대한언어학회 전자저널

Cho, Hye-Sung. (2018). Bidirectional stress systems revisited. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 26(4), 203-223. Bidirectional stress systems characteristically have their stress work to demarcate both edges of a word as well as to embody the rhythmic patterns within the word. Unlike unidirectional stress systems involving forming feet from either end of a word, bidirectional systems start building one foot from one edge and the remaining feet from the opposite edge. As a result, over ternary stress configurations bidirectional systems incur lapses in word-medial positions. In this paper I offer a reexamination of bidirectional systems within standard alignment theory (McCarthy & Prince 1993), but whose inherent symmetry is partially suppressed to accommodate their typological iambic-trochaic asymmetry. I contend that the interaction between asymmetrical ALIGN-WD constraints and symmetrical, foot-forming ALL-FT-L/R constraints not only makes the correct typological prediction, ruling out iambic rhythms from the bidirectional inventory but also provides an adequate account of the bidirectionalitys demarcative and rhythmic stress properties. I also argue that although they have mixed directionality orientation, bidirectional systems with a word-final three syllable stress window, such as English and Spanish be on the list of unidirectionality since they consistently maintain final lapse rather than medial lapse.

# 양 방향 강세 시스템(bidirectional stress systems) # 3-음절 강세 형태(ternary stress configurations) # 단어 내 lapse # 정렬 제약 # 3-음절 강세 창(three syllable stress window)

• 조혜성. (2017). 단어 말 두 음절의 강세 유형과 NONFINALITY 제약의 상관관계. 언어학, 25(4), 168-191.
• Alber, B. (2004). Clash, lapse and directionality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 23, 485-542.
• Buckley, E. (1997). Optimal iambs in Kashaya. Rivista di Linguistica, 9, 9-52.
• Davis, S. (2005). “Capitalistic” vs. “Militaristic”: The paradigm uniformity effect reconsidered. In L. Downing, T. A. Hall, & R. Raffelsieffen (Eds.), Paradigms in phonological theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 107-121.
• Hayes, B. (1995). Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Hyde, B. (2008). Bidirectional stress systems. In C. B. Chang & H. J. Haynie (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 270-278.
• Jensen, J. T. (2000). Against Ambisyllabicity. Phonology, 17(2), 187-235.
• Kager, R. (2001). Rhythmic directionality by positional licensing. Paper presented at the Fifth Holland Institute of Linguistics Phonology Conference, University of Potsdam, January.
• Kahn, D. (1976). Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
• McCarthy, J. (2003). OT constraints are categorical. Phonology, 20, 75-138.
• MacDonald, L. (1990). A grammar of Tauya. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1993). Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology, 79-153.
• Miller, W. (1996). Sketch of Shoshone, a Uto-Aztecan Language. In I. Goddard (volume editor), Handbook of American Indian Languages 17. Washington: Smithsonian Institute, 693-720.
• Prince, A. S. (1983). Relating to the grid. Linguistic Inquiry, 14(1), 19-100.
• Prince, A. S., & Smolensky, P. (1993/2004). Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, MA and Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
• Steriade, D. (2000). Paradigm uniformity and the phonetic-phonology boundary. In H. van der Hulst & N. Smith (Eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology, 5. Cambridge, CUP, 313-334.
• Withgott, M. M. (1983). Segmental evidence for phonological constituents. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.