Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T20:39:58.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prosodic Phase and Left-to-Right Structure Building

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Kayono Shiobara
Kayono Shiobara*
Affiliation:
Bunkyo Gakuin University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I consider the empirical domain constituted by word order alternations in the verbal domain in English and Japanese. Based on the observation of prosodic properties of these alternations, a derivational analysis of the syntax-prosody interface is proposed in the context of a model of grammar in which linearization is determined by core syntax and the syntax-prosody interface. This approach crucially posits, and hence gives independent support for, two auxiliary assumptions: incremental structure building in the grammar and multiple spell-out into the phonological component.

Résumé

Résumé

Je me penche ici sur la question des alternances dans l’ordre des mots du domaine verbal en anglais et en japonais. À partir de l’observation des propriétés prosodiques de ces alternances, une analyse dérivationelle de l’interface syntaxe-prosodie est proposée dans le contexte d’un modèle de la grammaire où l’ordre de mots est déterminé par la syntaxe proprement dite et l’interface syntaxe-prosodie. De manière cruciale, cette approche repose sur et ce faisant, fournit un support indépendant à, deux suppositions auxiliaires, soit : la construction de structures de manière incrémentielle dans la grammaire et l’épellation (spell-out) multiple dans le composant phonologique.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 53 , Issue 2-3 , November 2008 , pp. 253 - 274
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2008 

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.)

References

Ackema, Peter, and Neeleman, Ad. 2004. Beyond morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aoshima, Sachiko, Phillips, Colin, and Weinberg, Amy. 2004. Processing filler-gap dependencies in a head-Anal language. Journal of Memory and Language 51:23–54.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Kenstowicz, Michael J., 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and beyond: Tlie cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 3, ed. Belletti, Adriana, 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Lasnik, Howard. 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8:425–504.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24:239–297.Google Scholar
Donati, Caterina, and Nespor, Marina. 2003. From focus to syntax. Lingua 113:1119–1142.Google Scholar
Fukui, Naoki. 1993. Parameters and optionality. Linguistic Inquiry 24:399–420.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1990. A parsing theory of word order universale. Linguistic Inquiry 21:223–261.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2004. The syntax of sentential stress. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem J.M. 1989. Speaking: Erom intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1997. Against optional scrambling. Linguistic Inquiry 28:1–25.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina, and Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodie phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 1996. Order and structure. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 2003. Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 34:37–90.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B., and Beekman, Mary E.. 1988. Japanese tone structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rochemont, Michael. 1985. A theory of stylistic rules in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Rochemont, Michael, and Culicover, Peter W.. 1990. English focus constructions and the theory of grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1986. Infinite syntax! Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Schneider, David Andrew. 1999. Parsing and incrementality. Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1986. On derived domains in sentence. Phonology Yearbook 4:371–405.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth, and Tateishi, Koichi. 1991. Syntax and downstep in Japanese. In Interdisciplinary approaches to language: Essays in Honor ofS.-Y. Kuroda, ed. Georgopoulos, C. and Ishihara, Roberta, 519–543. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Shiobara, Kayono. 2001. The weight effect as a PF-interface phenomenon. Linguistic Research: University of Tokyo Working Papers in English Linguistics 18:61–96.Google Scholar
Shiobara, Kayono. 2004. Linearization: A derivational approach to the syntax-prosody interface. Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Shiobara, Kayono. 2005. Prominence at the interfaces and its effects on linearization. Paper read at the 23rd annual meeting of English Linguistic Society of Japan, Kyushu University.Google Scholar
Shiobara, Kayono. 2007. Why are grammars the way they are: A functional formalist view. Review of Hawkins, John A., Efficiency and complexity in grammars. English Linguistics 24:599–626.Google Scholar
Takano, Yuji. 1998. Object shift and scrambling. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16:817–889.Google Scholar
Tokizaki, Hisao. 1999. Prosodie phrasing and bare phrase structure. In NELS 29: Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, ed. Tamanji, Pius, Hirotani, Masako, and Hall, Nancy, 381–395. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistics Student Association.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple spell-out. In Working Minimalism, ed. Epstein, Samuel David and Hornstein, Norbert, 251–282. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Yamashita, Hiroko, and Chang, Franklin. 2001. ‘Long before short’ preference in the production of a head-final language. Cognition 81:B41–B55.Google Scholar
Zee, Doraga, and Inkelas, Sharon. 1990. Prosodically constrained syntax. In The phonology-syntax connection, ed. Inkelas, Sharon and Zee, Doraga, 365–378. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar