Phase theory and prosodic spellout: The case of verbs

Linguistic Review

Volumn 24, Issue 2-3, 2007, Pages 93-135

  Kratzer, Angelika ^a   Selkirk, Elisabeth ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548015263     PISSN: 01676318     EISSN: 16133676     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/TLR.2007.005     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (95)

1. Adger, David (2006). Stress and phasal Syntax. Ms., Queen Mary College, University of London.
2. Beckman, Mary and Gayle Ayers-Elam (1997). Guidelines for ToBI labelling. Ms., Ohio State University. Version 1997. http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~tobi/
3. Beckman, Mary and Janet Pierrehumbert (1986). Intonational structure in English and Japanese. Phonology Yearbook 3: 255-310.
4. Boskovic, Željko (1997). The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Bresnan, Joan (1971). Sentence stress and syntactic transformations. Language 47: 257-281.
6. Büring, Daniel (1997) The Meaning of Topic and Focus- The 59th Street Bridge Accent. London: Routledge.
7. Carlson, Gregory (1977). Reference to kinds in English. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
8. Chomsky, Noam (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step: Essays in Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, R. Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka (eds.), 89-115. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. _(2001). Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1-52. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
10. _ (2005a). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1-22.
11. _ (2005b). On phases. Ms., MIT Department of Linguistics.
12. Cinque, Guglielmo (1993). A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 239-297.
13. Cinque, Gugliemo (1999). Adverbs and Functional Heads-A Crosslinguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14. Diesing, Molly (1990). Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15. D'lmperio, Mariapaola, Gorka Elordieta, Sónia Frota, Pilar Prieto and Marina Vigário (2005). Intonational phrasing in Romance: the role of syntactic and prosodie structure. In Prosodies (With Special reference to Iberian Languages), Sónia Frota, Marina Vigário and Maria João Freitas (eds.), 59-98. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
16. Fernald, Ted (2000). Predicates and Tempoml Arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. Féry, Caroline and Vieri Samek-Lodovici (2006). Focus projection and prosodie prominence in nested foci. Language 82: 131-150.
18. Frota, Sonia (2000). Prosody and Focus in European Portuguese: Phonological Phrasing and Intonation. New York: Garland.
19. German, James, Janet Pierrehumbert and Stefan Kaufmann (2006). Evidence for phonological constraints on nuclear accent placement. Language 82: 151-168.
20. Grewendorf, Günther (1989). Ergativity in German. Dordrecht: Foris.
21. Grice, Martine, Stefan Baumann, and Ralf Benzmüller (2005). German Intonation in autosegmental-metrical phonology. In Prosodie Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing, Sun-Ah Jun (ed.), 55-83. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22. Gussenhoven, Carlos (1983). Focus, mode, and the nucleus. Journal of Linguistics 19: 377-417.
23. _ (1992). Sentence accents and argument structure. In Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar, lggy Roca (ed.), 91-106. Berlin, New York: Foris Publications.
24. _ (2003). ToDI (Transcription of Dutch Intonation), 2nd ed. http://todi.let.kun.nVToDI/home. htm.
25. _ (2006). Between stress and tone in Nubi word prosody. Phonology 23 (2): 193-224.
26. Halle, Morris and Jean-Roger Vergnaud (1987). An Essay on Stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. Hayes, Bruce (1981). A metrical theory of stress rules. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.
28. _ (1995). Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
29. Hayes, Bruce and Aditi Lahiri (1991). Bengali intonational phonology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 47-96.
30. Hellmuth., Sam (2006). Intonational pitch accent distribution in Egyptian Arabic. Unpublished PhD dissertation., SOAS, University of London.
31. Inkelas, Sharon and Draga Zee (eds.) (1990). The Phonology-Syntax Connection. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
32. Ishihara, Shinichiro (2007). Major phrase, focus intonation and multiple spellout. This issue.
33. Ishihara, Shin and Caroline Féry (2006). Phonetic Correlates of Second Occurrence Focus. In Proceedings of the 36th North Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS 36), Christopher Davis, AmyRose Deal and Youri Zabbal (eds.), 371-384. Amherst, MA, GLSA.
34. Jackendoff, Ray (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35. Jacobs, Joachim. (1988). Fokus-Hintergrund Gliederung und Grammatik. In Intonationsforschungen, Hans Altmann (ed.), 89-134. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
36. _ (1993). Integration. In Wortstellung und Informationsstruktur, Marga Reis (ed.), 64-116. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
37. Jäger, Gerhard (2001). Topic-Comment structure and the contrast between stage-level and individual-level predicates. Journal of Semantics 18: 83-126.
38. Jun, Sun-Ah (1995). The Phonetics and Phonology of Korean Prosody. New York: Garland.
39. _ (1998). The Accentual Phrase in the Korean prosodie hierarchy. Phonology 15(2):.189-226.
40. _ (2005). Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41. Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan (2003). Syntactic categories and Persian stress. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21: 333-379.
42. _ (2004). The syntax of sentential stress. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, University of Toronto.
43. Katz, Jonah and Elisabeth Selkirk (2006). Pitch and duration scaling for contrastive focus: a phrase stress analysis. Ms., University of Massachusetts Amherst.
44. Kiss, Katalin É. (1998). Identiflcational focus versus information focus. Language 74 (2): 245273.
45. Kratzer, Angelika (1995). Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In The Generic Book, Gregory N. Carlson and Jeffrey F. Pelletier (eds), 125-175. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
46. Kratzer, Angelika (2004). Interpreting focus: Presupposed or expressive meanings? Theoretical Linguistics (Special issue on Interpreting Focus) 30 (1): .123-136.
47. Krifka, Manfred (1992). A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. In Informationsstrvktur und Grammatik, Special issue of Linguistische Berichte, Joachim Jacobs (ed.), 17-53. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
48. Kubozono, Hamo (1993). The Organization of Japanese Phonology. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
49. Ladd, D. Robert (1980). The Structure of Intonational Meaning: Evidence from English. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
50. _ (1996). Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51. Legate, Julie Anne (2003). Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 506-516.
52. Maienborn, Claudia (200.1). On the position and interpretation of locative modifiers. Natural Language Semantics 9: 191-240.
53. McCarthy, John J. (2003). OT constraints are categorical. Phonology 20:75-138.
54. McGinnis, Martha (2001). Variation in the phase structure of applicatives. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 1:105-146.
55. Merchant, Jason (2001). The Syntax of Silence. Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
56. Morzycki, Marcin (2005). Mediated Modification: Functional Structure and the Interpretation of Modifier Positions. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
57. Nespor, Marina and Irene Vogel (1983). Prosodie structure above the word. In Prosody: Models and Measurements, Anne Cutler and D. Robert Ladd (eds.), .123-140. Heidelberg: Springer.
58. _ (1986). Prosodie Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
59. Perlmutter, David (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 157-189. University of California Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
60. Pierrehumbert, Janet and Mary Beckman (1988). Japanese Tone Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
61. Pierrehumbert, Janet B. and Julia Hirschberg (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Intentions in Communication, Philip R. Cohen, Jerry Morgan, and Martha E. Pollack (eds.), 271-311. MA: MIT press.
62. Poser, William J. (.1984). The phonetics and phonology of tone and intonation in Japanese. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.
63. Potts, Christopher (2005). The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
64. Prieto, Pilar (2005). Syntactic and eurhythmic constraints on phrasing decisions in Catalan. Studia Linguistica 59 (2/3): 194-222.
65. Revithiadou Anthi, and Vassilios Spyropoulos (2004). The multiple spell-out hypothesis and the phonological component: evidence from Greek. In Proceedings of the 35th Meeting of the Northeast Linguistics Society (NELS 35), Leah Bateman and Cherlon Ussery (eds.), 523-538. University of Massachusetts Amherst: GLSA.
66. Rizzi, Luigi (.1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegemann (ed.), 28.1-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
67. _ (2004). Locality and left periphery. In Structures and Beyond. The. Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 3, Adriana Belletti (ed.), 223-251. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
68. Rooth, Mats (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75-116.
69. _ (1996). Focus. In The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Shalom Lappin (ed.), 271-297. London: Blackwell.
70. Schmerling, Susan. (1976). Some Aspects of English Sentence Stress. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.
71. Seidl, Amanda (2001). Minimal Indirect Reference: A Theory of the Syntax-Phonology Interface. London: Routledge.
72. Selkirk, Elisabeth (1978/1980). On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. In Nordic Prosody 2, T. Fretheim (ed.), 128-149, Trondheim: TAPIR.
73. _ (1980). The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. Linguistic Inquiry 11 (3): 563-605.
74. _ (1984). Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
75. _ (1986). Derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3: 371-405.
76. _ (1995). Sentence prosody: intonation, stress and phrasing. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, John Goldsmith (ed.), 550-569. London: Blackwell.
77. _ (2002). Contrastive FOCUS vs. presentational focus: Prosodie evidence from right node raising in English. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Speech Prosody, Bernard Bel and Isabelle Marlien (eds.), 643-646. Aix-en-Provence: LPL - CNRS / SproSig.
78. _ (2003). Sentence phonology. In Oxford Encyclopedia of Linguistics, 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.
79. _ (2005). Comments on intonational phrasing. In Prosodies (With Special Reference to Iberian Languages), Sónia Frota, Marina Vigário and Maria João Freitas eds.), .11-58. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
80. _ (2006a). Contrastive focus, givenness and phrase stress. Ms., University of Massachusetts Amherst.
81. _ (2006b). Contrastive focus, givenness and the unmarked status of "discourse-new". In Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS): Working Papers of SFB632, Ausgabe 6, Caroline Féry and Gisebert Fanselow, (eds.), .124-146. Universität Potsdam.
82. _ (2006c). Strong minimalist spellout of prosodie phrases. Paper presented at the Workshop on Prosodie Phrasing, GLOW 2006, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
83. Selkirk, Elisabeth and Angelika Kratzer (2005). Focuses, phases and phrase stress. Paper presented at the Mediterranean Syntax Meeting, Rhodes.
84. Selkirk, Elisabeth and Tong Shen (1990). Prosodic domains in Shanghai Chinese. In The Phonology-Syntax Connection, Sharon. Inkelas and Draga Zee (eds.), 313-338. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
85. Tokizaki, Hisao (1999). Prosodic phrasing and bare phrase structure. Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 29, Pius Tamanji, Masako Hirotani, and Nancy Hall (eds.), Vol. 1, 381-395. GLSA, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
86. _ (2006). Linearizing structure with, silence: A minimalist theory of syntax-phonology interface. Unpublished Ph.d. dissertation, University of Tsukuba.
87. Truckenbrodt, Hubert (1995). Phonological phrases: their relation to syntax, focus and prominence. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
88. _ (1999). On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30 (2): 219-255.
89. _ (2005). Phrasal stress. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed., Keith Brown (ed.), 9: 572-582. Oxford: Elsevier.
90. _ (2006). Phrasal prosodic structure in German in cross-linguistic perspective. Paper presented at the Prosody-Syntax Interface Workshop, University College London.
91. Uhmann, Susanne (1991). Fokusphonologie: Eine Analyse deutscher Intonationskonturen im Rahmen der nicht-linearen Phonologie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
92. Wagner, Michael (2005). Prosody and recursion. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
93. _ (2006). Givenness and locality. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XVI, Masayuki Gibson and Jonathan Howell (eds.). Ithaca: CLC Publications (http://research.nii. ac.jp/saltl6/).
94. Wurmbrand, Susi (2005). Verb clusters, verb raising, and restructuring. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Martin Everaert and Hen van Riemsdijk (eds.), 227-341. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
95. Yip, Moira (2002). Tone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.