Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T10:39:05.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A flexible approach to the mapping of intonational phrases*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 August 2015

Fatima Hamlaoui  and
Kriszta Szendrői
Fatima Hamlaoui*
Affiliation:
Centre for General Linguistics (ZAS), Berlin
Kriszta Szendrői*
Affiliation:
University College London
*
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We propose that for the syntax–prosody mapping of clauses and intonational phrases, the notion of ‘clause’ should be determined in a flexible manner, making reference to the highest position to which the verbal material (i.e. the verb itself, the inflection, an auxiliary or a question particle) is overtly moved or inserted, together with the material in its specifier. This contrasts with rigid approaches, which assume that mapping is based on particular functional heads. We provide support for this proposal with data from the Bantu language Bàsàá and the Finno-Ugric language Hungarian, showing that a left-peripheral constituent may be prosodically outside the core intonational phrase even though its syntactic position is relatively low, as long as the verb is even lower, and, conversely, that a constituent may be phrased inside the core intonational phrase even if it is in a syntactically high position, as long as the verb is also high.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , May 2015 , pp. 79 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.)

Footnotes

*

We are very grateful to Amalia Arvaniti, Ad Neeleman, Laurent Roussarie and Michael Wagner for their insightful comments and suggestions. Our heartfelt thanks go to Emmanuel-Moselly Makasso for providing us with Bàsàá data and for his judgements, as well as for his readiness to discuss and share his extensive knowledge of Bàsàá tonology with us. We also wish to thank the audiences at the ZAS syntax–phonology circle, the workshop ‘The prosodic hierarchy in a typological perspective’ (Stockholm University) and the ETI3 conference (McGill University). Finally, we thank the anonymous reviewers and the editors of this issue, Lisa Selkirk and Seunghun Lee, for detailed comments that have contributed substantially to the improvement of the paper. All errors are our own.

References

REFERENCES

Baker, Mark C. (2008). The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bitjaa Kody, Zachée Denis (1993). Le système tonal du basaa. Journal of West African Languages 23:1. 65–72.Google Scholar
Bostoen, Koen & Mundeke, Léon (2011). Passiveness and inversion in Mbuun (Bantu B87, DRC). Studies in Language 35. 72–111.Google Scholar
Bródy, Michael (1995). Focus and checking theory. In Kenesei, István (ed.) Approaches to Hungarian. Vol. 5: Levels and structures. Szeged: JATE. 29–43.Google Scholar
Buckley, Eugene (2009). Locality in metrical typology. Phonology 26. 389–435.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen & Downing, Laura J. (2007). The prosody and syntax of Zulu relative clauses. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics 15. 51–63.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen & Downing, Laura J. (2009). Where's the topic in Zulu? The Linguistic Review 26. 207–238.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo (1983). ‘Topic’ constructions in some European languages and ‘connectedness’. In Ehlich, Konrad & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.) Connectedness in sentence, discourse and text. Tilburg: Catholic University of Brabant. 7–41.Google Scholar
Cobbinah, Alexander & Lüpke, Friederike (2012). Not cut to fit: zero coded passives in African languages. In Brenzinger, Matthias & Fehn, Anna-Maria (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th World Congress of African Languages. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe. 133–144.Google Scholar
De Cat, Cécile (2007a). French dislocation: interpretation, syntax, acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Cat, Cécile (2007b). French dislocation without movement. NLLT 25. 485–534.Google Scholar
Dimmendaal, Gerrit (1988). Aspects du basaa (bantou Zone A, Cameroun) . Translated by Bouquiaux, Luc. Paris: Peeters/SELAF.Google Scholar
Dobashi, Yoshihito (2003). Phonological phrasing and syntactic derivation. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Downing, Bruce T. (1970). Syntactic structure and phonological phrasing in English. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Downing, Laura J. (2011). The prosody of ‘dislocation’ in selected Bantu languages. Lingua 121. 772–786.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin (2002). The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin (ed.) (2008). Event structure and the left periphery: studies on Hungarian. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin (2013). From Proto-Hungarian SOV to Old Hungarian Top Foc V X. Diachronica 30. 202–231.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. (1970). Root and structure-preserving transformations. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. (1976). A transformational approach to English syntax: root, structure-preserving, and local transformations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Feldhausen, Ingo (2010). Sentential form and prosodic structure of Catalan. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara (2000). The syntax–phonology interface in focus and topic constructions in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Frey, Werner (2005). Pragmatic properties of certain German and English left peripheral constructions. Linguistics 43. 89–129.Google Scholar
Genzel, Susanne, Ishihara, Shinichiro & Surányi, Balázs (in press). The prosodic expression of focus, contrast and givenness: a production study of Hungarian. Lingua.Google Scholar
Hamlaoui, Fatima (2014). A note on bare-passives in (selected) Bantu and Western Nilotic languages. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 57. 160–182.Google Scholar
Hamlaoui, Fatima, Gjersøe, Siri M. & Makasso, Emmanuel-Moselly (2014). High Tone Spreading and phonological phrases in Bàsàá. In Gussenhoven, Carlos, Chen, Yiya & Dediu, Dan (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Tonal Aspects of Languages. 27–31. Available (February 2015) at http://www.isca-speech.org/archive/tal_2014/papers/tl14_027.pdf.Google Scholar
Hamlaoui, Fatima & Makasso, Emmanuel-Moselly (2013). Basaa object left-dislocation, topicalisation and the syntax–phonology mapping of intonation phrases. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Bantu Languages, Paris.Google Scholar
Hamlaoui, Fatima & Makasso, Emmanuel-Moselly (2015). Focus marking and the unavailability of inversion structures in the Bantu language Bàsàá (A43). Lingua 154. 35–64.Google Scholar
Henderson, Robert (2012). Morphological alternations at the intonational phrase edge: the case of K'ichee’. NLLT 30. 741–787.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. (2003). Basaá (A43). In Nurse & Philippson (2003). 257–282.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. & Polinsky, Maria (2010). Focus in Aghem. In Zimmermann, Malte & Féry, Caroline (eds.) Information structure: theoretical, typological, and experimental perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 206–233.Google Scholar
Ishihara, Shinichiro (2003). Intonation and interface conditions. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ishihara, Shinichiro (2007). Major Phrase, Focus Intonation and Multiple Spell-Out (MaP, FI, MSO). The Linguistic Review 24. 137–167.Google Scholar
Jenks, Peter, Makasso, Emmanuel-Moselly & Hyman, Larry M. (2012). Accessibility and demonstrative operators in Basaá relative clauses. Ms, University of California, Berkeley & ZAS, Berlin. Available (February 2015) at http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~jenks/Research_files/JenksMakassoHyman_BasaaRelatives.pdf.Google Scholar
Kálmán, László (1985). Word order in neutral sentences. In Kenesei, István (ed.) Approaches to Hungarian. Vol. 1: Data and descriptions. Szeged: JATE. 13–23.Google Scholar
Kálmán, László (ed.) (2001). Magyar leíró nyelvtan: mondattan i. [Hungarian descriptive grammar: syntax 1.] Budapest: Tinta.Google Scholar
Kimenyi, Alexandre (1980). A relational grammar of Kinyarwanda. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kimenyi, Alexandre (1988). Passives in Kinyarwanda. In Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.) Passive and voice. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 355–386.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles (1994). On domains. In Cole, Jennifer & Kisseberth, Charles (eds.) Perspectives in phonology. Stanford: CSLI. 133–166.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika & Selkirk, Elisabeth (2007). Phase theory and prosodic spellout: the case of verbs. The Linguistic Review 24. 93–135.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred (1995). The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25. 209–257.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert (1996). Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. Paul, Simons, Gary F. & Fennig, Charles D. (eds.) (2015). Ethnologue: languages of the world. 18th edn. Dallas: SIL International. Available at www.ethnologue.com.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1993). Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology 1993. 79–153.Google Scholar
Makasso, Emmanuel-Moselly (2008). Intonation et mélismes dans le discours oral spontané en bàsàa. PhD dissertation, Université de Provence (Aix-Marseille 1).Google Scholar
Makasso, Emmanuel-Moselly (2012). Metatony in Basaa. In Marlo, Michael R., Adams, Nikki B., Green, Christopher R., Morrison, Michelle & Purvis, Tristan M. (eds.) Selected proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference on African Linguistics. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla. 15–22.Google Scholar
Morimoto, Yukiko (1999). An optimality account of argument reversal. In Butt, Miriam & Holloway King, Tracy (eds.) Proceedings of the LFG99 conference. Available (February 2015) at http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/4/lfg99morimoto.pdf.Google Scholar
Morimoto, Yukiko (2006). Agreement properties and word order in comparative Bantu. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 43. 161–187.Google Scholar
Myrberg, Sara (2013). Sisterhood and prosodic branching. Phonology 30. 73–124.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene (1982). Prosodic domains of external sandhi rules. In van der Hulst, Harry & Smith, Norval (eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Part I. Dordrecht: Foris. 225–255.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Noonan, Michael (1977). On subjects and topics. BLS 3. 372–385.Google Scholar
Noonan, Michael (1992). A grammar of Lango. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Noonan, Michael & Bavin Woock, Edith (1978). The passive analog in Lango. BLS 4. 128–139.Google Scholar
Nurse, Derek & Philipson, Gérard (eds.) (2003). The Bantu languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ott, Dennis (to appear). Connectivity in left-dislocation and the composition of the left periphery. Linguistic Variation.Google Scholar
Pak, Marjorie (2008). The postsyntactic derivation and its phonological reflexes. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves (1989). Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. LI 20. 365–424.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya (2006). Interface strategies: optimal and costly computations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.) Elements of grammar: handbook in generative syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 281–337.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1981). On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. In Fretheim, Thorstein (ed.) Nordic Prosody II. Trondheim: Tapir. 111–140.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1984). Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3. 371–405.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (2005). Comments on intonational phrasing in English. In Frota, Sónia, Vigário, Marina & Freitas, Maria João (eds.) Prosodies: with special reference to Iberian languages. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 11–58.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (2009). On clause and intonational phrase in Japanese: the syntactic grounding of prosodic constituent structure. Gengo Kenkyu 136. 35–73.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (2011). The syntax–phonology interface. In Goldsmith, John, Riggle, Jason & Yu, Alan C. L. (eds.) The handbook of phonological theory. 2nd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 435–484.Google Scholar
Surányi, Balázs, Ishihara, Shinichiro & Schubö, Fabian (2012). Syntax–prosody mapping, topic–comment structure and stress–focus correspondence in Hungarian. In Elordieta, Gorka & Prieto, Pilar (eds.) Prosody and meaning. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. 35–71.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna (1994). All quantifiers are not equal: the case of focus. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 42. 171–187.Google Scholar
Szendrői, Kriszta (2001). Focus and the syntax–phonology interface. PhD dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
Szendrői, Kriszta (2003). A stress-based approach to the syntax of Hungarian focus. The Linguistic Review 20. 37–78.Google Scholar
Szendrői, Kriszta & Hamlaoui, Fatima (in preparation). Elaborations on a flexible approach to the syntax–phonology mapping of intonational phrases.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert (1999). On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. LI 30. 219–255.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert (2007). The syntax–phonology interface. In de Lacy, Paul (ed.) The Cambridge handbook of phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 435–456.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert (2014). Intonation phrases and speech acts. In Kluck, Marlies, Ott, Dennis & de Vries, Mark (eds.) Parenthesis and ellipsis: cross-linguistic and theoretical perspectives. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 301–349.Google Scholar
Varga, László (2002). Intonation and stress: evidence from Hungarian. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen (1991). Two subject positions in Lango. BLS 17 : 2. 231–243.Google Scholar
Zerbian, Sabine (2006). The expression of information structure in the Bantu language Northern Sotho. PhD dissertation, Humboldt University, Berlin.Google Scholar
Zerbian, Sabine (2007a). Phonological phrasing in Northern Sotho (Bantu). The Linguistic Review 24. 233–262.Google Scholar
Zerbian, Sabine (2007b). Subject/object-asymmetry in Northern Sotho. In Schwabe, Kerstin & Winkler, Susanne (eds.) On information structure, meaning and form: generalizations across languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 323–346.Google Scholar