Startseite On the comparability of prosodic categories: why ‘stress’ is difficult
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

On the comparability of prosodic categories: why ‘stress’ is difficult

  • Nikolaus P. Himmelmann ORCID logo EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 8. Dezember 2022
Linguistic Typology
Aus der Zeitschrift Linguistic Typology Band 27 Heft 2

Abstract

This article argues that the prosodic category stress in West Germanic languages, which implicitly underlies practically all work on stress, is a complex cluster concept consisting of at least six dimensions which in turn involve a number of subdimensions. Because of its complexity, this concept is not useful for cross-linguistic comparison. A promising starting point for further typological inquiry is one of the six dimensions, i.e. acoustic and auditory prominence. However, identifying acoustic and auditory prominence distinctions cross-linguistically is also not straightforward and requires considerable empirical effort. Nevertheless, cross-linguistic comparison is still possible in the case of ‘difficult’ cluster concepts such as stress and does not require the use of arbitrary comparative concepts.

Keywords: cross-linguistic comparison; duration; prosody; stress; syllable
Corresponding author: Nikolaus P. Himmelmann ['nɪkolaʊ̯s 'hɪməlman], Universität zu Köln, Köln, Germany, E-mail:

Funding source: UniversitÃt zu KÃln

Award Identifier / Grant number: Leo Spitzer Prize

Funding source: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Award Identifier / Grant number: Project-ID 281511265

Acknowledgements

A first presentation of the core claims of this article took place at CoEDL Fest 2017 in Brisbane (Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language). It has also been presented in evolving versions at the Universität zu Köln and the Universität Zürich. I am very grateful for the comments received on these occasions. Many thanks to Constantijn Kaland for reading the first draft and making numerous useful suggestions. I gratefully acknowledge the superb feedback provided by the reviewers for linguistic typology and the editors of the volume. Their very detailed and extensive comments helped me to clarify important aspects of the ideas presented here and considerably improved their presentation. Many thanks also to Janet Bachmann, Jonas Heinen and Jonas Frings for checking references.

  1. Research funding: Writing has been supported by the German Research Foundation (DGF) through the Collaborative Research Centre 1252 Prominence in Language (Project-ID 281511265, Project A03 Prosodic prominence in cross-linguistic perspective) and the Leo Spitzer Prize of the Universität zu Köln.

References

Bailey, Todd M. 1995. Nonmetrical constraints on stress. Ann Arbor: University of Minnesota dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar

Baumann, Stefan. 2006. The intonation of givenness: Evidence from German. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110921205Suche in Google Scholar

Beck, David. 2016. Some language-particular terms are comparative concepts. Linguistic Typology 20. 395–402. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0013.Suche in Google Scholar

Becker, Laura. 2021. Articles in the world’s languages (Linguistische Arbeiten 577). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.Suche in Google Scholar

Beckman, Mary E. 1986. Stress and non-stress accent. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110874020Suche in Google Scholar

Beckman, Mary E. & Jennifer J. Venditti. 2010. Tone and intonation. In William J. Hardcastle & John Laver (eds.), The handbook of phonetic sciences, 603–652. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9781444317251.ch16Suche in Google Scholar

Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486357Suche in Google Scholar

Bracks, Christoph. 2021. The intonation unit in Totoli. Oceanic Linguistics 60. 103–132. https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2021.0003.Suche in Google Scholar

Browman, Catherine P. & Louis Goldstein. 1989. Articulatory gestures as phonological units. Phonology 6. 201–251. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952675700001019.Suche in Google Scholar

Cutler, Anne. 2005. Lexical stress. In David B. Pisoni & Robert E. Remez (eds.), The handbook of speech perception, 264–289. Malden: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470757024.ch11Suche in Google Scholar

Cutler, Anne. 2012. Native listening: Language experience and the recognition of spoken words. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9012.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Dahl, Östen. 2016. Thoughts on language-specific and crosslinguistic entities. Linguistic Typology 20. 427–437. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0016.Suche in Google Scholar

Féry, Caroline. 2017. Intonation and prosodic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781139022064Suche in Google Scholar

Goedemans, Rob W. N. & Harry van der Hulst. 2009. StressTyp: A database for word accentual patterns in the world’s languages. In Martin Everaert, Simon Musgrave & Alexis Dimitriadis (eds.), The use of databases in cross-linguistic studies (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 41), 235–282. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110198744.235Suche in Google Scholar

Goedemans, Rob W. N. & Harry van der Hulst. 2010. StressTyp data. In Harry van der Hulst, Rob Goedemans & Ellen van Zanten (eds.), A survey of word accentual patterns in the languages of the world, 669–846. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Suche in Google Scholar

Goedemans, Rob W. N. & Harry van der Hulst. 2014. The separation of accent and rhythm: Evidence from StressTyp. In Harry van der Hulst (ed.), Word stress: Theoretical and typological issues, 119–148. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139600408.006Suche in Google Scholar

Goedemans, Rob W. N. & Ellen van Zanten. 2014. No stress typology. In Johanneke Caspers, Yiya Chen, Willemijn F. L. Heeren, Jos J. A. Pacilly, Niels O. Schiller & Ellen van Zanten (eds.), Above and beyond the segments: Experimental linguistics and phonetics, 83–95. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/z.189.07goeSuche in Google Scholar

Goedemans, Rob W. N., Harry van der Hulst & Ellis A. M. Visch. 1996. Stress patterns of the world. Part 1: Background (HIL Publications 2). The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Suche in Google Scholar

González, Carolina. 2008. Typological evidence for the separation between stress and foot structure. In Matti Miestamo & Bernhard Wälchli (eds.), New challenges in typology (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 189), 55–76. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110198904.1.55Suche in Google Scholar

Gordon, Matthew K. 2002. A factorial typology of quantity insensitive stress. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20. 491–552. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015810531699.10.1023/A:1015810531699Suche in Google Scholar

Gordon, Matthew K. 2014. Disentangling stress and pitch-accent: A typology of prominence at different prosodic levels. In Harry van der Hulst (ed.), Word stress, 83–118. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139600408.005Suche in Google Scholar

Gordon, Matthew K. 2016. Phonological typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199669004.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Gordon, Matthew K. & Timo Roettger. 2017. Acoustic correlates of word stress: A cross-linguistic survey. Linguistics Vanguard 3(1). 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2017-0007.Suche in Google Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963/1966. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of language, 73–113. Cambridge: MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978. How does a language acquire gender markers? In Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson & Edith Moravcsik (eds.), Universals of human language. Vol. 3: Word structure, 47–82. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511616983Suche in Google Scholar

Harder, Peter. 2016. Substance(s) and the rise and imposition of structure(s). Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 48. 7–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2016.1186458.Suche in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2018. How comparative concepts and descriptive linguistic categories are different. In Daniël Van Olmen, Tanja Mortelmans & Brisard Frank (eds.), Aspects of linguistic variation (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 324), 83–114. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110607963-004Suche in Google Scholar

Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Heinz, Jeffrey. 2007. The inductive learning of phonotactic patterns. Los Angeles: University of California dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1997. Deiktikon, Artikel, Nominalphrase: Zur Emergenz syntaktischer Struktur. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110929621Suche in Google Scholar

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2001. Articles. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals. Vol. 1 (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 20/1), 831–841. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Suche in Google Scholar

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2022. Against trivializing language description (and comparison). Studies in Language 46(1). 133–160. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19090.him.Suche in Google Scholar

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., Meytal Sandler, Strunk Jan & Volker Unterladstetter. 2018. On the universality of intonational phrases in spontaneous speech – a cross-linguistic interrater study. Phonology 35. 207–245. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952675718000039.Suche in Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry M. 1977. On the nature of linguistic stress. In Larry M. Hyman (ed.), Studies in stress and accent (Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics 4), 37–82. Los Angeles: Dept. of Linguistics, University of Southern California.Suche in Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry M. 1983. Are there syllables in Gokana? In Jonathan Kaye, Hilda Koopman, Dominique Sportiche & André Dugas (eds.), Current approaches to African linguistics, vol. 2, 171–179. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783112420102-012Suche in Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry M. 2006. Word-prosodic typology. Phonology 23(2). 225–257. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952675706000893.Suche in Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry M. 2008. Universals in phonology. The Linguistic Review 25(1–2). 83–137. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2008.003.Suche in Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry M. 2009. How (not) to do phonological typology: The case of pitch-accent. Language Sciences 31. 213–238. https://doi.org/10.5070/p74hb059t7.Suche in Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry M. 2011. Does Gokana really have no syllables? Or: what’s so great about being universal? Phonology 28(1). 55–85. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952675711000030.Suche in Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry M. 2012. In defense of prosodic typology: A response to Beckman & Venditti. Linguistic Typology 16. 341–385.10.1515/lity-2012-0014Suche in Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry M. 2015. Does Gokana really have syllables? A postscript. Phonology 32. 303–306. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952675715000160.Suche in Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry M. 2017. What (else) depends on phonology? In Nicholas Enfield (ed.), Dependencies in language, 141–158. Berlin: Language Science Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry M. 2018. Positional prominence versus word accent: Is there a difference? In Robert Goedemans, Jeffrey Heinz & Harry van der Hulst (eds.), The study of word stress and accent: Theories, methods and data, 60–75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316683101.003Suche in Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry M. & Frans Plank. 2018. Phonological typology (Phonology and Phonetics 23). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110451931Suche in Google Scholar

Kaland, Constantijn. 2019. Acoustic correlates of word stress in Papuan Malay. Journal of Phonetics 74. 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2019.02.003.Suche in Google Scholar

Kaland, Constantijn. 2020. Offline and online processing of acoustic cues to word stress in Papuan Malay. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 147(2). 731–747. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0000578.Suche in Google Scholar

Kaland, Constantijn, Angela Kluge & Vincent J. van Heuven. 2021. Lexical analyses of the function and phonology of Papuan Malay word stress. Phonetica 78(2). 141–168. https://doi.org/10.1515/phon-2021-2003.Suche in Google Scholar

Kenesei, István, Robert M. Vago & Anna Fenyvesi. 1998. Hungarian. London & New York: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

Kuznetsova, Natalia. 2018. What Danish and Estonian can show to a modern word-prosodic typology. In Rob Goedemans, Jeffrey Heinz & Harry van der Hulst (eds.), The study of word stress and accent: Theories, methods and data, 102–143. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316683101.005Suche in Google Scholar

Ladd, D. Robert. 2008. Intonational phonology, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511808814Suche in Google Scholar

Ladefoged, Peter. 1982. A course in phonetics, 2nd edn. Los Angeles: University of California.Suche in Google Scholar

Lander, Yury & Peter Arkadiev. 2016. On the right of being a comparative concept. Linguistic Typology 20. 403–416. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0014.Suche in Google Scholar

Lehmann, Christian. 2018. Linguistic concepts and categories in language description and comparison. In Marina Chini & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.), Typology, acquisition, grammaticalization studies, 27–50. Milano: Franco Angeli.Suche in Google Scholar

Levi, Susannah V. 2005. Acoustic correlates of lexical accent in Turkish. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 35. 73–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0025100305001921.Suche in Google Scholar

Li, Charles N. (ed.). 1976 Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Lindström, Eva & Bert Remijsen. 2005. Aspects of the prosody of Kuot, a language where intonation ignores stress. Linguistics 43. 839–870. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2005.43.4.839.Suche in Google Scholar

Maskikit-Essed, Raechel & Carlos Gussenhoven. 2016. No stress, no pitch accent, no prosodic focus: The case of Ambonese Malay. Phonology 33. 353–389. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952675716000154.Suche in Google Scholar

Moravcsik, Edith A. 2016. On linguistic categories. Linguistic Typology 20. 417–425. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0015.Suche in Google Scholar

Mühlbauer, Jeff. 2006. Pitch as accent in Plains Cree nominals. In H. C. Wolfart (ed.), Actes du 37e Congrès des Algonquinistes, 229–268. Winnipeg: Université du Manitoba.Suche in Google Scholar

Odé, Cecilia. 1994. On the perception of prominence in Indonesian. In Cecilia Odé & Vincent J. van Heuven (eds.), Experimental studies of Indonesian prosody (Semaian 9), 27–107. Leiden: Vakgroep Talen en Culturen van Zuidoost-Azië en Oceanië, Leiden University.Suche in Google Scholar

Özçelik, Öner. 2017. The foot is not an obligatory constituent of the prosodic hierarchy: “Stress” in Turkish, French and child English. The Linguistic Review 34(1). 157–213. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2016-0008.Suche in Google Scholar

Peperkamp, Sharon & Emmanuel Dupoux. 2002. A typological study of stress ‘deafness. In Carlos Gussenhoven & Natasha Warner (eds.), Laboratory phonology 7 (Phonology and Phonetics 4–1), 203–240. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110197105.1.203Suche in Google Scholar

Peperkamp, Sharon, Inga Vendelin & Emmanuel Dupoux. 2010. Perception of predictable stress: A cross-linguistic investigation. Journal of Phonetics 38(3). 422–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.04.001.Suche in Google Scholar

Riesberg, Sonja, Janina Kalbertodt, Stefan Baumann & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann. 2020. Using Rapid Prosody Transcription to probe little-known prosodic systems: The case of Papuan Malay. Laboratory Phonology 11(1). 1–35. https://doi.org/10.5334/labphon.192.Suche in Google Scholar

Roettger, Timo & Matthew K. Gordon. 2017. Methodological issues in the study of word stress correlates. Linguistics Vanguard 3(1). 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2017-0006.Suche in Google Scholar

Round, Erich R. & Greville G. Corbett. 2020. Comparability and measurement in typological science: The bright future for linguistics. Linguistic Typology 24. 489–525. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2020-2060.Suche in Google Scholar

Sluijter, Agaath M. C. & Vincent J. van Heuven. 1996. Spectral balance as an acoustic correlate of linguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 100. 2471–2485. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.417955.Suche in Google Scholar

Spike, Matthew. 2020. Fifty shades of grue: Indeterminate categories and induction in and out of the language sciences. Linguistic Typology 24. 465–488. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2020-2061.Suche in Google Scholar

Tabain, Marija, Janet Fletcher & Andrew Butcher. 2014. Lexical stress in Pitjatjantjara. Journal of Phonetics 42. 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2013.11.005.Suche in Google Scholar

van der Auwera, Johan & Kalyanamalini Sahoo. 2015. On comparative concepts and descriptive categories, such as they are. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 47. 136–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2015.1115636.Suche in Google Scholar

van der Hulst, Harry. 2010. Word accent: Terms, typologies and theories. In Harry van der Hulst, Rob Goedemans & Ellen van Zanten (eds.), A survey of word accentual patterns in the languages of the world, 3–54. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110198966.1.3Suche in Google Scholar

van der Hulst, Harry. 2012. Deconstructing stress. Lingua 122. 1494–1521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.08.011.Suche in Google Scholar

van der Hulst, Harry. 2017. Phonological typology. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic typology, 39–77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316135716.002Suche in Google Scholar

van der Hulst, Harry, Rob Goedemans & Ellen van Zanten (eds.). 2010. A survey of word accentual patterns in the languages of the world. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110198966Suche in Google Scholar

van Heuven, Vincent J. 2018. Acoustic correlates and perceptual cues of word and sentence stress: Towards a cross-linguistic perspective. In Rob Goedemans, Jeffrey Heinz & Harry van der Hulst (eds.), The study of word stress and accent: Theories, methods and data, 15–59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316683101.002Suche in Google Scholar

van Heuven, Vincent J. & Vera Faust. 2009. Are Indonesians sensitive to contrastive accentuation below the word level? Wacana, Jurnal Ilmu Pengetahuan Budaya 11. 226–240. https://doi.org/10.17510/wjhi.v11i2.159.Suche in Google Scholar

van Heuven, Vincent J. & Ellen van Zanten (eds.). 2007. Prosody in Indonesian languages (LOT Occasional Series 9). Utrecht: LOT.Suche in Google Scholar

Xu, Yi. 2020. Syllable is a synchronization mechanism that makes human speech possible. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9v4hr.Suche in Google Scholar
Received: 2022-07-01
Accepted: 2022-11-02
Published Online: 2022-12-08
Published in Print: 2023-07-26

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Articles
  3. Current research in phonological typology
  4. Investigating the ‘what’, ‘where’ and ‘why’ of global phonological typology
  5. Canonical phonology and criterial conflicts: relating and resolving four dilemmas of phonological typology
  6. Refining explanation in Evolutionary Phonology: macro-typologies and targeted typologies in action
  7. The prosodic foot beyond prosodic prominence: a preliminary survey
  8. On the comparability of prosodic categories: why ‘stress’ is difficult
  9. Bootstrap co-occurrence networks of consonants and the Basic Consonant Inventory
  10. Frequent violation of the sonority sequencing principle in hundreds of languages: how often and by which sequences?
  11. Diachronic phonological typology: understanding inventory structure through sound change dynamics
  12. Place typology and evolution of implosives in Indo-Aryan languages
  13. Estimating areal effects in typology: a case study of African phoneme inventories
  14. Word prosody of African versus European-origin words in Afro-European creoles
  15. Towards a phonological typology of the Kalahari Basin Area languages
  16. The typological frequency of consonants is highly predictive of their order of acquisition in English
https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2022-0041
Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel
cross-linguistic comparison; duration; prosody; stress; syllable

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Articles
  3. Current research in phonological typology
  4. Investigating the ‘what’, ‘where’ and ‘why’ of global phonological typology
  5. Canonical phonology and criterial conflicts: relating and resolving four dilemmas of phonological typology
  6. Refining explanation in Evolutionary Phonology: macro-typologies and targeted typologies in action
  7. The prosodic foot beyond prosodic prominence: a preliminary survey
  8. On the comparability of prosodic categories: why ‘stress’ is difficult
  9. Bootstrap co-occurrence networks of consonants and the Basic Consonant Inventory
  10. Frequent violation of the sonority sequencing principle in hundreds of languages: how often and by which sequences?
  11. Diachronic phonological typology: understanding inventory structure through sound change dynamics
  12. Place typology and evolution of implosives in Indo-Aryan languages
  13. Estimating areal effects in typology: a case study of African phoneme inventories
  14. Word prosody of African versus European-origin words in Afro-European creoles
  15. Towards a phonological typology of the Kalahari Basin Area languages
  16. The typological frequency of consonants is highly predictive of their order of acquisition in English
Jetzt anmelden und 20% sparen
Institutioneller Zugang
Wie funktioniert Authentifizierung?
Haben Sie eine Idee, wie wir unsere Website verbessern können?
Bitte schreiben Sie uns.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Heruntergeladen am 8.9.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/lingty-2022-0041/pdf
Button zum nach oben scrollen