Major Phrase, Focus Intonation, Multiple Spell-Out (MaP, FI, MSO)

Ishihara, Shinichiro

doi:10.1515/tlr.2007.006

Cited by 107 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, (37) requires that all non-given XPs will be accented when they are merged. In that respect, the goal of (37) differs from a number of proposals which try to explain accentuation in a phase-based model (Adger 2007;Ishihara 2007;Kahnemuyipour 2004, andKratzer andSelkirk 2007). These approaches attempt to identify the location of the 'sentence (nuclear) accent', the most prominent structural accent of a clause.…”

Section: Intervention Effects In Sff and Cyclic Linearizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Left peripheral focus: mismatches between syntax and information structure

Fanselow

Lenertová

2010

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Czech, German, and many other languages, part of the semantic focus of the utterance can be moved to the left periphery of the clause. The main generalization is that only the leftmost accented part of the semantic focus can be moved. We propose that movement to the left periphery is generally triggered by an unspecific edge feature of C (Chomsky 2008) and its restrictions can be attributed to requirements of cyclic linearization, modifying the theory of cyclic linearization developed by Fox and Pesetsky (2005). The crucial assumption is that structural accent is a direct consequence of being linearized at merge, thus it is indirectly relevant for (locality restrictions on) movement. The absence of structural accent correlates with givenness. Given elements may later receive (topic or contrastive) accents, which accounts for fronting in multiple focus/contrastive topic constructions. Without any additional assumptions, the model can account for movement of pragmatically unmarked elements to the left periphery ('formal fronting', Frey 2005). Crucially, the analysis makes no reference at all to concepts of information structure in the syntax, in line with the claim of Chomsky (2008) that UG specifies no direct link between syntax and information structure.

show abstract

Section: Intervention Effects In Sff and Cyclic Linearizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Left peripheral focus: mismatches between syntax and information structure

Fanselow

Lenertová

2010

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ishihara (2007) has proposed that the spellout domain of a phase corresponds to a prosodic major phrase in phonological representation, in order to account for certain non-stress phenomena of Japanese sentence tonology. But Kahnemuyipour (2004) offers an important critique of the simple theory in (16).…”

Section: Spellout On Cp Phasementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interestingly, if we followed the "simplest theory" of prosodic spellout and were to assign a major phrase to the entire spellout domain, as proposed by Ishihara (2007), the range of facts described above could not be accounted for. It is true, as Ishihara points out (p.c.…”

Section: Phase Theory and Prosodic Spellout 109mentioning

confidence: 99%

Phase theory and prosodic spellout: The case of verbs

Kratzer¹,

Selkirk²

2007

The Linguistic Review

184

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some of the seminal work on the interface between syntax and phonology began in the 1980s (Beckman & Pierrehumbert 1986;Nespor & Vogel 1986[2007; Selkirk 1986;Halle & Vergnaud 1987;Gussenhoven 1988-see Shattuck-Hufnagel & Turk 1996 for a summary of similarities and differences of the various proposals). Although the various levels of the prosodic hierarchy assumed by each of the aforementioned authors differ, it was generally assumed that prosodic constituents made reference to at least some syntactic structure.…”

Section: The Interfacementioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting prosodic structure by morphosyntactic category: A case study of Blackfoot

Windsor

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines phonetic correlates to three prosodic categories in Blackfoot: the syllable (σ), the prosodic word (ω), and the phonological phrase (φ). I provide evidence that the Blackfoot σ is recognizable by an obligatory process of vowel coalescence and the φ is recognizable by an obligatory process of right edge aspiration. The ω can be distinguished from these other two prosodic constituents by an optional phonetic process which mimics intersyllabic vowel coalescence, but does not apply obligatorily.The prosodic categories investigated in this study are then correlated to three morphosyntactic categories: morphological agreement suffixes, lexical morphemes (adjectives and nouns), and demonstratives. This correlation is used to argue that morphological and syntactic processes function differently at the interface with phonology (cf. Russell 1999), ultimately raising questions with "word-internal syntax" analyses of Blackfoot suffixation which are derived through cyclic head movement (Bliss 2013; Wiltschko 2014) using the Mirror Principle (Baker 1985).

show abstract

Major Phrase, Focus Intonation, Multiple Spell-Out (MaP, FI, MSO)

Cited by 107 publications

References 10 publications

Left peripheral focus: mismatches between syntax and information structure

Left peripheral focus: mismatches between syntax and information structure

Phase theory and prosodic spellout: The case of verbs

Predicting prosodic structure by morphosyntactic category: A case study of Blackfoot

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About