Tobias Scheer CNRS 7320, Université de Nice - Sophia Antipolis [email protected]

Graduiertenkolleg Leipzig 14 May 2014

this handout and some of the references quoted at www.unice.fr/scheer/

MELODY-FREE SYNTAX (1)

purpose a. to show that Zwicky & Pullum's (1986a,b) phonology-free syntax is in fact melodyfree syntax. [melody = phonological primes = everything below the skeleton] b. melody and morpho-syntax are incommunicado 1. no morpho-syntactic property can directly influence melody 2. no melodic property can directly influence morpho-syntax ==> in other words, communication in both directions always goes through the area above the skeleton. c. but melody is also unable to impact phonological structure at and above the skeleton: 1. stress 2. tone 3. chunk definition (phonological phrasing) d. we have thus a diagnostic for melodyhood sonority is systematically identified as not belonging to melody e. if not melody, what kind of animal is sonority?

(2)

conclusions a. sonority is complexity (old idea) - complexity offers a uniform cross-modal identity of sonority - only vocal primes have sonority, but primes of any kind have complexity b. unscrambled modules 1. strong evidence for waterproof worlds, i.e. for a modular conception of grammar. 2. evidence against OT-type scrambling where morphological and phonological instructions/properties freely cohabitate in the same computational system, or even in the same computational instruction (constraint). c. two phonologies there are two computational systems that compute phonology 1. syllabic computation input: sonority and linearity output: syllable structure. 2. melodic computation input: melody output: melody rearranged (e.g. a palatalization)

-2(2)

conclusions d. modules can only read the output of other modules, i.e. their structure 1. syntactic tree geometry can influence phonology, but not the labels of the syntactic tree, which are projections of syntactic primes. [if there are any labels at all, cf. Chomsky 2013] 2. phonological structure, i.e. items at and above the skeleton, - can influence morpho-syntax, and - can be influenced by morpho-syntax. But phonological primes (= melody) cannot. e. consequence melodic computation does not produce any structure, i.e. things like a feature geometry. Otherwise this structure would be able to impact morpho-syntax. [this talk is based on Scheer 2011:§§253, 412]

(3)

empirical programme a. melody cannot impact morpho-syntax 1. concatenation of pieces I: syntax phonology-free syntax 2. concatenation of pieces II: morphology 1) infixation, 2) allomorphy b. morpho-syntax cannot impact melody 1. insertion of morpho-syntactic information into phonology at or above the skeleton, never below. ==> reverse direction of incommunication with respect to melody-free syntax 2. category-sensitive phonology category (N, V, A) impacts phonology at and above the skeleton, never below. c. melody cannot impact phonology above the skeleton 1. stress is sensitive to syllable structure (weight), but never to melody. 2. tone is sensitive to syllable structure (weight), but never to melody. 3. syllable structure is sensitive to syllable structure (weight), but never to melody. 4. chunk definition (prosodic phrasing) is reported to be sensitive to properties above the skeleton, but never to melody. d. melody has no bearing on grammaticality 1. absolute agrammaticality (phonologically driven) is never caused by melody (only by properties at and above the skeleton) 2. crazy rules are only ever melodically crazy: no craziness with stress, syllable-related or positional processes

1. Concatenation of pieces I: syntax (4)

Zwicky & Pullum's (1986a,b) original observation: Phonology-free Syntax a. There is no syntactic movement on record that would be triggered only if, say, the candidate for movement begins with a labial. b. The same holds true for other categories that are relevant in phonology such as palatality, occlusion etc.

-3c. ==> phonology-free syntax phonology is entirely invisible to syntax. Conditioning is only top-down: syntax bears on phonology, but there is no communication in the other direction. (5)

extension to morphology a. Zwicky & Pullum's principle originally concerned only syntax. However, it was rapidly extended to morphology: no concatenation of two morphemes is supposed to be conditioned by the phonological properties of the items involved. b. Lexical Phonology: - influence of derived phonological properties? - at stake: interactionism 1. On interactionist assumptions, morphological concatenation can be done after some phonological rules have applied (to earlier strata). 2. Therefore, morphological activity may be sensitive to derived phonological properties, i.e. to properties that are created by phonological computation (but are absent from the lexicon). 3. By contrast, in the traditional non-interactionist perspective where all concatenation is completed before phonological interpretation begins, morphosyntax can never be influenced by derived phonological properties. 4. These contrasting predictions are run against the empirical record in the state-ofthe-art volume edited by Hargus & Kaisse (eds.) (1993): Booij & Lieber (1993), Booij (1997:262f) and Inkelas (1993) argue in favour of interactionism (also Szpyra 1987). Especially Hargus (1993) collects relevant cases where derived phonological properties appear to influence morphology, but Odden (1993) proposes a reanalysis in a non-interactionist perspective. 5. While the predictions on both sides are sufficiently distinct and explicit, their confrontation with the empirical record appears to be inconclusive.

(6)

Phonology-free syntax has rapidly become the standard a. It shaped the macro-landscape regarding modular identities, also in the Prosodic Phonology literature. b. Relevant references include Pullum & Zwicky (1988), Vogel & Kenesei (1990: 346ff), Miller et al. (1997) and Guasti & Nespor (1999).

(7)

accumulation of evidence against phonology-free syntax literature that challenges the invisibility of phonological properties for morpho-syntax a. regarding syntax: Inkelas (1990), Inkelas & Zec (1990b, 1995), Hargus (1993), Neeleman & Reinhart (1998), SzendrKi (2001, 2003, 2004). b. regarding morphology: Szymanek (1980), Ackema & Neeleman (2004:2), Burzio (2007) c. Szymanek (1980), Vogel & Kenesei (1990) and Inkelas & Zec (1995) provide surveys of phenomena that are frequently quoted.

-4(8)

clear regularity: counter-examples never involve melody a. Everybody indeed agrees with Zwicky & Pullum's (1986a,b) original observation that segmental properties of sound never affect a syntactic derivation. b. Vogel & Kenesei (1990:346) and Inkelas & Zec (1990b:366, 1995:547) are explicit on this. c. On the other hand, recurring candidates for bottom-up conditioning are located above the skeleton. This observation is made by Kaisse & Hargus (1993:4) in the debate on interactionism: "if an affix subcategorizes for a base with certain derived phonological properties, those properties are almost always supra-segmental (e.g. stress)." d. inventory: parsing the literature 1. intonation and stress Szendröi (2001, 2003, 2004), Hargus (1993) 2. tree-geometric properties of the prosodic constituency (for example the existence or branchingness of constituents) Inkelas & Zec (1988, 1990b:372ff) 3. size of lexical items (minimal word constraints: number of syllables or moras) Inkelas & Zec (1990b:372ff), Hargus (1993), Bendjaballah & Haiden (2005, forth a) 4. rhythm Guasti & Nespor (1999)

(9)

to remind us that the evidence is always subject to analysis a. defenders of phonology-free syntax have proposed reanalyses of bottom-up conditioning, or place it outside of grammar (discourse-related). b. Zwicky & Pullum (1986b), Vogel & Kenesei (1990), Odden (1993), Miller et al. (1997), Guasti & Nespor (1999), BoškoviO (2001, 2005) and Revithiadou (2006) propose relevant reanalyses. c. example Bendjaballah & Haiden's (2005, forth a) analysis of Kabyle Berber puts a phenomenon which looks like a phonological conditioning of preposition selection back under the roof of phonology-free syntax. 1. In the variety of Berber examined, "small" prepositions can only occur with the Construct State. 2. This looks like word-size requirement. 3. However, the authors argue that the exponent of the Construct State is a CV unit. Hence only prepositions that are small enough, i.e. made of a C and a V, can land. 4. On this analysis, thus, it is true that a phonological property of the prepositions at hand decides on whether a given item can occur in a specific syntactic context – but at no point of the process does syntax "look into phonology".

(10) Phonology-Free Syntax > Melody-free Syntax a. the literature has identified a red line that cuts the phonological space into two areas, above and below the skeleton b. While the latter is invisible for syntax for sure, there is reason to believe that the former may be a factor in syntactic computation.

-5-

2. Concatenation of pieces II: morphology 2.1. Is morphology different? (11) is morphology different? a. old debate: are morphology and syntax the same, or two distinct computational systems (modules)? 1. classical: two distinct systems 2. Lexical Phonology: necessarily two distinct systems: first you build words and do lexical phonology, then you do syntax, and finally post-lexical phonology 3. Distributed Morphology: just one system. "Syntax all the way down" (Marantz 1997) 4. strongly related to lexicalism (e.g. Williams 2007) b. in our environment: is melody - able to impact the concatenation of smaller chunks (morphemes), - but unable to impact the concatenation of bigger chunks (words)? c. The literature discusses cases where melodic properties impact the concatenation of morphemes: Szymanek (1980) and Ackema & Neeleman (2004:2), Burzio (2007) d. Hargus (1993:54ff) presents evidence for phonology-sensitive morphology from segmental processes, but points out herself (p.69) that most of these unexpectedly share the fact of involving non-concatenative morphology (Semitic, reduplication, infixation). 2.2. Infixation (12) infixation: a case study a. typological surveys and case studies: Moravcsik (2000), Yu (2007), Samuels (2009:147ff) Yu (2007) has studied - 154 infixation patterns - 111 languages - 26 different phyla and isolates b. these authors provide an overview of phonological factors that are known to condition infixation cross-linguistically. c. two types of anchor points that infixes look at in order to determine their landing site: 1. edge-oriented 2. prominence-oriented d. For the left edge for example, documented situations are: 1. "after the first consonant (or consonant cluster)" 2. "after the first vowel", 3. "after the first syllable" 4. "after the second consonant" e. Prominence-based attractors are: 1. stressed vowels, 2. stressed syllables 3. stressed feet.

-6f. no melody 1. In no case is melody reported to be relevant for the definition of the landing site. 2. Hence cases where infixes are inserted after, say, the first labial consonant of the word (and in absence of labials are prefixed) do not seem to be on record. (13) potential counter-example: major categories a. Zuraw (2007) has found evidence for the influence of major categories 1. based on loanword adaptation 2. gradual, rather than categorical. b. In Tagalog (Austronesian, Philippines), word-initial stop-glide clusters are significantly more often split than stop-liquid clusters. c. Tagalog does not have native word-initial CC clusters, and hence in CC-initial loans speakers must make a decision to insert relevant infixes (which normally land after the first consonant of the word) either after C1 or C2 graduate T g-um-raduate or T gr-um-aduate d. the critical distinction is thus one of sonority: stop-glide TG ==> T-um-G vs. stop-liquid TR ==> TR-um (14) sonority a. has a special status: depending on phonological theories, it may or may not be a melodic prime 1. [±son] traditionally 2. Government Phonology no specific prime, the sonority of a segment is a function of its complexity (i.e. the number of primes involved) and the intrinsic properties of existing primes (L, H, A). b. everybody agrees that 1. sonority must be calculable from melodic primes 2. syllable structure is a PROJECTION of 1) sonority and 2) linear order c. ==> sonority is an information that originates in melody, but which is also present in syllable structure, i.e. above the skeleton. d. this is NOT the case for labiality, palatality etc. e. in the Tagalog case where TG is more often broken up than TR, the solution based above the skeleton is simply that TR is syllabified as a branching onset (TR are the best branching onsets) TG is syllabified as two distinct onsets ==> infixation occurs after the first onset

-72.3. Phonologically Conditioned Suppletive Allomorphy (PCSA) (15) Paster (2006) cross-linguistic survey of Phonologically Conditioned Suppletive Allomorphy (PCSA) a. - about 600 languages (sources, grammars) surveyed - 137 cases of PCSA - in 67 languages b. chapter 2: Segmentally conditioned suppletive allomorphy chapter 3: Tone/Stress conditioned suppletive allomorphy chapter 4: prosodically conditioned suppletive allomorphy c. Segmentally conditioned suppletive allomorphy - 72 cases from 32 different languages d. remember that allomorphy is not an observational fact, but needs to be established by analysis, and there may be non-allomorphic competing analyses. (16) examples provided in section 2 (out of 72) a. sonority 1. Kwamera (Central-Eastern Oceanic) in- before stems with non-high initial vowels, uv- before high vowels. 2. Turkish causative -t after V-, r- and l-final stems, -Dir elsewhere Paster reports a sonority.-based analysis: avoidance of low-sonority clusters 3. Martuthunira (Pama-Nyungan, Australia) genitive -ku after nasals, -yu after laterals or rhotics (no other Cs available in this position). 4. Nishnaabemwin (Algonquian, Ontario) conjunct order 3rd -g after nasal-final stems, -d elsewhere b. C vs. V [interpreted as syllable-optimizing in the literature and by Paster] 1. Yidi¯ (Pama-Nyungan, Australia) -la after V-final stems, -da after C-final stems 2. Korean -wa after V-final stems, -kwa after C-final stems 3. Moroccan Arabic 3sg masculine object/possessor clitic: -h after V-final, -u after C-final stems 4. English liaison a - an: a before C-initial stems, an before V-initial stems 5. Tzeltal (Mayan, Mexico) 2sg aw- before V-initial stems, a- before C-initial stems [more of the same with 1sg and 3sg] 6. Modern Western Armenian -n after V-final, - after C-final stems 7. Warrgamay (PAma-Nyungan, Australia) ergative - gu after V-final, -du after C-final stems 8. Midob (Nubian, Sudan) -non- before V-initial, -no- before C-initial suffixes 9. Kashaya (Pomoan, Northern California) after V-final stems: -cin' if monosyll. stem, -men' otherwise; after C-final stems: -an'

-810. Biak (West New Guinean, New Guinea) 2sg prefix wa- with CC-initial stems, infix -w- otherwise 11. Korean accusative -r l after Vs, - l after Cs 12. Dja:bugay (Pama-Nyungan, Australia) genitive -n after V-final, - um after C-final stems 13. Dakota (Siouan, Northern USA) 1du/pl u- before C-initial, uk- before V-initial stems 14. Russian reflexive -sja after Cs, -sj after Vs …more examples pp.77ff c. cases whose allomorphic status may be doubted 1. the abovementioned Korean case 2. Sibe variety of Manchu (Tungusic, China) uvular-initial suffixes - after stems with a low vowel, velar-initial suffixes -x after stems without a low vowel. 3. Tahitian ha'a- before labial-initial roots, fa'a- elsewhere ==> dissimilation (also according to Paster) 4. Hungarian 2sg -s except -t after CC- or VV-final stems, and -Vl after sibilant-final stems ==> dissimilation (also according to Paster) 5. Caddo (Caddoan, Oklahoma) -wa after -final stems, - a elsewhere ==> dissimilation (also according to Paster) 6. Bari (Eastern Nilotic, Sudan) stems with [-low] vowels take a suffix vowel that is [-high] ==> vowel disharmony 7. Jivaro (Jivaroan, Ecuador) negative -na after C-final stems, -¯a after e-, -¯u after i-, -nu after all other Vs. (17) melody? I could only identify three cases that appear to be melody-driven a. Hungarian -ja after back vowels, -i after non-back vowels b. Jivaro (Jivaroan, Ecuador) negative -na after C-, e- and monosyll. i- final stems, -nu elsewhere. possible vowel harmony analysis (Paster p.85) c. Yucunany Mixtepec Mixtec (Otomanguean, Mexico) 3rd sg familiar -a after i-final, -i elsewhere (all stems are V-final) ==> dissimilation d. summary 1. three is not much 2. ==> two of them seem to have alternative analyses ==> the melody-free generalization appears to hold for allomorphy as well.

-9-

3. Insertion of morpho-syntactic information into phonology (18) melody and morpho-syntax are incommunicado in both directions [Scheer 2011:§660, 2012a:§124] a. melody-free syntax is also true in the other direction. b. melody T morpho-syntax = melody-free syntax morpho-syntax T melody = output of translation c. how translation works I: mapping 1. morpho-syntactic information is translated into phonological objects, i.e. items that can be read and parsed by phonology. 2. this is done by - in SPE: general mapping algorithm (#-insertion) plus readjustment - in Prosodic Phonology: mapping rules - in OT: ALIGN (and WRAP) constraints (19) insertion of the output of translation into phonology a. since the 19th century, carriers of morpho-syntactic information have always been located at or above the skeleton: 1. juncture phonemes 2. hash-marks 3. prosodic constituents (the Prosodic hierarchy) 4. syllabic space Lowenstamm (1999), Scheer (2012a) b. Nobody has ever claimed that a melodic property (a distinctive feature) represents morpho-syntactic information in phonology.1 c. Bendjaballah & Haiden (2003, 2008, forth b) have made the prohibition for melody to be the exponent of morpho-syntactic information a principled position. Note that here not only carriers of morpho-syntactic information are concerned that are absent from morphemic information, i.e. which are only inserted into the phonological string in order to get information through (as is the case for the items under a) above). Bendjaballah & Haiden extend the incapacity of melody to carry morpho-syntactic information to items that belong to morphemes.

4. Category-sensitive phonology (20) Category-specific effects a. lexical categories = noun, verb, adjective b. there are cases on record where lexical categories have distinct phonological behaviour c. well-known example: English stress récord - recórd pérvert -pervért éxtract - extráct d. Smith (2011) synopsis and collection of relevant facts

1

I am aware of one single exception, Lass (1971) and Lass & Anderson (1975:178) on Old English: "/#/ is functionally an obstruent, though one with no features, but [+obs], or more probably, also [-voice]."

- 10 e. other relevant literature Cohen (1939), Kenstowicz & Kisseberth (1977), Myers (2000), Smith (1999, 2001), Bobaljik (2008) (21) category does not bear on phonology just anyhow a. Smith's (2011:2439) term: phonological privilege "phonological privilege is understood to mean the ability to support a greater array of phonological contrasts, whether this is manifested as a larger number of underlying distinctions, more variety in surface patterns, or a greater resistance to assimilation or other phonological processes." b. nouns vs. verbs "nouns show greater phonological privilege than verbs. The phenomena range over suprasegmental and prosodic effects; no straightforward segmental or featural cases of noun privilege have been identified." Smith (2011:2439, emphasis mine) c. Smith's summary of category-sensitive phonological properties - stress - accent - tone - prosodic shape - diachronic segment deletion d. cross-linguistically, adjectives may go either with nouns or with verbs (22) summary lexical category may impact phonology at and above the skeleton, never below.

5. Absolute agrammaticality (23) when nothing is good enough a. absolute agrammaticality occurs when a cell in a morphological paradigm remains empty for phonological reasons, and no repair will do. Speakers avoid these forms and even when urged refuse to produce anything at all. Circumlocation is the typical way to express the meaning. b. literature includes Orgun & Sprouse (1999), Ackema & Neeleman (2000), Fanselow & Féry (2002), Törkenczy (2002), Rice (2003, 2005), Raffelsiefen (1994, 2004). c. reasons for phonologically driven absolute agrammaticality: 1. sonority: Norwegian 2. (minimal) size: Turkish, English 3. clustering: Hungarian 4. stress: English, German 5. autosegmental association: Chaha d. phonologically driven absolute agrammaticality is never due to melody (24) cases on record ==> the phonological reason is never melodic a. Norwegean (Rice 2003) 1. imperatives *…VTR ! 2. well-formed: …RT# ! elsk !, gift !, følg !, frykt !

- 11 -

b.

c.

d.

e.

3. ill-formed: …TR# ! åpne T *, kvikne T *, padle T *, takle T *, ytre T * ==> reason: sonority Turkish (Orgun & Sprouse 1999) 1. suffixed forms must be disyllabic 2. well-formed: solj+m T solj-üm (-m is DAT) epenthesis of ü because of *CC# 3. ill-formed: doo T *doo-m epenthesis unsuccessful: *doum ==> reason: size Hungarian (Törkenczy 2002) 1. CC-final stems cannot take a C-initial suffix (of 115 -ik verbs of the language, 28 repair with epenthesis, 87 produce absolute agrammaticality) 2. well-formed: csukl-ani "to hiccup" csukl-ik "he hiccups" 3. ill-formed: *csukl-hat "he may hiccup" ==> reason: clustering English (Raffelsiefen 1996:194), Orgun & Sprouse (1999) 1. -ize suffixation (random T random-ize) is productive but blocked in two circumstances: 2. with roots whose last vowel is stressed corrupt T * obscene T * polite T * secure T * 3. with monosyllabic roots (which amounts to being stress-final) apt T * firm T * tense T * calm T * ==> reason: stress, size German (Fanselow & Féry 2002) 1. -chen or -lein diminutives are productive and trigger umlaut on the preceding stem vowel. But diminutive formation is blocked, i.e. has no output, if the target of umlaut is unstressed. 2. well-formed Jáhr T Jähr-chen Brúder T Brüder-chen Wóche T Wöchlein Máuer T Mäuer-chen 3. ill-formed Mónat T * Európa T * Wérmuth T * Wódka T * ==> reason: stress

- 12 f. Chaha (Ethio-Seminitc) (Fanselow & Féry 2002) 1. frequentative verbs are formed by the quadriliteral template C1iC2VC3 C4. Regular triliterals copy copy the middle C on C3, but biliterals have no output. The reason is that there can be no double-copying or doubly branching items. 2. well-formed root unmarked frequentative sbr break sab r s bdbdr mzr count mez r m m zdzdr 3. ill-formed root unmarked frequentative nd burn n d d *n d d d t'm bend t' m m *t m m m ==> reason: autosegmental association (25) probably a non-example: Swedish a. presentation as phonologically conditioned 1. (Rice 2005) adj. neuter -t cannot be added to stems ending in -d and -t well-formed: et rysk-t barn "a Russian boy" ill-formed: *et rädd-t barn "a scared child" *et lat-t barn "a lazy child" ==> reason: clustering (but voicing involved?) b. but there is an alternative semantic analysis, cf. Fanselow & Féry (2002) c. and the conditioning is lexical, rather than phonological: only some -d and -t final words trigger absolute agrammaticality (and only in attributive function anyway): glad "happy", plat "flat", solid "solid" do not: et glat-t barn et plat-t hus "a happy child" "a flat house"

5. Crazy rules (26) crazy rules are rules that make no phonetic sense a. literature Bach & Harms (1972), Buckley (2000, 2003, 2004), Vennemann (1972), Hyman (2001), Scheer (forth) b. crazy rules are only ever melodically crazy: no craziness in - stress systems - syllabic processes: closed syllable lengthening, compensatory shortening etc. - positional strength: intervocalic strengthening, post-consonantal weakening etc.

- 13 (27) examples a. Oboyan Russian Bach & Harms (1972:16ff) after palatal consonants, pretonic non-high vowels appear as 1. [i] if the following stressed vowel is [ , ,a] 2. [a] in case the following stressed vowel is [e,o,i,u] b. Sardinian Contini (1987), Scheer (forth) l T / V__V, including in external sandhi c. Southern Pomoan Buckley (2000, 2003) i T u / d__ d. Ndebele (Bantu, Zimbabwe) Hyman (2001) ph, , b, mb T tÉ , tÉ ' (ejective), dÉ , ¯dÉ / __w e. French palatalization caru > [ ] cher, gamba > [ ] jambe k,g T tÉ , dÉ / __a

7. Stress (28) on the consonantal side a. only positional (syllabic) factors define stress placement, EXCEPT sonority b. Syllable Weight determines stress placement Weight-by-Position (Hayes 1989): VC is heavy Regarding consonants, it is well-known that codas may or may not make a syllable heavy (and hence attract stress). c. weight by coda sonority: VR is heavy (but VT light) 1. Weight-by-Position, however, allows for more fine-tuning: in some languages, sonorant, but not obstruent codas, contribute to the weight of their syllable. 2. Documented cases are found in native American Wakashan languages (e.g. Wilson 1986, Zec 1995:103ff, Szigetvári & Scheer 2005:44f). Typological survey: work by Matthew Gordon (1999, 2004, 2006) d. The literature on stress has a strong typological orientation ==> as far as I can see, no pattern was identified where truly melodic properties such as labiality, palatality etc. influence stress placement. (29) on the vocalic side a. de Lacy (2002) and Gordon (2006:52) have established the same generalisation, which is also based on broad cross-linguistic evidence. b. sonority, but no other property of vowels may influence stress placement. c. "One issue this typology raises is not why stress is sensitive to sonority, but rather why it is not sensitive to so many other properties. There are no stress systems in which subsegmental features such as Place of Articulation or backness in vowels plays a role in assigning stress. The same goes for features such as [round], [nasal], and secondary articulation." de Lacy (2002:93)

- 14 -

8. Confirmation regarding sonority: positional vs. melody-driven processes (30) the general picture there are three (and only) three causes for phonological processes a. melody-driven: assimilation, dissimilation a new melodic prime enters a segment. E.g. palatalization. b. positional (syllabic) the melodic setup of a segment is modified under position pressure. E.g. lvocalization in codas. c. stress (prominence) the melodic setup of a segment is modified under pressure from stress. E.g. vowel reduction in unstressed position. (31) no mismatches a. there should not be any mismatch between positional and melody-driven factors: either a process is melody-driven or it is positional. b. well-known case: intervocalic voicing 1. Vowels don't have phonologically active laryngeal primes ([spread glottis], [voice]): they are "spontaneously" voiced. 2. Hence they cannot be the source of the laryngeal prime that intervocalic consonant acquire when they voice. 3. ==> intervocalic voicing is a positional phenomenon i.e. lenition in weak position. There is no exchange of any piece of melody with the environment. c. it is well-known that positional phenomena are melody-blind: Ségéral & Scheer (2008a,b) 1. vowel reduction in unstressed syllables concerns ALL vowels, not just, say, back vowels. 2. coda consonants are weak - no matter what the post-coda consonant. There are no cases where C1 in VC1.C2V is a coda only when C2 is, say, a labial. - and no matter what the preceding vowel. 3. post-coda consonants are strong [the Coda Mirror] no matter what the coda. There are no cases where C2 in VC1.C2V is strong only when C1 is, say, a velar. (32) what about the pattern "post-coda strong after obstruents, but weak after sonorants" ? Ségéral & Scheer (2008a,b) a. this is a well-known parameter in lenition systems: 1. either "post-coda strong no matter what" ==> C is strong in VR.CV, VT.CV example: evolution of obstruents from Latin to French cantare > chanter like vectura > voiture 2. or "post-coda strong after obstruents, but weak after sonorants" ==> C is strong in VT.CV, but weak in VR.CV b. the reverse pattern does not exist: "post-coda strong after sonorants, but weak after obstruents"

- 15 c. only sonority can impact strength: there is nothing of the kind "post-coda strong after labials, but weak after other consonants" d. illustration of the pattern "post-coda strong after obstruents, but weak after sonorants" 1. evolution of obstruents from Classical to Demotic Greek 2. Grimm's Law Lat. captus, nocte = Old High German haft, naht "to look out, captivity, night" [these count as "exceptions" in the classical literature] vs. Lat. mentum, uerto = Gothic munÞs, waírÞan "mouth, to become". 3. Korean allophony of plosives (e.g. Kang 1993, Silva 1993). 4. Finnish Consonant Gradation (e.g. Campbell 1981, Keyser & Kiparsky 1984) 5. lenition in Liverpool English Honeybone (2001, 2002:192ff, 2003) 6. post-tonic t-lenition in New York Harris & Kaye (1990:265), Harris (1994:222ff) flap: quarter, winter stop: after, custard, chapter, doctor (33) summary a. Positional phenomena are never sensitive to melodic properties of the environment. b. Except for sonority, which may bear on the definition of the strength of a consonant. c. ==> sonority is not a melodic prime. Or rather, it can be read off the syllable structure.

9. Tone (34) positional restrictions for the occurrence of contour tones a. restrictions are governed by the same properties as for stress: Syllable Weight b. typology (e.g. Gordon 2006:34,85, based on the examination of some 400 languages) contour tones occur on the following syllable type CV CVT CVR CVV 1. Somali – – – yes 2. Kiowa – – yes yes 3. Hausa – yes yes yes 4. no restriction yes yes yes yes c. onsets play no role - undisputed for tone - classically admitted, but today disputed for stress d. difference between tone and stress in the commonness of Weight patterns "One of the more striking distributional asymmetries between different phenomena is one discussed earlier: the difference in weight criteria found in stress systems compared to those found in tone systems. In particular, the CVV(C), CVR heavy criterion is quite common in tonal systems, but extremely rare in stress systems. Conversely, the CVV(C), CVC heavy criterion is vanishingly uncommon for tonal weight, but well attested in stress systems." Gordon (2006:52)

- 16 (35) conclusion: as far as I can see, melody is never reported to contribute to the distribution of tone.

10. Syllable structure (36) melody does not impact syllable structure a. syllable structure is a function of 1. sonority of consonants 2. linear order of segments b. there is no cases on record where, say, labials cannot be syllabified into codas and therefore have to go into onsets. c. of course there are coda restrictions and the like, and these may be melodically defined (e.g. only dentals allowed in codas). Here the conditioning is the other way round, though: a specific type of melody cannot exist in a particular position. This is commonplace: cf. lenition.

11. Chunk definition (37) Chunk definition a. is the delineation of phonologically relevant chunks in the linear string. b. traditionally, there are two means of chunk definition: 1. the cycle (today phase theory) ==> procedurally 2. constituents of the Prosodic Hierarchy ==> representationally Scheer (2012a:§99, 2012b) c. focus on the representational way to define chunk ==> prosodic phrasing (38) how translation works II a. which are the factors that contribute to define chunks at and above the word size? b. bottom-up vs. top-down constructions Nespor & Vogel (1986:109), Nespor (1999:119), Scheer (2011:§401, 2012a:§136) 1. the Prosodic Hierarchy hosts a heterogeneous set of categories 2. below the word size, it is made of bottom-up constructions: - syllable - mora - feet 3. at and above the word size, it is made of top-down constructions: - Prosodic Word - Prosodic Phrase - Intonational Phrase - Phonological Utterance c. translation (mapping) transforms morpho-syntactic information into the higher type of prosodic constituents.

