Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2rsb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T08:27:25.400Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Word stress in French

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Douglas C. Walker
Douglas C. Walker*
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

French phonology and morphology (Schane 1968, henceforth FPM) presents a tightly integrated set of arguments for an abstract morphophonemic stress rule in Modern French. This rule depends crucially on an underlying tense-lax distinction in the vowel system, and on various morphological restrictions. However, the FPM rule can be modified and restricted, within Schane's framework, to give a more accurate picture of stress assignment on a morphophonemic level. Such a reformulation leads to a synchronic rule in Modern French that is very similar to the Latin stress rule, thus providing a potential case where a particular generative phonological approach leads to a historically accurate synchronic grammar.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , December 1975, pp. 887 - 900
Copyright
Copyright © 1975 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Chomsky, N. 1964. Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., and Halle, M. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Delattre, P. 1940. Le mot est-il une entité phonétique en français? Le Français Moderne 8:1.47–56.Google Scholar
Dubois, J., Guilbert, L., Mitterand, H.; and Pignon, J. 1960. Le mouvement général du vocabulaire français de 1949 à 1960 d'après un dictionnaire d'usage. Le Français Moderne 28:2.86–106, 28:3.196–210.Google Scholar
Guiraud, P. 1965. Les mots étrangers. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Harris, J. 1969. Spanish phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hoard, J., and Sloat, C. 1973. Subregularities in morphology. Paper presented at LSA winter meeting, San Diego.Google Scholar
Juilland, A. 1965. Dictionnaire inverse de la langue française. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1973. How abstract is phonology? Three dimensions of linguistic theory, ed. by Fujimura, O., 5–56. Tokyo: TEC Company.Google Scholar
Malmberg, B. 1969. Phonétique française. Malmö: Hermods.Google Scholar
Morin, Y.-C. 1971. Computer experiments in generative phonology: low-level French phonology. (Natural language studies, 11.) Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Phonetics Laboratory.Google Scholar
Postal, P. 1968. Aspects of phonological theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Schane, S. 1968. French phonology and morphology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schane, S. 1972. How abstract is French phonology? Generative studies in Romance languages, ed. by Casagrande, J. & Saciuk, B., 340–352. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. 1972. Rule inversion. Lingua 29.209–242.Google Scholar
Walker, D. 1971. Old French phonology and morphology. University of California, San Diego, dissertation.Google Scholar