This paper has two aims. The first is to critically review the previous accounts of words with stressed suffixes, -ary/-ory, -ative, and -atory. The previous analyses to be reviewed are Halle and Vergnaud (1987), Burzio (1994), and Halle (1998). The second aim is to propose an alternative account of them using universal tools proposed for mono-morphemic words by Kim (2000). The mechanisms employed for the account include four constraints, silent beats and Tone-linking. The constraints are Trochee, Foot Binarity, PreParse-2, and Weight-Stress (WS). Previous analyses lack universality of the theoretical constructs and they are complex. Other metrical models such as Hayes (1980, 1995) and Hammond (1999) do not deal with the words ending in stressed suffixes at all. The characteristic of the present analysis is to allow flexible footing as long as the four constraints are satisfied by the footing and to require the obligatory satisfaction of these constraints. In these respects the dual-counting foot theory is distinguished from the standard Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993).
This paper has two aims. The first is to critically review the previous accounts of words with stressed suffixes, -ary/-ory, -ative, and -atory. The previous analyses to be reviewed are Halle and Vergnaud (1987), Burzio (1994), and Halle (1998). The second aim is to propose an alternative account of them using universal tools proposed for mono-morphemic words by Kim (2000). The mechanisms employed for the account include four constraints, silent beats and Tone-linking. The constraints are Trochee, Foot Binarity, PreParse-2, and Weight-Stress (WS). Previous analyses lack universality of the theoretical constructs and they are complex. Other metrical models such as Hayes (1980, 1995) and Hammond (1999) do not deal with the words ending in stressed suffixes at all. The characteristic of the present analysis is to allow flexible footing as long as the four constraints are satisfied by the footing and to require the obligatory satisfaction of these constraints. In these respects the dual-counting foot theory is distinguished from the standard Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993).
(0)
(0)