Extraposition of relative clauses: Phonological solutions

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Lingua 136 (2013) 77--102 www.elsevier.com/locate/lingua

Extraposition of relative clauses: Phonological solutions Edward Göbbel * Anglistik/Linguistik, Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Gaußstr. 20, 42119 Wuppertal, Germany Received 19 June 2011; received in revised form 29 April 2013; accepted 19 July 2013 Available online 27 August 2013

Abstract The paper investigates whether extraposition of relative clauses is phonologically conditioned. It examines extraposition in focus neutral sentences, in sentences with prosodically light constituents at the right periphery as well as in sentences with variable focus structure. Since these sentences induce different prosodic structures, it is expected that certain phonological constraints are violated by the canonical word order, which could be remedied by rightward movement. It will be shown that only phonological interface constraints, which are needed for an account of phonological phrasing, are responsible for extraposition. Violations of phonological well-formedness constraints are generally avoided by recursive prosodic structures and not by rightward movement. © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Extraposition; Relative clauses; Syntax-phonology interface; Focus structure

1. Introduction In English, complements or adjuncts of nouns can be displaced to the right periphery of the sentence, giving rise to discontinuous constituents. This is illustrated in (1) with a relative clause: (1a) is the canonical word order and in (1b) the relative clause is extraposed (EX-Rel). (1)

a. b.

Last night, a man who we’d never seen before arrived. Last night, a man arrived who we’d never seen before.

Extraposition is in principle optional and several factors have been suggested as triggers for the operation. Firstly, the extraposed constituent or discontinuous NP has been argued to form a presentational focus (Guéron, 1980; Rochemont, 1986). In other words, this construction has been claimed to be a focus construction. Secondly, syntactic complexity as well as the relative weight of the extraposed constituent and the constituent moved across have been argued to play an essential role (Francis, 2010; Quirk et al., 1986; Wasow, 2002). Thirdly, psycholinguistic experiments have led to the conclusion that a short extraposition distance (e.g., across one word) facilitates speech processing and/or production (Francis, 2010; Konieczny, 2000; Uszkoreit et al., 1998). Finally, Arnold et al. (2000) and Wasow (2002) argue that combinations of these factors act as triggers for rightward movement. The present study considers extraposition from a quite different perspective. The main hypothesis to be verified is whether triggers for rightward movement can be phonological constraints (cf. also Hartmann, 2013). The reason for this perspective is that focus, syntactic complexity and relative weight are all reflected in the prosodic structure. For example, a focused non-peripheral complex NP can induce a phonological structure that violates phonological well-formedness constraints. Rightward movement of the whole NP or a constituent contained in it could give rise to a prosodic structure

* Tel.: +49 0202 439 5105/3937554; fax: +49 0202 439 2963. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0024-3841/$ -- see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.010

78

E. Göbbel / Lingua 136 (2013) 77--102

Fig. 1. Structural positions for extraposed constituents.

that satisfies those constraints. If this line of reasoning is correct, then focus structure and syntactic complexity would only play an indirect role. The role that processing and/or production considerations play in this construction cannot be fully evaluated at the moment because prosodic factors are remarkably absent in the psycholinguistic experiments that have been conducted in the past. There is, however, a growing awareness that the parser should take into account prosodic information. Fodor (2002), for example, argues that a default prosodic contour is mentally projected by readers onto the written or printed word string and the parser favors the most natural (default) prosodic contour for the construction. Similarly, Kentner (2013) argues that the parser should actually incorporate constraints that are independently established for the competence grammar, including phonological constraints. It is therefore imperative that the default prosodic structures and relevant phonological constraints should first be established before any conclusions about the role of processing and/or production can be drawn. The phonological constraints that play a role in extraposition can only be established if the phonological representation of the canonical word order is compared with that of the scrambled order. Therefore, the guiding question underlying this study is: what improves from the phonological perspective if rightward movement occurs? Since extraposition is in principle optional, one also has to ask how the optionality of the operation can be captured. The discussion and analysis is framed within Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky, 1993/2004), which is not only needed for the phonological analysis but also allows the parallel evaluation of various prosodic structures based on the canonical word order and on the scrambled order. Due to space constraints, I cannot present and defend any particular syntactic analysis here, but a widely accepted syntactic representation is shown in Fig. 1 (cf. Baltin, 1981; Rochemont and Culicover, 1990) which agrees with much of the syntactic evidence discussed in the literature. In this structure, constituents extraposed from the subject (SX) are adjoined to TP and constituents extraposed from the object (OX) are adjoined to vP.1 The present study on EX-Rel is part of a larger study which includes extraposition of PPs (EX-PP) in focus-neutral contexts and extraposition of defocused PPs as well as PPs containing weak pronouns (cf. Göbbel, 2007, 2013). The approach pursued here differs from the early focus-oriented work, which concentrated on the relationship between focus and accentuation (cf. section 3.3). Truckenbrodt (1995a) has shown that restrictions on extraposition can be stated if the hierarchical prosodic structure is taken into account, while Hartmann (2013) has argued that constraints on prosodic domination (formerly, the Strict Layer Hypothesis) may actually trigger extraposition. My concern here is a similar one. I think it is important to investigate the prosodic structure of sentences like (1), which has an unaccented verb at the right edge, and ask whether the verb forms a prosodic constituent with the relative, as it is neither syntactically nor semantically related to this clause. If such an integration comes at a certain cost (i.e., violates constraints that are responsible for the correspondence of syntactic structure with prosodic structure or constraints on prosodic domination), then extraposition would lead to a prosodic representation in which the verb is phrased naturally with its argument and the relative forms a separate prosodic constituent. Such an approach no longer takes focus structure as a precondition for extraposition since both (1a) and (1b) can be presentational, in the sense of introducing a new situation into discourse. But the prosodic structure of (1b) would be more natural. The data described and discussed in this paper mainly stems from 6 recording sessions performed with one American and one British English speaker. Both speakers have some background in linguistics, while the American speaker has considerable experience with recordings. Exactly 100 sentences containing relative clauses in their base and extraposed

1 Unfortunately, there is hardly any agreement on the syntax of this construction, particularly regarding whether movement is involved or not. Approaches that favor a movement analysis do not agree on what moves where at which level of representation. For recent overviews and critical discussion see Baltin (2006) and Webelhuth et al. (2013).

E. Göbbel / Lingua 136 (2013) 77--102

79

position have been recorded and analyzed with Praat. The purpose was to acquire a reasonable amount of production data. Sentences were simply read from lists, preceded by context questions or statements. Some examples, like (1), were provided without context questions or statements, which is appropriate for focus-neutral renditions. The lists also contained a reasonable amount of filler sentences (e.g., verbs with clausal or heavy NP/PP complements, which were intended for another study) and many of the sentences were the same for both study participants. Several examples were just similar but had the same expected prosodic properties. The purpose of simple production experiments is to elicit default prosodic structures. The most remarkable result is that the prosodic structure of SX and OX, regardless of whether a PP or relative is extraposed, is practically invariable. The whole sentence forms one intonational phrase (IP) containing two phonological phrases (PPh), as shown in (2). Only 3 examples of extraposed relatives and no example of 69 extraposed PPs in my corpus formed separate IPs (cf. also Downing, 1970).2 This construction contrasts with heavy NP shift (HNPS) in (3), where a continuation rise (L-H%) preceding the heavy NP, which marks an IP edge, is much more frequent in my data, although it is not obligatory either. (2)

a. b. c.

(3)

[(He sold at Sotheby’s)PPh]IP [(a portrait of Turner)PPh]IP

[(A man arrived)PPh (who we’d never seen before)PPh]IP [(He donated a vase to a museum)PPh (that shows Zeus and Apollo fighting)PPh]IP [(You’ll find a review in your in-tray)PPh (of Turner’s important diary)PPh]IP

The prosodic pattern exhibited by extraposition constructions is expected under current theories of the syntax--phonology correspondence, where root clauses in English form separate IPs (Downing, 1970; Nespor and Vogel, 1986; Selkirk, 2005). The theoretical discussion will therefore focus on phonological phrases, rather than on intonational phrases. There is one aspect of variation that has to be mentioned, namely accentuation. Section 3.3.3 discusses optional accentuation in thetic sentences (examples stemming from Bolinger, 1992), which were spontaneously reproduced by only one of the two recorded speakers. Additional informants were therefore consulted, among them Michael Rochemont and Peter Culicover, and it turned out that there is a preference for accented predicates in those cases. There is also variation of accent type and of the position of secondary accents in the prenuclear stretch. Such variation is expected and theoretically irrelevant for the constructions considered here. This aspect will not be addressed any further, but accentuation marking in the examples is always based on the recorded data. The paper is structured as follows: section 2 outlines my basic assumptions about the syntax--phonology correspondence, while section 3 explores the role of phonological constraints in this construction. A central aspect of the discussion and a direct contribution to this volume is the examination of the role of focus structure (section 3.3). The majority of examples analyzed in this paper have deaccented and/or defocused material at the right edge, which potentially violates phonological well-formedness constraints. Since extraposition is optional even if the focus structure varies, the paper also examines the effect of focus structure on phonological structure and the strategies available to avoid potentially unpronounceable strings. 2. Syntax--phonology correspondence This section introduces prosodic representations and phonological constraints that play a role throughout the paper. Some generally accepted mechanisms for the mapping of syntactic structure onto prosodic structure are presented. Embedded clauses are still a problem for current phonological theories, which require some revision. This section concludes with an analysis of optional phrasing, which is essential for the account of extraposition in section 3. 2.1. Basic assumptions The prosodic categories assumed are syllables (σ), feet (Ft), phonological words (PWd), phonological phrases (PPh), intonational phrases (IP) and utterances (Utt). A sentence like John visits Alabama has the prosodic structure shown in Fig. 2. The PPh here is equivalent to the intermediate phrase in Beckman and Pierrehumbert (1986) and Beckman and Ayers Elam (1997) and to the major phonological phrase in Selkirk (2000, 2005). Intonationally, PPh boundaries are signaled by phrase accents (L- and H-), whereas the edges of IPs are signaled by boundary tones (L% or H%) and correspond to locations of (potential) pauses.

2 The recorded SX examples were restricted to unaccusative and passive sentences, the constructions in which SX is most natural. Critical remarks by a reviewer prompted an additional recording session with SX from transitive verbs. The results are briefly discussed at the end of section 3.1.

80

E. Göbbel / Lingua 136 (2013) 77--102

Fig. 2. Prosodic hierarchy.

The correspondence between syntactic constituents and prosodic constituents is now generally treated according to the end-based theory (McCarthy and Prince, 1993; Selkirk, 1986, 1995a, 2005; Truckenbrodt, 1999). Particularly alignment constraints ensure that lexical words (LEX) correspond to PWds (4) and that PPh boundaries occur at the right edges of lexical XPs in English (5). (4)

LEX = PWd a. ALIGN-LEX L (Lex, L; PWd, L) b. ALIGN-LEX R (Lex, R; PWd, R)

(5)

ALIGN-XP (XP, R; PPh, R) The right edge of any lexical XP in syntactic structure must be aligned with the right edge of a PPh in prosodic structure.

Since ALIGN-LEX L/R do not refer to functional categories, such words are not parsed into PWds. They are clitics, which I assume form a recursive PWd structure with the word they lean on, as shown in Fig. 3 (cf. Göbbel, 2013; Itô and Mester, 2009). These representations violate the constraints (6) and (7), which belong to a set that break down the Strict Layer Hypothesis (cf. Itô and Mester, 2009; Kabak and Revithiadou, 2009; Selkirk, 1995a; Truckenbrodt, 1999). Specifically, they violate NONRECURSIVITY at the PWd level (abbreviated as NONRECPWd) and EXHAUSTIVITY at the foot level (abbreviated as EXHFt) due to the fact that they cannot be parsed into feet, which are minimally bimoraic in English. (6)

NONRECURSIVITY: Recursive prosodic constituents are banned.

(7)

EXHAUSTIVITY: Terminal elements are parsed at every level of the prosodic hierarchy.

The constraint ALIGN-XP in (5) is responsible for the correspondence between syntactic phrases and PPhs and applies only to lexical XPs or functional XPs to which a lexical head moves (cf. Truckenbrodt, 1999). In (8a), it applies to vP and the two nPs, because both verbs and nouns move to v and n, respectively. ALIGN-XP derives two PPhs, as in (8b). It demands

Fig. 3. Prosodic representation of function words.

E. Göbbel / Lingua 136 (2013) 77--102

81

one PPh edge after John and another one after visits Alabama, since the right edge of the nP headed by Alabama and the right edge of the vP headed by visit coincide. EXHPPh ensures that all material to the left of each edge is parsed at the level of the PPh (cf. Truckenbrodt, 1999), practically ‘closing the brackets,’ as in (8c).3 (8)

a. b. c.

[TP John T [vP visitsi [VP ti [DP D [nP Alabamaj [NP tj]]]]]] John) visits Alabama) (John) (visits Alabama)

The subject DP and vP each have one phrasal stress on the noun they contain, which is required by STRESS-XP in (9), due to Truckenbrodt (2006). Assignment of phrasal stress to the object nP also satisfies this constraint for the vP. In the bracketed metrical grid representation of this sentence in (10), John and Alabama have PPh-level prominence, which is realized as a pitch accent in English. The last accent in a focus-neutral sentence is strengthened at the level of the IP and is commonly referred to as the nuclear stress. (9) (10)

STRESS-XP: Every lexical phrase has phrasal stress.

( ∗ ) (∗) ( ∗ ) (∗) ( ∗ ) ( ∗ ) ( ∗ ) ( ∗ ) ( ∗) ( ∗ ) John visits Ala bama

IP PPh PWd Ft

While STRESS-XP provides a PPh with a head, it has nothing to say about the position of the head within the PPh. Prosodic constituents above the foot level have right-peripheral prominence in English. Following Truckenbrodt (1995b) and Samek-Lodovici (2005), right-peripheral prominence within the PPh and the IP is due to the head-alignment constraints in (11) and (12). These constraints require that the right edge of the respective prosodic domains be aligned with the right edge of their head. The head of the IP is the rightmost PPh and the head of a PPh is its most prominent PWd. I follow Selkirk (2006:220) and assume the definition in (13) for the head of a phonological category. (11) (12) (13)

ALIGN H-PPh (PPh, R; Head-PPh, R) Align the right edge of every phonological phrase with its head. ALIGN H-IP (IP, R; Head-IP, R) Align the right edge of every intonational phrase with its head. Head of a P-Cat Cdef = the most prominent constituent dominated by C.

However, STRESS-XP in conjunction with the head-alignment constraints does not account for the distribution of all pitch accents in focus-neutral utterances. For example, an additional (reduced) pitch accent may occur on the verb in (14). Such a ‘secondary’ accent is due to a tone-alignment constraint that requires the left edge of a PPh to be aligned with a pitch accent as well, as argued by Pierrehumbert (1993) and Gussenhoven (2005).4 The constraint ALIGN(PPh,T*,L) in (15) is from Gussenhoven.5 (14) (15)

3

(He vísits ALABAMA) ALIGN(PPh,T*,L): The left edge of every PPh coincides with a pitch accent.

PPhs are indicated throughout by unlabeled round brackets. All other prosodic categories will be labeled accordingly. Throughout the paper pitch accents are marked with acute accents (0 ), exactly as they appear in my recorded data. Wherever necessary, nuclear stress (e.g., H*L-L%) will be marked with big caps and phrasal stress that is not nuclear (e.g., H*L-) will be marked with small caps. Nuclear stresses are always phrasal, whereas phrase-initial accents are not phrasal. 5 Note that such a prominence at the beginning of a PPh is not a boundary tone. If the PPh is at the left edge of an IP, this secondary accent is quite systematically realized as the default H*. It may also surface as an L* tone or even be completely suppressed, e.g., on a verb preceded by an accented subject. A reviewer correctly points out that such a PPh would seem to have two heads, which raises the question of its metrical representation. For Visch (1997), Selkirk (2000) and Kratzer and Selkirk (2007) such pitch accents signal minor phonological phrases. But this is problematic in view of the fact that they also surface on the first foot of multipedal words like Àlabáma and Jàpanése if they form a PPh on their own (e.g., if pronounced in isolation). Therefore, it seems advisable to relax Hayes’ (1995) requirement that there be a one-to-one correspondence between prominences/grid marks and prosodic/morphosyntactic constituents. 4

82

E. Göbbel / Lingua 136 (2013) 77--102

Fig. 4. Structure of nominal phrase.

The end-based theory works well for simple sentences, but cannot account for examples like (16), in which a PPh boundary occurs before the embedded complement and relative clauses. There is no right edge of a lexical XP at that point. This also holds for the relative clause in (16c) if it is adjoined to NP, as shown in Fig. 4.6 (16)

a. b. c.

(I’ve no´ idéa) (when the néw mánager will be appointed) (She alléged) (that her wállet had been stolen) (He do´nated a váse) (that shows Zéus and Apo´llo fíghting) (to a múseum)

The embedded clauses in (16) are syntactic phases and tend to correspond to PPhs in prosodic structure. Note that for a phase to correspond to a PPh, the WHOLE phase (i.e., v*P and CP) must be allowed to be transferred to PF. I follow Chomsky (2001) and assume that phases are evaluated and spelled out in full after completion of the next higher phase. That is, v*P is spelled out once C is merged, and a CP complement or adjunct is spelled out once a higher (selecting) v* is merged. Let’s establish the correspondence between syntactic domains and PPhs in terms of the constraint in (17). (17)

PH[ASE]=PPH a. A Spell-Out Domain corresponds to a PPh, or b. All lexical terminals spelled out on a syntactic cycle form a PPh.

The disjunctive formulation of PH=PPH allows two possibilities: Condition (a) says that a whole Spell-Out Domain (SOD) corresponds to a PPh. This can be a whole embedded phase, which is a syntactic constituent, e.g., the embedded CPs in (16), but also transitive v*P. Sentences like (18) are spelled out in two cycles forming two PPhs. The v*P visits Alabama is a phase and is fully spelled out in the first cycle. When the CP phase is spelled out, only John will be transferred to PF. The second condition in (17) ensures that John forms a separate PPh, as in (18b), and avoids a default recursive mapping like (18c).7 (18)

a. b. c.

[CP John [vP visits Alabama]] (John) (visits Alabama) (John (visits Alabama))

6 Cf. Adger (2003) for head movement within DP. For the low position of restrictive relatives within DP, see Fabb (1990) and Platzack (2000). Some evidence for such a low position comes from Negative Polarity Items (NPI) licensed by only, as in (i). Only c-commands the relative if it adjoins to nP.

(i) [DP the [nP only [nP meni [NP ti who have any chance of winning]]]] 7 The formulation of (17b) ignores clitics, which are constituents of lower level prosodic constituents (i.e., PWds, feet or syllables), depending on their segmental and prosodic properties.

E. Göbbel / Lingua 136 (2013) 77--102

83

PH=PPH is an interface constraint and actually gives substance to Chomsky’s (2000, 2001) observation that phases are characterized by phonological isolability, understood here as forming separate PPhs.8 This raises the question of whether ALIGN-XP can be eliminated. It will be argued below that it can’t be. 2.2. More on the prosodic structure induced by embedded clauses While embedded CPs tend to be mapped to separate PPhs, the selecting or modified head is not systematically mapped to a separate PPh. If the words preceding the embedded CP can form a PPh, they are phrased separately. If only one word precedes the CP, it forms a PPh with that clause. Compare: (19)

a. b.

(A lo´t of péople) (who úsed to líve here) (mo´ved awáy) (A mán who I’ve néver séen before) (júst wálked into my ro´om)

Similarly, verbs selecting complement clauses, like those in (20), resist forming a separate PPh, even if they are spelled out on a separate cycle. Only if they can be emphatically accented, like alleged in (16b), can they be phrased separately. Therefore, prosodic prominence and the size of the material preceding the embedded clause have an effect on phrasing. It seems that the minimal size of a PPh is two PWds, formalized as the constraint MINIMALLY BINARY in (21). (20)

a. b. c.

(21)

MINBIN(PPh): A PPh contains at least two PWds.

(She cláimed that her wállet had been stolen) (He decláred that he was ínnocent) (to the júdge) (The Líberal Démocrats) (vo´ted for a bán on húnting to be imposed)

I would like to suggest that single PWds preceding clausal constituents are in fact integrated in a recursive PPh structure. Ladd (1992) and Gussenhoven (1991, 2005) both argue that recursive PPhs are systematically formed in English. Some evidence that bears on this issue is the iterative application of the Rhythm Rule. Gussenhoven (2005) argues that in examples like (22) the numeral is procliticized onto the PPh to its right. Stress shift is the consequence of avoiding a stress clash plus a preference for PPhs to be aligned with a tone at the left edge, i.e., an effect of ALIGN(PPh,T*,L) (cf. also Visch, 1997, 1999). Iterated stress shifts are not restricted to complex DPs, but extend to verbs selecting such DPs, as in (23). (22)

(fífteen (Jápanese constrúctions))

(23)

a. b.

(He réproduced (níneteen (Jápanese páintings))) (for a muséum in Montána) (He tránsformed (níneteen (rípe o´ranges))) (into Dúndee mármalade)

This analysis can be extended to verbs selecting a CP or nouns complemented/modified by a CP, as in (24). The fact that default H* is associated with the verb or noun is due to the fact that it occurs at the left edge of a PPh. If this analysis is correct, then PH=PPH is satisfied for the embedded CP phase, but violated for a higher phase, for example the matrix v*P phase in (24b), because the only lexical terminal transferred during the second cycle, the verb voted, does not form a separate PPh. (24)

a. b. c.

(she cláimed (that her wállet had been stolen)) (vo´ted (for a bán on húnting to be imposed)) (a mán (who I’ve néver séen before))

The phrasing possibilities just described can be captured if PH=PPH is ranked higher than MINBIN(PPh), and NONRECPPh is lowest in rank. Such a ranking allows a recursive PPh structure to be formed if only one word precedes the CP. In order to prevent such a single word from being left unparsed at the level of the PPh, EXHPPh has to be ranked higher than NONRECPPh. The two tableaux in Fig. 5 evaluate two DPs containing relatives, preceded by one and two PWds,

8 Arguments for the relevance of phases for prosodic phrasing and/or accentuation can also be found in Ishihara (2007) and Kratzer and Selkirk (2007). The separate phrasing of clausal constituents is also discussed by Shiobara (2004) and notably by Taglicht (1998), who argues that they are subject to his Congruent Mapping constraint. This constraint establishes a correspondence between syntactic phrases, which includes clauses and lexical XPs, and phonological constituents (PPhs or IPs). It is often assumed that embedded clauses form IPs. In fact only root clauses do, but not necessarily embedded ones. Such a rendition is extremely rare in the data I have analyzed (cf. also Selkirk, 2005).

