In a language where primary stress always falls on the first syllable, long words like 'Alabama' also carry secondary stress on the third syllable. What does metrical theory predict about why secondary stress occurs at that position?
ASecondary stress is stored as a lexical property of 'Alabama' in the mental lexicon, independent of any systematic rule
BSecondary stress results from a separate phonological rule triggered by word length
CThe language builds trochaic feet left-to-right; every foot has a head, so the strong syllable of each non-primary foot automatically receives secondary stress — it is a structural consequence, not a separate stipulation
DSecondary stress marks syllables that historically had primary stress before the first-syllable rule was applied
This is the explanatory payoff of metrical theory. If the language builds SW (trochaic) feet left to right, 'Alabama' parses into feet across its four syllables. Each foot has a strong (stressed) syllable. The foot containing the first syllable has its head designated as the primary stress domain; the remaining feet still have heads, producing secondary stress at predictable positions. The theory derives secondary stress from the same mechanism that produces primary stress — no additional rule is needed. This is far more economical than listing secondary stress separately for every long word.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
A linguist proposes that English stress could be described by the rule: 'stress the first syllable of every word.' This works for 'table', 'window', and 'peanut'. What does metrical theory reveal that this rule misses?
ANothing significant — this rule is a good approximation for all English words, and metrical theory merely formalizes the same generalization
BThe rule fails entirely for monosyllabic words, which are common in English
CThe rule cannot predict stress in polysyllabic words like 'understand', 'Tennessee', or 'Alabama', where syllables beyond the first also bear stress, nor does it explain stress in words borrowed from French where the pattern differs — metrical theory generates these as outputs of foot structure
DEnglish is actually a right-to-left stress language, so the first-syllable rule has the directionality backwards
A simple first-syllable rule works for basic trochees but immediately fails for longer words where multiple stress-bearing syllables appear, and for words that follow different patterns. The first-syllable rule also gives no account of WHY the first syllable is stressed — it is just stipulated. Metrical theory provides an explanation: English builds trochaic feet from the left, so the first syllable is naturally the head of the first foot, and subsequent feet generate secondary stresses. The rule is a surface description; metrical structure is the underlying generalization.
Question 3 True / False
A syllable with a long vowel or a coda consonant (a 'heavy' syllable) tends to attract stress more than an open syllable with a short vowel (a 'light' syllable) in weight-sensitive stress languages.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: True
Weight-sensitivity is a pervasive feature of stress systems: heavy syllables (CVC, CVV) have greater phonological 'mass' that makes them preferred as foot heads. In Latin, stress falls on the penultimate syllable if it is heavy, but on the antepenult if the penult is light — the rule is directly sensitive to weight. In metrical theory, this falls out from the claim that heavy syllables are metrically stronger and can function as foot heads more readily than light ones. Weight-sensitivity is not an add-on rule but a consequence of how syllable structure interacts with foot structure.
Question 4 True / False
Metrical feet are purely theoretical constructs — they are a convenient notation for describing stress patterns but have no phonetic reality or consequences beyond stress placement.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
Metrical structure has real phonetic consequences beyond just marking which syllable is louder. It governs phenomena like syncope (vowel deletion in unstressed syllables — 'every' often realized as 'ev-ry'), consonant alternations like flapping in American English (the /t/ in 'butter' becomes a flap partly because it is in a weak syllable between two vowels), and the environments for many other phonological rules. The foot is not just an annotation — it is a domain that triggers and constrains phonological processes. This is evidence that the structure is psychologically real, not merely descriptive shorthand.
Question 5 Short Answer
Why does metrical theory provide a more explanatory account of stress than a list of language-specific stress rules?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: A list of rules describes what happens (e.g., 'stress the third-to-last syllable') without explaining why. Metrical theory derives stress from two general parameters — foot type (trochee or iamb) and directionality (left-to-right or right-to-left) — that interact with syllable weight. This predicts not just primary stress but secondary stress, the behavior of exceptional words, and phonological processes conditioned on stress, all from the same underlying structure.
Rule-list approaches face a compounding problem: each exception requires a new stipulation, and exceptions often cluster in ways the rules don't explain. Metrical theory shows these clusters are systematic — they follow from the interaction of foot structure with syllable weight. For example, the Latin penultimate stress rule is not arbitrary; it falls out from how Latin builds feet combined with the metrically strong status of heavy syllables. The theory also makes cross-linguistic predictions: languages that share a foot type and directionality should share stress patterns, which is empirically testable in a way that language-specific rule lists are not.