- 17 d. hence translation mapping should be made on the basis of morpho-syntactic information and of nothing else. This is almost true, but not quite. e. other factors that have been reported to influence mapping: 1. information structure Selkirk (2000, 2007, 2008) [extra-phonological] 2. eurythmy Ghini (1993) [probably extra-phonological] 3. size of the string: longer strings have a tendency to be cut into more pieces. Nespor & Vogel (1986:42ff) This generalization, however, is disputed: data have been reanalyzed in terms of morphological or syntactic complexity. Cf. Wagner (2005a,b), Sandalo & Truckenbrodt (2002), Scheer (2011:§421). 4. pitch Selkirk & Tateishi (1988) (39) summary of the literature prosodic phrasing is reported to be sensitive to properties at and above the skeleton, but never to melody.

12. Summary (40) complete incommunicado both ways a. melody cannot impact morpho-syntax 1. melody-free syntax 2. melody-free morphology (infixation, allomorphy) b. morpho-syntax cannot impact melody 1. insertion of morpho-syntactic information into phonology 2. category-sensitive phonology (41) melody-free suprasegmentals another kind of incommunicado: a. melody cannot impact phonology above the skeleton 1. stress 2. tone 3. chunk definition 4. syllable structure (42) melody is an outlaw grammar does not marshal melodic structure: anything and its reverse is possible grammar only controls phonological structure at and above the skeleton a. crazy rules are only melodic b. absolute agrammaticality is never caused by melody

- 18 -

13. What kind of animal is sonority? (43) sonority a. we know what it is not: a melodic prime This is a major insight of the melody vs. structure incommunicado: the generalization holds only if sonority is not melody. b. the non-melodic character of sonority was established independently: de Lacy (2002) and Gordon (2006:52). c. the classical featural identity of sonority is thus out of business: [±son], [±cons], [±voc] etc. (44) sonority = complexity a. is an old idea of Government Phonology Harris (1990) b. the more primes contribute to the segmental makeup, the more sonorous the segment. (45) this only works with unary primes a. origin if unary primes: Anderson & Jones (1974) versions: 1. Dependency Phonology, Anderson & Ewen (1987) 2. Particle Phonology, Schane (1984) 3. Government Phonology, Kaye et al. (1985) b. in SPE, all sounds are made of the same number of (binary) features c. unary systems are privative: contrast is expressed as the presence or absence of a prime (binary) features +low -high -front -round a 4

A a 1

-low -high +front -round e 4 I A e 2

-low +high +front -round i 4

-low +high +front +round y 4

I

U I

i 1

y 2

-low +high +front +round ø 4 number of primes U I A ø 3

number of primes

d. issues (vowels) 1. ok: high vowels (1 prime) are less complex than mid vowels (2 primes), 2. but: [a] is the most sonorous vowel, but made of only one prime ==> the nature of the primes must also have a word to say

- 19 e. issues (consonants) are obstruents more complex than sonorants or sonorants more complex than obstruents? That depends on 1. your internal structure: - obstruents >> sonorants standard view: Harris (1990) etc. - sonorants >> obstruents Scheer (1999) 2. which primes you count: all or only place definers f. attempt to build a unified model of vocalic and consonantal sonority based on complexity: Scheer (2004:§36) Sonority is a function of 1. the constituent: onset or nucleus 2. the presence of h and 3. the role of A: head, operator, absent (46) privativity has spread a. for some time, privative elements have been introduced in traditional feature-based models. b. type 1 underspecification various versions, e.g. Archangeli (1988) c. type 2 some features are privative 1. e.g. nasality is [nas] (rather than [±nas]), which contributes nasality when present, otherwise the segment is non nasal. 2. an old argument: nasality spreads, but non-nasality does not. 3. e.g. Hall (2007) in an OT-based environment where representational elements, e.g. the featuregeometric tree, is reduced or eliminated, and segmental representation looks much as it did in SPE. d. none of these systems is privative all through e. there was no attempt in these systems to represent sonority in terms of complexity f. the basic building block are still features, whose size is smaller than the one of unary primes. ==> the discriminating property is unarism, not primativity. (47) transmission of sonority to other modules: cross-modal a. sonority is "visible from above" (but melody isn't) 1. syllable structure is a function of two things: - linear order of segments - sonority 2. concatenation (morphology and syntax) 3. stress 4. tone 5. consonantal strength

- 20 b. melody does not need to be transmitted to higher modules: we have just seen that it never is. ==> every modality, sound and sign, may have its own set of primes: they are confined in phonology and do not need to be "translatable" into universal syntactic and/or semantic vocabulary. c. sonority does need to be transmitted to higher modules: see the above list of interactions. 1. sonority is a property specific to sound. 2. but it also exists in sign language: what is its identity here? Surely not [±son] ==> sonority needs to be expressed in a cross-modal vocabulary that can be read by morpho-syntax ==> morpho-syntax is universal: there is no specific sign-language syntax. d. complexity offers a cross-modal perspective while only sound is more or less sonorous, all primes, whatever they be in kind, are more or less complex.

14. What does this all mean? 14.1. Modularity in Cognitive Science and Language (48) the mind is made of specialized computational systems a. Franz-Josef Gall (1758-1828), phrenology b. implicit in the Turing - von Neumann model that underlies the so-called cognitive revolution of the 50s-60s (Gardner 1985) c. Chomsky & Halle's (1968) description of the phonological rule system: "The rules of the grammar operate in a mechanical fashion; one may think of them as instructions that might be given to a mindless robot, incapable of exercising any judgment or imagination in their application. Any ambiguity or inexplicitness in the statement of rules must in principle be eliminated, since the receiver of the instructions is assumed to be incapable of using intelligence to fill in gaps or to correct errors." Chomsky & Halle (1968:60)

d. modern and explicit incarnation: Fodor (1983) and following (49) core properties of cognitive modules according to Segal (1996:145) a. domain specificity b. informational encapsulation c. obligatory filtering d. fast speed e. shallow outputs f. limited inaccessibility g. characteristic ontogeny h. dedicated neural architecture i. characteristic patterns of breakdown (50) how do we identify modules? a. domain specificity b. informational encapsulation c. based on pathologies: double dissociation

- 21 (51) modularity in Language the standard model: inverted T a. three independent and domain-specific computational systems: 1. (morpho-)syntax = the concatenative system, whose output is interpreted by 2. phonology (PF) = assigns a pronunciation 3. semantics (LF) = assigns a meaning Chomsky (1965:15ff) morpho-syntax

