Book contents
- The Study of Word Stress and Accent
- The Study of Word Stress and Accent
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Phonetic Correlates and Prominence Distinctions
- 1 Acoustic Correlates and Perceptual Cues of Word and Sentence Stress
- 2 Positional Prominence versus Word Accent
- 3 Explaining Word-Final Stress Lapse
- 4 What Danish and Estonian Can Show to a Modern Word-Prosodic Typology
- Part II Typology
- Part III Case Studies
- Language Index
- Subject Index
- References
4 - What Danish and Estonian Can Show to a Modern Word-Prosodic Typology
from Part I - Phonetic Correlates and Prominence Distinctions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 December 2018
Book contents
- The Study of Word Stress and Accent
- The Study of Word Stress and Accent
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Phonetic Correlates and Prominence Distinctions
- 1 Acoustic Correlates and Perceptual Cues of Word and Sentence Stress
- 2 Positional Prominence versus Word Accent
- 3 Explaining Word-Final Stress Lapse
- 4 What Danish and Estonian Can Show to a Modern Word-Prosodic Typology
- Part II Typology
- Part III Case Studies
- Language Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
Kuznetsova asserts that tone and stress-accent remain the central units of classification, but shows that there is no established consensus about a definition of these notions. In this chapter, she focuses on two specific word-prosodic units with a non-pitch based primary phonetic exponent: prosodic quantity in Standard Estonian and prosodic laryngealization in Copenhagen Danish. Kuznetsova summarizes their main phonetic and functional features. She also compares these prosodic units with functionally similar cases of pitch-based word prosody in other languages within what she calls the framework of mainstream word-prosodic typology. Both cases are challenging for the typology, as they do not qualify either as tone or as stress. In the end, she proposes a view on the word-prosodic typology which incorporates a clear separation between the variable of location and ways in which the location is realized or cued.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Study of Word Stress and AccentTheories, Methods and Data, pp. 102 - 144Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Andersen, P. (1954). Dansk Fonetik. In Hjelmslev, L. and Andersen, P. (eds.) Nordisk Lærebog for Talepædagoger. København: Rosenkilde og Bagger, 305–354.Google Scholar
Asu, E. L. (2004). The phonetics and phonology of Estonian INtonation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge .Google Scholar
Asu, E. L.(2005). Intonational contour alignment in Saaremaa and Standard Estonian. LU 41: 107–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asu, E. L and Nolan, F.. (2007). The analysis of low accentuation in Estonian. Language and Speech 50: 567–588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Asu, E. L. and Salveste, N.. (2012). The phonetic and phonological analysis of the fall-rise intonation pattern in the Kihnu variety of Estonian. LU 48(3): 171–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basbøll, H(2008). Stød, diachrony and the non-stød model. In Barnes, M., Bremmer Jr, R.., Lerchner, G., and Nielsen, H. F. (eds.) North-Western European Language Evolution 54/55. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 147–189.Google Scholar
Brink, L. and Lund, J.. (1975). Dansk Rigsmål: Lydudviklingen siden (1840) med særligt henblik på sociolekterne i København 1–2. København: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Bundgaard, M. (1980). An acoustic investigation of intrinsic vowel duration in Danish. ARIPUC 14: 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, G G. (2007). Canonical typology, suppletion, and possible words. Language 83: 8–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, G G.(2010). Defective paradigms: Missing forms and what they tell us. Proceedings of the British Academy 163: 1–18.Google Scholar
Corbett, G G.(2015). Morphosyntactic complexity: A typology of lexical splits. Language 91(1): 145–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Ö. and Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (eds.) (2001). The Circum-Baltic Languages: Typology and Contact, vol. 1–2. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins .Google Scholar
Dressler, W. (1979). Reflections of phonological typology. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientarum Hungaricae 29(3–4): 259–273.Google Scholar
Eek, A. (1973). Observations in Estonian palatalization: An articulatory study. IEPP 18–36.Google Scholar
Eek, A(1987). The perception of word stress: A comparison of Estonian and Russian. In Shannon, R. and Shockey, L. (eds.) In Honor of llse Lehiste. Dordrecht, Providence: Foris Publications, 19–32.Google Scholar
Eek, A(1990). Units of temporal organisation and word accents in Estonian. LU 26(4): 251–263.Google Scholar
Eek, A. and Meister, E. (1997). Simple perception experiments on Estonian word prosody: Foot structure versus segmental quantity. In Estonian Prosody, 71–99.Google Scholar
Eek, A. and Meister, E.(1998). Quality of standard Estonian vowels in stressed and unstressed syllables of the feet in three distinctive quantity degrees. LU 34(3): 226–233.Google Scholar
Eek, A. and Meister, E.(2003). Foneetilisi katseid ja arutlusi kvantiteedi alalt (I): Häälikukestusi muutvad kontekstid ja välde. KK 11, 815–837; 12, 904–918.Google Scholar
Eek, A. and Meister, E.(2004). Foneetilisi katseid ja arutlusi kvantiteedi alalt (II). Takt, silp ja välde. KK 4, 251–71; 5, 337–357.Google Scholar
Ejskjær, I. (1990). Stød and pitch accents in the Danish dialects. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 22(1): 49–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer-Jørgensen, E. (1984). The acoustic manifestation of stress in Danish with particular reference to the reduction of stress in compounds. ARIPUC 18: 45–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer-Jørgensen, E(1989). Phonetic analysis of the stød in standard Danish. Phonetica 46(1): 1–59.Google Scholar
Fox, A. (2000). Prosodic features and prosodic structure: The phonology of ‘suprasegmentals’. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Giegerich, H. J. (2015). Lexical structures: Compounding and the modules of grammar. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Goedemans, R. and van Zanten, E. (2014). No stress typology. In Caspers, J., Chen, Y., Heeren, W., Pacilly, J., Schiller, N. O., and van Zanten, E. (eds.) Above and Beyond the Segments: Experimental Linguistics and Phonetics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 83–95.Google Scholar
Gordon, M. (1997). Phonetic correlates of stress and the prosodic hierarchy in Estonian. Estonian Prosody, 100–124.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. and Kashube, D.. (1976). Word prosodic systems: A preliminary report. Working Papers on Language Universals 20: 1–18.Google Scholar
Gress-Wright, J. (2008). A simpler view on Danish stød. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 14(1): 189–200.Google Scholar
Grønnum, N. (1998). Intonation in Danish: A survey of twenty languages. In Hirst, D. and Cristo, A. (eds.) Intonation Systems. Cambridge University Press, 131–151.Google Scholar
Grønnum, N(2001). Fonetik og Fonologi – Almen og Dansk, 2nd edn. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Grønnum, N(2015). F0, voice quality, and Danish stød revisited. In Wolters, M. et al. (eds.) Proceedings of ICPhS (2015)., vol. 18. University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Grønnum, N. and Basbøll, H. (2002). Stød and length: Acoustic and cognitive reality. In Bel, B. and Martin, I. (eds.) Proceedings of the Speech Prosody (2002). Conference. Aix-en-Provence: Laboratoire Parole et Langage, 355–358.Google Scholar
Grønnum, N. and Basbøll, H.(2007). Danish stød. Phonological and cognitive issues. In Solé, M.-J., Beddor, P. S., and Ohala, M. (eds.) Experimental Approaches to Phonology. Oxford University Press, 192–206.Google Scholar
Grønnum, N. and Basbøll, H.(2012). Danish stød. Towards simpler structural principles? In Niebuhr, O. (ed.) Understanding Prosody: The Role of Context, Function, and Communication. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 27–46.Google Scholar
Grønnum, N., Vazquez-Larruscaín, M., and Basbøll, H. (2013). Danish stød: laryngealization or tone. Phonetica 70(1–2): 66–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gussenhoven, C. (2004). The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C(2006). Between stress and tone in Nubi word prosody. Phonology 23, 193–223.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. and Peters, J.. (2004). A tonal analysis of Cologne Schärfung. Phonology 21(2): 251–285.Google Scholar
Hallap, V. (1980). Stepeni udarenija estonskogo jazyka. In Ikola, O. (ed.) Congressus quintus internationalis fenno-ugristarum, VIII. Turku: Suomen kielen seura, 17.Google Scholar
Hansen, E. and Lund., J. (eds.) (1983). Skolen, Samfundet og Dialekten. Frederikshavn: Dafolo.Google Scholar
Hansen, G. F. (2015). Stød og stemmekvalitet. En akustisk-fonetisk undersøgelse af ændringer i stemmekvaliteten i forbindelse med stød. PhD dissertation, Københavns Universitet.Google Scholar
Harms, R. (1978). Some observations and hunches concerning Estonian prosody. EPP, 31–34.Google Scholar
Heger, S. (1981). Sprog og Lyd. Elementær dansk fonetik, 2nd edn. Copenhagen: Gjellerup.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, N. (2010). Notes on Waima’a intonation. In Ewing, M. and Klamer, M. (eds.) Typological and Areal Analyses: Contributions from East Nusantara. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 47–69.Google Scholar
Hint, M. (1973). Eesti keele sõnafonoloogia I. Rõhusüsteemifonoloogia ja morfofonoloogia põhiprobleemid. Tallinn: Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia.Google Scholar
Hint, M.(1978). Changes in the prosodical system of contemporary Estonian. EPP, 39–43.Google Scholar
Hint, M(1980). Minevikuline ja ja tulevikuline aines keelesüsteemis. Prosoodiatüübi nihked ja selle tagajärjed. KK 23, 215–223, 271–278, 349–355.Google Scholar
Hulst, H. van der. (1999). Word accent. In Hulst, H.van der (ed.) Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 3–116.Google Scholar
Hulst, H. van der(2011). Pitch accent systems. In van Oostendorp, M., Even, C., Hume, E., and Rice, K. (eds.) The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Vol. 2. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 1003–1026.Google Scholar
Hulst, H. van der(2014a). The study of word accent and stress: Past, present, and future. In van der Hulst, H. (ed.) Word Stress: Theoretical and Typological Issues. New York: Cambridge University Press, 3–55.Google Scholar
Hulst, H. van der(2014b). Representing rhythm. In van der Hulst, H. (ed.) Word Stress: Theoretical and Typological Issues. New York: Cambridge University Press, 3–55.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. (1977). On the nature of linguistic stress. In Hyman, L. M. (ed.) Studies in Stress and Accent. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 37–82.Google Scholar
Hyman, L(1978). Tone and/or accent. In Napoli, D. J. (ed.) Elements of Tone, Stress and Intonation. Washington DC: Georgetown University, 1–20.Google Scholar
Hyman, L(2009). How (not) to do phonological typology: The case of pitch-accent. Language Sciences 31: 213–238.Google Scholar
Hyman, L(2014a). Towards a canonical typology of prosodic systems. In Zendejas, E. H. (ed.) Tono, accento y estructuras métricas en lenguas mexicanas. El Colegio de México, 12–38.Google Scholar
Hyman, L(2014b). Do all languages have word accent? In van der Hulst, H. (ed.) Word Stress: Theoretical and Typological Issues. New York: Cambridge University Press, 56–82.Google Scholar
Iosad, P. (2016a). Prosodic structure and suprasegmental features: Short-vowel stød in Danish. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 19: 221–268.Google Scholar
ChapIosad, P(2016b). Tonal stability and tonogenesis in North Germanic. In Giles, I., Chapot, L., Cooimans, Ch, Foster, R., and Tesio, B. (eds.) Beyond Borealism: New Perspectives on the North. London: Norvik Press, 80–97.Google Scholar
Ito, J. and Mester, A.. (2015). The perfect prosodic word in Danish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 38(1): 5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivanov, V. V. (1975). K sinhronnoj i diahroničeskoj tipologii prosodičeskih sistem s laringalizovannymi ili faringalizovannymi tonemami. In Elizarenkova, T. Ja (ed.) Očerki po fonologii vostočnyh jazykov. Moscow: Nauka, 3–58.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. O. (1962a). K kharakteristike jevrazijskogo jazykovogo sojuza (1931a). In Selected Writings. I: Phonological Studies. The Hague: Mouton, 144–201.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. O.(1962b). Die Betonung und ihre Rolle in der Wort- und Syntagmaphonologie (1931b). In Selected Writings. I: Phonological Studies. The Hague: Mouton, 117–136.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. O.(1962c). Sur la théorie des affinités phonologiques entre les langues (1938). In Selected Writings. I: Phonological Studies. The Hague: Mouton, 234–246).Google Scholar
Kalvik, M.-L. (2004). Kvantiteedisuhted rannikumurdes. Master’s thesis, Tartu Ülikool.Google Scholar
Köhnlein, B. (2016). Contrastive foot structure in Franconian tone-accent dialects. Phonology 33(1): 87–123.Google Scholar
Krull, D. (1998). Perception of Estonian word prosody. A study of words extracted from conversational speech. LU 34(3): 167–171.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, N. (2007). Le status fonctionnel du pied phonologique en Gouro. Mandenkan 43: 13–45.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, N(2009). Suprasegmentnaja fonologija sojkinskogo dialekta ižorskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom aspekte. Voprosy jazykoznanija 5: 18–47.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, N(2014). Ob istorii, suš’nosti i izmerenijah fonemy. In Vydrin, V. F. and Kuznetsova, N. V. (eds.) Ot Bikina do Bambal’umy, iz var’ag v greki. Ekspedicionnyje et’udy v čest’ E.V. Perehval’skoj. St Petersburg: Nestor-Istorija, 406–442.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, N(2015). Two phonological rarities in Ingrian dialects. In Hilpert, M., Duke, J., Mertzlufft, Ch, Östman, J.O., and Rießler, M. (eds.) New Trends in Nordic and General Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter, 91–117.Google Scholar
Lahiri, A. and Wetterlin, A.. (2015). The diachronic development of stød and tone accent in North Germanic. In Haug, D. T. T. (ed.) Historical linguistics 2013: Selected Papers from the 21st International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 53–67.Google Scholar
Larsen, J. (1976). Det sjællandske ‘tostavelsesord’. In Hald, K., Lisse, C., and Sørensen, J. K. (eds.) Studier i dansk dialektologi og sproghistorie tilegnede Poul Andersen.København: Akademisk forlag, 193–206.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I. (1960). Segmental and syllabic quantity in Estonian. In Sebeok, T. A. (ed.) American Studies in Uralic Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 21–82.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I(1965). The function of quantity in Finnish and Estonian. Language 42(3): 447–456.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I(1975). Experiments with synthetic speech concerning quantity in Estonian. In Hallap, V. (ed.) Congressus Tertius Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum, Tallinnae habitus. Tallinn: Valgus, 254–269.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I(1978). Polytonicity in the area surrounding the Baltic sea. In Gårding, E., Bruce, G., and Bannert, R. (eds.) Nordic Prosody: Papers from a Symposium. Lund University, 237–247.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I(1983). Prosodic change in progress: Evidence from Estonian. In Rauch, I. and Carr, G. (eds.) Language Change. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 10–27.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I(1985). An Estonian word game and the phonematic status of long vowels. Linguistic Inquiry 16(3): 490–492.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I(1997). Search for phonetic correlates in Estonian prosody. Estonian Prosody, 11–35.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I(2003). Prosodic change in progress: From quantity language to accent language. In Fikkert, P. and Jacobs, H. (eds.) Development in Prosodic Systems. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 47–65.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I. and Danforth, D.. (1977). Foneettisten vihjeiden hierarkia viron kvantiteetin havaitsemisessa. Virittäjä 4: 404–411.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I. and Fox, R. A.. (1992). Perception of prominence by Estonian and English listeners. Language and Speech 35(4): 419–434.Google Scholar
Liiv, G. (1961). Eesti keele kolme vältusastmevokaalide kestus ja meloodiatüübid. KK 7: 412–24; 8: 480–90.Google Scholar
Liiv, G(1985). Akustičeskije korrel’aty estonskogo slovesnogo udarenija v sootnošenii s differencial’noj dolgotoj. Sovetskoje finno-ugrovedenije 21(1): 1–13.Google Scholar
Lippus, P. (2011). The acoustic features and perception of the Estonian quantity system. PhD dissertation, Tartu University.Google Scholar
Lippus, P(2012). Acoustic features of quantity in early recordings of Estonian. In Ross, J. (ed.) Encapsulated Voices: Estonian Sound Recordings from the German Prisoner-of-War Camps in 1916–1918. Cologne, Weimar and Vienna: Böhlau, 85–98.Google Scholar
Lippus, U. and Remmel, M.. (1976). Some contributions to the study of Estonian word intonation. EPP, 37–65.Google Scholar
Lippus, P., Asu, E. L., and Kalvik, M.-L.. (2014). An acoustic study of Estonian word stress. In Campbell, N., Gibbon, D., and Hirst, D. (eds.) Speech Prosody 7 – Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Speech Prosody. Dublin, 232–235.Google Scholar
Lippus, P., Pajusalu, K., and Allik, J.. (2009). The tonal component of Estonian quantity in native and non-native perception. Journal of Phonetics 37(4): 388–396.Google Scholar
Lippus, P., Pajusalu, K., and Teras, P.. (2006). The temporal structure of penta- and hexasyllabic words in Estonian. In Hoffmann, R. and Mixdorff, H. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference Speech Prosody. Dresden: TUD Press, 759–762.Google Scholar
Lippus, P., Asu, E. L., Teras, P., and Tuisk, T.. (2013). Quantity-related variation of duration, pitch and vowel quality in spontaneous Estonian. In Journal of Phonetics 41(1): 17–28.Google Scholar
Lockwood, D. (1983). Tone in a non-substantive theory of language. In LACUS Forum 10: 131–140.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. (1981). A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. In Linguistic Inquiry 12(3): 373–418.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1978). What is a tone language? In Fromkin, V. (ed.) Tone: A Linguistic Survey. New York: Academic Press, 113–131.Google Scholar
McRobbie-Utasi, Z. (2007). The instability of systems with ternary length distinctions: The Skolt Saami evidence. In Toivonen, I. and Nelson, D. (eds.) Saami linguistics. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 167–205.Google Scholar
Niit, E. (1977). On the perception of tone contours with simple frequency changes. EPP, 71–79.Google Scholar
Niit, E(1978). Further results on the perception of tone contours with simple frequency changes. EPP, 66–70.Google Scholar
Niit, E(1980). The structure of the Baltic prosodic area and the place of Estonian dialects in it. Preprint KKI-17. Tallinn.Google Scholar
Pajusalu, K. (2009). Dynamics of Estonian phonology. STUF, Akademie Verlag 62(1/2): 109–121.Google Scholar
Pajusalu, K., Help, T., Lippus, P., Niit, E., Teras, P., and Viitso, T.-R.. (2005). On the temporal structure of Estonian secondary-stressed feet. LU 41(2): 98–106.Google Scholar
Pike, K. L. (1948). Tone Languages. A Technique for Determining the Number and Type of Pitch Contrasts in a Language, with Studies in Tonemic Substitution and Fusion. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Põldre, E. (1937). Intonatsiooni, kvantiteedi ja dünaamilise rõhu suhteist eesti keeles. Eesti Keel 6: 164–183.Google Scholar
Prillop, K. (2013). Feet, syllables, moras and the Estonian quantity system. Linguistica Uralica 49(1): 1–29.Google Scholar
Prince, A. (1980). A metrical theory for Estonian quantity. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 511–562.Google Scholar
Riad, T. (2000). The origin of Danish stød. In Lahiri, A. (ed.) Analogy, Levelling, Markedness: Principles of Change in Phonology and Morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 261–300.Google Scholar
Riber Petersen, P. (1973). An instrumental investigation of the Danish stød. ARIPUC 7: 195–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rischel, J. (2003). The Danish syllable as a national heritage. In Jacobsen, G., Bleses, D., Madsen, T. O., and Thomsen, P. (eds.) Take Danish – For Instance: Linguistic Studies in Honour of Hans Basbøll Presented on the Occasion of his 60th birthday 12 July 2003. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 273–282.Google Scholar
Sepp, A. (1980). Some additional data on the duration of unstressed vowels in Estonian. EPP, 93–103.Google Scholar
Sutrop, U. (1999). Eesti keele välted ja Balti polütooniline keeleliit. KK 4, 235–238.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. (1939). Grundzüge der Phonologie. Prague: Akciová moravská knihtiskárna Polygrafie v Brně.Google Scholar
Viitso, T.-R.(1979). Problemy udarenija v estonskom jazyke. Sovetskoje finno-ugrovedenije 15(3): 136–52.Google Scholar
Viitso, T.-R.(1981). Läänemeresoome fonoloogia küsimusi. Tallinn: Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.Google Scholar
Viitso, T.-R.(1982). Morosčitajuš’ij li jazyk estonskij? Sovetskoje finno-ugrovedenije 8(1): 8–20.Google Scholar
Viitso, T.-R.(1983). Osnovnyje problemy fonologičeskoj struktury pribaltijsko-finskih jazykov i ee istorii. PhD dissertation, Tallinn.Google Scholar
Viitso, T.-R.(2003). Structure of the Estonian language: Phonology, morphology and word formation. In Erelt, M. (ed.) Estonian Language. Tallinn: Teaduste Akadeemia Kirjastus, 9–92.Google Scholar
Viitso, T.-R.(2008). Liivi keel ja läänemeresoome keelemaastikud. Tartu, Tallinn: Eesti Keele Instituut.Google Scholar
Voorhoeve, J(1973). Safwa as restricted tone system. Studies in African Linguistics 4: 1–21.Google Scholar
Vydrine, V. (2005). Quelques recommendations méthodologiques concernant la description des langues mandé-sud. Mandenkan 41: 1–22.Google Scholar
Vydrine, V(2010). Le pied métrique dans les langues mandé. In Florcic, F. (ed.) Essais de typologie et de linguistique générale. Lyon: ENS Éditions, 53–62.Google Scholar
Vydrine, V(2017). Vowel reduction in Bamana disyllabic feet. Book of abstracts, 50th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, 10–13 September, University of Zurich, Switzerland, 723.Google Scholar
Welmers, W. E. (1959). Tonemics, morphotonemics, and tonal morphemes. General Linguistics 4: 1–9.Google Scholar
Wiedemann, F. J. (1875). Grammatik der ehstnischen Sprache zunächst wie sie in Mittelehstland gesprochen wird, mit Berücksichtigung der anderen Dialekte. St Petersburg: Eggers.Google Scholar
Zanten, E. and Dol, P.. (2011). Word stress and pitch accent in Papuan languages. In van der Hulst, H., Goedemans, R. and van Zanten, E. (eds.) A Survey of Word Accentual Patterns in the Languages of the World. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 113–154.Google Scholar
- 4
- Cited by