MODULAR PIC1 Roberta D'Alessandro & Tobias Scheer Leiden University & CNRS 6039, Université de Nice - Sophia Antipolis
[email protected] [email protected]
1. Purpose (1)
1
goal #1 update chunk definition in phonology ==> reduction to just one chunk-defining device a. chunk definition in phonology how are phonologically relevant chunks of the linear string defined? [A phonologically relevant chunk is a domain of phonological computation.] b. since SPE, there are two competitors: [Scheer (2011:§423, 2012a:§99, 2012b)] 1. representationally: #s in SPE, units of the Prosodic Hierarchy since the 80s phonological theory associated: ProsodicPhonology 2. procedurally: cycles, today phases phonological theory associated: Lexical Phonology c. phase theory has radically modified the landscape (but this went by and large unnoticed in phonological quarters): 1. since Lexical Phonology, post-lexical phonology is supposed to be non-cyclic. ==> at and above the word level, chunk definition is ONLY representational, i.e. done by the Prosodic Hierarchy. 2. phase theory obliterates this idea: it defines phonologically relevant chunks above the word level. [to the extent that it has any impact in phonology at all] d. one independent reason to believe that the Prosodic Hierarchy has to go: it is redundant 1. reaction/adaptation of the established Prosodic Hierarchy to phase theory: prosodic islands Prosodic islands make prosodic constituency 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.
This handout and some of the references quoted at www.unice.fr/scheer/.
D’Alessandro & Scheer Modular PIC
e.
f. e.
-2-
NELS 43 19-21 October, 2012 CUNY, New York
2. theory cannot afford to do the same labour twice: 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 - the Prosodic Hierarchy has no other purpose in phonology than introducing morpho-syntactic information ==> prosodic constituency has to go. This argument is typically made by protagonists of DM: Pak (2008:42ff), Samuels (2009:284ff), also Seidl (2001). another independent reason to believe that the Prosodic Hierarchy has to go: just like #, it is made of diacritics: J, K etc. In a modular environment, diacritics do not qualify since computational systems (modules) can only understand, parse and process their own proprietary vocabulary. Scheer (2008a, 2011:§402, 2012a:§93, 2012b) ==> domain specificity in Cognitive Science e.g. Segal (1996:145), Gerrans (2002:261), Cosmides & Tooby (1992), Hirschfeld & Gelman (eds.) (1994), Fodor (2000:58ff). conclusion ==> phase theory is the only chunk-defining device. a case of intermodular argumentation (Scheer 2008b, 2009b) [stronger evidence than regular intra-modular arguments] shaping phonological by morpho-syntactic theory
(2)
goal #2 adapting phase theory to the demands of phonology a. as it stands, phase theory is unable to describe all phonologically relevant chunks, which are often smaller and more diverse than what phase theory can delineate today. b. in order to meet the ambition of goal #1, phase theory needs to be made more flexible. c. this demand coincides with the syntax-internal evolution of phase theory: since Chomsky's initial take (CP, vP, perhaps DP), there is a constant trend to grant phasehood to smaller and smaller chunks (den Dikken 2007:33 provides an overview, also Scheer 2011:§773). d. ==> goal: make phase theory more flexible so that smaller and more diverse chunks can be described. e. another case of intermodular argumentation shaping morpho-syntactic by demands of the PF-interface. ==> this is the minimalist/biolinguistic way to go.
(3)
workings of phase theory as it stands: a. phases themselves do not define phonologically relevant chunks. b. only the PIC, i.e. its freezing/opacity effect makes phase boundaries visible in phonology. c. phases and PICs are isomorphic: every phase triggers a PIC, and every PIC is due to a phase.
D’Alessandro & Scheer Modular PIC
-3-
NELS 43 19-21 October, 2012 CUNY, New York
(4)
trivial empirical fact: not every phase has a phonological effect (is visible in the phonology). (Scheer 2009a,b) a. E.g. t-flapping in (relevant varieties of) English, which applies in all syntactic environments alike provided the /t/ is word-final and intervocalic (e.g. Nespor & Vogel 1986:46f, 224ff). b. at issue a white owl invite Olivia at eleven just the other night a racoon was spotted in our neighbourhood c. But there are of course phase boundaries within the domain of application of tflapping. d. ==> phase boundaries are ignored altogether by t-flapping. e. this is true for many other external sandhi phenomena: ==> phonology only exaceptionally cares for phase boundaries.
(5)
proposal: Modular PIC [Scheer 2011:§§778, 794, 2012a:§307 a. the phase skeleton is defined in syntax = phasehood: which nodes are phase heads, i.e. trigger spell-out to PF? b. in a given language, there is only one phase skeleton. There may be cross-linguistic variation: different languages have different phase heads (Gallego 2009, 2010). c. phases exist independently of the PIC 1. some phases are endowed with a PIC at PF 2. other phases are not: there is spell-out, but no effect ==> phonologically vacuous application of spell-out (phases) ==> the PIC is phase-specific d. for a given phase, the PIC is module-specific Phases which leave no footprint in phonology may well have a syntactic motivation for being armed with a PIC in syntax. For example, this is the case of vP in t-flapping varieties of English: there is good syntactic reason to assume the existence of a phase endowed with a PIC in syntax, but the same phase has no effect in phonology, hence there is no PIC associated to this phase in phonology. e. two loci of variation 1. cross-linguistic parameterisation of phasehood 2. within a given language, it is decided for every phase whether or not - it is associated to a PIC in syntax - it is associated to a PIC at PF - it is associated to a PIC at LF
-4-
D’Alessandro & Scheer Modular PIC
(6)
language A a. phase heads P and Q are endowed with a PIC at PF b. phase heads S and R trigger vacuous spell-out at PF Q T PF + PIC
language B a. phase heads P and R are endowed with a PIC at PF b. phase heads S and Q trigger vacuous spell-out at PF Q T PF
R T PF
R T PF + PIC
S T PF P T PF + PIC
(7)
NELS 43 19-21 October, 2012 CUNY, New York
S T PF P T PF + PIC
the global picture a. the impact of morpho-syntactic divisions on phonology may be 1. language-specific (Gallego 2009, 2010) 2. chunk-specific: class 1 vs. class 2 morphemes (Lexical Phonology) 3. size-specific: lexical vs. post-lexical phonology (Lexical Phonology) 4. process-specific the same boundary impacts a given phonological process, but not others. E.g. English: word-stress is strictly bound by the word, but t-flapping ignores the word boundary. 5. NEW: module-specific not really new in fact: there is a body of literature arguing for asymmetric spellout at LF and PF. MarušiX (2005), MarušiX & Žaucer (2006), Felser (2004), Matushansky (2005), den Dikken (2007), Megerdoomian (2003) and Caha & Scheer (2008). 6. NEW: phase-specific b. we are as much worried as you: that many sources of variation weaken phase theory. But we are only recalling what is firmly established 1. empirically 2. in interface theory
To sum up: Modular PIC Ingredients a. PIC-defined spelled-out chunks are invisible for syntactic computation b. PIC is also active at PF c. PIC-defined spelled-out chunks may be invisible for phonological computation [PIC at PF]. (8)
outline of the remainder of the talk a. a conservative alternative to our proposal: work by Lisa Cheng and Laura Downing b. how Modular PIC works and what it can buy us #1: reanalysis of Cheng & Downing (2012) c. how Modular PIC works and what it can buy us #2: Raddoppiamento Fonosintattico in the Italian dialect of Ariellese (Abruzzo)
D’Alessandro & Scheer Modular PIC
-5-
NELS 43 19-21 October, 2012 CUNY, New York
2. A conservative alternative: The Edge-based approach (9)
work by Lisa Cheng and Laura Downing Cheng & Downing (2009, 2011a,b, 2012), Downing (2010) a. common concern/observation as it stands, phase theory is unable to delineate phonologically relevant chunks. b. two ways to go: 1. adapt phase theory so that it can be the only chunk-defining device. 2. show that there are phonologically relevant chunks that phase theory is in principle unable to delineate. Hence phase structure and prosodic structure are not isomorphic, and everything is left in place: - two distinct chunk-defining devices - no minimalist shaping of syntactic theory by a demand of the interface.
(10) Case study Zulu and Chichewa [we choose these two Bantu varieties for illustration; the same reasoning applies to Kinyambo and Luganda] Cue to prosodic domains in Zulu & Chichewa: penultimate vowel lengthening (11) Relevant generalizations [phrasing patterns, adapted from Cheng & Downing 2012:11] a. In both languages, verbs phrase together with object complements. b. There is cross-language variability in the phrasing of elements which follow the objects: in Zulu and Chichewa, certain adjuncts (and right dislocated constituents) phrase separately. c. There is cross-language and language internal variability in the phrasing of the subject: in Chichewa, Kinyambo and Zulu, the subject sometimes phrases with the following verb and sometimes does not; when it does not, it receives a focus interpretation. (12) Cheng & Downing’s problem #1: Simple sentences a. According to phase theory, here’s the spell-Out domain we expect: Phase theory predicts (domain 1 is bolded; domain 2 bolded & underlined): simple sentence [CP [TP subject verb [\P [VP IO DO]]]] what you have is instead the verb in the same prosodic domain as IO and DO: [CP [TP subject verb [\P [VP IO DO]]]]
-6-
D’Alessandro & Scheer Modular PIC
b.
NELS 43 19-21 October, 2012 CUNY, New York
Zulu (Cheng & Downing 2007, 2009, from 2012:7) a. (bá-níké 2SUBJ-give b.
ú-Síphó
íí-maali)
CL1-Sipho
CL9-money
‘They gave Sipho money.’
in-kúukhu)
(ú-Síph’
ú-phékél’
ú-Thánd’
CL1-Sipho
1SUBJ-cooked.for
CL1-Thandi CL9-chicken
‘Sipho cooked chicken for Thandi.’ c. (ín-kósíkaazi) (í-théngel’ CL9-woman
9SUBJ-buy.for
ábá-fán’
ízím-baatho)
CL2-boy
CL10-clothes
‘The woman is buying clothes for the boys.’ d. (bá-ník’
ú-Síph’
í-bhayisékiili) (namhláanje)
2SUBJ-gave CL1-Sipho CL5-bicycle ‘They gave Sipho a bicycle today.’ c.
today
Conclusion: phases cannot be mapped directly into prosodic domains.
(13) Cheng & Downing’s problem #2: restricted relative clauses a. The head of the relative clause belongs to the same domain as its complement. Phase theory predicts: restrictive relative clause (domain 1 is bolded; domain 2 bolded & underlined) [DP the [CP man [C’ who [TP is wearing a hat ]]]] saw the visitors b.
what you have is instead the head of the relative clause in the same domain as its complement [DP the [CP man [C’ who [TP is wearing a hat ]]]] saw the visitors
c.
Phrasing of restrictive relative clauses (set off by square brackets) Chiche a (Downing & Mtenje 2011, from Cheng & Downing 2012:15) a. (ma-kóló CL6-parent
a-na-pátsíra
[DP [CP mwaná a-méné á-ná-wa-chezéera]])
6SUBJ-PST1-give
( [DP ndalámá CL10.money
zá 10.of
CL1.child
1-REL
1SUBJ-PST2-6OBJ-visit
mú-longo wáake]] ) CL1-sister
1.her
‘The parents gave [the child who visited them] money for her sister.’ d.
Conclusion: phases cannot be mapped directly into prosodic domains.
D’Alessandro & Scheer Modular PIC
-7-
NELS 43 19-21 October, 2012 CUNY, New York
(14) Cheng & Downing’s solution: The Edge-based approach to prosodic phrasing a. ALIGNR[PHASE, INTPH] (ALIGNR-PHASE): Align the right edge of every phase (\P/CP) with the right edge of an Intonation Phrase (IntPh). b.
c.
ALIGNR[INTPH, PHASE] (ALIGNR-INTPH): Align the right edge of every Intonation Phrase (IntPh) with the right edge of a phase ( P/CP). we still need the syntactic chunk to be translated into phonological representations in the form of a unit of the Prosodic Hierarchy
3. The Modular PIC alternative for Bantu Modular PIC 1. Ingredients a. PIC-defined spelled-out chunks are invisible for syntactic computation b. PIC is also active at PF c. PIC-defined spelled-out chunks may be invisible for phonological computation [PIC at PF]. Reanalysis of Zulu simple sentences in terms of the Modular PIC [CP [TP subject verb [\P [VP IO DO]]]] this means that v is NOT endowed with a PIC at PF the IO DO are still visible to V for phonological computation IO and DO are part of the same phonological domain to which the verb belongs Reanalysis of Zulu relative clauses in terms of the Modular PIC [DP the [CP man [C’ who [TP is wearing a hat ]]]] saw the visitors this means that C is NOT endowed with a PIC at PF the TP is still visible to C for phonological computation TP is part of the same phonological domain to which C belongs
4. Ariellese RF: vP leaves a phonological trace, CP does not (15) 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’
-8-
D’Alessandro & Scheer Modular PIC
b.
NELS 43 19-21 October, 2012 CUNY, New York
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 detail does 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). 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'
(16) 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 t a tS i
la "DET fem"
la città "the city"
D’Alessandro & Scheer Modular PIC
-9-
NELS 43 19-21 October, 2012 CUNY, New York
(17) 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 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). (18) 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: no RF UNACC: no RF 1. so vist so crisciut am seen am grown ACT: ‘I have seen’ ACT:‘I have grown’ 2. so cunziderat so nat am considered am born 'I have considered' ‘I was born’
vs.
PASSIVE: RF so vvist am seen PASS: ‘I am seen’ so ccunziderat am considered 'I am considered'
(19) background transitive active v is endowed 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.
D’Alessandro & Scheer Modular PIC
- 10 -
NELS 43 19-21 October, 2012 CUNY, New York
(20) analysis a. ACTIVE: 1. so sits in T and vist in V; 2. v is transitive active, hence a phase head (v*). It triggers spell-out of its complement; 3. so and vist are thus separated by a PIC-armed phase head at syntax AND at PF 4. The * on v indicates that v has a PIC AT PF; a bold v indicates a PIC at syntax b.
c.
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) 3. so and vist are thus neither separated by a PIC-armed phase head at syntax NEITHER at PF 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 ]
(21) Interesting mixed case: UNACCUSATIVES a. v in unaccusatives is defective (Chomsky 2005), hence it is not a phase head IN SYNTAX. b. RF should therefore occur with unaccusatives, but does not: so crisciut am grown 'I have grown' c. v is not endowed with a PIC at syntax (it is syntactically passive-like) but it DOES have a PIC at PF (it is active) d. tree 1. so crisciute ‘I have grown’ [TP so [v*P v* [VP crisciut ]]] --Spellout--> {PF} [...so] [crisciut ] 2. so nat ‘I was born’ [TP so [v*P v* [VP nat ]] –Spellout --> {PF} [so][nat ]
D’Alessandro & Scheer Modular PIC
- 11 -
NELS 43 19-21 October, 2012 CUNY, New York
(22) summary a. PIC at syntax only, PIC at PF, PIC both at syntax and at PF * PIC at PF RF PIC at syntax Transitive + + active v unaccusative v – + passive v – – +
(23) C does not block RF a. lu waglione chi ssi viste the boy that are seen ‘the boy that you saw’ 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 endowed with a PIC at PF (in Ariellese) d.
Modular PIC ==> case where a spell-out domain that is defined in syntax does not leave any trace in phonology, i.e. is not endowed with a PIC at PF.
(24) summary 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.
6. Conclusion (25) phase theory should be made the only chunk-defining device a. prosodic islands isomorphy of phase and prosodic structure: the latter is redundant and has to go. Phases are needed in syntax anyway for reasons that have got nothing to do with phonology. By contrast, prosodic structure is not needed for the analysis of any syntactic phenomenon. b. isomorphism or non-isomorphism? [recall the cat-rat-cheese example from SPE, running all through the prosodic phonology literature until today] 1. challenge for defenders of prosodic structure demonstrate non-isomorphism, i.e. show that there are phonologically relevant chunks that could not be isomorphic with a phase under any circumstances. 2. we submit that phase theory amended by Modular PIC is able to delineate ALL phonologically relevant chunks in terms of a spell-out domain. ==> syntactic and phonological chunk-structure is fully isomorphic
D’Alessandro & Scheer Modular PIC
c.
d.
- 12 -
NELS 43 19-21 October, 2012 CUNY, New York
on the empirical side 1. Ariellese case where there is no need for any prosodic structure: phases do all the job. 2. Bantu case where current phase theory is unable to delineate a phonologically relevant chunk, but where the modified version with Modular PIC can do the job. benefits of Modular PIC 1. scoring on the minimalist dashboard - syntactic theory shaped by phonological demands - just one chunk-defining device, instead of two - phonological shaped by syntactic theory 2. fits into the general evolution of phase theory: trend to more flexibility, i.e. to grant phasehood to smaller and smaller chunks. 3. syntax-internal benefit: analysis of agreement
References Items followed by the mention WEB are available at http://www.unice.fr/scheer/. 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. 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. 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. Cheng, Lisa & Laura Downing 2012. Phrasal Phonology = phasal syntax? Ms., University of Leiden and ZAS/Berlin. Chierchia, Gennaro 1986. Length, syllabification and the phonological cycle in Italian. Journal of Italian Linguistics 8: 5-34. 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 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. Collins, Christopher 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8: 81-120. Cosmides, Leda & John Tooby 1992. Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. The adapted mind. Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture, edited by J. Barkow,
D’Alessandro & Scheer Modular PIC
- 13 -
NELS 43 19-21 October, 2012 CUNY, New York
Leda Cosmides & John Tooby, 163-228. Oxford: OUP. 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 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. Downing, Laura & Al Mtenje 2011. Prosodic phrasing of Chichewa relative clauses. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 32: 65-112. Elordieta, Gorka 2008. An overview of theories of the syntax-phonology interface. Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology 42: 209-286. Felser, Claudia 2004. Wh-copying, phases, and successive cyclicity. Lingua 114: 543-574. Fodor, Jerry 2000. The mind doesn't work that way: The scope and limits of computational psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 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. Gerrans, Philip 2002. Modularity reconsidered. Language and Communication 22: 259-268. Hastings, R. 2001. Ze sende cchiù fforte. Il rafforzamento fonosintattico nel dialetto abruzzese. Rivista italiana di dialettologia 25: 209-283. Hirschfeld, Lawrence & Susan Gelman (eds.) 1994. Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture. Cambridge: CUP. 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. Kratzer, Angelika & Elisabeth Selkirk 2007. Phase theory and prosodic spellout: the case of verbs. The Linguistic Review 24: 93-135. 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 1997. L’origine del raddoppiamento fonosintattico. Saggio di fonologia diacronica romanza. Basel: Francke. Loporcaro, Michele 1997. Lengthening and Raddoppiamento fonosintattico. The Dialects of Italy, edited by M. Maiden & M. Parry, 41-51. London: Routledge. MarušiX, Franc 2005. On non-simultaneous phases. Ph.D. dissertation, SUNY, Stony Brook. MarušiX, Franc & Rok Žaucer 2006. On the intensional feel-like construction in Slovenian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 1093-1159.
D’Alessandro & Scheer Modular PIC
- 14 -
NELS 43 19-21 October, 2012 CUNY, New York
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. Nespor, Marina & Irene Vogel 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. 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. Roberts, Ian 2010. Smuggling and FOFC. Paper presented at the University of Essex. 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 2011. A Guide to Morphosyntax-Phonology Interface Theories. How ExtraPhonological 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. Segal, Gabriel 1996. The modularity of theory of mind. Theories of Theories of Mind, edited by P. Carruthers & P. Smith, 141-157. Cambridge: CUP. Seidl, Amanda 2001. Minimal Indirect Reference: a theory of the syntax-phonology interface. London: Routledge. 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.
