Lexical Accent in Cupeño, Hittite, and Indo-European
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Lexical Accent in Cupeño, Hittite, and Indo-European A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Indo-European Studies by Anthony David Yates 2017 © Copyright by Anthony David Yates 2017 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Lexical Accent in Cupeño, Hittite, and Indo-European by Anthony David Yates Doctor of Philosophy in Indo-European Studies University of California, Los Angeles, 2017 Professor H. Craig Melchert, Chair This dissertation develops optimality-theoretic analyses of word-level stress assignment in two languages with lexical accent, Cupeño (Takic, Uto-Aztecan) and Hittite (Anatolian, Indo- European); it also assesses the implications of word stress in Hittite and the other Anatolian languages for the reconstruction of stress assignment in Proto-Indo-European. I argue that stress assignment in Cupeño is governed by the BASIC ACCENTUATION PRINCI- PLE (BAP; Kiparsky and Halle 1977): stress is assigned to the leftmost lexically accented mor- pheme, else to the word’s left edge. This analysis is compared to that of Alderete (2001c), who argues that Cupeño shows accentual root faithfulness — i.e., that the accentual properties of roots are privileged over non-root morphemes. I show that the BAP analysis is both simpler and attains greater empirical coverage than the root faithfulness analysis, which fails to account for certain attested stress patterns that are captured under the BAP analysis. Thus reanalyzed, Cupeño has two important typological implications. First, without support from Cupeño, root faithfulness may be unattested as a feature of lexical accent systems. Second, Cupeño provides a clear typological parallel for the ancient IE languages on the basis of which the BAP was posited — in particular, Vedic Sanskrit — as well as for Hittite, where I argue that it is also operative. The analysis of Hittite stress advanced in this dissertation is the first systematic attempt at a synchronic generative treatment of its word stress patterns. Having established that stress assignment in Hittite inflection is governed by the BAP, I also adduce evidence for accentual dominance — i.e., morphemes whose accentual specification “overrides” the BAP. I propose ii that accentual dominance in Hittite is a consequence of morphological headedness: the lexi- cal accent of the word’s head morpheme is privileged in Hittite, just as Revithiadou (1999) has argued for other lexical accent systems. Finally, this dissertation addresses the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European word- prosodic system. Hittite and the other Anatolian languages are not traditionally viewed as im- portant sources for the reconstruction of this system; however, I contend that the BAP is re- constructible for PIE and that — against this traditional view — this reconstruction depends crucially on the Anatolian evidence, which converges with Vedic Sanskrit in this respect. iii The dissertation of Anthony David Yates is approved. Stephanie W. Jamison Brent H. Vine Pamela Munro Bruce P.Hayes H. Craig Melchert, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2017 iv For Sam v TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .............................................. 1 1 Cupeño, Hittite, and Lexical Accent ............................... 4 1.1 Lexical accent & word-prosodic typology . .4 1.1.1 On “stress” and “accent” . .4 1.1.2 “Fixed” vs “free stress” . .7 1.1.2.1 Fixed stress systems . .7 1.1.2.2 Lexical accent systems . 10 1.1.3 Analyzing lexical accent systems . 15 1.1.3.1 LA in Optimality Theory . 16 1.1.3.2 The Basic Accentuation Principle in OT . 19 1.1.3.3 Accentual dominance & morphological headedness in OT . 25 1.2 Cupeño & the Cupan languages . 29 1.2.1 Cupeno,˜ Cupan & Uto-Aztecan . 29 1.2.2 The Cupenos˜ and the Cupeño corpus . 30 1.2.3 Phonological sketch of Cupeño . 31 1.2.4 The evidence for Cupeño word stress . 32 1.3 Hittite & the Anatolian languages . 33 1.3.1 Hittite, Anatolian & Indo-European . 33 1.3.2 The Hittites and the Hittite corpus . 36 1.3.3 Phonological sketch of Hittite . 38 1.3.4 The evidence for Hittite word stress . 40 2 Analyzing Lexical Accent in Cupeño .............................. 41 2.1 Introduction . 41 2.2 Toward an analysis of Cupeño stress . 43 2.2.1 Lexical accent in Cupeño . 43 2.2.2 Stress and vowel length in Cupeño . 52 2.2.3 Implementing the BAP in Cupeño . 54 2.2.4 Stress assignment in Cupeño . 55 2.3 Agreement prefixes & the Basic Accentuation Principle . 60 2.3.1 Agreement prefixes are not accented . 61 2.3.2 Against affixal “rightmost wins” . 62 vi 2.3.2.1 DS markers do not show “rightmost wins” . 62 2.3.2.2 Leftmost preaccenting suffix wins . 64 2.3.2.3 Leftmost wins & the AAN-suffix . 65 2.3.2.4 Leftmost wins & the “nominalizer” suffix . 66 2.3.3 Local summary: Agreement prefixes and their implications . 68 2.4 Reduplication & the Basic Accentuation Principle . 68 2.5 Conclusions & discussion . 70 2.5.1 BAP vs. RCA in Cupeño . 70 2.5.2 Cupeño stress in typological perspective . 70 2.5.3 Toward a restrictive typology of lexical accent . 71 3 Foundations of Hittite Lexical Accent ............................. 72 3.1 On the relationship between plene writing & vowel length . 72 3.1.1 LONG ; PLENE .................................... 73 3.1.2 PLENE ; LONG .................................... 75 3.2 On the relationship between vowel length & word stress . 77 3.2.1 STRESSED ; LONG .................................. 79 3.2.2 LONG ; STRESSED .................................. 89 3.3 Vowel reduction & word stress . 98 3.4 On the phonetic realization of word stress . 101 4 Analyzing Lexical Accent in Hittite ............................... 103 4.1 Toward an analysis of Hittite word stress . 103 4.2 Word-prosodic typology & Hittite word stress . 106 4.2.1 Evidence for Hittite word stress . 106 4.2.2 Hittite stress in IE and typological perspective . 107 4.2.2.1 Stress is culminative, obligatory . 108 4.2.2.2 Stress is free . 110 4.2.2.3 Stress is unbounded . 111 4.2.2.4 Stress is morphology-dependent, accent-conditioned . 113 4.2.2.5 Lexical accent in Hittite . 115 4.3 Hittite inflectional stress & the Basic Accentuation Principle . 116 4.3.1 Verbal inflection in Hittite . 116 4.3.2 Stress (im)mobility in radical verb inflection . 118 4.3.2.1 Radical verbs with mobile stress . 119 4.3.2.2 Radical verbs with fixed stress . 124 vii 4.3.3 Radical verbs beyond the inflectional paradigm . 126 4.3.3.1 Imperfective & participle formation in Hittite . 126 4.3.3.2 Stress in imperfectives & participles of mobile radical verbs . 129 4.3.3.3 Stress in imperfectives & participles of fixed radical verbs . 131 4.3.3.4 Fixed and mobile stress as cross-categorical asymmetry . 132 4.3.4 Stress assignment in Hittite radical verbs . 133 4.3.4.1 Components of the analysis . 133 4.3.4.2 Deriving mobile stress . 135 4.3.4.3 Deriving fixed stress . 141 4.3.4.4 Leftmost wins in imperfectives & participles . 142 4.3.4.5 Leftmost wins in prefixation . 146 4.3.5 Fixed stress in derived verbal stems . 146 4.3.6 Synchronic status of the BAP? . 149 4.3.7 Local summary: Lexical accent in Hittite & the BAP . 150 4.4 Hittite derivational stress & head faithfulness . 152 4.4.1 Stress patterns in derivation & accentual dominance . 152 4.4.1.1 Accented derivational suffixes . 152 4.4.1.2 Derivational suffixes in non-primary derivation . 154 4.4.1.3 Derivation, dominance, and the evidence for word stress . 158 4.4.2 Stress assignment in Hittite derivation . 161 4.4.2.1 Derivation & morphological headedness in Hittite . 161 4.4.2.2 Head faithfulness & word stress in derivation . 164 4.5 Conclusions & discussion . 168 5 Lexical Accent in Anatolian and Proto-Indo-European ................... 170 5.1 Introduction . 170 5.2 Reconstructing PA stress assignment . 170 5.2.1 Inflectional stress in Palaic & PA . 171 5.2.2 HEADFAITH inLuwian&PA............................. 174 5.3 Reconstructing PIE stress assignment . 177 5.3.1 PIE stress assignment & the BAP . 178 5.3.2 Reconstructing the PIE accentual lexicon . 179 5.3.2.1 Vedic Sanskrit “Class II” presents & the BAP . 179 5.3.2.2 PIE root presents & the BAP . 183 5.3.2.3 On the accentedness of PIE verbal roots . 186 5.3.3 PIE nominal inflectional & the BAP . 189 viii 5.3.4 PIE stress assignment & morphological headedness . 196 5.4 Conclusions & discussion . 198 Bibliography .............................................. 227 ix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation is a product of the place in which it was written. Over the last six years, I’ve had the good fortune to live and work in the great city of Los Angeles alongside a remarkable group of friends, colleagues, and teachers at UCLA; I cannot adequately express my gratefulness to them, but will try my best to register some measure of it here. This dissertation would never have been started — nor completed — without Craig Melchert, who in my time at UCLA was relentless with his generosity. I owe Craig not only for the many hours — much of it in his “spare” time — that he spent teaching me Hittite, but also for his continual encouragement; for pushing me to consider and (pace Yates) re-consider my own positions; and for teaching me that no received wisdom is beyond challenge. I am also ex- tremely grateful to my other teachers in the Program in Indo-European Studies, Brent Vine and Stephanie Jamison. I have benefited greatly from Brent’s steady guidance and unflagging sup- port over these years; as for Stephanie — without our weekly Vedic reading sessions — and her candor and friendship — it would have been far more difficult to see this project through.