The Syntax‐Phonology Interface

The bulk of evidence concerning the syntax–phonology interface shows an influence of syntax on phonology. The domain structure for sentence-level phonological and phonetic phenomena, which forms part of the surface phonological representation (PR) of the sentence, is defined through an interaction of two types of constraints: syntax–prosodic structure interface constraints, which call for certain properties of the surface syntactic representation of the sentence (PF) to be reflected in domain structure in PR, and prosodic structure markedness constraints, which call for the surface prosodic structure to display patterns of unmarked prosodic structure. The effects of prosodic markedness constraints argue against direct access theories, which see phonological phenomena as defined directly on the surface syntax. Distinguishing PF and PR raises the question whether PF is input to the phonological component, with PR the output, as in standard models of generative grammar, or whether there may be mutual influence. Current models of grammar would countenance effects in the other direction, with the possibility of phonological principles constraining the range of acceptable surface syntactic representations, and research is beginning to explore this area.

[1]  D. Robert Ladd,et al.  Intonational phrasing: the case for recursive prosodic structure , 1986, Phonology.

[2]  M. Zubizarreta.  Prosody, Focus, and Word Order , 1998 .

[3]  Elisabeth Selkirk,et al.  The phrase phonology of English and French , 1972 .

[4]  P. Keating,et al.  Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  Kriszta Szendroei,et al.  Focus and the syntax-phonology interface , 2001 .

[6]  Haruo Kubozono.  Syntactic and rhythmic effects on downstep in Japanese , 1989, Phonology.

[7]  Elisabeth Selkirk,et al.  The Interaction of Constraints on Prosodic Phrasing , 2000 .

[8]  Hiroyuki Nagahara,et al.  Phonological phrasing in Japanese , 1994 .

[9]  Draga Zec,et al.  Footed tones and tonal feet: rhythmic constituency in a pitch- accent language , 1999, Phonology.

[10]  Elisabeth Selkirk,et al.  Contrastive FOCUS vs. presentational focus: prosodic evidence from right node raising in English , 2002, Speech Prosody 2002.

[11]  Ellen M. Kaisse.  Connected Speech: The Interaction of Syntax and Phonology , 1985 .

[12]  B. Hayes.  Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies , 1995 .

[13]  Bruce Hayes,et al.  THE PROSODIC HIERARCHY IN METER , 1989 .

[14]  David Odden.  Kimatuumbi phrasal phonology , 1987 .

[15]  Alan Prince,et al.  Prosodic morphology : constraint interaction and satisfaction , 1993 .

[16]  Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel,et al.  A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing , 1996, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[17]  J. Bernstein,et al.  Syntax and speech , 1984, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[18]  W. Poser.  The Phonetics and Phonology of Tone and Intonation in Japanese , 1990 .

[19]  J. Goldsmith,et al.  The Structure of Intonational Meaning: Evidence from English , 1982 .

[20]  Draga Zec,et al.  The Phonology-syntax connection , 1990 .

[21]  Pilar Barbosa,et al.  Is the best good enough? : optimality and competition in syntax , 1998 .

[22]  Steve Parker,et al.  ON THE BEHAVIOR OF DEFINITE ARTICLES IN CHAMICURO , 1999 .

[23]  D. Ladd.  Declination ‘‘reset’’ and the hierarchical organization of utterances , 1988 .

[24]  E. Selkirk,et al.  Syntax and Downstep in Japanese , 1991 .

[25]  J. McCawley.  The phonological component of a grammar of Japanese , 1968 .

[26]  J. Venditti.  Japanese ToBI Labelling Guidelines , 1997 .

[27]  Joel Rotenberg,et al.  The syntax of phonology , 1978 .

[28]  Arsalan Kahnemuyipour,et al.  Syntactic Categories and Persian Stress , 2003 .

[29]  Noam Chomsky.  Derivation by phase , 1999 .

[30]  Karlos Arregui-Urbina,et al.  Focus on Basque movements , 2002 .

[31]  Elisabeth Selkirk,et al.  Sentence Prosody: Intonation, Stress and Phrasing , 1996 .

[32]  A. Prince,et al.  On stress and linguistic rhythm , 1977 .

[33]  Elisabeth Selkirk,et al.  Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure , 1984 .

[34]  L. Rizzi.  The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery , 1997 .

[35]  Sean E. Anderson.  Kwakwala Syntax and the Government-Binding Theory , 1984 .

[36]  Joseph E. Emonds,et al.  A Transformational Approach to English Syntax: Root, Structure-Preserving, and Local Transformations , 1978 .

[37]  Pilar Prieto,et al.  Effects of constituent length and syntactic branching on intonational phrasing in Ibero-Romance , 2003 .

[38]  Scott Myers,et al.  Tone association and F₀ timing in Chichewa , 1999, Studies in African Linguistics.

[39]  Carolyn Harford,et al.  Prosody outranks syntax: an optimality approach to subject inversion in Bantu relatives , 1999 .

[40]  Gary Natriello.  FOCUS , 1985, Digital-Age Innovation in Higher Education.

[41]  Paul de Lacy,et al.  Constraint Universality and Prosodic Phrasing in Māori , 2002 .

[42]  Bruce Theodore Downing,et al.  Syntactic structure and phonological phrasing in English , 1970 .

[43]  J. McCarthy.  OT constraints are categorical , 2003, Phonology.

[44]  Hubert Truckenbrodt,et al.  On the Relation between Syntactic Phrases and Phonological Phrases , 1999, Linguistic Inquiry.

[45]  Hubert Truckenbrodt,et al.  Phonological phrases : their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence , 1995 .

[46]  C. E. Rickart.  [Σ, a]-Domains , 1979 .

[47]  I. Lehiste.  Rhythmic units and syntactic units in production and perception. , 1973, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[48]  Ellen M. Kaisse,et al.  The syntax of Xiamen tone sandhi , 1987, Phonology.

[49]  Alan S. Prince,et al.  Faithfulness and reduplicative identity , 1995 .

[50]  J. Pierrehumbert.  The phonology and phonetics of English intonation , 1987 .

[51]  Alan S. Prince,et al.  Generalized alignment , 1993 .

[52]  Michael Rochemont,et al.  Focus in Generative Grammar , 1986 .

[53]  J. Pierrehumbert,et al.  Japanese Tone Structure , 1988 .

[54]  E. Selkirk.  On derived domains in sentence phonology , 1986, Phonology.

[55]  Scott Myers.  Ocp Effects in Optimality Theory , 1997 .

[56]  Ellen M. Kaisse,et al.  Government and tonal phrasing in Papago , 1987, Phonology.

[57]  G. Cinque.  A null theory of phrase and compound stress , 1993 .

[58]  Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel,et al.  Glottalization of word-initial vowels as a function of prosodic structure , 1996 .

[59]  DAVID ODDEN.  The phrasal tonology of Zinza , 2000 .

[60]  Mirco Ghini,et al.  Phi-formation in Italian: a new proposal , 1993 .

[61]  Mats Rooth.  A theory of focus interpretation , 1992, Natural Language Semantics.

[62]  Elisabeth Delais-Roussarie,et al.  Pour une approche parallèle de la structure prosodique : étude de l'organisation prosodique et rythmique de la phrase française , 1995 .

[63]  David Adger,et al.  Stress and phasal syntax , 2003 .

[64]  Barbara E. Bullock,et al.  Issues in the Phonology and Morphology of the Major Iberian Languages , 1998 .

[65]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The Sound Pattern of English , 1968 .

[66]  窪薗 晴夫,et al.  The organization of Japanese prosody , 1987 .

[67]  Elisabeth Selkirk,et al.  On The Nature of Phonological Representation , 1981 .

[68]  Junko Ito,et al.  Weak Layering and Word Binarity , 2003 .

[69]  Shigeto Kawahara,et al.  Rhythmic Boost and Recursive Minor Phrase in Japanese , 2003 .

[70]  David Odden,et al.  The phonology and morphology of Kimatuumbi , 1996 .