[[18ja]], [[this>_media/18ja.pdf|   PDF]] \\
Márton Jánosy

PRESUME-tensing: an

analogical account
0. Introduction
The present paper deals with a recent development affecting the vowel of
word-initial unstressed syllables in words like presume, rejoice, decline, etc.
Contrary to Nádasdy (2013), I argue that the possibility of a tense vowel in
such positions is not lexically determined, but is conditioned by what I refer to
as the ‘separability’ of the syllable in question from the rest of the word. I
suggest that this factor correlates with the probability of PRESUME-tensing in a
given word. The idea posited here can explain seemingly accidental gaps in
the operation of PRESUME-tensing (e.g. secede), while it can also account for
its presence in expected (e.g. recall) and less expected places (e.g. December).

1. Why the FLEECE-vowel?
We cannot discuss PRESUME-tensing without first considering another
development, HAPPY-tensing, which affects historically short word-final and
prevocalic /ɪ/ and /ʉ/. As Szigetvári (2017) points out, this can be thought of as
a restriction on the set of word-final vowels, from which now all short vowels
(expect schwa) have been excluded. Regarding the quality of the resulting
vowel, he writes: “When the *V# constraint came to exclude all short vowels,
but unstressed ə, words like happy hápɪ had to be amended. The obvious
option of simply lengthening the vowel was apparently not available, because
this would have been an indication of a historical r, as if the words were
happeer.” This explanation, however, fails to take into account that mergers
between r-influenced vowels and ‘r-less’ broad vowels have already taken
place, as in e.g. spar and spa. The motivation for the glide insertion can be
better understood by considering the universal observation that mergers ‘come
cheaper’ than splits. If /ɪ/ and /ʉ/ are affected in the same way, the outcome of
a simple lengthening would have produced /ɪ:/ and /ʉ:/, thereby creating a new
phoneme (/ʉ:/), different from CURE and TOUR, which correspond to historical
/u/+/r/ sequences. However, by inserting a homorganic glide after the short
vowel, existing sounds are produced in both cases: /ɪ/>/ɪj/ (FLEECE) and
/ʉ/>/ʉw/ (GOOSE). Furthermore, as Szigetvári (2017) notes, “the same strategy
is applied to loanwords ending in a short vowel in their donor language: e.g.
Italian spagɛ́tːi > spəgɛ́tɪj, Polynesian tabu > təbʉ́w, French kafe > káfɛj,
The Even Yearbook 13 (2018), Department of English Linguistics, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest
ISSN 2061–490X, http://seas3.elte.hu/even. © 2018, Márton Jánosy

PRESUME-tensing: an analogical account 23

Italian putːo > pʉ́təw.” The *V# constraint has an important role in the
operation of PRESUME-tensing as well: the final vowel of prefixes attaching to
free stems (e.g. preheat, prearrange) are subject to the same constraint as the
vowel of HAPPY words, although in the latter case it is reinforced by the
prevocalic environment.

2. Morphological typology
Nádasdy (2013) restricts his analysis to unstressed integrated prefixes based
on Wells (2008), whose definition “excludes independent prefixes
(meaningful productive morphemes added at word level), such as de#magnetize, re#write, as well as integrated prefixes (meaningless unproductive
morphemes present at lexical level, usually attached to bound stems) if they
become stressed due to some stress assignment rule, e.g., dé+monstrate,
rè+pre+sent” (Nádasdy 2013). The present paper includes both independent
and unstressed integrated prefixes, as well as a third category of words where
no distinct stem can be isolated. Therefore, I will refer to the following
categories:
(1) Type A
Definition: prefix + a stem that can appear in isolation
Example: pre#heat, de#magnetize, re#arrange
(2) Type B
Definition: prefix + a bound stem (can occur with other prefixes, but not in
isolation)
Example: pre+sume, de+scribe, pre+empt
(3) Type C (quasi-prefixed)
Definition: no morphological boundary, no distinct prefix or stem,1 but the
phonological shape of the initial syllable is identical to that of an existing
prefix.
Example: presidium, preamble, December
As expected, prevocalic tensing operates “across the board” in all three
groups. Thus, rearrange, preempt, and preamble all begin with /prɪj-/
regardless of what kind of boundary (if any) follows. However, in the
preconsonantal environment, group membership decides whether tensing is
1

Though many words in this group have etymologically complex morphology.

PRESUME-tensing: an analogical account 24

obligatory or optional. The vowel preceding the strong boundary in Type A
words is invariably tense due to HAPPY-tensing. Type B and Type C words
show variation. Table 1 summarizes the possibility of variation in the three
groups.
Type A

Type B

Type C

<pre>#C

<pre>#V

<pre>+C

<pre>+V

<pre>C

<pre>V

example

preheat

prearrange

presume

preempt

presidium

preamble

tense?

always

always

potentially

always

potentially

always

Table 1: word-initial KIT-FLEECE alternations: pre-

As can be seen, most categories always have a tense vowel in their own
right, either due to the prevocalic environment or due to the strong boundary
and the consequent operation of HAPPY-tensing. The shaded areas show forms
that have recently started vacillating.

3. Prefix separability
So far, I have referred to morphological boundaries as categorical entities. The
analysis presented here, however, requires the adoption of a gradient view of
morphology. The approach I propose treats words as sets of concatenated
units, much like what Bybee (2010) calls chunks. The strength of the morphological connection between two units is decided by the probability of the cooccurrence of the same two units in other words. In Bybee’s words: “The
principal experience that triggers chunking is repetition. If two or more
smaller chunks occur together with some degree of frequency, a larger chunk
containing the smaller ones is formed.” (2010: 37) This also means that if a
given chunk is likely to co-occur with several other chunks (e.g. word-initial
pre-), it is less likely to be stored in a bigger chunk together with what it
attaches to. In other words, the chunks in presume [pre][sume] are more
separable (less likely to be associated on a higher level as [[pre][sume]]) than
the chunks in secede [[se][cede]] as [se] co-occurs only with a handful of other
chunks (e.g. seduce, select, secure). In contrast, [sume] is relatively more
separable as a unit: it is present in several high-frequency words: e.g. assume,
consume, presume, resume. Crucially, chunks are not necessarily associated
with any semantic content. Separability is distinguished from the concept of

PRESUME-tensing: an analogical account 25

compositionality2 in that this notion can also be applied to words without an
identifiable morphological base. Under this analysis, December consists of at
least two more or less separable chunks, as [ember] also appears in September,
and November3 and is therefore likely to be stored as an independent unit. On
the other hand, pre- in presidium is unlikely to be separable from the rest of
the word. Based on this, the following prefix-separability hierarchy can be set
up: Type C words < Type B words < Type A words.

4. Tensing and the effects of separability
We have seen that the initial elements affected by PRESUME-tensing have
varying degrees of independence. Assuming that highly independent and
highly frequent elements can influence other elements with similar
phonological shape, it is easy to explain why bereave, secede, and elide are
less likely to undergo tensing than presume, retain, and describe.4 In other
words, the relatively large number of forms in the non-shaded columns of
Table 1 (including the open set of Type A prefix # free stem constructions)
can cause forms in the shaded areas to behave similarly to them. This means
that a highly productive prefix like pre-, which can attach to virtually any free
stem (pre-qualify, pre-board, pre-approve, pre-record), will serve as an analogical basis for less separable but similarly shaped forms such as presume and
presidium. The more separable the prefix, the more likely it is to undergo
tensing. Therefore, the hierarchy suggested in §3 is also an implicational
relationship: if a speaker has a tense vowel in the initial syllable of presidium,
they will have a tense vowel in the more separable presume as well. On the
other hand, a speaker may have /ɪj/ in detract, but not necessarily in
December.
Taking this idea a step further, we can gain insight into the operation of
other types of lax–tense alternations in stressless word initial positions. Thus
far, we only looked at alternations involving the KIT and FLEECE vowels. Then
2
3

4

As described in e.g. Hay (2001).
Note that November may also have a tense (full) vowel in the first syllable (/əw/ instead of
/ə/), indicating that the word is indeed separable. Accordingly, there is reason to believe
that September may also be chunked into at least two units; however tensing cannot take
place because the first syllable is closed.
This is based on the author’s intuition, since the LPD does not provide information
regarding the frequency of the different variants, furthermore, as Nádasdy (2018) points
out, it is inconsistent in the indication of the possibility of tensing: “Wells includes seamong those to be given with /i/, but in the body of the dictionary there is no trace of this:
all se- words continue to appear with /sɪ-/ or /sə-/ (with the regular exception of Seattle /si/, where the prevocalic position triggers HAPPY-tensing).”

PRESUME-tensing: an analogical account 26

again, there are a number of other vowel pairs exhibiting variation of a very
similar kind to what has been described as PRESUME-tensing. Tables 2–5 show
that vacillating forms (indicated by %) belong to exactly the same categories
as seen in the case of PRESUME-tensing in Table 1 (shaded columns). For
instance, the prefix bi- seems to be productive enough (and therefore appears
in a large enough number of words) to influence less frequent and less
separable words (e.g. binoculars). Highly frequent items (e.g. bikini) remain
stable as their frequency prevents them from being affected by analogical
changes.5
prefix+free stem

example

prefix+bound stem

quasi-prefixed

<bi>#C

<bi>#V

<bi>+C

<bi>+V

<bi>C

<bi>V

bisexual

biannual

binoculars (%)

biathlon

Biafra (%)

biology

bidirectional

bikini (no variation)

bipolar
tense?

always

always

potentially

always

potentially

always

Table 2: word-initial KIT–PRICE alternations: bi-

Words beginning with di- show similar variation:

example

tense?

prefix+free stem

prefix+bound stem

quasi-prefixed

<di>#C

<di>#V

<di>+C

<di>+V

<di>C

<di>V

digraph

dioxide

direction (%)

diagonal

dichotomy (%)

dietic

dimorphemic

digest (%)

dilemma (%)

digamma

dilate (%)

dimension (%)

always

always

potentially

always

potentially

always

Table 3: word-initial KIT–PRICE alternations: di-

5

In other words, frequency helps maintain irregularities as is the case with the irregular
past tense forms in English. The most common English verbs have resisted analogical
levelling.

PRESUME-tensing: an analogical account 27

prefix+free stem

example

quasi-prefixed

<pro>#C

<di>#V

<pro>+C

<pro>+V

<pro>C

<pro>V

pro-life

pro-active

pronounce (?)

–

prosciutto (%)

prooemium

pro-British

pro-American

prokaryote (%)

profound (%)

protrude (%)

Prometheus

pro-choice
tense?

prefix+bound stem

always

always

potentially

always

potentially

always

Table 4: Table SCHWA–GOAT alternations: pro

As a prefix, pro- is comparable to pre- in productivity (both can attach to
virtually any noun or verb), which means that Type A (columns 1–2) words
greatly outnumber members of other types, therefore potentially causing them
to resemble them more by having /əw/ in their initial syllable.

5. Conclusion
I have argued that PRESUME-tensing can be explained in terms of analogical
effects resulting from the influence of highly separable and highly frequent
units on less frequent, but similar forms. The likelihood of tensing is
dependent on at least two factors: the separability of the target unit and the
size of the group of words serving as the analogical basis. The lack of tensing
in the case of some prefixes (be-, se-) has been shown to be a natural
consequence of their relative inseparability and infrequency, rather than an
accidental gap in the operation of PRESUME-tensing. On the other hand, the
approach presented here provides an explanation for the emergence of tensing
in words whose initial elements resemble a highly productive suffix such as
pre-. The problem in the focus of the present paper may involve prosodic,
semantic, and orthographic aspects, which have not been examined, nor have
been incorporated into the presented analysis.

PRESUME-tensing: an analogical account 28

References
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hay, Jennifer B. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: is everything relative? Linguistics
39: 1041–1070.
Nádasdy, Ádám. 2013. “PRESUME-tensing” and the status of weak /i/ in RP. In: Péter
Szigetvári (ed.), VLLXX: Papers Presented to László Varga on his 70th Birthday.
Budapest: Tinta, 363–381.
Szigetvári, Péter. 2017. Strengthening in unstressed position: We happy? In: Péter Szigetvári
(ed.) 70 Snippets to Mark Ádám Nádasdy’s 70th Birthday. Budapest: Department of
English Linguistics, Eötvös Loránd University.
Wells, John C. 2008. Longman Pronunciation Dictionary. 3rd ed. Harlow: Pearson Education.
(= LPD3)

Márton Jánosy
Eötvös Loránd University, Doctoral School of Linguistics
janosym@gmail.com