Proof Delivery Form
Phonology
Date of delivery:
Journal and vol/article ref:
pho
PHO1500005
Number of pages (not including this page): 32
page 1 of 2
This proof is sent to you on behalf of Cambridge University Press. Authors are strongly advised to read these proofs thoroughly because any errors missed
may appear in the final published paper. This will be your ONLY chance to correct your
proof. Once published, either online or in print, no further changes can be made.
There follows a proof of the article you have written for publication in PHONOLOGY. Please check
the proofs carefully, make any corrections necessary and answer queries on the proofs. Queries raised by the sub-­editor are listed below;; the text to which the queries refer is flagged in the
margins of the proof. Please return the corrected proof together with the offprint order form and
copyright form as soon as possible (no later than 4 days after receipt). If possible, please send the
proof by courier to:
Colin Ewen
Phonology
Opleiding Engels Universiteit Leiden
Witte Singel-­Doelen Complex
P.N. van Eyckhof 4 (Gebouw 1168)
2311 BV Leiden
The Netherlands
If you are sending the proof by air mail, it should be addressed to:
Colin Ewen
Phonology
Opleiding Engels
Universiteit Leiden
Postbus 9515
2300 RA Leiden
The Netherlands
To avoid delay from overseas, please send the proof by air mail or, preferably, by courier.
If you have any queries, please contact the editor (C.J.Ewen@hum.leidenuniv.nl);;
fax 071 5272149.
Proof Delivery Form
Phonology
Please note:
• The proof is sent to you for correction of typographical errors only. Revision of the substance of the
text is not permitted, unless discussed with the editor of the journal. Only one set of corrections are
permitted.
• Please answer carefully any author queries.
• Corrections which do NOT follow journal style will not be accepted. • A new copy of a figure must be provided if correction of anything other than a typographical error
introduced by the typesetter is required.
• If you have problems with the file please contact
mhowe@cambridge.org
Please note that this pdf is for proof checking purposes only. It should not be distributed to third
parties and may not represent the final published version.
Important: you must return any forms included with your proof.
Please do not reply to this email
NOTE -­ for further information about Journals Production please consult our FAQs at
http://journals.cambridge.org/production_faqs
page 2 of 2
Offprint order form
PLEASE COMPLETE AND RETURN THIS FORM. WE WILL BE UNABLE TO SEND
OFFPRINTS UNLESS FULL DETAILS HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED.
Phonology (PHO)
VAT REG NO. GB 823 8476 09
Volume:
no:
Offprints
Upon publication the corresponding author will receive free electronic access to their article. To purchase paper offprints please complete this form and send
it to the publisher (address below). Please give the address to which your offprints should be sent. They will be despatched by surface mail within one month
of publication. For an article by more than one author this form is sent to you as the first named. All offprints should be ordered by you in consultation with
your co-authors.
Number of offprints purchased:
Email:
Offprints to be sent to (print in BLOCK CAPITALS):
Post/Zip Code:
Telephone:
/
Date (dd/mm/yy):
/
Author(s):
Article Title:
All enquiries about offprints should be addressed to the publisher: Journals Production Department, Cambridge University
Press, The Edinburgh Building, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK.
Charges for offprints (excluding VAT) Please circle the appropriate charge:
Number of copies
1-4 pages
5-8 pages
9-16 pages
17-24 pages
Each Additional 1-8 pages
25
£41
£73
£77
£83
£14
50
£73
£105
£115
£129
£18
100
£111
£154
£183
£211
£31
150
£153
£206
£245
£294
£53
200
£197
£254
£314
£385
£64
per 50 extra
£41
£73
£77
£83
£14
Methods of payment
If you live in Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain or Sweden and are not registered for VAT we are required to charge VAT at the rate
applicable in your country of residence. If you live in any other country in the EU and are not registered for VAT you will be charged VAT at the UK rate.
If registered, please quote your VAT number, or the VAT
VAT Number:
number of any agency paying on your behalf if it is registered.
Payment must be included with your order, please tick which method you are using:
Cheques should be made out to Cambridge University Press.
Payment by someone else. Please enclose the official order when returning this form and ensure that when the order is
sent it mentions the name of the journal and the article title.
Payment may be made by any credit card bearing the Interbank Symbol.
Card Number:
Expiry Date (mm/yy):
/
Card Verification Number:
The card verification number is a 3 digit number printed on the back of your Visa or Master card, it appears after and to the right of your card number. For
American Express the verification number is 4 digits, and printed on the front of your card, after and to the right of your card number.
Signature of
card holder:
Please advise if address registered with card company is different from above
Amount
(Including VAT
if appropriate):
£
Author Queries
Journal: PHO (Phonology)
Manuscript: S0952675715000056jra
Q1
The distinction between surnames can be ambiguous, therefore to ensure accurate tagging for indexing
purposes online (eg for PubMed entries), please check that the highlighted surnames have been
correctly identified, that all names are in the correct order and spelt correctly.
Typesetter Queries:
1.
The following author, year is listed in References, whereas it is not cited in text. Please cite or delete:
Genzel (), Ott (), Reinhart (2006), Szendro? ?i (2003), Szendro? ?i ().
2.
The Table is citied in text, but the Table caption is not provided. Please check and supply.
S0952675715000056jra
1
pp: 1--32
Techset Composition Ltd, Salisbury, U.K.
5/13/2015
Phonology 32 (2015) 1–32. © Cambridge University Press 2015
doi:10.1017/S0952675715000056
2
3
4
5
6
7
A flexible approach to the
mapping of intonational phrases*
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fatima Hamlaoui
Centre for General Linguistics (ZAS), Berlin
Kriszta Szendr`i
University College London
Q1
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
1 Introduction
1.1 What is a ‘clause’?
A number of studies have argued that speech is organised into a finite set of
hierarchically organised phonological domains which more or less reflect
syntactic constituency (Selkirk 1981, 1986, Nespor & Vogel 1982, 1986,
among others). Above the word level, at least two prosodic levels are
usually assumed: the phonological phrase (j) and the intonational phrase
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
* E-mail: HAMLAOUI@ZAS.GWZ-BERLIN.DE, K.SZENDROI@UCL.AC.UK.
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.
1
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
2 Fatima Hamlaoui and Kriszta SzendrÖi
(i). It is widely accepted that the j is formed in relation to syntactic
domains, specifically lexical XPs (Truckenbrodt 1999, Selkirk 2011) or
spell-out domains (Dobashi 2003, Ishihara 2003, Kratzer & Selkirk
2007). Identifying the basis for the i has been a more problematic enterprise. As well as syntactic factors, semantic and pragmatic factors have
also been argued to play a role. For instance, Selkirk (1984) proposes the
‘Sense Unit Condition’, which makes reference to the semantic interpretation of the material involved. In more recent work, i’s are said to match
constituents that form speech acts (Selkirk 2005, Truckenbrodt to
appear). Finally, it has been argued that specific information-structure
roles influence phrasing: for instance, dislocated topics are said to constitute their own i (Frascarelli 2000, Feldhausen 2010). Another line of thinking identifies the basis of i’s in purely syntactic terms, as the prosodic reflex
of the ‘syntactic clause’ (Downing 1970, Emonds 1970, 1976). Various realisations have been offered, including optimality-theoretic constraints
(McCarthy & Prince 1993) requiring alignment or wrapping of vP/TP/
CP with i (Zerbian 2006, Truckenbrodt 2007, Cheng & Downing 2009).
The notion of a clause is also central in Match theory (Selkirk 2011),
where MATCHCLAUSE is defined as in (1).
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
(1) MatchClause
A clause in syntactic constituent structure must be matched by a
corresponding prosodic constituent, call it i, in phonological
representation.
Selkirk proposes that at least two notions of clause are relevant: the
‘standard clause’ and the ‘illocutionary clause’. The standard clause is
‘the constituent that is the complement of the functional head Comp. In
modern syntactic theory, Comp0, or simply C, is commonly assumed to
introduce the canonical sentence, which consists of an explicit or an
implied subject, a predicate, and a locus for Tense: CP[Comp0 [standard
clause]]CP’. The illocutionary clause ‘is the highest syntactic projection
of the sentence and carries its illocutionary force, which determines its appropriateness in a discourse context … the syntactic structure for this
clause type [is] assumed to be ForceP[Force0 [illocutionary clause]]ForceP’.
A slightly different formulation is given in (Selkirk 2009), where it is proposed that MATCHCLAUSE could apply to ‘the complement of any functional head of the ‘complementizer layer’’ (i.e. TopicP or FocusP).
Our central question is how best to characterise the notion of ‘clause’ in
constraints related to the syntax–prosody mapping of the i. We propose
that the notion of ‘clause’ should be determined in each language and
each construction by reference to the highest projection in the root
clause (see Downing 1970), 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. So we argue that
there is no particular functional head which plays a role in the theory of
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
A flexible approach to the mapping of intonational phrases 3
intonational phrasing (contra most recent approaches). We discuss data
from Hungarian and Bàsàá which support this flexibility in syntax–
prosody mapping. In particular, we show that certain phrases are in a
high A-bar position, while being prosodically integrated (Hungarian; §2)
and, conversely, that phrases can be syntactically low, while not being prosodically integrated into the core i (Bàsàá; §3). What determines the prosodic phrasing is not the syntactic position itself, but rather the relative
position of the constituent with respect to the verb.
103
104
105
106
107
1.2 Flexible mapping constraints
Szendr`i (2001) proposes that the principles in (2) are operative in the
syntax–prosody mapping of clauses.
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
(2) Syntax–prosody mapping of clauses (Szendr`i 2001)
a. Align the left edge of the largest extended projection of the V with
the left edge of an i.
b. Align the left edge of an i with the left edge of the largest extended
projection of the V.
c. Align the right edge of the largest extended projection of the V with
the right edge of an i.
d. Align all the right edges of the i with the right edge of the largest
extended projection of the V.
In this paper, we want to preserve the insight that ‘clausehood’ should
be understood as the highest projection to which the verbal material is
overtly moved or inserted, together with the material in its specifier. We
will abbreviate this projection as HVP (highest overt verbal projection).
We will consider evidence for our proposal from Bàsàá and Hungarian.
Szendr`i (2001) does not consider complex clauses, and we cannot deal
with them here. However, Downing (1970) (see also Truckenbrodt 2014)
proposes that root clauses seem to have a special role in the syntax–prosody
mapping.
129
130
131
132
133
(3) Obligatory Boundary Insertion
j boundaries are inserted as leftmost and rightmost immediate
constituents of every root S node (where a root S is any S which is
not dominated by a predicative S) (from Downing 1970: 30–31).
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
In current approaches, the immediate effect of Obligatory Boundary
Insertion would be that clauses that are not dominated by predicative material form their own i. This would apply to main clauses, but not to complement or adjunct clauses. This seems to be the correct prediction for
both Hungarian and Bàsàá (see Szendr`i & Hamlaoui in preparation).
Although none of the data discussed in this paper hinges on the difference
142
143
144
145
146
147
4 Fatima Hamlaoui and Kriszta SzendrÖi
between ‘root’ and ‘non-root’ clauses, as we only discuss simplex clauses,
for consistency’s sake we propose the four constraints in (4a) to determine
correspondences between syntactic and prosodic units on the clause level.
Note that nothing in the present paper hinges on the distinction between
Alignment theory and Match theory and that the label ALIGN is simply
used to maintain consistency with the original proposal in Szendr`i (2001).
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
(4) Syntax–prosody correspondences at the ‘clause’ level
a. Syntax–prosody mapping
Align−L(HVP, i)
Align the left edge of the highest projection whose head is overtly
filled by the root verb or verbal material with the left edge of an i.
Align−R(HVP, i)
Align the right edge of the highest projection whose head is overtly
filled by the root verb or verbal material with the right edge of an i.
Align−L(SA, i)
Align the left edge of a syntactic constituent expressing illocutionary
force with the left edge of an i.
Align−R(SA, i)
Align the right edge of a syntactic constituent expressing illocutionary
force with the right edge of an i.
b. Prosody–syntax mapping
Align−L(i, HVP)
Align the left edge of an i with the left edge of the highest projection
whose head is overtly filled by the verb or verbal material.
Align−R(i, HVP)
Align the right edge of an i with the right edge of the highest projection whose head is overtly filled by the verb or verbal material.
In addition, the two constraints in (4b) capture our proposal that, while
root clauses have a privileged status from the perspective of syntax-toprosody mapping, all clauses are equal in prosody-to-syntax mapping.1
By distinguishing syntax-to-prosody from prosody-to-syntax mapping
constraints, we are not proposing that they apply at different places in
the grammar. What distinguishes them is simply their underlying motivation (see Szendr`i & Hamlaoui in preparation for more discussion). All
six mapping constraints apply at the same time to determine syntax–
prosody correspondences at the level of the ‘clause’.
1.3 Predictions of the flexible mapping constraints
Let us concentrate on our main claim, i.e. that mapping often specifically
refers to the overt syntactic position of the verb in the structure. This
1
In this paper we remain agnostic with respect to the exact syntactic correlates of
speech acts. For specific proposals, see Selkirk (2005, 2011) and Truckenbrodt
(2014).
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
A flexible approach to the mapping of intonational phrases 5
allows us to formulate generalisations about the syntax–prosody interface
that are hard to formulate in frameworks that make rigid reference to
specific syntactic projections (e.g. TP or CP). In particular, we predict
that elements targeting specifier positions with accompanying verb movement will normally be internal to the core i, as in (5a). In contrast, elements
occurring in a left-peripheral position in the absence of accompanying verb
movement (or insertion) will prosodically be outside the core i, as in (5b).
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
(5) a. (XP V … t … t)I
b. (XP … (V … t)I)I
Specifically, we will show in §2 that the configuration in (5a) is found in
the Hungarian left-peripheral focus construction in (6), where the V moves
to a functional position within the C domain, FocusP (Rizzi 1997), and the
focused element moves to its Specifier. In this and following examples,
syntactic brackets corresponding to the HVP are in bold.
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
(6) (
)I
[Péterti
szerettej [meg tj [Mari ti]VP ]PredP]FocP
Peter.acc loved
prt
Mari
‘It was Peter that Mari fell in love with.’
The same prosodic phrasing applies both in English wh-questions involving I-to-C movement and in German V2 clauses; see (7) for an
example (adapted from Frey 2005). In accordance with our proposed
mapping constraints, when I-to-C or V-to-C movement occurs, i encompasses the whole CP. Crucially there is no evidence for the presence of the
left edge of an i following the finite verb (C0), as would be predicted by
approaches that rigidly map TP to i, such as Zerbian (2007a) and Selkirk
(2009, 2011).
(7) (
[Nächtes Jahr wirdi [der Hans ti zum Glück
next
year will the Hans with luck
)I
eine reiche Frau heiraten]TP]CP
a
rich woman marry
‘Fortunately, next year Hans will marry a rich woman.’
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
In contrast, as we will demonstrate in §3, Bàsàá has a construction,
termed here zero-coded passive left-dislocation, which is an example of
(5b); see (8). This construction effectively topicalises the object, but in a
relatively low position within the inflectional domain (Woolford 1991,
Hamlaoui & Makasso 2013, Hamlaoui 2014). Tonal processes show that
the fronted topical object is outside the core i.
236
237
238
239
6 Fatima Hamlaoui and Kriszta SzendrÖi
(8) (
(
)I )I
[tòlòi
[síNgâj ´−Jêk
[tj tk [tk ¿ê]VP]vP]TP]TopP
1.mouse 9.cat 9.agr−pst1−eat
1.prn
‘The mouse was eaten by the cat.’
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
The proposed phrasing is unexpected in those proposals that associate
CP with the i (e.g. Truckenbrodt 2007, Pak 2008, Cheng & Downing
2009, Henderson 2012).
In sum, we predict that it is the highest overt position that the verb occupies
within the clause rather than some rigid syntactic category (CP, TP or vP)
that is relevant for the mapping of i. When the fronting of an XP is accompanied by verb movement/insertion, the fronted XP and the verbal material are
integrated into the core i. This is so even if the targeted position is relatively
high within the clausal hierarchy, as in Hungarian focus or German V2. This
is unexpected in theories that use TP-to-i mapping. Conversely, an XP can
fall outside the core i even if it is relatively low in the tree, as exemplified
by passive left-dislocated phrases in Bàsàá, so long as the fronting operation
is not accompanied by verb movement to the head position of the targeted
specifier. This is unexpected in theories that rigidly use CP-to-i mapping.
Finally, our proposal does not a priori distinguish sentences with broad focus
from sentences with a different information-structural organisation (and
thus with a non-neutral word order). It is not the topical or focal nature of a
peripheral element that primarily determines whether it is phrased inside
or outside the core i (contra Selkirk 2005, Downing 2011, for example);
rather, phrasing is dependent on the highest overt position of the verb.
We now turn to empirical evidence in favour of the proposed approach.
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
2 Evidence from Hungarian simple clauses
2.1 Hungarian non-neutral and neutral declaratives
Both traditional and more recent syntactic accounts of Hungarian classify
simple clauses into neutral and non-neutral, involving a left-peripheral exhaustive focus (É. Kiss 2002). We consider these in turn. As (9) shows, a particle verb (Prt-V) forms a right-headed morphological unit in Hungarian,
corresponding to a single phonological word (w). In out-of-the blue utterances without a topic, the Prt-V complex is situated at the left edge of the
clause, with any arguments following it, as in (9a). In utterances with
topics, the topics precede the Prt-V complex. It is often the subject that is
in this position, as in (9b), but various factors, including referentiality,
animacy and relative salience, influence whether an argument ends up in
the preverbal topic position. In (9c), for instance, the utterance sounds
natural because the object is human, while the subject is not.2
2
The following abbreviations are used in glosses: ACC=accusative, AGR=agreement;
ASP=aspect; AUG=augment; CONN=connective; LOC=locative; MH=melodic tone;
OM=object marker; PRES=present; PRN=pronoun; PRT=particle; PST1=past 1 (today
past tense); PST2=past 2 (yesterday or earlier past tense); SM=subject marker;
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
A flexible approach to the mapping of intonational phrases 7
(9) a. [meg-jött [a vonat]VP]PredP
prt-came the train
‘The train arrived.’
b. [Péter [meg-szerette [Marit]VP]PredP]TopP
Peter prt-loved
Mari-acc
‘Peter started loving Mari.’
c. [a postást [meg-harapta [a kutya]VP]PredP]TopP
the postman prt-bit
the dog
‘The dog bit the postman.’
Standard analyses of the Hungarian neutral clauses assume that the PrtV complex moves out of the VP, targeting a v-like functional head (Pred)
position (É. Kiss 2008). Left-peripheral topics target designated left-peripheral positions, i.e. Spec,TopP (Rizzi 1997), and TopP is recursive, as
shown in (10) (from Kálmán 2001: 22).
(10) [a vállalkozó
ellen [az ügyészségj
the entrepreneur against the prosecution
[meg-kezdtei [ti tj a vizsgálatot]VP]PredP]TopP]TopP
prt-started
the investigation-acc
‘The prosecution started the investigation against the entrepreneur.’
305
306
307
308
309
310
As argued in Szendr`i (2001), Hungarian simple clauses with topics
involve the type of recursive phrasing shown in (11) (cf. (9c)). The leftperipheral topic constitutes a j that is both outside the core i and dependent on it, by virtue of being inside the outermost layer of i. (See also the
discussion of Bàsàá zero-coded passive left-dislocation in §3 below.)
311
312
(11) (a postást (meg-harapta a kutya)I)I
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
The proposed mapping constraints in (4) give rise to recursive i’s, as in
(11), as long as ALIGN-L(SA, i) is ranked above ALIGN-L(i, HVP). This is
because in (11) the boundaries of the outermost i satisfy ALIGN-L/R(SA, i),
while ALIGN-L/R(HVP, i) ensure that the left and right edges of the core
PredP (here the HVP) are marked by the edges of an i. These boundaries
satisfy ALIGN-L/R(HVP, i), but the outermost left i edge violates ALIGN-L
(HVP, i).
In utterances with multiple topics, there does not seem to be any evidence
for the presence of i boundaries between the topics, so, contra Szendr`i
(2001), we propose that the correct prosodic phrasing of such sentences is
as in (12), which follows from the proposed mapping constraints.3
326
327
328
329
3
SUBJ=subjunctive. Numbers in glosses identify noun classes or refer to 1st, 2nd or
3rd person.
Certain syntactic analyses treat topics as being adjoined to vP (or PredP) rather than
being located in specifier position. As long as the syntax–prosody mapping constraints in (4) are understood as referring to the syntactic category that the verb
330
331
332
333
8 Fatima Hamlaoui and Kriszta SzendrÖi
(12) (
(
)I
)I
[a postástk [a kutyaj [meg-haraptai [ti tj tk]VP]PredP]TopP]TopP
the postman the dog
prt-bit
‘The postman bit the dog.’
