Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 40:1 (2023) ► pp.111–152

Reconstructing non-contrastive stress in Austronesian and the role of the mora in stress shift, gemination and vowel shift

ORCID logo | The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Competing schools of thought on the reconstruction of Proto-Austronesian stress contend that primary stress was either regular (falling on the penultimate syllable with possible phonetic conditions that triggered stress shift to the final syllable) or lexical (falling unpredictably either on the penult or ultima). In this study, I argue that the comparative evidence supports the first position: that primary stress fell regularly on the penultimate syllable and was not lexical. Further, primary stress was repelled to the final syllable if the penultimate syllable was open and contained a schwa nucleus. Three Austronesian first-order subgroups, Malayo-Polynesian, Western Formosan, and Paiwan, are shown to directly continue the reconstructed stress system of Proto-Austronesian, with stress falling regularly on the penultimate syllable but shifting to the final syllable after a schwa.I also argue that the inability of schwa to hold stress is a result not of quality, but rather of quantity, as it is shown that schwa was a zero-weight vowel in Proto-Austronesian. Words with a schwa in the penultimate syllable, CəCVC, are shown to be sub-minimal, containing only a single mora. Daughter languages in Malayo-Polynesian underwent multiple cases of phonologically motivated drift, including consonant gemination, the deletion of penultimate schwa in three-syllable words, and vowel shift. These sound changes are argued to be part of a phonological conspiracy whose outcome is the addition of a mora to sub-minimal words. This study therefore offers both a reconstruction of Proto-Austronesian stress as well as a phonological explanation for these various sound changes in Malayo-Polynesian.
Keywords: Proto-Austronesian, stress, phonological reconstruction, drift, sound change
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Austronesian background
  • 3.Proto-Austronesian stress
    • 3.1Past proposals that reconstruct contrastive stress
    • 3.2Evidence for penultimate stress with schwa-triggered stress shift
      • 3.2.1Philippine languages where stress shifts to the final syllable after a penultimate schwa
      • 3.2.2Penultimate stress with schwa-triggered stress shift in non-Philippine Malayo-Polynesian languages
      • 3.2.3Formosan languages
    • 3.4Summary of stress reconstruction
  • 4.Why stress shift? An argument for a zero-mora schwa
    • 4.1Variable weight
    • 4.2Interaction of stress, gemination and schwa in Malayo-Polynesian
      • 4.2.1Type one: Gemination with stress shift after schwa
      • 4.2.2Type two: Gemination after schwa and strict penultimate stress
      • 4.2.3Possible motivations for type-one and type-two stress responses to gemination
        • i.Moraic requirement
        • ii.Lexicalization
        • iii.Superheavy ban
        • iv.Moraic onsets
    • 4.3Schwa-shift as a mora addition strategy
    • 4.4Schwa deletion in three-or-more-syllable words
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 19 August 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.20032.smi
References
Adelaar, K. Alexander
1981 Reconstruction of Proto-Batak phonology. In Robert Blust (ed.), Historical linguistics in Indonesia Part 1 1, 1–20. Jakarta: Badan Penyelenggara Seri NUSA, Universitas Atma Jakarta.Google Scholar
1991 Some notes on the origin of Sri Lanka Malay. In Hein Steinhauer (ed.), Papers in Austronesian Linguistics 11. 23–37. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Baird, Louise
2002 A grammar of Kéo: An Austronesian language of East Nusantara. PhD dissertation, The Australian National University.
Bellwood, Peter
1985–1986 A hypothesis for Austronesian origins. Asian Perspectives 26(1). 107–117.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert
1977 Sketches of the morphology and phonology of Bornean languages 1: Uma Juman (Kayan). In Hein Steinhauer (ed.), Papers in Bornean and Western Austronesian Languages 2 1. 7–122. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
1978 Eastern Malayo-Polynesian: A subgrouping argument. In Stephen. A. Wurm (ed.), Second International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics: Proceedings, 181–234. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
1985–1986 The Austronesian homeland: A linguistic perspective. Asian Perspectives 261. 45–67.Google Scholar
1988 Sketches of the morphology and phonology of Bornean languages 2: Mukah Melanau. In Hein Steinhauer (ed.), Papers in Western Austronesian Linguistics 31.151–216. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
1991 The Greater Central Philippines hypothesis. Oceanic Linguistics. 301: 73–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992 On speech strata in Tiruray. In Malcolm Ross (ed.), Papers in Austronesian Linguistics 21. 1–52. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
1994–1995 Blust collection. ms. [URL]
1995 Notes on Berawan consonant gemination. Oceanic Linguistics 341. 123–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 Rukai stress revisited. Oceanic Linguistics 36(2). 398–403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999 Subgrouping, circularity and extinction: Some issues in Austronesian comparative linguistics. In Elizabeth Zeitoun & Paul. J. K. Li (eds.), Selected Papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Number 1 in Symposium Series of the Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica, 31–94. Taipei: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
2000 Chamorro historical phonology. Oceanic Linguistics 391. 83–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 Kiput historical phonology. Oceanic Linguistics 41(2). 384–438. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003a A short morphology, phonology and vocabulary of Kiput, Sarawak. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
2003b Thao dictionary. Language and Linguistics Monograph Series, A5. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
2006 The origin of the Kelabit voiced aspirates: A historical hypothesis revisited. Oceanic Linguistics 451. 311–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007a The linguistic position of Sama-Bajaw. Studies in Philippine Languages and Cultures 151. 73–114.Google Scholar
2007b Òma Lóngh historical phonology. Oceanic Linguistics 461. 1–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Is there a Bima-Sumba subgroup? Oceanic Linguistics 471. 45–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Blust field notes. ms. [URL]
2013 The Austronesian languages. 2nd edn. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
2017 Regular metathesis in Batanic (Northern Philippines)? Oceanic Linguistics 56(2). 491–504. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 Two birds with one stone: The aerodynamic voicing constraint and the languages of Borneo. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 11(2). 1–18.Google Scholar
2020 Response to comments on “The Resurrection of Proto-Philippines”. Oceanic Linguistics 591. 450–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blust, Robert & Stephen Trussel
ongoing). Austronesian comparative dictionary. [URL]
Brainard, Sherri & Dietlinde Behrens
2002 A grammar of Yakan. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar
Brandstetter, Renward
1916 An introduction to Indonesian linguistics: Being four essays by Renward Brandstetter. Translated by C. O. Blagden. London: Royal Asiatic Society.Google Scholar
Cense, A. A.
1979 Makassaars-Nederlands Woordenboek. The Hauge: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Chang, Henry Yungli
2006 Rethinking the Tsouic subgroup hypothesis: A morphosyntactic perspective. In Henry Yungli Chang, Lillian M. Huang & Dah-an Ho (eds.), Streams converging into an ocean: Festschrift in honor of Professor Paul Jen-kuei Li on his 70th birthday, Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Chen, Chun-Mei
2004 Phonetic structures of Paiwan. In Paul Law (ed.), Proceedings of the 11th Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA 11), 30–44. Berlin: Zentrum Für Allegemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Typologie und Universalienforschung (ZAS). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 A comparative study on Formosan phonology: Paiwan and Budai Rukai. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Chen, Teresa M.
1987 Verbal constructions and verbal classification in Nataoran-Amis. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Cho, Young-mee Yu & Tracy Holloway King
2003 Semisyllables and universal syllabification. In Caroline Féry & Ruben van de Vijver (eds.), The syllable in Optimality Theory, 183–212. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chrétien, C. Douglass
1965 The statistical structure of the Proto-Austronesian morph. Lingua 141. 243–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayre, Beatrice & Lea Cubit
1974 An outline of Kayan grammar. Sarawak Museum Journal 22(43). 43–91.Google Scholar
Cyran, Eugeniusz
2001 Parameters and scales in syllable markedness: The right edge of the word in Malayalam. Trends in Linguistic Studies and Monographs 1341. 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daguman, Josephine S.
2013 A grammar of Northern Subanen. Outstanding grammars from Australia, 13. Muenchen: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Dempwolff, Otto Chr
1937 Vergleichende Lautlehre des austronesischen Wortschatzes. Deduktive Anwendung des Urindonesischen auf austronesische Einzelsprachen, Vol 21. Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
Djawanai, Stephanus
1977 A description of the basic phonology of Nga’da and the treatment of borrowings. NUSA 51. 10–18.Google Scholar
DuBois, Carl D.
1976 Sarangani Manobo: An introductory guide. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, Special Monograph no. 6. Manila: Linguistics Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar
Eades, Ddomenyk & J. Hajek
2006 Gayo. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 361. 107–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eberhard, David M., Gary F. Simons & Charles D. Fennig
(eds.) 2021 Ethnologue: Languages of the world. 24th edn. Dallas, Texas: SIL International.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline
2003 Onsets and nonmoraic syllables in German. In Caroline Féry & Ruben van de Vijver (eds.), The syllable in Optimality Theory, 213–237. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fey, Virginia
1986 Amis dictionary. Taipei: The Bible Society.Google Scholar
Forman, Michael L.
1971 Kapampangan dictionary. PALI Language Texts: Philippines. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Google Scholar
Goudswaard, N. E.
2005 The Begak (Ida’an) language of Sabah. Utrecht: Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce
1995 Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & May Abad
1989 Reduplication and syllabification in Ilocano. Lingua 771. 331–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Healey, Phyllis. M.
1960 An Agta grammar. Manila: Bureau of Printing / Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Huang, Hui-chuan J.
2018 The nature of pretonic weak vowels in Squliq Atayal. Oceanic Linguistics 57(2). 265–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jukes, Anthony
2020 A grammar of Makasar: A language of South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kager, René
1989 A metrical theory of stress and destressing in English and Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Daniel & Nikolaus Himmelmann
2021 The prosodic typology of Western Austronesian languages. Plenary talk at the 15th International Conference on Austronesian Languages (15-ICAL) . June 30th, The Department of Asian Studies, Palacký University Olomouc.
Klamer, Margaretha
1998 A grammar of Kambera. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liao, Hsiu-chuan
2020 A reply to Blust 2019 “The Resurrection of Proto-Philippines”. Oceanic Linguistics 591. 426–449. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Paul Jen-kuei
1977 The internal relationships of Rukai. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 481. 1–92.Google Scholar
1978 A comparative vocabulary of Saisiyat dialects. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 491. 133–199.Google Scholar
2008 Time perspective of Formosan Aborigines. In Alicia Sanchez-Mazas, Roger Blench, Malcolm Ross, Ilia Peiros & Marie Lin (eds.), Past human migrations in East Asia: Matching archaeology, linguistics and genetics, 211–218. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lynch, John
2000 Reconstructing Proto-Oceanic stress. Oceanic Linguistics 391. 53–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, R. R. & S. Darjowidjojo
1967 Indonesian reference grammar. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian & Richard Wright
1995 The vowels and consonants of Amis – A preliminary phonetic report. Fieldwork Studies of Targeted Languages III. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 911. 45–65.Google Scholar
McManus, Edwin
1977 Palauan-English dictionary. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mills, R. F.
1975 Proto-South Sulawesi and Proto-Austronesian phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Namboodiripad, Savithry, Eric Bakovic & Marc Garellek
2015 Moraic geminates in Malayalam: Evidence from minimal word effects and loanword adaptation. Paper presented at the 15th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America: Portland Oregon. [URL]
Pejros, I.
1994 Some problems of Austronesian accent and *t ~ *C (Notes of an outsider). Oceanic Linguistics 331. 105–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reid, Laurence
1971 Philippine minor languages: Word lists and phonologies. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Google Scholar
2020 Response to Blust “The Resurrection of Proto-Philippines”. Oceanic Linguistics 591. 374–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Remijsen, Albert
2001 Word-prosodic systems of Raja Ampat languages. Leiden: LOT.Google Scholar
Rosenthall, Sam & Harry van der Hulst
1999 Weight-by-position by position. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17(3). 499–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, Malcolm
1992 The sound of Proto-Austronesian: An outsider’s view of the Formosan evidence. Oceanic Linguistics 311. 23–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Proto-Austronesian verbal morphology: A reappraisal. In Alexander Adelaar & Andrew Pawley (eds.), Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history: A festschrift for Robert Blust, 295–326. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
2020 Comment on Blust “The Resurrection of Proto-Philippines”. Oceanic Linguistics 591: 366–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rubino, Carl Ralph Galvez
2000 Ilocano dictionary and grammar: Ilocano-English, English-Ilocano. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi, PALI Language Texts.Google Scholar
Sagart, Laurent
2014 In defense of the numeral-based model of Austronesian phylogeny, and of Tsouic. Language and Linguistics 15(6). 859–882.Google Scholar
Schlegel, Stuart A.
1971 Tiruray-English lexicon. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Alexander D.
2017a The languages of Borneo: A comprehensive classification. PhD dissertation, University of Hawaiʻi.
2017b Merap historical phonology in the context of a central Bornean linguistic area. Oceanic Linguistics 561. 143–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017c The Western Malayo-Polynesian problem. Oceanic Linguistics 56(2). 435–490. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018a Proto-Austronesian schwa: Phonotactic restrictions and weight phenomena throughout Austronesian. Paper presented at the 25th Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA 25) , 10–12 May, 2018, Taiwan: Academia Sinica.
2018b Kayanic comparative vocabularies. ms. [URL]
2020 Reduplication and root-internal syllabification in Ilocano. Poster presented at the 4th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America , January 2–5, New Orleans.
Sneddon, J. N.
1975 Tondano phonology and grammar. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
1984 Proto-Sangiric and the Sangiric languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Topintzi, Nina
2008 On the existence of moraic onset geminates. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 261. 147–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Onsets: Suprasegmental and prosodic behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsuchida, Shigeru
1980 Puyuma (Tamalakaw dialect) vocabulary. Kuroshio no minkozu, Bujnka, Gengo. Tokyo: Kadokawa.Google Scholar
van Oostendorp, Marc
2003 Schwa in phonological theory. In L. Cheng & R. Sybesma (eds.), Studies in Generative Grammar 611. 431–462. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Walker, Dale F.
1975 A lexical study of Lampung dialects. NUSA 11. 11–21.Google Scholar
1976 A grammar of the Lampung language: The Pesisir dialect of Way Lima. NUSA 21. 1–59.Google Scholar
Walker, Alan. T.
1982 A grammar of Sawu. Linguistic Studies in Indonesian and Languages in Indonesia, 13. Jakarta: Universitas Atma Jaya.Google Scholar
Wolff, John U.
1972 A dictionary of Cebuano Visayan. Philippine Journal of Linguistics Special Monograph Issue no. 4. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar
Wolff, John
1991 The Proto Austronesian phoneme *t and the grouping of the Austronesian languages. In Robert Blust (ed.), Currents in Pacific linguistics: Papers on Austronesian languages and ethnolinguistics in honour of George W. Grace, 535–549. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Yamada, Yukihiro
1967 Phonology of Itbayaten. The Philippine Journal of Science 941. 373–393.Google Scholar
Zewen, François-Xavier Nicolas
1977 The Marshallese language: A study of its phonology, morphology, and syntax. Hamburg: Reimer.Google Scholar
Zorc, David
1972 Current and Proto-Tagalic stress. The Philippine Journal of Linguistics 31. 43–57.Google Scholar
1978 Proto-Philippine word accent: Innovation or Proto-Hesperonesian retention? In Stephen A. Wurm & Lois Carrington (eds.), Second International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics: Proceedings, Fascicle 1, Western Austronesian, 67–119. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Zorc, R. David
1993 Overview of Austronesian and Philippine accent patterns. In Jerold A. Edmondson & Kenneth J. Gregerson (eds.), Tonality in Austronesian languages, 17–24. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Google Scholar
Zorc, David
2020 Reactions to Blust’s “The Resurrection of Proto-Philippines”. Oceanic Linguistics 591. 394–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar