Re-placing PStem in the prosodic hierarchy

Dados Bibliográficos

ID5837726
AutoresLaura J Downing (0000-0001-5609-4892, University of Gothenburg , Gothenburg , Sweden, autor correspondente), Maxwell Kadenge (0000-0002-3770-8390, University of the Witwatersrand , Johannesburg , South Africa)
Ano2020
Volume37
Fascículo3
Páginas433-461
Data de publicação2020-08-28
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoThe Linguistic Review (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0167-6318 • E-ISSN: 1613-3676
EditoraDe Gruyter (PUBLISHER • DE)
DOI10.1515/tlr-2020-2050
OpenAlexW3082420638
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas12
Referências citadas71

A persistent issue for the Prosodic Hierarchy is what repertory of prosodic constituents is needed to define the commonly recurring domains for phonological processes. Even though there is a long tradition of work arguing in favor of up to three subphrasal constituents (Composite Group (CG), PWord and PStem), a body of recent work has argued in favor of a more parsimonious view of the repertory , making the strong claim that, at the subphrasal level, the Prosodic Hierarchy contains only one constituent, Phonological Word (PWord). Any additional subphrasal domains required by the phonology must be defined as recursions of PWord. This paper argues that PStem must find a place even in a parsimonious Prosodic Hierarchy. It cannot easily be replaced by recursive PWord or by a CG-PWord distinction. The cross-linguistic validity of a PStem-PWord distinction is supported by showing that it accounts for a robust cross-linguistic generalization concerning subphrasal phonological domains. Alternatives to PStem not only miss this generalization but also prove to be formally inadequate

Linguistic Variation and Morphology · Phonetics and Phonology Research · Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation