Some problematic predictions and open questions

There seem to be two major errors in reasoning in Withgott & Halvorsen's (1984, 1988) analysis of compounds. The first problem stems from their analysis of accent assignment in the present tense. The second concerns their categorisation and understanding of tonally neutral suffixes. Let us begin with Withgott & Halvorsen’s (1984) prediction that the accent of a verb in the present tense should match the accent of compounds made with this verbal stem, as we mentioned in section 2.1.6 of Chapter 2.

According to Withgott & Halvorsen (1984), the differing accent of present tense verbs is a consequence of diverging tonal representation of the stems. Therefore, they predict that all verbs with Accent-1 present tense forms should form Accent-1 compounds, and all verbs with Accent-2 present tense forms will have Accent-2 compounds. Kristoffersen (1992:48) investigated this prediction from Withgott & Halvorsen (1984), and provides the following list of compounds that do not comply with it.

(7) Present tense verbs and corresponding compounds (Kristoffersen 1992:48)

VerbsPRES Gloss Compounds Gloss

'skriker1 screamPRES 'skrikhals2 squaller

'sniker1 sneakPRES 'snikskytter2 sniper

a. Accent-1 'sprekker1 burst, splitPRES

Accent-2 'sprekkdannelse2 fissuration

'tenner2 ignitePRES 'tennsats1 percussion cap

'dekker2 coverPRES 'dekkevne1 surface to paint

b. Accent-2 'hefter2 attachPRES

Accent-1 'heftplaster1 adhesive tape

In (7a), there are Accent-1 present forms, the stems of which create Accent-2 compounds contradictory to the predictions made in Withgott & Halvorsen (1984). In (7b), we have Accent-1 compounds from three stems, {^Htenn-}, {^Hdekk-}, and {^Hheft-}, all of which should bear floating H tones because of their Accent-2 present tense forms. However, this lexical H does not surface in any of the compounds in (7b), as Withgott & Halvorsen (1984) would predict. In light of this evidence, we must conclude that the accent a verb has in the present tense, does not necessarily correlate with the tone it has as the first constituent of a compound.

This could be seen as further proof that these verb stems do not differ in accent, but rather that the difference lies in the present tense suffixes, as our analysis suggests (cf. Chapter 3, section 2.2.2).

This discrepancy in the accent of verbs in the present tense and as first constituents of compounds, however, does not necessarily rule out the possibility that monosyllables can indeed be underlyingly specified for accent. In Withgott & Halvorsen (1988), they make a further prediction that we believe leads to the second major error. They predict that the underlying accent of monosyllabic words should not only show up in compounds, but that it

should surface with neutral affixes as well (cf. Withgott & Halvorsen 1988:281f).

Unfortunately, the only neutral affix mentioned in this paper is {-aktig}, and indeed suffixation with {-aktig} acts just like a compound. Monosyllabic words suffixed with {-aktig} exhibit the same accent as when they make up the first constituents of compounds (e.g. 'vatt1 ‘cotton’, 'vattaktig1 ‘cottony’; 'vann1 ‘water’, 'vannaktig2 ‘watery’).

If we look back at Withgott & Halvorsen (1984), however, they claim that the derivational suffix {-het} is a neutral suffix, and it is here we find counterevidence. Following their argumentation, the monosyllabic first constituent of an Accent-2 compound such as 'finkamm2

‘fine-tooth comb’ or 'finbrød2 ‘fine-grain rye bread’ has an inherent H, i.e, {^Hfin-}. This floating H ultimately surfaces when there is a disyllabic domain on Level 1, where derivational suffixation and compounding takes place. However, if compounding and derivational suffixes both attach on Level 1, and we, on the one hand, form a compound with {^Hfin-} and, on the other hand, attach a neutral suffix like {-het}, we find that the floating H of {^Hfin-} only surfaces in the compound 'finbrød2 ‘fine-grain rye bread’, and not in the new disyllabic suffixed form 'finhet1 ‘refinement’. Presumably there are many such examples (e.g. 'godlukt2

‘fragrance’, 'godhet1 ‘goodness’; 'mildvær ‘mild weather’, 'mildhet ‘mildness’ to name just a few). Thus, their prediction does not hold for the neutral suffix {-het}. Something must be blocking the floating H from surfacing in these derived forms. If you recall Chapter 3, section 3.2.3, our analysis claims that the morpheme {-het} is a clitic, added after accent assignment.

We came to this conclusion because {-het} is invisible to accent assignment, as can be seen here, and consequently does not add a syllable to a prosodic word – as far as accent assignment is concerned. As we mentioned in Chapter 3 (section 3.2.3), derivational suffixes consisting of two syllables, e.g. {-aktig}, {-messig}, behave just as a second constituent of a compound.

Thus, once again we find that Withgott & Halvorsen (1984, 1988) have constituents grouped together that behave differently as they did when they classified the definite articles as Accent-1 inducing suffixes.

There are further questions about stems with inherent H tones, concerning how and when the floating H of a stem attaches to the main stressed syllable. Withgott & Halvorsen (1984) posit that derivational affixation and compound formation both take place on Level 1.

However, if a monosyllabic word attaches to a so-called H-inducing suffix, e.g. {^H-lig}, {^H-dom}, Withgott & Halvorsen (1988) claim that the floating H of the suffix connects to the main stressed syllable resulting in Accent-2 derivations, e.g. 'guddom2 ‘deity’. Yet, when a

monosyllabic word joins to form a compound with, for example, another monosyllable, e.g.

brann + ^Hmann ‘fireman’, the floating H of the second constituent should technically surface here as well.⁶⁰ That is, if compounding takes place on the same level as {-^Hlig} and {-^Hdom}

suffixation, why does the floating H of {-^Hlig} and {-^Hdom} surface, but not that of {^Hmann}?

Once again a detail that Withgott & Halvorsen (1984, 1988) do not explain.