Advertisement

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 315–356 | Cite as

Prosodic end-weight reflects phrasal stress

  • Kevin M. RyanEmail author
Article

Abstract

Prosodic end-weight refers to the well-documented tendency of prosodically heavier constituents to be preferred at the ends of domains when other factors (e.g. semantics, accessibility, and syntactic complexity) are controlled. Various explanations for prosodic end-weight have been put forth, including complexity deferral, final lengthening, rhythm, phonotactics, and nuclear stress. This article adduces several new arguments for phrasal stress as a unified explanation for prosodic end-weight and proposes a constraint-based theory of the stress-weight interface in sentential prosody.

Keywords

Weight Stress Prosody Complexity End-weight Word order 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I gratefully acknowledge the input of three anonymous referees, Lev Blumenfeld, Matthew Gordon, Andrew Nevins, Stephanie Shih, and Rachel Walker, as well as audience members at AMP 1 at UMass-Amherst, the CUNY Conference on Weight, and colloquia at Brown, Harvard, and MIT.

References

  1. Abeillé, Anne, and Danielle Godard. 1999. La position de l’adjectif épithète en français: le poids des mots. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 28: 9–32. Google Scholar
  2. Abercrombie, David. 1967. Elements of general phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Google Scholar
  3. Abraham, Richard D. 1950. Fixed order of coordinates: A study in comparative lexicography. The Modern Language Journal 34 (4): 276–287. Google Scholar
  4. Alderete, John, Jill Beckman, Laura Benua, Amalia Gnanadesikan, John McCarthy, and Suzanne Urbanczyk. 1999. Reduplication with fixed segmentism. Linguistic Inquiry 30 (3): 327–364. Google Scholar
  5. Allan, Keith. 1987. Hierarchies and the choice of left conjuncts (with particular attention to English). Journal of Linguistics 23: 51–77. Google Scholar
  6. Anttila, Arto. 1997. Deriving variation from grammar. In Variation, change and phonological theory, eds. Frans Hinskens, Roeland van Hout, and Leo Wetzels, 35–68. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  7. Anttila, Arto, Matthew Adams, and Michael Speriosu. 2010. The role of prosody in the English dative alternation. Language and Cognitive Processes 25 (7–9): 946–981. Google Scholar
  8. Arregi, Karlos. 2002. Focus on Basque movements. PhD diss., MIT. Google Scholar
  9. Asher, Ronald E., and Elayaperumal Annamalai. 2002. Colloquial Tamil: The complete course for beginners. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  10. Baddeley, Alan D., Neil Thomson, and Mary Buchanan. 1975. Word length and the structure of short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14 (6): 575–589. Google Scholar
  11. Behaghel, Otto. 1909. Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen 25: 110–142. Google Scholar
  12. Bennett, Ryan, Emily Elfner, and James McCloskey. 2016. Lightest to the right: An anomolous displacement in Irish. Linguistic Inquiry 47: 169–234. Google Scholar
  13. Benor, Sarah, and Roger Levy. 2006. The chicken or the egg? A probabilistic analysis of English binomials. Language 82 (2): 233–278. Google Scholar
  14. Berko, Jean. 1958. The child’s learning of English morphology. Word 14: 150–177. Google Scholar
  15. Biese, Yrjo Mooses. 1939. Neuenglisch tick-tack und Verwandtes. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 40: 146–205. Google Scholar
  16. Blumenfeld, Lev. 2016. End-weight effects in verse and language. Studia Metrica et Poetica 3 (1): 7–32. Google Scholar
  17. Bock, J. Kathryn. 1977. The effect of a pragmatic presupposition on syntactic structure in question answering. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16: 723–734. Google Scholar
  18. Bock, J. Kathryn. 1982. Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formation. Psychological Review 89: 1–47. Google Scholar
  19. Bock, Kathryn, and Richard Warren. 1985. Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition 21: 47–67. Google Scholar
  20. Boersma, Paul, and Joe Pater. 2016. Convergence properties of a gradual learning algorithm for Harmonic Grammar. In Harmonic grammar and harmonic serialism, eds. John McCarthy and Joe Pater, 389–434. London: Equinox Press. Google Scholar
  21. Bolinger, Dwight L. 1962. Binomials and pitch accent. Lingua 11: 34–44. Google Scholar
  22. Bresnan, Joan, and Tatiana Nikitina. 2003. On the gradience of the dative alternation. Ms., Stanford University. Google Scholar
  23. Browman, Catherine P., and Louis Goldstein. 1988. Some notes on syllable structure in articulatory phonology. Phonetica 45: 140–155. Google Scholar
  24. Büring, Daniel. 2013. Syntax, information structure, and prosody. In The Cambridge handbook of generative syntax, ed. Marcel den Dikken, 860–896. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  25. Büring, Daniel, and Rodrigo Gutiérrez-Bravo. 2001. Focus-related constituent order variation without the NSR: A prosody-based crosslinguistic analysis. Syntax at Santa Cruz 3: 41–58. Google Scholar
  26. Byrd, Dani. 2000. Articulatory vowel lengthening and coordination at phrasal junctures. Phonetica 57: 3–16. Google Scholar
  27. Byrne, Brian, and Elizabeth Davidson. 1985. On putting the horse before the cart: Exploring conceptual bases of word order via acquisition of a miniature artificial language. Journal of Memory and Language 24 (4): 377–389. Google Scholar
  28. Campbell, Mary Ann, and Lloyd Anderson. 1976. Hocus pocus nursery rhymes. In Papers from the 12th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS), eds. Salikoko S. Mufwene, Carol A. Walker, and Sanford B. Steever, 72–95. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Google Scholar
  29. Carpenter, Angela C. 2010. A naturalness bias in learning stress. Phonology 27: 345–392. Google Scholar
  30. Chang, Franklin. 2009. Learning to order words: A connectionist model of heavy NP shift and accessibility effects in Japanese and English. Journal of Memory and Language 61 (3): 374–397. Google Scholar
  31. Choi, Hye-Won. 2007. Length and order: A corpus study of Korean dative-accusative construction. Discourse and Cognition 14: 207–227. Google Scholar
  32. Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Google Scholar
  33. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 239–297. Google Scholar
  34. Clemens, Lauren, and Jessica Coon. 2016. Deriving verb-initial word order in Mayan. To appear in Language. Google Scholar
  35. Cooper, William E., and John R. Ross. 1975. World order. In Papers from the parasession on functionalism, eds. Robin Grossman, L. James San, and Timothy Vance, 63–111. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Google Scholar
  36. Cowan, Nelson, Alan D. Baddeley, Emily M. Elliott, and Jennifer Norris. 2003. List composition and the word length effect in immediate recall: A comparison of localist and globalist assumptions. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 10 (1): 74–79. Google Scholar
  37. Crowhurst, Megan J., and Lev D. Michael. 2005. Iterative footing and prominence-driven stress in Nanti (Kampa). Language 81 (1): 47–95. Google Scholar
  38. Daland, Robert, Bruce Hayes, James White, Marc Garellek, Andrea Davis, and Ingrid Norrmann. 2011. Explaining sonority projection effects. Phonology 28: 197–234. Google Scholar
  39. Dayley, Jon Philip. 1989. Tümpisa (Panamint) Shoshone grammar. Vol. 115 of University of California publications in linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Google Scholar
  40. de Lacy, Paul. 2002. The formal expression of markedness. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Google Scholar
  41. de Lacy, Paul. 2004. Markedness conflation in Optimality Theory. Phonology 21 (2): 145–199. Google Scholar
  42. Delattre, P. 1966. A comparison of syllable length conditioning among languages. International Review of Applied Linguistics 4: 183–198. Google Scholar
  43. Dienhart, John M. 1999. Stress in reduplicative compounds: Mish-mash or hocus-pocus? American Speech 74: 13–38. Google Scholar
  44. Dryer, Matthew S. 1980. The positional tendencies of sentential noun phrases in Universal Grammar. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 25: 123–195. Google Scholar
  45. Ehret, Katharina, Christoph Wolk, and Benedikt Szmrecsányi. 2014. Quirky quadratures: On rhythm and weight as constraints on genitive variation in an unconventional data set. English Language and Linguistics 18 (2): 263–303. Google Scholar
  46. Elfner, Emily. 2012. Syntax-prosody interactions in Irish. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
  47. Elfner, Emily. 2015. Recursion in prosodic phrasing: evidence from Connemara Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33: 1169–1208. Google Scholar
  48. Everett, Daniel. 1988. On metrical constituent structure in Pirahã. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 207–246. Google Scholar
  49. Everett, Daniel, and Keren Everett. 1984. On the relevance of syllable onsets to stress placement. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 705–711. Google Scholar
  50. Faghiri, Pegah, and Pollet Samvelian. 2014. Constituent ordering in Persian and the weight factor. In Empirical issues in syntax and semantics, ed. Christopher Piñón, Vol. 10, 215–232. Paris: CNRS. Google Scholar
  51. Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud. 1989. Word frequency and word order in freezes. Linguistics 27 (3): 517–556. Google Scholar
  52. Ferreira, Victor S., and Hiromi Yoshita. 2003. Given-new ordering effects on the production of scrambled sentences in Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32 (6): 669–692. Google Scholar
  53. Forsgren, Mats. 1978. La place de l’adjectif épithète en français contemporain, étude quantitative et sémantique. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. Google Scholar
  54. Fougeron, Cécile. 1998. Variations articulaires en début de constituants prosodiques de différents niveaux en Français. Paris: Université Paris III-Sorbonne Nouvelle. Google Scholar
  55. Fougeron, Cécile, and Patricia Keating. 1997. Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101 (6): 3728–3740. Google Scholar
  56. Gabas Jr., Nilson. 1999. A grammar of Karo (Tupi). PhD diss., University of California, Santa Barbara. Google Scholar
  57. Garcia, Guilherme D. 2017a. Repairing the lexicon: A probabilistic approach to weight and stress. Ms., McGill University. Submitted. Google Scholar
  58. Garcia, Guilherme D. 2017b. Weight effects on stress: Lexicon and grammar. PhD diss., McGill University. Google Scholar
  59. Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality and syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68: 1–76. Google Scholar
  60. Gibson, Edward. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Image, language, brain, eds. Yasushi Miyashita, Alec Marantz, and Wayne O’Neil, 95–126. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Google Scholar
  61. Gibson, Edward, Steve Piantadosi, and Kristina Fedorenko. 2011. Using Mechanical Turk to obtain and analyze English acceptability judgments. Language and Linguistics Compass 5 (8): 509–524. Google Scholar
  62. Goldwater, Sharon, and Mark Johnson. 2003. Learning OT constraint rankings using a Maximum Entropy model. In Stockholm Workshop on Variation within Optimality Theory, eds. Jennifer Spenader, Anders Eriksson, and Osten Dahl, 111–120. Google Scholar
  63. Golenbock, Janice. 2000. Binomial expressions: Does frequency matter? Ms., Carnegie Mellon University. Google Scholar
  64. Gordon, Matthew. 2002. A phonetically-driven account of syllable weight. Language 78: 51–80. Google Scholar
  65. Gordon, Matthew. 2005. A perceptually-driven account of onset-sensitive stress. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 595–653. Google Scholar
  66. Gordon, Matthew. 2006. Syllable weight: Phonetics, phonology, typology. New York: Routledge Press. Google Scholar
  67. Grafmiller, Jason, and Stephanie Shih. 2011. New approaches to end weight. Paper presented at Variation and Typology: New Trends in Syntactic Research, Helsinki. Google Scholar
  68. Griffin, Zenzi M., and J. Kathryn Bock. 1998. Constraint, word frequency, and the relationship between lexical processing levels in spoken word production. Journal of Memory and Language 38 (3): 313–338. Google Scholar
  69. Gunkel, Dieter, and Kevin Ryan. 2011. Hiatus avoidance and metrification in the Rigveda. In Annual UCLA Indo-European conference 22, eds. Stephanie W. Jamison, H. Craig Melchert, and Brent Vine, 53–68. Bremen: Hempen. Google Scholar
  70. Gustafsson, Marita. 1974. The phonetic length of the members in present-day English binomials. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 75: 663–677. Google Scholar
  71. Gustafsson, Marita. 1975. Binomial expressions in present-day English. Turku: Annales Universitatis Turkunsis. Google Scholar
  72. Hawkins, John A. 1990. A parsing theory of word order universals. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 223–261. Google Scholar
  73. Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  74. Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  75. Hayes, Bruce. 1984. The phonology of rhythm in English. Linguistic Inquiry 15 (1): 33–74. Google Scholar
  76. Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  77. Hayes, Bruce, and Aditi Lahiri. 1991. Bengali intonational phonology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9 (1): 47–96. Google Scholar
  78. Hayes, Bruce, and Colin Wilson. 2008. A Maximum Entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 379–440. Google Scholar
  79. Hetzron, Robert. 1972. Phonology in syntax. Journal of Linguistics 8: 251–262. Google Scholar
  80. Hinrichs, Lars, and Benedikt M. Szmrecsányi. 2007. Recent changes in the function and frequency of Standard English genitive constructions: A multivariate analysis of tagged corpora. English Language and Linguistics 11 (3): 437–474. Google Scholar
  81. Ingason, Anton Karl, and Laurel MacKenzie. 2011. ‘Heaviness’ as evidence for a derive-and-compare grammar. Poster presented at the 19th Manchester Phonology Meeting. Google Scholar
  82. Jaeger, T. Florian, and Elisabeth J. Norcliffe. 2009. The cross-linguistic study of sentence production. Language and Linguistics Compass 3: 866–887. Google Scholar
  83. Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Linguistics and poetics. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Google Scholar
  84. Jesney, Karen. 2007. The locus of variation in weighted constraint grammars. Poster presented at the Workshop on Variation, Gradience, and Frequency in Phonology, Stanford. Google Scholar
  85. Jespersen, Otto. 1905. Growth and structure of the English language. Stuttgart: Teubner Verlag. Google Scholar
  86. Jespersen, Otto. 1961. A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part 6, Morphology. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd. Google Scholar
  87. Kabak, Baris, and Irene Vogel. 2001. The phonological word and stress assignment in Turkish. Phonology 18 (3): 315–360. Google Scholar
  88. Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2003. Syntactic categories and Persian stress. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 333–379. Google Scholar
  89. Karimi, Simin. 2003. On object positions, specificity, and scrambling in Persian. In Word order and scrambling, ed. Simin Karimi, 91–124. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Google Scholar
  90. Katkov, Mikhail, Sandro Romani, and Misha Tsodyks. 2014. Word length effect in free recall of randomly assembled word lists. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 8: 129. Google Scholar
  91. Katz, Jonah. 2010. Compression effects, perceptual asymmetries, and the grammar of timing. PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
  92. Keane, Elinor. 2001. Echo words in Tamil. PhD diss., University of Oxford. Google Scholar
  93. Keane, Elinor. 2003. Word-level prominence in Tamil. In 15th international congress of the phonetic sciences, Vol. 2, 1257–1260. Google Scholar
  94. Keane, Elinor. 2006. Prominence in Tamil. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 36: 1–20. Google Scholar
  95. Kelly, Michael H. 1986. On the selection of linguistic options. PhD diss., Cornell University. Google Scholar
  96. Kelly, Michael H., and J. Kathryn Bock. 1988. Stress in time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 14 (3): 389–403. Google Scholar
  97. Kelly, Michael H., J. Kathryn Bock, and Frank C. Keil. 1986. Prototypicality in a linguistic context: Effects on sentence structure. Journal of Memory and Language 25 (1): 59–74. Google Scholar
  98. Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Sonority-driven stress. Rutgers Optimality Archive ROA–33. Google Scholar
  99. Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. Metrics and morphophonemics in the Kalevala. In Studies presented to Roman Jakobson by his students, ed. Charles Gribble. Cambridge: Slavica. Google Scholar
  100. Kiparsky, Paul. 2009. Verbal co-compounds and subcompounds in Greek. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 57. Google Scholar
  101. Lehiste, Ilse. 1970. Suprasegmentals. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  102. Lehiste, Ilse. 1972. The timing of utterances and linguistic boundaries. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 51 (6): 2018–2024. Google Scholar
  103. Levelt, Willem, and Ben Maassen. 1981. Lexical search and order of mention in sentence production. In Crossing the boundaries in linguistics, eds. Wolfgang Klein and Willem Levelt, 221–252. Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar
  104. Liberman, Mark. 1975. The intonational system of English. PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
  105. Liberman, Mark, and Alan Prince. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 249–336. Google Scholar
  106. Lindblom, Björn. 1968. Temporal organization of syllable production. In Speech transmission laboratory quarterly progress, Vol. 9. Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
