morphological and phonological patterns in mapudungun

Morphological and phonological patterns in Mapudungun stress assignmentMAPUDUNGUN STRESS ASSIGNMENT
P-WORKSHOP
Benjamin Molineaux (04 November 2016) Stress in Mapudungun P-WORKSHOP 1 / 34
Outline
Mapudungun (a.k.a. Araucanian) has been presented in the literature as a classic example of a rhythmic stress system It is not I will review previous accounts of Mapudungun stress, and propose a new one Morphology plays an important role — phonology, not so much Mapudungun is not alone in assigning little phonological value to stress assignment
Preliminaries
What exactly is stress?
Stress is primarily a perceptual or mental instantiation of prominence, rather than a uniform physical trait of syllables It creates syntagmatic contrasts within a domain (Martinet 1954) It is instantiated on a syllable and does not spread There is no single tell-tale sign of its location:
“The definition of stress is one of the perennially debated and unsolved problems of phonetics” (Hayes 1995: 5) Acoustic and phonological correlates to the percept of stress must be established, a posteriori, on the basis of speaker intuitions
Preliminaries
What is stress for?
Distinction (i.e. lexical contrast) A feature of so-called ‘free stress’ languages, creates minimal pairs based on the position of stress. A marginal pattern for most languages, often attributable to morphology. Rhythm In so-called ‘fixed stress’ languages ‘stress is the linguistic manifestation of rhythmic structure’ (Hayes 1995:1, see also Liberman 1975, Liberman & Prince 1977, etc.) Culminativity Usually associated to the word-level: one main stress per word. Hence, stress defines the prosodic word domain. Demarcation The signalling of domain edges — usually the word — via stress.
Preliminaries
How is stress studied?
Phonetic realisation: The acoustic and perceptual cues of stress have been studied extensively for some languages, focusing on duration, intensity and pitch (Fry 1955; Lehiste 1970; Beckman 1986; Gordon & Nafi 2012). Functional role: Work in the Prague School tradition (Trubetzkoy 1939; Martinet 1964; Garde 1967) considers stress to actively mark word and/or morphological boundaries placing emphasis on stress’ ‘demarcative’ function. Structural properties: The core idea is that stress conveys rhythm through regularly spaced prominences first at the word level, but also at the phrase and utterance level (Liberman & Prince 1977; Hayes 1980, 1985, 1995; Kager 1989, 1997, 2007: etc.).
Preliminaries
The Generative approach
‘[S]tress is the linguistic manifestation of rhythmic structure. . . the special phonological properties of stress can be explicated on this basis’ (1) Rhythmic structure can be accounted for with parameters: foot type, quantity sensitivity, direction of parsing, end rules, etc. There is a universal set of restrictions on the placement of stress Interaction with morphology is non-essential
Preliminaries
How important is stress?
English/Germanic languages: pretty key ‘it has become clear that English enjoys a remarkable prosodic organization that plays a role in virtually every aspect of its phonological system’ (Hammond 2006: 411) Hyman ‘it would be folly to attempt to analyse English without stress’ (2014: 58)
Speakers of some languages have been considered “stress-deaf” Other languages seem to find little role for stress outside the stress-assignment system itself: Hungarian, Turkish While others still are claimed to have no stress/accent at all: Nuxalk (a.k.a. Bella Coola, Salishan)
Preliminaries
Stress and phonology a la Hyman (2014)
Different languages might have different levels of phonological activation for a given feature (Clements 2001) This should also be the case for stress (Hyman 2014) English seems to have a highly activated stress system, which participates at all levels of the phonology In some languages stress might not be activated at all Most languages lie somewhere in between
Preliminaries
Stress and the Morphology
As in the case of the phonology, can we say that languages may have different degrees of morphological activation for stress? What types of features of the stress system would a ‘canonical’ morphologically active stress system have? Mapudungun is a good case study for the tension between phonological activation and morphological role of stress.
The tradition: ‘Araucanian’ stress
Chile: c.144,000 speakers (Zuniga 2007) Argentina: c. 8,400 (INEC, 2005)
It is considered endangered, due to poor transmission Monolingualism is vanishingly rare Most speakers are elderly and live in traditional, rural communities It is presumed to be an isolate Polysynthetic, agglutinating and head-marking
Echeverra & Contreras (1965)
The main source for most typological accounts of Mapudungun stress A three-page article on the entire segmental and suprasegmental system of Mapudungun No reference to the sources of the data: no of speakers, provenance, linguistic competence, etc. No mention of methods
Echeverra & Contreras (1965)
“General rule: A phonological word has main stress on the second syllable and, if applicable, secondary stress on the fourth and sixth syllables” (134).
a. [wu."le] b. [úùi."pan.to] c. [e."lu.-mu.-j-u] tomorrow year give-INV.2-IND.1-D
‘tomorrow’ ‘year’ ‘you give us (both)’
d. [e."lu.-a-.e-.n-ew] f. [ki."mu.-fa.lu.-wu-.la-j] give-FUT-INV-1-3 know-SIM-RFX-NEG-IND.3 ‘s/he will give me x’ ‘s/he (her/himself) pretended not to know’
Stress typologists and theorists 1977-2015
Under the name Araucanian, and the analysis of E&C, Mapudungun is discussed within the following publications on stress:
Hyman (1977); Kager (1993, 2005); Hung (1993); Kenstowicz (1994); Hayes (1995); Revithiadou (1999); Gordon (2002, 2011); Hyde (2002); McGarrity (2003); Tesar (2004); Hermans (2011); Goedemans et al. (2014); Martnez-Paricio & Kager (2015) ...to name but a few
The analysis tends to be that of a ‘perfect grid’, sometimes interpreted as a quantity insensitive iambic pattern. For example, (Hyde 2002) gives the following representations:
de Lacy (2014)
Discusses the empirical conditions on stress data for generative analyses. Finds E&C lacking on several counts:
Not enough fine-grained data No account of word categories Possible lexical/morphological biases Not enough examples!
Not enough background Methods: tasks, diagnostics, word-contexts Speakers: number, competence, origin, background, age, sex
The other literature on Mapudungun stress
Mapudungun-specific literature tends to present stress as final if the syllable is closed, otherwise, as penultimate (cf. Lenz 1895-1897; Augusta 1903; Suarez 1959; Echeverra 1964; Salas 1976, 1992; Zuniga 2006; Smeets 2008; Sadowsky et al. 2013)
Right-edge stress (from Salas (1976, 1992)):
a. [wa.Ni."len] ‘star’ b. [we.jul.-k1."le-j] ‘swim-PROG-IND.3’ c. [ma."wi.Ta] ‘woodland’ d. [le.li.-"fi.-m-i] ‘watch-INV.3SP.IND-2-S’
None of these studies is specifically focused on stress No phonetic data or formal analysis available This does look like a right-aligned moraic trochee... Most accounts also place an additional stress on the first or second syllable of longer words
Language-specific and typological approach differ in all parameters (e.g. Salas (1992) vs. Martnez-Paricio & Kager (2015))!
FOOT WEIGHT DIRECTION ITERATION
We might need a fresh look...
