After having considered accent assignment and inflectional and derivational affixes we now return to our initial assumptions and give an overview of how our approach accommodates not only simplex words but also complex words, i.e., inflectional and derivational morphology. We start with our original assumptions below in (61).
(61) Lexical and default accent (repeated from (4)) a. Lexical Accent 1 always dominates.
b. Default accent assignment (if no lexical specification):
i. [. . . 'σ σ . . .]ω Accent 2 ii. [. . . 'σ ]ω Accent 1
To account for accent assignment in affixed words we propose the following classifications:
(62) Lexical specification of inflectional and derivational morphemes Inflectional and derivational affixes lexically specified for Accent 1:
Indefinite umlauting plural: {-·e+r}
Comparative umlauting suffix: {-·r+e}
Idiosyncratic comparative, e.g.: {be+dre},{e+ldre}
Indefinite superlative suffix: {-+st}
Borrowed unstressed prefixes e.g.: {be-+}, {for-+}, {er-+ }
Stressed verbal prefixes e.g.: {a+n-}VERB, {a+v-}VERB, {me+d-}VERB,
{mo+t-}VERB, {ne+d-}VERB, {o+m-}VERB, {o+pp-}VERB, {p+å-}VERB, {ti+l-}VERB, {u+nn-}VERB, {u+t-}VERB
Adjectival suffix: {-+isk} (in addition to unspecified {-(i)sk})
(63) Unspecified inflectional and derivational morphemes a. Unspecified inflectional suffixes:
Indefinite plural markers for nouns: {-er} ({-Ø} or {-e})
Infinitival ending: {-e} ({-Ø})
Present tense suffixes: {-er}/{-r};
Past tense suffixes: {-dde},{-et/-a}, {-te}, {-de}/{-Ø}
Participle ending: {-ende}
Comparative suffix: {-ere}
Definite superlative suffix: {-ste}
b. Unspecified derivational affixes:
native stressed prefixes: {mis-}, {sam-}, {van-};
stressed nominal prefixes: {an-}NOUN, {av-}NOUN, {med-}NOUN, {mot-}NOUN,{ned-}NOUN, {om-}NOUN, {opp-}NOUN, {på-}NOUN, {til-}NOUN, {unn-}NOUN, {ut-}NOUN
unspecified derivational suffixes: {-bar},{-dom}, {-er}, {-else}, {-ig}, {-ing}, {-(i)sk}, {-lig}, {-løs},{-sel}, {skap}ω,{-som}
c. Unspecified clitics that do not affect accent assignment:
Definite singular neuter marker: {=et}
Definite singular common gender marker: {=en}
Definite plural: {=ne}
Derivational suffix: {=het}
d. Unspecified suffixes with epenthetic vowels that do not effect accent assignment:
Nominalising suffix: {-sel} underlying representation /sl/
e. Unspecified uffixes that make up a prosodic word of their own:
Derivational suffix: {-skap}ω
Following our assumptions in (61), and the classifications we make in (62) and (63), we are able to correctly predict accent assignment for Standard East Norwegian simplex and complex words. It is all a matter of recognising whether an affix or stem is lexically specified, or not;
what its prosodic make-up is (i.e., does it consist of a separate prosodic word), what its segmental make-up is (i.e., does it make up a syllable or not); whether it is a suffix or clitic;
and what kind of derivation is being performed (e.g. is a noun being derived from a verb or not as we saw with 'påkjørsel2 ‘crash’). This may appear to be an abundance of conditions,
however, the analyses we discussed in Chapter 2 have never tried to account for this many inflectional or derivational morphemes. In our analysis, only three inflectional suffixes must be lexically specified along with a handful of idiosyncratic comparative forms. In Accent-2 analyses, basically all inflectional suffixes consisting of a syllable have to be lexically specified for inducing Accent 2 (cf. (63a)) – except for the cases that we have specified for being lexically specified for Accent 1 (cf. (62a)). They also have to account for the behaviour of the definite articles and {-het} (cf. (63c)), which they do not classify as clitics. As for the derivational affixes, only the borrowed affixes and affixes modelled on these are lexically specified. All other affixes (cf. (63b)) appear to follow the morphological and phonological rules of Standard East Norwegian, according to their prosodic and segmental make-up. We must admit, however, that we have not yet discovered the regularities of {-ig} and {-lig}, which will prove to be problematic for all approaches, not only in Standard East Norwegian, but in other Germanic languages as well.
C
HAPTER4
C
OMPOUNDS AND TONES: P
REVIOUS AND PRESENT ANALYSESAccent assignment in compounds divides Scandinavian tonal languages and dialects into two camps, those that have contrasting accent, and those that only have Accent-2 compounds. In Sweden this division basically gives us a north and central vs. far-south configuration with most dialects lacking accent opposition in compounds. Southern Swedish, most Norwegian and Danish compounds, however, have accent opposition. By Danish we, of course, are referring to a stød–non-stød contrast which corresponds to the tonal Accent 1 ~ Accent 2 contrast.
Norwegian dialects appear to be more on a gradient scale, with one end signifying those dialects that have tonal contrast in compounds (e.g. Oslo dialect), and at the other end are those without accent contrast (e.g. Tromsø dialect). We assume that many other dialects would then be classified somewhere in between these two extremes, i.e., dialects that have lost lexical specification in some words yet not in others to varying degrees. Ove Lorentz (p.c.) reports that in Tromsø, in the far north, this dialect exclusively has Accent-2 compounds whereas a bit further south in Narvik, compounds with monosyllabic first constituents and linking {-s} still have Accent 1. Travelling further south to Trondheim, there appear to be fewer Accent-1 compounds, than even further south in Oslo. However, these are just observations, since a comprehensive study of compound accent in Norwegian dialects – to our knowledge – has yet to be conducted.57
In what follows, we first lay all the critical data from Standard East Norwegian compounds out on the table in section 1. We then briefly summarise previous analyses on tonal accent and compounds in section 2. In section 3, we present our account of compound accent assignment for Standard East Norwegian, also taking a brief look at Central Swedish compounds. As we mentioned in Chapter 2, Riad (1996, 1998a) suggests that dialects with no tonal contrast in compounds represent the more original state of tonal distribution. He asserts that dialects with compounds contrasting in accent, such as Standard East Norwegian, are the innovation. We will discuss and challenge this claim in Chapter 5.
57. See Riad (2006:40) for a very informative map of compound-accent differences in Scandinavia.