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
Non-neutral sentences involve a left-peripheral focus constituent, as in
(13). Semantically, the Hungarian left-peripheral focus has an exhaustive
interpretation (Szabolcsi 1994). Syntactically, it moves to the specifier of
a designated functional position in the left-periphery, FocusP (Bródy
1995). The verb itself moves to the head position of the projection,
leaving its particle behind.
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
(13) [Péteri [Maritj
szerettek [meg tk ti tj]PredP]FocP]TopP
Peter Mary.acc loved
prt
‘It was Mary that Peter started loving.’
Given the structure in (13), the mapping constraints in (4) give the
phrasing in (14), where the leftmost element in the core i is now the
focused phrase, and the relation of the topic to the rest of the sentence is
the same as in (11).
(14) (Péter (Marit szerette meg)I)I
As before, high-ranked ALIGN-L/R(SA, i) ensure that i boundaries are
matched with the edges of the whole utterance, which constitutes a
speech act. Additionally, ALIGN-L/R(HVP, i) align the edges of the core
i with the projection headed by the verb. Importantly, Hungarian focus
movement is accompanied by verb movement, resulting in FocP now
being the projection that hosts the moved verb and accounting for the
fact that the focused phrase is included in the core i. Again, the core i
boundaries satisfy ALIGN-L/R(i, HVP), while the outermost left-boundary
violates ALIGN-L(i, HVP).
In comparison, on the view that every projection of a supra-inflectional
functional head is mapped onto an i, or if it is assumed that a ‘standard’
clause is the complement of C, a sentence like (13) would be expected to
display an additional i break between the verb and the material following
it. However, just as in the German example in (7), no i break is normally
observed between the verb and the remainder of the sentence.
We now turn to the issue of prosodic prominence in the Hungarian
clause. For non-neutral sentences such as (15) (cf. Fig. 1), there is consensus in the literature (see e.g. Varga 2002: 143) that the main stress falls on
the focal constituent and any postverbal phrases undergo postfocal accent
373
374
375
376
overtly moves to, rather than to each segment of that category (Truckenbrodt 1999:
235; cf. Szendr`i 2001), such a syntactic analysis would give the same result as our
proposal.
A flexible approach to the mapping of intonational phrases 9
377
300
378
L
fl
H HL*
380
381
382
F0 (Hz)
379
200
100
383
0
384
385
a maláj lány
[
386
Eleonórához
menekül el
Emília
[
elöl
]I ]I
time
387
388
Figure 1
F0 contour for the non-neutral declarative sentence in (15): A maláj lány
Eleonórához menekül el Emília elöl. ‘The Malay girl escapes from Emilia to
Eleonora.’.
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
reduction (possibly due to their given status). Prefocal phrases may be
accented, but need not be.
(
(15) (
[a maláj lányk (Eleonórá-hozj meneküli [el ti
the Malay girl Eleonora-to flees
away
)I )I
[ti tk tj Emília elöl]VP]PredP]FocP]TopP
Emilia from
‘The Malay girl escapes from Emilia to Eleonora.’
We propose that this can be derived if we adopt the stress-alignment
constraints in (16), with the ranking Stress-iêEndRule-LêEndRule-R.4
(16) a. EndRule-L
Main stress is on the leftmost phonological phrase of the i. (Violated
if main stress is not on the leftmost phonological phrase within i.)
b. EndRule-R
Main stress is on the rightmost phonological phrase of the i. (Violated
if main stress is not on the rightmost phonological phrase within i.)
c. Stress-i
Every i has a stressed phonological phrase. (Violated by headless i.)
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
4
This formulation gives the same results as Szendr`i’s (2001) original proposal.
There, however, two generalised alignment constraints, LEFTALIGNSTRESS and
RIGHTALIGNSTRESS, were invoked, which, following McCarthy & Prince (1993),
were understood to incur gradient violations. In recent years, it has been argued
that gradient constraints should not be used. See Buckley (2009) for an overview.
10 Fatima Hamlaoui and Kriszta SzendrÖi
424
300
425
L
H L*
H L
fl
HLH
427
428
429
F0 (Hz)
426
200
100
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
0
a maláj lány
[
el-menekül
Eleonóra
elöl
Emíliához
]I ]I
[
time
Figure 2
F0 contour for the neutral declarative sentence in (18): A maláj lány elmenekül
Eleonóra elöl Emíliához. ‘The Malay girl escapes from Eleonora to Emilia.’.
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
This will ensure that main stress falls on the leftmost j of the core i in
Hungarian in sentences with recursive phrasing. This is because
ENDRULE-L will ensure that it is left-aligned with one of the left i boundaries, while STRESS-i will make sure it is the innermost boundary, otherwise the innermost i would violate the constraint. This gives rise to
metrical prominence on the focal element in non-neutral sentences, as,
given our proposed phrasing, these end up as the leftmost elements of
the core i. As argued by Szendr`i (2001), by being aligned with the left
edge of the core i, the focused phrase optimally satisfies the interface requirement in (17).
(17) Stress–Focus Correspondence Principle
The focus of a clause is any constituent containing the main stress of
the i, as determined by the stress rule (Szendr`i 2001, 2003, Reinhart
2006).
As we can see from (15), the position of the verb is crucial for phrasing, and consequently for accentuation. Verb movement enlarges the i,
allowing the focal phrase to target a position that ends up leftmost
within the core i, and thus receives main stress. The fact that left-peripheral topics are ‘skipped’ by the stress constraints in (16) shows that
such elements end up phrased outside the core i. In §3, we will turn
to Bàsàá for an example of a construction that provides further evidence
for the proposed syntax–phonology mapping constraints, not based on
accentuation, but rather established on evidence from domain-sensitive
tonal processes.
In neutral sentences, all j’s are stressed and carry pitch accents. This is
illustrated for (18) in Fig. 2.
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
A flexible approach to the mapping of intonational phrases 11
(18) ((
)J ((
)J
(
)J
[a maláj lányj [el-menekül [ti tj Eleonóra elöl
the Malay girl
away-flees
Eleonora from
(
)J )I
)I
Emíliá-hoz]VP]PredP]TopP
Emilia-to
‘The Malay girl escapes from Eleonora to Emilia.’
Szendr`i (2001) argues for an analysis that treats the j containing the
Prt-V complex as carrying main stress (see Ladd 1996 and Kálmán 2001
for similar proposals). But the distribution of pitch accents illustrated in
Fig. 2 leads Kálmán (1985), for example, to declare that Hungarian declarative sentences do not have nuclear stress. As will be apparent below,
we still think it is plausible to assume that the Prt-V complex bears
i-level prominence in Hungarian neutral declarative sentences; this
would fall out from the application of the stress rules proposed above in
(16) for non-neutral sentences. But we will not defend this stronger
claim here. We will argue only that (i) the Prt-V complex forms its own
j, and bears j-level accent, and (ii) this j is located at the left edge of i
(contra Surányi et al. 2012 and Genzel et al. in press). (Whether or not
this j also bears i-level prominence is therefore an issue that we leave
open here.)
Our first claim, that the Prt-V complex forms its own j in neutral clauses
in Hungarian, is consistent with existing prosodic descriptions (Kálmán
1985, Varga 2002). In Hungarian, unlike English, the verb does not
form a j together with the right-adjacent object NP. As proposed by
Szendr`i (2001), Hungarian marks the left edge of syntactic constituents
in prosodic structure, as is characteristic of OV languages. Note that
Hungarian has dependent–head order in other syntactic domains, and
that Proto-Hungarian was an OV language (É. Kiss 2013).
We assume that an extra j right edge is inserted following the Prt-V
complex, ruling out an alternative phrasing in which Prt-V is only a w at
the left edge of a recursive j encompassing the Prt-V and the VP-internal
PP. This could be the result of a prosodic constraint such as STRONGSTART
(Selkirk 2011: 522), as the Prt-V is at the left edge of i (see (18)) (Lisa
Selkirk, personal communication).
Let us now turn to the more contentious part of our proposal, namely
that the j comprising the Prt-V complex is situated at the left edge of i.
This claim goes against a recent analysis of the prosodic phrasing of
Hungarian declaratives by Surányi et al. (2012) and Genzel et al. (in
press). In a production study with simple declarative sentences, they
showed that sentence-initial topics in Hungarian can always have a
rising accent, but in some cases a falling accent is also possible (a flat
pitch is also found in about 10% of the cases, but no relevant systematic
variation was found). Crucially, they found that the falling accent is
restricted to certain information-structural configurations (Genzel et al.
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
12 Fatima Hamlaoui and Kriszta SzendrÖi
in press: Table 2). In particular, it does not arise unless the topic constitutes discourse-new information, or if the focus is contrastive. However, in
about 40% of the cases where the topic is new and the focus is not contrastive, a falling pitch accent occurs on the left-peripheral topic. Genzel et al.
observe that the initial peak in these cases is significantly higher than the
peak on the verbal modifier (in press: Table 1). They conclude from the
lack of pitch reset after the topic that the clause is mapped on to a single
i, as in (19a), rather than a set of nested i’s, as in (19b), with the main prominence falling accent on the Prt-V complex, as proposed by Szendr`i
(2001).
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
(19) a. (Top prt-V …)I
b. (Top (prt-V …)I)I
What is unexplained in Genzel et al.’s analysis is why the Prt-V complex
has an obligatory falling accent even in broad-focus cases. In their analysis,
it does not occur in the leftmost position of the i (at least not if the preceding topic is new information). One might say that the Prt-V complex
receives a phrasal accent simply by virtue of not being old information,
but, as Genzel et al.’s investigations show, there is a crucial difference
between the prosodic characteristics of the Prt-V complex and that of postverbal material: the latter is often deaccented or, if accented, hardly ever
has falling pitch (24 cases out of 320; see their Table 9), while a falling
contour is found on the Prt-V complex in over 90% of the cases in all
declaratives (298 out of 320; see their Table 1). So it cannot simply be
the case that the j containing the Prt-V is just like any other postverbal
j inside the i.
We believe that the problematic assumption underlying Genzel et al.’s
proposal is that a falling accent necessarily indicates that the element
bearing it is inside the core i. They assume this on the basis of previous
work reported by Surányi et al. (2012), who carried out a production
study with sentences involving a frame-setting topical PP and multiple
peripheral quantifiers, as in (20).
552
553
554
555
(20) a vizsgán mindenki mindent
megoldott egy óra alatt
the exam.at everyone everything.acc prt.solved an hour under
‘At the exam, everyone solved everything in under an hour.’
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
Surányi et al. found that the quantifiers (and also the Prt-V complex, as
we will discuss below) were often pronounced with a falling contour,
while the PP a vizsgán ‘at the exam’ never was. They conclude from
this that the frame-setting topic, but not the quantifiers, falls outside
the core i, whose left edge, they assume, is determined by the first
falling accent. However, in their study there was simply no opportunity
for the topic to bear a falling contour, as such a contour is restricted to
cases involving new information topics (and non-contrastive foci), as
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
A flexible approach to the mapping of intonational phrases 13
shown by Genzel et al. (in press). Since (20) and similar sentences were
embedded in an appropriate discourse context, we can assume that the
frame-setters were at least inferable, and thus the falling accent would
have been unwarranted. Moreover, preverbal quantifiers have a tendency
to be interpreted as contrastive foci, which would again preclude the possibility of a falling accent on the sentence-initial topic, even if it were new
information.
We propose that the correct analysis of sentences involving new topics is
that these topics, just like any others in Hungarian, fall outside the core i.
The leftmost element of the core i is the Prt-V complex, which bears the
falling pitch accent obligatorily found in all declaratives. The topic, by
virtue of being new, and thus stressed, may optionally bear phrasal
accent and a falling contour. In our view, the absence of pitch reset
between the j constituted by the topic and the j containing the Prt-V
complex is consistent with the phrasing in (11), and indicative of the fact
that in Hungarian the relevant domain for the process of downstep is the
outermost i.5 In §2.2 we show that the behaviour of yes-no questions provides further support for our analysis.
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
2.2 Hungarian yes-no questions
Ladd (1996) proposes a useful diagnostic for the i in Hungarian. In yes-no
questions, which are syntactically unmarked in Hungarian, the intonational contour is responsible for the interrogative meaning. It starts with an optional H tone on preverbal elements in neutral clauses and prefocal
elements in non-neutral clauses. The nuclear pitch, which starts with a
L*, is anchored on the Prt (or if there is no particle, then on the verb
itself) in neutral clauses, and on the focal element in non-neutral clauses.
The right edge of the contour is marked by a H- phrasal tone and a fl
boundary tone, which are aligned with the penultimate and final syllables
of the i respectively (word-level stress is always on the initial syllable in
Hungarian). If the utterance is long enough, then the L accent may be
repeated on any postverbal phrases in neutral sentences, but no postverbal
accents occur in non-neutral ones.
The prosodic characteristics of the sentences in Figs 3a and b are fully
consistent with our proposed phrasings in (11) and (14) respectively. The
proposed rankings of the mapping constraints in (4) and the stress constraints in (16) correctly derive the prosodic structure for yes-no questions, as in (21). If we assume that the initial L* accent falls on the
first j following the left edge of the core i, then we correctly derive that
it will fall on the focus in non-neutral sentences, and on the prefix (or
if there is no prefix, on the verb) in neutral sentences. The H-fl tones
are aligned with the penultimate and final syllables of the utterance
respectively.
609
610
611
5
Note that in our view, the relative height of the topic and the Prt-V should not be
taken to reflect their metrical prominence relations.
14 Fatima Hamlaoui and Kriszta SzendrÖi
612
(a)
613
L
300
HL L*
HL L
HLL
fl
H
615
616
617
F0 (Hz)
614
200
100
618
0
619
620
a malájlány
elmenekül
[
621
Eleonóra
elöl
Emíliához
[
]I ]I
622
623
(b)
624
300
L
H
a maláj
lány
fl
H
HL*
626
627
628
F0 (Hz)
625
200
100
629
0
630
631
[
632
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
menekül el
Emília
elöl
]I ]I
time
633
634
Eleonórához
[
Figure 3
F0 contours for (a) the neutral yes-no question A maláj lány elmenekül Eleonóra
elöl Emíliához? ‘Does the Malay girl escape from Eleonora to Emilia?’; (b) the
non-neutral yes-no question A maláj lány Eleonórához menekül el Emília elöl?
‘Does the Malay girl escape from Emilia to Eleonora?’.
(21)
a. neutral
b. non-neutral
H-fl
(L)H(L) L*
(Top
(prt-V XP XP)I)I
(Top
(Foc V prt XP XP)I)I
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
As we can see from (21), the position of the verb is crucial with respect to
phrasing and consequently accentuation. Verb movement enlarges the i,
allowing the focal phrase to target a position that ends up leftmost in the
core i, and thus receive the initial L* accent stress. The fact that left-peripheral
topics are ‘skipped’ and the initial L* accent of the yes-no question contour
targets the focus shows that the left edge of the core i follows such topics.
Note that, contrary to our claim, one might argue that what we call the
yes-no question contour is in fact a marked contour, for instance reflecting
polarity or verum focus (Lisa Selkirk, personal communication), as in (22).
654
655
656
657
658
(22) a. A maláj lány elmenekül Emília elöl Eleonórához.
‘The Malay girl escapes from Emilia to Eleonora.’
b. A maláj lány elmenekül Emília elöl Eleonórához?
‘Does the Malay girl escape from Emilia to Eleonora?’
A flexible approach to the mapping of intonational phrases 15
659
(a)
660
L
300
fl
HHL*
662
663
664
F0 (Hz)
661
200
100
665
0
666
667
668
a maláj lány
elmenekül
Emília
elöl
Eleonórához
[
[
]I ]I
L
H HL*
fl
669
670
(b)
671
300
673
674
675
F0 (Hz)
672
200
100
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
0
a maláj lány
[
elmenekül
Emília
[
elöl
Eleonórához
]I ]I
time
Figure 4
F0 contours for (a) the non-neutral declarative sentence with verb focus in
(22a): A maláj lány elmenekül Emília elöl Eleonórához. ‘The Malay girl escapes
from Emilia to Eleonora.’; (b) the non-neutral question with verb focus in
(22b): A maláj lány elmenekül Emília elöl Eleonórához? ‘Does the Malay girl
escape from Emilia to Eleonora?’.
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
This would have the consequence that the fact that such a contour
cannot start on a left-peripheral topic, even if that topic is new, would
have no bearing on the analysis of simple declaratives sentences, as declaratives would be neutral sentences with neutral prosody, while yes-no questions would be non-neutral sentences with non-neutral prosody.
Fortunately, we can establish that this is not the case. Recall that the one
aspect of Hungarian prosody that is generally agreed on is that in nonneutral prosody main prominence falls on the left-peripheral focal
element and postverbal phrasal accents are eradicated; see Fig. 4a. As the
minimal pair in Figs 3a and 4b illustrates, such postverbal accent reduction
is not the norm in yes-no questions in general, but rather arises if there is
contrast on the Prt-V complex or the veracity of the proposition. Thus one
cannot assume that yes-no question intonation contour is a non-neutral
contour per se, because it does not bear the characteristic postfocal reduction of such contours.
16 Fatima Hamlaoui and Kriszta SzendrÖi
706
300
707
L
HLL
HL
HLL*
HL H
fl
709
710
711
F0 (Hz)
708
200
100
712
0
713
714
715
718
719
720
721
mindenki
mindent megoldottegyóra
[
alatt
]I ]I
time
716
717
a vizsgán
[
Figure 5
F0 contour for the neutral question with a topic and two quantifiers A vizsgán
mindenki mindent megoldott egy óra alatt? ‘At the exam, did everyone solve
everything in less than an hour?’.
722
723
724
2.3 Quantifiers and syntax–prosody mismatch
725
Before closing this section, we need to tackle one remaining issue that
arises with respect to our analysis of Hungarian prosody: the prosody of
sentences with a focused quantifier, such as (20) above, which are examined by Surányi et al. (2012).
Recall that Surányi et al. found that such quantifiers often bear a falling
pitch contour, at least in broad-focus contexts. In addition, just as in the
case of the left-peripheral new topics considered by Genzel et al. (in
press), the Prt-V complex is also marked by a falling contour (Surányi
et al. 2012: 49). As noted above, Surányi et al. assume that the leftmost
falling accent marks the left edge of the core i: they conclude that the
left edge of the core i in such sentences precedes the quantifiers bearing
a falling pitch. They therefore assume the phrasing in (23a). In contrast,
the phrasing we assign is given in (23b).
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
(23) a. ((a vizsgán)J((mindenki)J (mindent)J (megoldott)J
(egy óra alatt)J)I)I
b. ((a vizsgán)J(mindenki)J(mindent)J ((megoldott)J
(egy óra alatt)J)I)I
744
745
746
747
748
To determine which is the correct phrasing, we must impose a question
intonation contour on such sentences. As Fig. 5 shows, the L* accent is
anchored to the Prt-V complex, while the preverbal quantifiers bear
marked LH contours indicating contrast, as in (24a).6 It is not possibile
749
750
751
752
6
We believe that the reason that the less salient H tone is unavailable for such fronted
quantifiers lies in the syntax of such examples, but we do not consider this issue
here. Hungarian quantifiers need not move from their postverbal position, unless
753
754
A flexible approach to the mapping of intonational phrases 17
to extend the question contour to include the quantifiers, as in (24b),
showing that the correct phrasing is that in (23b).
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
(24) a. ((L)H (L) LH LH (L* H-fl)I)I
b. *((L)H (L) (L* H-fl)I)I
Finally, let us consider the same sentence in a context that requires a
contrastive narrow-focus interpretation on the second quantifier. As
Surányi et al. (2012: 54) observe, in such a situation at least some speakers
alter the normal phrasing, assigning a falling pitch on the second quantifier
and a rising contour on the first quantifier; on the Prt-V complex the ‘pitch
contour was so compressed that it was impossible to detect the actual
accent type’ (see also their Fig. 5).We interpret this state of affairs as indicating that the second quantifier indeed occupies the leftmost position in
the core i, with postfocal reduction of the Prt-V complex. The phrasing
in such cases of narrow focus is as in (25), which violates our syntax–
prosody mapping constraints.
771
772
(25) (a vizsgán mindenki (mindent megoldott egy óra alatt)I)I
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
We agree with Surányi et al.’s idea (but not the specifics of their analysis)
that such cases constitute a misaligned syntax–prosody mapping. The misaligned phrasing is motivated by the fact that, on the one hand, the quantifier, being contrastively focused, must bear main prominence (see (15)),
and that, on the other hand, universal quantifiers are banned from the
Hungarian focus position (e.g. *A vizsgán mindenki mindent oldott meg
egy óra alatt) (see Szabolcsi 1994 for a semantic explanation). Indeed, as
Fig. 6 shows, the L* accent of the yes-no contour can extend to the quantifier just in cases where it is contrastively focused.
(26) A. (a vizsgán mindenki (mindent megoldott egy óra alatt)I)I
‘At the exam, did everyone solve everything in an hour?’
B. nem, csak két feladatot
no only two exercise.acc
‘No, only two exercises!’
To summarise, we have provided an account of the prosodic phrasing
patterns of Hungarian simple declaratives and yes-no questions, including
both neutral and non-neutral utterances, which assumes the mapping constraints in (4) and the stress constraints in (16). Our analysis is superior to
alternative analyses, as it provides a unified account of all these cases. On
our account, the left edge of the core i corresponds to the left edge of the
syntactic phrase that hosts the overt verb: the focus in non-neutral
they move over a quantifier over which they take scope, so the sentences under consideration here, are information-structurally marked when they appear preverbally.
18 Fatima Hamlaoui and Kriszta SzendrÖi
800
L
300
801
HLL
HLL*
fl
H
803
804
805
F0 (Hz)
802
200
100
806
0
807
808
809
812
813
814
815
[
alatt
]I ]I
time
810
811
a vizsgán mindenki mindent megoldott egy óra
[
Figure 6
F0 contour for the non-neutral question with focus on the second quantifier in
(26): A vizsgán mindenki mindent megoldott egy óra alatt? ‘At the exam, did
everyone solve everything in less than an hour?’.
816
817
818
819
820
sentences, and the Prt-V complex in neutral ones. There is one exception
to this, the case of focused quantifiers, which constitutes a misalignment
which is easily explained by independent principles.
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
3 Evidence from Bàsàá simple clauses
In this section, we examine a special type of left-dislocation in Bàsàá,
which is associated with a broad focus reading and is functionally equivalent to a sentence in the passive voice.7 This type of left-dislocation, a
‘zero-coded passive’, is used to express a change in grammatical voice
in languages that lack passive morphology, such as Lango (Nilotic)
(Noonan, 1977, 1992, Noonan & Bavin Woock 1978) and Mbuun
(Bantu; B87) (Bostoen & Mundeke 2011), and in languages in which
passive voice markers reduce the valency of a verb, like Bàsàá (see
Cobbinah & Lüpke 2012 for an overview of zero-coded passives). We
argue first that the zero-coded passive left-dislocated XP is located
below C, and that, as shown by a process of Falling Tone
Simplification, it is outside the syntactic constituent corresponding to
the core i. This provides further evidence for our claim that prosodic integration in the core i is dependent on the HVP, rather than on a specific
syntactic category. If our approach is on the right track, the general lack
of prosodic integration of dislocated topics is related to the fact that they
are situated outside the HVP, no matter how high they are in the
structure.
7
Bàsàá is a narrow Bantu language (A43) spoken in Cameroon. According to the most
recent official census, it is spoken by more 300,000 speakers (see Lewis et al. 2015).
In the present paper, we concentrate on the variety spoken by Emmanuel-Moselly
Makasso, in the north of the area where Bàsàá is mainly spoken (in the Centre and
Littoral regions of Cameroon).
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
In terms of basic word order, Bàsàá displays the typical SVO word order
found in the Bantu family. Basic sentences are analysed as in (27)
(Hamlaoui & Makasso 2015). In line with standard assumptions (e.g.
Krifka 1995, Zerbian 2006, Hyman & Polinsky 2010), vP hosts the internal
arguments of the verb, and its highest XP raises to the specifier of a functional projection in the inflectional domain (Spec,TP). In addition, the fact that
adverbials systematically follow the verb provides evidence for v/V-to-T
movement (Pollock 1989). The HVP in the sentences considered in this
section is thus TP.8
•
847
A flexible approach to the mapping of intonational phrases 19
3.1 The syntax of zero-coded passive left-dislocation
(27) [rì−nùníi rí−Ñ−ôNj [[ti tj [tj mú− mbúl mà−láám]VP í pùmá]vP]vP]TP
ri−nùní rí−Ñ−ôN
mù−mbúl ma−láám í
pùmá
13−birds 13.agr−pres−build 6−nests 6−beautiful loc 1.orange.tree
‘Birds build beautiful nests on the orange tree.’
Although Bàsàá is in many aspects a typical Bantu language, it lacks the
freedom in constituent ordering often associated with its eastern and
southern relatives (Nurse & Philipson 2003, Hamlaoui & Makasso 2015).
Instead, it belongs to the type of languages identified by Noonan (1992)
as having ‘indirect role marking’, i.e. surface positions in Bàsàá strongly
encode thematic relations.
When it comes to changes in diathesis, only short passives can be
expressed through the use of passive morphology, as in (28). These structures are agentless, hence the impossibility of attaching adverbials like /nì
nSëN/ ‘voluntarily’. As the patient is the highest thematic role selected by
the verb, it can be raised to the preverbal subject position, Spec,TP.
(28) a. tòlò à−´−Jé−Bâ (*nì ´SëN)
tòlò
à−n−Jé−Bà
nì ´SëN
1.mouse 1.agr−pst1.eat−pass with will
‘The mouse was (*voluntarily) eaten.’
b. tòlò à−´−Jé−Bá ní síNgâ
tòlò
à−n−Jé−Bà
nì síNgâ
1.mouse 1.agr−pst1.eat−pass with 9.cat
‘The mouse was eaten together with the cat.’
*‘The mouse was eaten by the cat.’
To express passive sentences displaying both agent and patient arguments, Bàsàá resorts to object left-dislocation. This strategy, in (29)
(cf. (8) above), allows the promotion of the (more topical) patient
891
892
893
8
In (27) and subsequent Bàsàá examples, the first and the second lines of the examples give the surface and the underlying tonal representations respectively.
894
895
20 Fatima Hamlaoui and Kriszta SzendrÖi
argument, without deviating from the default linking between argument
structure and syntax which requires raising the agent to Spec,TP.
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
(29) tòlò síNgâ ì−´−Jê ¿ê
tòlò
síNgà ì−n−Jê
¿ê
1.mouse 9.cat 9.agr−pst1−eat 1.prn
‘The mouse was eaten by the cat.’
A number of properties distinguish zero-coded passive left-dislocation
from both hanging-topic left-dislocation and clitic left-dislocation,
found for instance in Romance and Germanic languages (see references
below). These properties generally indicate greater syntactic integration
of the XP undergoing zero-coded passive left-dislocation. We will illustrate the crucial ones here (the interested reader is referred to Noonan &
Bavin Woock 1978, Woolford 1991 and Bostoen & Mundeke 2011).
First, whereas hanging-topic left-dislocation and clitic left-dislocation
are free, recursive operations (e.g. Rizzi 1997, Frey 2005, De Cat
2007b), zero-coded passive left-dislocation only targets one argument of
the verb at a time. This is illustrated in (30), with the arguments of the ditransitive verb /tí/ ‘to give’. Whenever both objects are full XPs, the only
word order available in Bàsàá is recipient preceding patient, as is typical in
Bantu languages (Hyman 2003). Either object can be fronted to derive a
zero-coded passive, as in (a) and (b), but not both (irrespective of order),
as in (c).
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
(30) a. ß−ööNgê ßô−ßá−sô sóGól à−´−tí ßô ndáp
ß−OONgê ßô−ßá−sò
à−n−tí
sóGól
2−children 2.prn−2.conn−all 1.grandfather 1.agr−pst1.give
ßô
ndáp
2.prn 9.house
‘All the children were given a house by the grandfather.’
b. ndáp sóGól à−´−tí jô ß−ööNgê ßô−ßá−sô
ndáp sóGól
à−n−tí
jö
ß−OONgê
9.house 1.grandfather 1.agr−pst1−give 9.prn 2−children
ßô−ßá−sò
2.prn−2.conn−all
‘A house was given to all the children by the grandfather.’
c. *ndáp ß−ööNgê ßô−ßá−sô sóGól à−´−tí ßô jö
ndáp ß−ööNgê ßô−ßá−sò
sóGól
9.house 2−children 2.prn−2.conn−all 1.grandfather
à−n−tí
ßô
jö
1.agr−pst1.give 2.prn 9.prn
‘A house, all the children, the grandfather gave it to them.’
941
942
943
944
A flexible approach to the mapping of intonational phrases 21
Second, singular quantified expressions and non-specific indefinites,
which typically resist hanging-topic left-dislocation and clitic left-dislocation (De Cat 2007b: 504), can participate in Bàsàá zero-coded passive leftdislocation, as in (31).
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
(31) híØGí ´−tómbá nJèé ì−´−nôl wô
híGìí n−tómbá nJèé ì−n−nôl
wô
every 3−sheep 9.lion 9.agr−pst1−kill 3.prn
‘Every sheep was killed by the lion.’
Third, zero-coded passive left-dislocation can take place in clauses with
non-root properties, as in the restrictive relative clause in (32) (Jenks et al.
2012).
(32) í−m−ààNgê (nú) BìJêk gwéé më Bí−ØJê gwô
í−m−aaNgê (nú) BiJêk gwéé më Bífl−Jê gwô
aug−1−child that 8.food 8.poss I pst2−eat 8.prn
‘the child whose food was eaten by me’
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
In contrast, French does not allow clitic left-dislocation in restrictive
relative clauses, as in (33).
(33) *la fille à qui
le livrei, Pierre l’i a donné
the girl to whom the book Pierre it has given
‘the girl to whom Pierre gave the book’
Finally, in contrast to Romance and Germanic hanging-topic left-dislocation and clitic left-dislocation, where object left-dislocation is generally inappropriate in all-new contexts, zero-coded passive left-dislocation is
possible in utterances with a wide-focus reading, as in (34).
(34) A. í¿ùúØkíí ß−ööNgê ßá−jé
màséé
why
2−children 2.agr−be.pres happy
‘Why are the children happy?’
B. rì−nùní rí−Ñ−ôN
múØmbúl mà−láám í
pùmá
13-birds 13.agr-pst1-build 6.nests 6-beautiful loc orange.tree
‘The birds have built beautiful nests on the orange tree.’
mô
B¢. mùmbúl mà−láám rì−nùní rí−Ñ−ôN
6.nests 6−beautiful 13−birds 13.agr−pst1−build 6.prn
í
pùmá
loc orange.tree
‘Beautiful nests were built on the orange tree by the birds.’
985
986
987
Taken together, these properties show that the dislocated XP in zerocoded passive left-dislocation is syntactically comparable with the
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
22 Fatima Hamlaoui and Kriszta SzendrÖi
subject of a morphological passive, rather than with a dislocated peripheral
topic. Syntactic proposals differ with respect to the exact location of the
latter type of left-dislocated XP. It has been treated as being adjoined to
a ‘discourse projection’ (TP; De Cat 2007a) or a ‘clause’ (CP; Cheng &
Downing 2009), as the specifier of a functional projection in the suprainflectional domain (TopicP; Cinque 1983, Rizzi 1997) or most recently
as belonging to an entirely separate clause (Ott to appear). The last approach explicitly captures the long-acknowledged syntactically non-integrated nature of these peripheral topics. This lack of syntactic
integration has in turn been associated with their observed lack of prosodic
integration (Selkirk 2005, Cheng & Downing 2009, among others), as
these left-dislocated phrases are not phrased together with the core
clause (Downing 1970, Frascarelli 2000, De Cat 2007a, Downing 2011,
among others).
In contrast, Woolford (1991) proposes the syntactic analysis in (35) for
zero-coded passive left-dislocation in Lango, with the left-dislocated XP
(‘a second subject’) occupying Spec,IP and the agent (the actual grammatical subject) staying in Spec,VP. But, on the assumption that in such structures the OSV order is derived by object movement to Spec,IP across the
in situ subject is problematic on Relativised Minimality (Rizzi 1990), what
would make the object move over the subject in a language that otherwise
moves the argument with the highest thematic role to Spec,IP?
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
(35) [NPi [NP V ti/prni]VP]IP
Our alternative representation in (36) captures Woolford’s insight, while
respecting the fact that subject agreement in Bàsàá takes place above vP (in
T). There is no Relativised Minimality violation, as the subject moves to
Spec,TP and a [+topic] feature attracts the object to Spec,TopP.
1018
1019
(36) [… [DPi [DPj Vk [tj <V>k [<V>k proi]VP]vP]TP]TopP]CP
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
Syntactically, the left-dislocated XP in (36) belongs to the core clause.
Crucially, it is located within the inflectional domain. Additional evidence
for the position of the left-dislocated XP within the inflectional domain
comes from Bantu languages like Kinyarwanda in (37a) and Kanyok in
(37b), in which the fronted object of OVS zero-coded passives controls
subject agreement on the verb.
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
(37) a. igi−tabo ki−som−a
umu−huûngu
7−book 7.sm−read−asp 1−boy
‘The book is being read by the boy.’
b. mi−saanj jì−djààdj ba−tùw
4−fish
4.sm−eat 2−fisherwomen
‘The fish is eaten by the fisherwomen.’
(Kimenyi 1980: 192)
(Boston & Mundeke
2011: 165)
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
A flexible approach to the mapping of intonational phrases 23
The relationship between the OSV and OVS zero-coded passives is
noted by Bostoen & Mundeke (2011), who investigate zero-coded
passive left-dislocation in Mbuun, and discussed further in Hamlaoui &
Makasso (2013) and Hamlaoui (2014). The best-studied case of OVS
zero-coded passive is probably from Kinyarwanda (Kimenyi 1980, 1988,
Morimoto 1999, 2006). As these authors show, in so-called ‘subjectobject reversal’ structures like (37a), preverbal object and postverbal
subject retain their respective object and subject properties: ‘NPs
advanced to subject by the [Object-Subject] reversal rule do not acquire
the properties of basic subjects, such as raising, deletion under identity,
and ha- insertion’ (Kimenyi 1980: 145). The only subject-like properties
of the object are its linearly preverbal location and its control over
subject agreement. So, in contrast to (non-passive-related) OVS structures, observed for instance in V2 languages like German in which O
and V are located in the CP domain and do not agree, what is observed
in Kinyarwanda suggests that O and V are within the inflectional
domain.9 What distinguishes Kinyarwanda from Bàsàá, then, is how
high the verb can move within its extended projections, with the
Kinyarwanda verb moving over the subject to Topic, as in (38).10
1054
1055
(38) [… [DPi Vk [DPj <V>k [tj <V>k [<V>k]VP]vP]TP]TopP]CP
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
In summary, zero-coded passive left-dislocation provides valuable evidence as to the syntactic edges with which i boundaries align within root
clauses. They can help us to test empirically whether i boundaries universally align with a specific syntactic category like CP, TopicP or CommaP
(Selkirk 2005), or whether the notion of ‘clause’ that serves as a basis for
i formation should be characterised in purely structural (and thus crosscategorial) terms (just like w and j). In Bàsàá, the mapping constraints
given in (4) predict the presence of an i boundary between the leftdislocated object and the subject, as this position corresponds to the left
edge of the HVP. We will show that this prediction is borne out.
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
3.2 The prosody of left-dislocation in Bàsàá
From a prosodic perspective, Bàsàá is a tonal language which underlyingly
contrasts two level tones, H and L. Additionally, a number of grammatical
morphemes (noun class prefixes, some tense markers and verbal extensions) are underlyingly toneless (Hamlaoui et al. 2014). In the existing
1075
1076
9
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
10
Asymmetric c-command is a stronger requirement for subject agreement in Bantu
languages than in many Indo-European languages, in which subject agreement normally takes place with the argument carrying the subject case/thematic role, no
matter its syntactic location (Baker 2008).
This structure predicts that the object in Kinyarwanda OVS is prosodically integrated into the core i, due to accompanying verb movement to Topic. To the best
of our knowledge, there is no data available to allow this prediction to be tested.
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
24 Fatima Hamlaoui and Kriszta SzendrÖi
literature on Bàsàá, there are two tone rules have been extensively discussed (see Dimmendaal 1988, Bitjaa Kody 1993, Hyman 2003,
Makasso 2008). The first, High Tone Spreading, turns H–L and H–0
sequences into H–HL and H–H sequences respectively. The domain of application of High Tone Spreading is the j.11 When the appropriate tonal
configuration is met, High Tone Spreading applies within words, as well
as at the following word junctures: (i) between a verb and the phrase
that immediately follows it within the same clause, as in (39a), and (ii)
between the agreement marker and the (underlyingly toneless) tense
marker, as in (39b). High Tone Spreading provides evidence for the following phrasing in simple canonical sentences: (S)J (V XP)J (XP)J.12
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
(39) a. (sóGól)J (à−´−têhê ß−ôôNgê)J (kòkówá)J
sóGól
à−n−têhê
ß−OONgê kòkówá
1.grandfather 1.agr−pst1.see 2−children evening
‘The grandfather saw children in the evening.’
b. (ß−ör)J (ßà−Ñ−têhê ßô)J (kòkówá)J
ß−ör
ßá−n−têhê
kòkówá
ßô
2.people 2.agr−pst1.see 2.prn evening
‘People saw them in the evening.’
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
The H on the last mora of the subject phrase in (39a) does not spread
onto the first mora of the verbal complex (*/sóGól à-´-têhê/£[sóGól áÑ-têhê]), due to the fact that these words belong to separate j’s. High
Tone Spreading also generally fails to apply between the phrase that immediately follows the verb (an object in (39)), and the phrase that
follows it, here a temporal adjuncts (*/ß-HHNgê kòkówá/£[ß-HHNgê
kókówá]). The lack of High Tone Spreading in this position is further illustrated in (40) (from Bitjaa Kody 1993).
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
(40) (mbóN)J (à−Bí−Ølál í ØsóØsó)J (ndáp)J (jààní)J
mbóN à−Bí`−lál
í` só`só
ndáp jààní
Mbong 1.agr−pst2−sleep loc very.big house yesterday
‘Mbong slept in a very big house yesterday.’
1121
Let us now turn to the second major tone rule, Falling Tone
Simplification. This rule turns a HL–H sequence into H–ØH.13 It
applies in a phonological domain larger than the j. This domain
1122
11
1119
1120
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
12
13
For more details on the connection between tone rules and prosodic structure in
Bàsàá, see Hamlaoui et al. (2014).
We do not discuss issues of recursive phrasing at the j level, as they are irrelevant to
the present discussion.
There are different sources for Falling tones in Bàsàá (Bitjaa Kody 1993, Makasso
2012). The ones discussed here in relation to Falling Tone Simplification are
formed by High Tone Spreading, except in (42a), where a falling tone on the monosyllabic verb /lO/ ‘arrive’ is formed by the combination of a melodic high tone
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
A flexible approach to the mapping of intonational phrases 25
encompasses an entire simple sentence and thus corresponds to the i. For
instance, the falling tone on [ß-HHNgê ßH-ßá-s8] in (41a), itself derived
through High Tone Spreading, is simplified whenever the phrase is in
medial position within the i and followed by a H, as in (41b) (see also
(41c) and (42a)).
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
(41) a. (sóGól à−´−têhê ß−ôôNgê ßô−ßá−sô)I
sóGól
à−n−têhê
ß−OONgê ßô−ßá−sò
1.grandfather 1.agr−pst1.see 2−children 2.prn−2.conn−all
‘The grandfather saw all the children.’
b. (ß−ööNgê ßô−ßá−só Øßá−˜−ßárá máNgòlò)I
ß−OONgê ßô−ßá−sò
ßá−m−ßárá
máNgòlò
2−children 2.prn−2.conn−all 2.agr−pst1.pick.up mangos
‘All the children picked up the mangos.’
c. (mà−wándá má kíNê Ømá−Ñ−sôNgÜl)I
mà−wándá má
kíNë má−n−sôNgöl
6.friends 6.conn 1.chief 6.agr−pst1.count
‘The chief’s friends counted.’
Falling Tone Simplification also applies between a verb and the phrase
that immediately follows it within the same clause, as in (42a), and between
the arguments or adjuncts of a verb, as in (b) and (c).
(42) a. (mùr à−´−lô Øhálà)I
mùr à−n−'−lö
hálà
1.man 1.agr−pst1.mh−arrive like.this
‘The man arrived in this fashion.’
b. (sóGól à−´−tí ß−ôôNgê ßô−ßá−só Øndáp)I
ndáp
à−n−tí
ß−OONgê ßô−ßá−sò
sóGól
1.grandfather 1.agr−pst1.buy 2−children 2.prn−2.conn−all 9.house
‘The grandfather bought all the children a house.’
c. (lìNgòm à−´−Jê má−kàlà mô−má−só Økêkëlà)I
kêkëlà
mô−má−sò
lìNgòm à−n−Jê
ma−kàlà
Lingom 1.agr−pst1−eat 6−doughnuts 6.prn−6.conn−all morning
‘Lingom ate all the doughnuts in the morning.’
1167
1168
1169
1170
Importantly, whenever the left-dislocated XP resulting from zero-coded
passive left-dislocation and the subject create the proper tonal configuration, as in (43), Falling Tone Simplification fails to apply.
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
introduced by the recent past and the underlying low tone (see e.g. Hyman 2003,
Makasso 2012).
1176
1177
1178
1179
26 Fatima Hamlaoui and Kriszta SzendrÖi
(43) ßööNgê ßô−ßá−sô sóGól à−´−têhê ßô
sóGól
ß−ööNgê ßô−ßá−sò
à−n−têhê
ßô
2−children 2.prn−2.conn-all 1.grandfather 1.agr−pst1.see 2.prn
‘All the children were seen by the grandfather.’
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
As predicted by the constraints in (4), the HVP, which in Bàsàá is TP,
forms a core i which exclude the left-dislocated XP in Spec,TopP. The
prosodic structure of the sentence in (43) is thus (44).
(44) (ßööNgê ßô−ßá−sô (sóGól à−´−têhê ßô)I)I
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
Alternative approaches, both those which tie the notion of clause to CP
(Cheng & Downing 2007, 2009, Truckenbrodt 2007, Downing 2011,
Henderson 2012) and those in which the crucial syntactic boundary for
mapping an i is the edge of the maximal projection corresponding to the complement of C (Dobashi 2003, Ishihara 2007, Selkirk 2011), predict the phrasing in (45). Approaches that associate the TP with clausehood would derive
the Bàsàá phrasing correctly, but would fail to account for V2 sentences in
German (§1) and left-peripheral focus sentences in Hungarian (§2).
(45) *(ßööNgê ßô−ßá−só ØsóGól à−´−têhê ßô)I
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
In sum, our HVP-based theory seems to be the only one that can capture
the intonational phrasing of V2 structures in German (§1) and focus-fronting structures in Hungarian (§2), and make the correct prediction for the
intonational phrasing of low topicalisation in Bàsàá.
1202
1203
1204
3.3 Variation in the phrasing of left-dislocated XPs
1216
The prosodic phrasing of zero-coded passive left-dislocation in Bàsàá is
comparable to the phrasing of left-dislocation reported by Zerbian
(2007a) for Northern Sotho, in which there is evidence that a left-dislocated XP does not constitute a separate i. In Northern Sotho, penultimate
lengthening and a rule of finality restriction characterise the right edge of
an i. These phonological processes apply at the end of declarative sentences, as well as at the end of right-dislocated phrases.14
As shown by Zerbian, the penultimate syllable of the left-dislocated XP
in (46) fails to display the lengthening typical of words located at the right
edge of an i, and its final syllable is not extratonal, i.e. exempt from receiving an H through the process of High Tone Spreading.15 Thus left-dislocated XPs do not align with the right edge of an i.
1217
14
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
15
Zerbian analyses the right-dislocated phrase as a separate i. The prosody she reports
is however consistent with our account, in which the outermost i boundary is
inserted by ALIGN-R(SA, i), rather by the dislocated phrase itself.
Zerbian reports the results of a perception study whose results suggest that dislocated phrases are prosodically indistinguishable from preverbal lexical subjects.
Either there is no left edge of an i between a fronted object and the remainder of
the clause in Sotho, as in (i), which would go against our prediction, or it could
1223
1224
1225
A flexible approach to the mapping of intonational phrases 27
(46) mo-sádí ke a
mmó:na)I
1-woman 1sg pres 1.om.see
‘The woman, I see her.’
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
In Bàsàá, contour tones are not generally restricted to i edges. For instance, as they are not followed by an H, the falling tones in (47) do not
simplify, showing that these contour tones are licit in i-medial position.
(47) a. (kíNÕ à−´−sôNgöl)I
kíNë à−n−sôNgöl
1.chief 1.agr−pst1−count
‘The chief counted.’
b. (n-Jê m−9r à−´−sôNgöl)I
n−Jê m−ùr à−n−sôNgöl
who 1−man 1.agr−pst1.count
‘Which man counted?’
1240
1241
1242
1243
The presence of a contour tone on the left-dislocated object in (43) is
thus not indicative of this constituent forming its own i, as in the prosodic
structure in (48).
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
(48) *(ß−ööNgê ßô−ßá−sô)I (sóGól à−´−têhê ßô)I
The phrasing of left-dislocation observed in Sotho and Bàsàá is consistent with our syntax–prosody mapping constraints, in which the i break that
separates a left-dislocated XP from the remainder of the clause is not introduced by the left-dislocated XP itself, but rather by the HVP. However,
this phrasing contrasts with a different one, which has been reported for
a number of languages. For instance, Selkirk (2011) observes that in
Xitsonga left-dislocated XPs right-align with an i break. Penultimate
lengthening is also an indicator of the presence of the right edge of an i
in Xitsonga (Kisseberth 1994, Selkirk 2011). It is found at the edge of
simple declarative sentences and at the right edge of right-dislocated
phrases. Interestingly, penultimate lengthening is also found at the edge
of left-dislocated XPs in Xitsonga. In that language, the phrasing of
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
be that in this language, the full lexical subject, just like a fronted object, is outside
the core i (and thus prosodically indistinguishable from it, as in (ii) and (iii)).
Zerbian (2006: 54) indeed argues that Northern Sotho belongs to the Bantu languages in which full syntactic subjects are always dislocated.
(i) a. (obj subj pronoun V …)I
b. (subj (pronoun V …)I)I
c. (obj (pronoun V …)I)I
If our syntax–prosody mapping approach is on the right track, Zerbian’s results
constitute additional evidence for syntactic analyses that treat Sotho full lexical subjects as being located above TP rather than in Spec,TP.
1270
1271
28 Fatima Hamlaoui and Kriszta SzendrÖi
left-dislocation is of the type in (48), in which the left-dislocated XP constitutes an i of its own, as in (49) (from Kisseberth 1994: 154).
1272
1273
1274
1275
(49) (ti−ho:mú)I (hi−hontlovila x− Øa−xá:v−a)I
10−cow
7−giant
7.sm−tense−buy−fv
‘As for the cattle, the giant is buying.’
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
In Xitsonga, left-dislocated XPs thus seem to have greater prosodic
prominence and autonomy than in Northern Sotho or Bàsàá. As proposed
by Selkirk (2011: 444), if Xitsonga left-dislocated XPs belong syntactically
to the same clause as the material that follows them (instead of belonging to
a separate clause, as in Ott to appear), the high ranking of a prosodic constraint such as STRONGSTART (Selkirk 2011: 472) could promote the dislocated phrase into a separate i. EQUALSISTERS, proposed by Myrberg (2013:
75), would yield a similar result.
As noted by Zerbian (2007b), Downing (2011) and Selkirk (2011),
among others, forming a separate i is not a necessary trait of topics.
Thus we have an argument against the proposals of Frascarelli (2000)
and Feldhausen (2010), which establish a direct link between topicality
and alignment with i, as in (50) (from Feldhausen 2010).
(50) Align-R(Top, i)
Align the right edge of a (dislocated) topic constituent to the rightedge of an i.
The problem with a constraint like (50) is that it only captures the phrasing of left-dislocation in languages that pattern like Xitsonga (and a
number of Romance languages), but says nothing about languages like
Northern Sotho, Bàsàá or Hungarian, in which topics do not form a separate i but are nonetheless set off from the remainder of the clause.16
We started this section with a series of syntactic arguments showing that
zero-coded passive left-dislocation should not be analysed in the same way
as clitic left-dislocation and hanging-topic left-dislocation in Romance and
Germanic languages. We would like to finish it by pointing out that, in
spite of their distinct underlying syntactic structures, hanging-topic leftdislocation, clitic left-dislocation, Bàsàá zero-coded passive left-dislocation
and even Hungarian topics display similar prosodic behaviour, in that the
dislocated element is set off from the rest of the clause by an i break.
Among the various approaches to the syntax–phonology mapping of i’s,
only the flexible approach captures the prosodic similarity of this variety
of syntactic structures.17 What all these cases share is that the left16
1314
1315
1316
17
We do not have space to discuss this issue further, but see Szendr`i & Hamlaoui (in
preparation), where we propose a general interface requirement that a topic align
with the edge of an i (with no reference to right edges).
An alternative line of thought, due to Selkirk (2005), establishes an indirect link
between topicality and phrasing by proposing that a topic constitute an independent
1317
1318
1319
A flexible approach to the mapping of intonational phrases 29
dislocated element is syntactically outside the projection hosting
the overt verb. In our approach, this is why they are prosodically
outside the core i.
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
4 Conclusion
In this paper, we have argued that the syntax–prosody and prosody–syntax
mapping constraints that relate syntactic clauses to i’s do not rigidly refer
to specific syntactic categories such as CP or TP, but rather that they are
flexible in nature. In particular, we have proposed that what constitutes
a clause is the highest projection to which the root 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.
The size of the i can thus vary from language to language and construction
to construction, depending on the position of the verb (or verb-related material) in the syntactic tree. This explicitly cross-categorial approach allows
for an analysis of Hungarian left-peripheral topics and foci, as well as of
Bàsàá zero-coded passive left-dislocated objects in simplex clauses. An
additional benefit is that our account encompasses non-canonical word
orders involving topics and foci without making reference to the discourse
status of the elements.
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
REFERENCES
Baker, Mark C. (2008). The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bitjaa Kody, Zachée Denis (1993). Le système tonal du basaa. Journal of West African
Languages 23:1. 65–72.
Bostoen, Koen & Léon Mundeke (2011). Passiveness and inversion in Mbuun (Bantu
B87, DRC). Studies in Language 35. 72–111.
Bródy, Michael (1995). Focus and checking theory. In István Kenesei (ed.) Approaches
to Hungarian. Vol. 5: Levels and structures. Szeged: JATE. 29–43.
Buckley, Eugene (2009). Locality in metrical typology. Phonology 26. 389–435.
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen & Laura J. Downing (2007). The prosody and syntax of Zulu
relative clauses. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics 15. 51–63.
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen & Laura J. Downing (2009). Where’s the topic in Zulu? The
Linguistic Review 26. 207–238.
Cinque, Guglielmo (1983). ‘Topic’ constructions in some European languages and
‘connectedness’. In Konrad Ehlich & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.) Connectedness
in sentence, discourse and text. Tilburg: Catholic University of Brabant. 7–41.
Cobbinah, Alexander & Friederike Lüpke (2012). Not cut to fit: zero coded passives in
African languages. In Matthias Brenzinger & Anna-Maria Fehn (eds.) Proceedings
of the 6th World Congress of African Languages. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.
133–144.
speech act. To accommodate languages like Northern Sotho, Hungarian and Bàsàá,
this proposal would have to be supplemented with some clear diagnostic as to which
type of topics constitute their own speech acts and which ones do not. We will not
pursue this possibility here.
30 Fatima Hamlaoui and Kriszta SzendrÖi
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
De Cat, Cécile (2007a). French dislocation: interpretation, syntax, acquisition. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
De Cat, Cécile (2007b). French dislocation without movement. NLLT 25. 485–534.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit (1988). Aspects du basaa (bantou Zone A, Cameroun). Translated
by Luc Bouquiaux. Paris: Peeters/SELAF.
Dobashi, Yoshihito (2003). Phonological phrasing and syntactic derivation. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.
Downing, Bruce T. (1970). Syntactic structure and phonological phrasing in English.
PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Downing, Laura J. (2011). The prosody of ‘dislocation’ in selected Bantu languages.
Lingua 121. 772–786.
É. Kiss, Katalin (2002). The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
É. Kiss, Katalin (ed.) (2008). Event structure and the left periphery: studies on
Hungarian. Dordrecht: Springer.
É. Kiss, Katalin (2013). From Proto-Hungarian SOV to Old Hungarian Top Foc V X.
Diachronica 30. 202–231.
Emonds, Joseph E. (1970). Root and structure-preserving transformations. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Emonds, Joseph E. (1976). A transformational approach to English syntax: root, structure-preserving, and local transformations. New York: Academic Press.
Feldhausen, Ingo (2010). Sentential form and prosodic structure of Catalan. Amsterdam
& Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Frascarelli, Mara (2000). The syntax–phonology interface in focus and topic constructions
in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Frey, Werner (2005). Pragmatic properties of certain German and English left peripheral constructions. Linguistics 43. 89–129.
Genzel, Susanne, Shinichiro Ishihara & Balázs Surányi (in press). The prosodic expression of focus, contrast and givenness: a production study of Hungarian.
Lingua.
Hamlaoui, Fatima (2014). A note on bare-passives in (selected) Bantu and Western
Nilotic languages. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 57. 160–182.
Hamlaoui, Fatima, Siri M. Gjersøe & Emmanuel-Moselly Makasso (2014). High Tone
Spreading and phonological phrases in Bàsàá. In Carlos Gussenhoven, Yiya Chen
& Dan Dediu (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Tonal
Aspects of Languages. 27–31. Available (February 2015) at http://www.iscaspeech.org/archive/tal_2014/papers/tl14_027.pdf.
Hamlaoui, Fatima & Emmanuel-Moselly Makasso (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.
Hamlaoui, Fatima & Emmanuel-Moselly Makasso (2015). Focus marking and the unavailability of inversion structures in the Bantu language Bàsàá (A43). Lingua 154.
35–64.
Henderson, Robert (2012). Morphological alternations at the intonational phrase edge:
the case of K’ichec’. NLLT 30. 741–787.
Hyman, Larry M. (2003). Basaá (A43). In Nurse & Philippson (2003). 257–282.
Hyman, Larry M. & Maria Polinsky (2010). Focus in Aghem. In Malte Zimmermann
& Caroline Féry (eds.) Information structure: theoretical, typological, and experimental perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 206–233.
Ishihara, Shinichiro (2003). Intonation and interface conditions. PhD dissertation,
MIT.
Ishihara, Shinichiro (2007). Major Phrase, Focus Intonation and Multiple Spell-Out
(MaP, FI, MSO). The Linguistic Review 24. 137–167.
A flexible approach to the mapping of intonational phrases 31
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
Jenks, Peter, Emmanuel-Moselly Makasso & Larry M. Hyman (2012). Accessibility
and demonstrative operators in Basaá relative clauses. Ms, University of
California, Berkeley & ZAS, Berlin. Available (February 2015) at http://linguis
tics.berkeley.edu/~jenks/Research_files/JenksMakassoHyman_BasaaRelatives.pdf
Kálmán, László (1985). Word order in neutral sentences. In István Kenesei (ed.)
Approaches to Hungarian. Vol. 1: Data and descriptions. Szeged: JATE. 13–23.
Kálmán, László (ed.) (2001). Magyar leíró nyelvtan: mondattan i. [Hungarian descriptive grammar: syntax 1]. Budapest: Tinta.
Kimenyi, Alexandre (1980). A relational grammar of Kinyarwanda. Berkeley & Los
Angeles: University of California Press.
Kimenyi, Alexandre (1988). Passives in Kinyarwanda. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.)
Passive and voice. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 355–386.
Kisseberth, Charles (1994). On domains. In Jennifer Cole & Charles Kisseberth (eds.)
Perspectives in phonology. Stanford: CSLI. 133–166.
Kratzer, Angelika & Elisabeth Selkirk (2007). Phase theory and prosodic spellout: the
case of verbs. The Linguistic Review 24. 93–135.
Krifka, Manfred (1995). The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic
Analysis 25. 209–257.
Ladd, D. Robert (1996). Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons & Charles D. Fennig (eds.) (2015). Ethnologue: languages of the world. 18th edn. Dallas: SIL International. Available at www.ethnologue.com.
McCarthy, John J. & Alan Prince (1993). Generalized alignment. Yearbook of
Morphology 1993. 79–153.
Makasso, Emmanuel-Moselly (2008). Intonation et mélismes dans le discours oral
spontané en bàsàa. PhD dissertation, Université de Provence (Aix-Marseille 1).
Makasso, Emmanuel-Moselly (2012). Metatony in Basaa. In Michael R. Marlo, Nikki
B. Adams, Christopher R. Green, Michelle Morrison & Tristan M. Purvis (eds.)
Selected proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference on African Linguistics.
Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla. 15–22.
Morimoto, Yukiko (1999). An optimality account of argument reversal. In Miriam
Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.) Proceedings of the LFG99 conference.
Available (February 2015) at http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/4/lfg99morimoto.pdf.
Morimoto, Yukiko (2006). Agreement properties and word order in comparative
Bantu. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 43. 161–187.
Myrberg, Sara (2013). Sisterhood and prosodic branching. Phonology 30. 73–124.
Nespor, Marina & Irene Vogel (1982). Prosodic domains of external sandhi rules. In
Harry van der Hulst & Norval Smith (eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Part I. Dordrecht: Foris. 225─255.
Nespor, Marina & Irene Vogel (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.
Noonan, Michael (1977). On subjects and topics. BLS 3. 372–385.
Noonan, Michael (1992). A grammar of Lango. Berlin & New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Noonan, Michael & Edith Bavin Woock (1978). The passive analog in Lango. BLS 4.
128–139.
Nurse, Derek & Gérard Philipson (eds.) (2003). The Bantu languages. London:
Routledge.
Ott, Dennis (to appear). Connectivity in left-dislocation and the composition of the left
periphery. Linguistic Variation.
Pak, Marjorie (2008). The postsyntactic derivation and its phonological reflexes. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
32 Fatima Hamlaoui and Kriszta SzendrÖi
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
Pollock, Jean-Yves (1989). Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of
IP. LI 20. 365–424.
Reinhart, Tanya (2006). Interface strategies: optimal and costly computations.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Rizzi, Luigi (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Rizzi, Luigi (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.)
Elements of grammar: handbook in generative syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 281–337.
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1981). On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure.
In Thorstein Fretheim (ed.) Nordic Prosody II. Trondheim: Tapir. 111–140.
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1984). Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology
Yearbook 3. 371–405.
Selkirk, Elisabeth (2005). Comments on intonational phrasing in English. In Sónia
Frota, Marina Vigário & Maria João Freitas (eds.) Prosodies: with special reference
to Iberian languages. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 11–58.
Selkirk, Elisabeth (2009). On clause and intonational phrase in Japanese: the syntactic
grounding of prosodic constituent structure. Gengo Kenkyu 136. 35–73.
Selkirk, Elisabeth (2011). The syntax–phonology interface. In John Goldsmith, Jason
Riggle & Alan C. L. Yu (eds.) The handbook of phonological theory. 2nd edn.
Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 435–484.
Surányi, Balázs, Shinichiro Ishihara & Fabian Schubö (2012). Syntax–prosody
mapping, topic–comment structure and stress–focus correspondence in
Hungarian. In Gorka Elordieta & Pilar Prieto (eds.) Prosody and meaning. Berlin
& Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. 35–71.
Szabolcsi, Anna (1994). All quantifiers are not equal: the case of focus. Acta Linguistica
Hungarica 42. 171–187.
Szendr`i, Kriszta (2001). Focus and the syntax–phonology interface. PhD dissertation,
University College London.
Szendr`i, Kriszta (2003). A stress-based approach to the syntax of Hungarian focus.
The Linguistic Review 20. 37–78.
Szendr`i, Kriszta & Fatima Hamlaoui (in preparation). Elaborations on a flexible approach to the syntax–phonology mapping of intonational phrases.
Truckenbrodt, Hubert (1999). On the relation between syntactic phrases and intonational phrases. LI 30. 219–255.
Truckenbrodt, Hubert (2007). The syntax–phonology interface. In Paul de Lacy (ed.)
The Cambridge handbook of phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
435–456.
Truckenbrodt, Hubert (2014). Intonation phrases and speech acts. In Marlies Kluck,
Dennis Ott & Mark de Vries (eds.) Parenthesis and ellipsis: cross-linguistic and theoretical perspectives. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 301–349.
Varga, László (2002). Intonation and stress: evidence from Hungarian. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Woolford, Ellen (1991). Two subject positions in Lango. BLS 17:2. 231–243.
Zerbian, Sabine (2006). The expression of information structure in the Bantu Language
Northern Sotho. PhD dissertation, Humboldt University, Berlin.
Zerbian, Sabine (2007a). Phonological phrasing in Northern Sotho (Bantu). The
Linguistic Review 24. 233–262.
Zerbian, Sabine (2007b). Subject/object-asymmetry in Northern Sotho. In Kerstin
Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds.) On information structure, meaning and form:
generalizations across languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 323–346.