A new account of Mapudungun stress
New Data
Gathered near Cholchol, in Chile’s Araucana Region Seven native speakers interviewed – all late Spanish bilinguals Words recorded in context and isolation Native intuitions elicited
Acoustics and perception of stress
Acoustic analysis of stress cues (in monomorphemes): duration, intensity and pitch maxima were analysed only F0 significantly related to stress (Molineaux 2014)
"To.mo
ma."w1n Additional study on native and non-native stress perception (Molineaux 2016)
var ocgs=host.getOCGs(host.pageNum);for(var i=0;i<ocgs.length;i++){if(ocgs[i].name=='MediaPlayButton0'){ocgs[i].state=false;}}
, track
0.44408154
, track
0.5485713
Stress patterns: morphologically simplex words
Based on native intuition (matches pitch peaks)
Mono-, di- and trisyllabic nouns:
a. ["f1n”] ‘seed’ b. ["ko] ‘water’ c. [n”a."m1n”] ‘foot’ d. [l”af."ken”] ‘sea’ e. [wa.Ni."len] ‘star’ f. [ma."wi.Ta] ‘woodland’ g. [a.tSuL."peñ] ‘floating ash’ h. [puñ."pu.ja] ‘armpit’
Final closed syllables are stressed, elsewhere, the penult No evidence for secondary stress A single, right-aligned moraic trochee? ([µµ]); ([µµ] µ); ([µ] µ) However: Vowel-final disyllables alternate stress position (i, j)
Vowel-final disyllables:
i. ["ma.pu] ∼ [ma."pu] ‘land’ j. ["piw.ke] ∼ [piw."ke] ‘heart’
Stress patterns: multi-suffix verbs
Complex words may have two stresses Stress falls on:
word-final (ω) moraic trochee ([µµ]); ([µµ] µ); ([µ] µ) stem-final (s) syllable (here, root-final)
No clash: a. [[úùe."ka.]s-ja."w-a-j]ω b. [[1."úù1f.]s-tu.-pu.-ke."la-j.-m-i]ω
walk-AMB-FUT-IND.3 throw-REST-TRLOC-HAB-NEG-IND-2-S
‘s/he will walk around’ ‘You don’t usually throw x back here’ c. [["lef.]s-pu."le-j]ω d. [[úùi."pa.]s-ke."la-j.-m-i]ω
run-TRSLOC-PROG-IND.3 exit-HABIT-NEG-IND-1S
‘s/he is running here’ ‘I don’t usually go out’
(a)(b)(c)(d) No clear word-level stress hierarchy (no culminativity)
var ocgs=host.getOCGs(host.pageNum);for(var i=0;i<ocgs.length;i++){if(ocgs[i].name=='MediaPlayButton2'){ocgs[i].state=false;}}
, track
0.9142854
, track
0.7575508
, track
0.6269386
, track
1.0971425
a. [[a.mu]s-"la-j.-m-i]ω b. [[le.li.]s-"fi.-m-i]ω go-NEG-IND-2-S look-DIR.3SP-IND-2-S
‘You didn’t go’ ‘you looked at him/her/it’ c. [[e.lu-ñ."ma.]s-fi-j.-m-i]ω d. [l”a."N-1m]s-fi-j]ω
give-APPL-3.OBJ-IND-2-S die-CAUSE-3SP-IND.3 ‘You give him/her/it x for y’ ‘s/he killed him/her/it’
In most cases, root stress is demoted, and only the ω-final trochee is stressed (a, b) ‘Extended’ roots (i.e stems, as in c, d), take stress, while the ω-final stress is lost
Extended roots have a valency-changing suffix such as: -Ne ‘PASS’; -ñma ‘APPl’; -(l)el ‘APPL’; -(1)m ‘CAUSE’; (1)l ‘CAUSE’
Stress patterns: Nominal compounds
Stress is on the final syllable of the first root, and on the final moraic trochee of the second
No Clash:
a. [tSa."fo]D-[ku."úùan]H b. [tSa."NuL]H-[n”a."mun”]D ‘cough-disease’(a cold) ‘finger-foot’(toe)
In clash, the head of the compound retains stress Head (H) and dependant (D) roots bracketed
Clash:
a. [ku.Ti]D-["fo.ro]H b. [fo."ro]H-[tSaL.wa]D ‘morter-bone’(spine) ‘bone-fish’(fishbone)
c. [we.nu]D-["ma.pu]H d. [i."lo]H-[úùe.wa]D ‘high-land’(heaven) ‘meat-dog’ (dog-meat)
Accounting for previous accounts
Echeverra & Contreras (1965) and the typologists: Focus on the first morpheme, usually a disyllable Initial stress (stem-stress) seems quantity insensitive NO-CLASH means at least one syllable intervenes between stem- and word-stress
Language-specific literature Focuses on the right-edge, trochaic Allows for a ‘two-syllable stress window’ on left edge of verb Salas (2006); Zuniga (2006)
Both analyses overlook the morphology
Phonology of Mapudungun stress
Stress refers to prosodic units: morae (weight), feet, PRWDS
NOCLASH plays a role at the morpheme boundary Possibly a rhythmic constraint
But, Native speakers have no intuitions as to stress hierarchy
culminativity is not definitional (at the PRWD-level)
Stress is signalled by pitch alone, not lengthening No evidence for vocalic reduction/neutralisation in unstressed position (Sadowsky et al. 2013) No stress-based phonotactic asymmetries (Salas 2006; Zuniga 2006) No attested stress-based processes in Mapudungun’s synchronic or diachronic phonology (Molineaux 2014)
Stress and the morphology
Barring clash, stress is a reliable cue for the stem edge In clash, it signals compound heads, and valency changes It signals the word’s right edge as coextensive with a foot
Stress-based demarcation helps disambiguate Mapudungun stems among abundant, highly agglutinating morphology
[[ke."Lu.]s-pu.-tu.-ke.-"fu-n] help-TRLOC-REST-HABIT-BI-IND.1S
‘I used to go back there to help’
Rhythm (clash avoidance) is subordinate to the morphology
Stress and the morphology II
Paucity of stress-based phonological asymmetries is advantageous to parsing of agglutinative morphology:
a. [Tu."Nu.-ke.-"la.-j.-m-i] ‘speak-HABIT-NEG-IND-2-S’ b. [Tu."Nu.-ke.-"le.-j.-m-i] ‘speak-HABIT-PROG-IND-2-S’ c. [Tu."Nu.-ke.-la.-"j-i-ñ] ‘speak-HABIT-NEG-IND-1-P’ d. [Tu."Nu.-ke.-le.-"j-i-ñ] ‘speak-HABIT-PROG-IND-1-P’
Productive agglutinating morphology means the target morpheme for stress changes dynamically Computing enhancement and reductions online could create processing difficulties
*[Tu."[email protected]"j-i-ñ] ‘speak-HABIT-???-IND-1-P’
Rhythm vs. demarcation in stress systems
Mapudungun and stress typology
Mapudungun phonology seems to ‘care’ very little about stress According to (Hyman 2014: 59):
‘Languages which exploit metrical structure for multiple purposes... will exhibit the kind of “metrical coherence” found in Germanic (Dresher & Lahiri 1991) . . . Languages such as Hungarian or Turkish . . . seem different because their metrical structure has little or no relevance outside the stress system itself. The contrast with English, whose phonology cares so much about stress, is quite striking.’
The morphology of Mapudungun does appear to ‘care’ about stress What about languages like Hungarian and Turkish?
Does Hungarian phonology care about stress?
Hungarian main stress is word-initial (Varga 1994)
a. "iskola ‘school’ b. "forrosodik ‘grows hot’ c. "szenanatha ‘hay fever’
Secondary stress is... a quantity sensitive feature: Szinnyei (1912) a LR syllabic trochee: Kerek (1971); Varga (2002) in alternation with tertiary stress: Hammond (1987)
Blaho & Szeredi (2011) and Vogel et al. (in press) find no phonetic evidence for (impressionistic) secondary stress F0 cues primary stress, but is weak outside focus position Phonological correlates to stress are conspicuously absent (Kalman & Nadasdy 1994; Blaho & Szeredi 2011)
“this putative rhythmic intensity alternation is phonologically irrelevant as it does not interact in any way with the rest of the phonology”(Siptar & Tokenczy 2000: 22)
Does Hungarian morphology care about stress?
Hungarian is predominantly suffixing (Kenesei et al. 1998): so main stress does not interact with morphology Exception: some compounds with stress on the first syllable of second element (Varga 2012)
utott-kopott ‘beaten-worn (battered)’ tizen-egy ‘one-on-ten (eleven)’
Functionally, Hungarian stress demarcates the word level very clearly, and occasionally, the structure of compounds as well
Does Turkish phonology care about stress?
Default stress is claimed to be on a word-final syllable
Turkish stress (from Goksel & Kerslake, 2005: 29)
a. ki"tap “book” b. kitap-"lar “books” c. kitaplar-"m “my books” d. kitaplarm-"da “in my books” e. kitaplarmda-"k “the one in my books” f. kitaplarmdaki-"ler “the ones in my books” g. kitaplarmdakiler-"e “to the ones in my books”
Stress cueing is extremely subtle (F0) (Levi 2005) May be epiphenomenal (boundary tone?) (Vogel et al. in press) Predictability of the pattern may result in a degree of deafness to it (Domahs et al. 2013)
Does Turkish morphology care about stress?
The default prominence seems to have a word-demarcative function (Kabak & Vogel 2001) Non-final stress is lexically specified, relating to borrowed nouns, pre-stressed or stressed suffixes Cues for these lexical stresses are more robust (Levi 2005; Vogel et al. in press) There is no evidence for secondary stress overall Neither final nor non-final stress show any broader phonological effects
Some conclusions
Conclusions: General
In Mapudungun, Hungarian and Turkish, stress has little structural value (rhythm, phonology) The three languages, however, show a clear functional role for stress (demarcation, morphology) They all signal default stress via F0 only, with little phonological involvement Evidence for rhythmic, secondary stress is scanty if not altogether absent The three languages are also highly agglutinating
Morphemes don’t have a pre-established prosodic structure/position Stress-based asymmetries would make morphological parsing sub-optimal
More typological work needed to assess the relation between function/acoustics of stress and morphological agglutination/fusion
Some conclusions
Conclusions: Mapudungun
The default stress pattern for Mapudungun seems to be a word-level right-aligned trochee A second main stress marks the right edge of the first morpheme Previous accounts fail to consider the role of morphology in stress-assignment Evidence for rhythmic, secondary stress is lacking altogether Lack of major stress-based phonological asymmetries conspires to maintain agglutinating morphology transparent Demarcation is a valuable feature of stress which in this case trumps rhythm and culminativity. If there are languages where stress is morphologically activated to a higher degree: Mapudungun would probably be a good example: marks lexical and sub-lexical boundaries, headedness, complexity of the stem, etc.
To do
Further work
A closer look at phrasal prosodic phenomena in Mapudungun The effects of contact on the stress system A diachronic view of the stress system: How does it arise? Dialectal variation in the assignment/realisation of stress Other potential metrical phenomena: epenthesis
Selected references I
Augusta, Felix Jose (1903) Gramatica Araucana. Valdivia: Imprenta Central J. Lampert.
Beckman, Mary E (1986) Stress and non-stress accent. Dordrecht: Foris.
Blaho, Sylvia & Daniel Szeredi (2011) (The non-existence of) secondary stress in Hungarian. In Approaches to Hungarian: Volume 12: Papers from the 2009 Debrecen conference, Tibor Laczko & Catherine O. Ringen, eds., Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 39–62.
de Lacy, Paul (2014) Evidence for stress systems. In Word Stress: Theoretical and Typological Issues, Harry van der Hulst, ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 149–193, in press.
Domahs, Ulrike, Safiye Genc, Johannes Knaus, Richard Wiese, & Bars Kabak (2013) Processing (un-)predictable word stress: ERP evidence from Turkish. Language and Cognitive Processes 28(3): 335–354, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.634590.
Dresher, Elan B. & Aditi Lahiri (1991) The Germanic Foot: Metrical coherence in Old English. Linguistic Inquiry 22(2): 251–286.
Echeverra, Sergio Max (1964) Descripcion fonologica del mapuche actual. Boletn del Instituto de Filologa de la Universidad de Chile 25: 13–59.
Echeverra, Sergio Max & Heles Contreras (1965) Araucanian Phonemics. International Journal of American Linguistics 31(2): 132–135.
Fry, D. B. (1955) Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 27: 765–768.
Garde, Paul (1967) L’accent. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Goedemans, Rob, Jeffrey Heinz, & Harry van der Hulst (2014) StressTyp2.
Gordon, Matthew (2002) A factorial typology of quantity insensitive stress. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 491–552.
Gordon, Matthew (2011) Stress: Phonotactic and Phonetic Evidence. In The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, vol. II, Marc van Oostendorp, Colin Ewen, Elizabeth Hume, & Keren Rice, eds., chap. 39, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 924–948.
Gordon, Matthew & Latifa Nafi (2012) Acoustic correlates of stress and pitch accent in Tashlhiyt Berber. Journal of Phonetics 40: 706–724.
Hayes, Bruce (1980) A Metrical Theory of Stress Rules. (published 1985, New York: Garland), MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Hayes, Bruce (1985) Iambic and Trochaic Rhythm in Stress Rules. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkley Linguistics Society, Berkley, CA: Berkley Linguistics Society, 429–446.
