This study investigates the distribution of end-stress and fore-stress among English NN and NNN compounds. It finds that end-stress in NNs is not 'exceptional', as many researchers have claimed, but confined to a reasonably well defined class of attribute-head NNs within which it is (at least optionally) grammatical and often predictable. In NNNs–NNs with embedded NNs–both fore-stress and end-stress can occur in both the embedding and the embedded NN, giving rise to eight possible stress patterns, all of which are attested. Moreover, the distribution of fore-stress and end-stress in embedding and embedded NNs follows the regularities identified in free-standing NNs. There is therefore no reason to accept the generalization whereby in NNNs, the second element is always stressed under right-branching and the first element under left-branching. While such patterns are perhaps particularly frequent, all others are also grammatical: the Compound Stress Rule known in the literature for some fifty years, deriving stress patterns from structural geometry, is wrong.
%0 Journal Article
%1 Giegerich:09
%A Giegerich, Heinz J.
%D 2009
%J Word Structure
%K 2009 compounds prosody
%N 1
%P 1--17
%T The English compound stress myth
%U http://www.eupjournals.com/doi/abs/10.3366/E1750124509000270
%V 2
%X This study investigates the distribution of end-stress and fore-stress among English NN and NNN compounds. It finds that end-stress in NNs is not 'exceptional', as many researchers have claimed, but confined to a reasonably well defined class of attribute-head NNs within which it is (at least optionally) grammatical and often predictable. In NNNs–NNs with embedded NNs–both fore-stress and end-stress can occur in both the embedding and the embedded NN, giving rise to eight possible stress patterns, all of which are attested. Moreover, the distribution of fore-stress and end-stress in embedding and embedded NNs follows the regularities identified in free-standing NNs. There is therefore no reason to accept the generalization whereby in NNNs, the second element is always stressed under right-branching and the first element under left-branching. While such patterns are perhaps particularly frequent, all others are also grammatical: the Compound Stress Rule known in the literature for some fifty years, deriving stress patterns from structural geometry, is wrong.
@article{Giegerich:09,
abstract = {This study investigates the distribution of end-stress and fore-stress among English NN and NNN compounds. It finds that end-stress in NNs is not 'exceptional', as many researchers have claimed, but confined to a reasonably well defined class of attribute-head NNs within which it is (at least optionally) grammatical and often predictable. In NNNs–NNs with embedded NNs–both fore-stress and end-stress can occur in both the embedding and the embedded NN, giving rise to eight possible stress patterns, all of which are attested. Moreover, the distribution of fore-stress and end-stress in embedding and embedded NNs follows the regularities identified in free-standing NNs. There is therefore no reason to accept the generalization whereby in NNNs, the second element is always stressed under right-branching and the first element under left-branching. While such patterns are perhaps particularly frequent, all others are also grammatical: the Compound Stress Rule known in the literature for some fifty years, deriving stress patterns from structural geometry, is wrong.},
added-at = {2009-08-30T13:34:15.000+0200},
author = {Giegerich, Heinz J.},
biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2768d3af222fc607fbc4d70cc2c0d3e93/seandalai},
interhash = {80f205fe569f08ed8d73d61b7b07e21a},
intrahash = {768d3af222fc607fbc4d70cc2c0d3e93},
journal = {Word Structure},
keywords = {2009 compounds prosody},
number = 1,
pages = {1--17},
timestamp = {2009-08-30T13:34:15.000+0200},
title = {The English compound stress myth},
url = {http://www.eupjournals.com/doi/abs/10.3366/E1750124509000270},
volume = 2,
year = 2009
}