Sei sulla pagina 1di 83
Relating to the Grid Author(s): Alan S. Prince Source: Linguistic In q uir y, Vol.

Relating to the Grid Author(s): Alan S. Prince Source: Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Winter, 1983), pp. 19-100 Published by: The MIT Press

Accessed: 27/11/2010 06:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Linguistic Inquiry.

http://www.jstor.org

Alan S. Prince

Relatingto the Grid

1. Introduction

1.1. The Argument

Metricaltheory, as originallyformulated,employs two distincthierarchicalstructures:

the slw relational tree and the metrical grid. Relative prominenceis representedab- stractlyas a relationbetween constituentsin the slw trees. (I call it "4abstract"because the slw relationshipis not interpreted.)Mappingsuch trees terminalby terminalto a metricalgrid provides the basis for a temporal-rhythmicinterpretation.We can think of metrical theory as giving a two-stage mappingbetween surface structuresand the grid:first, a translationinto (binary-branching)slw trees; second, an interpretationof the slw relationsthus derived in terms of alignmentwith the grid.

(1)

Tb

Surface Structure

I slw Trees -

Ps/w

i

Grid

As the theory has developed, almostall of the researchhas concentratedon Tband the gridhas receded into oblivion. For example, Selkirkhas enrichedTb to include the assignmentof prosodiccategories (foot, word, phrase,etc.) to the nodes in phonological trees (Selkirk(1980)). Many theorists have sought in constraintson tree form and tree

labeling an explanationfor the characterof lexical stress patternsin the world's lan- guages. (See, for example, Halle and Vergnaud(1978),McCarthy(1979a),Hayes (1980; 1981),andthe referencestherein.)One mightreasonablysurmisethatthe grid,if it even exists, lies outside linguistictheory; that it is a matterof phonetic realizationand not

a properlylinguisticlevel at all.

In this article, I will pursue the opposite tack. I will show that surface structure

(words and phrases) should be

related directlyto the grid, without the interventionof

a level wherecalculationswiths andwtakeplaceon trees. Theessentialsof the alignment

are to be accomplishedby a single, one-parameterrule: strengthenthe leftmost (right-

Thisis a revisedversionof a paperexpandedfroma talkgivenin April,1981,to the TrilateralConference on FormalPhonology,held at the Universityof Texas at Austinand fundedby Sloan Foundationgrantsto

the MassachusettsInstituteof

would like to thankthe participantsin that conference(most especially YasuakiAbe, Edit Doron, Morris

Halle,RobertHarms,PaulKiparsky,JohnMcCarthy,BillPoser,andLisaSelkirk),as well as MarkLiberman, GennaroChierchia,Jane Grimshaw,and Mats Rooth, for valuable comments and discussion. Thanks to Grimshaw,Halle, McCarthy,and Liberman,and to Ray Jackendoffand an anonymousLI reviewer for commentsthat helped shape the revision. Specialthanksto Jay Keyser andJerryAllen, who makethingsa lot easier. The workreportedhere was supportedin partby NSF GrantBNS 77-05682.

Technology,the Universityof Massachusetts,and the Universityof Texas. I

Linguistic Inquiry, Volume 14, Number 1, Winter 1983 0024-3892/83/010019-82 $02.50/0 ?1983 by The Massachusetts Institute of Technology

19

20

ALAN

S.

PRINCE

most) element in a domain(= word, phrase).This will be supplementedby a "rhythm

rule" that operates locally on the grid to rearrangecertain awkward or

disfavored

configurations.Whereno independentlydefinabledomainsarerelevant,as insidea word or stem, alignmentwith a rhythmicallyoptimalgrid will be arguedto be the principal determinantof stress pattern. On the negative side, then, the argumentwill show that much of the apparatusof metrical theory is inessential to its fundamentalgoals-for example, binary branchingtrees, slw labeling rules, branchingnessconditions. More positively, a full theory of stress patterns will emerge, significantlysimpler than its currentrivals, yet still well within the thematic premises of the hierarchicalprogram initiatedby Liberman.

1.2. The Grid: A Heuristic Introduction

The metricalgridcomes out of the descriptionof musicalrhythm(cf. Liberman(1975),

Jackendoff and

A time signature,such as 2/4, imposes a kind of implicitmetric on the pulse train,distinguishingcertainpulses or positionsas intrinsicallystrongerthan others.

x x x x x x x x x x

Lerdahl (1981;

1982)). Imagine a

sequence

of

even

pulses:

(2)

2

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

The new strengthdistinction adds a level to the grid. The strongergrid positions are those that have entries at the higherlevel. Furtherdifferentiationoccurs when the beat itself is split into subunits.It is a fact of musicallife thatwhen a beat (or subbeat-any grid position) is divided in two, the first half is felt to be naturallystrongerthan the second half.

(3)a.

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

b- IJJJ;l=lJ

F

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

 

The typical 2/4 pattern-a strongerfirst and a weaker second beat-is representedin the cited gridsas a relationbetween the highestandnext-highestlevels. Examples(3a,b) show finer detail in the medial strata.Notice that the absolute height of a grid column has no meaning;the layeringof the gridexpresses a networkof relations, The grid can also be thought of as a "hierarchyof intersectingperiodicities" (to

RELATING

TO

THE

GRID

21

use Liberman'splangentphrase). Each level then representsa certainperiod, or rate of repetition, the frequency diminishingas altitudeincreases. In example (3b), level 1 elements occur 8 times per measure, level 2 elements 4 times, level 3 elements twice, and top-level elementsjust once per measure, markingthe strongfirst downbeat. The strengthof a grid position is determinedby the numberof periodicitiesthat coincide there. In the musical examples, the frequencygoes down by half for each transitionto

a higher level; this reflects a binary subdivisionof measure and beat. Nothing in the

idea of the griddemandsstrictbinarity,of course, andotherratiosof musicalsubdivision may well exist: an empiricalquestion. In its linguisticincarnation,thegridis responsiveto the relativestrengthof syllables, words, phrases, etc., as they are disposed by the rules and freedoms of the language.

