In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

BOOK NOTICES 707 His introductory chapter outlines the framework and discusses the preliminary motivations for his contributions to the study of stress. G's major innovation is his claim that every lexical item in English and German must contain at least one binary branching s(trong)-w(eak) foot. Formonosyllables, the weak node dominates no segmental material; but the empty syllable created as its daughter is used throughout G's analysis to predict numerous facts about stressrelated phenomena. Thus the branching foot built over a monosyllable ensures a certain duration in the phonetic realization ofthese forms; this accounts for the fact that lexical monosyllables are of longer duration than comparable syllables in polysyllabic forms. The empty weak node is also posited to be the site of attachment for encliticization of non-lexical items, as when cup of tea becomes cuppa tea. G further suggests that the extrametricality of a word-final consonant (in German and English) results from pressure for it to become the onset ofthe empty syllable. In Ch. 2, G develops a metrical analysis of German word stress. For expository purposes, he distinguishes between native and non-native words; but he claims that the M[ain] Sftress] R[ule] applies equally to all lexical items. G argues that the German MSR, like its English counterpart, is sensitive to syllable structure. He gives a rather complex template analysis of syllable structure which allows him to unify the types of syllables which attract main stress, to predict vowel quality alternations, and to make claims about when word-final geminates will occur. G argues for a level-ordered account of German morphology, giving evidence for a Class I vs. Class II distinction among affixes similar to the one frequently proposed for English morphology . A difference between German and English is that the German MSR must apply after all Class I suffixation has taken place; i.e., G claims that German shows no effects of cyclic stress assignment. Another difference between the two languages is implied by G's claim that German Class II suffixes undergo the MSR before being attached to bases; he makes no such claim about English. Ch. 3 contains G's analysis of German compound stress. For English and German, he adopts without alteration the Compound Stress Rule used in most early work in metrical phonology . However, he provides a novel perspective on the behavior of lexicalized compounds like chairman, as compared to true compounds like tax man; he claims that -man in these forms is a Class II suffix. This accounts for the vowel reduction—not expected in a true compound, where man as a lexical item would block reduction . G posits such special suffixes when the semantics of a complex item is obscure. In his analysis ofGerman, he relies heavily on this notion of lexicalized compound, and posits many special suffixes. G also provides a lengthy discussion ofthe differences in metrical phonology and syntactic behavior between German verbs derived via affixation and those created through compounding. This section provides more evidence for level-ordering in German morphology. Ch. 4 involves metrical transformations— processes by which the metrical structure oflexical items is altered when they appear in syntactic structures; considerations of timing and phrasing must be taken into account. G posits a metrical component as the place in the grammar where all these processes occur, separate from the lexicon (where metrical structure is assigned to individual lexical items). The metrical component takes as its input the labeled bracketing ofsyntactic surface structure, and includes his versions of rules familiar from other works in metrical phonology, e.g. Defooting and Iambic Reversal. G argues that metrical grids are unnecessary for an explanatory analysis ofGerman and English, and formulates his entire analysis in terms of metrical trees. In his final chapter, G provides a summary of the model and his analysis, and discusses the ways in which the study of prominence relations can be brought to bear on claims about the structure of the lexicon and its interaction with phonology. [Dawn Bates, University of Washington.] On the grammar and semantics of sentence accents. By Carlos Gussenhoven . (Publications in language sciences, 16.) Dordrecht, Holland, & Cinnaminson, NJ: Foris, 1983. Pp. 352. /45...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 707-708
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.