17.2849, Sum: Tertiary Stress and Optimality Theory

[LINGUIST Network]

LINGUIST List: Vol-17-2849. Sun Oct 01 2006. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 17.2849, Sum: Tertiary Stress and Optimality Theory

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Eastern Michigan U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews: Laura Welcher, Rosetta Project / Long Now Foundation  
         <reviews at linguistlist.org> 

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Kevin Burrows <kevin at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.


===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 29-Sep-2006
From: Sarah Collie < sejcollie at hotmail.com >
Subject: Tertiary Stress and Optimality Theory 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 14:52:11
From: Sarah Collie < sejcollie at hotmail.com >
Subject: Tertiary Stress and Optimality Theory 
 

Query for this summary posted in LINGUIST Issue: 17.2735                       
                   
 

Regarding Query: http://linguistlist.org/issues/17/17-2735.html

Original query:

As part of my PhD dissertation I am looking at English non-primary stress
in Optimality Theory. I am yet to come across an optimality-theoretic
analysis which distinguishes between different degrees of non-primary
stress, i.e. secondary versus tertiary. Can anyone point me to an OT
analysis (of any language) which formally recognises tertiary stress? Or is
this problematic in OT?

Both Eric Bakovic and James Fidelholtz were kind enough to respond to this
query; I hope to represent their responses accurately here. 

Both replies were keen to point out that tertiary stress in any
'significant' or 'phonological' sense has long since been rejected with the
advent of theories like Metrical Phonology. I must apologise for my
original question being misleading in its wording in this respect. 

Both responses indicated that OT, like earlier metrical theory, should (in
principle) have no particular problem in distinguishing between the
relative prominence levels of predictably-assigned foot heads so that a
level of tertiary stress could be discerned. As yet I am still unaware of
any OT analysis which does this.

Many thanks indeed to James Fidelholtz and Eric Bakovic 

Sarah Collie
University of Edinburgh 

Linguistic Field(s): Linguistic Theories
                     Phonology





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-17-2849