96. Metrical patterns 1347 Ruhlen, Merrit. 1987. A guide to the languages of Vennemann, Theo. 1971. „The phonology of Gothic the world. Stanford: Stanford University Press. vowels“. Language 47: 90Ϫ132. Schane, Sanford A. 1973. Generative phonology. Vennemann, Theo. 1972. „Phonetic detail in assim- Englewood Cliffs. ilation: Problems in Germanic phonology“. Lan- Skalicˇka, Vladimir. 1979. Typologische Studien. guage 48: 863Ϫ892. Braunschweig/Wiesbaden: Vieweg. Vennemann, Theo. 1986. Neuere Entwicklungen in Sommerstein, Alan H. 1977. Modern phonology. der Phonologie, Berlin etc.: de Gruyter. London: Arnold. Vennemann, Theo. 1988. „The rule dependence of Stampe, David. 1979. A dissertation on Natural syllable structure“. In: Duncan-Rose, Caroline & Phonology. New York & London: Garland. Fisiak, Jacek & Vennemann, Theo (eds.). Rheto- Trubetzkoy, Nikolaj S. 31958. Grundzüge der Pho- rica, Phonologica, Syntactica: A Festschrift for nologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Rupprecht. Robert P. Stockwell, London & New York: Rout- ledge, 257Ϫ283. Ultan, Russel. 1978. „A typological view of me- tathesis“. In: Greenberg 1978, 367Ϫ402. Vihman, Marilyn M. 1978. „Consonant harmony: its scope and function in child language“. In: van der Hulst, Harry & Smith, Norval. 1982. „ An Greenberg 1978, 281Ϫ335. overview of accent and metrical phonology“. In: van der Hulst & Smith (eds.) 1982, 1Ϫ45. Vogel, Irene. 1982. La sillaba come unita` fonolo- gica. Bologna: Zanichelli. van der Hulst, Harry & Smith, Norval (eds.). 1982. The structure of phonological representation. Dor- drecht: Foris Publ. Thomas Krefeld, München (Deutschland) 96. Metrical patterns 1. Introduction linguistic variables is fundamental to lan- 2. The syllable as a constituent guage typology (cf. Plank 1997), our goal is 3. The foot not merely to list the observed metrical pat- 4. Typology and metrical structures terns, but also to examine possible relation- 5. Universals, implications and correlations 6. Conclusion ships between the different patterns. 7. References To this end we will focus on ‘metrical co- herence’ from two perspectives and address the following questions. First, we ask whether 1. Introduction a given metrical constituent varies in its properties within a single language. For in- Metrical patterns in languages are obtained stance, the metrical constituent ‘foot’ is gen- by combining various elements of prosodic erally used to account for word stress. How- structure: syllables and their constituents, ever, there may be other processes which are feet, and other higher level organisational sensitive to foot structure. If so, one would units like prosodic words, phrases and so on. like to know if foot types vary for different Within a given metrical organisation, a par- processes within a given language, or whether ticular constituent may be the most promi- with respect to a given metrical constituent, nent. This relative prominence is marked by the system is coherent (Dresher & Lahiri stress, which is the central theme of this arti- 1991). The second issue is whether the type cle. Stress, under this conception, is not mer- of stress a language has can predict the prop- ely a phonetic feature, but is the means of erties of its metrical constituents. This par- marking relative prominence within various ticular perspective has not been an issue in organisational groupings of metrical units the phonological descriptions of metrical pat- (cf. Liberman 1975; see the articles by Ka- terns, but is extensively discussed in typologi- ger, and Halle & Idsardi in Goldsmith 1995 cal literature on the covariation of stress with for surveys of different metrical theories of the nature of syllables, headedness of phrasal stress). In order to establish stress patterns, stress and such (cf. Donegan & Stampe 1983; we first discuss how different metrical con- Gil 1986). Thus, we begin by motivating syl- stituents are relevant for the phonological lables and feet as necessary metrical constitu- systems as a whole. Since the covariation of ents in the description of phonological sys- 1348 XII. Phonology-based typology tems. For each of the constituents we provide (1) Syncope and syllable final devoicing evidence from segmental processes as well as in German for stress, and then move on to issues on met- Standard German rical coherence and covariation of metrical ‘flirt’ ‘sail’ ‘go by bicycle’ units, which are rather crucial for typologi- Infinitive li:belϩn ze:gelϩn ra:delϩn cal research. 1sg.ind.pres li:blϩe ze:glϩe ra:dlϩe Standard German, Northern pronunciation ϩ ϩ ϩ 2. The Syllable as a constituent li:bl e ze:gl e ra:tl e After syncopation, the consonant clusters In this section, we first review the syllable’s status in phonology before discussing the role that are created are not equally accepted as of the syllable in the assignment of stress. onsets in the Standard German as compared The syllable has traditionally been assumed to the Northern pronunciation. In Standard to consist of an onset followed by a rhyme German, the sequence [dl] is accepted as a which is divided into a nucleus and a coda. syllable onset, and the maximisation of onset The nucleus is the obligatory and most im- prevents the [d] being in the coda. Hence, portant part of the syllable, while the onset coda-devoicing does not apply. In contrast, and coda are optional. The most frequent syl- the Northern pronunciation which allows lable inventory in natural language consists [bl] and [gl] clusters, permits maximisation of of the following: V, CV, VC, CVC (see Blev- consonants in these cases, but prevents [dl] ins 1995 for a survey). The more complex syl- from being part of an onset. As a result, lable inventories arise from including more coda-devoicing applies and the surface form segmental material in the onset and the coda, is [ra:t.le] rather than *[ra:.dle]. and even the nucleus can be branching. Com- Maximisation of the onset is closely re- plex onsets and codas are generally governed lated to the notion of a core syllable, or a CV by the Sonority Scale which states that onset syllable. There is a general tendency to avoid consonants increase in sonority and codas onsetless syllables such that in most if not decrease in their sonority (cf. Clements & all languages, a VCV string is syllabified as Hume 1995). The accepted sonority scale in [V.CV]. Resyllabification to prevent onsetless terms of rising sonority is obstruents Ͻ na- syllables is central to the analysis of German sals Ͻ liquids Ͻ glides Ͻ vowels. devoicing as well (cf. Rubach 1990, Giegerich The notions ‘closed’ and ‘open’ syllables 1992). The following alternations are rele- play an important role in phonology. Closed vant. (2) Resyllabification in German glaub [p] glaub-en [b] glaub-lich [p/b] ‘believe’ 2sg imp./inf./adj. Tag [k] Tag-e [g] täg-lich [k/g] ‘day’ sg./pl./adv. syllables are those which are closed by a As we have seen before, coda devoicing makes coda consonant, while open syllables end in the word final consonants in the first column a vowel (long or short) or a diphthong. To voiceless. A suffix vowel is added to the decide whether medial consonants are part words in the second column. Here the medial of onsets or codas, the principle of maximi- sequence VCV is syllabified as [V.CV] forcing sation of the onset is often invoked. That is, the medial consonant to be an onset, thereby when there is more than one intervocalic blocking coda devoicing. Oddly enough, when consonant, whether all of them are part of the suffix begins with a sonorant consonant, the onset of the second syllable, depends on and although the obstruent ϩ liquid is a pos- whether the language permits ‘maximising sible onset (as we saw in the previous exam- the onset’ based on sonority principles. ple), resyllabification can be blocked for Phonological processes can help determine certain speakers and coda devoicing applies. whether consonants fall in the coda or not. Obviously, for those speakers who devoice This is illustrated with an example from Ger- the obstruents, resyllabification is sensitive to man which has a process of syllable final certain morphemes even if allowable onsets devoicing. The data are from Vennemann may arise. However, the crucial point is that (1972). German has a rule of syncopation when a suffix with an initial vowel follows, which follows for the following types of al- resyllabification is obligatory since German ternations. always requires a syllable with an onset. 96. Metrical patterns 1349 Words or syllables without a surface conso- (4) Bengali degemination as cluster sim- nant are always preceded by a glottal stop: plification cf. Atmen [?atmen] ‘breathing’, abteilen [?ap- (a) su-lam su-tstshi ‘sleep 1past/ tai len] ‘to separate’, mitarbeiten [mıt?arbai - 1present’ ten] ‘to cooperate’ etc. For some speakers the (b) bos-lambos-tshi *bos-tstshi ‘sit 1past/ glottal stop insertion is restricted to stressed 1present’ syllables; hence, Theater [the?a´6tB]) ‘theatre’, but Bebauung [beba´ wwn] ‘building develop- Bengali does not allow coda clusters. Since ment’, and not [beba´ w?wn]. a geminate consonant belongs to the coda of one syllable and the onset of the following 2.1. Preferred syllable structure syllable, if the preceding syllable ends in a Once we accept the fact that languages have consonant, the geminate introduces a coda preferred syllable structures, any deviation cluster and is degeminated to fit the syllable from these preferences are repaired. Strate- template of the language. gies for repairing them can differ. For in- Thus, both deletions and insertions are stance, if affixation leads to unacceptable frequently found in languages, and almost al- syllables, either epenthesis or syncope are in- ways in the context of repairing an unaccept- voked to maintain the preferred structures. able syllable. Preference for syllable types, In a language like Koryak (a Paleosiberian and hence repairs, is usually restricted to the language spoken in Kamchatka; Spencer 1996: lexical level. In the postlexical level, there is 63Ϫ64), the most complex syllable structure more variation.