  107. Lohmann, Arne, and Tayo Takada. 2014. Order in NP conjuncts in spoken English and Japanese. Lingua 152: 48–64. Google Scholar
  108. Lunden, Anya. 2006. Weight, final lengthening and stress: A phonetic and phonological case study of Norwegian. PhD diss., University of California, Santa Cruz. Google Scholar
  109. MacDonald, Jonathan E. 2015. A movement analysis of some double object constructions. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 32, eds. Ulrike Steindl, Thomas Borer, Huilin Fang, Alfredo García Pardo, Peter Guekguezian, Brian Hsu, Charlie O’Hara, and Iris Chuoying Ouyang, 276–285. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Google Scholar
  110. MacKenzie, Laurel. 2012. Location variation above the phonology. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania. Google Scholar
  111. Maddieson, Ian. 1985. Phonetic cues to syllabification. In Phonetic linguistic essay in honor of Peter Ladefoged, ed. Victoria Fromkin, 203–221. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  112. Malkiel, Yakov. 1959. Studies in irreversible binomials. Lingua 8: 113–160. Google Scholar
  113. Marchand, Hans. 1952. Alliteration, Ablaut und Reim in den Türkischen Zwillingsformen. Oriens 5: 60–69. Google Scholar
  114. Marchand, Hans. 1969. The categories and types of present-day English word-formation. Wiesbaden: Harrossowitz. Google Scholar
  115. Matthews, Stephen J., and L. Y. Y. Yeung. 2000. Processing motivations for topicalization in Cantonese. In Cognitive-functional linguistics in an East Asian context, eds. Kaoru Horie and Shigeru Sato, 81–102. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Google Scholar
  116. McDonald, Janet L., Kathryn Bock, and Michael H. Kelly. 1993. Word and world order: Semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology 25: 188–230. Google Scholar
  117. Minkova, Donka. 2002. Ablaut reduplication in English: The criss-crossing of prosody and verbal art. English Language and Linguistics 6: 133–169. Google Scholar
  118. Mollin, Sandra. 2012. Revisiting binomial order in English: Ordering constraints and reversibility. English Language and Linguistics 16 (1): 81–103. Google Scholar
  119. Mollin, Sandra. 2013. Pathways of change in the diachronic development of binomial reversibility in Late Modern American English. Journal of English Linguistics 41 (2): 168–203. Google Scholar
  120. Morgan, Emily, and Roger Levy. 2016. Abstract knowledge versus direct experience in processing of binomial expressions. Cognition 157: 384–402. Google Scholar
  121. Mortensen, David. 2006. Logical and substantive scales in phonology. PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley. Google Scholar
  122. Müller, Gereon. 1997. Beschrankungen für Binomialbildungen im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 16 (1/2): 5–51. Google Scholar
  123. Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. PhD diss., University of Maryland. Google Scholar
  124. Nevins, Andrew, and Keith Plaster. 2008. Review of Paul de Lacy, Markedness: Reduction and preservation in phonology. Journal of Linguistics 44: 770–781. Google Scholar
  125. Oakeshott-Taylor, John. 1984. Phonetic factors in word order. Phonetica 41: 226–237. Google Scholar
  126. Oden, Gregg C., and Lola L. Lopes. 1981. Preference for order in freezes. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 673–679. Google Scholar
  127. Pāṇini. Undated. Aṣtādhyāyī. Available at http://panini.phil.hhu.de/panini/panini/. Accessed 6 April 2018.
  128. Parker, Steve. 2002. Quantifying the sonority hierarchy. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
  129. Pater, Joe. 2009. Weighted constraints in generative linguistics. Cognitive Science 33: 999–1035. Google Scholar
  130. Pinker, Steven, and David Birdsong. 1979. Speakers’ sensitivity to rules of frozen word order. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18 (4): 497–508. Google Scholar
  131. Pordany, Laszlo. 1986. A comparison of some English and Hungarian freezes. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 21: 117–125. Google Scholar
  132. Prince, Alan. 1983. Relating to the grid. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 19–100. Google Scholar
  133. Prince, Alan. 1999. Paninian relations. Handout, University of Marburg. Google Scholar
  134. Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 2004. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  135. Quintilian. Undated. Institutio Oratoria. Available at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Quintilian/Institutio_Oratoria/. Accessed 6 April 2018.
