대한언어학회 전자저널

Cho, Hye-Sung. (2020). The correlation between bidirectional stress systems and ternary stress feet. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 28(4), 77-101. Hyde (2008) defined bidirectional stress systems as binary systems with a mixed directional orientation. As a result, in odd-parity words, an internal lapse arises adjacent to a single isolated foot, which yields a sequence of a foot and an unparsed syllable, [(σ)σ(σ)(σ)], in the middle. This paper contends that to avoid the stranded syllable in the ternary stress configurations, bidirectional systems opt for one of their own parsing tactics: a ternary stress foot. This is in sharp contrast with unidirectional systems which parse a stray syllable at edges into a degenerate foot. This also leads us to infer that there is a correlation between bidirectional systems and ternary stress feet that should be captured so as to account for the existence of language-specific ternary stress foot-conditioned phonological and morphological operations which have bidirectional stress systems. This paper parses trisyllabic configurations into Internally Layered Ternary (ILT) stress feet which consist of a disyllabic foot with a left- or right-weak adjoined syllable, as proposed by recursive foot theories (Bennett, 2012; Martínez-Paricio, 2012; Kager, 2012).

# 양 방향 강세 시스템(bidirectional stress system) # 3-음절 강세 형태(ternary stress configuration) # 단어 내 두 무강세 음절의 연속 (word-internal stress lapse) # 3-음절 강세 음보-조건적(ternary stress foot-conditioned) 음운/형태 작용 # 내부 층위가 있는 삼원적 강세 음보(Internally Layered Ternary stress foot)

• Alber, B. (2005). Clash, lapse and directionality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 23, 485-542.
• Bennett, R. T. (2012). Foot-conditioned phonotactics and prosodic constituency. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
• Breteler, J., & Kager, R. (2017). Layered feet laid bare in Copperbelt Bemba tone. Proceedings of the Annual Meetings on Phonology 4, 1-8.
• Buckley, E. (2009). Locality in metrical typology. Phonology, 26, 389-435. Cohn, A. (1989). Stress in Indonesian and bracketing paradoxes. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 7, 67-216.
• Davis, S., & Cho, M.-H. (2003). The distribution of aspirated stops and /h/ in American English and Korean: An alignment approach with typological implications. Linguistics, 41(4), 607-652.
• Davis, S. (2005) Capitalistic vs. Militaristic: The paradigm uniformity effect reconsidered. In L. Downing, T. A. Hall, & R. Raffelsiefen (Eds.), Paradigms in phonological theory (pp. 107-121). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
• Dresher, B. E., & Lahiri, A. (1991). The Germanic foot: Metrical coherence in Old English. Linguistic Inquiry, 22(2), 251-286.
• Eisner, J. (1997) FootForm decomposed: Using primitive constraints in OT. Unpublished manuscript, MIT.
• Furby, C. (1974). Garawa phonology (Pacific Linguistics, Series A). Canberra: Australian National University.
• Gordon, M. (2002). A factorial typology of quantity-insensitive stress. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 20, 491-552.
• Gussenhoven, G. (2009). Vowel duration, syllable quantity and stress in Dutch. In K. Hanson & S. Inkelas (Eds.), The nature of the word: Essays in honor of Paul Kiparsky (pp. 181-198). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
• Hansen, K., & Hansen, L. E. (1969). Pintupi phonology. Oceanic Linguistics, 8, 153-170.
• Harris, J. W. (1983). Syllable structure and stress in Spanish: A nonlinear analysis. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
• Hayes, B. (1980). A metrical theory of stress rules. New York: Garland Press.
• Hayes, B. (1995). Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Hewitt, M. S. (1992). Vertical maximization and metrical theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brandeis University.
• Hyde, B. (2002). A restrictive theory of metrical stress. Phonology, 19(3), 313-359.
• Hyde, B. (2008). Bidirectional stress systems. In C. B. Chang & H. J. Haynie (Eds.), In Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 270-278.
• Hyde, B. (2012). Alignment constraints. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 30, 789-836.
• Ito, J., & Mester, A. (2007). Prosodic adjunction in Japanese compounds. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 55, 97-111.
• Kager, R. (2001). Rhythmic directionality by positional licensing. Paper presented at the Fifth Holland Institute of Linguistics Phonology Conference, University of Potsdam, 11 January.
• Kager, R. (2005). Rhythmic licensing theory: An extended typology. In Proceedings of the 3rd Seoul International Conference on Phonology, 5-31.
• Kager, R. (2012). Stress in windows: Language typology and factorial typology. Lingua, 122(13), 1454-1493.
• Kager, R., & Martínez-Paricio, V. (2018). The internally layered foot in Dutch. Linguistics, 56(1), 69-114.
• Kumagai, G. (2016). Resolving the issue of the target of vowel copy in Fijian loanwords. In Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Meeting on Phonology, 1-12.
• Lynch, J. (1978). A grammar of Lenakel. Unpublished manuscript, Australian National University.
• MacDonald, L. (1990). A grammar of Tauya. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Martínez-Paricio, V. (2012). Superfeet as recursion. In N. Arnett & R. Bennett (Eds.), In Proceedings of the 30th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 259-269).
• Martínez-Paricio, V. (2013). An exploration of minimal and maximal feet. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tromsø.
• Martínez-Paricio, V., & Torres-Tamarit, F. (2019). Trisyllabic hypocoristics in Spanish and layered feet. Natural Language and Lingustic Theory, 37, 659-691.
• Martínez-Paricio, V., & Kager, R. (2015). The binary-to-ternary rhythmic continuum in stress typology: Layered feet and non-intervention constraints. Phonology, 32(2), 459-504.
• Martínez-Paricio, V., & Kager, R. (2016). Metrically conditioned pitch and layered feet in Chugash Alutiiq. Loquens, 3(2), 1-13.
• Matteson, E. (1965). The Piro(Arawakan) language. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• McCarthy, J. (1981). A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 373–418.
• McCarthy, J. (1982). Nonlinear phonology: An overview. GLOW Newsletter, 8, 63–77.
• McCarthy, J. (1982). Prosodic structure and expletive infixation. Language, 58(3), 574-590.
• McCarthy, J. (2003). OT constraints are categorical. Phonology, 20, 75-138.
• McCarthy, J., & Prince. A. (1986). Prosodic morphology (Linguistics Department Faculty Publication Series 13). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst Press.
• McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1993). Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology, 12, 79-153.
• Nespor, M., & Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.
• Newlin-Łukowicz, L. (2012). Polish stress: Looking for phonetic evidence of a bidirectional system. Phonology, 29(2), 271-329.
• Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993/2004). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden & Oxford: Blackwell.
• Selkirk, E. (1980). The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. Linguistic Inquiry, 11(3), 563-605.
• Selkirk, E. (1995). Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In J. Goldsmith, J. Riggle, & A. C. L. Yu (Eds.), The handbook of phonological theory (pp. 550-569). Cambridge & Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.