Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T22:37:53.947Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Degenerate feet in phrasal phonology: evidence from Latin and Ancient Greek

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2023

Kevin M. Ryan
Kevin M. Ryan*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA. Email: kevinryan@fas.harvard.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Degenerate feet, even when forbidden in isolated words, can arise within phrases due to resyllabification. In particular, when a stressed monosyllable of the shape C0VC (where V is short) undergoes resyllabification in Latin and Ancient Greek, it yields a degenerate foot. While degenerate feet were tolerated in prose, they were avoided in hexameter verse. Even though a degenerate foot is a kind of light syllable, a light metrical position could not contain a foot. Verse evidence is used as a window onto the general prosodic structure of each language, revealing that speakers productively recognised degenerate feet and distinguished them from other prosodic categories.

Keywords

footsyntax–prosodyLatinAncient Greekmetrics
Type
Article
Information
Phonology , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , May 2022 , pp. 345 - 368
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, W. Sidney (1978). Vox Latina: a guide to the pronunciation of Classical Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, E. Vernon (1905). Vedic metre in its historical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blumenfeld, Lev (2004). Tone-to-stress and stress-to-tone: ancient Greek revisited. BLS 30. 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumenfeld, Lev (2011). Coercion and minimality. The Linguistic Review 28. 207–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert (1996). Cliticization as prosodic integration: the case of Dutch. The Linguistic Review 13. 219–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braver, Aaron & Kawahara, Shigeto (2014). Incomplete vowel lengthening in Japanese: a first study. WCCFL 31. 86–95.Google Scholar
Breiss, Canaan (2021). Lexical conservatism in phonology: theory, experiments, and computational modeling. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro (1982). An autosegmental theory of raddoppiamento. NELS 12. 49–62.Google Scholar
Delattre, Pierre (1966). A comparison of syllable length conditioning among languages. International Review of Applied Linguistics 4. 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, Andrew M. & Stephens, Laurence (1994). The prosody of Greek speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward (2001). Scalar and categorical phenomena in a unified model of phonetics and phonology. Phonology 18. 7–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golston, Chris (1990). Floating L* (and H) tones in Ancient Greek. In Myers, James & Pérez, Patricia E. (eds.) Arizona Phonology Conference, volume 3. Tucson: University of Arizona. 66–82.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew (2002). A phonetically-driven account of syllable weight. Lg 78. 51–80.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew & Applebaum, Ayla (2010). Prosodic fusion and minimality in Kabardian. Phonology 27. 45–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunkel, Dieter & Ryan, Kevin M. (2017). Corpus-linguistic approaches to clisis in metrical corpora. Paper presented at “What is a Word?” University of Zurich, 14 December 2017.Google Scholar
Hanson, Kristin & Kiparsky, Paul (1996). A parametric theory of poetic meter. Lg 72. 287–335.Google Scholar
Harris, James (1983). Syllable structure and stress in Spanish: a nonlinear analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1995). Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1999). Phonetically-driven phonology: the role of optimality theory and inductive grounding. In Darnell, Michael, Moravscik, Edith, Noonan, Michael, Newmeyer, Frederick & Wheatly, Kathleen (eds.) Functionalism and formalism in linguistics, volume 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 243–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Wilson, Colin & Shisko, Anne (2012). Maxent grammars for the metrics of Shakespeare and Milton. Lg 88. 691–731.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (1999). Realignment. In Kager, René, van der Hulst, Harry & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.) The prosody–morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 188–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2009). The onset of the prosodic word. In Parker, Steve (ed.) Phonological argumentation: essays on evidence and motivation. London: Equinox. 227–260.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2019). Match as syntax-prosody Max/Dep: prosodic enclisis in English. English Linguistics 36. 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Chungmin, Gordon, Matthew & Büring, Daniel (eds.) (2008). Topic and focus: cross-linguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Lehiste, Ilse (1970). Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn (1968). Temporal organization of syllable production. In Speech Transmission Laboratory quarterly progress, volumes 2–3. Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Institute of Technology. 1–6.Google Scholar
Mercado, Angelo O. (2021). Word stress in the Early Latin hexameter. In Hisatsugi, Satoko (ed.) Die italischen Sprachen. Hamburg: Baar-Verlag. 85–102.Google Scholar
Mester, Armin (1994). The quantitative trochee in Latin. NLLT 12. 1–61.Google Scholar
Monro, David Binning (1891). A grammar of the Homeric dialect. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Mori, Yoko (2002). Lengthening of Japanese monomoraic nouns. JPh 30. 689–708.Google Scholar
Newcomer, Charles B. (1908). The effect of enclitics on the accent of words in Latin. The Classical Journal 3. 150–153.Google Scholar
Newell, Heather & Piggott, Glyne (2014). Interactions at the syntax-phonology interface: evidence from Ojibwe. Lingua 150. 332–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Passino, Diana, de Carvalho, Joaquim Brandão & Scheer, Tobias (2022). Syllable structure and (re)syllabification. In Gabriel, Christoph, Gess, Randall & Meisenburg, Trudel (eds.) Manual of romance phonetics and phonology. Boston, MA: De Gruyter. 89–126.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe (2009). Weighted constraints in generative linguistics. Cognitive Science 33. 999–1035.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peperkamp, Sharon (1997). Prosodic words. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Published as HIL Dissertations 34, The Hague, Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Piggott, Glyne (1980). Aspects of Odawa morphophonemics. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (1989). Metrical forms. In Kiparsky, Paul & Youmans, Gilbert (eds.) Rhythm and meter. Number 1 in Phonetics and Phonology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 45–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul ([1993] 2004). Optimality theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Originally published as Technical Report 2 of the Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Probert, Philomen (2003). A new short guide to the accentuation of Ancient Greek. London: Bristol Classical Press.Google Scholar
Probert, Philomen (2006). Ancient Greek accentuation: synchronic patterns, frequency effects, and prehistory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajam, V. S. (1992). A reference grammar of classical Tamil poetry. Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society.Google Scholar
Ryan, Kevin M. (2011). Gradient syllable weight and weight universals in quantitative metrics. Phonology 28. 413–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, Kevin M. (2014). Onsets contribute to syllable weight: statistical evidence from stress and meter. Lg 90. 309–341.Google Scholar
Ryan, Kevin M. (2017). The stress–weight interface in metre. Phonology 34. 581–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, Kevin M. (2019). Prosodic weight: categories and continua. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandell, Ryan (2020). Stress-to-tone and tone-to-stress: on stress, tone, and intonation in Ancient Attic-Ionic Greek. Paper presented at the Wiener Sprachgesellschaft, December 15, 2020.Google Scholar
Sauzet, Patrick (1989). L’accent du grec ancien et les relations entre structure métrique et représentation autosegmentale. Langages 95. 81–113.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1996). The prosodic structure of function words. In Morgan, James L. & Demuth, Katherine (eds.) Signal to syntax: bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 187–213.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (2011). The syntax–phonology interface. In Goldsmith, John, Riggle, Jason & Yu, Alan C. L. (eds.) The handbook of phonological theory, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell. 435–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1988). Greek accent: a case for preserving structure. LI 19. 217–314.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (2014). A synchronic analysis of Ancient Greek accent. Paper presented at the Harvard GSAS Colloquium, September 22, 2014.Google Scholar
Sturtevant, Edgar H. (1923). Harmony and clash of accent and ictus in the Latin hexameter. Transactions of the American Philological Association 54. 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert (2007). The syntax–phonology interface. In de Lacy, Paul (ed.) The Cambridge handbook of phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 435–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, Michael (2020). Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin, 2nd edition. Ann Arbor, MI: Beech Stave Press.Google Scholar
West, M. L. (1982). Greek metre. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
West, M. L. (1987). Introduction to Greek metre. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wightman, Colin W., Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie, Ostendorf, Mari & Price, Patti J. (1992). Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. JASA 92. 1707–1717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar