Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T14:44:25.372Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On defining the intonational phrase: evidence from Slave

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2020

Keren D. Rice
Keren D. Rice*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Syntactic juncture has been a topic of interest in phonological theory in recent years. One major issue addressed in the study of syntactic juncture is how to predict from syntactic structure the domains of phrase-level rules of the phonology, or prosodic structure. Many, including Selkirk (1978, 1984, 1986), Nespor & Vogel (1982) and Hayes (1984), propose that utterances are organised in a prosodic hierarchy, determined by but not isomorphic to syntactic structure. In work by these authors, algorithms for determining the relationship between syntactic structure and prosodic structure have been proposed, leading to a deeper understanding of prosodic phrasing.

Type
Research Article
Information
Phonology , Volume 4 , May 1987 , pp. 37 - 59
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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

*

Many thanks to Leslie Saxon, Ellen Kaisse, a Phonology Yearbook reviewer, and especially to Peter Avery for helpful suggestions and advice. This research was funded by the British Columbia Provincial Museum and the Friends of the British Columbia Provincial Museum.

References

Chen, M. (1985). The syntax of phonology: Xiamen tone sandhi. Ms, UCSD.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT. Published 1979, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1984). The prosodic hierarchy in meter. Ms, UCLA.Google Scholar
Nespor, M. & Vogel, I. (1982). Prosodic domains of external sandhi rules. In van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Vol. 1. Dordrecht: Foris. 225–255.Google Scholar
Nespor, M. & Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Rice, K. (to appear a). Stem tone in Fort Nelson Slave: syntactic implications. In Cook, E.-D. & Rice, K. (eds.) Papers in Athapaskan linguistics. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Rice, K. (to appear b). A grammar of Slave (Dene). Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Rice, K. (to appear c). Vowel initial suffixes and clitics in Slave. In Gerdts, D. & Michelson, K. (eds.) Canadian native languages in a theoretical perspective. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Saxon, L. (1986). The syntax of pronouns in Dogrib (Athapaskan): some theoretical consequences. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1978). On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. Published in Fretheim, T. (ed.) (1981). Nordic prosody II. Trondheim: TAPIR. 111–140.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1984). Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology. Ph Y 3. 371–405.Google Scholar