Preaspiration in the languages of Northwest Europe. In Historical linguistics 1999: Selected papers from the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, 9–13 August 1999, ed. Laurel J. Brinton (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 215), 157–173. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  42. Gunnar Ólafur Hansson. 2003. Laryngeal licensing and laryngeal neutralization in Faroese and Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26(1): 45–79.Google Scholar
  43. Halle, Morris, and Kenneth Stevens. 1971. A note on laryngeal features. In Quarterly progress report, Research Laboratory of Electronics, vol. 101, 198–211. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  44. Hansen, Aage. 1943. Stødet i dansk (Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. Historisk- Filologiske Meddelelser 29:5) København: Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
  45. Hansen, Aage. 1962. Den lydlige udviklingen i dansk fra ca. 1300 til nutiden, Vol. 1: Vokalismen. København: G. E. C. Gads forlag.Google Scholar
  46. Harris, John. 2012. Wide-domain \(r\)-effects in English. Journal of Linguistics 49(2): 329–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  48. Hermans, Ben. 2009. The phonological structure of the Limburg tonal accents. In Strength relations in phonology, eds. Kuniya Nasukawa and Phillip Backley (Studies in Generative Grammar 103), 317–372. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  49. Hermans, Ben. 2012. The phonological representation of the Limburgian tonal accents. In Phonological explorations: Empirical, theoretical and diachronic issues, eds. Bert Botma, and Roland Noske, 223–240. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  50. Hognestad, Jan K. 2007. Tonelag i Flekkefjord bymål. Norsk lingvistisk tidsskrift 25(1): 57–88.Google Scholar
  51. Honeybone, Patrick. 2005. Diachronic evidence in segmental phonology: The case of obstruent laryngeal specification. In The internal organization of phonological segments, eds. Marc van Oostendorp and Jeroen van de Weijer (Studies in Generative Grammar 77), 319–354. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  52. Hsu, Chai-Shune K. 1998. Voicing underspecification in Taiwanese word-final consonants. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 90: 90–105.Google Scholar
  53. Hutters, Birgit. 1985. Vocal fold adjustments in aspirated and unaspirated stops in Danish. Phonetica 42(1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hyman, Larry M. 2010. Do tones have features? In Tones and features: Phonetic and phonological perspectives, eds. John A. Goldsmith, Elizabeth Hume, and W. Leo Wetzels (Studies in Generative Grammar 107), 50–80. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  55. Iosad, Pavel. 2015. ‘Pitch accent’ and prosodic structure in Scottish Gaelic: Reassessing the role of contact. In New trends in Nordic and general linguistics, eds. Martin Hilpert, Janet Duke, Christine Mertzlufft, Jan-Ola Östman, and Michael Rießler, 28–54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  56. Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 1997. StøOpen image in new windowdet i dansk. Handout, Scandinavian Summer School in Generative Phonology, HvalfjarOpen image in new windowarströnd.Google Scholar
  57. Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2009. The onset of the prosodic word. In Phonological argumentation: Essays on evidence and motivation, ed. Steve Parker (Advances in Optimality Theory 5), 227–260. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  58. Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2013. Prosodic subcategories in Japanese. Lingua 124: 20–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2015. The perfect prosodic word in Danish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 38(1): 5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Iverson, Gregory K., and Joseph C. Salmons. 1995. Aspiration and laryngeal representation in Germanic. Phonology 12(3): 369–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Jansen, Wouter. 2004. Laryngeal contrast and phonetic voicing: A Laboratory Phonology approach to English, Hungarian and Dutch. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
  62. Jensen, John T. 2000. Against ambisyllabicity. Phonology. 17(2): 187–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Jessen, Michael, and Catherine Ringen. 2002. Laryngeal features in German. Phonology 19(2): 189–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Jóhannes G. Jónsson. 1994. The feature [asp] in Icelandic phonology. Studia Linguistica 48(1): 28–45.Google Scholar
  65. Kager, René, and Violeta Martínez-Paricio. 2014. Antepenultimate mora effects: Typology and representation. Presentation at the Workshop on Word Stress and Accent, Leiden University.Google Scholar
  66. Kaisse, Ellen M., and April McMahon. 2011. Lexical Phonology and the lexical syndrome. In The Blackwell companion to phonology, ed. Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume, and Keren Rice. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  67. Kariņš, A. Krišj\(\bar{\rm a}\)nis. 1996. The prosodic structure of Latvian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  68. Kaye, Jonathan. 1990. ‘Coda’ licensing. Phonology 7(2): 301–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Kehrein, Wolfgang. 2016. There’s no tone in Cologne: Against tone-segment interactions in Franconian. In Segmental structure and tone, eds. Wolfgang Kehrein, Björn Köhnlein, Paul Boersma, and Marc van Oostendorp. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
  70. Kehrein, Wolfgang, and Chris Golston. 2004. A prosodic theory of laryngeal contrasts. Phonology 21(3): 325–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Kiparsky, Paul. 2016. Livonian stød. In Segmental structure and tone, eds. Wolfgang Kehrein, Björn Köhnlein, Paul Boersma, and Marc van Oostendorp. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
  72. Köhnlein, Björn. 2011. Rule reversal revisited: Synchrony and diachrony of tone and prosodic structure in the Franconian dialect of Arzbach. Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
  73. Köhnlein, Björn. 2013. Optimizing the relation between tone and prominence: Evidence from Franconian, Scandinavian, and Serbo-Croatian tone accent systems. Lingua 131: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Köhnlein, Björn. 2016. Contrastive foot structure in Franconian tone-accent dialects. Phonology 31(1): 87–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Krämer, Martin. 2009. The phonology of Italian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Kristensen, Marius. 1924. Vejledning til brugen af Danias lydskrift: Udarbejdet for udvalg for folkemål. København: H. H. Thieles bogtrykkeri.Google Scholar
  77. Kristján Árnason. 2011. The phonology of Icelandic and Faroese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Kristoffersen, Gjert. 1992. Cirkumflekstonelaget i norske dialekter, med særlig vekt på nordnorsk. Maal og Minne 1992(1): 37–61.Google Scholar
  79. Kristoffersen, Gjert. 2000. The phonology of Norwegian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Kristoffersen, Gjert. 2011a. Cirkumflekstonelaget i Oppdal. Norsk lingvistisk tidsskrift 29(2): 221–262.Google Scholar
  81. Kristoffersen, Gjert. 2011b. Quantity in Old Norse and modern peninsular North Germanic. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 14: 47–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Kusmenko, Jurij. 2008. Der samische Einfluss auf die skandinavischen Sprachen: Ein Beitrag zur skandinavischen Sprachgeschichte (Berliner Beiträge zur Skandinavistik 10). Berlin: Nordeuropa-Institut der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.Google Scholar
  83. Ladd, D. Robert. 2004. Alignment allophony and European ‘pitch accent’ systems. Presentation at the 4th Conference on Tone and Intonation in Europe, Santorini.Google Scholar
  84. Ladd, D. Robert. 2005. Alignement phonétique des contours intonatifs: allophonie et représentation lexicale. Presentation at the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Réseau Français de Phonologie, Aix-en-Provence.Google Scholar
  85. Ladd, D.Robert. 2014. Simultaneous structure in phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Ladefoged, Peter. 2003. Commentary: Some thoughts on syllables—an old-fashioned interlude. In Papers in laboratory phonology, VI, eds. John Local, Richard Ogden, and Rosalind A. M. Temple, 269–276. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Lahiri, Aditi, Allison Wetterlin, and Elisabet Jönsson-Steiner. 2005a. Lexical specification of tone in North Germanic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28(1): 61–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Lahiri, Aditi, Allison Wetterlin, and Elisabet Jönsson-Steiner. 2005b. Sounds definite-ly clitic: Evidence from Scandinavian tone. Lingue e linguaggio 2/2005: 243–262.Google Scholar
  89. Larsen, Jørgen. 1976. Det sjællandske »tostavelsesord«. In Studier i dansk dialektologi og sproghistorie tilegnede Poul Andersen, eds. Kristian Hald, Christian Lisse, and John Kousgård Sørensen, 193–206. København: Akademisk forlag.Google Scholar
  90. Liberman, Anatoly. 1975. Scandinavian circumflexes. Norsk tidsskrift for sprogvidenskap 29: 169–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Lodge, Ken. 1993. Underspecification, polysystemicity, and nonsegmental representations in phonology: An analysis of Malay. Linguistics 31(3): 475–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Lodge, Ken. 2007. Timing, segmental status and aspiration in Icelandic. Transactions of the Philological Society 105(1): 66–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Lorentz, Ove. 2008. Tonelagsbasis i norsk. Maal og Minne 2008(1): 50–68.Google Scholar
  94. Martínez-Paricio, Violeta. 2013. An exploration of minimal and maximal feet. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
  95. McCarthy, John J. 2005. The length of stem-final vowels in Colloquial Arabic. In Perspectives on Arabic linguistics XVII-XVIII, eds. Mohammad T. Alhawary and Elabbas Benmamoun, 1–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  96. Morén, Bruce. 2001. Distinctiveness, coercion, and sonority: A unified theory of weight. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  97. Morén, Bruce. 2003. Danish stød and Eastern Norwegian pitch accent: The myth of lexical tones. Presentation at the 13th Manchester Phonology Meeting.Google Scholar
  98. Morén-Duolljá, Bruce. 2013. The prosody of Swedish underived nouns: No lexical tones required. Nordlyd 40(1): X years of CASTL phonology and L years of Curtness, eds. Sylvia Blaho, Martin Krämer, and Bruce Morén-Duolljá.Google Scholar
  99. Odden, David. 2010. Features impinging on tone. In Tones and features: Phonetic and phonological perspectives, eds. John A. Goldsmith, Elizabeth Hume, and W. Leo Wetzels (Studies in Generative Grammar 107), 81–107. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  100. Page, Richard B. 1997. On the origin of preaspiration in Scandinavian. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics & Literatures 9(2): 167–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Pearce, Mary D. 2013. The interaction of tone with voicing and foot structure: Evidence from Kera phonetics and phonology. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  102. Pedersen, Anders. 1912. Dansk og urnordisk akcentuering. Arkiv för nordiskfilologi 28: 1–53.Google Scholar
  103. Pétur Helgason. 2002. Preaspiration in the Nordic languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
  104. Piggott, Glyne. 1991. Apocope and the licensing of empty-headed syllables. The Linguistic Review 8(2–4): 287–318.Google Scholar
  105. Prince, Alan S. 1980. A metrical theory for Estonian quantity. Linguistic Inquiry 11(3): 511–562.Google Scholar
  106. Prince, Alan S. and Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Tech. rep. Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science & University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
  107. Riad, Tomas. 2000a. Stöten som aldrig blev av: Generaliserad accent 2 i Östra Mälardalen. Folkmålsstudier 39: 319–344.Google Scholar
  108. Riad, Tomas. 2000b. The origin of Danish stød. In Analogy, leveling, markedness, ed. Aditi Lahiri, 261–300. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  109. Riad, Tomas. 2009. Eskilstuna as the tonal key to Danish. In Proceedings FONETIK 2009, eds. Peter Branderud and Hartmut Traunmüller, 12–17. Stockholm: Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
  110. Riad, Tomas. 2014. The phonology of Swedish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  111. Rice, Curt. 1992. Binarity and ternarity in metrical systems: parametric extensions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
  112. Ringen, Catherine. 1999. Aspiration, preaspiration, deaspiration, sonorant devoicing and spirantization in Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 22(2): 137–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Ringgaard, Kristen. 1960a. The apocope of disyllables. Phonetica 10(3–4): 222–230.Google Scholar
  114. Ringgaard, Kristen. 1960b. Vestjysk stød. Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  115. Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1980. The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. Linguistic Inquiry 11(3): 563–605.Google Scholar
  116. Smith, Norval. 1999. A preliminary account of some aspects of Leurbost Gaelic syllable structure. In The syllable: Views and facts, eds. Harry van der Hulst and Nancy Ritter (Studies in Generative Grammar 45), 577–630. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  117. Šurkalović, Dragana. 2013. Modularity, phase–phase faithfulness and prosodification of function words in English. Nordlyd 40(1): X years of CASTL phonology and L years of Curtness, eds. Sylvia Blaho, Martin Krämer, and Bruce Morén-Duolljá, 301–322.Google Scholar
  118. Thorsen, Nina. 1982. Selected problems in the tonal manifestation of words containing assimilated or elided schwa. In Annual Report of the Institute of Phonetics, University of Copenhagen 16: 37–100.Google Scholar
  119. van Oostendorp, Marc. 2016. Tone, final devoicing and assimilation in Moresnet. In Segmental structure and tone, eds. Wolfgang Kehrein, Björn Köhnlein, Paul Boersma, and Marc van Oostendorp. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
  120. Vaux, Bert. 2003. Syllabification in Armenian, Universal Grammar and the lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 34(1): 91–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Vaux, Bert and Andrew Wolfe. 2009. The appendix. In Contemporary views on architecture and representations in phonology, eds. Eric Raimy and Charles Cairns (Current Studies in Linguistics 48), 101–144. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  122. Wetterlin, Allison. 2010. Tonal accents in Norwegian: Phonology, morphology and lexical specification (Linguistische Arbeiten 535). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  123. Yip, Moira. 2002. Tone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Zec, Draga. 1988. Sonority constraints on prosodic structure. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Linguistics and English LanguageThe University of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations