Abstract
Phonological processes are often sensitive to morphological, prosodic, and derivational structure. In terms of derivational structure, a common factor are strata or levels, as in Lexical Phonology (Kiparsky 1982) or Stratal OT (Bermúdez-Otero 2018). Two commonly argued strata are the stem-level and word-level cophonologies which are morphologically triggered. In this paper, I argue that Armenian has cyclic processes which follow this stratal model. However, I also show that Armenian phonology utilizes a prosodically-triggered cophonology. This cophonology is triggered by the prosodic misalignment between the morphological stem (MStem) and syllable boundaries. This occurs before vowel-initial inflection. I argue that this misaligned MStem is parsed into a sublexical prosodic constituent, the Prosodic Stem (PStem: Downing 1999a). This PStem-level cophonology applies between the stem-level and word-level cophonologies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Change history
11 July 2023
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-023-09593-2
Notes
Data is collected from the grammars cited in the bibliography, dictionaries from www.nayiri.com, Wiktionary, and my own native (Western) judgments. More details on the Armenian data are found in Dolatian (2020). Glosses are taken from Armenian-English dictionaries if available, otherwise my own translation. Data is transcribed in IPA. The tap is transcribed as /r/, the trill as /ṙ/, the lax mid-vowels /
/ as /
/, and uvular fricatives /
/ as velar /
/. In Western Armenian, voiceless non-continuants are aspirated. I do not mark aspiration because it is not contrastive. Armenian citations are Romanized based on the ISO 9985 transliteration system. Glossing follows the Leipzig standards. The glosses which I use are: abl ablative, acc accusative, dat dative, def definite, gen genitive, inst instrumental, loc locative, nom nominative, pl plural, poss possessive. I refer to Classical and Modern Armenian as separate lects. Modern Western and Eastern Armenian are separate dialects or lects. The three form three lects.I use the term ‘C-initial inflection’ to mean C-initial inflectional suffixes which contain a full vowel like -ner but unlike -k.
Haghverdi (2016) documents cases where final schwas can get stress in Eastern Armenian. In a larger study, Skopeteas (2019) finds similar effects but argues it is due to phrasal boundary tones. In onomatopoeic words with only schwas, both initial (Vaux 1998:133) and final stress (Ač̣aṙyan 1971:339) are documented. The (un-)stressability of schwas is not crucial to this paper.
An exceptional set of roots with non-high vowels show apparent destressed reduction. These are discussed in Sect. 8.
Some types of complex onsets are allowed: consonant-glide clusters (Vaux 1998:81), borrowed proper names (Baronian 2017), and word-initial clusters that involve rhotics or fricated/aspirated consonants (T’oxmaxyan 1988; Hovakimyan 2016). The main exception to falling-sonority complex codas are stem-final appendixes (Vaux and Wolfe 2009). This is discussed in Sect. 6.
DHR is inactive in the rest of Western Armenian regular inflection. Some suffixes lack full vowels and thus can’t trigger stress shift or DHR:
-def, 
-1sgposs, 
-2sgposs. The plural possessive suffix is -ni after polysyllabic bases but -er-ni after monosyllabic bases (Arregi et al. 2013; Wolf 2013). It does not trigger reduction: 
‘our dog’, 
‘our girl’. An apparent exception is verbal inflection which shows reduction. But this isn’t a true exception. Verbs are formed with verbalizing theme vowels: 
‘writing’ maps to 
‘to write’. Theme vowels act as derivational suffixes and are found almost everywhere in a verb’s paradigm: 
‘I write’. Some paradigm cells replace the theme vowel with some other V-initial suffix and still show DHR: 
‘written’. Thus, verbal inflection shows DHR because it requires an intermediate step of adding the theme vowel.This allomorphy is arbitrary and generally not phonologically-optimizing (Vaux 2003). Cross-linguistically, many cases of syllable-counting allomorphy are phonologically-optimizing and reference feet (Kager 1996; González 2005). But, the Armenian allomorphy is not phonologically-optimizing. See Vaux (2003), Paster (2005, 2006, 2019) for more cases that do not reference feet and aren’t optimizing.
This constraint is relevant in the PStem-level cophonology in Eastern Armenian where DHR is active while DDR is inactive, see fn. 18.
A reviewer notes that a possible reason is language contact with Russian. Eastern Armenian is largely spoken in Iran, Russia, and Armenia. Armenia was part of the Soviet Union and its speakers are often bilingual in Russian. Russian vowel reduction may have promoted vowel reduction in EArm. But this is unlikely because the pre-inflectional DHR in EArm is documented earlier than the Soviet Union (Sargsyan 1987). Furthermore, EArm speakers in Iran are bilingual in Persian, not Russian. They still show the pre-inflectional DHR:
‘populace’ ∼ 
‘populace-gen’ (Megerdoomian 2009:31).The dialects have some differences in their lexicon due to sporadic medial syncope, see Dolatian (2020).
EArm used to use -ner to also form plural possesives. In that case, it could trigger reduction in monosyllabic but not polysyllabic roots:
; 
‘heart; our heart(s)’ but 
; 
‘head; our head(s)’ (Dum-Tragut 2009:113). But the use of the suffix has unclear productivity (Nikita Bezrukov, p.c.); data and generalizations are thus limited. If productive, its ability to trigger reduction in monosyllables would likely be due to prosodic minimality restrictions (Downing 2006).One workaround is to argue that DHR applies if the destressed syllable is 1) the weak part of an iambic foot, and 2) was aligned with the MStem in the input, but 3) is no longer aligned with the MStem in the output. This works; however it is then unclear what role is played by the feet. Conditions (2,3) are the descriptive generalizations and do trigger DHR; the use of feet (1) is superfluous.
The Prosodic Root (PRoot) has also been posited as a constituent mapped from morphological roots. The evidence for the PRoots, however, is less than for PStems.
In order for the EArm PStem-level cophonology to trigger high vowel reduction but not diphthong reduction, we need the ranking: *Reduce >> *ǐ,ǔ >> Id[f] >> Max-V >> *uǰ. The faithfulness constraints Id[f],Max-V are outranked by *ǐ,u. This triggers high vowel reduction. However, these faithfulness constraints outrank *uǰ. This ranking blocks *uǰ from triggering high diphthong reduction. The constraint *Reduce also dominates *ǐ,ǔ. This prevents *ǐ,ǔ from triggering diphthong reduction.
I omit one logically possible candidate:
. This candidate has a single large PStem. This PStem is in correspondence with both MStems. It only violates OverMatch because the PStem has 5 segments -utjun which aren’t in MStem S1. It does not violate MatchStem or WrapStem because the MStems do have a correspondent PStem; these correspondents just happen to be the same PStem. I assume this candidate is not generated because a PStem cannot have multiple correspondents.The suffix is aspirated in both dialects, but aspiration is not contrastive in WArm. Three other rare extrasyllabic consonants exist:
in 
‘silk’, 
‘guarantee’, 
‘type of decoration’, etc. They are also appendixes.Additional evidence comes from vowel hiatus. Some EArm roots show the overapplication of some stem-level hiatus repair rules (deletion, glide fortition) in pre-inflectional vowel hiatus. This is analogous to pre-inflectional DHR. I argue that this is due to the PStem expanding. The PStem expands before V-initial inflection because of prosodic well-formedness, i.e., when it ends in vowel hiatus. See Dolatian (2020) for details.
The nasal n in
is a relic of nasal ∼∅ alternations from Classical Armenian, similar to nasal deletion in English damn∼damnation.For example, the suffix -k generally blocks reduction, but it does allow reduction in some words like jergin-k (61).
A reviewer notes a useful minimal pair:
‘seat-gen’ and 
‘to sit (3sg.subj)’. The word 
is an inflected form of the verb 
. The theme vowel e is replaced by verbal suffix -i which is homophonous with the case marker -i. See fn. 8.The pre-suffixal nasal [
‘initial’ is a relic of Classical Armenian, see fn. 22.Further evidence comes from heritage speakers of Eastern Armenian. For heritage speakers, DHR tends to not apply in V-initial inflection (Karapetian 2014:79ff).
To understand the different pronunciations between Classical and Western Armenian, it should be noted that Western Armenian underwent a series of consonant voicing and aspiration shifts from Classical Armenian (Baronian 2017). CArm had a three-way laryngeal contrast T-T-D while WArm only has a two-way one: T-D. This change did not affect stress and reduction. All data is taken from the sources cited in this section. When needed, data was supplemented with CArm dictionaries from www.nayiri.com and paradigms from Sterling (2004) and https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/eieol/armol, last accessed 3 August 2020. I transcribe CArm data with aspiration because aspiration is contrastive in CArm. I do not mark aspiration in the WArm entries because aspiration is not contrastive in WArm.
Reduction was not a post-lexical phonetic rule in Classical Armenian. It had exceptions in certain lexemes (Thomson 1989:16ff.).
For simplicity, I omit the locative because it hasn’t survived into Western Armenian, but it has survived into Eastern Armenian (Sect. 5.1). The segment -o- can be segmented as a nominal theme vowel (Halle and Vaux 1998); these theme vowels have not survived into modern Armenian nominal inflection as separate morphs.
On the surface, aorist formation in CArm verbal conjugation creates C-initial suffixes:
‘I loved’. But see Hammalian (1984:217) and Macak (2016:205) on how this is actually derived from an underlying V-initial suffix /
/. Similar V-initial analyses are also extended to other apparent C-initial suffixes in the subjunctive (Hammalian 1984). Besides, verbal inflection is morphologically stem-based in Armenian.The sources listed in Sect. 8 do not explicitly state that clitics do not trigger stress shift or reduction in CArm. I assume they do not because I have found no mention of it.
This suffix appeared sometime during medieval or Middle Armenian (Karst 1901). Future work will examine the stratal phonology of Middle Armenian.
An open question is if this PStem analysis can extend to superficially similar cases of conflicts between stem-level strata and syllabification-induced processed, e.g., in Kashaya (Buckley 2017).
/ as /
/, and uvular fricatives /
/ as velar /
/. In Western Armenian, voiceless non-continuants are aspirated. I do not mark aspiration because it is not contrastive. Armenian citations are Romanized based on the ISO 9985 transliteration system. Glossing follows the Leipzig standards. The glosses which I use are: 
-
-
-
‘our dog’, 
‘our girl’. An apparent exception is verbal inflection which shows reduction. But this isn’t a true exception. Verbs are formed with verbalizing theme vowels: 
‘writing’ maps to 
‘to write’. Theme vowels act as derivational suffixes and are found almost everywhere in a verb’s paradigm: 
‘I write’. Some paradigm cells replace the theme vowel with some other V-initial suffix and still show DHR: 
‘written’. Thus, verbal inflection shows DHR because it requires an intermediate step of adding the theme vowel.
‘populace’ ∼ 
‘populace-
; 
‘heart; our heart(s)’ but 
; 
‘head; our head(s)’ (Dum-Tragut 
, 
.
. This candidate has a single large PStem. This PStem is in correspondence with both MStems. It only violates 
in 
‘silk’, 
‘guarantee’, 
‘type of decoration’, etc. They are also appendixes.
is a relic of nasal ∼∅ alternations from Classical Armenian, similar to nasal deletion in English damn∼damnation.
‘seat-
‘to sit (
is an inflected form of the verb 
. The theme vowel e is replaced by verbal suffix -i which is homophonous with the case marker -i. See fn. 
‘initial’ is a relic of Classical Armenian, see fn. 
‘I loved’. But see Hammalian (
/. Similar V-initial analyses are also extended to other apparent C-initial suffixes in the subjunctive (Hammalian References
Abeġyan, Manowk. 1933. Hayoc’ lezvi taġačap’owt’yown metri [Metrics of the Armenian language]. Yerevan: Haykakan SSH Gitowt’yownneri Akademiayi Hratarakčowt’yown.
Ač̣aṙyan, Hračya. 1971. Liakatar k’erakanowt’yown hayoc’ lezvi [Complete grammar of the Armenian language], Vol. 6. Yerevan: Haykakan SSH Gitowt’yownneri Akademiayi Hratarakčowt’yown.
Adjarian, Hrachia. 1909. Classification des dialectes arméniens. Paris: Librairie Honoré Champion.
Anttila, Arto. 2002. Morphologically conditioned phonological alternations. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20(1): 1–42.
Anttila, Arto. 2006. Variation and opacity. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24(4): 893–944.
Aṙak’elyan, Varag. 1955. Žamanakakic’ hayereni hnčyownabanowt’yown [Modern Armenian phonology]. Yerevan: Haykakan SSH Gitowt’yownneri Akademiayi Hratarakčowt’yown.
Aronoff, Mark. 1988. Head operations and strata in reduplication: A linear treatment. In Yearbook of morphology, eds. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, Vol. 1, 1–15. Dordrecht: Foris.
Arregi, Karlos, Neil Myler, and Bert Vaux. 2013. Number marking in Western Armenian: A non-argument for outwardly-sensitive phonologically conditioned allomorphy. In 87th Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Boston. Available online at https://works.bepress.com/bert_vaux/4/. Last accessed 1 July 2019.
Athanasopoulou, Angeliki, Irene Vogel, and Hossep Dolatian. 2017. Acoustic properties of canonical and non-canonical stress in French, Turkish, Armenian and Brazilian Portuguese. In Proceedings of interspeech 2017.
Avetisyan, Yowri Srapioni. 2007. Arewelahayereni ew arewmtahayereni zowgadrakan k’erakanowt’yown [Comparative grammar of Eastern and Western Armenian]. Yerevan: Yerevani petakan hamalsaran.
Avetisyan, Yowri Srapioni. 2011. Arewelahayereni ew arewmtahayereni zowgadrakan hnčyownabanowt’yown [Comparative phonology of Eastern and Western Armenian]. Yerevan: Hayastani Hanrapetowt’yan Sp’yowrk’i Naxararowt’yown.
Baronian, Luc Vartan. 2006. North of phonology. PhD diss., Stanford University.
Baronian, Luc. 2017. Two problems in Armenian phonology. Language and Linguistics Compass 11(8): 12247.
Becker, Michael, Andrew Nevins, and Jonathan Levine. 2012. Asymmetries in generalizing alternations to and from initial syllables. Language 88(2): 231–268.
Beckman, Jill N. 1997. Positional faithfulness, positional neutralisation and Shona vowel harmony. Phonology 14(1): 1–46.
Beekes, Robert S. P. 2003. Historical phonology of Classical Armenian. In Armeniaca: Comparative notes, eds. Frederick Herman and Henri Kortlandt, 133–211. Ann Arbor: Caravan Books.
Bennett, Ryan. 2018. Recursive prosodic words in Kaqchikel (Mayan). Glossa: A journal of general linguistics 3(1).
Benua, Laura. 1997. Transderivational identity: Phonological relations between words. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2011. Cyclicity. In The Blackwell companion to phonology, eds. Marc van Oostendorp, Colin Ewen, Elizabeth Hume, and Keren Rice, Vol. 4, 2019–2048. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2012. The architecture of grammar and the division of labour in exponence. In The morphology and phonology of exponence, ed. Jochen Trommer. Oxford studies in theoretical linguistics, 8–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2014. Amphichronic explanation and the life cycle of phonological processes. In The Oxford handbook of historical phonology, eds. Patrick Honeybone and Joseph C. Salmons, 374–399. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2016. We do not need structuralist morphemes, but we do need constituent structure. In Morphological metatheory, eds. David Siddiqi and Heidi Harley, Vol. 229, 385–428. Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today.
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2018. Stratal phonology. In The routledge handbook of phonological theory, eds. S. J. Hannahs and Anna R. K. Bosch, 382–410. Abingdon: Routledge.
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, and April McMahon. 2006. English phonology and morphology. In The handbook of English linguistics, eds. Bas Aarts and April McMahon, 382–410. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, and Graeme Trousdale. 2012. Cycles and continua: On unidirectionality and gradualness in language change. In The Oxford handbook of the history of English, eds. Terttu Nevalainen and Elizabeth C. Traugott. New York: Oxford University Press.
Booij, Geert, and Rochelle Lieber. 1993. On the simultaneity of morphological and prosodic structure. In Studies in lexical phonology, eds. Sharon Hargus and Ellen M. Kaisse. Vol. 4 of Phonetics and phonology, 23–44. San Diego: Academic Press.
Booij, Geert, and Jerzy Rubach. 1984. Morphological and prosodic domains in lexical phonology. Phonology 1: 1–27.
Booij, Geert, and Jerzy Rubach. 1987. Postcyclic versus postlexical rules in lexical phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 18(1): 1–44.
Booij, Geert E. 1996. Cliticization as prosodic integration: The case of Dutch. The Linguistic Review 13: 219.
Buckley, Eugene. 2017. Global effects in Kashaya prosodic structure. In The morphosyntax-phonology connection: Locality and directionality at the interface, eds. Vera Gribanova and Stephanie Shih, 113–139. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burzio, Luigi. 2011. Derived environment effects. In The Blackwell companion to phonology, eds. Marc van Oostendorp, Colin Ewen, Elizabeth Hume, and Keren Rice, Vol. 4, 2089–2114. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Caha, Pavel. 2013. Explaining the structure of case paradigms by the mechanisms of nanosyntax. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31(4): 1015–1066.
Casali, Roderic F. 1997. Vowel elision in hiatus contexts: Which vowel goes? Language 73(3): 493–533.
Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam, Morris Halle, and Fred Lukoff. 1956. On accent and juncture in English. In For Roman Jakobson, 65–80. The Hague: Mouton.
Cohn, Abigail C. 1989. Stress in Indonesian and bracketing paradoxes. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 7(2): 167–216.
Collie, Sarah. 2007. English stress preservation and stratal optimality theory. PhD diss., University of Edinburgh.
Collie, Sarah. 2008. English stress preservation: The case for ‘fake cyclicity’. English Language & Linguistics 12(3): 505–532.
Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa. 1997. The morphological and phonological constituent structure of words in Moses-Columbia Salish (Nxa’amxcín). Trends in linguistics studies and monographs 107: 153–196.
DeLisi, Jessica. 2018. Armenian prosody in typology and diachrony. Language Dynamics and Change 8(1): 108–133.
DeLisi, Jessica L. 2015. Epenthesis and prosodic structure in Armenian: A diachronic account. PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles.
Dolatian, Hossep. 2020. Computational locality of cyclic phonology in Armenian. PhD diss., Stony Brook University.
Donabédian, Anaïd. 2000. De l’arménien classique à l’arménien moderne: Typologie, ordre des mots et contact linguistique. Cahiers de Linguistique de l’INALCO 3: 34–54.
Donabédian, Anaïd. 2004. Arménien. In Le nom composé: Données sur seize langues, ed. Pierre J. L. Arnaud, 3–20. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.
Downing, Laura J. 1998a. On the prosodic misalignment of onsetless syllables. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16(1): 1–52.
Downing, Laura J. 1998b. Prosodic misalignment and reduplication. In Yearbook of morphology 1997, eds. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 83–120. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Downing, Laura J. 1999a. Prosodic stem ≠ prosodic word in Bantu. In Studies on the phonological word, eds. T Alan Hall and Ursula Kleinhenz, Vol. 174, 73–98. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Downing, Laura J. 1999b. Verbal reduplication in three Bantu languages. In The prosody-morphology interface, eds. René Kager, Harry van der Hulst, and Wim Zonneveld, 62–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Downing, Laura J. 2005. Morphological complexity and prosodic minimality. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 4: 83–106.
Downing, Laura J. 2006. Canonical forms in prosodic morphology. Oxford studies in theoretical linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.
Downing, Laura J. 2016. The prosodic hierarchy in Chichewa: How many levels? Studies in Prosodic Grammar 1: 5–33.
Downing, Laura J., and Maxwell Kadenge. 2020. Re-placing PStem in the prosodic hierarchy. The Linguistic Review.
Duanmu, San. 1999. Alignment and the cycle are different. In The derivational residue in phonological optimality theory, eds. Ben Hermans and Marc van Oostendorp, Vol. 28, 129–152. Amsderdam: Benjamins.
Dum-Tragut, Jasmine. 2009. Armenian: Modern Eastern Armenian. London oriental and African language library. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Elfner, Emily. 2015. Recursion in prosodic phrasing: Evidence from Connemara Irish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33(4): 1169–1208.
Fairbanks, Gordon H. 1948. Phonology and morphology of modern spoken west Armenian. PhD diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Fitzpatrick-Cole, Jennifer. 1994. The prosodic domain hierarchy in reduplication. PhD diss., Stanford University.
Frota, Sónia, and Marina Vigário. 2013. Review of Prosody matters: Essays in honor of Elisabeth Selkirk by Borowsky et al. (2012). Phonology 30(1): 165–172.
Giegerich, Heinz J. 1999. Lexical strata in English: Morphological causes, phonological effects. Cambridge studies in linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Godel, Robert. 1975. An introduction to the study of Classical Armenian. Belgium: Reichert Wiesbaden.
González, Carolina. 2005. Phonologically-conditioned allomorphy in Panoan: Towards an analysis. In UCLA working papers in linguistics: Papers in phonology, eds. Jeffrey Heinz, Andy Martin, and Katya Pertsova, Vol. 6, 39–56. Los Angeles: UCLA, Department of Linguistics.
Gordon, Matthew. 2002. A factorial typology of quantity-insensitive stress. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20(3): 491–552.
Graf, Thomas. 2019. Monotonicity as an effective theory of morphosyntactic variation. Journal of Language Modelling 7(2): 3–47.
Grijzenhout, Janet, and Baris Kabak, eds. 2009. Phonological domains: Universals and deviations. Interface explorations. Berlin: Gruyter.
Guekguezian, Peter Ara. 2017a. Prosodic recursion and syntactic cyclicity inside the word. PhD diss., University of Southern California.
Guekguezian, Peter Ara. 2017b. Templates as the interaction of recursive word structure and prosodic well-formedness. Phonology 34(1): 81–120.
Guzzo, Natalia Brambatti. 2018. The prosodic representation of composite structures in Brazilian Portuguese. Journal of Linguistics 54(4): 683–720.
Haghverdi, Vartan. 2016. Armenian schwa: A phonetic and phonological analysis. Master’s thesis, Rutgers University.
Hall, T Alan. 1999. The phonological word: A review. In Studies on the phonological word, eds. T Alan Hall and Ursula Kleinhenz, Vol. 174, 1–22. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Halle, Morris, and Bert Vaux. 1998. Theoretical aspects of Indo-European nominal morphology: The nominal declensions of Latin and Armenian. In Mír curad: Studies in honor of Calvert Watkins, eds. Jay Jasanoff, H. Craig Melchert, and Lisi Oliver, 223–240. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.
Hammalian, Stephen John. 1984. A generative phonology of Old Armenian. PhD diss., New York University.
Han, Eunjoo. 1995. Prosodic structure in compounds. PhD diss., Stanford University.
Hargus, Sharon, and Ellen M. Kaisse, eds. 1993. Studies in lexical phonology. Vol. 4 of Phonetics and phonology. San Diego: Academic Press.
Haugen, Jason D. 2016. Readjustment: Rejected. In Morphological metatheory, eds. David Siddiqi and Heidi Harley, Vol. 229, 303–342, Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today.
Hovakimyan, Knar. 2016. Eastern Armenian consonant clusters. Bachelor’s thesis, Reed College.
Hyde, Brett. 2002. A restrictive theory of metrical stress. Phonology 19(3): 313–359.
Hyman, Larry M. 2008. Directional asymmetries in the morphology and phonology of words, with special reference to Bantu. Linguistics 46(2): 309–350.
Inkelas, Sharon. 1989. Prosodic constituency in the lexicon. PhD diss., Stanford University.
Inkelas, Sharon. 1993. Deriving cyclicity. In Studies in lexical phonology, eds. Sharon Hargus and Ellen M. Kaisse. Vol. 4 of Phonetics and phonology, 75–100. San Diego: Academic Press.
Inkelas, Sharon. 2014. The interplay of morphology and phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Inkelas, Sharon, and Cheryl Zoll. 2005. Reduplication: Doubling in morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Inkelas, Sharon, Orhan Orgun, and Cheryl Zoll. 1997. The implications of lexical exceptions for the nature of grammar. In Derivations and constraints in phonology, ed. Iggy Roca, 393–417. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 1999. The phonological lexicon. In The handbook of Japanese linguistics, ed. Natsuko Tsujimura, 62–100. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ito, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2009. The extended prosodic word. In Phonological domains: Universals and deviations, eds. Janet Grijzenhout and Baris Kabak. Interface explorations, 135–194. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ito, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2012. Recursive prosodic phrasing in Japanese. In Prosody matters: Essays in honor of Elisabeth Selkirk, eds. Toni Borowsky, Shigeto Kawahara, Shinya Takahito, and Mariko Sugahara, 280–303. London: Equinox Publishing.
Ito, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2013. Prosodic subcategories in Japanese. Lingua 124: 20–40.
Ito, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2019. Match as syntax-prosody max/dep: Prosodic enclisis in English. English Linguistics 36(1).
Johnson, Emma Wintler. 1954. Studies in east Armenian grammar. PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley.
Kabak, Baris, and Anthi Revithiadou. 2009. An interface approach to prosodic word recursion. In Phonological domains: Universals and deviations, eds. Janet Grijzenhout and Baris Kabak. Interface explorations, 105–133. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kager, René. 1996. On affix allomorphy and syllable counting. In Interfaces in phonology, ed. Ursula Kleinhenz, 155–171. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Karapetian, Shushan. 2014. “How do i teach my kids my broken Armenian?”: A study of Eastern Armenian heritage language speakers in Los Angeles. PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles.
Karst, Josef. 1901. Historische Grammatik des Kilikisch-Armenischen [Grammar of Cilician Armenian]. Strassburg: Verlag von Karl Trübner.
Katvalyan, Viktor Lipariti. 1989. Hnčyownneri hamakc’akan p’op’oxowt’yownnerë ew dranc’ haraberowt’yownë myows hnčyownap’oxowt’yownnerin [Combinatory modifications and their relationship with other types of sound changes]. Lraber Hasarakakan Gitowt’yownneri 4: 64–69.
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1996. Base-identity and uniform exponence: Alternatives to cyclicity. In Current trends in phonology: Models and methods, eds. Jacques Durand and Bernard Laks, 363–393. Salford: University of Salford.
Khanjian, Hrayr. 2009. Stress dependent vowel reduction. In 35th Annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS), eds. Iksoo Kwon, Hannah Pritchett, and Justin Spence, 178–189. Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Khanjian, Hrayr. 2013. (Negative) concord and head directionality in Western Armenian. PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. Abstractness, opacity, and global rules. In Three dimensions of linguistic theory, ed. Osamu Fujimura. Tokyo: Taikusha.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. In Linguistics in the morning calm: Selected papers from SICOL-1981, ed. I. S. Yang, 3–91. Seoul: Hansin.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1985. Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology 2(1): 85–138.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1993. Blocking in non-derived environments. In Studies in lexical phonology, eds. Sharon Hargus and Ellen M. Kaisse. Vol. 4 of Phonetics and phonology, 277–313. San Diego: Academic Press.
Kiparsky, Paul. 2000. Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17: 351–366.
Kiparsky, Paul. 2015. Stratal OT: A synopsis and FAQs. In Capturing phonological shades within and across languages, eds. Yuchau E. Hsiao and Lian-Hee Wee, 2–44. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Klein, Jared S, Brian D Joseph, and Matthias Fritz, eds. 2017. Handbook of comparative and historical Indo-European linguistics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Kozintseva, Natalia. 1995. Modern Eastern Armenian. Languages of the world. München: Lincom Europa.
Ladd, D Robert. 1986. Intonational phrasing: The case for recursive prosodic structure. Phonology 3: 311–340.
Liberman, Mark Yoffe. 1975. The intonational system of English. PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Łubowicz, Anna. 2002. Derived environment effects in optimality theory. Lingua 112(4): 243–280.
Łubowicz, Anna. 2003. Local conjunction and comparative markedness. Theoretical Linguistics 29(1): 2.
Macak, Martin Jakub. 2016. Studies in Classical and Modern Armenian phonology. PhD diss., University of Georgia.
Macak, Martin Jakub. 2017. The phonology of Classical Armenian. In Handbook of comparative and historical Indo-European linguistics, eds. Jared S Klein, Brian D Joseph, and Matthias Fritz, 1037–1079. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Mansfield, John. 2017. Prosodic words in cyclic derivation: The strange case of Murrinhpatha compound verbs. Morphology 27(3): 359–382.
Marantz, Alec. 2007. Phases and words. In Phases in the theory of grammar, eds. Sook-Hee Choe, Dong-Wee Yang, Yang-Soon Kim, Sung-Hun Kim, and Alec Marantz, 191–222. Seoul: Dong-In Publishing Co.
Margaryan, Alek’sandr Simoni. 1997. Z̈amanakakic’ hayoc’ lezow: Hnčyownabanowt’yown [Contemporary Armenian language: Phonology]. Yerevan: Yerevani Petakan Hamalsarani Hratarakčowt’yown.
Matasović, Ranko. 2009. A grammatical sketch of Classical Armenian. Ms. University of Zagreb. Available online: http://mudrac.ffzg.unizg.hr/~rmatasov/ARMENIAN2.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2019.
McCarthy, John J. 2003. Comparative markedness. Theoretical linguistics 29(1–2): 1–51.
McCarthy, John J, and Abigail Cohn. 1998. Alignment and parallelism in Indonesian phonology. In Working papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory, eds. Niken Adisasmito-Smith, Bill Ham, and Lisa Lavoie, Vol. 12, 53–137. Ithaca: Cornell University.
McCarthy, John J, and Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Papers in optimality theory, eds. Jill N. Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey, and Suzanne Urbanczyk. Amherst: GLSA.
McPherson, Laura, and Bruce Hayes. 2016. Relating application frequency to morphological structure: The case of Tommo So vowel harmony. Phonology 33(1): 125–167.
Megerdoomian, Karine. 2009. Beyond words and phrases: A unified theory of predicate composition. VDM, Verlag Dr. Müller.
Miller, Taylor L. 2018. The phonology-syntax interface and polysynthesis: A study of Kiowa and Saulteaux Ojibwe. PhD diss., University of Delaware.
Miller, Taylor L. 2020. Navigating the phonology-syntax interface and Tri-P mapping. In Annual meetings on phonology 8.
Minassian, Martiros. 1980. Grammaire d’arménien oriental. Delmar: Caravan Books.
Myers, Scott. 1991. Structure preservation and the strong domain hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 22(2): 379–385.
Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.
Nevins, Andrew, and Bert Vaux. 2008. Introduction: The division of labor between rules, representations, and constraints in phonological theory. In Rules, constraints, and phonological phenomena, eds. Bert Vaux and Andrew Nevins, 1–19. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Newell, Heather. 2008. Aspects of the morphology and phonology of phases. PhD diss., McGill University.
Newell, Heather, and Glyne Piggott. 2014. Interactions at the syntax-phonology interface: Evidence from ojibwe. Lingua 150: 332–362.
Orgun, Cemil Orhan. 1994. Monotonic cyclicity. ROA-123, Rutgers Optimality Archive. Available online at http://roa.rutgers.edu/files/123-0496/roa-123-orgun-4.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2019.
Özçelik, Öner. 2017. The foot is not an obligatory constituent of the prosodic hierarchy: “stress” in Turkish, French and child English. The Linguistic Review 34(1): 157–213.
Paster, Mary. 2005. Subcategorization vs. output optimization in syllable-counting allomorphy. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 24, 326–333. Somerville: Cascadilla.
Paster, Mary. 2006. Phonological conditions on affixation. PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley.
Paster, Mary. 2019. Phonology counts. Radical: A Journal of Phonology 1.
Peperkamp, Sharon Andrea. 1997. Prosodic words. The Hague: Holland Academic Press.
Pesetsky, David. 1979. Russian morphology and lexical theory. Ms., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Raffelsiefen, Renate. 1999. Phonological constraints on English word formation. In Yearbook of morphology 1998, eds. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 225–287. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Raffelsiefen, Renate. 2005. Paradigm uniformity effects versus boundary effects. In Paradigms in phonological theory, eds. Laura J Downing, T Alan Hall, and Renate Raffelsiefen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ramsammy, Michael. 2015. The life cycle of phonological processes: Accounting for dialectal microtypologies. Language and Linguistics Compass 9(1): 33–54.
Roca, Iggy, ed. 1997. Derivations and⋅ constraints in phonology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rubach, Jerzy. 1996. Nonsyllabic analysis of voice assimilation in Polish. Linguistic Inquiry 27(1): 69–110.
Rubach, Jerzy. 1997. Extrasyllabic consonants in Polish: Derivational optimality theory. In Derivations and⋅ constraints in phonology, ed. Iggy Roca, 551–581. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rubach, Jerzy, and Geert E Booij. 1990. Edge of constituent effects in Polish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 8(3): 427–463.
Sargsyan, Amalya. 1987. Goyakanakan zowgajewowt’yownnerë žamanakakic’ hayerenowm [Noun doublets in contemporary Armenian]. Lezvi ew oč̣i harc’er 10: 123–230.
Sayeed, Ollie, and Bert Vaux. 2017. The evolution of Armenian. In Handbook of comparative and historical Indo-European linguistics, eds. Jared S Klein, Brian D Joseph, and Matthias Fritz, 1146–1167. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Scheer, Tobias. 2011. A guide to morphosyntax-phonology interface theories: How extra-phonological information is treated in phonology since trubetzkoy’s grenzsignale. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1996. The prosodic structure of function words. In Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition, eds. James L. Morgan and Katherine Demuth, Vol. 187, 214. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2011. The syntax-phonology interface. In The handbook of phonological theory, 435–483.
Shaw, Patricia A. 2005. Non-adjacency in reduplication. In Studies on reduplication, ed. Bernhard Hurch. Empirical approaches to language typology, 161–210. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Siddiqi, David, and Heidi Harley, eds. 2016. Morphological metatheory, Vol. 229. Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today.
Sigler, Michele. 1997. Specificity and agreement in standard Western Armenian. PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Skopeteas, Stavros. 2019. Prosodic structure and word-final stress in Eastern Armenian. Ms., Universität Bielefeld.
Sowk’iasyan, Ašot Mowradi. 2004. Z̈amanakakic’ hayoc’ lezow (hnčyownabanowt’yown, baṙagitowt’yown, baṙakazmowt’yown) [Modern Armenian phonology, lexicology, and word-formation]. Yerevan: Yerevani Petakan Hamalsarani Hratarakčowt’yown.
Steriade, Donca. 2008. Contour correspondence: The segmental evidence. Paper presented at the 11th International Symposium on Chinese Languages and Linguistics, National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan.
Sterling, Gregory E. 2004. Armenian paradigms. Leuven: Peeters Pub & Booksellers.
Szpyra, Jolanta. 1989. The phonology-morphology interface: Cycles, levels and words. London: Routledge.
Thomson, Robert W. 1989. An introduction to Classical Armenian. Delmar: Caravan Books.
T’oxmaxyan, R̄obert Markosi. 1983. Z̈amanakakic’ hayereni šeštabanowt’yownë [The accentology of contemporary Armenian]. Yerevan: Haykakan SSH Gitowt’yownneri Akademiayi Hratarakčowt’yown.
T’oxmaxyan, R̄obert Markosi. 1988. Hayereni hnčowyt’neri kapakc’eliowt’yownë grayin ew artasanakan makardaknerowm [Connectivity of Armenian phonemes in written and spoken language]. Lezvi ew oč̣i harc’er 1: 69–135.
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30(2): 219–255.
Tyler, Matthew. 2019. Simplifying match word: Evidence from English functional categories. Glossa: A Journ al of General Linguistics 4(1).
van Oostendorp, Marc. 2004. Crossing morpheme boundaries in Dutch. Lingua 114(11): 1367–1400.
van Oostendorp, Marc, Colin Ewen, Elizabeth Hume, and Keren Rice, eds. 2011. The Blackwell companion to phonology. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Vaux, Bert. 1995. A problem in diachronic Armenian verbal morphology. In New approaches to medieval Armenian language and literature, ed. Jos Weitenberg, 135–148. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Vaux, Bert. 1998. The phonology of Armenian. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Vaux, Bert. 2003. Syllabification in Armenian, Universal Grammar, and the lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 34(1): 91–125.
Vaux, Bert, and Bridget Samuels. 2005. Laryngeal markedness and aspiration. Phonology 22(3): 395–436.
Vaux, Bert, and Andrew Wolfe. 2009. The appendix. In Contemporary views on architecture and representations in phonology, eds. Eric Raimy and Charles E. Cairns. Current studies in linguistics, 101–144. Cambridge: Cambridge: MIT Press.
Vigário, Marina. 2010. Prosodic structure between the prosodic word and the phonological phrase: Recursive nodes or an independent domain? The Linguistic Review 27(4): 485–530.
Vogel, Irene. 2009. The status of the clitic group. In Phonological domains: Universals and deviations, eds. Janet Grijzenhout and Baris Kabak. Interface explorations, 15–46. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Vogel, Irene. 2012. Recursion in phonology? In Phonological explorations: Empirical, theoretical and diachronic issues, eds. Bert Botma and Roland Noske, 41–62. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Vogel, Irene. 2016. Life after the strict layer hypothesis: Prosodic structure geometry. In Prosodic studies: Challenges and prospects, eds. Youyong Zhang and Hongming Qian. London: Routledge.
Wagner, Michael. 2010. Prosody and recursion in coordinate structures and beyond. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28(1): 183–237.
Wolf, Matthew. 2008. Optimal interleaving: Serial phonology-morphology interaction in a constraint-based model. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Wolf, Matthew. 2011. Exceptionality. In The blackwell companion to phonology, eds. Marc van Oostendorp, Colin Ewen, Elizabeth Hume, and Keren Rice, Vol. 4, 2538–2559. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Wolf, Matthew. 2013. Candidate chains, unfaithful spell-out, and outwards-looking phonologically-conditioned allomorphy. Morphology 23(2): 145–178.
Xačatryan, Amalya. 1988. Z̈amanakakic’ hayereni hnčyownabanowt’yown [Phonology of contemporary Armenian]. Yerevan: Haykakan SSH Gitowt’yownneri Akademiayi Hratarakčowt’yown.
Zec, Draga. 2005. Prosodic differences among function words. Phonology 22(1): 77–112.
Acknowledgements
I owe my thanks (in chronological order) to Irene Vogel, Jeff Heinz, Laura Downing, Christina Bethin, Donca Steriade, and Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero. I also thank audiences at CLS53, PLC42, ConCALL-3, the phonology group at the University of Delaware, and the linguistics department at Stony Brook University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Dolatian, H. Cyclicity and prosodic misalignment in Armenian stems. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 39, 843–886 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-020-09487-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-020-09487-7