PF

LF

(52) phonology vs. the rest a. if we go by domain specificity, the major ontological gap in language is between phonology and the rest. Vocabulary used in syntax, morphology, semantics: phonology: number person gender animacy quantification aspect

labiality friction voicing occlusion

b. Jackendoff's (1987, 1992, 1997) Representational Modularity (called Structure-Constrained Modularity today, Jackendoff 2002:218ff) "The overall idea is that the mind/brain encodes information in some finite number of distinct representational formats or 'languages of the mind.' Each of these 'languages' is a formal system with its own proprietary set of primitives and principles of combination, so that it defines an infinite set of expressions along familiar generative lines. For each of these formats, there is a module of mind/brain responsible for it. For example, phonological structure and syntactic structure are distinct representational formats, with distinct and only partly commensurate primitives and principles of combination. Representational Modularity therefore posits that the architecture of the mind/brain devotes separate modules to these two encodings. Each of these modules is domain specific. […] The generative grammar for each 'language of the mind,' then, is a formal description of the repertoire of structures available to the corresponding representational module." Jackendoff (1997:41)

c. Chomsky (2000) "The phonological component is generally assumed to be isolated in even stronger respects: there are true phonological features that are visible only to the phonological component and form a separate subsystem of FL [the Faculty of Language], with its own special properties." Chomsky (2000:118, emphasis in original)

d. Late Insertion = segregation of phonological vocabulary while up to Government & Binding (80s), morpho-syntactic computation was done on the basis of complete lexical information that included syntactic, morphological and semantic features as much as phonological material (sealed suitcases), Late Insertion is the idea that phonological material is absent from morpho-syntactic computation

- 22 (53) Optimality Theory (OT): massive violation since the 90s [Scheer 2011:§523] a. constraint-based mapping with ALIGN: translation is done IN the phonology, and this is a permanent violation of domain specificity. b. so-called interface constraints: a modern version of Direct Syntax phonological and morphological instructions are interspersed in the same computational system (constraint hierarchy), and sometimes in the same constraint. c. sometimes modularity as such, in language and elsewhere in the mind, is declared wrong: Burzio (2007) d. OT has roots in connectionism, and hence a scrambling trope: one of its founders, Paul Smolensky, was also at the forefront of the development of PDP: e.g. Smolensky (1987) 14.2. Basic modular workings (54) be more precise a. the mind is modular - ok b. language is modular - ok c. phonology is a module - ok d. but what does that mean exactly? (55) basic modular workings a. vocabulary - stored in long-term memory - domain-specific - input to computation b. structure - output of computation - not stored in (long term) memory - but may be lexicalized: idioms c. syntax vocabulary: lexical entries (information: valency, category, number, person etc.) structure: the hierarchical organization, i.e. the tree d. phonology 1. vocabulary: lexical entries (information: sonority, melody) 2. structure: - syllable structure - melodic interaction (palatalization etc.) e. let us first consider syllable structure

- 23 14.3. There are two phonologies: one builds syllable structure (56) there are two independent computational systems in phonology a. system 1: builds items above the skeleton 1. input: sonority and linearity 2. output: syllable structure b. system 2: builds items below the skeleton 1. input: melody 2. output: melodic structure (57) melody and morpho-syntax are incommunicado both ways a. predicted by modularity and its key notion domain specificity: different vocabularies cannot communicate. b. generalization communication goes through structure 1. the output of phonological computation can communicate with morpho-syntax 2. only structure is visible to other modules 3. this makes sense, since structure does not contain domain-specific vocabulary, it is a projection thereof.

morpho-syntactic structure result of computation on morph-synt vocabulary

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

phonological structure result of computation on melody

MELODY

phonological vocabulary

(58) not a new idea a. observation in the Prosodic Phonology literature of the 80s in top-down communication, 1. phonology can see morpho-syntactic structure, i.e. geometric properties of the tree, 2. but not the labels of the nodes ==> labels are a projection of morpho-syntactic vocabulary b. The observation that labels are irrelevant to the phonology goes back to Selkirk (1974) and Rotenberg (1978:111ff). It is discussed by, among others, Kaisse & Zwicky (1987:7), Hayes (1989 [1984]:205, 1990:87), Inkelas & Zec (1990a:xiii) and Chen (1990). c. see Scheer (2011:§§398, 660)

- 24 (59) recently, the construction of trees and labelling have been completely dissociated in syntactic theory: a. MERGE only builds a hierarchical relationship b. labelling of nodes, if occurring at all, is a completely independent operation Chomsky (2013) 14.4. There are two phonologies: the other builds melodic structure (60) so what about melody? a. we know that melody is ALSO the input to computation: palatalizations etc. are the result of computation whose input is melody. b. but we now know that 1. neither melody itself 2. nor its projection can impact 1. either the projection of system 1, i.e. items above the skeleton: stress, tone, syllable structure, prosodic constituents 2. or morpho-syntax c. reason: both the input AND the output of melodic computation contains melody, and melody is incommunicado with everything else. d. consequence melodic computation does not create any structure in the sense of morpho-syntactic or syllabic trees or geometries. Otherwise this structure should be able to impact morpho-syntax and syllabic computation. ==> no feature geometry ==> melody is "flat" (61) summary morpho-syntactic structure result of computation on morph-synt vocabulary

output computation 1: syllable structure

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x syllabic computation vocabulary 1: sonority, linearity melodic computation vocabulary 2: melody

output computation 2: melody

- 25 -

References Items followed by the mention WEB are available at www.unice.fr/scheer/. Ackema, Peter & Ad Neeleman 2000. Absolute Agrammaticality. Optimality Theory: Phonology, Syntax, and Acquisition, edited by Joost Dekkers, Frank van der Leeuw & Jeroen van de Weijer, 279-301. Oxford: OUP. Ackema, Peter & Ad Neeleman 2004. Beyond Morphology. Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Anderson, John & Colin Ewen 1987. Principles of Dependency Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Anderson, John & Charles Jones 1974. Three theses concerning phonological representations. Journal of Linguistics 10: 1-26. Archangeli, Diana 1988. Aspects of underspecification theory. Phonology 5: 183-208. Bach, Emmon & R. T. Harms 1972. How do languages get crazy rules? Linguistic change and generative theory, edited by Robert Stockwell & Ronald Macaulay, 1-21. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Bendjaballah, Sabrina & Martin Haiden 2003. Templatic Architecture. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 32: 157-168. Bendjaballah, Sabrina & Martin Haiden 2005. Berber prepositions, templates and the PF interface. Paper presented at GLOW 28, Geneva 31 March - 2 April. Bendjaballah, Sabrina & Martin Haiden 2008. A Typology of Emptiness in Templates. Sounds of Silence: Empty Elements in Syntax and Phonology, edited by Jutta Hartmann, Veronika Hegedüs & Henk van Riemsdijk, 23-59. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Bendjaballah, Sabrina & Martin Haiden forth a. Berber Prepositions: Phonology and Syntax of Templates. Ms, University of Lille. Bendjaballah, Sabrina & Martin Haiden forth b. The representational anomalies of floating markers. Principles of Linearization, edited by Theresa Biberauer & Ian Roberts. Berlin: de Gruyter. Bobaljik, Jonathan 2008. Paradigms (Optimal and otherwise): A case for skepticism. Inflectional Identity, edited by Asaf Bachrach & Andrew Nevins, 29-54. Oxford: OUP. Booij, Geert 1997. Non-derivational phonology meets Lexical Phonology. Derivations and Constraints in Phonology, edited by Iggy Roca, 261-288. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Booij, Geert & Rochelle Lieber 1993. On the simultaneity of morphological and prosodic structure. Studies in Lexical Phonology, edited by Sharon Hargus & Ellen Kaisse, 2344. San Diego: Academic Press. BoškoviO, Željko 2001. On the nature of the syntax-phonology interface. Cliticization and related phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier. BoškoviO, Željko 2005. On null elements in syntax. Paper presented at Sounds of Silence, Tilburg 19-22 October. Buckley, Eugene 2000. On the naturalness of unnatural rules. UCSB Working Papers in Linguistics 9. Buckley, Eugene 2003. Children’s unnatural phonology. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 29: 523-534. Buckley, Eugene 2004. The origin of a crazy rule: [du] in the Southern Pomoan Group. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of The Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas (SSILA), Boston. Handout available at http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~gene/cv.html. Burzio, Luigi 2007. Phonetically conditioned syncretism. Selected proceedings of the 5th

- 26 Décembrettes: Morphology in Toulouse, edited by Fabio Montermini, Gilles Boyé & Nabil Hathout, 1-19. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla. Campbell, Lyle 1981. Generative phonology vs. Finnish phonology: retrospect and prospect. Phonology in the 80's, edited by Didier Goyvaerts, 147-182. Ghent: Story-Scientia. Chen, Matthew 1990. What must phonology know about syntax? The Phonology-Syntax Connection, edited by Sharon Inkelas & Draga Zec, 19-46. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chomsky, Noam 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 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 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33-49. Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Cohen, Marcel 1939. Catégories de mots et phonologie. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 8. Contini, Michele 1987. Etude de géographie phonétique et de phonétique instrumentale du sarde. 2 vols. Alessandria: dell'Orso. de Lacy, Paul 2002. The formal expression of markedness. Ph.D dissertation, University of Massachusetts. Fanselow, Gisbert & Caroline Féry 2002. Ineffability in Grammar. Resolving Conflicts in Grammars, edited by Gisbert Fanselow & Caroline Féry, 265-307. Hamburg: Buske. Fodor, Jerry 1983. The modularity of the mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT-Bradford. Gardner, Howard 1985. The Mind's New Science: A History of the Cognitive Revolution. New York: Basic Books. Ghini, Mirco 1993. Phonological Phrase formation in Italian: a new proposal. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 41-77. Gordon, Matthew 1999. Syllable Weight: Phonetics, Phonology and Typology. Ph.D dissertation, UCLA. Gordon, Matthew 2004. Syllable weight. Phonetic Bases for Phonological Markedness, edited by Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirchner & Donca Steriade, 277-312. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gordon, Matthew K. 2006. Syllable Weight. Phonetics, Phonology, Typology. New York: Routledge. Guasti, Theresa & Marina Nespor 1999. Is syntax Phonology-free? Phrasal Phonology, edited by René Kager & Wim Zonneveld, 73-97. Nijmegen: Nijmegen University Press. Hall, Tracy 2007. Segmental Features. The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, edited by Paul de Lacy, 311-334. Cambridge: CUP. Hargus, Sharon 1993. Modeling the Phonology - Morphology Interface. Studies in Lexical Phonology, edited by Sharon Hargus & Ellen Kaisse, 45-74. New York: Academic Press. Hargus, Sharon & Ellen Kaisse (eds.) 1993. Studies in Lexical Phonology. New York: Academic Press. Harris, John 1990. Segmental complexity and phonological government. Phonology 7: 255– 300. WEB. Harris, John 1994. English sound structure. Oxford: Blackwell. WEB. Harris, John & Jonathan Kaye 1990. A tale of two cities: London glottaling and New York City Tapping. The Linguistic Review 7: 251-274. WEB. Hayes, Bruce 1989. The Prosodic Hierarchy in Meter. Rhythm and Meter, edited by Paul Kiparsky & G. Youmans, 201-260. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press.

- 27 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. Honeybone, Patrick 2001. Lenition inhibition in Liverpool English. English Language and Linguistics 5: 213-249. Honeybone, Patrick 2002. Germanic Obstruent Lenition: Some Mutual Implications of Theoretical and Historical Phonology. Ph.D dissertation, University of Newcastle. Honeybone, Patrick 2003. Process inhibition in historical phonology. Historical Linguistics 2001, edited by Barry Blake & Kate Burridge, 181-203. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Hyman, Larry 2001. The Limits of Phonetic Determinism in Phonology. *NC revisited. The Role of Speech Perception in Phonology, edited by Elizabeth Hume & Keith Johnson, 141-185. New York: Academic Press. Inkelas, Sharon 1990. Prosodic Constituency in the Lexicon. New York: Garland. Inkelas, Sharon 1993. Deriving Cyclicity. Studies in Lexical Phonology, edited by Sharon Hargus & Ellen Kaisse, 75-110. New York: Academic Press. Inkelas, Sharon & Draga Zec 1988. Serbo-Croatian pitch accent: the interactions of tone, stress and intonation. Language 64: 227-248. Inkelas, Sharon & Draga Zec 1990a. Introduction. The Phonology-Syntax Connection, edited by Sharon Inkelas & Draga Zec, xiii-xv. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Inkelas, Sharon & Draga Zec 1990b. Prosodically constrained syntax. The Phonology-Syntax Connection, edited by Sharon Inkelas & Draga Zec, 365-378. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Inkelas, Sharon & Draga Zec 1995. Syntax-phonology Interface. The Handbook of Phonological Theory, edited by John Goldsmith, 535-549. Oxford: Blackwell. Jackendoff, Ray 1987. Consciousness and the computational mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Jackendoff, Ray 1992. Languages of the mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Jackendoff, Ray 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Jackendoff, Ray 2002. Foundations of Language. Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kaisse, Ellen & Sharon Hargus 1993. Introduction. Studies in Lexical Phonology, edited by Sharon Hargus & Ellen Kaisse, 1-19. New York: Academic Press. Kaisse, Ellen & Arnold Zwicky 1987. Introduction: syntactic influences on phonological rules. Phonology 4: 3-11. Kang, Ongmi 1993. Prosodic Word-Level Rules in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics. Volume 2, edited by Patricia Clancy, 147-163. Stanford: Stanford Linguistics Association. Kaye, Jonathan, Jean Lowenstamm & Jean-Roger Vergnaud 1985. The internal structure of phonological representations: a theory of Charm and Government. Phonology Yearbook 2: 305-328. WEB. Kenstowicz, Michael & Charles Kisseberth 1977. Topics in Phonological Theory. New York: Academic Press. Keyser, Samuel & Paul Kiparsky 1984. Syllable structure in Finnish phonology. Language Sound Structure, edited by Mark Aronoff & Richard Oehrle, 7-31. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Lass, Roger 1971. Boundaries as obstruents: Old English voicing assimilation and universal strength hierarchies. Journal of Linguistics 7: 15-30. Lass, Roger & John Anderson 1975. Old English Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

- 28 Lowenstamm, Jean 1999. The beginning of the word. Phonologica 1996, edited by John Rennison & Klaus Kühnhammer, 153-166. La Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. WEB. Marantz, Alec 1997. No escape from syntax: don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2: 201-225. Miller, Philip, Geoffrey Pullum & Arnold Zwicky 1997. The Principle of Phonology-Free Syntax: four apparent counterexamples in French. Journal of Linguistics 33: 67-90. Moravcsik, Edith 2000. Infixation. Morphology. An international handbook on inflection and word-formation, Vol.1, edited by Geert Booij, 545-552. Berlin: de Gruyter. Myers, Scott 2000. Boundary disputes: The distinction between phonetic and phonological sound patterns. Phonological knowledge: Conceptual and empirical issues, edited by Noel Burton-Roberts, Philip Carr & Gerard Docherty, 245-272. Oxford: OUP. Neeleman, Ad & Tanya Reinhart 1998. Scrambling and the PF-interface. The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, edited by Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder, 309-353. Chicago: CSLI. Nespor, Marina 1999. Stress Domains. Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe, edited by Harry van der Hulst, 117-159. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Nespor, Marina & Irene Vogel 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. Odden, David 1993. Interaction between Modules in Lexical Phonology. Studies in Lexical Phonology, edited by Sharon Hargus & Ellen Kaisse, 111-144. New York: Academic Press. Orgun, Cemil Orhan & Ronald Sprouse 1999. From MPARSE to CONTROL: deriving ungrammaticality. Phonology 16: 191-224. Paster, Mary 2006. Phonological conditions on affixation. Ph.D dissertation, University of California at Berkeley. Pullum, Geoffrey & Arnold Zwicky 1988. The syntax-phonology interface. Linguistics: the Cambridge survey. Vol. I, edited by Frederick Newmeyer, 255-280. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Raffelsiefen, Renate 1996. Gaps in Word Formation. Interfaces in Phonology, edited by Ursula Kleinhenz, 194-209. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Raffelsiefen, Renate 2004. Absolute ill-formedness and other morphophonological effects. Phonology 21: 91-142. Revithiadou, Anthi 2006. Prosodic filters on syntax: an interface account of second position clitics. Lingua 116: 79-111. Rice, Curt 2003. Dialectal variation in Norwegian imperatives. Nordlyd 31: 372-384. Rice, Curt 2005. Optimal Gaps in Optimal Paradigms. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 4: 155170. Rotenberg, Joel 1978. The Syntax of Phonology. Ph.D dissertation, MIT. Samuels, Bridget 2009. The structure of phonological theory. Ph.D dissertation, Harvard University. Sandalo, Filomena & Hubert Truckenbrodt 2002. Some notes on phonological phrasing in Brazilian Portuguese. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 42: 285-310. Schane, Sanford 1984. The fundamentals of particle phonology. Phonology Yearbook 1: 129155. Scheer, Tobias 1999. A theory of consonantal interaction. Folia Linguistica 32: 201-237. WEB. Scheer, Tobias 2004. A Lateral Theory of Phonology. Vol.1: What is CVCV, and why should it be? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Scheer, Tobias 2011. A Guide to Morphosyntax-Phonology Interface Theories. How Extra-

- 29 Phonological Information is Treated in Phonology since Trubetzkoy's Grenzsignale. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Scheer, Tobias 2012a. Direct Interface and One-Channel Translation. A Non-Diacritic Theory of the Morphosyntax-Phonology Interface. Vol.2 of A Lateral Theory of phonology. Berlin: de Gruyter. Scheer, Tobias 2012b. Chunk definition in phonology: prosodic constituency vs. phase structure. Modules and Interfaces, edited by Anna Bloch-Rozmej & Maria BlochTrojnar, 221-253. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL. Scheer, Tobias forth. Crazy rules, regularity and naturalness. The Handbook of Historical Phonology, edited by Joseph Salmons & Patrick Honeybone. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Segal, Gabriel 1996. The modularity of theory of mind. Theories of Theories of Mind, edited by P. Carruthers & P. Smith, 141-157. Cambridge: CUP. 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. Ségéral, Philippe & Tobias Scheer 2008. Positional factors in lenition and fortition. Lenition and Fortition, edited by Joaquim Brandão de Carvalho, Tobias Scheer & Philippe Ségéral, 131-172. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. WEB. Selkirk, Elisabeth 1974. French liaison and the X-bar notation. Linguistic Inquiry 5: 573-590. Selkirk, Elisabeth 2000. The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing. Prosody: Theory and Experiments, edited by Merle Horne, 231-261. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Selkirk, Elisabeth 2007. Focus prominence drives focus phrasing: Bengali intonation revisited. Topic and focus: a cross-linguistic perspective, edited by Chung-min Lee, Matthew Gordon & Daniel Büring, 217-246. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Selkirk, Elisabeth 2008. Contrastive focus, givenness and the unmarked status of "discoursenew”. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 331-346. Selkirk, Elisabeth & Koichi Tateishi 1988. Minor phrase formation in Japanese. Papers from the Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 24: 316-336. Silva, David 1993. A Phonetically Based Analysis of [Voice] and [Fortis] in Korean. Japanese/ Korean Linguistics. Volume 2, edited by Patricia Clancy, 164-174. Stanford: Stanford Linguistics Association. Smith, Jennifer 1999. Noun faithfulness and accent in Fukuoka Japanese. Proceedings of WCCFL 18, edited by Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason Haugen & Peter Norquest, 519-531. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla. Smith, Jennifer 2001. Lexical category and phonological contrast. Papers in Experimental and Theoretical Linguistics 6: Workshop on the Lexicon in Phonetics and Phonology, edited by Robert Kirchner, Joe Pater & Wolf Wikely, 61-72. Edmonton: University of Alberta. ROA #728. Smith, Jennifer 2011. Category-specific effects. The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, edited by Marc van Oostendorp, Colin Ewen, Beth Hume & Keren Rice, 2439-2463. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Smolensky, Paul 1987. Connectionist AI, symbolic AI, and the brain. Artificial Intelligence Review 1: 95-109. SzendrKi, Kriszta 2001. Focus and the Syntax-Phonology Interface. Ph.D dissertation, University College London. SzendrKi, Kriszta 2003. A stress-based approach to the syntax of Hungarian focus. The Linguistic Review 20: 37-78. SzendrKi, Kriszta 2004. A stress-based approach to climbing. Verb clusters. A study of Hungarian, German and Dutch, edited by Katalin É.Kiss & Henk van Riemsdijk, 205-

- 30 233. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Szigetvári, Péter & Tobias Scheer 2005. Unified representations for the syllable and stress. Phonology 22: 37-75. Szpyra, Jolanta 1987. Inputs to WFRs - phonological, intermediate or phonetic ? The case of verbs and deverbal nouns in Polish. Rules and the Lexicon, edited by Edmund Gussmann, 169-203. Lublin: Katolicki Universytet Lubelski. Szymanek, Bogdan 1980. Phonological conditioning of word formation rules. Folia Linguistica 14: 413-425. Törkenczy, Miklos 2002. Absolute phonological ungrammaticality in output-biased phonology. Approaches to Hungarian, vol 8. Papers from the Budapest conference, edited by Istvan Kenesi & Peter Siptar, 311-324. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado. Vennemann, Theo 1972. Rule inversion. Lingua 29: 209-242. Vogel, Irene & István Kenesei 1990. Syntax and semantics in phonology. The PhonologySyntax Connection, edited by Sharon Inkelas & Draga Zec, 339-363. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wagner, Michael 2005a. Prosody and Recursion. PhD. dissertation, MIT. Wagner, Michael 2005b. Long-distance effects on prosody. Paper presented at CUNY sentence processing, University of Arizona 21 March - 2 April. Williams, Edwin 2007. Dumping Lexicalism. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, edited by Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss, 353-381. Oxford: OUP. Wilson, Stephen 1986. Metrical Structure in Wakashan Phonology. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, edited by Vassiliki Nikiforidou, Mary Van Clay, Mary Niepokuj & Deborah Feder, 283-291. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Yu, Alan C. L. 2007. A Natural History of Infixation. Oxford: OUP. Zec, Draga 1995. Sonority constraints on syllable structure. Phonology 12: 85-129. Zuraw, Kie 2007. The Role of Phonetic Knowledge in Phonological Patterning: Corpus and Survey Evidence from Tagalog Infixation. Language 83: 277-316. Zwicky, Arnold & Geoffrey Pullum 1986a. The Principle of Phonology-free Syntax: introductory remarks. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 32: 63-91. Zwicky, Arnold & Geoffrey Pullum 1986b. Two spurious counterexamples to the Principle of Phonology-Free Syntax. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 32: 9299.