Evidence for Sonority-Driven Stress

Abstract

We argue that there is no adequate evidence for 'sonority-driven stress', building on Shih (2018a,b), and disagreeing with Kenstowicz (1997), de Lacy (2002a, 2004, 2006), and others. More precisely, we argue that there is no phonological mechanism that induces metrical structure to deviate from its default position for reasons that involve the direct interaction of segmental sonority and foot form. After reviewing the history of sonority-driven stress theory, we identify two broad issues with extant evidence: the lack of methodological reliability, and misattribution of cause. We argue that impressionistic descriptions of sonority-driven stress are not reliable, in the technical sense of evidentiary validity. We further argue that apparent sonority-sensitivity in foot form is a side-effect of either allophony or minor syllable behavior.

Positional faithfulness drives laxness alternations in Slovenian

“…We conclude that Slovenian stress makes direct reference to particular vowel qualities. In later work, Shih (2016, 2018) and Shih & de Lacy (2020) make the stronger claim that even sonority cannot influence stress assignment. A similar claim is also made by Rasin (2017).…”

Tone, stress, quantity, and quality: prosodic patterns and tonal wug-tests in Žiri Slovenian

“…Most other types involve sonority, but inŽiri this is clearly not the case. High sonority vowels may prefer stress (Kenstowicz 1997) Blumenfeld (2006) make an explicit claim that sonority, but not segmental features, can interact with stress assignment and tone, and Rasin (2017); Shih (2016Shih ( , 2018; Shih & de Lacy (2020) argue that no segmental property can affect stress placement. Our results offer clear evidence that vowel quality interacts with prosody, and that this is unrelated to sonority.…”

“…For instance, in Uspanteko tone realization in disyllables depends on the sonority difference between the two syllables (Bennett & Henderson 2013). de Lacy (2006) and Blumenfeld (2006) make an explicit claim that sonority, but not segmental features, can interact with stress assignment and tone, and Rasin (2017), Shih (2016Shih ( , 2018, Shih & de Lacy (2020) argue that no segmental property can affect stress placement.…”

Featural affixation and sound symbolism in Fungwa

“…For example, in languages such as Kobon (Madang; Papua New Guinea) (Davies 1981, Kenstowicz 1997 and Mongolian (Mongolic) (Walker 2000), stress falls on any available non-high vowel in the domain of stress assignment. That said, there is evidence to suggest that stress may not be driven by sonority (see Shih 2018, Shih & de Lacy 2019. While sonority-driven stress might be debatable, there are uncontroversial arguments for sonority from reduplication and vowel deletion.…”