Roberta D'Alessandro Leiden University [email protected]

Exploring the Interfaces 1: word structure 6-8 May 2012 McGill University Montreal

Tobias Scheer CNRS 7320, Université de Nice - Sophia Antipolis [email protected] this handout and some of the references quoted at www.unice.fr/scheer/

CHUNK DEFINITION AND PIC A LA CARTE 1. Purpose (1)

chunk definition in phonology [A phonologically relevant chunk is a domain of phonological computation.] a. How are phonologically relevant chunks of the linear string defined? 1. two competitors: 1. representationally: the units of the Prosodic Hierarchy 2. procedurally: cycles, today phases 2. classically, cycles/phases have no business above the word level: post-lexical phonology was supposed to be non-cyclic. Hence division of labour: - cycles define chunks below the word level - prosodic constituency defines chunks at and above the word level b. phase theory (Uriagereka 1999, Chomsky 2000 and following) has changed the picture radically: 1. phases ARE cycles above the word level. 2. it is reasonable to assume that a computationl system is sensitive to its input conditions: phases ought to leave traces in phonology. c. the current landscape – peaceful coexistence of two distinct chunk-defining mechanisms – is not tenable if phase theory is correct. ==> we evaluate the consequences of phase theory for phonology

(2)

this opens the way for two opportunities: a. a unified theory of chunk definition linguistic theory cannot afford to do the same labour twice. Hence prosodic constituency has to go, since unlike phase theory it has no independent, i.e. extraphonological, motivation. ==> phonologically relevant chunks are ONLY defined by phases ==> a case of intermodular argumentation b. a unified theory of communication between morpho-syntax and phonology 1. as it stands, phase theory is a syntactician's tool: phonological considerations have played virtually no role. 2. backlash on phase theory: unified chunk definition issues phonological demands for phase theory. ==> shaping phase theory according to the demands of the interface is a very minimalistic thing to do.

-2(3)

Consequences for phase theory: PIC à la carte a. phase theory must be able to describe ALL phonologically relevant chunks b. trivially, there are syntactically motivated phases that do not leave any footprint in phonology c. ==> there is vacuous spell-out there is spell-out activity, i.e. phases, without freezing effect, i.e. an associated PIC. ==> a phase may or may not be armed with a PIC.

(4)

PIC a. pieces which have already been interpreted (at PF, LF, i.e. which "come back from interpretation") are "frozen in place", or invisible for further syntactic computation.

b. c. d.

e.

f.

"Phase-Impenetrability Condition In phase H with head H, the domain of H is not accessible to operations outside H, only H and its edge are accessible to such operations." Chomsky (2000:108) the PIC is the most recent incarnation of no look-back devices, which are designed to prevent computation from considering "old" items, i.e. which have already undergone earlier computation/interpretation. origin: Chomsky's (1973) Conditions on Transformations modern "freezing" no look-back, the PIC, is quite different. various implementations in phonology 1. Mascaró's (1976 ) and Kiparsky's (1982) Strict Cycle Condition 2. structure-building vs. structure changing operations (Kiparsky 1982:160ff) 3. Kaye's (1995) freezing no look-back [see Scheer 2011:§287 for the history of no look-back devices] especially in phonology, there are formulations of various strictness around, defining what exactly cannot be done with an "old" string: - invisible (frozen) - unmodifiable (all of the string) - unmodifiable (only properties that were acquired through previous computation) ==> we don't need to care for all that, the current syntactic "freezing" version will be enough for our purposes.

2. Background: chunk definition [Scheer (2011:§748, 2012:§99, forth)] (5)

SPE a. only cycles: the Transformational cycle creates chunks below and above the word level. b. embryo of prosodic constituents: cat-rat-cheese is readjusted in order to create three "sister-adjoined" units (which will later be called Intonational Phrases).

-3(6)

Direct Syntax early 80s: Kaisse (1983, 1985) and Odden (1987, 1990) late 70s: Rotenberg (1978), Clements (1978), Pyle (1972), Hyman (1978:459), Kenstowicz & Kisseberth (1977), Scheer (2011:§131) provides an overview)

a. b.

representational means eliminated altogether: chunks are defined by direct reference to morpho-syntactic structure (trees) and node labels. no distinct modules, no domain specificity (specific vocabulary) hence no translation ==> harsh violation of modularity

(7)

80s: peaceful coexistence that is rarely challenged a. cycles inherited by SPE and promoted by Lexical Phonology ==> LP: but only below the word level b. new prosodic constituents [Selkirk 1981 [1978], 1984, Nespor & Vogel 1986] ==> but only at and above the word level, not really below. ==> logical conclusion by Hayes (1989 [1984]): the demarcation line is the word, chunks below are defined by cycles, chunks above are defined by the Prosodic Hierarchy.

(8)

conflict: some early voices direction: colonization of small chunks by Prosodic Phonology location: below the word level a. competing / coexisting analyses of the same phenomenon u*[m]-predictable vs. im-possible - Lexical Phonology: /un-/ = level 2, /in-/ = level 1 affix - Rubach & Booij (1984): /un-/ = PrW of its own, /in-/ = same PrW as the root b. elimination of cycles: prosodic domains below the word level Selkirk (1984:412ff), Inkelas (1990) Occam-based argument: - there cannot be two distinct means for defining chunks - prosodic constituency can be extended below the word - cycles cannot be extended above the word: postlexical phonology is non-cyclic ==> cycles have to go

(9)

modern phase theory has changed the landscape quite radically ==> phases are cycles ABOVE the word level a. prosodic islands reaction of the established Prosodic Hierarchy: prosodic islands Prosodic islands are isomorphic with phases: FIRST a phase defines the chunk, THEN this chunk is translated into phonological representations in the form of a unit of the Prosodic Hierarchy. ==> abandon of THE fundamental claim of Prosodic Phonology: nonisomorphism. Dobashi (2003), Piggott & Newell (2006), Kratzer & Selkirk (2007), Ishihara (2007) and Kahnemuyipour (2009), Elordieta (2008:274ff) offers an informed survey.

-4(9)

modern phase theory has changed the landscape quite radically ==> phases are cycles ABOVE the word level b. this is dangerous: another round of Direct Syntax is lurking if prosodic and phase structure are exactly identical and isomorphic, Occam commands to get rid of one of them. Since phases are independently needed in syntax, prosodic constituency has to go. This argument is typically made by protagonists of DM: Pak (2008:42ff), Samuels (2009:284ff), also Seidl (2001).

c.

Hence we are back to the conflict of the 80s, but with the reverse direction: colonization of big chunks by cycles (phases). reaction of orthodox Prosodic Phonology against isomorphism ==> prosodic constituents S phases 1. "Prosodic domains do not match spell-out domains" Cheng & Downing (2007, 2009, 2011a,b), Downing (2010). 2. But here as well phases enter the picture (which was not the case before): alignment constraints take phases as an argument: ALIGN-L(PHASE, INTP) "align the left edge of a phase with the left edge of an Intonational Phrase" (Cheng & Downing 2007, 2009). 3. Phase theory thus impacts chunk definition, albeit only indirectly: the independence of prosodic constituency through its genesis via ALIGN-based mapping is preserved.

3. Unified communication between morpho-syntax and phonology (10) interim summary a. there are two means of chunk definition b. traditionally, the division of labour was set by the word-size c. phase theory overthrows this balance since it introduces cycles above the word, i.e. where they should not be able to exist d. phase theory has already impacted the field: prosodic constituents are now held to be isomorphic with phases. ==> this makes prosodic constituency redundant e. a minimalist model of FL cannot afford having the chunking labour done twice, i.e. first by phases and then again by prosodic constituency: one of the two has to go f. phase theory has independent syntactic motivation, prosodic constituency does not: its only raison d'être is chunk definition in phonology g. ==> a direct consequence of syntactic phase theory is thus to eliminate the phonological Prosodic Hierarchy. This is a case of intermodular argumentation (Scheer 2008b, 2009b). [independent reasons for eliminating prosodic constituency: Scheer 2008a, 2011:§42, 2012:§9]

-5(11) only one chunk-defining mechanism a. what would a perspective look like where all chunk-defining labour is done by phases? b. phase theory was built by and large in absence of phonological evidence: it's a syntactician's tool. [see Scheer (2011:§§287, 785) for the genesis and history of the parallel syntactic and phonological strands of no look-back devices since Chomsky's (1973), Strict Cycle Condition, and the anticipation of modern phase theory by Kaye (1995).]

c.

d. e. f. g. h.

it is not reasonable to assume that a computational system is insensitive to its input conditions: 1. phonology is bombarded with chunks of growing size that need to be computed 2. it is reasonable to assume that these chunks leave traces ==> running phase theory without any phonological effect is the wrong track ==> phases MUST leave some phonological footprint phase theory needs to adapt to the demands of phonology ==> very minimalistic way to go the obvious phonological demand is this: there must be a phase for EVERY phonologically relevant chunk. since phonologically relevant chunks are quite variable across and within languages, phase theory needs to be flexible. if it can be shown that there are phonologically relevant chunks that can be defined by prosodic constituency, but not by phase theory, we are back to the dual system of chunk definition. 1. what's to be gained: unified chunk definition – phase theory offers the frame 2. what's needed: adaptation of phase theory to phonological demands ==> fair trade between two continents, the goal being to build an adequate interface instrument: phase theory.

4. Phase theory: origins, current status and evolution (12) how "strong" is phase theory, how "strong" ought it to be? a. the strongest possible version of phase theory is when - phases are isomorphic at PF and LF (no independent LF-PF spell-out) - phases are always armed with a PIC, always leave traces b. Chomsky argues for strictly concomitant PF and LF phases: "Assume that all three components are cyclic. […] In the worst case, the three cycles are independent; the best case is that there is a single cycle only. Assume that to be true. Then W [the phonological component] and X [the semantic component] apply to units constructed by NS [narrow syntax], and the three components of the derivation of proceed cyclically in parallel. L [language] contains operations that transfer each unit to W and X. In the best case, these apply at the same stage of the cycle. […] In this conception there is no LF: rather, the computation maps LA [lexical array] to piece-by-piece cyclically." Chomsky (2004:107)

c.

giving in to empirical pressure, independent PF and LF spell-out has been argued for: Maruši[ (2005), Maruši[ & Žaucer (2006), Felser (2004), Matushansky (2005), den Dikken (2007), Megerdoomian (2003) and Caha & Scheer (2008).

-6(13) more recently, though, Chomsky (Ms. 2011) has substantially weakened the parallel treatment of PF and LF: a. narrow syntax is only optimized with respect to the latter. b. PF is some kind of odd "secondary phenomenon" related to the need for externalization c. [all quotes below are from Chomsky (Ms. 2011)] "thesis T (T) Language is optimized relative to the CI interface alone, with externalization a secondary phenomenon." 1. "[L]anguage is primarily an instrument of thought, with other uses secondary. If so, we should revise the Aristotelian picture of language as sound with meaning; rather, it should be regarded as meaning with sound, a very different conception." 2. "But language design does not permit that simpler option: what reaches SM, again, is of secondary significance for the workings of language." 3. "The most straightforward explanation for these universal properties of language is that linear order does not enter into core syntactic/semantic computations. That again supports the architectural assumptions sketched earlier, and the broader thesis T." 4. "The architecture suggested above, and the overarching thesis T, correlate with familiar general properties of language. Mapping to the CI interface is generally assumed to be invariant, or virtually so. It is hard to see how it could be otherwise, given the paucity of evidence available for acquisition. There is by now substantial evidence that narrow syntax may also allow only limited variety, virtually none if parametric variation is restricted to the lexicon, or even to functional elements of the lexicon. And simple principles of computational complexity, such as NTC and INC, appear to hold rather generally of narrow syntax, maybe completely. In contrast, externalization radically violates these and other natural principles of efficient computation. It is in general complex, varied, and easily subject to diachronic change, again suggesting that it is an ancillary phenomenon." 5. "If we go back roughly 50,000 years before that, there is little evidence that human language existed at all; archaeological evidence suggests that language, and with it complex cognition, emerged within this very narrow window, in what Jared Diamond called a “great leap forward.” […]These facts suggest that at some point within this narrow range some slight rewiring of the brain occurred yielding the core property of language: Merge with its output linked to the CI interface." 6. an argument made by Chomsky: copy deletion significantly reduces communicative efficiency, but language does not care: copies are deleted, whatever the consequences for Externalization.