Consequently, it will not typically assume the immaculatelyalternating,evenly sub- dividedform that is felt behind, for example, 2/4 time.

(4)

 

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Jim saw her in the park.

The linguistic grid, however, does aspire to the state of music, and this rhythmicity

provides a fundamentalmotivation for the construct. When infelicities in grid form appearin the normalcourse of linguisticconcatenation,it is often the case that various steps are taken to remedythem. A clear exampleis the RhythmRule of English,which readjustscertainotherwise expected patternsof prominencewhen they would result in

a nonalternatingor "clashing" grid.

(5) a.

x

b.

x

 

x

x

x

x

fourteen

women

c.

x

 

x

x

 

x

x

x

x

fourteen + women #Afourteenwomen

d.

x

 

x

x

x

x

x

x

= fourteen women

The gridof (5c), obtainedby merelyjuxtaposingthe words and supplyingthe finalword with unmarkedphrase stress, containsa clash, a too-greatproximityof elements at the same level. In this case Englishallows a readjustment,representedin (5d). The explicit hierarchizationof prominencein the gridallows a directaccountof the

22

ALAN

S.

PRINCE

notion "stress clash" in terms of level structureand proximityof grid elements. More generally, the notion of eurhythmicity(or preferredgridconfiguration)will be found to play a centralrole in determiningpatternsof prominencein both phrases and words.

1.3. Projecting Grids from Metrical Trees

In Libermanand Prince (1977)two methods of interpretingprominencefrom slw trees are discussed, but only one is recommended.Since the trees contain (in one form or another)all the informationthat is generatedby the Stress SubordinationConvention of Chomsky and Halle (1968;hereafter, SPE), it is possible to extract it and derive a prominencepatternthat exactly recapitulatesthe SPE n-stress numbering.To do this requiresa tree-measuringcalculationof the following sort:

(6)

SPE Numbering

For any terminalnode a, determinethe first w that dominatesa. Count the numberof nodes that dominatethis w. Add 1. This is the SPE stress number of a.

Suppose terminal node a is the main-stressof

Adding 1 to this 0 gives 1: a is the 1-stress. To see why the techniqueworks for the other stresses, observe that each node that dominatesthe-first-w-above-acorresponds to an SPE cycle on which a is not the primarystress: that is, a cycle on which a is demotedaccordingto the Stress SubordinationConvention.Addingup these demotions correctly will give the SPE ranking. Rule (6) is more elegantlyformalizedin Carlson(1978)and in Halle and Vergnaud (1978). These authors assign a stress numberto every node in the tree, not just the terminals. Elegance aside, rule (6) makes clear the ratheramazingpower of a cycling Stress SubordinationConventionto calculatesubtlearithmeticdetails of tree structure. Is there another linguistic rule that distinguishesdegree 4 depth of embeddingfrom degree 5? There is nothinginherentin the relationalslw tree thatwould lead to the particular rankorderingof terminalsentailedby rule (6). To impose SPE Numberingon metrical theory involves an auxiliaryhypothesis of considerablecomplexity and indeed-from the metricalpoint of view-arbitrariness. The relationalrepresentationsays simplythat at a given level one subconstituentis strongerthan the other. How then arewe to interpretthe dictum"s is strongerthanw"? Givenany metrical (sub-)tree, we can find its strongest terminalelement-its head-by the following ar- gument. We start at the root and examine its two daughters:surely the s-sister must dominatea terminalthatis stronger(in termsof the grid)thananythingin w (whatwould s meanif this were not true?).Therefore,we must directour attentionto the s-daughter of the root. If it dominatesa terminal,we are done: it is the head. If not, we can simply repeatthe argument:for surelythis s's own s-daughtermustcontainsomethingstronger than anythingin its w-daughter.If that s-daughteris terminal,we are done. If not, we continue, repeatingthe argumentuntil there are no more daughtersto decide between.

the phrase. Then no ws dominate it.

RELATING

TO THE

GRID

23

In this fashion, we can pursuean unbrokenchainof ss downfromthe root of any subtree to arriveunambiguouslyat its head. This argumentis canonizedas the Relative Prominence Projection Rule (Liberman (1975), Libermanand Prince (1977, 316)).

Relative Prominence Projection Rule

For any pair of sisters {s,w}, s must containa node that holds a gridposition

strongerthan any held by terminalsof w.

Equivalently(and more directly), we can say:

For any pairof sisters{s,w},H(s) > H(w),whereH(N) = the strongestelement

in N, the head of N.

To see how the RPPRworks out for some typicalexamples, considerthe tree-grid associations of (8) and (9).

(7)

(8)

R

(9)

R

I

s

w

s

 

A

l\

A

A

 

w

w

w

s

a

b

c

 

~~I~I

 

x

 

a

b

c

d

x

x

 

x

x

x

x

x

 

x

x

x

x

In (8), the element d is the head of R. Appropriately,it holds the strongestposition. Going up the ladder of ss, we see that the RPPRis met at every level; therefore, (8) representsa satisfactorymatch. In (9), c is H(R), headof the whole tree, so by the RPPRwe have c > a,b,d. Because ab is a constituent, a furtherrelation is induced: a > b. The grid of (9) conforms to these restrictions, so it is licensed by the RPPR. Considernow the grids of (10) as candidatesfor matchingup to the tree of (8).

(10) a.

x

xxxx

x

x

b.

x

xx

xxxx

x

x

x

c.

x

xxxx

x

x

d.

x

xx

xxx

xxxx

abcd

All of these grids respect the constraintd > a,b,c, which is the only informationthat the RPPRobtains from tree (8). This pluralityof interpretationsmakes it clear that the RPPRestablishesonly a partialorderingamongterminals.In particular,the RPPRnever relates terminalsthat are immediatelydominatedby w (and, conversely, always relates terminalsimmediatelydominatedby s).

abcd

abcd

abcd

24

ALAN

S.

PRINCE

Of course, not every possibility admittedby the RPPRis commonly realized-or

even realized at all-in

the actualpronunciationof forms like (8). But this need not be

a disastrous consequence. In Libermanand Prince (1977, 323) it is suggested that a "flattened out" structurelike that of grid (8) correspondsmore closely to speakers' actual perceptionsthan the highly articulatedresult of SPE Numbering. Grid(8) is distinguishedby being minimalin the obvious way: it has less structure than any other interpretationof the tree [w w w s]. The RPPR can be supplemented with a naturalprincipleof minimalityto pick out (8) as fundamental.Divergencesfrom the "flattest" interpretationwill arisefromsubtlevariationsof emphasisconsistentwith overall slw structure (Pierrehumbert(1980, 37)), as well as from the pressures of eurhythmicityand phrasaldemarcation.For example, in a [w w w s] tree like (8), the first w is often felt to be more strongly stressed than the others. This fact might be recorded as a supplementaryprinciple of prosodic realization, based on constituent structureand linearorder, distinctfromthe primaryinterpretationof the stress pattern. It is not necessary to retreat to SPE Numbering, which arguablyexceeds intuitive judgmentsof relativestress in its overspecification.A different,andperhapsfirmer,line of evidence in favor of the RPPRis foundin Pierrehumbert(1980).For accurateacoustic predictions,her theory of intonationpatternsrequiresthe kindof stress values allowed by the RPPR, and it goes distinctly astrayif SPE Numberingis adheredto. Finally, it may be worth noting that the RPPRis the weakest theory of tree inter- pretationconsistent with the intuitivesense of "s" and "w". Wereit any weaker, some slw relationswould go unenforced.The theory could be enrichedin a numberof ways (for example, as in SPE Numbering)by taking various aspects of tree geometry (and arithmetic)into account. Any enrichmentwould necessarilypreserve the orderings-of- prominencerequiredby the RPPR;it could only add moreprominencerelationsto this basic set, neithercontradictingnor diminishingRPPRconstraints.For these conceptual reasons alone, the RPPRhas a strongclaim on our attention.

2. Direct Relatability

2.1. The End Rule

Let us assume, then, that the RPPRgives the basis for an accurateaccount of syllabic stress patterns. With this in mind, let us reconsiderthe descriptiveproblemposed by phenomenathat fall underthe Nuclear Stress Rule of SPE. Considerthe treatmentof

a right-branchingtree:

(11)

R

a

b

c

d

 

x

x

x

x

x

RELATING

TO THE

GRID

25

The goal is to achieve the association presented in (11). In standardmetricaltheory, this would be attainedby labelingthe tree accordingto the rule "All sisters standin the relation[w s]" and then interpretingthe resultantwls tree in the lightof the RPPR.Grid (11) is the minimalgridconsistent with a [w s] labelingof tree (11). Because the gridcarriesover so little of the informationin the tree, thereis another, more direct route to the match-up. Instead of assigning a metricalpotency to every node, we can dealjust with terminalsaccordingto a rule like this: "In any constituent C, the rightmostterminalis strongest." In tree (11), the constituents are [cd], [bcd], [abcd]. Clearly, strengtheningd alone, as in grid (11), will satisfy the rule. A moment'sthoughtwill bringthe convictionthatthe statedrulewill in fact capture the effect of [w s] labelingon any tree whatever, no matterhow complicatedor erratic its branchingpatternmay be. Inspectionof (12) may be useful.

(12)

 

x

 

x

x

 

x

x

x

 

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

xx

x

x

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

 

R

Formalproof of the equivalence between uniform[w s] labelingunder the RPPR and "Rightmost terminal is strongest in every constituent" can be accomplished by an inductionon the numberof nodes in a tree, using the RPPRdefinitionof "s is stronger than w", namely, H(s) > H(w). Notice that underthis definition,for any constituentC labeled [w s] throughout,H(C) must be the rightmostterminalof C. It should be equally clear that uniform [s w] labeling is equivalent to the grid alignmentcondition"Leftmostterminalis strongestin every constituent".Now because uniformlabelingplays such a central role in prosodic description,a tantalizingspecu- lationpresents itself: perhapsthe theoryof stress patternsoughtto involve only a direct relationbetween surface structuresand grids, withoutthe interventionof tree-labeling andtree-interpretingoperations.Perhaps,indeed,the essentialburdenof assigningstress to a constituent structurecan be borne entirelyby the End Rule (13).

(13)

End Rule

In a constituent C, the leftmost/rightmostterminalin C is associated to a

26

ALAN

S.

PRINCE

2.2. ObjectionsCountered

We have seen thatlabelingof nonterminalsis not necessaryto achieve a straightforward well-formednessconditionrelatingsurfacestructureto grid,atleastinthe case of uniform labeling-[w s] or [s w] throughout.Are slw trees then superannuated?To answer, we

must inquire into the uses researchers of the last few

obtainingresults that appearto depend stronglyon the characterof tree form. Specif- ically, three majorcategoriesof formaloperationscan be identifiedthat would seem to raise serious problemsfor a grid-onlytheory.

(I) Last Foot, Last Wordtype of rule. The rule [w s] appliedat a certainlevel will

that the richness of tree structurehas been put to. The years have dealt with numerousand diverse phenomena,

promote the final metricalunit at the next lower level: at word level, it makes the last

foot strongest; applied phrasally, it makes the last word strongest;etc. In general, of course, this will not makethe last syllable strongest:considerexampleslike [Ala][bama] or I saw Mary. Yet syllables are the ultimateterminals.Here tree theory makes crucial use of the hierarchyof prosodic units. How is the End Rule to apply?

(II) The Lexical CategoryProminenceRule (LCPR). "Rightnode (left node) is

strong iff it branches" appeals cruciallyto

representedeither in the terminalstringof syllables or in the metricalgrid. No simple

statementlike the End Rule is availableto translatethe possibly very complex effects of the LCPRinto a ruleof gridmatching.Yet the LCPR,in left-handedandright-handed form, has been invoked in a very large numberof respectableanalyses.

aspects of tree form that are not obviously

(III) Operationson s and w. The RhythmRule, which switches slw sisters, is

found, with some variationof detail, in manylanguages.Both its context of application and the change it performshave been plausiblyarguedto depend on characteristicsof tree form. Furthermore,the RhythmRule appliesat all levels of the metricalhierarchy, thus giving evidence for those levels and for the proprietyof treatingthem as formally

similar.

Let us examine the problemsin turn.

(I) Last Foot, Last Word. Phenomenaof this sort clearly establishthe need for

hierarchyin stress representations.The grid itself is a hierarchyof levels, and this is

sufficient. Considerthe last foot case.

(14)

2.

x

x

x

1.

x

x

xx

x xxx

polyphiloprogenitive The grid of (14) representsthe patternof stressed and unstressed syllables. To project the location of main word-stress,we apply the End Rule, right-handversion; however, we apply it not to the final syllable, but instead to the endmost entry at level 2.

(15)

3.

2.

1.

x

x

x

x

xx

(

x

x xxx

polyphiloprogenitive

RELATING

TO THE

GRID

27

The entry over -gen- at level 2 is (level-)adjacentto the end of the word constituent, because no other level 2 entry intervenes between it and word-end. Since it stands at the end, it is accessible to promotionby rule. Froma gridperspective,then, the EndRulemustbe formulatedto express a relation between the strongestposition and the entries at a certainlevel n, withina given con- stituent. The following states the End Rule as a well-formednesscondition:

(16)

End Rule

Let p be the strongest grid position in a constituent C. There is a level

(n

+ 1) such that (i) p is the only position in C with representationat level

(n

+ 1), and (ii) other positions in C have representationat level n. The End

Rule says: The entry for p at level n is the rightmost/leftmostentry at level n for C.

If we thinkin processualtermsof buildinga gridfromthe bottomup, then the End Rule will applyto the highestlevel thus far constructed.If the leftmost/rightmostentryat the highest level within C is not alreadystrongest,the End Rule licenses the builderto add an overtoppingentryabove it, creatinga new level andpromotingthe rightmost/leftmost entryto greateststrength.Conceivedthis way, the EndRule (right-handversion)would apply to (14) to produce (15). Conceived as a well-formednesscondition, the End Rule legitimates the relation in (15) between entries at level 2 (= "n" of (16)) and level 3

(=

"n

+

1').

The End Rule, operatingon the hierarchyof levels explicitlyrecognizedin the grid, is clearly equal to the task of finding the last or first "foot", which was previously

assigned to the labelingof constituentsin the metricaltree. What becomes of the "prosodic categories"-syllable,

plausibleto suggest that these (or somethinglike them) shouldbe used to name levels

in the grid. Fully labeled, example (15) would look like this:

foot, word, phrase? It is

(17)

Wd:

x

1:

x

x

x

aT:

x

x

xx

x

xx

x

polyphiloprogenitive If, as seems likely, thereis a furtherdifferentiationat level X, due to rhythmicprinciples, then prosodic categories shouldlabel contiguousbands, not just single levels.

(18)

Wd:

x

 

Efx

x

x

x

x

 

a:

x

x

xx

x xxx

polyphiloprogenitive

The End Rule now mustfunctionto relateprosodiclevels. We mightconsiderrestricting it to this functionas in (19):

28

ALAN

S.

PRINCE

(19) End Rule In a constituentC, the leftmost/rightmostentry at level x correspondsto an entry at level 1, where a is the next level up fromotin the prosodichierarchy and a is the prosodic category that syntactic categoryC is relatedto.

If C is a word, then 3will be Wd; if C is a phrase, C

be thatthe End Rulecan applywithina prosodiclevel to differentiateamongthe stresses there, as in example (18). Something like the formulation(16) ought perhaps to be retained. Finally, it should be noted that most of these level labels are not really primitives

of grid theory, but are projectedfrom syntactic (or phonosyntactic)structure.We are given independentdefinitionsof syllable (or mora), word, phrase;these determinethe

grid strata. Only E belongs entirely to prosody, though it mightbe thoughtof as grid structurebetween syllable and Wd.

will be Phr;etc. However, it may

(II) LCPR.

The recent evolution of metricaltheory has renderedthe LCPRvir-

tually superfluous.Considera structurelike (20).

(20)

w

\

S w

R

/

s

A w

S W

s

Sw A

IWd

Wd

Labelingof the entire tree can be accomplishedby the LCPR. With the advent of the "foot-level"/"word-level" distinction, however, it became clear that labeling rules should hold inside a level, not across levels governingthe whole tree. Thus, tree (20) would be described as havingfeet [s w], but word-level [w s]. One motivationfor this change of perspective is the observation that the LCPR never applies within a foot crucially-that is, in a way distinctfrom [w s] or [s w]. For example, if the feet of (20) were of the form [a [b c]], the LCPR would predict [w [s w]]. But no feet of this form have ever been discovered. With the elegant LCPR account of whole trees like (20) abandoned,we must search inside levels above "foot" for evidence of its operation. There is, however, anotherdevice ready to challengethe LCPRand take over its responsibilities: extrametricality. Bruce Hayes has ably championed the cause of extrametricalityand convincinglydemonstratedits descriptiveand indeed explanatory value. Hayes's idea is (roughly)thata phonologicalconstituent-most clearly, segment, syllable, or morpheme-can be declaredextrametricalif it occursat the edge (beginning, end) of a domain;an extrametricalelementwill be ignoredin the accountingprocedures that stress rules dependupon. If in a languageit happensthatword-finalconsonantsare extrametrical,a final syllable CVC, ordinarilyheavy, will count as equivalentto CV, and therefore light. If final syllables are extrametrical,and words are to be organized into binary [s w] feet, movingfromthe end in, then in a long enoughword the last foot will be ternary,essentially [s w w], because the finalsyllableis not countedin reckoning

RELATING

TO THE

GRID

29

the extent of the word-finalfoot. (Extrametricalsyllables end up adjoined in weak position.) Let us advance one step beyond Hayes's view of the role of extrametricalitywith the observation that the significanteffect of the LCPR is also to be found at the edge of a domain. Considera structurelike (21a), typical of those posited by tree theorists to govern the placement of word-stress. Labeled [w s], it appearsas (21b);labeled by the LCPR, as (21c).

(21) a.

C.

u v

w w

u

v

y

S~~~ z

sw

y

z

b.

 

5

 

w

w

w

5

u

v

y

z

d.

 

w

w

5

u

v

y

(z)

The difference between (21b) and (21c) lies in the treatmentof the final element z: in (21b)it is strong;in (21c)weak, makingy strong.Clearlythe sameeffect canbe achieved by rulingz extrametrical,as in (d). Moreover, the notion of extrametricalityin no way depends on tree structurefor its utility:applicationof the End Rule to the constituents in u v y z will produce the same effects as [w s]-labelingunderthe same conditions of extrametricality.

(22)

a.

x [u [v [y z]]]

x

xx

b.

x

x x x x u v

y z

c.

x

x x x (x) z

uvy

There remains an importantconceptual difference between the LCPR and the extrametricalitydescriptions: where extrametricalityis relevant only to the edges of a domain,the LCPRappliesto the entiretree and shouldin principlemakea numberof predictions about the domain-internalpattern of secondary stress. Unfortunately,it appearsthat this difference is doomed to remainin the realmof the conceptual. First of all, the use of trivial,uniformlyleft-orright-branchingtreesin wordstressdescriptions essentially guarantees that no subtle predictions will be forthcoming. Uniformity of branchingtranslatesinto uniformityof labeling,except at the edge, where the otherwise

30

ALAN

S.

PRINCE

always-branchingright(left) node touches down and ceases to branch,throwingprom- inence back (forward)onto its sister. Furthermore,secondarystresses inside words are stronglysusceptibleto rhythmicreshufflings,and the force of eurhythmicityis likely to overwhelmany contributionthat the LCPRplus branchingstructurecan make, even if there were sufficientstructureto beginwith. Syntacticbranching,takenas the basis for phrasal stress patterns, could conceivably provide the complexities requiredfor an interestingLCPRpatternto emergeamongsecondarystresses, but the fact seems to be that the LCPR never applies at phrase level. Strandedbetween foot and phrase, the LCPR is starved out by the poverties of the word level. If extrametricalityis to subsumethe LCPR, it must be relativizedto grid stratum. In English, for example, a word like execute wouldlook like (23a)up to the I-level; the final syllable is evidently not extrametricalin any absolute sense. Yet it must be extra- metricalat the I-level. so that the End Rule (right-handversion) does not count it.

(23) a.

x

E:

U: xxxx:

x

execute

b.

Wd: x

E:

x

x

x

(x)

x

execute

The more familiarcases are examples, then, of a-extrametricality,as in (24).

(24) a.

x

x

x x

Armorica

b.

x

x

x x(x)

Armorica

In (24b), r-extrametricalityof the final syllable allows the Hayesianpenultimatestress rule to apply successfully. Generalizingmildly from Hayes's practice, I suggest that the appropriatenotation for relativized extrametricalityis parenthesizationat the level where extrametricality has its effect, as in (23b)and (24b). If English compoundstressing trulyfalls underthe LCPRgeneralization,we must say that the last word of each simple binarycompoundis extrametrical:labor (union), strike (committee), [[labor(union)][strike(committee)]],[[labor(union)](strike)].Com- poundsgo by the EndRule (right-handversion),like everythingelse in English,although the effect of extrametricalityis often so greatthatthe resultingstress patternis the same as that of the End Rule (left-handversion).

(25) a.

b.

c.

x

 

x

x

x

x

x

(x)

x

(x)

(x)

x

(x)

x

(x)

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

xx

x

x

labor union

laborunion strike

laborunionstrikeforce

Notice that the compound rule holds true of every level of constituency within the compound.

RELATING

TO

THE

GRID

31

A tree theory with both the LCPR and extrametricalitydiffers in one descriptive

respect from any theory-tree or grid-with extrametricalityalone. Either the LCPR or extrametricalitycan be used to derive penultimatestress. Using both, tree theory can compute antepenultimatestress directlyfrom a word tree: let the final syllable be extrametrical,and let the (right-branching)word tree be labeled by the LCPR. Sche- matically,[a [b [c [d (e)]]]]is equivalentto [a [b [c d]]]via extrametricality;applyingthe LCPR produces [w [w [s w]]], which emerges as [w w s w w] when the final syllable adjoins. It is not clear that this is a desirableresult. First, in a theory like Hayes's, if

d and e are simply unstressed, the same effect can be achieved with extrametricality alone by anchoringan isolated foot [s w] on c d at the "end" of the word (end minus one extrametricalsyllable);in this case, the additionaldescriptiveresource is superflu- ous. Second, if d and e are in themselves (monosyllabic)feet in a languagethathas foot structurethroughoutthe word, the resultis a completelyunheard-offormof main-stress assignment.The LCPRand extrametricalitycannot coexist withoutredundancyand, it appears, empiricalshortfall. Even withintree theory, then, there is scantjustificationfor "branchingness"con- ditions such as are encoded in the LCPR, so long as the descriptivenotions "prosodic level" and "extrametricality"are also part of the theory. Furthermore,since these notions do not depend in any crucialway upon tree structure,they can be easily trans- plantedinto grid theory.

(III) The RhythmRule.

It is a rule of thumbof practicalontology that a thing

exists to the extent that other thingsinteractwith it, makeuse of it. The ubiquityof the

RhythmRulecouldprovideexcellentevidenceformetricaltrees, becauseits formulation appeals to both aspects of the construct:constituency and labeling.The version of the English rule in Kiparsky(1979, 424) shows this admirably:

(26)

w

w

s

s

s

w

w

s

The rule given in Libermanand Prince (1977) has another dimensionto it: while the structuralchange is described in tree terms (basically, [w s] -> [s w]), the structural descriptiondepends on grid configuration.The idea is that a theory of the grid, based on principlesof rhythm, can provide explanationfor the contextualfactors that affect the rule's likelihoodof applying.

First, we need an account of linguistic rhythm in terms of which the appropriatestress configurationsare markedas "clashing",thus producinga pressurefor change. Second, we need a specificationof the circumstancesin which a given languagegrantspermission for such a change to occur. (Libermanand Prince(1977, 311))

The first requirementwas to be met in the grid, the second in tree structure.I would

32

ALAN

S.

PRINCE

like to propose that both can be met equallywell in the gridalone; moreprecisely, that both context and change should essentially be framedin grid terms, structuraleffects being referreddirectly to syntactic constituency. Clashis a departurefromsmoothalternationin the directionof a too-nearadjacency of prominences.Grids(27a)and (27b) show perfect alternation,such as is found in the unmarkedsubdivisionof musical time (recall examples (2) and (3)). Grid(27c) clashes at level 2; grid (27d), at level 3.

(27) a.

b.

x

x

 

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

xx

x

xx

x

xx

x

x

c.

x

3

d.

x ----x

 

3*

 

x---x

2*

x

x

x

2

 

x

x

x

I

x

x

x

x

x

I

In a perfect binaryalternation,entries that are adjacentin level (n) will be separatedby an interveningentry at level (n - 1). If two entries are adjacent,with no intervening entry one level down, they will be said to "clash". Thus, in (27c), the level 2 entries belong to positions that are adjacentat all levels. In (27d), the level 2 entries are ap- propriatelyseparated;at level 3, however, the entries clash, even thoughthey are not stringwise(level 1) adjacent,because the correspondingentries at level 2 are adjacent. The claim is, then, that the RhythmRule operates to remove clashes that arise in the course of linguistic concatenation. Example (28) displays two words with their citation stress patterns. Example (29) shows the result of simply concatenatingthem with nouns, assumingno readjustment(note the clashes). The actualsurfaceforms, with clashes removed by the RhythmRule, are given in (30).

(28) a.

x

b.

x

 

x

x

x

x

x

x

xx

x

x

achromatic

Dundee

 

(29) a.

x

b.

x

 

x----x

 

x----x

 
 

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

xx

x

x

x

x

xx

achromaticlens

Dundeemarmalade

(30) a.

x

b.

x

 

x>_

,x

xI

,x

x

x

-xI,

x

x \xI'

x

x

x

x

xx

x

x

x

x

xx

achromaticlens

Dundeemarmalade

More generally,the propositionthat clashes are disfavoredshouldbe thoughtof as one

RELATING

TO

THE

GRID

33

of the well-formednessconditions (or perhaps, better-formednessconditions)that give content to the notion of "eurhythmicity"andhave influenceon variousaspects of word and sentence phonology. A glance at the clashes of (29) and the resolutions of (30) suggests a simple grid

operationto relate them: we

presentcase, correspondingto the prosodicstratumWd-is movedwithinits level away from a position of clash. Wheredoes it move to? Evidently, to the first position it can legitimatelyoccupy. Move x is a kind of minimalreadjustmentof grid configuration, andas such is a naturalcandidateto considerfor the formalmechanismbehindobserved rhythmicreadjustments. Move x is by no means a mere notationalvariantof the familiartree operationthat inverts the strength relation between sister nodes. The Rhythm Rule is universally constrainedfrommovingthe absolutestress peak of the phraseto whichit applies, even when moving the peak is the only way to improvethe rhythm.The clash of stresses in

a compoundlike antfquedealer cannot be mitigated.(Contrastacntiquechair.)

mightdub it Move x. An entry at a certainlevel-3 in the

(31) a. Wd:

x

x

x--.*

--x

x

x

 

x

x

x

x

x

x

a:

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

antique dealer

-#

*antique dealer

b.

P:

x

x

Wd:

x

--*-x

x

x

E:

x

x

x

x

x

x

c:

x

x

x

x

x

x

antique chair

>

antique chair

This constraintfollows from the intrinsiccharacterof Move x. There is no way to go from one side of the arrowin (31a)to the other by means of Move x; that is, by sliding one grid entry aroundwithin its own level, preservingwell-formednessat all times (in particular,preservingthe requirementthat a column must have entries at every level

up to its peak). Thus, if we should attemptto resolve the clash in (31a)by

level-3 entry rightward,from -tique to an-, we would leave a hole in the column over -tique between levels 2 and 4.

moving the

(32)

x

x

x--x

 

x

x

 

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

-

x

x

x

x

(ill-formed grid)

Clearly,this resultgeneralizesto phrasalpeaksof all kinds.Treetheorydoes not provide an explanationfor the immovabilityof main-stress.Example(31a)has the representation [[w s][s w]]; there is no obvious reason why the initialunit [w s] should not invert to eliminatecontiguity of ss. Previous analysts of RhythmRule phenomenahave had to

34

ALAN

S.

PRINCE

stipulatethis constraintlanguage-by-language,despite its apparentuniversality;indeed, the ease with which it has been possible to bury it in a natural-lookingenvironmental conditionhas often effectively disguisedthe stipulatorycharacterof the usualtreatment. Formalizingthe Rhythm Rule in terms of the level structureof the grid leads to a fundamentalexplanatoryadvance. Move x must also be constrainablein various ways that appearto be somewhat extrinsic to the operationthe rule performs. For example, the directionof movement falls underlanguage-particularcontrol. English,as is well known, permitsonly leftward

shifting; Germanand Swedish are bi-directional.Sports + contest does not

sports contest, but Feld + Madrschalldoes indeed come out as Fedmarschall. Finnish

has a rightwardrule operating in compound nouns, reported in Hayes (1981, 122).

Thus,posti + saasto#pankki gives rise to postisaistopankki 'postal savingsbank'. Ob-

viously, the directionalityof the rule will

as a whole. Finnish, with overwhelminglyinitialstress bothphrasallyandlexically, may not even providethe circumstancesfor leftwardshiftto show itself. And, as IreneHeim has observed to me, Germanforms that would benefit from rightwardshift are quite common because of the strict initial stress rule in compounds, whereas the relevant cases in Englishare quiterare.The fact thatthe ruledoes not affect the occasionalform like sports contest indicatesthat directionalitymust be partof the rule;the background

produce

respond to stress conditions in the language

situation in the language provides at best

a functional motive for various details of

formulation. The action of the rule is often much more local than it is in English: see, for example, the accounts of French in Dell (1980), Hebrew in McCarthy(1979a),Italian in Nespor and Vogel (1979), and Spanishin Solan (1981). This can be interpretedas a restrictionof the ruleto the lower reachesof the prosodichierarchy.A constraintvisible in Englishis that stressless syllables can never gain (or regain)prominenceby rhythmic readjustment:maroon + sweater cannot lead to mairoonsweater. As interestingand as potentially informativeas such constraintsmay be, our at- tention must be focused on the operationMove x itself, for the chief goal of the present excursionis to establishthe plausibilityof a grid-basedaccountof the RhythmRule. To that end, let us examine certainmore complicatedcontexts of application. Four distinct types of prenominalstructuringwill be consideredhere, coveringthe basic rangeof possibilities.

(33) a.

b.

c.

d.

w

SW

Type (a) is the ordinaryright-branchingNP, with right-handNuclear Stress Rule (NSR) stress. Type (b)has a complexphrasemodifyingthehead, yieldingleft-branchingoverall, but with right-handNSR stress throughout.These types will show Move x applying repeatedlyto a structure,sometimesfeedingitself. Type (c) has a right-branchingphrasal modifier,with right-handstress. Type (d) has a compoundas modifier.Types (c) and

RELATING

TO THE

GRID

35

(d) have nonuniformityin branching,in stressing,or in both;they inhibitthe application of Move x in characteristicways. Type(a), ordinaryright-branchingNP. Some cases are listed in (34).

(34) a.

bamboo tables

b.

thirteenbamboo tables

c.

thirteenJapanesebambootables

d.

John's thirteenJapanesebambootables

Move x applies readilyto each end-stressedword, resultingin a derivationlike (35):

(35)

x

x

 

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

 

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

thirteenJapanesebambootables a

thirteenJapanesebambootables

It mightbe thoughtthatsuch examplesdemonstratethe necessity of cyclic or directional

application,which would move the motivatingstress clash along like a density wave:

(36)

x

x

xxxxxx

x

-*xxxxxx

x

xx

xx

-->xxxxxx

x

-*xxxxxx

x

x

x

Regrettably,no such strongconclusioncan be drawn.A closer look at the relevantdata suggests ratherthat our notion of stress clash is not strongenoughto actuallymotivate all instances of Move x. For example, in the phraseJapanese bamboo, rhythmicstress

shift (Jdpanese) is obligatory,yet-as

in example (35)-formal clash is not present.

(37)

x

x

x

x

x

x

N,x."

x

x

x

Japanesebamboo

Notice the interveningentry that stands between the two main word-stresses. Under the theory given, it should alleviate grid pressure;but it does not. Move x applies in a widerrangeof environmentsthanwe predict.Perhaps"clash" oughtto be characterized somewhatmore broadly;or perhapsother conditionson eurhythmicityare havingtheir

effect-for

x itself, let us shirkthese problems. Type(b), left-branchingin the modifier.Here the role of repeatedapplication,with self-feeding, is clear. Considerthe following examples. (Phrase(38a) is due to Robert Johnson;(38b)to J. Pierrehumbert.)

example, a distaste for upbeats. Cleavingto the intentionof exploringMove

(38) a.

thirty-twotwenty blues

b.

Alewife Brook Parkwaysubway station

c.

WoodrowWilson Avenue generalstore

36

ALAN

S.

PRINCE

Each of these has three stresses (before the main-stress)under rhythmiccontrol; the orderingof prominencein thephraseappearsto be: 2nd/4th/3rd/lst.Considerthe analysis of (38a):

(39) a.

b.

x

P:

x

x

 

x

x

x

Wd:

x [[[thirty-two]twenty]blues] (applicationof End Rule to each phrase)

x

x

x

<-ox

xxxx

 

x

x

x

xx

*-?x

x

x

 

x

x

xx

x

xx

 

->

xxxx

 

-*

xxxx

If Move x is restrictedto treatingone x at a time, then derivationmust proceed as in (39b);otherwise, the process could get stuck as in (40).

(40)

x

OXx

xxx

x x x x

->

x

x

xxx

x x x x

*thirty-two twenty blules

In (40) the first (and therefore only) applicationof Move x is to the topmost movable entry. Diagram(39b), in contrast, shows a course of derivationthat can be variously describedas left to right,bottom to top, or cyclic. Left to rightwe can rule out as non- universalizable.In Germancompounds,for example,with right-branchingandleft-hand stress, the rule will appearto move rightto left; this follows withoutfurtherstipulation from either cyclic or bottom-upapplication.

Type (c),

right-branching

modifier.

A characteristic

adjustmentis found in this structure.

(41) a.

one thirteenJay Street

b.

Red Chinese diplomacy

c.

U.S.-Chinese relations

d.

Sino-Japaneseconflict

e.

truly antiquemacassars

f.

well-maintainedgardens

g.

Maine-New York Railroad

h.

Fort Tom Paine GardenCommittee

i.

Hundredand ThirteenthStreet Blues

inhibition of rhythmic re-

These examplesareessentiallyof theform[a [bc]]-d'.Secondarystressappearsnaturally on constituenta, by virtue of the expected rhythmicshift; but within [b c] the pattern

RELATING

TO

THE

GRID

37

of end-stressingis maintained,even in the face of clash. Move x operateslike this:

(42)

p

Wd:

1:

 

x

x

x

 

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

xx

x3)

 

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x x

-

x

x

x

x

one thirteenJay (Street)

There may be some question whether the facts are exactly as claimed. I assume universalagreementabout the shift of "2-stress" to the initialunit; but perhapsthere will be doubt about the stabilityof the "3-stress" in its clashingposition. After all, the distinction between tertiary and quaternarystress is subtle. Nevertheless, it can be broughtout clearly by attentionto certaincontrasts. Considerthe second word in such collocations as these:

(43) a.

sports contest review committee

b.

social insect study group

c.

vanillaextract bottlingcompany

In each case, the word occupying the second or [b c] position-that of thirteen in

examples (41a) and (42)-has a lexical stress patterno o. Stress is

shifted. A clear difference should be felt between this patternand that of (41). A near

minimal contrast holds between "No Propane Blues" and "No Cocaine Blues"; but this

may be marred for many speakers by the increasing currency of the pronunciation

cocaine.

A second instructive comparison can be made with phrases like Jay's thirteen wontons. This type (a) example ends up with a stress pattern exactly like the one presented in the far right-handside of (42). The stress contrast with one thirteenJay (Street) lies entirely in the word thirteen.It seems clear that stress homophonycannot be achieved without significantloss of naturalness. What, then, inhibitsa second applicationof Move x in (42)?A first guess mightbe that strict bottom-to-topgrid processing is required.Since Move x moves only one x perapplication,the topmost(P-level)x on -teenmustbe removedfirstin orderto provide access to the Wd-levelx on it, this beingthe only one thatcan move backto the syllable thir-. But, the argumentgoes, bottom-to-topapplicationforbidsus to descend from P- level to Wd-level; therefore, the end-stress of thirteen is protected in (42). By this reasoning, it is actual P-level applicationthat forestalls Wd-level application.We can test it by constructinga case which presents no P-level clash, but which is identicalto (42) at Wd-level. In such a case, the Wd-levelclash shouldbe accessible to Move x on its way up. To this end, consider such compounds as name cartouche and dandruff shampoo. Since they have main-stresson theirfirst elements-contrast one thirteen, Red Chinese-there will be no clash between secondary and primarywhen they are attachedto a following more stronglystressed item, as in (44).

already, as it were,

38

ALAN

S.

PRINCE

(44) a.

name cartouchedeciphermentcommittee

b.

dandruffshampooresearchgroup

c.

x

x

x

x

X]

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

xxxxx

dandruffshampooresearch(group)

Yet, as indicated in (44c), Move x is clearly inhibited,just as it is in the examples of (41). We mustconcludethata bottom-to-topconstraintgives no insightintothe problem. It is more illuminatingto examine the relationbetween syntactic structureand the

ease of movingx. Stress clash is disclosed only at a certainlevel in the tree:for example,

in [[one thirteen]Jay Street], the constituent[one thirteen]has no clash; it is only at the

NP level that the clash between thirteenandJay becomes visible. Each clash thus has

a natural domain associated with it, the minimal domain that includes the clashing

elements. If we thinkof Move x as occurringon thatnaturaldomain,we observe a kind

of