Prefixation and Stress in Old English1 In memoriam Richard Hogg (1944-2007) Abstract Some questions not usually answered

in the Old English (OE) philological and linguistic canon are: to what extent is the prosodic behavior of OE prefixes attributable to their lexical form vs. the morphosyntactic nature of the bases they attach to, what taxonomy covers the distribution of stressed and unstressed forms best, how do OE prefixes compare to Present Day English (PDE) prefixes, and what do stacked prefixes reveal about the morphology-prosody interface. The paper reexamines these questions, expands considerably the empirical data-base patterns in terms of Optimality Theory (OT). 0. Introduction Over the last two decades Old English (OE) stress assignment has attracted much scholarly attention, e.g., McCully and Hogg (1990), Hogg (1992: 98-99), Lass (1992: 85-86, 1994: 93), Colman (1994), Moon (1996), McCully (1997, 2003), Gsiorowski (1997), Hutton (1998), Russom (1987, 1998), Kim (2001), Getty (2002), Fikkert (2003), Minkova (2006), yet the prosodic behavior of prefixes requires more primary descriptive work and a reconsideration of the theoretical tools for analyzing the data. This contribution surveys and broadens the empirical scope of the discussion and proposes an account which captures the prosodic behavior of OE prefixes without positing lexical idiosyncrasies. The paper opens with observations on the stressability of prefixes in verse, followed by two sections addressing the morphological and prosodic criteria for
1

for their discussion, and offers an account of the observed stress

Special thanks to the editor and to three anonymous and energizingly provocative reviewers of an earlier version of this paper. I am also very grateful to Kie Zuraw, whose UCLA proseminar on the Prosodic Word in the Fall of 2006 enriched greatly my understanding of the problems discussed here. Sherrylyn Branchaw kindly helped me with OT Soft (Hayes et al 2003). Any errors or misinterpretations are my responsibility.

prefixhood. Section 4 offers an OT analysis of the findings. Section 5 extends the analysis to cases showing paradigm uniformity. The question of stacked prefixes is placed within the same theoretical framework in Section 6. The last section summarizes the main points in the paper.

1. The behavior of OE prefixes in verse The reconstruction of prefixal stress can draw on several independent sources: alliteration in verse, the potential of the prefix to appear as a free form, the subsequent phonological and morphological history of the prefix, and general typological considerations. Based on their ability to alliterate, single prefixes in Old English can be uniformly unstressed, uniformly stressed, and variably stressed. in (1):2 (1) Entirely lacking stress in all environments and derivatives are the prefixes

Uniformly unstressed: ge-, be-, for-: gesht vision, gesm unanimous, behlen hidden, forgfenesse forgiveness onne hy in geshe / soes bruca Wit wron gesme / scce to fremmanne under heofenes hador / behlen weore to forgfenesse / gaste minum Glc 759 Riddle 88.26 Bwf 414 P 50.37

These prefixes cannot affect the position of the primary stress nor do they appear as free forms. In the verse they can never fill a lift; they are either extrametrical, or part of the dip, occasionally filling the whole dip.3 In the case of ge-, lack of stress and concomitant phonological reduction correlate with
2

Title abbreviations for the poems in the Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records (ASPR) follow Bessinger and Smith (1978: xiii-xv). Acute accents mark primary stress, and grave accents mark secondary stress. Unless relevant to the discussion, vowel length is not marked. Angled brackets enclose specific orthographic forms.

E.g.: hors gebted Bwf 1399b; oft gehted Bwf 1885a, geeardode Christ I 208a, where ge- is the sole occupant of a non-ictic position.

functional loss in Middle English. The prefix for- is regularly unstressed in verbs and verbal nouns and adjectives synchronically for Old English, though historically in some nouns it may exhibit the properties of the set in (3) below.4 Two prefixes, and- against and ed- again, attract stress uniformly across the entire derivational paradigm. (2) Uniformly stressed: and-, ed-: ndswrian to answer, ndswru answer, dnwe renewed, dnwian to renew Him a ellenrof / ndswrode and swa dnwe / eft gewioran ealde foncan / dnwedan yrre and anrd / ageaf him ndswre Maldon 44 Bwf 340 MB 11 39 Juliana 485

In this group primary stress on the prefixes reduces the stress on the etymological root to a secondary level of prominence. In this group too, the prefixes are inseparable from the etymological root. class: nouns and adjectives, including participial forms, are stressed on the A third group of prefixes shows variable stress based on morphological

Stress on intensive for- (unrelated to the preposition for) is found in some lexicalized forms. Two words with etymological *fra-: frco wicked< *fra + cu and frtwe armor < *fra + *tawe (Campbell 1959: 79) are treated as monomorphemic. Halle and Keyser (1971: 95) consider forwyrd perdition as having doublet forms with stress both on the prefix and on the root, but the evidence for prefixal stress is minimal since forwyrd alliterates on w- in 7 out of the 15 attestations, in another 7 instances the word is verse-final, and therefore prosodically untestable, leaving only Christ 1614: feondum in forwyrd / fa rowia to fiends in destruction / foes throw as a testable doublet. The prefix for- remains unstressed provably in the deverbal noun forgfnesse (Chr 427, Jg2 68, Jg2 91); for- is similarly unstressed in all testable instances in the ASPR with the exception of forheardne very hard in Maldon 156: forlet forheardne / faran eft ongean.

The spelling <for-> is also an orthographic doublet of <fore-> fore-, thus apparent stress in the adjective <forweard> in: Is se fugel fger / forweard hiwe the fowl is fair / forward of hue (Phx 291) is a syncopated form of fore + weard -ward.

prefix, while verbs, usually finite, but sometimes also non-finite, are stressed on the root. The pattern is illustrated in (3): (3) Variably stressed: t-, mis-, of-, ofer-, on-, wi-, ymb-5: tgrpe, seizing, tfstan to fix, mbsttend neighbor, ymbsttan to surround r him glca / tgrpe wear He a his feondas sloh / and him tfste eac t ec mbsttend / gesan ywa Sylf in am solere / ond ymbste utan Bwf 1269 P 77.66 1 Bwf 1827 Phx 204

The nature of the historical record allows only a restricted set of the overall inventory of prefixes to be tested for stress on the basis of alliteration. Among the stressability of prefixes. His findings in Beowulf are tabulated in (4): (4) Patterns of stress in OE prefixation (data from Kendall 1991: 100, 175 ff): Prefixes Unstressed6 a-, t-, be-(bi-), ge-, for-, geond-, of-, on-, ofer-, o-, tAlways f-, anded-, or-, uStressed N, Adj. t-, fu(l)l-, ofer-, on-, ymb(e)Adverbial Particles Unstressed t-, geond-, t-, urh-, wiwierStressed Always N, Adj. t-, on-, ymbstudies of OE verse, Kendall (1991) stands out for devoting special attention to

ymb(e)- ofer-,

Further minimal pairs in the verse are fdle descent : ncune (MB 13.58) vs. ofstnden persisted : stormum, steap (Ruin 11); mish degenerated : trag, genag (rhyming in Rim 58) vs. msddum misdeeds: mihta (P 64.8); ndsware : ferhygd pride (And 319) vs. cynerice: ofercman subdue (Deor 26); ncye grief : ealle Bwf 830 vs. folme : onfng seized; wiscest refusest (Jln 99) vs. wsteall defenses (Jln 401, manuscript reading, supported by two other glossary readings, though Woolf (1966: 39) emends to wersteall).

Further, Kendall (1991: 101) subdivides the unstressable prefixes into vocalic (a-, be-, ge-, to-) and consonantal, saying that the former have less alliterative force an observation which is not explored.

The taxonomy in (4), which also refers to morphological types -- prefixed derivatives to the left of the double vertical line, compounds to the right demonstrates clearly the complexity of the system. The leftmost column is deceptive, because only be-, ge- and for- are attested with nouns and adjectives. The inclusion of the bi- variant of be- in the the first column is problematic, see 3.2. Homophonous prefixes and adverbial particles appear across the subgroups. The table is based on Beowulf; looking beyond that text, one finds instances as in (5), where the behavior of urh- and wi- contradicts the findings in Beowulf:7 (5) (a) (b) rhlnge swa / reo niht and dagas wstall geworht. / Ic s wealles Gen 30 Jln 401

Note also the absence of the prefix un- from the sets in (1)-(4). Its initial vowel frequently alliterates when negative un- is prefixed to nominal, adjectival and adverbial forms, but it can also be unstressed (or have secondary stress) in such forms. Its stress in the few verbal forms found in the corpus is not ascertainable.8

The stress of the adverbial particles in the fourth column can only be tested on verbal derivatives. Always unstressed geond is found in Bwf 1239b, Widsith 50a, Dhl 105a, Gen 2553b; they are all verbal. Two deverbal nouns (geond-leccing moistening and geondleohtend one who gives light over) appear only in prose. The particle urh- is testably unstressed in 7 instances, all verbs, but as an intensifier, meaning thorough, it is initiallystressed, as in (5a). The prefix t- is never provably stressed; in the initially-stressed form tweard toward (e.g. P 70.17 3, Gen 1283, Jg2 134, etc.) weard is affixal and the left-edge stress is unrelated to t-. Suphis (1988: 172, 174) paradigm example thyht hope is unattested in the ASPR.

Compare ndyrne revealed, manifest (Bwf 150b) vs. undrne (Bwf 2000a) (cited in Kendall (1982: 41)), or ungeblged intrepid (Glc B 941), unlt indefatigable (Glc B 1034) vs. ntrymnes infirmity (Glc B 1017), nrot displeased (Glc B 1064). An example of the ambiguous prosody of reversative un- appears in Riddle 23. 15 (Nelle ic unbunden / nigum hyran), where alliteration on ic I cannot be ruled out metrically. On the stressability of unin combination with ge-, be-, for- see Section 6.

2. Prefixes and wordhood In two words, im possible. Affixes, as is widely assumed, have their deep diachronic roots in independent Samuel Goldwyn

words. Within the family of affixes, prefixes are cross-linguistically dis-preferred and they are less likely than suffixes to lose their independent word status.9 By their very nature, therefore, morphological units positioned to the left of the root may be hard to categorize; for the speaker and for the analyst, identifying suffixes is an easier task than identifying prefixes. Not surprisingly, the question of what units in Old English should be categorized as prefixes, can be answered differently depending on the criteria: phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic, or a combination thereof. A representative inventory is found in to the set of bound forms in (6): (6) Inventory of bound forms (Kastovsky 1992: 378-81): a-, -, f-, and-, be-, bi-, ed-, fr-, for-, ge-, mis-, or-, sam-, sin-, un-, wanThere are also the so called particles, adverbial and prepositional elements, attached separably or inseparably to a verbal base.10 The main particles, excluding composite forms, e.g., adun(e), aweg, onweg, are listed in (7): (7) Particles (Kastovsky 1992: 376): fter-, t-, bi-/be-, eft-, for-, fore-, for-, fram-, geond-, in(n)-, nier-, of-, ofer-, on-, t-, urh-, under-, up-, wi-, wier-, ymb(e)Kastovsky (1992: 377-381); the morphological category of prefixes is restricted

For an overview of the typological properties of prefixes see Mithun (2003). The asymmetry between prefixes and suffixes in Dutch is discussed in van Oostendorp (2004). For observations on the typological instability of English prefixation historically from predominantly compounding (Germanic and Old English), to prefixation as the norm (Middle English), and back to compounding in PDE, see Bauer (2003).

10

Some sources make a distinction between stem and base, where stem is restricted to the material to which inflections are added (Plag 2003: 11); here the terms are used interchangeably.

The dichotomy between prefixes and particles on the criterion of word-hood is synchronically transparent, but it does not help in accounting for overlapping patterning with respect to stress and form: both types show prosodic sensitivity /a-, bi-/be-, wier-/wi-). Unlike their homophonous free adverbial elements, forming left-prominent compounds, only some, but not all, separable particles can be unstressed: (8) e he hine eallunga / r underiodde helle underhnige, / heofonas oferstige sidre foldan / geondsended ws wistod stronglice. / Ns seo stund latu urhdrifan hi me mid deorcan nglum (*SSwSw) MB 25. 66 Riddle 66.611 Gen 2553 Glc B 903 Dream 46a12 to the nature of the root, and both types include arguably allomorphic pairs (f-

Henceforth, I will refer to both the bound forms in (6) and to the variably stressed particles in (7) as prefixes, bearing in mind that variable stress on disyllabic particles can be tested only on ofer-, under-, and ymbe-; fter-, fore-, nier-, and wier- are never provably unstressed.13 Recently, a study by Dietz (2004) provides an inventory of fifty OE prefixes, separated into primary (=Common Germanic), and secondary (=languagespecific). Further, the prefixes are characterized as bi-functional, attaching to the etymological source(s) clarifies the chronology of the various forms, the reasons for their obsolescence, their semantic and distributional properties. Dietzs interest is not phonological, but some of his his etymological
11

both nominal and verbal bases, and uniquely nominal or verbal. The focus on

Additional cross alliteration on under and ofer cannot be ruled out; the juxtaposition of the prefixes suggests that the verbs may have been treated as compounds, deliberately contrasting under and ofer.

12

The verse is hypermetrical. Over 90% of a-verses of this type have double alliteration (Bredehoft 2005: 144, n.3) The few cases where fore- is attached to verbal bases are inconclusive (x4, all in the Metrical Psalms of the Paris Psalter (P), a late and metrically inconsistent text, see Fulk 1992: 411414).

13

observations will be helpful in reconstructing the prosodic profiles of the OE prefixes, see 3.2. below. 100, 175 ff, Kastovsky 1992, Dietz 2004), and a fresh check of the stability of Information offered in previous work (Campbell 1959: 30-33, Kendall 1991:

the prefixal elements in the ASPR, allows us to rearrange the patterns as in (9): (9) Stress patterns of OE prefixes Insensitive to base-type Unstressed ge-, be-, forStressed and-, edMorphologically sensitive Verb, Adverb a-, t, geond-, ful-, in-, mis- of-, ofer, on-, or-, o-, urh-, t-, under, wi-, ymb(e)Noun, Adjective , f-/of-, t-, b-, ful-, in(n)-, mis-, ofer-, on-, or-, sam-, urh-, under, -, wi-, ymb(e)-

In this reclassification the major division between the OE prefixes is drawn along morphological lines: some prefixes are insensitive to the type of base they are attached to, but the bulk of the prefixes are morphologically sensitive. Semantic salience is not built into the table; we will return to that in Section 3.5. The set shown in (9) is not exhaustive; its aim is to cover the typical prosodic attestations of the most frequent prefixes in the verse material. The table presents both seemingly unrelated subsets of items and some puzzling overlaps. No single parameter is sufficient to identify what forms are derivatives and what used in categorizing these morphemes as prefixal. 3. Other prefixhood criteria and the properties of OE prefixes The typology of Present-Day English (PDE) prefixes with reference to morphological, orthographic, phonological, and semantic criteria has been studied extensively, see Giegerich (1999: 238-241), Hammond (1993), Wennerstrom (1993: 316-322), Lehrer (1995), Booij (1999), Raffelsiefen forms are compounds, so now we turn to other criteria that a learner might have

(1999), Hurrell (2001: 46-47), Bauer (2003). This section applies these criteria to the OE data summarized in (9). 3.1. Boundedness and separability The very definition of affix for PDE presupposes a bound morpheme; the criterion of morphological independence, on which (6) and (7) rely, however, does not predict the prosodic status of OE prefixes. One area in which the autonomy of the form may be linked to prosodic realization is the separability of a verbal prefix. The assumption that OE separable prefixes received main stress, as is the norm in Modern German or Dutch, contradicts the verse evidence shown in (8). Problematic is also the fact that prepositions homophonous with the prefixes, can be both stressed and unstressed in the verse.14 Dietz (2004: 596-603) allows all free morphemes, except for-, samod-, and ful(l)-, to be either separable or inseparable depending on the stress, but he provides no test cases; in the absence of other phonological argumentation the approach is circular.15 The parallel between Dutch and German and Old English is often invoked, yet the OE situation remains murky. Word-separation in the manuscripts is of no help. The syntactic criteria used to establish separability of the particles in the the inflected infinitive, the separability by modals and auxiliaries, and preposition stranding, do not work well for OE.16 The attestations are extremely patchy, and the data are mostly found in the prose. Clauses like (10) are hard to
14

modern languages: placement with respect to the negative particle and the to of

Compare unstressed wi in Bwf 365: t hie, eoden min, / wi e moton, to: wlitig wuldres boda / wi ingode (Ele 77), or unstressed t in: weorcum wealde./ Nis me wiht t eow (Guthlac 312) to u me t byst / efne rihte (P 138. 22). Further numerous examples can be found in Wende (1915: 186-203.)

15

Dietz (ibid.) also allows morphological opacity for items which occur exclusively in loan translations from Latin, such as fter and for, where in fact the calquing would in itself be evidence that these are perceived as independent morphological entities.

16

Fischer et al. (2000: 182-187) provide a good summary of the problems. On the difficulties of defining particle verbs in German, see Ldeling (2001), who applies various syntactic, semantic, and phonological diagnostics and concludes that German particle verbs do not constitute a uniquely delineable class.

interpret: up could be a prefix, or it could be a particle, and the word-order tests for OE allow both interpretations. (10) Stephanus up astah urh Stephen up-rose his blod gewuldorbeagod glory-crowned CHom 17I, 3

through his blood

After a detailed survey of the evidence for the classification of these morphosyntactic units, Mitchell ends what he calls this desperate discussion on a pessimistic note which turns us back to Dutch and German:

(11) We have reached the boundaries where the kingdoms of the preposition, the adverb, the separable prefix, and the inseparable prefix, meet and melt into one another. We had better be micle mearcstapan18 here, not insisting on any one of the four terms for any particular example or pattern, but recognizing that, as Campbell puts it (OEG, 78), we have in fact a system of separable prefixes like those of Dutch and German in embryo, at any rate. How best to deal with these problems in future dictionaries and glossaries remains a difficulty. (Mitchell 1978: 256, 1985, I: 449) This paper will treat verbal particles unattached to their base as separate words: e.g. for to brenganne to bring forth is phrasal and lies outside the scope of word-internal stress relations. The prosodic realization of such particles will depend on whether they are monosyllabic or not, whether they are flanked by other provably weak syllables or not, and possibly on whether they are syntactically more preposition- or adverb-like.
17

Cited in Fischer et al. (2000: 187), where the verb is printed as upastah up-rose. The separate spelling is from the DOE Corpus on-line (The Dictionary of Old English Corpus in Electronic Form), http://ets.umdl.umich.edu.

18

Bwf 1348a large wanderers of the border-lands refers to Grendel and his mother. Mearcstapa is a hapax compound in OE.

10

3.2. Prefixal allomorphy Another formal feature commonly associated with the classification of the OE prefixes is allomorphy; the assumption is that a systematic correlation between the form of a prefix and its prosody was maintained in OE. The strong 31), Hogg (1992: 48-49), Getty (2002: 84-85), are listed in (12): 19 (12) Allomorphy Strong t- b- -, or- and- inn- wier weak pairs most often mentioned in the literature, e.g., Campbell (1959: 30-

Weak otbeaonino- wi

Attested orthographic forms: tsprnian to go wrong, tbran to bear20 bi-clppan to clip, bi-dlan to deprive bligan to anger, orwran to disgrace21 ndwyrdan to answer, ngin enterprise innldan to introduce, inlendisc native wtian to study, hilde content, adj. wierhabban to resist,22 wierhlinian to lean against

The philological details are complex and point to fuzziness of the allomorphic division. The entire ASPR have one single example that could possibly test the alternation ot-/t-, and it is inconclusive.23 The prefix be- is sometimes seen as

19

Following Dietz (2004: 603), I mark prefixes which have become unproductive by late OE with a single dagger (), and prefixes which had stopped being productive in pre-OE, with a double dagger (). Stress in the third column is marked only on forms testable in the verse.

20

Horgan (1980) presents a collection of interchangeable prefixes in two later copies of King Alfreds Pastoral Care, e.g. geiewede vs. tywde, beforan vs. tforan, where the variants are not related to different meanings.

21

Dietz (2005: 37) found a total of four pairs of prefix formations with or- (+N, Adj.) and a(+V) where the meaning of the base agrees; all other or- derivatives are lexicalized. The /a- pairing is represented by eight pairs (ibid.:14), but there are doublet forms with either or- or -, - or a-, and many analogical formations obscure the picture further.

22 23

Primary stress on wi- is likely in: e he r on waroe / wiingode (And 263). Eldum otewe, / brenc eorwarum (MB 13.60), probably Type A, judging from the frequencies in Hutcheson (1995), but both scansion as Type A and Type D are possible.

11

the unstressed counterpart of the stressed preposition/adverb/adjective b/bi (Bosworth & Toller 1898 [1983]: 69, Campbell 1959: 31). The synchronic dichotomy of synonymous be- (unstressed), bi- (stressed) is questionable, however. Spelling variation between be- and bi- is frequent; compare: ht beston (And 627b) to ht biston (Ele 473b); si behealdan (Phx 90b) to si bihealdan (Phx 114a).24 Positing allomorphy of this type may be etymologically justifiable, but the pairs do not illustrate a living dichotomy in OE. Spelling inconsistencies and analogical spread make the continuity of the distinctions difficult to test. As noted already in Suphi (1988: 179), many of the so-called strong prefixes in the Campbell canon appear unstressed in verbal forms; inversely, deverbal nouns preserve the weak form of the originally verbal prefix. The strong forms have stopped being productive and their functions are taken over by the corresponding weak forms. Note the daggers in the left-hand column of (12), where except for inn-, which would degeminate intervocalically anyway, as noted in Hogg (1992: 49), and wier and wi, both of them separable and both of them bifunctional, the synchronic evidence for a strong-weak allomorphy is lost in Middle English (Kastovsky 1992, 1996, 2002, Lutz 1997). The division into two sets of lexical entries which an OE speaker could learn was therefore not available; the form of a given prefix alone did not and could not determine its stressability. The variability of prosodic form must verbal or nominal. therefore be associated to the type of base that a particular word is derived from lacking. It is not surprising, therefore, that prefixal allomorphy was completely

24

Stressed adjectival b beside, the opposite of main (OED) produced some nominal compounds. Word-initial stress is attested for bigenga worshipper at P 104.36 and P 119.12. Other nouns for which word-initial stress is likely are bispell proverb (single example in MB 23.9, ambiguous), and with no attestations in ASPR: bileofa food, bicwide proverb, bigyrdel bygirdle (initially-stressed in Langland), biword by-word (initially-stressed in Chaucer). The productivity of this combining form increased after the 15th century. Such compounds are outside the material analyzed in this paper.

12

3.3. Attachment to bound roots The third criterion, namely whether OE prefixes could attach to bound roots in the manner in which PDE affixes do (indigent, subsequent, paternal, gruesome),25 is one that has not been asked in the literature on OE prefixation. The situation in OE is summarized in (13): (13) Attachment to bound roots (a) Prefix + free root: #swica deceiver, mis#dd misdeed, urh#drifan to pierce, un#lif dead (b) Prefix + bound roots: ndettan ~ ondettan to confess (*ettan confess)26, ndcwiss answer (*cwiss); ndgiet understanding (*giet); ndswaru answer(*swaru); ndsaca adversary (*saca) If some prefixes have the special property of attaching to synchronically unattested bases, the theoretical issue of stratification arises. In the literature on PDE affixation, only type/level/class I suffixes (the ity, -ic, in- type) can be attached to bound roots. The availability OE data is too restricted for firm conclusions, but an extensive search of forms suggests a very limited correlation between forms with bound roots and prefixation: all examples in (13b) involve and- < *anda against, without, alternating with on(d)-, an(d)- in the spelling. The morphological boundaries between this prefix and a nominal base were probably already obscured in pre-OE.27 The productivity of and- dried up during OE; it was often reduced to an-, on- and its derivatives were lexicalized, as in an(d)swaru, or reinterpreted as an unstressed verbal an- ~ on- ~ un-, the latter
25 26

See Burzio (1994: 334-338), Giegerich (1999: 13), McMahon (2000: 37). The etymology of this word is obscured in OE, cf. OS and+hetan. Its stress on the prefix rather than on ettan is marginally testable in the verse, e.g. Jln 456, P 66 14,15; P 73.59. The coexistence of geanddettan and andgedettan (neither one attested in the ASPR) also suggests stress on and-, see Section 6 below. The only ME forms are with and-; the form is not attested after c. 1225 (MED). Only two ond- spellings (Jln 456a, an emendation from MS 7 dettan, where ond- requires metrical stress, and SnS 224b, metrically indeterminate) are found in the verse.

27

On the obscuration of swar and its metrical effects see Fulk (1992: 207-208).

13

further reducible to a-, as in along <OE and-lang. The only surviving noun with this prefix in PDE is answer.28 Neither and- nor ed- were productive in Middle English. The interpretation of the data in (13b) is further complicated by the fact

that both and- and ed-, which are stress-attracting, attach also to free bases: ondslyht onslaught, also slyht slaughter, edlean reward, lean reward. Ultimately, we are limited by the finite nature of the historical records: the examples in (13b) may be accidental gaps and even though the roots do not unreliable; we need to pursue alternative characterizations of the data. 3.4. Phonological integrity The preservation or non-preservation of the phonological integrity of the wordinitial morpheme can be another diagnostic for prefixhood. Within lexical juncture (open or close) which a derivational affix triggers corresponds to processes on different levels. A close juncture is commonly associated with a stress-sensitive affix, which triggers resyllabification (me.ter me.tric), while a stress-neutral affix keeps the juncture open (me.ter - me.ter.ing). An open other phonotactic processes which a close juncture will not prevent. The phonological interaction between prefixes and their bases in OE is largely unexplored; the possible tests are listed in (14): (14) Phonological integrity juncture allows geminate consonants: unnatural, cleanness, and it blocks various phonology (Goldsmith 1990: 259-262, Giegerich (1999: 17-21), the type of appear independently, they would be well-formed. The criterion is therefore

28

The OED lists also anleth countenance (OE andwlita), last attested c. 1400 (MED). More relevant are inverse spellings with intrusive <d> found in the MED: <andefeld> anvil (OE anfilt), <andweald> power (OE onweald), <andspringen> (OE onspringan), <andwaiting> awating. The transmission of and- to on(d)- in OE is covered in Lngen (1911: 20-67).

14

(a) Resyllabification: NO, e.g. tywan to appear (*.tywan), onegan to fear (*o.negan), ofltan to give up (*o.fltan), trihte almost (b) Hiatus elimination: NO, e.g. beebbian leave aground by ebbing, dan to lay waste, biagian to crown, toirnan run about. (c) Consonant gemination: YES, e.g. ymbboren surrounded, urhhefig very heavy. (d) Intervocalic voicing: NO, e.g. biencan to bethink, toegnung administration, felle peeled, befeallan to befall, fyrma ablutions, asundrian to separate, beseon to behold, besettan to beset. All of the OE prefixes were syllabic. In principle, if there is no morphological boundary intervening, a single intervocalic consonant is routinely expected to form the onset of the second syllable (na.ma name). Similarly, if two intervocalic consonants produce a well-formed initial cluster, the maximal onset principle may put both consonants in the onset (re.ste rest). Though admittedly inferential, evidence for resyllabification driven by the universal principle of syllable well-formedness is missing in OE. The asterisked forms in (14a) are based on the absence of Stab der Liaison in the OE poetic corpus, a phenomenon which is attested in ME alliterative verse.29 The sequence of two etymological vowels arising from the juxtaposition (*.trihte).

of a vowel-final base and a vowel-initial suffix were resolved in OE by elimination of the hiatus (do+-an > don to do, seo+-a > seo they see, Engle + -isc > Englisc, also ne+is >nis). Except in the special case of negative contractions, however, there is no evidence that root-initial vowels in OE permit <e> in bufan above < be- + ufan, butan outside < be-+ utan, binnan
29

contraction with a vowel to the left, hence the NO in (14b).30 Historical loss of

Stab der Liaison in ME (nedles note : an other; tide : at oer, myn own : neuer) shows misalignment of morphological and phonological boundaries, see Minkova (2003: 167-170). For the absence of contraction and the relation of the prosodic autonomy of the components to the obligatory onset in OE see Minkova (2003: 154-157). On the role of ONSET and the asymmetry between prefixes and suffixes in Dutch see van Oostendorp (2004).

30

15

inside, and in behat ~ beot (also gebeot) vow, threat and its derivatives, must be linked to the absence of semantic content; I return to this in 3.5. below.31 geminate consonants, but within the confines of a single word they could occur only post-vocalically, e.g. libban to live, ridda third, mycellic muchly . That restriction does not apply in compounding, where geminates appear at the juncture of the two roots as in breosttoga chieftain, worulddream earthly joy. Similarly, post-consonantal geminates can be found at the prefix-root junction, and [-rhh-] would serve as positive morphological-boundary signals.32 Finally, intervocalic voicing of fricatives occurred in OE only in the onset of the weak syllable in a trochaic foot, i.e. [v, , z] had to be preceded by a bian to bathe with [--], cosan to choose, hsian to house with [-z-]. Although the voicing was not represented orthographically in OE, the subsequent history of the forms is unambiguous. The process occurred within monomorphemic words and across root-suffix boundaries, but it was blocked in compounds, as in tce [--]toothache, hlfta [-f] loaf-eater, and in stressed vowel, as in wfes wifes, fen eve(ening) with [-v-], cwan to say, as in ymbboren surrounded, urhhefig very heavy, where the clusters [-mbb-] (14c) links the independence of the prefix to gemination: OE tolerated

prefixed words. There are no OE prefixes that are both vowel-final and
provably stressed, but the evidence of surviving forms such as bethink, befall,

31

Booflic < be#hoflic needful (x1) is probably an error, see Campbell (1959: 354); another case of early lexicalization is blinnan cease <be+linnan, an isolated example of bereduced before a consonant. Lexicalization is suggested also by bufan above < be+ufan, compare ME bibufenn above<be-+bufen.

32

The preservation of post-consonantal geminates cannot be tested on many prefixes; it is supported, however, by inverse spellings such as <anddetan> to confess<and- + hatan, alternating with <andetan>. The noun offal < off +fall is a late 14th- century form (OED); the degemination indicates morphological reanalysis the word is treated as a simplex.

Geminates at the juncture of the root+derivational suffix can be simplified, thus e.g. <geleaful> faithful (geleafa belief + ful) occurs nineteen times along with <geleafful>, the more common spelling. This is not surprising in view of the asymmetry between prefixes and suffixes, the latter more likely to lose their autonomous status.

16

beset indicate that even an unstressed prefix creates a sufficiently salient morphological boundary capable of blocking voicing.33 word-division at the end of lines in the OE manuscripts. The OE scribes clearly divisions of ymbryne turning around show <m-br> while in simplex words 143 out of 149 cases have the same sequence as <m-br> (ibid. 352). to the synchronic strength of the morphological boundary separating prefixes and their bases. Barring the occasional historical fusion of be- with the root, prefixes constitute independent morphological and phonological domains; the juncture between prefixes and their bases is kept open. Except for a fairly transparent demotion of the primary root stress in prefixed nouns and adjectives, OE prefixes remain neutral with respect to the phonological shape of of the base. 3.5. Semantic independence The semantic independence of a prefix can be a useful correlate of its phonological and prosodic shape; in PDE semantic transparency and stress go hand-in-hand (Bolinger 1986), thus reprve with semantically opaque and unstressed re- vs. re-prove with stressed re-; lexicalized mistke (n) vs. transparent msstp (n.). Semantic transparency can be related to prosodic focussing (RE-prove not
DIS-prove, IN-ternal

The evidence in (14) is in accord with Wetzels (1981: 42-101) findings of

observed the morphological division of the word. Thus, for example, 2 out of 13

The combined testimony of word-division and the patterns in (14) points

not EX-ternal); prefixal meaning is an important argument

in the debate over the role of the prosodic word in the prosodic hierarchy.34

33

The voicing of the dental fricative in derivatives of OE wi- is not testable in the OE corpus. Voicing in the adverbs within, without, withal in (non-northern) PDE is best explained as a carry-over from prosodically-triggered lenition of the fricative in prepositional with, similar to the voicing in clitic of, is, was after the 15th century. That it is not related to intervocalic voicing is shown by the persistence of the voicing in e.g. withhold, withstand.

34

Semantic analyzability in relation to focusing is discussed in Wennerstrom (1993). Raffelsiefen (1999) critiques Wennerstrom's position and proposes a different type of compositionality for PDE, which is determined by the synchronic parsing of historically prefixed words: two prosodic words are interpreted as semantically compositional (re-prove), while a single

17

Clues provided by pairs such as over- and underdone in PDE are missing in the OE data.35 Testable lexicalizations, e.g. understandan to understandan vs. phrasal standan under stand under (wter stod under water stood under, Bwf 1416b) are rare. On the other hand, pairings of the type urhfaran faran urh, both meaning go through are common. Although the semantic independence of the OE prefixes is difficult to reconstruct, there is a strong consensus that (a) some prefixes are more grammatical than others, and (b), that separable particles have greater semantic salience, they are more adverb-like (Kastovsky 1992: 377). Dictionary definitions of the OE prefixes are notoriously loose; many of the prefixes, especially when attached to verbs, did not have a specific meaning. The verbal prefixes be-, for-, ge-, of-, on- were largely desemanticized; their increasing Hiltunen (1983: 55-91), Wedel (2001). Desemantization of the uniformly unstressed prefixes is further supported by the later history of ge- (ge- -> y- -> ); functional loss is a precondition for its phonological demise, reminiscent of the loss of inflectional endings at the right edge of the stem. Semantic the scale, and separable particles at the other end. (15) Semantic independence < ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Least independent Most independent be-, ge-, for-, of-, on-, t-, and-, ed-, mis-, -ungeond-, ofer-, urh-, wier-, ymbtransparency is best represented as a continuum, with be- and ge- at one end of redundancy and interchangeability in OE is well recorded, see Horgan (1980),

The link between semantic bleaching and prosodic weakness is evident at the left edge of the continuum: instances of be- merging with a vowel-initial root

prosodic word signals a non-decomposable lexical unit (reprove); it is the prosodic realization that serves as a cue to semantic compositionality.
35

The closest parallel I have found is: helle underhnige, / heofonas oferstige hell under-go / heavens over-rise (Riddle 66.6).

18

were already noted in Section 3.4; of- and on- are reduced to a-.36 As is clear from Section 1 above, however, the inverse correlation -- between semantic transparency and prosodic strength -- does not hold. The most frequent item with the stressed prefix and-, ndswarian to answer, was treated as noncompositional, see Fulk (1992: 208). Another parameter related to prosody is the ability of a prefix to determine the syntactic category of the word. In PDE adverbial a-, and verbal be-, de-, en- are category-changing, or head-prefixes. Head-prefixes are generally msdubt (n.), msd. The progressive loss of prefixal productivity and the finite nature of the corpus render the criterion of head- vs. non-head prefixes inapplicable to the OE material. The only surviving OE prefix which is category-changing in PDE is be-, but there is no comparable information for the other prefixes.37 Only two nominal prefixes, of- and un-, survive beyond the end of the 10th century. With the exception of un-, be-, mis- (merging with borrowed mes-), the native verbal prefixation system was abandoned in ME.38 non-stress-bearing, while non-head prefixes can be stressed, thus pside, pward,

36

Hiltunen includes a- in his list of prefixes but points out its instability of form and function (1983: 48). Dietz (2005) also concludes that the productivity and the semantic distinctions among the forerunners of a- were lost in OE; on this see also the OED entry for a-. In what follows the stressed and unstressed forms of this prefix will not be treated separately for the reasons discussed in 3.2.

37

Dietz (2004: 606-607) considers only 36% of the OE prefixes as unrestricted with respect to the syntactic category of the derivative and divides the rest into primarily nominal (36%) or verbal (28%) (against 80% unrestricted prefixation in Old High German). Such decisions are problematic because of overlaps (all of Dietzs verbal prefixes except forhave nominal homophones) and diachronic attrition of prefixation.

38

Hiltunen (1983: 94-102) dates the initial weakening of concrete meanings perhaps well before the appearance of the first texts. He makes a strong case for semantic multiplicity as a trigger of the breakdown of verbal prefixation in OE, see similarly Kastovsky (1992: 377). Lutz (1997) proposes a phonotactic account of the loss of prefixation, but her dismissal of the OE evidence for prefix substitution and the failure to recognize the difference between category-changing be- and the other native prefixes in PDE weaken her case.

19

Summarizing at this point: none of the criteria: wordhood, boundedness and separability, attachment to bound roots, allomorphy, phonological integrity, semantic transparency, or category-changing properties, can account for prefixal stress in OE. Prefixes are not integrated into the prosodic domain of the stem. The uniformly unstressed prefixes ge-, be-, and for- come closest to being (partially) integrated: they are desemanticized, be- is the only category-changing prefix in OE, be- and ge- (along with the reduced verbal a-) are the only light syllables among all prefixes; be- and for- are the only prefixes for which we can reconstruct word-internal phonological effects. We are still left with a set of prefixes which have morphological independence, but do not control their own prosody; they are sensitive to the morphosyntactic nature of the base, verbal or non-verbal. Section 4 turns to the constraints which throw light on the assignment of prefixal stress in Old English.

4. The interplay of prosody and morphology in OE prefixal stress The variability of prefixal stress assignment in OE has attracted much scholarly attention. Halle and Keyser (1971: 90-91) formulated a special Stress Retraction Rule, the need for which arises from their formulation of the general OE stress rule, assigning stress on all stem-initial syllables. Stress retraction is then invoked to place stress on the first syllable of the word, as distinct from the stem, but only if that word is a noun and its stem is monosyllabic.39 Of note here is the bundling together of factors of different nature: the domain of the rule remains morphological, but its operation is also contingent upon the phonological composition of the stem, which has to be stipulated in their framework.

On the marginal productivity of surviving OE prefixes other than un- in PDE, see Plag (1999: 72-75), Bauer (2003).
39

Thus formulated, the Stress Retraction Rule suggests continuity of the prosodic difference between verbs and nouns in the English lexicon. The existence of non-initial stress in OE has therefore been called upon to provide the landing site for the Romance Stress Rule; some version of stress retraction also presumably enables alternations of the type prsentpresnt in PDE. This issue must be left open here because it involves analysis of the native and borrowed patterns of prefixation in Middle English, a task which is outside the scope of this study.

20

The increased emphasis on phonology in the accounts of OE stress in the last two decades pushed the issues raised by the prosody of prefixed words to the background, while Lexical Phonology accounts have focused on stratification. Whether phonological (McCully and Hogg 1990), morphological (Suphi 1988), or both (Hutton 1998, Kim 2001), the proposed analyses cannot capture the complexity of the OE prefixal prosody. The OT accounts of Moon (1996) and Getty (2002) come closest to integrating the various factors into a single set of constraints, but problems remain. All researchers address previous accounts critically. Informative and comprehensive recent surveys can be found in Kim (2001: 33-37) and Getty (2002). Getty points out the shortcomings of all earlier accounts, but his own account refers to separate prefix classes and he admits that whether a prefix is weak or strong arguably amounts to a lexical idiosyncrasy (2002: 108).40 Before turning to the factors that might be predictive with respect to prefixal prosody, a terminological clarification is in order. Traditional studies of OE prefixation usually refer to prefixes as being attached to roots. However, in some interpretations, e.g. Giegerich (1999), in PDE it is only stems (or bases, see fn. 10) and words, but not roots, that have lexical category specifications. This distinction is central to the account of OE stress too, where prefixes are sensitive to the syntactic category of the unit they are attached to. As pointed out in 3.3, to the extent that this can be determined, synchronically transparent prefixation in OE involves the attachment of prefixes to pre-existing words, so that the difference between word and stem cannot be defined on that criterion. However, the distinction between word and stem is of considerable interest in the context of prefixal stress. I will therefore treat the stem/base as the unit which provides full syntactic category information; by definition that that information is also available at the word level. Since all words have stems and all stems have roots, the prosody of the root on higher levels is handled by upward inheritance (McCarthy and Prince 1995 [1996]: 323-324); once the interface between morphology and prosody is
40

Fikkerts (2003) article does not address OE prefixal stress beyond establishing its variability (320-321) and acknowledging that prefixed words have been left out of previous analyses.

21

established at the root level, morphological strings larger than the root will necessarily contain the roots prosodic structure. shown in (16): The hierarchy of prosodic constituents relevant to the analysis of our data is

(16) The hierarchy of prosodic constituents: Clitic Group | | Foot | Syllable F Prosodic Word CGr PRWD

The smallest prosodic constituent that we need to refer to is the syllable. All OE prefixes are at least monosyllabic, and some of the stressable ones (ofer, under) are disyllabic. Syllables are stressed (strong) or unstressed (weak); further levels of distinction, as between primary and secondary stress, can be determined on higher prosodic levels.41 The Foot in this account is a syllabic trochee (), thus a.dig wealthy, f.nol fennel, n.ma name, .pen open. Foot-formation over roots that are lexical monosyllables involves catalexis (an unrealized weak branch).42 Catalexis is restricted morphologically to the domain of the root; it repairs feet whose The option of catalexis at the prefix-root juncture is not available. This
41

head is left-aligned with a monosyllabic root and no other material to the right.

This account has nothing to add to the well-established principle of demotion of the primary stress on the root to a secondary stress if another primary stress precedes it within the same word.

42

The satisfaction of foot-binarity can be achieved also through some version of pausal representation: a zero syllable (Giegerich 1980, 1985, Suphi 1988, Lass 1992) for English, or the conceptually similar idea of empty structure (Burzio 1994). Catalexis is a term borrowed from metrics, where it means a missing syllable in the last foot of a verse (Hammond 1999).

22

corresponds to the observation that word-final pauses are more salient than word-internal ones. Stressable prefixes in forms such as ms-dd misdeed, mbsttend neighbor, incur stress clash across the prefix-root boundary. Prosodically perfect stressed prefixes are disyllabic (ofer-, under-), and so are left-headed By implication, monosyllabic prefixes will form a defectively-footed Prosodic Word (PRWD), violating the rhythmic constraint of foot-binarity, a violable constraint when the foot-head is an affix, but not when it is a root. This syllablebased account of footing is a variant of the traditional position in the Recall that applying the various criteria for phonological and morphological identity of the prefixes (Section 3) led to the conclusion that except for be- and ge-, the OE prefixes maintain their independence; even bound prefixes, e.g. and-, mis-, un-, show root-like integrity and are stressable when attached to the right type of base; their behavior is consistent with an analysis that assigns them independent PRWD status. central to this account. If stressable prefixes are PRWDs, the most prominent syllable of every word has to be left-aligned with a PRWD. Light lexical monosyllables (*#CV#) had been eliminated from the language in pre-OE times. Therefore, an additional phonological well-formedness factor, corresponding to the Minimal Word condition, appearss to play a role in delimiting the PRWD: it has to be minimally bimoraic.43 The condition is vacuously met by all words in the language, but it may or may not be met by all affixes. Prefixes which do not meet this condition (be-, ge-) cannot be properly projected into PRWDs; in the absence of another prefix to their left they cannot be attached to a F. This is in
43

stacked prefixes (ymbge-dlf a digging-around, unge-tmprung rough weather).

philological literature on OE stress, most recently defended in Minkova (2006).

The alignment between the PRWD and the morphological material is

If we take this down to the F level, we have to say that feet whose heads are left-aligned with a root are syllabic, while feet aligned with affixes are minimally bimoraic. Alternatively, one can consider mora-based binary foot-formation across the board. The cost of this would be the need to explain why only root-initial, but not prefixal, light syllables can be stressed. Recall also that unless the principle of metrical resolution is shown to be invalid, the lack of ambisyllabicity in OE is metrically testable, making a weight-based account of root stress less plausible.

23

line with the constraints on the organization of the Prosodic Hierarchy. While be-, ge- are outside the foot, one possible representation would be to attach them directly to the CGr; they would still be unavailable for stress-relevant parsing, but their association with the host word would be recognized.44 parentheses include syllables unparsed into a PRWD. (17) (a) PRWDS F ymb CGr PRWD W F S W sittend neighbor () be (b) CGr PRWD F S W sittan to surround The prosodic composition of prefixed words in OE is shown in (17);

The structures shown in (17) are left-prominent within the same domain. In an

attempt to explore stress-placement in a non-cyclic model, stress in this proposal refers to the PRWD. Skipping the syllabic and the foot level allows us to capture the behavior of all stressed prefixes irrespective of their syllabic structure, as well as cases of double prefixation as in msgehgd evil thought wgemtnes comparison, nforc noble). It also avoids the problem of stressed, but defectively footed monosyllabic prefixes.45

44

The literature on the Strict Layer Hypothesis (SLH) and its violations is huge; my immediate reference here is Selkirk (2004: 466-469), where one can find an extensive overview and further bibliographical references. For an example of an analysis in which the SLH is violated in PDE prefixation, see Raffelsiefen (1999), where unfooted prefixal syllables (be-, re-) are attached directly to the PrWd and the SLH is dominated by a specially formulated alignment constraint.

45

Many recent accounts assume that OE stress-assignment was weight-sensitive, while others, notably Kim (2001), treat main stress as morphological and secondary stress as phonological. Unlike Kims Lexical Phonology account, this account is constraint-based, main and secondary stress refer to the same constituents, there is no need for prefixal

24

Recall that OE verse exhibits minimal pairs as in (18): (18) (a) man and moror / msdda worn Oft ic nu miscyrre / cue sprce MB 9. 7 MB 2. 8 Bwf 1827 Phx 204

(b) (a) (b)

t ec mbsttend / egesan ywa Sylf in am solere / ond ymbste utan

The alignment constraints for stress assignment are listed in (19); in the violations column parentheses enclose prosodic words: Violated by:

(19) (a)

ALIGN (Word, L; PRWD, L)

mis (dd); ymb (st.tend) be.(h.len) hidden, ge (sm) unanimous, ge (sht) vision

(b)

ALIGN (Stem, L; PRWD, L)

(ms.dd); (mb.sit.tend) (nd.swaru); answer, (d.ni.we) renewed

The alignment in (19a) refers to the entire morphological word, guaranteeing that its left edge is flush with a PRWD. 19 (b) ensures prominence at the left edge of the stem. Additional alignment constraints, specifically delimiting the prefix to the right in accord with the absence of phonotactic interaction between prefixes and their bases observed in Section 3.4, are not included; for simplicity I will assume that in every case examined below the right edge of the prefix coincides with a PRWD boundary to the right. Another filter on the prosody - morphology interface is the minimal-size

requirement for a PRWD, which relates to the requirement that a lexical word in the language should contain at least one heavy syllable. The constraint MINIMALITY enforces moraic foot-binarity on the level of the PRWD.

stratification, and the reference to syllable weight is restricted to prefixes. Minkova (2006) analyses both primary root stress and suffixal secondary stress as weight-insensitive.

25

(20) MINIMALITY: a PRWD should contain a minimum of two moras MINIMALITY would be violated by *(m) (sdd); *() (mbst.tend). Very importantly, MINIMALITY prevents be- and ge- from forming their own prosodic words. We have seen that in nouns and adjectives the prominence relations between adjacent prosodic words mimic the behavior of compounds; the leftmost PRWD is stronger. In verse obligatory alliteration is on the first root of a compound; the second root can alliterate only if the first one does. Historically obscured compounds and words with stressed prefixes also furnish evidence for the constraint LEFTMOST (Kager 1999: 167): (21) LEFTMOST: Align (PRWD, L, CGr, L) The head Prosodic Word is leftmost in the Clitic Group The effect of this peak-aligning filter is to ensure that within any

morphological word or Clitic Group containing two PRWDs, the left one is stronger. LEFTMOST is the constraint that prevents structures such as *(ms)-(dd) misdeed; *(mb)-(st.tend) neighbor. A final constraint singles out the PRWD erected over a morphological root as the head PRWD: (22) ROOTMOST:46 Inherent stress on the root is undominated within the word.

46

The privileged status of Roots is discussed most fully in Alderete (2001: 39-43, 140-143, passim); further references are also available there. R OOTMOST , as defined here, is a variant of Alderetes Root-Controlled Accent (RCA): Inherent accent in the root precludes the realization of accent elsewhere in the word. (2001: 2). Alternatively, the prosodic dominance of the root can be enforced by reference to ROOT FAITH , where Root Faithfulness is posited independently of Affix Faithfulness; it is context-free. (Alderete 2001: 40).

26

ROOTMOST has the important function of guaranteeing that the core morphological unit is maximally prosodically prominent in the word. As we will see, the ranking of ROOTMOST with respect to ALIGN (Word, L; PRWD, L) is different for nominal and verbal bases. shown in tables (23)-(25).47 (23) Stress on prefixes attached to N, A stems (prefix = PRWD):
/ymb+sttendN/ neighbor a. (mb-sit.tend) b. () (mbst.tend) c. ymb-(st.tend) d. (mb)-(st.tend) e. (mb)-(st.tend) *! * ALIGN (STEM, L; P RWD, L) *! *! *! MINIMALITY LEFTMOST ALIGN (WORD, L; P RWD, L) * * ROOTMOST

The interaction of the constraints in (19)-(22) for nouns and adjectives is

Candidate (23a) folds the whole word into a PRWD, violating the inviolable ALIGN (STEM, L; PRWD, L). MINIMALITY blocks (23b). The unparsed prefix in (23c) violates the requirement that a morphological word should be left-aligned with a PRWD, while in candidate (23d) the prominence relations between the two for the winning candidate (mb)-(st.tend).48
47

prosodic words go against LEFTMOST. ROOTMOST is the only allowable violation

An exclamation marks a fatal violation, shaded areas show the irrelevance of constraints to the right of an already fatally violated constraint. Dotted vertical lines separate constraints with unspecified ranking.

48

The prosodic contour (mb)-(st.tend), (ms)-dd) is identical to the stress contour of compounds, e.g. (wd)-(cu) widely known, (gd)-(dd) benefit; this corresponds to the frequent interpretation of stressable prefixes as lexical roots, and the prefixed word as a whole as a compound, e.g. Russom (1998: 13), Getty (2002: 106-107). In OT this undesirable conflation of two distinct morphological types can be avoided by registering their more subtle prosodic difference with respect to the satisfaction of FOOT BINARITY, the rhythmic requirement of branching feet on roots, but not on prefixes, and a correspondence constraint which penalizes epenthetic prosodic structure (catalexis). The distinction will not be available for disyllabic prefixes (ofer, under); it is possible that such prefixes were always stressed and the rare attestations in verse as in (3) and (8) above can be interpreted as

27

The set of constraints in (23) covers also the behavior of prefixes which are sub-minimal and cannot form a PRWD: (24) Stress on prefixes which cannot form a PRWD:
/be+hlenA/ hidden a. (b.ho.len) b. (b)-(h.len) c. (b)-(h.len) d. be-(h.len) ALIGN (STEM, L; P RWD, L) *! *! *! * * * * MINIMALITY LEFTMOST ROOTMOST ALIGN (WORD, L; P RWD, L)

Again, we have no evidence for the relative ranking of the first four constraints. The winning prosodic structure in (24d) keeps the prefix unincorporated into a prosodic word; the only violation this form incurs is of ALIGN (WORD, L; PRWD, L). Note that the table in (24) will cover all prefixed words in the language whose prefix is sub-minimal, without reference to the type of stem they are attached to. The same ranking, also placing ROOTMOST above ALIGN (WORD, L; PRWD, L), covers verbal and adverbial derived forms in which the prefix can form a PRWD: (25) Stress on prefixes attached to V, Adv. stems (prefix =PRWD):
/ymb+sttanV/ to surround a. (mb-set.tan) b. () (mbst.tan) c. (mb)-(st.tan) d. (mb)-(st.tan) e. ymb-(st.tan) ALIGN (STEM, L; P RWD, L) *! *! *! *! * * * MINIMALITY LEFTMOST ROOTMOST ALIGN (WORD, L; P RWD, L)

The same constraints and the same ranking will be valid for tdg today,

tgd(e)re together, tfran before, winnan within. Crucially, for verbal

metrically driven suppression of stress, the obverse of the promotion of unstressed syllables in verse as in the rhyme dance and sing : each May morning (Marlowe, The Passionate Shepherd to His Love, 21-22).

28

and adverbial stems, the left-alignment of the word with stress is not necessary as long as the stem is aligned with the primary stress. language conform to the patterns in (23)-(25).49 The tables highlight the constraint violated by the winning candidate as the lowest-ranked constraint; other than that, the limited set of candidates shown does not differentiate among the remaining higher-ranked constraints. The ranking of the constraints relevant to stress on OE prefixes is summarized in (26): (26) (a) Nouns, Adjectives (prefix =PRWD): ALIGN (STEM, L; PRWD, L), MINIMALITY, LEFTMOST, ALIGN (WORD, L; PRWD, L) >> (b) Verbs, Adverbs (prefix =PRWD): ALIGN (STEM, L; PRWD, L), MINIMALITY, LEFTMOST, ROOTMOST >> ALIGN (WORD, L; PRWD, L) (c) All word classes (prefix PRWD) ALIGN (STEM, L; PRWD, L), MINIMALITY, LEFTMOST, ROOTMOST >> ALIGN (WORD, L; PRWD, L) ROOTMOST The majority of synchronically transparent prefixed words in the

In summary: in this model the assignment of prefixal stress starts with an evaluation of the morphological status of the word. The next stage in the mapping is to determine whether nominal prefixes can form a prosodic word or not, as in the schema in (27):

49

The association of a prefix with a PRWD could also be addressed with reference to the prosodic-domination filter of NONRECURSIVITY (NONREC PRWD), which prevents one PRWD from being incorporated additionally into another P RWD, see Selkirk (2004) and references therein. The effect of N ONREC PRWD will depend on the morphosyntactic input. NONREC PRWD is an inviolable constraint for stressable prefixes. This constraint is kept out of the account for simplicity.

29

(27) V, Adv. Morphological Representation N, Adj. Prefix PRWD 5. Prefixes and transderivational correspondence Prefix =PRWD

Prefixal Stress NO YES NO

This section addresses the behavior of some prefixes in (1) and (2) which

contradict the expectations of (26a) and (26b): unstressed for- in forgfenesse forgiveness and stressed nd- in ndswrode answered. Such exceptions to the predicted patterns have been observed in all previous accounts. A shared assumption here is that such derivatives owe their non-canonical realizations to paradigmatic analogy: the prosodic contour of one, presumably the most paradigm. In the case of forgfenesse, the persistence of the stress on the suffixed form can be accounted for with reference to a faithfulness constraint which is added to the pre-existing verbal base. In OT this effect is described and formalized as O(utput)-O(utput) Identity (OOIDENT): (28) OOIDENT: words in a paradigm are phonologically identical50 When the base of additional affixation is a verb, OOIDENT is ranked higher than the constraint ALIGN (WORD, L; PRWD, L) which is inviolable in the input-output alignment of nouns in (23). The output schema presupposes that all other keeps the properties of the verbal output base intact in the derivative; the suffix frequently used, member of a derivational set, is preserved throughout the

50

For a definition and discussion of transderivational identity and the relation of this approach to stratified accounts see Benua (2004 [1997]) and the references therein. Although the two types of uniformity discussed here could both be seen as instances of Level II affixing, the Lexical Phonology model will not be directly applicable to the cases discussed in Section 4.

30

constraints are satisfied; the binary ranking in (29) is sufficient to exclude suffixed forms unfaithful to the base.51 (29) for-g(e)fan for-gfenesse
/for-(g(e)fanV)+(nessN)/ a. (fr)-gi(e)fanV+(nessN) b. for-(g(e)fanV )+(nessN)

OOIDENT
*!

ALIGN (WORD, L; P RWD, L) *

Output-output transderivational faithfulness must be invoked in the second set of unchanging paradigms, represented by ndswru answer - ndswrian to answer, dnwe renewed, dniwan to renew. (30) ndswru -- ndswrian
/(nd)-(swruN)+(ianV)/ a. (nd)-(swruN)+(ianV) b. (nd)-(swruN)+(ianV) OOIDENT *! * ROOTMOST

While ROOTMOST cannot be violated by prefixed verbs when the prefix is attached directly to a verbal base, attaching a verbal suffix to a pre-compiled nominal base does not affect the prosody of the base. Note that the only denominal verbs for which there is evidence for OOIDENT are verbs in ian, a verbal suffix which is provably synchronically productive throughout OE.52 The patterns in (29) and (30) suggest that high token frequency would contribute to the extension of the prosody of one output to forms within the same paradigm. One direction for future research would be to compile data on the comparative density of the morphological entities participating in the

51

This is not the only way in which the preservation of root stress can be handled. ROOT FAITH (Alderete 2001) will eliminate initial stress too, but it will not work for a unified account of transderivational identity that covers both verbal and nominal bases.

52

Although in OE both an and ian can be used to derive weak verbs from nouns, the Class II suffix ian preserves the base better it does not trigger I-Mutation as in bld blood- bldan let blood, full full- fyllan fill; moreover, some of the verbs in ian, including andswarian have no cognates in other Germanic languages, see Quirk & Wrenn (1955: 106).

31

formation of prefixed words, either within the model proposed by Bybee (2001), or in the framework of Hay (2003).53Another interesting question which has to be postponed for another project concerns the diachronic relationship between grammatically-driven outputs and outputs driven by the pre-existence and numerical dominance of pre-compiled units.54 6. Stacked prefixes The final section of this study addresses an area of OE prefixation whose

research history is patchy at best. As in the other Germanic languages, OE prefixes could be stacked. Some examples of stacked prefixes are given in (31): (31) Stacked prefixes in OE: Nouns: geunwendness immutability, geunlybba poison, misgewield error, unforhfedness incontinence, forgeset(e)nyss proposition, ymbgedelf a digging-around, ungetemprung rough weather Adjectives: unbirife useless, unforcu dishonest, unbeweddod unbetrothed, ungemete unfitting, ymbgesett neighboring, ongebroht imposed, unacenned Verbs: geunarian to dishonor, geunretan to sadden, geunlustian to loathe, gean(d)bidian to expect, geedniwian to restore, ungewrian disagree, unbegotten, ungebletsode unblessed

53

Statistics drawn on a finite historical corpus are potentially suspect, but a spot-check of the frequency of the finite forms of forgi(e)fan to forgive vs. forgi(e)fen(n)e(s) in the Old English Word Wheel (http://ets.umdl.umich.edu/o/oec/wordwheel.html), still under development, reassuringly shows a ratio of 2:1 in favor of the verb.

54

Given sufficient pre-OE data on usage, it could be argued, for example, that all OE nominal forms with be- and ge- are transparent derivatives which disallow violations of OOIDENT and follow the pattern of for-gfenesse, making reference to MINIMALITY for these words redundant in the grammatically-driven account. In that case, however, the sub-minimality of ge- and be- would be accidental and unrelated to their grammatical properties. Their inability to combine with each other would also be unaccounted for. Recall also from 3.2 that although the prefix be- can be spelled <bi-> in OE, there is a separate adverbial particle b-, the ancestor of todays by- in compounds such as by-alley, bystander, bypass, byword, bylaw yet another area where MINIMALITY is helpful.

32

ungewlitigian to deform, andgedettan to confess, ofgeniman to take away, ofgeslean to slay.55 Stacked prefixation data are problematic for prosodic accounts which rely entirely on the phonological make-up of the stressed syllable. Halle and Keyser (1971: 94) identify the problem, but end up marking ge- as an exception, while Suphi (1988: 184-185) addresses only un- initial words for which she posits a lengthy derivational procedure involving a special rule defined just for this one prefix.56 Stacking is problematic for the separation of the prefixes into levels because their ability to combine with bound roots is untestable and because some potential Level I prefixes, such as and-, un-, but not ed-, allow ge- on either side, e.g. geandettan and andgedettan confess. The patterns of alliteration, to the extent that such forms are attested in the

poetic records, show that unless the leftmost prefix is ge- or be-, nouns and adjectives have primary stress on the initial syllable, thus msgeweld error (Jln 326), nforc(e)(lice) dishonest(ly) (Mld 51, P 117.4.1, Gen 1715), nbirfe useless (Jln 97, 217), ngerm countless (Drm 8). The constraint interaction for this type of prefixation is the same as in mbsttend neighbor in (23):

55

The verb ofgeslean to slay is identified as a unique example by Hiltunen (1983: 91); this is indicative of the paucity of such forms in OE. Unattested in the ASPR are beun-, misbe-, forbe-, forge-. Stacking of disyllabic prefixes (fterge-, fterbe-, oferge-, oferbe-, underge-, underbe-) is not found in the verse, though these appear to be well-formed and there are some (rare) attestation in the prose, e.g. oferbecuman to supervene, ofergeweorc superstructure, underbeeoddan to subject, undergesett placed under.

56

For a more detailed critique of the pre-OT accounts of stacking in Suphi (1988), Hutton (1998) and Colman (1994), see Getty (2002: 87-89). Gettys own OT account (2002: 128) illustrates only the output selection for an initially-stressed doubly-prefixed adjective: unforcu dishonest; this does not address the question how his set of constraints will handle sequences where the order of the stresses is reversed.

33

(32) Stress on msgeweld error (first prefix = PRWD):

/mis+ge+weldN/ error a. (ms-ge-wield) b. ms-(g)-(weld) c. mis-ge-(weld) d. (ms)-ge-(weld) e. (ms-ge)-(weld) *! * ALIGN (STEM, L; P RWD, L) *! *! *! MINIMALITY LEFTMOST ALIGN (WORD, L; P RWD, L) * ROOTMOST

The winning parse in (32e) places primary stress on the leftmost prefix. The

incorporation of ge- into the PRWD is a post-lexical foot-binarity adjustment, not shown here because it does not affect the core of the account. Moreover, it is common to find spelling variants with or without the weak syllable of the prefixal PRWD, as in <ymbbegang ~ ymbgang> circumference, <ungerotsian ~ unrotsian> to make sad. The important factor in forms with double prefixes second prefix is irrelevant; nforc dishonest has the pattern of msgeweld error.57 The question of whether stress in double-prefixed words in which the first prefix = PRWD is sensitive to the nature of the stem, remains open -- there is no alliterative evidence for verbs such as ungewrian disagree, andgedettan to confess, ofgeniman to take away. We can assume that the rhythmic filter *LAPSE (avoid a string of unstressed syllables) would override the difference between nouns and verbs, resulting in identical realizations for (ms-ge)-(weld) error and (f-ge)-(nman) to take away, but the proposition is not testable.58 derivative. The testable alliterative evidence is confined to adjectival past Left-edge ge- when followed by another prefix, behaves like any other geis the ability of the leftmost prefix to stand alone; if it can, then the shape of the

57

The option of positing two separate PRWDs on the prefixes (n)-(fr)-(c) would be undesirable on account of recursion or stress clash(es). In any case this would be an untestable proposition for the OE poetic corpus.

58

Mld 57: unbefoht(e)ne, / nu ge us feor hider is regularly emended to avoid the problem of unstressed unbe-.

34

participles: gednwad restored (Chr 1039, P103.28.2), gedbrded regenerated (SB2.94).59 The output selection for such forms is shown in (33): (33) Stress on gednwad restored (first prefix PRWD)
/ge+ed+nw+adA/ renewed a. (g-ed-ni.wad) b. (g)-(d)-(n.wad) c. ge-(d)-(n.wad) d. ge-(d)-(n.wad) ALIGN (STEM, L; P RWD, L) *! *! * *! * * * * MINIMALITY LEFTMOST ROOTMOST ALIGN (WORD, L; P RWD, L)

The table in (33) is similar to (24) in that it selects the winning candidate by violating ALIGN (WORD, L; PRWD, L), but in the case of stacked prefixation with a sub-minimal prefix on the left periphery, ROOTMOST is also violable, as in (23). In practice, if the first prefix is incapable of forming an independent Prosodic Word, the prefixed structure to the right has the same prosodic realization as a or be-(bd)-(rden) authority, ge-(yc)-(fyl.dan) make thick. Put differently, the addition of an unstressable prefix on the left edge activates *LAPSE, which combines with LEFTMOST to keep the main stress on the first stressable prefix. Two potential candidates, not shown in (33), would incorporate the initial ge- into the first PRWD: (g-ed)-(n.wad) or (g-ed)-(n.wad). These undesirable parsings can be avoided by restricting monomoraic foot-heads to roots, blocking sub-minimal prefixes from heading a PRWD. Weight-sensitivity of compound: ge-(d)-(n.wad) renewed is like ge-(mr)-(hga) boundary-hedge,

59

The prefix be- never occurs as the first of two prefixes. The line containing geunwendnes change (P 76. 29) is problematic. I have not been able to identify finite verbal forms with stacked prefixes in the ASPR, though the pattern represented by the infinitives of denominal geun- verbs like geunarian to dishonor appear in 11 entries in Bosworth and Toller (1898). I have found one single verb, geungewlitegian to deprive of beauty showing triple prefixation. Note, however, that the verb is clearly denominal, conforming to the pattern of the other 11 ge- initial verbs like geunarian. There are also a handful of verbs which are best analyzed as adverb-verb compounds with a ge- prefixed to the compound: geinlagian to restore to the protection of the law, and geinseglian to seal.

35

stress assignment on single prefixes is part of the schema developed in Section (5); extending it to multiple prefixation is a minor adjustment. prefixation: alliterative evidence for inflected verbs is lacking. Some (marginal) inferences can be made if we assume OUTPUT-OUTPUT faithfulness for the deverbal nominal and adjectival forms in (34): (34) <as> geunwendnes60 / wenan rest ungeblyged62 bad / beorhtra gehata ungebletsade63, / <a> ic bealdlice P 76.29 Mld 57 Glc 941 Jln 492 Returning to the evidence for prefixal stress in inflected verbs with double

unbefoht(e)ne61, / nu ge us feor hider

Such examples are rare; I have not been able to identify other instances beyond the ones cited here. Note that all examples pose metrical problems, and all of them involve the prefix un-. The presence of secondary initial stress in such forms is probable and can be seen as a consequence of the prosodic wellformedness constraint *LAPSE.64 Since the OE scops allow alliteration on on the preceding primary stress, the evidence should be treated as inconclusive.65 secondary stress rarely, and then only in conjunction with identical alliteration

60 61 62 63

Geunwendnes change< onwendan to change. Unbefoht(e)ne unopposed < feohtan to fight. Ungeblyged unastonished, intrepid < a-blican to astonish. Ungebletsade unblessed < bletsian to bless. Vowel alliteration on un- and ic cannot be excluded in this example. Whether the connection with the verbs in these examples is sufficient to question Colmans (1994: 176) undefended statement that sequences of unstressed (verbal) prefixes do not occur [in OE] is unclear. The analysis here does not preclude this option.

64

65

For the 11 denominal verbs in gen- we can assume that un- forms a separate Prosodic Word. The morphological ambiguity of un- is well-known; for a parallel in German, see Giegerich (1985: 179-183). Alternatively, and more plausibly, though not testably in the verse, the un- prefix in these sequences carries secondary stress, as it must in nbefhtene (Mld 57) for the verse to be metrical.

36

Although the basic proposal here does not rely on syllabic FOOTBINARITY for the assignment of stress on prefixes, this constraint would be useful in selecting one of two competing well-formed realizations. An observation which I believe is new to this study is a striking asymmetry in the ordering of stacked prefixes in OE which privileges the placement of the unstressed part of the sequence in second position. Previous discussions of stacked prefixes in OE do not mention the fact that although the order of ge- and other prefixes can be inverted, e.g. geunlustian to loathe but ungewrian disagree, the pattern with ge- in second position is the preferred form: there is a single geun- token in the ASPR (P 76.29), while unge- tokens appear 76 times in the verse, either as bearers of the primary stress, or as forming a subordinate foot. unbe-, forge-, ofge- are attested in the corpus, though not very commonly, but On a smaller scale, but still striking, is the fact that the sequences misge-,

*beun-, *gefor-, etc. are not. The inverse effect, avoidance of ge- after a disyllabic prefix (or particle) can also be attributed to prosodic well-formedness; all of the (very limited) forms on underge-, underbe-, oferge-, oferbe- preserve the adverbial meaning of the first part and are compounds: undergerefa pro-consul (x1), underbeeodde subjugated (x1), ofergesett placed above, ofergewrit suprascribitio. Put in OT terms, this means that FOOTBINARITY is better satisfied by interpolating an unstressed prefix between the left edge of the word and the root, making a stress-alternating form like (nbe)-(fht.ne) unopposed preferable to *ge-(n)-(fht.ne).66 Further, while monosyllabicity of the prefix is not a sufficient condition for lack of stress, FOOTBINARITY may bolster the likelihood that disyllabic prefixes will tend to be stressed. The generalization that all stressed prefixes on verbs share a phonological regularity, which is that

The prefix un- in PDE is supposed to be problematic because it is stress-neutral (Level II) but it has to attach to an adjectival stem. For more on the treatment of this prefix in PDE see e.g. Burzio (1944: 336-9), Raffelsiefen (1999: 136-137). For OE too, this prefix has been the focus of much research, see Kendall (1982, 1991: 191-193), also Minkova (2003: 56).
66

FOOTBIN is not the only way of capturing this asymmetry of attested forms. The combination of *LAPSE and *CLASH will also cover this distribution.

37

they are bisyllabic (McCully and Hogg 1990: 324) is not testable in the database, nor is it the case that disyllabic verbal prefixes have to be stressed, as shown in (8). Nevertheless, the intuition relating the size of the prefix to its stressability seems correct in terms of assigning at least secondary stress on disyllabic prefixes. Finally, an observation which is in accord with the integrated phonologymorphology approach taken here: all attested cases of OE prefix-stacking involve one of the morphologically insensitive prefixes, most frequently ge- and be-, occasionally also for-. The morphologically-sensitive prefixes do not combine with each other, nor do the morphologically insensitive ones stack together; stacked prefixes are always of two contrasting prosodic types. This presents a problem for analyses which are not based on the interplay between phonology and morphology, while the combination of alignment and well-formedness constraints invoked here make this an unsurprising fact. 7. Summary Raffelsiefen (1999: 168) has argued for PDE that There is no need to refer to prefix classes to describe the prosodic structure of English prefixation. The analysis presented here addresses the relation between morphological and prosodic structure of prefixes in terms of alignment constraints, but it also identifies two types of prefixes in terms of their ability to form independent Prosodic Words. Prefixes incapable of forming Prosodic Words are always accord with the grammatical nature of the base. The study proposes a new hierarchy of factors responsible for the variable stressability of prefixal elements in OE. Accounts which do not take the morphosyntactic nature of the base as a determiner of prefixal stress cannot relate the distributional facts outlined in Sections 1-3 to more general linguistic constraints on the phonology-morphology interface. Prefix allomorphy, which has been treated elsewhere in the literature as the driving force behind stressassignment, has been argued to be the result, rather than the trigger of prosodic prominence. The account avoids the problem of positing special rules, lexical layering, or form-specific constraints, all of which aim to exclude some of the 38 unstressed, while prefixes capable of forming a Prosodic Word get stressed in

prefixes from the domain of the normal stress application elsewhere in the lexicon. All previous analyses end up referring to unconventional prosodic behavior; the combination of grammatically-driven stress and stress conforming to the prosody of pre-existing units proposed here, accounts well for the data in the expanded empirical base for OE prefixal stress. The OT account deals with two types of relations: between input forms and their outputs, and between outputs as pre-compiled units and derivatives of these units. These two types cover all empirical observations on the different prosodic behavior of nouns, adjectives and verbs, and the asymmetry of stacked prefixes. However, the interaction between the two types of stress-assignment remains a matter for further study. In this context a thorough reexamination of the behavior of adverbs, notoriously problematic in the accounts of OE meter, is still outstanding. Additionally, the analysis prepares the ground for further frequency on their prosodic shape. Los Angeles, July 22, 2007 inquiry into the distributional properties of OE derived words and the effect of

39

References: Alderete, John 2001. Morphologically governed accent in Optimality Theory. New ASPR - The Anglo-Saxon poetic records, 1931-1953, a collective edition. New York: Columbia University Press, Vols. 1-6. Bauer, Laurie 2003. English prefixation a typological shift? Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50 (1-2): 33-40. Benua, Laura 2004 [1997]. Transderivational identity: phonological relations between words. In McCarthy, John (ed.), 2004, 417-438. Bessinger, Jess B. & Philip H. Smith 1978. A Concordance to the Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Bolinger, Dwight. 1986. Intonation and its parts: melody in spoken English. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Booij, Geert 1999. The role of the prosodic word in phonotactic generalizations. In T. Alan Hall & Ursula Kleinhez (eds.) Studies on the Phonological Word. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 47-72. Bosworth, Joseph & T. Northcote Toller 1898. An Anglo-Saxon dictionary. Based on the manuscript collections of the late Joseph Bosworth. Edited and enlarged by T. Northcote Toller. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reprint 1983. Supplement by T. Northcote Toller with revised and enlarged addenda by Alistair Campbell. First ed. 1921, reprint 1980. Bredehoft, Thomas A. 2005. Early English metre. Toronto Old English Series. Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press. Press. Bybee, Joan 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Campbell, Alistair 1959. Old English grammar. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. Colman, Fran 1994. On the morphology of Old English word stress. Lingua 93: 141-181. Dietz, Klaus 2004. Die altenglischen Prfixbildungen und ihre Charakteristik. Anglia 122: (4): 561-614. Burzio, Luigi 1994. Principles of English stress. Cambridge: Cambridge University York and London: Routledge.

40

Dietz, Klaus 2005. Die altenglischen Nominalprfixe - und o-, das Verbalprfix a- und ihre althochdeutschen Entsprechungen: Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Wortbildung der altgermanischen Sprachen. Sprachwissenschaft 30 (1): 1-47. DOE =The dictionary of Old English corpus in electronic form. Dictionary of Old English project, Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto (http://ets.umdl.umich.edu). Fikkert, Paula 2003. The prosodic structure of prefixed words in the history of West Germanic. In Paula Fikkert & Haike Jacobs (eds.) Development in prosodic systems. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 315-349. Fischer, Olga, Ans van Kemenade, Willem Koopman & Wim van der Wurff Getty, Michael 2002. The Metre of Beowulf. A constraint-based approach. Topics in English Llinguistics 36. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Giegerich, Heinz 1980. On stress-timing in English phonology. Lingua 51: 187221. Giegerich, Heinz 1985. Metrical phonology and phonological structure. German and English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goldsmith, John 1990. Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford: Basil Gsiorowski, Piotr 1997. The phonology of Old English stress and metrical structure. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH. Halle, Morris & Samuel J. Keyser 1971. English stress. Its form, its growth, and its Hammond, Michael 1993. On the absence of category-changing prefixes in English. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 562-567. Hammond, Michael 1999. The phonology of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hay, Jennifer 2003. Causes and consequences of word structure. New York & London: Routledge. role in verse. New York: Harper and Row Publisher Inc. Blackwell. Giegerich, Heinz 1999. Lexical strata in English. Morphological causes, phonological 2000. The Syntax of Early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

41

Hayes, Bruce, Bruce Tesar, & Kie Zuraw. 2003. "OTSoft 2.1," software package, http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/otsoft/ Hiltunen, Risto 1983. The decline of the prefixes and the beginnings of the English Turun Yliopisto. Hogg, Richard 1992. A grammar of Old English. Volume 1. Phonology. Oxford UK & Cambridge USA: Blackwell. Horgan, Dorothy.M. 1980. Patterns of variation and interchangeability in some Old English prefixes. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 81: 127-130. stress doublets. Ph.D. thesis, Edinburgh University. Hutcheson, B. Rand 1995. Old English poetic metre. Cambridge: Boydell &Brewer. Hutton, John 1998. Stress in Old English, giet ongean. Linguistics 35-6: 847- 885. Kager, Ren. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kastovsky, Dieter 1992. Semantics and vocabulary. In Richard Hogg (ed.) The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. I: The beginnings to 1066. Kastovsky, Dieter 1996. Verbal derivation in English: a historical survey or much ado about nothing. In Derek Britton (ed.) English historical linguistics 1994: papers from the 8th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics Edinburgh, 19-23 September 1994. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Kastovsky, Dieter 2002. The derivation of ornative, locative, ablative, privative and reversative verbs in English: a historical sketch. In Fanego, Teresa, Lopez-Couso, Maria Jos & Perez-Guerra, Javier (eds.). English historical Kendall, Calvin 1982. The prefix un- and the metrical grammar of Beowulf. Anglo-Saxon England 10: 39-52. Kendall, Calvin 1991. The metrical grammar of Beowulf. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kim, Yookang 2001. Old English stress: A synchronic analysis with some Morphology 7 (1): 21-61. 42 notes on its diachronic development. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and syntax and morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. 99-109. Co. 93-117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 290-409. Hurrell, Esther. 2001. The morphology and phonology of English noun-verb phrasal verb: the evidence from some Old and early Middle English texts. Turku:

Lass, Roger 1992. Phonology and morphology. In: Norman Blake (ed.) The Cambridge history of the English language, volume II, 1066-1476. Cambridge: Lass, Roger 1994. Old English. A Historical Linguistic Companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lehrer, Adrienne 1995. Prefixes in English word formation. Folia Linguistica XXIX (1-2): 133-149. Ldeling Anke 2001. On particle verbs and similar constructions in German. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Lngen, Werner 1911. Das Praefix on(d)- in der altenglischen Verbalkomposition mit einem Anhang ber das Praefix o-(u-). Inaugural Dissertation, Knigl. Lutz, Angelika 1997. Sound change, word formation and the lexicon: the history of the English prefix verbs. English Studies 78 (3): 258-290. McCarthy, John (ed.) 2004. Optimality theory in phonology. A reader. Oxord: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. McCarthy, John & Alan Prince 1995 [1966]. Prosodic morphology. In Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. McCully, Christopher 1997. Stress, survival and change: Old to Middle English. In Fisiak, J. (ed.) Studies in Middle English linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de McCully, Christopher 2003. Left-hand word-stress in the history of English. In Paula Fikkert & Haike Jacobs (eds.) Development in prosodic systems. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 349-395. McCully, Christopher & Richard Hogg 1990. An account of Old English stress. Journal of Linguistics 26: 315-339. Cambridge University Press. MED = The Electronic Middle English Dictionary, 2001. Regents of the University Minkova, Donka 2003. Alliteration and sound change in early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 43 of Michigan, http://ets.umdl.umich.edu/m/med/. McMahon, April 2000. Lexical phonology and the history of English. Cambridge: Gruyter. 283-300. Goldsmith, John (ed.) A handbook of phonological theory. Reprint 1996. Christian-Albrechts-Universitt zu Kiel. Cambridge University Press. 23-156.

Minkova, Donka 2006. Old and Middle English prosody. In: Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los (eds.) The handbook of the history of English. Oxford: Mitchell, Bruce 1978. Prepositions, adverbs, prepositional adverbs, postpositions, separable prefixes or inseparable prefixes in Old English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 79: 240-257. Mitchell, Bruce 1985. Old English Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mithun, Marianne 2003. Why prefixes? Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50 (1): 155185. Moon, An-nah 1996. Aspects of Old English prosody: An Optimality-Theoretic analysis. Ph.D. thesis, New York University. OED = The Oxford English Dictionary on-line. Oxford University Press 2007. (http://dictionary.oed.com/). 114 (11): 1367-1400. Plag, Ingo 1999. Morphological productivity. Structural constraints in English Plag, Ingo 2003. Word-formation in English. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Quirk, Randolph & Christopher Wrenn 1957 [1955]. An Old English Grammar. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston Inc. Raffelsiefen, Renate 1999. Diagnostics for prosodic words revisited: the case of (eds.) Studies on the phonological word. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 133-201. Russom, Geoffrey 1987. Old English meter and linguistic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. University Press. Selkirk, Elizabeth 2004 [1996]. The prosodic structure of function words. In Suphi, Menekse 1988. Old English stress assignment. Lingua 75: 171-202. McCarthy, John (ed.) (2004). 464-483. Russom, Geoffrey 1998. Beowulf and Old Germanic metre. Cambridge: Cambridge historically prefixed words in English. In Hall, T. Alan & Ursula Kleinhenz derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Oostendorp Marc van 2004. Crossing morpheme boundaries in Dutch. Lingua Balckwell. 95-125.

44

Wedel, Alfred R. 2001. Alliteration and the prefix ge- in Cynewulf's Elene. Journal of English & Germanic Philology 100(2): 200-210. Wende, Fritz 1915. ber die nachgestellten prpositionen im angelschsischen. Berlin: Mayer & Mller. Wennerstrom, Ann 1993. Focus on the prefix: evidence for word-internal prosodic words. Phonology 10: 309-324. Wetzel, Claus-Dieter 1981. Die Worttrennung am Zeilenende in altenglischen Woolf, Rosemary (ed.) 1966. Juliana. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Handschriften. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag.

45