Prosody Shaping Syntax

1
Prosody Shaping Syntax

• Vieri Samek-Lodovici
• Department of Italian UCL
• v.samek-lodovici_at_ucl.ac.uk

2
Cognitive Architecture

• OT (Prince Smolensky 93) provides a model of
  constraint interaction.
• OT is not specific to any particular component
  (i.e. not specific to Phonology).
• Do distinct components share OT as their
  underlying cognitive architecture?
• Evidence from the prosody-syntax interface.

3
Focus

• Given a question, the constituent that provides
  the requested information in an answer counts as
  focused.
• Q Who called?
• A MARYF called.

4
Clause-wide Focus

• Q What happened?
• A Maria ha messo un libro sul TAVOLOF Mary
  has put a book on-the table
• Properties rightmost stress,
• word order S V O IO

5
Narrow Focus

• Q Who has called?
• A Ha telefonato GIANNIF has called
  John
• Q What has Mary put on the table?
• A Maria ha messo sul tavolo un LIBROF Mary
  has put on-the table a book
• Properties invariant prosody, altered order.

6
Zubizarreta (1995, 1998)

• Focus is rightmost because focus is stressed, and
  main stress is rightmost in Italian.
• Position of focus not stipulated unlike
  structural accounts.(Antinucci Cinque 77,
  Calabrese 82, 92, Belletti Schlonsky 95,
  Samek-Lodovici 96)
• Conflict best syntactic position for focused
  constituent ? best position stress-wise.

7
Problematic Aspects

• Syntax assumed to feed phonology, forcing
  syntactic theory of stress against the evidence
  supporting its prosodic nature.
• Language specific stress rules necessary to
  account for cross-linguistic variation.

8
Focus

• Stress-Focus focus carries the highest
  prosodic prominence in its
• domain.
• See Jackendoff (1972), Truckenbrodt (1995),
  Zubizarreta (1998).

9
Prosody

• Head-P align head with right boundary of P.
• Head-I align head with right boundary of I.
• ( x ) I
• ( x ) ( x )( x ) P
• John has put a book on the table F
• See Prince (1983), Selkirk (1984, 1986, 1995),
  Nespor Vogel (1986, 1989), Halle Vergnaud
  (1987), Hayes (1995), Truckenbrodt (1995, 1999),
  Ladd (1996).

10
Syntax

• EPP realize spec-TP (realize preverbal subject).
• Stay dont move.
• See Chomsky (1982, 1992, 1995), Grimshaw (1997).

11
Clause-wide Focus

• Stress-Focus satisfied independently of syntactic
  and prosodic arrangements.
• No conflict between prosody and syntax.

12
Clause-wide focus EPPgtgtStay
13
Clause-wide focus EPPgtgtStay
14
Narrow Focus

• Stress-Focus ties stress and the focused
  constituent together.
• Head-I and Head-P push stress and the associated
  constituent rightmost.
• EPP and Stay require the constituent and the
  associated stress elsewhere.
• Conflict systematically solved in favor of
  prosody.

15
Italian focused subjects Head-IgtgtEPP
16
Italian focused subjects Head-IgtgtEPP
17
Italian focused objects Head-IgtgtStay
18
Italian focused objects Head-IgtgtStay
19
Possible Conflict Resolutions

• Head-I gtgt EPP gtgt Stay ? Italian
• EPP gtgt Stay gtgt Head-I
• EPP gtgt Head-I gtgt Stay

20
Possible Conflict Resolutions

• Head-I gtgt EPP gtgt Stay ? Italian
• EPP gtgt Stay gtgt Head-I ? English
• EPP gtgt Head-I gtgt Stay ? French

21
Crosslinguistic Convergence on Clause-wide Focus

• Prosody-syntax conflict absent.
• Italian Gianni ha messo un libro sul TAVOLOF
  John has put a book on-the
  table
• English John has put a book on the TABLEF
• French Jean a mis un livre sur la TABLEF
  John has put a book on the table

22
English rigid syntax, flexible prosody

• ( x ) I
• ( x ) ( x ) P
• JOHNF has called
• ( x ) I
• ( x ) ( x ) ( x ) P
• John has put FLOWERSF on the table

23
English focused subjects EPPgtgtHead-I
24
English focused subjects EPPgtgtHead-I
25
English focused objects StaygtgtHead-I
26
English focused objects StaygtgtHead-I
27
French hybrid system

• ( x ) I
• ( x ) ( x )P
• FLORENCEF a gagné
• Florence has won
• ( x ) I
• ( x ) ( x ) ( x ) P
• Jean a rendu à Marie son LIVREF
• John has returned to Mary her book

28
French focused subjects EPPgtgtHead-I
29
French focused objects Head-IgtgtStay
30
Optimality Analysis

• Crosslinguistic focus analysis that keeps stress
  prosodic and lacks language-specific
  stipulations.
• Domain and range of crosslinguistic variation
  dictated by universal constraints
  themselvesDomain where constraints
  conflict.Range in the forms required by the
  constraints.
• OT as underlying cognitive architecture shared
  across syntax and prosody (see also Szendröi,
  Dehé, Truckenbrodt, Büring, Guttierez-bravo).