Remarks on the scandinavian word tones

Jasanoff, Jay H.

doi:10.1016/0024-3841(66)90019-2

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We maintain, like Rischel (1963), Jasanoff (1966), Haugen (1967), Elert (1972 and Riad (2003a), that accent is privative in the sense that stems and affixes may or may not be specified for lexical accent. The actual phonetic manifestation is left up to the individual dialects as suggested above.…”

Section: (Un)predictability Of Lexical Accentmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…(41) Assumptions about Scandinavian lexical accent • ACCENT 2 IS MARKED, ACCENT 1 UNMARKED (Haugen & Joos 1952;Rischel 1963Rischel /1983Jasanoff 1966Jasanoff /1983Haugen 1967Haugen /1983Elert 1972;Bruce 1977;Withgott & Halvorsen 1984;Riad 1998aRiad , b, 2003aBruce & Hermans 1999;Gussenhoven & Bruce 1999;Kristoffersen 2000, and others). • ACCENT IS PRIVATIVE Accent 2 is lexical, and accent 1 is the absence of lexical tone (Rischel 1963, Jasanoff 1966, Haugen 1967, Elert 1972, Linell 1972, Lorentz 2001, Riad 2003a, and others); or accent 2 is listed in the lexicon, and accent 1 is introduced by rule (Withgott & Halvorsen 1984).…”

Section: Representation Of Accentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Contrary to all other approaches, in our analysis we do not represent lexically specified accent 1 as L or H. Rather, we adopt Gussenhoven's (1991) idea of accent marking for English, and we mark morphemes bearing lexical accent with an abstract diacritic ( × ). Jasanoff (1966Jasanoff ( /1983) also suggests using ( × ) to mark what he considers lexically specified accent, namely accent 2. No phonetic correlate is represented with a diacritic.…”

Section: Representation Of Accentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Lexical specification of tone in North Germanic

Lahiri¹,

Wetterlin²,

Jönsson-Steiner³

2005

Nord J Linguist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accent 1 is very much accepted in the literature as the default tonal marker in Scandinavian languages. Consequently, stems and affixes are almost always specified for accent 2. Only rarely in some analyses is accent 1 specified for affixes, but never for stems. We believe that under these conditions, the resulting morphology/phonology interaction is rather complex, having to include special rules of accent marking, floating tones, deaccenting together with inexplicable exceptions. In our analysis of the tonal systems of Swedish and Norwegian, accent 1 is the lexically specified accent and accent 2 is postlexically assigned. Words and affixes may be lexically specified for accent 1, which inevitably dominates. Consequently, if a morphologically complex word includes a lexically specified affix or stem, the entire word will bear accent 1, giving us patterns of alternations like beskriva 1 , skriva 2 . This analysis enables us to account for all the facts almost exceptionlessly, with no special tonal rules, constraints or templates.

show abstract

Section: (Un)predictability Of Lexical Accentmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Representation Of Accentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Representation Of Accentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Lexical specification of tone in North Germanic

Lahiri¹,

Wetterlin²,

Jönsson-Steiner³

2005

Nord J Linguist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, research on the peer-review process has suggested that matters as seemingly insignificant as the affiliation or fame of the researcher can affect the outcome of peer review. 30 Even these relatively minor deviations from the requirement that scientists remain objective and disinterested has led to calls for reform within the scientific community. Any deviation from the norm of disinterested research and review is, quite legitimately, viewed with concern.…”

Section: Biased Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Perils of Relying on Interested Parties to Evaluate Scientific Quality

Wagner

2005

Am J Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, there has been a trend in both civil litigation and regulatory law to circumvent the scientific community's collective judgment on the quality of individual studies with an adversarial process of evaluating scientific quality using interest groups. The Supreme Court's Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc opinion and two recent "good science" laws passed by Congress adopt an adversarial process informed by affected parties for reviewing and screening scientific quality. These developments are unwise. Both theory and experience instruct that an adversarial, interest group-dominated approach to evaluating scientific quality will lead to the unproductive deconstruction of science, further blur the distinction between policy and scientific judgments, and result in poor decisions because the courts and agencies that preside over these "good science" contests sometimes lack the scientific competency needed to make sound decisions.

show abstract

Scandinavian Accents in Their Relation to One Another

Liberman¹

1975

Studia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is concerned with four Scandinavian prosodemes: acc. 1, ace. 2, sterd, and no s t~d .Its aim is to establish the function of each of them. The much-discussed questions of whether the Swedish and Norwegian accents are dynamic or musical in nature and whether it is possible to detect tonal ingredients in the realizations of the Danish stprd and no stprd are of secondary importance. What interests us here is the role all those entities play in the system, not the details of their manifestation. 1.As was clear to the very first investigators of Swedish and Norwegian stress, acc. 1 occurs mainly in the words which had one syllable in Old Icelandic (01). Hence the tradition to call acc. 1 monosyllabic and ace. 2 polysyllabic. This tradition holds, on the whole, for the modern languages too: monosyllabic words have acc. 1, and in polysyllabic words ace. 2 is felt as more natural. C . 4 . Elert (1964: 31-33, and several times later) noticed that the main function of acc. 2 is purely connective. If we compare the Swedish utterances vdr 'sven slea 'flagga (our page will run up the flag' and vdr 'svenska 'flagga (our Swedish flag', we shall see at once that in the syntagm svenska (from the second example) the syllables sven and ska are understood as parts of one word because they constitute the domain of acc. 2. When we hear a string of syllables with acc. 2, we know that there is no word boundary within it; thus, acc. 2 performs an anti-delimitative (connective) function. On the other hand, the tone of ace. 1 syllables carries no information about their structure. Acc. 1, as well as ace. 2, is devoid of any delimitative power. The syllable hdll, for example, need not be a final syllable in a word (cf. hill 'distance' and hdllen pp. of hdlla 'keep'); similarly hdllen may be one word and a group of two words (cf. Hd11 e n minut utanfor porten 'stay a minute outside the gate'). But it has no task corresponding SCANDINAVIAN ACCENTS I N THEIR RELATION TO ONE ANOTHERthe connective function of acc. 2. To sum up: acc. 2 signals the absence of a word boundary within its domain, while ace. 1 takes no part in word delimitation. Ace. 2 can connect parts of a compound word: cf. en stormans drakt [En 'stu:rman:s 'drokt] 'an outfit for a magnate', en stor mansdrakt [En 'stu:r 'man:sdrekt] 'a big man's outfit', en stormunsdrakt [ E n 'stu:rman:sdr~kt] 'a magnate's outfit'.The connective role of acc. 2 is also quite manifest within a wordgroup. A syntagm with acc. 2 is more unified and idiomatic than the same syntagm with ace. 1: cf. the Norwegian Hann 'kommer-med dampbdten -ti1 Hamburg 'he is going to Hamburg by steam-boat' and Hann 'kommer-med dampbdten -til Hamburg 'He will catch a steam-boat for Hamburg' (with emphasis laid on the verb). Ace. 2 turns kommer med into a compound verb, and acc. 1 preserves med as preposition (Broch 1937: 315-316). The Norwegian phrases 'tap& noe 'put on something' and 'ta pd noe 'touch something' will be rendered in Standard Swedish as 'ta pd ndgot and ta 'pd ndgot. But in the Uppland dialects ...

show abstract

Remarks on the scandinavian word tones

Cited by 4 publications

References 8 publications

Lexical specification of tone in North Germanic

Lexical specification of tone in North Germanic

The Perils of Relying on Interested Parties to Evaluate Scientific Quality

Scandinavian Accents in Their Relation to One Another

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About