Cover not available
Article In:
Concentric
Vol. 50:2 (2024) ► pp.113–144

Word stress patterns in Dharamshala Tibetan

An Optimality Theoretic formalization

| Indian Institute of Technology Ropar
| Indian Institute of Technology Ropar
Word stress is a structural property of increasing prominence. An established line of scholarship regarding word stress exists both in terms of theory and description in the Lhasa Tibetan (LT) language. Unlike LT, no such scholarly works are available that focus on Dharamshala Tibetan (DT), a dialectal variety spoken by Tibetan refugees living in the Dharamshala area in Himachal Pradesh, India. The current work aims to provide a systematic and concise theorisation of DT word stress based on the data collected from field in terms of parameters like culminativity, location of the head, direction, and quantity sensitivity. Optimality Theory is used to offer a theoretical judgment behind the analysis. A majority of DT words contain a trochaic, weight-insensitive, left-to-right stress pattern. The degenerate foot is accepted. Very few instances of words with an iambic stress pattern were found during the fieldwork. Similarly, few words containing heavy syllables are available in the word stress pattern inventory of DT.
Keywords: word stress, Dharamshala Tibetan, trochaic, iambic, syllable weight, Optimality Theory
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology
    • 2.1Data collection
    • 2.2Stimuli
  • 3.Acoustic correlates of word stress
  • 4.Universal word stress features of DT
    • 4.1Culminativity
    • 4.2Foot dominance and hierarchy
    • 4.3Directionality of foot and iterativity
    • 4.4Boundedness
    • 4.5Demarcative property
    • 4.6Quantity sensitivity
  • 5.Word stress through the lens of the generative grammar
  • 6.DT word stress in OT framework
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (62)
References
Alabeeky, Reem. 2021. Word stress in Qassimi Arabic: A constraint-based analysis. International Journal of English Linguistics 12.11:98–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altshuler, Daniel. 2009. Quantity-insensitive iambs in Osage. International Journal of American Linguistics 75.31:365–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baković, Eric. 2004. Unbounded stress and factorial typology. Optimality Theory in Phonology, ed. by John J. McCarthy, 202–214. Malden, Oxford & Carlton: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beyer, Stephan V. 1992. The Classical Tibetan Language. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink. 2010. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer. Retrieved May 29, 2022, from [URL]
Broselow, Ellen. 1992. Parametric variation in Arabic dialect phonology. Perspectives on Arabic linguistics IV, ed. by Ellen Broselow, Mushira Eid and John J. McCarthy, 7–45. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caplow, Nancy J. 2017. Reconstructing stress in Proto-Tibetan: Evidence from Balti and Rebkong Amdo. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 39.21:180–221.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Dawson, Willa. 1980. Tibetan Phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Washington, D.C.
de Lacy, Paul. 2002. The interaction of tone and stress in Optimality Theory. Phonology 19.11:1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 2006a. Classical Tibetan. The Sino-Tibetan Languages, ed. by Graham Thurgood and Randy John LaPolla, vol. 31, 255–269. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2006b. Lhasa Tibetan. The Sino-Tibetan Languages, ed. by Graham Thurgood and Randy John LaPolla, vol. 31, 270–288. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Denwood, Philip. 1999. Tibetan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dodsworth, Robin. 2017. Migration and dialect contact. Annual Review of Linguistics 3.11:331–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 1998. German word stress in Optimality Theory. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2.21:101–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goedemans, Rob. 2010. A typology of stress patterns. A Survey of Word Accentual Patterns in the Languages of the World, ed. by Harry van der Hulst, Rob Goedemans and Ellen van Zanten, 647–668. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goedemans, Rob, and Harry van der Hulst. 2014. The separation of accent and rhythm: Evidence from StressTyp. Word Stress: Theoretical and Typological Issues, ed. by Harry van der Hulst, 119–146. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gong, Xun. 2021. How many vowels are there in Lhasa Tibetan? Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 43.21:225–254.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew. 2006. Syllable Weight: Phonetics, Phonology, Typology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2011. Stress systems. The Handbook of Phonological Theory, ed. by John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle and Alan C. L. Yu, 141–163. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, Jeffrey R. 2012. The phonology of voicing and aspiration in Amdo Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 35.21:1–31.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris, and William Idsardi. 1995. General properties of stress and metrical structure. A Handbook of Phonological Theory, ed. by John Goldsmith, 403–443. Cambridge & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael. 2000. There is no lexicon! Coyote Papers 101:55–77.Google Scholar
Hartley, Lauran R. 1996. The role of regional factors in the standardization of spoken Tibetan. The Tibet Journal 21.41:30–57.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Huang, Yaqian. 2019. Revisiting non-idempotency in Tibetan vowel harmony. San Diego Linguistic Papers 71:2–16.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 1985. A Theory of Phonological Weight. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon. 1999. Exceptional stress-attracting suffixes in Turkish: Representations versus the grammar. The Prosody-Morphology Interface, ed. by Harry van der Hulst, René Kager and Wim Zonneveld, 134–187. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 1995. The core-periphery structure in the lexicon and constraints on re-ranking. Papers in Optimality Theory, ed. by Jill Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey and Suzanne Urbanczyk, 181–209. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Kager, René. 1993. Alternatives to the iambic-trochaic law. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 11.31:381–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles W. 1970. On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1.31:291–306.Google Scholar
Kondo, Riena. 2001. Guahibo stress: Both trochaic and iambic. International Journal of American Linguistics 67.21:136–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ladd, Dwight Robert. 2008. Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liberman, Mark, and Alan Prince. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8.21:249–336.Google Scholar
Lim, Jonathan. 2018. Tonal and Intonational Phonology of Lhasa Tibetan. Doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
McCarthy, John J. 1995. Faithfulness in prosodic morphology and phonology: Rotuman revisited. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1993. Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology 1993, ed. by Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 79–153. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. Prosodic morphology 1986. Linguistics Department Faculty Publication Series, vol. 131, ed. by Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts Amherst, 1–100. Amherst, MA: Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
McConnell, Fiona. 2016. Rehearsing the State: The Political Practices of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile. Chichester, UK & Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meredith, Scott. 1990. Issues in the Phonology of Prominence. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Milroy, Lesley. 2002. Introduction: Mobility, contact and language change — Working with contemporary speech communities. Journal of Sociolinguistics 6.11:3–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Monich, Irina. 2011. Interaction of tone and intonation in Lhasa Tibetan: A working hypothesis. Paper presented at the 34th Generative Linguistics in the Old World (GLOW34), University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Munshi, Sadaf, and Megan J. Crowhurst. 2012. Weight sensitivity and syllable codas in Srinagar Koshur. Journal of Linguistics 48.21:427–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht, Netherlands & Riverton, NJ: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Norbu, Dawa. 2001. Refugees from Tibet: Structural causes of successful settlements. The Tibet Journal 26.21:3–25.Google Scholar
Pandey, Pramod. 2021. An optimality theoretic account of word stress in Hindi. Lingua 2501:1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pater, Joe. 1994. Against the underlying specification of an ‘exceptional’ English stress pattern. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 131:95–121.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Samuels, Jonathan. 2014. Colloquial Tibetan: The Complete Course for Beginners. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1980. The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. Linguistic Inquiry 11.31:563–605.Google Scholar
1986. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Staubs, Robert. 2014. Learning and the position of primary stress. Proceedings of the 31th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL31), ed. by Robert E. Santana-LaBarge, 428–437. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S. 1986. Aspects of the Phonology of Amdo Tibetan: Ndzorge Śæme Xg̳ra Dialect. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.Google Scholar
2003. Phonological profile of Zhongu: A new Tibetan dialect of Northern Sichuan. Language and Linguistics 4.41:769–836.Google Scholar
2006. Special linguistic features of gSerpa Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 29.11:107–126.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Hiroyuki. 2011. Phonetic analysis of dGudzong Tibetan: The vernacular of Khams Tibetan spoken in the rGyalrong area. Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology 35.41:617–653.Google Scholar
. 2022. Geolinguistics in the Eastern Tibetosphere: An Introduction. Tokyo: Geolinguistic Society of Japan.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Hiroyuki, and Sonam Wangmo. 2017. Vocabulary of Shingnyag Tibetan: A dialect of Amdo Tibetan spoken in Lhagang, Khams Minyag. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 111:101–127.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas, and Sangda Dorje. 2003. Manual of Standard Tibetan: Language and Civilization. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications.Google Scholar
Watters, David E. 2002. A Grammar of Kham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar