The Iambic Issue: Iambs as a Result of Constraint Interaction (review)

The central insight of Ruben van de Vijver’s Vrije University (Amsterdam) dissertation is that iambic stress patterns can be accounted for without claiming that the iamb is a primitive of universal grammar (UG). V argues in Ch. 1 (1–54) that iambic systems possess a number of distinctive characteristics that require a principled explanation: (1) Iambs are only assigned from left to right; (2) stress on final and initial syllables is avoided in iambic languages; (3) disyllabic words in iambic languages usually have initial stress, and (4) the prototypical iambic foot, a light syllable followed by a heavy syllable, does not play a role as a primitive in prosodic morphology. V asserts that if the iamb is a UG primitive, then these characteristics are unexpected. If iambs are the result of constraint interaction, however, then they are expected. The kernel of V’s explanation lies in the interaction of two optimality theoretic constraints, *edgemost and trochee. *Edgemost is a constraint that disfavors the placement of stress on either the first or the last syllable of a word. Trochee demands that feet be trochaic. When Trochee is ranked above *Edgemost, the result is a trochaic stress pattern. When *Edgemost outranks Trochee, however, iambic stress arises. The remainder of the book uses these constraints (among others) and the notion of optimality theoretic constraint interaction as the basis for dealing with the four highlighted characteristics of iambic stress systems in an impressive number of languages.

In Ch. 2 (55–111), V examines the stress systems of Carib, Tiriyó, and Hixkaryana, all Cariban languages with iambic stress. The four properties of iambic stress systems are discussed with respect to these languages, and optimality theoretic accounts of stress assignment are proposed. In each case, *Edgemost and Trochee are at the core of the analysis; no constraint explicitly demanding iambic stress is called upon.

In Ch. 3 (113–77), V attempts to further his argument by analyzing a number of distinct prosodic aspects of the Yupik languages of western Alaska and eastern Siberia. Lexical stress, the stem stress principle (which requires that the stem of a word be stressed), and syllable weight are all discussed. Following his own analysis of these phenomena, V considers a number of alternative accounts of foot structure and syllable weight in these languages.

In Ch. 4 (179–219), V focuses on the typological prediction made by his proposal that no language will be found which has iambic feet assigned from right to left. V examines systems that have been analyzed in the past with precisely this type of metrical structure and argues that such systems are best analyzed with trochees rather than iambs.

In Ch. 5 (221–52), V discusses the fourth unique aspect of iambic stress systems, the role of the prototypical iambic foot (LH) within prosodic morphology. His claim is that all feet are either strictly bimoraic or disyllabic. Surface feet of the form HL or LH arise as the result of constraint interaction; they are not UG primitives. V supports his argument with analyses of Japanese hypocoristics, Buin and Chugach names, Arabic broken plurals and hypocoristics, Yawelmani verbal bases, Kambera and Carib root structure, and Dutch name truncations.

A summary of the findings is given in Ch. 6 (253–8) with a summary in Dutch (267–71) following the references.

V’s dissertation will be of interest to anyone interested in stress typology or constraint-based theories of phonology. The rather large number of typographical, grammatical, and editorial errors, however, makes reading sometimes difficult. A few of these are so severe that meaning is at times obscured (e.g. a paragraph that ends mid-sentence at the bottom of page 99).