Lanaguage Research
Language Education Institute, Seoul National University
Article

영어 명사구에서의 강세이동 방향성

김진형1, 성제현2,*
Jin-hyung Kim1, Jae-Hyun Sung2,*
*Corresponding Author : 연세대학교, 영어영문학과, 박사후 연구원, 03722 서울시 서대문구 연세로 50, E-mail: jsung@yonsei.ac.kr

ⓒ Copyright 2019 Language Education Institute, Seoul National University. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Feb 27, 2019 ; Revised: Apr 09, 2019 ; Accepted: Apr 09, 2019

Published Online: Apr 30, 2019

ABSTRACT

In English noun phrases, a general restriction against stress clash is sometimes violated. Such variation in rhythmic stress shift raises the question of when and why native speakers choose one variant over another. The aim of this paper was to analyze such variation and identify factors that underlie the shift variation found in English [level 2 prefixed adjective + noun] phrases on the basis of native speakers’ responses. The results suggest that the variation is driven by the interplay of the phonotactics across morpheme boundaries, the morphological structure of complex adjectives, the conspiracy of foot form improvement depending on the harmony scale, and the optimal eurhythmic distance in rhythmic stress shift.

Keywords: stress shift variation; phonotactics; morphological structure; foot form improvement; eurhythmy

References

1.

강은경, 김진형. (2015). "영어 명사구의 리듬현상 재고: 형태론적 접근", 『영어학』 15, 691-712 .

2.

김진형. (2011). "영어파생어에서의 제2강세 재고", 『영어학연구』 17(3), 207-239 .

3.

김진형. (2016). "영어 리듬현상의 변이성", 『언어연구』 32, 429-445 .

4.

Burzio, L. (1994). Principles of English Stress. New York: Cambridge University Press .

5.

Clements, G. N. (1990). The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. Papers in Laboratory Phonology I, 283-333 .

6.

Collie, S. (2008). English stress preservation: The case for 'fake cyclicity'. English Language and Linguistics 12(3), 505-532 .

7.

Connine, C. M., Mullennix, J., Shernoff, E. and Yelen, J. (1990). Word familiarity and frequency in visual and auditory word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology 16(6), 1084-1096 .

8.

Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/ .

9.

Dabouis, Q. (2017a). English weak preservation: Frequency and prefixation. Ms., Université de Tours .

10.

Dabouis, Q. (2017b). When accent preservation leads to clash. English Language and Linguistics. Published online. 1-45 .

11.

Giegerich, H. (1992). English Phonology: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press .

12.

Hammond, M. (1999). Lexical frequency and rhythm. In M. Darnell et al., eds., Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics, 329-358. Amsterdam: John Benjamins .

13.

Hay, J. (2002). From speech perception to morphology: Affix ordering revisited. Language 78, 527-555 .

14.

Hayes, B. (1984). The phonology of rhythm in English. Linguistic Inquiry 15(1), 33-74 .

15.

Hayes, B. and Schuh, R. (2018). Metrical structure and sung rhythm of the Hausa rajaz. MS., ROA: 1348 .

16.

Kenyon, J. S. and Knott, T. A. (1949). A Pronouncing Dictionary of American English. Springfield, MA: Merriam .

17.

Kim, J-H. (1999). Cyclicity revisited: A correspondence-theoretic approach. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 5, 123-146 .

18.

Kiparsky, P. (1979). Metrical structure assignment is cyclic. Linguistic Inquiry 10(3), 421-441 .

19.

Labov, W. (2011). Principles of Linguistic Change: Cognitive and Cultural Factors. Wiley-Blackwell .

20.

Tanaka-Ishii, K. and Terada, H. (2011). Word familiarity and frequency. Studia Linguistica 65(1), 96-116 .