(14) evolution of phasehood: atomisation a. Chomsky's (2000) original take on phasehood identifies CP and vP, maybe DP (Chomsky 2005:17f), as phase heads. b. since then there is a constant trend to grant phasehood to smaller and smaller chunks [den Dikken (2007:33) provides an overview, also Scheer (2011:§773)]

1. DP the DP track is followed, and also DP-internal phases are argued for (Matushansky 2005). 2. TP TP is also under debate: while Chomsky (e.g. 2000:106, 2004:124) is explicit on the fact that TP does not qualify as a phase head (because it is not propositional), den Dikken (2007) points out that according to Chomsky's own criteria, this conclusion is far from being obvious. TP is indeed assumed to act as a phase head in a growing body of literature. Also, according to Gallego (2010), TP can become a phase by means of V-to-T movement.

-7(14) evolution of phasehood: atomisation 3. Voice0, AspP nodes below TP such as Voice0 (Baltin 2007, Aelbrecht 2008) and AspP (Hinterhölzl 2006, D’Alessandro & Ledgeway 2010) are also granted phasehood. c. spell-out-as-you-merge: every node is a phase head ==> return to Lexical Phonology, against selective spell-out 1. The vanishing point of the atomization of phasehood is a situation where all nodes trigger interpretation; or, in other words, where interpretation occurs upon every application of Merge. This radical position – Spell-out-as-youMerge – is defended by Samuel Epstein and colleagues: Epstein et al. et al. (1998), Epstein & Seely (2002, 2006). 2. argument against spell-out-as-you-merge [i.e. in favour of selective spell-out] If all XPs are subject to Phase Impenetrability, "no extraction would be possible, as the complement of any phase would have to move to the edge of that phrase/phase, a movement step that would count as too local under any version of 'anti-locality'" (Boeckx & Grohmann 2007:212). That is, anti-locality (Boškovic 1994, Grohmann 2003) marshals the atomisation of phasehood. In the evolution that makes smaller and smaller chunks of the tree phase heads, there is a level where the phase edge will not be able to act as an escape-hatch anymore for material that is trapped in the complement: anti-locality will prevent it from escaping. (15) relationship between syntactic phases and phonological effects thereof a. the field is thus in steady movement, but even on the most conservative count, i.e. Chomsky's initial vP and CP, there is a "syntactic" phase between the word and the utterance: vP. Less conservative perspectives place many more phase boundaries in this area, none of which seems to leave phonological traces. b. it is hard to believe that this is due to insufficient analysis, or to the lack of crosslinguistic study of phonological traces of phase boundaries. That is, it is hard to imagine a language where word-initial consonants are strong, and first vowels of the word stable, but only in words that happen to be vP-initial (or TP-initial etc.). c. bumpy match, if any, between syntactic and phonological evidence for phases ==> syntactic phases REGULARY and TRIVIALLY do not leave any phonological trace. Scheer (2009a,c, 2012:§307) b. example discussed below: Raddoppiamento Fonosintattico in Ariellese c. going with Chomsky's (2000) original minimal inventory: CP, vP 1. CP: supported by phonological evidence: there are utterance-initial effects in phonology. ==> but utterance-initial effects only match apex-CPs, not embedded CPs. [Scheer 2009a,c, 2012:§§270, 285, 294] 2. vP: often no phonological trace, but see below the Ariellese case 3. word: THE barrier for phonological processes, but unknown in syntax

-8-

5. PIC à la carte [Scheer 2009a,c, 2011:§§554, 797, 809, 2012:§307] (16) PIC à la carte a. if there is any chance to arrive at 1. a unified theory of intermodular communication 2. a unified theory of chunk definition a way must be found to accommodate the hard fact that syntactic and phonological evidence for phasehood does not match: 1. not every syntactically motivated phase leaves a phonological trace 2. not every phonologically relevant chunk has a syntactic motivation in terms of a phase b. difference between phase and the PIC 1. it is not the mere existence of a phase that produces a trace (in either syntax or phonology): phase-based effects are only produced by the PIC 2. in current phase theory, phase and PIC are always concomitant c. PIC à la carte dissociates phasehood and the PIC 1. there can be a phase WITHOUT a PIC ==> vacuous spell-out 2. but there can be no PIC without a phase: every PIC concerns a phase-defined chunk. This actually follows from the unification of chunk definition: PIC necessarily operates over a chunk, and if chunks are necessarily phases, the domain of a PIC must be defined by a phase. (17) another way of putting it is this: a. phases may or may not be visible in phonology 1. in case they are visible, they are associated to a PIC 2. in case they are invisible, they are NOT associated to a PIC. b. this is what we know anyway from the interaction of smaller chunks, i.e. morphemes, and phonology: 1. some morphological boundaries are visible to the phonology e.g. class two affixes in English: párent-hood where stress is computed only over the root 2. others are invisible e.g. class one affixes: parént-al where stress is computed over the entire word, which behaves just like if it were monomorphemic (18) PIC à la carte: vacuous spell-out and the phase skeleton a. phases exist independently of the PIC b. associating a phase with a PIC is a decision that is made on a parametric basis c. two languages may thus have the same phase skeleton, i.e. identical sets of phase heads, but differ with respect to which phase head is associated to a PIC at PF. d. vacuous spell-out 1. in a given language, there is only one phase skeleton 2. some phases are armed with a PIC at PF 3. other phases are not: there is spell-out, but no effect at PF

-9(19)

language A: phase heads H and d are armed with a PIC at PF phase heads e and f have vacuous spell-out at PF d g PF + PIC

language B: phase heads H and f are armed with a PIC at PF phase heads e and d have vacuous spell-out at PF d g PF

f g PF

f g PF + PIC

e g PF H g PF + PIC

e g PF H g PF + PIC

(20) universal or parameterised phase skeleton a. universal phase skeleton 1. (19) is compatible with the original conception of phase theory where phasehood, i.e. the set of phase heads, is the same for all languages. 2. under (19), the phase skeleton is identical for both languages, and the only source of parametric variation is the way it is interpreted at PF (with or without a PIC). b. parameterised phase skeleton 1. the system is also compatible, though, with a view whereby the set of phase heads is subject to cross-linguistic variation (Gallego 2009, 2010). 2. in this case there are two distinct sources of parametric variation: the phase skeleton itself and its interpretation at PF. (21) PICs are phase-specific AND module-specific a. there is a PIC at phase X at phonology 1. the presence of a PIC for a given phase is specific to each of the three computational systems (modules) that are related by the phase skeleton 2. under (19), PICs at PF are depicted. b. no PIC at PF, but in syntax 1. phases which leave no footprint in phonology, and hence to which no PIC is associated at PF, may well have a syntactic motivation for being armed with a PIC in syntax. 2. This is the case for vP in English for example, where t-flapping is reported (e.g. by Nespor & Vogel (1986:46f, 224ff) to go into effect across all word boundaries no matter what the syntactic relationship of the words (provided the /t/ is word-final and intervocalic). c. the same should be true for the third computational system that is related by the phase skeleton, LF. (22) How-to identify phases and PICs a. heuristically, then, in a landscape with vacuous spell-out, two things need to be discovered when a language is described: 1. the phase skeleton 2. the association of a PIC to a given phase - in syntax, - at PF - at LF

- 10 (22) How-to identify phases and PICs b. evidence for 2) are the footprints that are left behind: 1. the presence or absence of a PIC for a given phase needs to be worked out for any one of the three modules independently, 2. and it needs to be based on evidence from that module alone c. evidence for 1) are the combined effects of 2): 1. whenever there is a syntactic, a phonological or an LF footprint, there must be a phase boundary (armed with a PIC) 2. the reverse, however, is not true: there can be phases that have vacuous spellout in a given module 3. put differently, the set of phase heads that are armed with a (syntactic and/or a phonological) PIC are a proper subset of the phase skeleton

6. Ariellese RF: vP leaves a phonological trace, CP does not (23) in Ariellese, stress plays no role (unlike in Tuscan): final tonic vowels of preceding words are no RF triggers a. la città nov the city new ‘the new city’ b. there are only (so-called) lexical triggers 1. RF is observed after a lexically defined set of words. Membership in this set is arbitrary and varies from system to system in unpredictable ways: typically monosyllabic function words are concerned. 2. historically, the origin may be the loss of Latin word-final consonants, which triggered the gemination of initial consonant of the following word: lat. dat panem > dap pane(m) But today the set of words that have lost a Latin word-final consonant and the set of words that trigger RF are NOT coextensive: if anything, there was analogy: - words that were C-final in Latin but do not trigger RF. [probably there are also words that were not C-final in Latin but do trigger RF] The details do not matter here (see Vincent 1988, Loporcaro 1997a,b): ==> the only important fact is that synchronically the RF trigger is LEXICAL. 3. Loporcaro (1997a,b) and Passino (forth, Ms) provide an overview of Italian dialects regarding the variability of the lexical set of RF triggers. Hastings (2001) offers a list of lexical triggers for Tollo (11 km from Arielli).

- 11 (23) in Ariellese, stress plays no role (unlike in Tuscan): final tonic vowels of preceding words are no RF triggers 4. some examples for Ariellese: gne 'like', 'with' pi 'for' gna 'how' nghi 'with' a 'at' llà 'there' (minimal pair with la 'det.' which does not trigger RF) qua 'here' (a)ccuscì 'so' si 'if' ni 'neg' (24) analysis of lexical triggers a. we follow the classical analysis (Chierchia 1986, Loporcaro 1988, 1997a,b): lexical triggers are lexically endowed with extra syllabic space at their right edge, on which the initial consonant of the following word geminates. NB.: we use minimal syllabic vocabulary, i.e. only x-slots, in order to keep the analysis as theoryneutral as possible: nothing hinges on particular syllabic representations.

b

c

RF trigger x x x | | e

RF triggered on the following #C x x x x x x x x | | | | | | e k u l u

gne "with" no RF trigger x x | | l a

gne kkullù "with him" RF triggered on the following #C x x x x x x x | | | | | | l a i t a t

la "DET fem"

la città "the city"

(25) in some dialects, syntactic conditions further restrict the application of RF Ariellese is among those a. two filters: 1. lexical: you need to be lexically equipped with the RF trigger 2. syntactic: you need to occur in the right syntactic (structural) configuration b. ==> 1. being a lexical RF trigger is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for RF to go into effect. 2. The sufficient condition is decided online, i.e. structural. c. syntactic conditioning of RF is understudied in recent times: analyses concentrate on 1. conditioning by stress (Tuscan, Chierchia 1986) 2. the exact definition and diachronic development of the lexical set of RF triggers

- 12 (25) in some dialects, syntactic conditions further restrict the application of RF Ariellese is among those d. classical syntactic analysis: Nespor & Vogel (1986) 1. syntactic phrase isomorphic with prosodic phrase? No 2. syntactic status determining the prosodic phrase (complements vs. adjuncts etc). BUT this analysis was proven empirically wrong by Loporcaro (1997a,b). (26) syntactic conditions I active vs. passive a. the same lexical item - triggers RF in passive constructions - does not trigger RF in active constructions Biberauer & D'Alessandro (2006) b. minimal pairs for so "BE 1sg": ACTIVE: RF no UNACC: RF no 1. so vist am seen ACT: ‘I have seen’ see below 2. so cunziderat am considered 'I have considered'

vs.

PASSIVE: RF yes so vvist am seen PASS: ‘I am seen’ so ccunziderat am considered 'I am considered'

(27) background transitive active v is armed with a PIC at PF Ariellese has a Voice head within the vP layer (D'Alessandro & Ledgeway 2010, D'Alessandro 2011): a. v encodes voice see Collins (2005) and Roberts (2010) b. transitive active v (which is layered) is a phase head in Abruzzese 1. see D'Alessandro & Roberts (2008, 2010) on auxiliary selection and participial agreement. 2. see D'Alessandro & Ledgeway (2010) on auxiliaries in Abruzzese. (28) analysis (to be revised below) a. ACTIVE: 1. so sits in T and viste in V; 2. v is transitive active, hence a phase head (v*). It triggers spell-out of its complement; 3. so and viste are thus separated by a PIC-armed phase head in syntax AND at PF b. PASSIVE: 1. v is not a phase head (passive v is defective, see Chomsky 2005, 2008) 2. hence so in T and the past participle in V are NOT separated by a PIC-armed phase head. Biberauer & D'Alessandro (2006)

- 13 (28) analysis (to be revised below) c. trees at PF, angled brackets indicate spell-out domains (that are armed with a PIC) 1. so vist 'I have seen' [TP so [v*P v* [VP vist ]]] --Spellout--> {PF} [...so] [vist ] 2. so vvist 'I am seen' [TP so [vP v [VP vist ]]] --Spellout--> {PF} [...so vist ] (29) syntactic conditions II unaccusatives go with actives: no RF a. v in unaccusatives is defective (Chomsky 2005), hence it is not a phase head. b. RF should therefore occur with unaccusatives, but does not: so crisciut am grown 'I have grown' c. contrast between 1. the verbal participle (unaccusative structure) and 2. the adjectival participle (predicative structure, i.e. small clause (Moro 2000). No phase heads involved. UNACC: verbal participle PASSive-like predicative structure unaccusative structure small clause so mmort (m ) so mort 'I am dead' 'I have died' so nat 'I was born' d.

so nnat 'I am alive' (I am in the state of having been born')

unaccusative: [TP so [vP v [VP nate]] –Spellout --> {PF} [so nate] ==> RF should but does not occur small clause predicative (Stowell 1981, Manzini 1983, Moro 2000) [TP so [SC pro1sg nate]] –Spellout --> {PF} [so nate]

(30) revised analysis a. what really matters is VOICE, rather than transitivity transitivity act voice RF ACT + + + UNACC – + + PASS – – –

- 14 (30) revised analysis b revised analysis: ACTIVE v is a phase head (vp): [TP so [v*P v* [VP vist ]]] --Spellout--> {PF} [...so] [vist ] [TP so [vP v [VP nate]] –Spellout --> {PF} [so] [nat ] (31) there is only ONE lexical item so - no allomorphy - no "active so" vs. "passive so" a. a number of arguments are made in Biberauer & D'Alessandro (2006) b. ACT so does trigger RF when in the appropriate syntactic context: 1. 2. Te so vist So tte vist you am seen am you seen ‘I saw you’ ‘I saw you’1 c. analysis 1. under b1: as before, so is in T, and vist in the vP. RF blocked because of the vP-PIC 2. under b2: te has cliticized to T, or anyway moved to a position higher than v Belletti (1999), Kayne (2000), Manzini & Savoia (2005, 2007) ==> no phase boundary between so and te, hence so triggers RF. d. trees 1. t so vist 'I saw you' [TP t -so [v*P v* [VP vist t ]]] -- Spell-out--> {PF} [t -so] [vist ] 2. so-tt vist 'I saw you' [TP so-t [v*P v* [VP vist t ]]] -- Spell-out--> {PF} [so t ] [vist ] (32) C does not block RF a. cho vvu? what you-want 'what do you want'? b. C is a phase head (C*) in syntax Chomsky (2000) and following: if anything, then CP and vP are phases. c. but it is not armed with a PIC at PF (in Ariellese) [CP ch C* [TP vu [vP v* [VP vu ch ]]]] – Spell-out --> {PF, but no PIC} [ch vu] --> ch vvu 1

This enclitic form is used in a nearby town (Ortona, CH) which shows the same act-pass alternation; it is rarely found in Arielli.

- 15 (32) C does not block RF d. PIC à la carte ==> case where a spell-out domain that is defined in syntax does not leave any trace in phonology, i.e. is not armed with a PIC. This is vacuous spell-out. (33) summary so far a. both the complements of CP and vP are spell-out domains, i.e. C and transitive active v are phase heads. b. vP, but not CP, is armed with a PIC at PF.

7. What seems to be syntactic blocking is in fact purely phonological: vowel reduction of [i] (34) cases where the spell-out of CP seems to block RF a. chi ve? who comes 'who comes?' b. to see what this is all about, we need to first talk about another case where it looks like RF is blocked by a syntactic division that does not have phase status. c. please take stock of 1. the contrast i vs. [i] in chi 'who' – RF does not occur [ ] in ch 'what' – RF occurs 2. it is the vowel [i] that is concerned, rather than other vowels, say a,o,u,e. (35) prepositions prepositions should trigger RF and regularly do a. prepositions are not usually assumed to be phase heads [but see Gallego 2010 for a different point of view] b. in case they are lexical RF triggers, they should therefore always trigger RF. c. RF triggers: pi "for" pi Pparigg "for Paris" gne 'like'-'with' pi 'for' gna 'how' nghi 'with' a 'at' (36) but sometimes RF is absent with prepositional RF triggers a. pi li cas for the-pl house-pl 'for the houses' b. gne li fratill with the-pl brother-pl 'witht the brothers'

- 16 (36) but sometimes RF is absent with prepositional RF triggers c. a li pajis at the-pl village-pl 'at the villages' (37) vowel reduction of i (to schwa) in Ariellese [previously unobserved] a. the DET li appears in two shapes: - full: l[i] after RF triggers - reduced: l[ ] after non-triggers b. illustration 1. after an RF trigger pi li cas for the-pl houses-pl 2. after a non-trigger picché 'because' is not an RF trigger: picché no because no picché l[ ] cas because the-pl houses (38) [i] is a long vowel a. we know what makes the difference between RF-triggers and non-triggers: the lexical presence vs. absence of extra syllabic material (an x-slot). b. logical conclusions: 1. the full, non-reduced version of li must be the consequence of this extra x-slot. 2. full [i] represents two x-slots: its own plus the RF-trigger 3. reduced [ ] represents one single x-slot. ==> the surface contrast [i] vs. [ ] is in fact a contrast in vowel LENGTH. (39) virtual length a. a phonological contrast in length, i.e. long vs. short vowels or simplex vs. geminate consonants, must somehow reach the surface, but the phonetic means that is used is irrelevant and varies across languages: it may be actual length, or any other phonetic marker. Lowenstamm (1991), Larsen (1998), Ségéral & Scheer (2001) b. vocalic length has been observed to be signalled by 1. ATRness French: Rizzolo (2002) 2. full vs. reduced vowel quality Semitic: Lowenstamm (1991), Kabyle Berber: Bendjaballah (2001), Ben Si Saïd (2010) 3. stress Apulian dialect of Italian: Bucci (2012)

- 17 (39) virtual length c. consonantal length has been observed to be signalled by 1. length of the preceding vowel German: Caratini (2009); Cologne dialect of German: Ségéral & Scheer (2001), English: Hammond (2007), Polgárdi (Ms) 2. preceding vowel-zero alternation Somali: Barillot (2002), Barillot & Ségéral (2005) 3. aspiration English: Ségéral & Scheer (2008) 4. preaspiration Icelandic, Andalusian dialects of Spanish: Curculescu (2011) (40) analysis a. it is not the case that there is no RF in pi li cas for the-pl houses-pl b. there is RF, but rather than on the following consonant, we see it on the following vowel (which is unreduced, i.e. phonologically long) c. definition of RF: RF occurs iff the extra x-slot of RF-triggers is used by the phonology, i.e. iff some melodic material is attached to it. This may be 1. the following consonant: consonantal RF 2. the following vowel: vocalic RF d. illustration DET li, lexical after an RF trigger: two after a non-trigger: only form: x-slots avaibale for the one x-slot available for floating melodic vowel the vowel items x

x

l

i

x | p

x | i

x

x

x

l

i

x x … | picch é

x

x

l

i

(41) we now return to the complementizers: chi 'who' (-RF) vs. ch 'what' (+RF): analysis a. both items are melodically and syllabically identical: /ki/ with three x-slots b. the lexical difference is in association: chi: the /i/ is long and hence lexically associated to two x-slots ch : the /i/ is floating c. lexical representations chi 'who' ch 'what' x x x x x x | | k i k i d. representations in context chi ve 'who comes?' ch vvu 'what do you want?' x x x x x x x x x x | | | | | | k i v e k i v u [i] [ ]

- 18 -

(42) why only i ? a. only i reduces to schwa - why? b. the feminine and masculine definite articles la and lu do not react to the presence of a non-RF trigger to its left: the vowel remains unreduced. 1. with an RF-trigger pi la Majell for the Maiella (exclamation) a la cas at the house 2. picché la surell ? why the sister ?

8. Conclusion (43) conclusion a. unified chunk definition – only one mechanism ==> prosodic constituency has to go b. phase theory modified by phonological demand ==> needs to be able to describe every phonologically relevant chunk c. PIC à la carte ==> the phase skeleton may or may not be armed with a PIC 1. at every phase head 2. for every computational system (syntax, PF, LF) References Items followed by the mention WEB are available at http://www.unice.fr/scheer/. Aelbrecht, Lobke 2008. Licensing ellipsis as Agree. Paper presented at the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, UCLA 16-18 May. Baltin, M. 2007. Deletion versus Pro-forms: a false dichotomy? Ms., New York University. Barillot, Xavier 2002. Morphophonologie gabaritique et information consonantique latente en somali et dans les langues est-couchitiques. Ph.D dissertation, University Paris 7. Barillot, Xavier & Philippe Ségéral 2005. On phonological Processes in the '3rd' conjugation in Somali. Folia Orientalia 41: 115-131. Belletti, Adriana 1999. Italian/Romance clitics : Structure and Derivation. Clitics in the languages of Europe, edited by Henk van Riemsdijk, 543-579. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ben Si Saïd, Samir 2010. Association sous contrôle grammatical: le cas du A du pluriel externe en kabyle. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 57: 432-443. Bendjaballah, Sabrina 2001. The negative preterite in Kabyle Berber. Folia Linguistica 34: 185-223. Biberauer, Theresa & Roberta D'Alessandro 2006. Syntactic Doubling and the Encoding of Voice in Eastern Abruzzese. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 25: 87-95. Boeckx, Cedric & Kleanthes Grohmann 2007. Putting Phases in Perspective. Syntax 10: 204222.

- 19 Boškovic, Željko 2004. D-structure, è-Criterion, and movement into è-positions. Linguistic Analysis 24: 247-286. Bucci, Jonathan 2012. Unity and difference of velars and labials: the case of Coratino. Paper presented at the Cuny conference on the segment, New York 11-13 January. Caha, Pavel & Tobias Scheer 2008. The Syntax and Phonology of Czech Templatic Morphology. Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. The Stony Brook Meeting 2007, edited by Andrei Antoneko, John Bailyn & Christina Bethin, 68-83. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. WEB. Caratini, Emilie 2009. Vocalic and consonantal quantity in German: synchronic and diachronic perspectives. Ph.D dissertation, Université de Nice - Sophia Antipolis. Cheng, Lisa & Laura Downing 2007. The prosody and syntax of Zulu relative clauses. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 15: 51-63. Cheng, Lisa & Laura Downing 2009. Where's the topic in Zulu? The Linguistic Review 26: 207-238. Cheng, Lisa & Laura Downing 2011a. Prosodic domains do not match spell-out domains. Paper presented at Phonology in the 12st century: In Honour of Glyne Piggott, Montreal 7-9 May. Cheng, Lisa & Laura Downing 2011b. To phrase or not to phrase: on the (non-)congruence of focus and prosody. Paper presented at GLOW 34, Vienna 27 April - 1st May. Chierchia, Gennaro 1986. Length, syllabification and the phonological cycle in Italian. Journal of Italian Linguistics 8: 5-34. Chomsky, Noam 1973. Conditions on Transformations. A Festschrift for Morris Halle, edited by Stephen Anderson & Paul Kiparsky, 232-286. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Chomsky, Noam 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. Step by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, edited by Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka, 89-155. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. Structures and Beyond. The cartography of syntactic structures, Volume 3, edited by Adriana Belletti, 104-131. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chomsky, Noam 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1-22. Chomsky, Noam 2008. On Phases. Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, edited by Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero & Maria-Luisa Zubizaretta, 133-166. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam Ms (2011). Minimal Recursion: Exploring the Prospects. Recursion, edited by Tom Roeper & Margaret Speas. Oxford: OUP. Clements, George 1978. Tone and syntax in Ewe. Elements of stress, tone and intonation, edited by Donna Jo Napoli, 21-99. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Collins, Christopher 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8: 81-120. Curculescu, Elena 2011. Preaspiration in Spanish: the case of Andalusian dialects. Paper presented at the 19th Mancheser Phonology Meeting, Manchester 19-21 May. D'Alessandro, Roberta 2011. Agreement, ergativity, and the parameterization of Probes. Ms., Leiden University. D'Alessandro, Roberta & Adam Ledgeway 2010. The Abruzzese T-v system: feature spreading and the double auxiliary construction. Syntactic Variation. The dialects of Italy, edited by Roberta D'Alessandro, Adam Ledgeway & Ian Roberts, 201-210. Cambridge: CUP. D'Alessandro, Roberta & Ian Roberts 2008. Movement and Agreement in Italian Past Participles and Defective Phases. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 477-491. D'Alessandro, Roberta & Ian Roberts 2010. Past participle agreement in Abruzzese: Split

- 20 auxiliary selection and the null-subject parameter Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28: 41-72. den Dikken, Marcel 2007. Phase Extension: Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33: 1-41. Dobashi, Yoshihito 2003. Phonological Phrasing and syntactic derivation. Ph.D thesis, Cornell University. Downing, Laura 2010. An edge-based approach to the alignment of syntactic phases and prosodic phrases. Transactions of the Philological Society 108: 352-369. Elordieta, Gorka 2008. An overview of theories of the syntax-phonology interface. Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology 42: 209-286. Epstein, Samuel, E.M. Groat, R. Kawashima & H. Kitahara 1998. A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations. Oxford: OUP. Epstein, Samuel & T. Daniel Seely 2002. Rule Applications as Cycles in Level-Free Syntax. Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, edited by Samuel Epstein & T.Daniel Seely, 65-89. Oxford: Blackwell. Epstein, Samuel & T. Daniel Seely 2006. Derivation in Minimalism. Cambridge: CUP. Felser, Claudia 2004. Wh-copying, phases, and successive cyclicity. Lingua 114: 543-574. Gallego, Angel J. 2009. Phases and variation: Exploring the second factor of the faculty of language. Alternatives to Cartography, edited by Jeroen van Craenenbroeck, 109-152. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Gallego, Angel J. 2010. Phase Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Grohmann, Kleanthes 2003. Prolific domains: On the anti-locality of movement dependencies. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Hammond, Michael 1997. Vowel Quantity and Syllabification in English. Language 73: 1-17. Hastings, R. 2001. Ze sende cchiù fforte. Il rafforzamento fonosintattico nel dialetto abruzzese. Rivista italiana di dialettologia 25: 209-283. Hayes, Bruce 1989 [1984]. The Prosodic Hierarchy in Meter. Manuscript circulated since 1984, published 1989 in Rhythm and Meter, edited by Paul Kiparsky & G. Youmans, 201-260. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press. Hinterhölzl, Roland 2006. The Phase Condition and cyclic Spell-out: Evidence from VPtopicalization. Phases of Interpretation, edited by Mara Frascarelli, 237-259. Berlin: de Gruyter. Hyman, Larry 1978. Word Demarcation. Universals of Human Language, Vol 2, edited by Joseph Greenberg, 443-470. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Inkelas, Sharon 1990. Prosodic Constituency in the Lexicon. New York: Garland. Ishihara, Shinichiro 2007. Major phrase, focus intonation, multiple spell-out. The Linguistic Review 24: 137-167. Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan 2009. The Syntax of Sentential Stress. Oxford: OUP. Kaisse, Ellen 1983. The syntax of auxiliary reduction in English. Language 59: 93-122. Kaisse, Ellen 1985. Connected Speech. The interaction of Syntax and Phonology. London, New York: Academic Press. Kaye, Jonathan 1995. Derivations and Interfaces. Frontiers of Phonology, edited by Jacques Durand & Francis Katamba, 289-332. London & New York: Longman. Also in SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 3, 1993, 90-126. WEB. Kayne, Richard S. 2000. Parameters and universals. Oxford: OUP. Kenstowicz, Michael & Charles Kisseberth 1977. Topics in Phonological Theory. New York: Academic Press. Kiparsky, Paul 1982. From Cyclic Phonology to Lexical Phonology. The structure of phonological representations I, edited by Harry van der Hulst & Norval Smith, 131175. Dordrecht: Foris. WEB.

