Context-Sensitive Spell-Out and Adjacency

Morphological alternations at the intonational phrase edge

“…Most importantly, it must associate feature bundles with phonological exponents after parsing the syntax into intonational phrases, supporting a view of the morphological component like that of Ackema and Neeleman (2003). Moreover, it should capture the connections between phrase-final morphological alternations and the distribution of prominence peaks at various levels of prosodic structure.…”

“…4.3.2 should be replaced with one where at least some prosodic structure is built before vocabulary insertion (See Ackema and Neeleman (2003) for independent arguments to this effect). 32 This would allow Vocabulary Insertion to be sensitive to prosodic structure.…”

“…Using clitic placement, many researchers have provided strong evidence that post-syntactic morpho-phonology needs access to levels of the prosodic hierachy up to the intonational phrase (ι-phrase) (Ackema and Neeleman 2003;Aissen 1992;Chung 2003;Hayes 1990;Inkelas 1990;Zec and Inkelas 1990). For instance, Aissen (1992) shows that the distribution of the deictic clitic un in Tzotzil is governed by ι-phrases; specifically, un must be final in its ι-phrase.…”

Deriving the Complementarity Effect: Relativized minimality in Breton agreement

“…In Breton, the phenomenon is only possible with the complements of prepositions, and never with the subject of T (unlike in It thus seems that while left conjuncts can agree, the Coordinate Structure Constraint strongly bars pro-drop. In view of this, Pranka (1983), Doron (1988), Adger (2000), and Ackema and Neeleman (2003) propose, for Irish and Scottish Gaelic, that no syntactic process is involved here. Rather, the inflected preposition in forms like (29)a reflects a postsyntactic prosody-sensitive spell-out of the preposition etre 'between' + pronoun hi 'she' as the single word etrezi.…”

“…The Incorporation Analysis is pursued for Breton by Anderson (1982), Stump (1984) who rejects it in favor of an Agreement Analysis, and for similar facts in Irish by Pranka (1983), Doron (1988), Ackema and Neeleman (2003) and in Scottish Gaelic by Adger (2000). These treatments differ in whether the amalgamation of T/P and the pronoun happens syntactically as (Stump, 1984), as in the usual treatment of syntactic clitic dependencies (see Sportiche, 1997, for an overview), or in a post-syntactic, prosodysensitive component (Pranka, 1983;Doron, 1988;Adger, 2000;Ackema and Neeleman, 2003). The Incorporation Hypothesis has the obvious advantage of being rather minimal: very little needs to be said beyond the cross-linguistically familiar fact that weak pronouns but not full DPs can be affixal.…”