Linguistics 696bFall ’09HammondHanson and Kiparsky (1997)A. Overview(1) Outline:a. questions from last timeb. liturgy and newsc. parametersd. FITe. FinnishB. Parameters(2) a. Number of feet: nb. Headedness: L or Rc. (Maximum) position size: µ, σ, φ, ωd. Prominence site: (S ⇒ ¬U, W ⇒ ¬P, S ⇒ P, W ⇒ U)e. Prominence type: weight, stress, strength, pitch accent, etc.(3) Moraic trochee with resolution: the minimal foot (p.296)(4) Hayes: left lax, right strict...(5) Secret activities...?(6) “FIT: Languages select meters in which their entire vocabularies are usable in thegreatest variety of ways” (p.294).(7) “INTEREST: The parameters are set so as to maximize the esthetic interest of theverse” (p.295).(8) “It is important to note that fit is a guiding functional principle that will have its ef-fect where it can, and not an inviolable constraint that a meter must satisfy” (p.294).(9) Select a set of parameters that minimizes unusable words, e.g. f`ortific´ation,h´ıer`archy, H´ob`oken, etc.1(10) “Thus our theory predicts that syllable-based meters in English must prohibit strongsyllables in weak positions” (p.296).(11) How do they get strict ternary meters?(12) This finds a home for sprung rhythm, but then why is it so rare?(13) How do the foot-based meters work? Are these “loose” meters?C. Finnish(14) What is catalexis?(15) What is hypermetricality?(16) Why do we care about Finnish?D. ReferencesHammond, Michael. 1999. Is phonology irrelevant? Literary and Linguistic Computing13:165–175.Hanson, Kristin, and Paul Kiparsky. 1997. A parametric theory of poetic meter. Language72:287–335.Hayes, Bruce. 1983. A grid-based theory of English meter. Linguistic Inquiry 14:357–394.Kiparsky, P. 1989. Sprung rhythm. In Rhythm and meter, ed. P. Kiparsky and G. Youmans,305–340. San Diego: Academic