An interface approach to prosodic word recursion

This paper addresses the issue of recursivity in prosodic phonology with special emphasis on the prosodic word (alias phonological word) (henceforth PW) and brings attention to several conceptual and empirical problems and inconsistencies with the notion of recursivity as it has been applied to this phonological constituent. More specifically, we explore the nature of recursive prosodic words and how they are computed at the morphosyntax-phonology interface. In recent phonological theories, the constraint NONRECURSIVITY has been employed to account – presumably via its violation – for the emergence of recursive prosodic structures. It is not clear, however, under which conditions, where, and why recursive structures arise in prosodic systems. For instance, it is still an open question whether there is recursivity below the level of the PW (see also Ito & Mester 2007). In this paper, we make a crucial distinction between two different sources of recursion: (a) recursion generated by the mirroring of recursive structures at the morphosyntactic level, and (b) recursion generated by certain, often lexically specified, morphophonological requirements. More specifically, we take a less explored approach towards prosodic recursivity whereby the grammar requires recursive morphosyntactic structures such as complex predicates and adjuncts to be mirrored in phonology in the most parsimonious way possible. Due to its genuine interface character, our approach limits recursivity to the PW as well as higher prosodic levels such as the phonological phrase (henceforth PPh) since these are the main prosodic constituents that are involved in the morphosyntax-phonology interface. This is essentially the view proposed in Selkirk (1995) where the variety of PW structures falls out either from different constraint rankings (i.e., grammars) or differences in morphosyntactic structures. Here, we explore and expand the latter source in an attempt to properly define and restrict the notion of recursivity in prosodic phonology. Furthermore, we draw attention to various conceptual and functional problems with the constraint NONRECURSIVITY (Selkirk 1995: 443) as it stands. For instance, the constraint does not

[1]  M. Oostendorp,et al.  The phonological and morphological status of the prosodic word adjunct , 2002 .

[2]  Juan Uriagereka,et al.  CYCLICITY AND EXTRACTION DOMAINS , 2000 .

[3]  Barış Kabak.  An obstacle to the morphologization of postpositions , 2006 .

[4]  Mark C. Baker,et al.  The Polysynthesis Parameter , 1995 .

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

[6]  B. Dresher.  The Germanic foot: metrical coherence in Old English , 1991 .

[7]  Baris Kabak,et al.  The Phonology and Morphology of Function Word Contractions in German , 2006 .

[8]  Laura E. Knecht.  Subject and object in Turkish , 1985 .

[9]  S. Varlokosta,et al.  Moving from theta-positions: pronominal clitic doubling in Greek , 2004 .

[10]  Cleo Condoravdi,et al.  Clitics and clause structure , 2002 .

[11]  M. Vigário.  On the Prosodic Status of Stressless Function Words in European Portuguese , 1999 .

[12]  Jonathan Derek Kaye.  Opacity and recoverability in phonology , 1974 .

[13]  Dicky Gilbers.  Recursive Patterns in Phonological Phrases , 2004 .

[14]  Irene Philippaki-Warburton,et al.  Functional categories and Modern Greek syntax , 1998 .

[15]  Mark C. Baker,et al.  Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing , 1988 .

[16]  Vassilios Spyropoulos,et al.  On the boundaries of inflection and syntax: Greek pronominal clitics and particles , 1999 .

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

[18]  René Kager,et al.  Ternary rhythm in alignment theory , 1995 .

[19]  G. Booij.  The Phonology of Dutch , 1995 .

[20]  Jaklin Kornfilt,et al.  Scrambling, Subscrambling, and Case in Turkish , 2008 .

[21]  Ellen M. Kaisse,et al.  On the theory of Lexical Phonology , 1985, Phonology Yearbook.

[22]  Brian D. Joseph,et al.  Defining “Word” in Modern Greek: A response to Philippaki-Warburton & Spyropoulos 1999 , 2002 .

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

[24]  K. P. Mohanan,et al.  The Theory of Lexical Phonology , 1982 .

[25]  Balkız Öztürk,et al.  Case, referentiality, and phrase structure , 2005 .

[26]  Irene Vogel,et al.  The phonological word and stress assignment in Turkish , 2001, Phonology.

[27]  Juan Uriagereka.  Multiple spell-out , 2005 .

[28]  Maartje Schreuder,et al.  Prosodic processes in language and music , 2006 .

[29]  Elisabeth Selkirk,et al.  The Prosodic Structure of Function Words , 2008 .

[30]  Yasemin Aydemir,et al.  Are Turkish Preverbal Bare Nouns Syntactic Arguments? , 2004, Linguistic Inquiry.

[31]  G. Booij.  Cliticization as prosodic integration: The case of Dutch , 1996 .

[32]  Paul Kiparsky,et al.  Some consequences of Lexical Phonology , 1985, Phonology Yearbook.

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

[34]  P. Smolensky,et al.  Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar , 2004 .

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

[36]  Martin Krämer,et al.  Final devoicing and voicing assimilation in Dutch derivation and cliticization , 2000 .