  136. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman. Google Scholar
  137. Ross, John Robert. 1982. The sound of meaning. In Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. The Linguistic Society of Korea, 275–290. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co. Google Scholar
  138. Ryan, Kevin M. 2011. Gradient weight in phonology. PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles. Google Scholar
  139. Ryan, Kevin M. 2014. Onsets contribute to syllable weight: Statistical evidence from stress and meter. Language 90 (2): 309–341. Google Scholar
  140. Ryan, Kevin M. 2016. Phonological weight. Language and Linguistics Compass 10: 720–733. Google Scholar
  141. Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2005. Prosody-syntax interaction in the expression of focus. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 687–755. Google Scholar
  142. Scontras, Greg, Judith Degen, and Noah D. Goodman. 2017. Subjectivity predicts adjective ordering preferences. Open Mind: Discoveries in Cognitive Science 1 (1): 53–65. Google Scholar
  143. Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1995. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In The handbook of phonological theory, ed. John A. Goldsmith, 550–569. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Google Scholar
  144. Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 2011. The syntax-phonology interface. In The handbook of phonological theory. Google Scholar
  145. Shih, Stephanie. 2014. Towards optimal rhythm. PhD diss., Stanford University. Google Scholar
  146. Shih, Stephanie, and Jason Grafmiller. 2013. Weighing in on end weight. Paper presented at the LSA 85th Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh. Google Scholar
  147. Shih, Stephanie, and Kie Zuraw. 2016. Phonological conditions on variable adjective-noun word order in Tagalog. Ms., submitted, UC Merced and UCLA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0075. Available at ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002796. Accessed 2 April 2018.
  148. Shih, Stephanie S. 2016. Phonological influences in syntactic alternations. In The morphosyntax-phonology connection: Locality and directionality at the interfaces, eds. Vera Gribanova and Stephanie S. Shih, 223–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  149. Shih, Stephanie, Jason Grafmiller, Richard Futrell, and Joan Bresnan. 2015. Rhythm’s role in genitive construction choice in spoken English. In Rhythm in cognition and grammar, eds. Ralf Vogel and Ruben van de Vijver, 207–234. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar
  150. Smith, Jennifer L. 2002. Phonological augmentation in prominent positions. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
  151. Sprouse, Jon. 2011. A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behavior Research Methods 43 (1): 155–167. Google Scholar
  152. Swadesh, Morris. 1962. Archaic doublets in Altaic. In American studies in Altaic linguistics, ed. Nicholas Poppe. Vol. 13 of Uralic and Altaic series, 293–330. Bloomington: Indiana University Publications. Google Scholar
  153. Szendroi, Kriszta. 2001. Focus and the syntax-phonology interface. PhD diss., University College London. Google Scholar
  154. Szmrecsányi, Benedikt M. 2004. On operationalizing syntactic complexity. Journées internationales d’Analyse statistique des Données Textuelles (JADT-04) 2: 1032–1039. Google Scholar
  155. Temperley, David. 2007. Minimization of dependency length in written English. Cognition 105: 300–333. Google Scholar
  156. Thuilier, Juliette. 2012. Contraintes préférentielles et ordre des mots en français. PhD diss., Université Paris Diderot. Google Scholar
  157. Thun, Nils. 1963. Reduplicative words in English. Lund: Carl Bloms Boktryckeri. Google Scholar
  158. Topintzi, Nina. 2010. Onsets: Suprasegmental and prosodic behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  159. Turk, Alice E., and Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel. 2000. Word-boundary-related duration patterns in English. Journal of Phonetics 28: 397–440. Google Scholar
  160. Turk, Alice E., and Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel. 2007. Multiple targets of phrase-final lengthening in American English words. Journal of Phonetics 35 (4): 445–472. Google Scholar
  161. Vasu, Srisa Chandra. 1898. The Ashtádhyáyí of Páṇini, translated into English by Śríśa Chandra Vasu, Vol. 8. Allahabad: Indian Press. Google Scholar
  162. Venditti, Jennifer J., Kikuo Maekawa, and Mary E. Beckman. 2008. Prominence marking in the Japanese intonation system. In Handbook of Japanese linguistics, eds. Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito, 456–512. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  163. Vogel, Ralf. 2006. Weak function word shift. Linguistics 44: 1059–1093. Google Scholar
  164. Wackernagel, Jakob. 1905. Altindische Grammatik, Vol. 2: 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Google Scholar
  165. Wagner, Michael. 2005. Prosody and recursion. PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
  166. Walker, Douglas C. 1975. Word stress in French. Language 51 (4): 887–900. Google Scholar
  167. Wasow, Thomas. 2002. Postverbal behavior. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  168. Wasow, Thomas, and Jennifer Arnold. 2003. Post-verbal constituent ordering in English. In Determinants of grammatical variation in English, eds. Günter Rohdenburg and Britta Mondorf, 119–154. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  169. Wescott, Roger W. 1970. Types of vowel alternations in English. Word 26: 309–343. Google Scholar
  170. West, M. L. 1987. Introduction to Greek metre. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  171. Westbury, John, and Patricia Keating. 1980. Central representation of vowel duration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 67 (Suppl. 1): 37. Google Scholar
  172. Wheatley, Henry B. 1866. A dictionary of reduplicated words in the English language, Vol. 17 of Transactions of the Philological Society. Google Scholar
  173. White, Laurence. 2014. Communicative function and prosodic form in speech timing. Speech Communication 63–64: 38–54. Google Scholar
  174. Wightman, Colin W., Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel, Mari Ostendorf, and Patti J. Price. 1992. Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 92: 1707–1717. Google Scholar
  175. Wilson, Colin. 2006. Learning phonology with substantive bias: An experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science 30: 945–982. Google Scholar
  176. Wolf, Matthew. 2008. Optimal interleaving: Serial phonology-morphology interaction in a constraint-based model. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Google Scholar
  177. Wright, Saundra, and Jennifer Hay. 2002. Fred and Wilma: A phonological conspiracy. In Gendered practices in language, eds. Sarah Benor, Mary Rose, Devyani Sharma, Julie Sweetland, and Qing Zhang, 175–191. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  178. Wright, Saundra, Jennifer Hay, and Tessa Bent. 2005. Ladies first? Phonology, frequency, and the naming conspiracy. Linguistics 44: 531–561. Google Scholar
  179. Yamashita, Hiroko, and Franklin Chang. 2001. “Long before short” preference in the production of a head-final language. Cognition 81 (2): 45–55. Google Scholar
  180. Yamashita, Hiroko, and Franklin Chang. 2006. Sentence production in Japanese. In Handbook of East Asian psycholinguistics, eds. Mineharu Nakayama, Reiko Mazuka, and Yasuhiro Shirai, Vol. 2, 291–297. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  181. Yu, Alan C. L. , and Hyunjung Lee. 2014. The stability of perceptual compensation for coarticulation within and across individuals: A cross-validation study. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 136 (1): 382–388. Google Scholar
  182. Zec, Draga. 1988. Sonority constraints on prosodic structure. PhD diss., Stanford University. Google Scholar
  183. Zec, Draga. 1995. Sonority constraints on syllable structure. Phonology 12 (1): 85–129. Google Scholar
  184. Zec, Draga. 2003. Prosodic weight. In The syllable in Optimality Theory, eds. Caroline Féry and Ruben van de Vijer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  185. Zipf, George Kingsley. 1936. The psycho-biology of language: An introduction to dynamic philology. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  186. Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus and word order. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  187. Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 2000. Phrasal stress and syntax. Ms., University of Southern California. Google Scholar
  188. Zuraw, Kie. 2010. A model of lexical variation and the grammar with application to Tagalog nasal substitution. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28 (2): 417–472. Google Scholar
  189. Zwicky, Arnold M. 1987. Suppressing the zs. Journal of Linguistics 23 (1): 133–148. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations