Proceedings of the Xth Conference, Helsinki 2008
Edited By Martti Vainio, Reijo Aulanko and Olli Aaltonen
20. The morphological status of accent 2 in North Germanic simplex forms 205
THE MORPHOLOGICAL STATUS OF ACCENT 2 IN NORTH GERMANIC SIMPLEX FORMS Tomas Riad 1 The meaning of markedness The issue of markedness of tonal accents in North Germanic (most Swedish and Norwegian dialects) has never been settled. For a long time, it looked like there was reasonable agreement that the distinction was privative and that it was accent 2 that was marked, accent 1 representing default intonation (Sweet, 1877:155; Elert, 1964:197; Haugen, 1967; Kristoffersen, 1993; Riad, 1998). Recently – and radically – one dissertation and a series of articles instead argue that it is accent 1 that is marked, while accent 2 is the default in words of the relevant shape (Lahiri et al., 2005, 2006; Wetterlin, 2007). These are opposing views reached by people working within what is by and large the same general paradigm. How does that come to pass? The answer lies, it seems, in what expectations people ascribe to the notion of markedness, in particular whether representation is taken to be tied to markedness or not. 1 For instance, the celebrated dissertation of Gösta Bruce (1977) proposed that the representation of the tonal accents was equipollent, that is, both accents contained a lexical part, manifested as an initial fall (HL). The difference was one of alignment of that fall to the stressed syllable, giving rise to the contrast (HL* vs. H*L). At the same time, Bruce clearly maintains that there is an asymmetry in that accent 2 is marked and accent 1 is unmarked...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.