- 21 Kratzer, Angelika & Elisabeth Selkirk 2007. Phase theory and prosodic spellout: the case of verbs. The Linguistic Review 24: 93-135. Larsen, Bergeton Uffe 1998. Vowel length, Raddoppiamento Sintattico and the selection of the definite article in Italian. Langues et Grammaire II-III, Phonologie, edited by Patrick Sauzet, 87-102. Paris: Université Paris 8. Loporcaro, Michele 1988. History and geography of raddoppiamento fonosintattico: remarks on the evolution of a phonological rule. Certamen phonologicum, Papers from the 1987 Cortona Phonology Meeting, edited by Pier Marco Bertinetto & Michele Loporcaro, 341-387. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier. Loporcaro, Michele 1997a. L’origine del raddoppiamento fonosintattico. Saggio di fonologia diacronica romanza. Basel: Francke. Loporcaro, Michele 1997b. Lengthening and Raddoppiamento fonosintattico. The Dialects of Italy, edited by M. Maiden & M. Parry, 41-51. London: Routledge. Lowenstamm, Jean 1991. Vocalic length and syllable structure in Semitic. Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau on the occasion of his 85th birthday, edited by A.S. Kaye, 949965. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. WEB. Manzini, Maria Rita 1983. Restructuring and reanalysis. Ph.D dissertation, MIT. Manzini, Rita & Leonardo Savoia 2005. I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa. 3 Vols. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso. Manzini, Rita & Leonardo Savoia 2007. A unification of morphology and syntax. Studies in Romance and Albanian varieties. London: Routledge. Maruši[, Franc 2005. On non-simultaneous phases. Ph.D. dissertation, SUNY, Stony Brook. Maruši[, Franc & Rok Žaucer 2006. On the intensional feel-like construction in Slovenian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 1093-1159. Mascaró, Joan 1976. Catalan Phonology and the Phonological Cycle. Ph.D. dissertation. Matushansky, Ora 2005. Going through a phase. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49: 157181. Megerdoomian, Karine 2003. Asymmetries in Form and Meaning: Surface Realization and the Interface Conditions. Paper presented at Approaching Asymmetry at the Interfaces, UQAM, Montreal. Moro, Andrea 2000. Dynamic Antisymmetry: movement as a symmetry breaking phenomenon. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Nespor, Marina & Irene Vogel 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. Odden, David 1987. Kimatuumbi phrasal phonology. Phonology 4: 13-26. Odden, David 1990. Syntax, lexical rules and postlexical rules in Kimatuumbi. The Phonology-Syntax Connection, edited by Sharon Inkelas & Draga Zec, 259-277. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pak, Majorie 2008. The postsyntactic derivation and its phonological reflexes. Ph.D dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Passino, Diana forth. A unified account of consonant gemination in external sandhi in Italian: Raddoppiamento Sintattico and related phenomena. The Linguistic Review. Passino, Diana Ms. The weight of empty structure: Raddoppiamento Sintattico blocking in Teraman Abruzzese. Piggott, Glyne & Heather Newell 2006. Syllabification and the spell-out of phases in Ojibwa words. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 20: 39-64. Polgárdi, Krisztina Ms. English stress, syncope and the direction of proper government. Pyle, Charles 1972. On Eliminating BM's. Papers from the eighth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, edited by Paul Peranteau, Judith Levi & Gloria Phares, 516-532. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Rizzolo, Olivier 2002. Du leurre phonétique des voyelles moyennes en français et du divorce

- 22 entre Licenciement et Licenciement pour gouverner. Ph.D dissertation, Université de Nice. WEB. Roberts, Ian 2010. Smuggling and FOFC. Paper presented at the University of Essex. Rotenberg, Joel 1978. The Syntax of Phonology. Ph.D dissertation, MIT. Rubach, Jerzy & Geert Booij 1984. Morphological and prosodic domains in Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 1: 1-27. Samuels, Bridget 2009. The structure of phonological theory. Ph.D dissertation, Harvard University. Scheer, Tobias 2008a. Why the Prosodic Hierarchy is a diacritic and why the Interface must be Direct. Sounds of Silence: Empty Elements in Syntax and Phonology, edited by Jutta Hartmann, Veronika Hegedüs & Henk van Riemsdijk, 145-192. Amsterdam: Elsevier. WEB. Scheer, Tobias 2008b. Spell out your Sister! Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited by Natasha Abner & Jason Bishop, 379-387. Somerville: Cascadilla. WEB. Scheer, Tobias 2009a. External sandhi: what the initial CV is initial of. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 47: 43-82. WEB. Scheer, Tobias 2009b. Intermodular Argumentation and the Word-Spell-Out-Mystery. Explorations of Phase Theory: Interpretation at the Interfaces, edited by Kleanthes Grohmann, 23-65. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. WEB. Scheer, Tobias 2009c. Representational and procedural sandhi killers: diagnostics, distribution, behaviour. Czech in Formal Grammar, edited by Mojmír Do[ekal & Markéta Ziková, 155-174. München: Lincom. WEB. Ségéral, Philippe & Tobias Scheer 2001. Abstractness in phonology: the case of virtual geminates. Constraints and Preferences, edited by Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kozaczyk, 311-337. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. WEB. Ségéral, Philippe & Tobias Scheer 2008. The Coda Mirror, stress and positional parameters. Lenition and Fortition, edited by Joaquim Brandão de Carvalho, Tobias Scheer & Philippe Ségéral, 483-518. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. WEB. Seidl, Amanda 2001. Minimal Indirect Reference: a theory of the syntax-phonology interface. London: Routledge. Selkirk, Elisabeth 1981 [1978]. On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. Nordic Prosody II, edited by Thorstein Fretheim, 111-140. Trondheim: TAPIR. Selkirk, Elisabeth 1984. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Stowell, Tim 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Ph.D dissertation, MIT. Uriagereka, Juan 1999. Multiple spell-out. Working Minimalism, edited by Samuel Epstein & Norbert Hornstein, 251-282. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Vincent, Nigel 1988. Non-linear phonology in diachronic perspective; stress and word structure in Latin and Italian. Certamen phonologicum, Papers from the 1987 Cortona Phonology Meeting, edited by Pier Marco Bertinetto & Michele Loporcaro, 421-432. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.