Phasal Syntax = Cyclic Phonology?

Cheng, Lisa Lai‐Shen; Downing, Laura J.

doi:10.1111/synt.12120

Cited by 28 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 54 publications

(184 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, because it retains a constraint-based view of prosodic structure building, CBP avoids the pitfalls associated with direct reference theories of prosodic structure, which assume that prosodic domains are always identical to syntactic domains (see Cheng and Downing 2016 for discussion).…”

Section: Predictions Of Cophonologies By Phasementioning

confidence: 99%

Cophonologies by Ph(r)ase

Sande

Jenks

Inkelas

2020

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phonological alternations are often specific to morphosyntactic context. For example, stress shift in English occurs in the presence of some suffixes, -al, but not others, -ing: "pa.rent, pa."ren.tal, "pa.ren.ting. In some cases a phonological process applies only in words of certain lexical categories. Previous theories have stipulated that such morphosyntactically conditioned phonology is word-bounded. In this paper we present a number of long-distance morphologically conditioned phonological effects, cases where phonological processes within one word are conditioned by another word or the presence of a morpheme in another word. We provide a model, Cophonologies by Phase, which extends Cophonology Theory, intended to capture word-internal and lexically specified phonological alternations, to cyclically generated syntactic constituents. We show that Cophonologies by Phase makes better predictions about the long-distance morphologically conditioned phonological effects we find across languages than previous frameworks. Furthermore, Cophonologies by Phase derives such effects without requiring the phonological component to directly reference syntactic features or structure.

show abstract

Section: Predictions Of Cophonologies By Phasementioning

confidence: 99%

Cophonologies by Ph(r)ase

Sande

Jenks

Inkelas

2020

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But if new data revealed a more general syntactic configuration underlying the H-tones in Samoan, e.g., if every adjoined phrase were marked with an H-, that could also be represented in a minimalist grammar, composed into the syntax; the proposal here does not hang on a particular, precise account of the syntactic conditioning of H-. It could also be informative to formalize interface theories that refer to syntactic phases, e.g., see Ahn (2016b); Dobashi (2004); Kratzer and Selkirk (2007);Dobashi (2009);Cheng and Downing (2016).…”

Section: Strategic Principle 2: Testing Hypotheses With Computationalmentioning

confidence: 99%

(In)variability in the Samoan syntax/prosody interface and consequences for syntactic parsing

Stabler

2017

Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While it has long been clear that prosody should be part of the grammar influencing the action of the syntactic parser, how to bring prosody into computational models of syntactic parsing has remained unclear. The challenge is that prosodic information in the speech signal is the result of the interaction of a multitude of conditioning factors. From this output, how can we factor out the contribution of syntax to conditioning prosodic events? And if we are able to do that factorization and define a production model from the syntactic grammar to a prosodified utterance, how can we then define a comprehension model based on that production model? In this case study of the Samoan morphosyntax-prosody interface, we show how to factor out the influence of syntax on prosody in empirical work and confirm there is invariable morphosyntactic conditioning of high edge tones. Then, we show how this invariability can be precisely characterized and used by a parsing model that factors the various influences of morphosyntax on tonal events. We expect that models of these kinds can be extended to more comprehensive perspectives on Samoan and to languages where the syntax/prosody coupling is more complex.

show abstract

“…∅-somele chi-búuku 'he read a book' c. ∅-somele chi-buku íchi 'he read this book' Based on these patterns, Kisseberth (in a number of works), along with Selkirk (1986) and Truckenbrodt (1995Truckenbrodt ( , 1999, has argued that a prosodic phrase break follows every lexical XP; more examples illustrating this point are given in (26) As we can see, there is always a phrase break separating the subject and the verb, and there is always a phrase break separating post-verbal complements. As Cheng & Downing (2016), following others, show, these are the breaks predicted by a constraint aligning prosodic phrase edges with lexical XP edges:…”

Section: The Problem Of Chimwiinimentioning

confidence: 83%

“…As Cheng & Downing (2016) point out, it is quite common in Bantu languages for modified nouns to have different phrasing properties from unmodified ones. Besides the examples cited here, the effect of modifiers on phrasing in Tsonga has received attention, as it forms a central case study in Selkirk's (2011) handbook chapter.…”

Section: The Problem Of Modifiersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This makes an account in terms of phases more and more difficult. 22 As Cheng & Downing (2016) point out, the interaction between syntactic and prosodic factors (like minimality or branchingness of a nominal phrase or eurhythmy in a prosodic parse) is easy to model in indirect approaches, in contrast, as one expects prosodic constituent formation to be subject to prosodic wellformedness constraints. (See Bickmore 1990, Downing & Mtenje 2011b, Nespor & Vogel 1986, Prieto 2005and Selkirk 2011 for a variety of indirect reference approaches to this problem.)…”

Section: The Problem Of Modifiersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

(In)direct Reference in the Phonology-Syntax Interface under Phase Theory: A Response to “Modular PIC” (D’Alessandro and Scheer 2015)

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the domains of phrasal phonological processes are, in many interface theories, defined in terms of prosodic constituents, D' Alessandro and Scheer (2015) argue that their proposed modification of phase theory, Modular PIC, renders prosodic constituents superfluous.Phrasal phonological domains can instead be defined directly in the syntax. In this response, we argue that Modular PIC does not provide a convincing new approach to the syntaxphonology interface, as it is both too powerful and too restrictive. We show that the analysis offered of Raddoppiamento fonosintattico in Eastern Abruzzese does not justify the loss of restrictiveness Modular PIC brings to phase theory. Modular PIC is also shown to be too restrictive to account for phenomena, from Bantu languages and others, which have received satisfactory analyses within interface theories that appeal to prosodic constituents. We conclude that Modular PIC does not successfully replace prosodic constituent approaches to the interface.

show abstract

Phasal Syntax = Cyclic Phonology?

Cited by 28 publications

References 54 publications

Cophonologies by Ph(r)ase

Cophonologies by Ph(r)ase

(In)variability in the Samoan syntax/prosody interface and consequences for syntactic parsing

(In)direct Reference in the Phonology-Syntax Interface under Phase Theory: A Response to “Modular PIC” (D’Alessandro and Scheer 2015)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About