Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/226596
Title:
Eurhythmy or Clash in the English Rhythm Rule
Author:
Hammond, Michael
Publisher:
University of Arizona Linguistics Circle
Journal:
Coyote Papers: Working Papers in Linguistics from A-Z
Issue Date:
1992
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/226596
Abstract:
In this paper, I argue that the rhythm rule phenomenon in English is best treated in terms of a theory incorporating the notion "stress clash" (Hammond, 1988), rather than the notion "eurhythmy" (Hayes, 1984). There are three central arguments. First, it is argued that the eurhythmy theory is intrinsically undesirable as it requires a theory of universal grammar that countenances arbitrary counting. Second, it is shown that the eurhythmy theory makes incorrect predictions about the behavior of words with initial stressless syllables. Third, it is shown that the clash -based theory, as opposed to the eurhythmy theory, generalizes nicely to account for the Montana cowboy phenomenon. The organization of this paper is as follows. First, I review the traditional clash -based account of Liberman and Prince (1977). I go on to review the eurhythmy account of Hayes (1984). This includes three central claims /effects: the quadrisyllabic rule, the disyllabic rule, and the phrasal rule. It is next shown that each of these effects can be achieved with independently required principles and machinery and that there is no need for a specific theory of eurhythmy. The following notation will be used in this paper. An acute accent will denote the strongest stress in a domain; a circumflex marks an intermediate stress; a grave indicates less stress; and an unmarked vowel indicates even less or no stress.
Type:
Article; text
Language:
en_US
ISSN:
0894-4539

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorHammond, Michaelen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-05-29T19:11:47Z-
dc.date.available2012-05-29T19:11:47Z-
dc.date.issued1992-
dc.identifier.issn0894-4539-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/226596-
dc.description.abstractIn this paper, I argue that the rhythm rule phenomenon in English is best treated in terms of a theory incorporating the notion "stress clash" (Hammond, 1988), rather than the notion "eurhythmy" (Hayes, 1984). There are three central arguments. First, it is argued that the eurhythmy theory is intrinsically undesirable as it requires a theory of universal grammar that countenances arbitrary counting. Second, it is shown that the eurhythmy theory makes incorrect predictions about the behavior of words with initial stressless syllables. Third, it is shown that the clash -based theory, as opposed to the eurhythmy theory, generalizes nicely to account for the Montana cowboy phenomenon. The organization of this paper is as follows. First, I review the traditional clash -based account of Liberman and Prince (1977). I go on to review the eurhythmy account of Hayes (1984). This includes three central claims /effects: the quadrisyllabic rule, the disyllabic rule, and the phrasal rule. It is next shown that each of these effects can be achieved with independently required principles and machinery and that there is no need for a specific theory of eurhythmy. The following notation will be used in this paper. An acute accent will denote the strongest stress in a domain; a circumflex marks an intermediate stress; a grave indicates less stress; and an unmarked vowel indicates even less or no stress.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherUniversity of Arizona Linguistics Circleen_US
dc.titleEurhythmy or Clash in the English Rhythm Ruleen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.identifier.journalCoyote Papers: Working Papers in Linguistics from A-Zen_US
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.