LINGUIST List 2.95

Monday, 25 Mar 1991

Misc: Downloading dissertations, App lx bib, Vowels and stress

Editor for this issue: <>

Directory

1. Scott C. Browne, Downloading Dissertations?
2. Paul Black, Education, NT Uni, Darwin, Applied Linguistics Bibliography Available Through FTP
3. Mike Hammond, Syllable-sensitive Stress Systems
4. John Coleman, RE: Vowels and Stress
5. John Coleman, RE: Vowels and Stress
6. John Coleman, RE: Vowels and Stress

 How can I get a hold of some long linguistic documents/dissertations
on-line, so that I don't have to stand at a Xerox machine for 2 hours spending 
my dimes and instead can send them to a local NYU laser printer? 
The items I seek are:

1. May, R.(1977). _The Grammar of Quantification_. Doctoral Dissertation:MIT.
 (distributed by the Indiana University Lingusitics Club, Bloomington).

2. Huang,C.-T.J.(1982b). _Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of 
 Grammar_. MIT doctoral dissertation.

If anyone knows whether I can do this or not and how, please enlighten me. 
Also if anyone knows how I can get a hold of these manuscripts in a different
manner, please let me know.
Thanks.

Scott
brownesacf5.nyu.edu

NOW AVAILABLE through anonymous FTP from DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU:

 Bibliography of Applied Linguistics and Aboriginal Education
 by Paul Black and Chris Walton
 Centre for Studies of Language in Education
 Northern Territory University

This is an indexed bibliography of some 3000 items, including works
relating to Australian situations as well as more widely known
publications. It is also available in printed form (Aust $20) and in
several diskette formats (Aust $10 to $15). For more information contact
Chris(tine) Walton (walton_cedarwin.ntu.edu.au).

Alexis Manaster-Ramer recently requested information about stress
systems that distinguish syllables containing long vowels from
closed syllables from open syllables with short vowels. I responded to
this noting that English nouns might be an example. In my discussion I
mentioned that the suffix -ate was exceptional. Richard Ogden
questions whether -ate has "linguistic status" and maintains that it's
[merely?] an orthographic form.

Here are the facts about stress in nouns:

A heavy penult will attract stress in English nouns, whether it's
closed or contains a long vowel. Else stress goes on the antepenult.
 Am'erica ag'enda ar'oma
There are two classes of counterexamples. First, there are words that
get stressed on a light penult anyway.
 Kent'ucky van'illa ban'ana
Then there is a class of words where the heavy penult is skipped, but
where it's possible to argue that the surface penult is the underlying
ultima (See SPE.)
 g'alaxy c'ylinder
 /galakty/ /sIlindr/
The final syllable can also attract stress. If the final syllable is
long, it will get stressed.
 kangar'oo Tenness'ee anecd'ote
If the final syllable is closed, however, it may or may not attract
stress.
 h'elix vs. n'arth'ex
 t'empest vs. g'ymn'ast
 s'ubject vs. 'ins'ect
Since long vowels attract stress in ultima or penult, but closed
syllables attract stress consistently in penult, but inconsistently in
ultima, this suggests that there is a three-way weight distinction.

In my original posting, I noted that the suffix -ate is an exception
to the generalization that long vowels always attract stress in final
position. For example, there are a number of noun-verb pairs, where
-ate surfaces stressless in the noun.
 noun verb
 d'eligate d'elig'ate
 c'orrelate c'orrel'ate
 'estimate 'estim'ate
 s'yndicate s'yndic'ate
Richard Ogden takes issue with the claim that -ate is a suffix. He
offers the observation that the following three words have different
"phonetic possibilities": Latinate, pontificate, and certificate.

For me, these are pronounced as follows:
 Latinate, adj. [l'aetIn'et]
 pontificate, verb [p'ant'Ifk'et]
 certificate, noun [srt'Ifkt]
These are consistent with the generalization as stated. The long vowel
surfaces stressless only with the noun. (There may be other
pronunciations of these. For example, I don't know what happens to
them in Canada.) [There are exceptions to the claim that -ate is an
exception, e.g. c'andid'ate.]

In any case, I don't see any reason to deny -ate morphemehood. For me,
its pronunciation is rule-governed. Even if it weren't completely
rule-governed, that wouldn't be sufficient to maintain that it's only
an orthographic unit. For me, the question of whether it's a morpheme
hinges on whether there are any linguistic generalizations to be
captured by claiming that it is. The distribution of stress on final
syllables in nouns would seem to be such a generalization.

mike hammond

> An example suggested by J. Coleman, title/titular, is also not 
> relevant to my query, because the vowel "counterparts" do not have a
> stress difference.

That is a theory-internal statement. They fall in different stress-patterns,
and are different in intensity and various other dimensions of quality.
So to say they "do not have a stress difference" is a theory-internal
conflation of physically distinct categories.

--- John Coleman

> An example like lobe/lobotomy might be relevant if it were really 
> clear that these words have a generative relationship.

Other examples of this quantity-related alternation (i.e. /ow/ ~ /o/ in
British English, and I guess /ow/ ~ /a/ in some American dialects) are
node ~ nodule, phot/ow/ ~ phot/o/grapher and also phot//graph, of course.
The `photograph' type seems clearly to be generative in the broad sense
(productive, predictable, rule-governed, synchronic relation etc.),
although whether one form derives from the other or both from some
less specified form is a question on which different theories will divide.

--- John Coleman

> Coleman, who suggested rEject/rejEct, albeit as if it were the same 
> kind of example as title/titular
They are both examples of pairs of words usually regarded as members of
a generative relation. That's what you asked for. I know perfectly
well they are different kinds of examples ... !!! If I'm to spend a
little of my time thinking about problems raised by other people's
work I could do with a little less acerbity from whoever originally
raised the issue. (It's in order from everyone else, though.)

--- John Coleman