Hayes, Bruce (1995) Metrical Stress Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hermans, Ben (2011) The Representation of Word Stress. In Blackwell Companion to Phonology, vol. 2, Marc van Oostendorp, Colin Ewen, Elizabeth Hume, & Keren Rice, eds., chap. 41, Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 1003–1026.
Hung, Henrietta (1993) Iamabicity, Rhythm and Non-Parsing, brandeis University, Waltham, Mass.
Hyde, Brett (2002) A Restrictive Theory of Metrical Stress. Phonology 19: 313–339.
Hyman, Larry (1977) On the nature of linguistic stress. In Studies in Stress and Accent, vol. SCOPIL 4, Larry Hyman, ed., University of Southern California, 37–82.
Hyman, Larry (2014) Do All Languages Have Word Accent? In Word Stress: Theoretical and Typological Issues, Harry van der Hulst, ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 56–82.
INEC (2005) Encuesta Complementaria de Pueblos Indgenas 2004–2005. Tech. rep., Instituto Nacional de Estadsticas y Censos, Buenos Aires, URL http://www.indec.mecon.ar/webcenso/ECPI/pueblos/Datos/0700c0302.xls.
Kabak, Baris & Irene Vogel (2001) The phonological word and stress assignment in Turkish. Phonology 18: 315–360.
Kager, Rene (1989) A metrical theory of stress and destressing in English and Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.
Kager, Rene (1993) Alternatives to the Iambic-Trochaic Law. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11: 381–432.
Kager, Rene (1997) Generalized Alignment and Morphological Parsing. Rivista di Linguistica 9: 245–282.
Kager, Rene (2005) Rhythmic licensing theory: an extended typology. In Proceedings of the 3rd Seoul Internationa Conference on Linguistics (SICOL), Seoul: Linguistics Society of Korea, 5–31.
Cambridge University Press, 195–227.
Kalman, Lazslo & Adam Nadasdy (1994) A hangsuly [stress]. In Strukturdlis magyar nyelvtan 2: Fonologia, F. Kiefer, ed., Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 393–467.
Kenesei, Istvan, Robert Michael Vago, & Anna Fenyvesi (1998) Hungarian. London: Routledge.
Kenstowicz, Michael (1994) Sonority driven stress, ms. MIT, available as ROA-33 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.
Kerek, Andrew (1971) Hungarian metric: Some linguistic aspects of iambic verse. The Hague: Mouton.
Lehiste, Ilse (1970) Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lenz, Rodolfo (1895-1897) Estudios Araucanos, vol. XCVII. Santiago: Anales de la Universidad de Chile.
Levi, Susannah (2005) Acoustic correlates of lexical accent in Turkish. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 35: 73–97.
Liberman, Mark & Alan Prince (1977) On Stress and Linguistic Rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8(2): 249–336.
Martinet, Andre (1964) Elements of Gerenral Linguistics. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Martnez-Paricio, Violeta & Rene Kager (2015) The binary-to-ternary rhythmic continuum in stress typology: layered feet and non-intervention constraints. Phonology 32(03): 459–504.
McGarrity, Laura (2003) Constraints on patterns of primary and secondary stress. Ph.D. thesis, Indiana University.
Molineaux, Benjamin J. (2014) Sychronic and Diachronic Morphoprosody: Evidence from Mapudungun and Early English. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Oxford, Oxford.
Molineaux, Benjamin J. (2016) Native and Non-native Perception of Stress in Mapudungun: Assessing Structural Maintenance in the Phonology of an Endangered Language. Language and Speech : online first.
Revithiadou, Anti (1999) Headmost accent wins. The Hague: LOT.
Sadowsky, Scott, Hector Paniqueo, Gaston Salamanca, & Heriberto Avelino (2013) Mapudungun. Journal of the International Phonetic Association: Illustration of the IPA 43(1): 87–96.
Selected references IV
Salas, Adalberto (1976) Esbozo fonologico del mapuTuNu, lengua de los mapuche o araucanos de Chile central. Estudios Filologicos 11(143–153).
Salas, Adalberto (1992) El Mapuche o Araucano. Madrid: MAPFRE.
Salas, Adalberto (2006) El Mapuche o Araucano. Santiago: Centro de Estudios Publicos (CEP).
Siptar, Peter & Miklos Tokenczy (2000) The Phonology of Hungarian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smeets, Ineke (2008) A Grammar of Mapuche. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Suarez, Jorge (1959) The phonemes of an Araucanian dialect. International Journal of American Linguistics 25: 177–181.
Szinnyei, Joseph (1912) Ungarische Sprachlehre. Berlin: G. J. Goschen.
Tesar, Bruce (2004) Using inconsistency detection to overcome structural ambiguity in language learning. Linguistic Inquiry 35(2): 219–253.
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai (1939) Grundzuge der Phonologie. Prague: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
Varga, Laszlo (2012) Rhythmical Variation in Hungarian revisited. In Twenty Years of Theoretical Linguistics in Budapest, Ferenc Kiefer & Zoltan Banreti, eds., Budapest: Tinta Konyvkiado, 161–182.
Varga, Lazlo (1994) Rhythmic Stress Alternation in Hungarian. The Even Yearbook : 233–254.
Varga, Lazlo (2002) Intonation and stress : evidence from Hungarian. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Vogel, Irene, Angeliki Athanasopuolou, & Nadya Pincus (in press) Prominece, Contrast and the Functional Load Hypothesis: an acoustic investigation. In Accent and Stress, Rob Goedemans, Jefferey Heinz, & Harry van der Hulst, eds., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zuniga, Fernando (2006) Mapudungun: El habla mapuche. Santiago: Centro de Estudios Publicos.
Zuniga, Fernando (2007) Mapudunguwelaymi am? ‘¿Acaso ya no hablas mapudungun?’ Acerca del estado actual de la lengua mapuche. Estudios Publicos : 9–24.
Thank You!
Stress or accent?
Is it even stress? Could it just be a pitch-accent system? F0 is the key cue for Mapudungun stress Here we follow Hyman (2009) in characterizing Mapudungun within a property-driven prosodic typology. Mapudungun prominence is obligatory (i.e., every lexical word must have at least one stressed syllable) It is clearly assigned at the level of the output lexical word, and not at the input morpheme level. These two key traits place Mapudungun firmly within the spectrum of stressed languages.
Disyllables, again
But what about those pesky vowel-final disyllables? It’s really only the nouns that alternate
N: ["ru.ka] ∼ [ru."ka] ‘house’ Other word categories stress a final open syllable
Adj: [f1."úùa] ‘old/large’; [pi."tSi] ‘young/small’ Adv: [we."lu] ‘tomorrow’, [pe."tu] ‘still/yet’
Adjs. and Advs. appear mostly as first elements in a phrase, since Mapudungun tends to pre-specify:
cf. [f1."úùa ma."wi.Ta]φ ‘old wodland’ cf. [pe."tu k1."pa-j]φ ‘s/he is still coming’
In isolation they behave like nouns: [f1."úùa]∼["f1.úùa] Nouns don’t alternate within larger PRWDS (compounds) Adj.+N and Adv.+V look a lot like N+N compounds Phrasal and word levels are somewhat blurred here
Conflation:
a. [["pe]s-j]ω b. [[je-ñ."ma]s-j]ω see-IND.3 carry-APPL-IND.3 ‘s/he sees’ ‘s/he watches x’
Patterns of stem- and word-level stress interaction (n=282)
Structure Pattern n Percentage a. [[(σ) σ]S σ1 σ(σ)]ω No interaction 114 (40.4%) b. [[(σ) σ]S(σ)]ω Conflation 68 (24.1%) c. [[(σ) σ]S σ(σ)]ω STEM de-stress 52 (18.4%) d. [[(σ) σ]S σ(σ) ]ω WORD de-stress 38 (13.5%) e. [[(σ) σ]S σ(σ)]ω Clash tolerated 10 (3.5%)
Stem-level stress faithful: 81.6% Word-level stress faithful: 86.5%
Preliminaries
Some conclusions
To do

morphological and phonological patterns in mapudungun

Documents