84

E. Göbbel / Lingua 136 (2013) 77--102

Fig. 5. Phrasing possibilities for relatives.

respectively. PH=PPH is violated by candidate (a) in both tableaux because the relative is not mapped to a separate PPh. MINBIN(PPh) rules out candidate (c) in the first tableau, while NONRECPPh rules out a PPh to which two PWds are procliticized, as in candidate (b) in the second tableau. Candidate (d) in both tableaux contains unparsed words at the PPh level, which are excluded by EXHPPh.9 The examples in (19) constitute two Spell-out cycles. First, the relative clause is spelled out and then the remainder of the unaccusative sentence, with words being linearized to the right and to the left of the embedded clause. Current syntactic theory is strictly derivational, while classic OT for phonological analysis is not. The whole complex sentence is evaluated by the phonology and assigned a phonological structure. I don’t see any problem in employing a strictly derivational syntax and a single stratum phonological framework as long as the interaction between the two components is limited to the interface and the phonology only interprets the output of the syntax. While the constraint PH=PPH refers to the output of successive syntactic cycles, it is also grounded empirically, capturing the tendency for transitive vPs and embedded clauses to form separate PPhs. 2.3. Complex XPs and optional phrasing The previous section left the status of ALIGN-XP unsettled. It should be noted, however, that more complex XPs are broken up into several PPhs even if they do not contain embedded clauses. Binary PPhs are preferred, if they can be formed, as in (25a). If there is an XP edge, as in (25b), a PPh boundary will be aligned with it. Therefore, ALIGN-XP is needed and must be ranked higher than MINBIN(PPh), which is violated in (25b) because the PP constitutes one PWd. (25)

a. b.

(She néver compléted) (her wo´rk on Míller) (He so´ld the old wárdrobe) (to his néighbor)

As discussed by Selkirk (2000) and also documented in Göbbel (2003), double object constructions like (26) exhibit an optional phrasing pattern. Either the whole verb phrase forms one PPh or a PPh boundary is aligned with the right edge of the object. This optionality can be captured if PH=PPH and ALIGN-XP are in a relationship of free ranking. That is, if ALIGN-XP is ranked higher than PH=PPH, the phrasing in (26a) is derived. If PH=PPH outranks ALIGN-XP, the phrasing option (26b) is derived. As will be argued in the following section, free ranking of these two constraints is actually responsible for optional extraposition. (26)

a. b.

(She lo´aned her ro´llerblades) (to Ro´bin) j ALIGN-XP >> PH=PPH (She lo´aned her ro´llerblades to Ro´bin) j PH=PPH >> ALIGN-XP

9 The analysis here only addresses the size effect on phonological phrasing. The relative head can form a SOD on its own if it is the subject of a transitive/unergative sentence. The verbs in (24a/b) also form a SOD and should correspond to a PPh like the subject in (18b). What prevents them from forming a PPh is their relatively weak prosodic prominence. STRESS-XP is generally assumed to provide phrasal stress for PPhs, but this constraint does not assign stress to the verbs in (24a/b), nor to the relative head in the structure in Fig. 4. They can form separate PPhs only if they are emphatically accented (like alleged in (16b); cf. also section 3.3.3). In fact, an additional constraint is needed which requires PPhs to carry phrasal stress, call it STRESS-PPH, ranked higher than the interface constraint PH=PPH.

E. Göbbel / Lingua 136 (2013) 77--102

85

Fig. 6. Optional phrasing.

Free ranking translates as two tableaux and the evaluation of (26) can be viewed in Fig. 6. Two additional candidates have been added: candidate (c), in which every PWd forms a PPh and which violates MINBIN(PPh) three times, and candidate (d), in which both complements form one PPh. This candidate violates both interface constraints. To summarize, this section has presented some basic assumptions concerning the phonological representation of sentences in English. The focus has been on phonological phrasing. Crucial for the analysis in the following sections are the constraints ALIGN-XP, which has been adopted from the end-based theory, and PH=PPH, a constraint that calls for the correspondence between spelled-out material and PPhs. 3. Phonological solutions for extraposition This section explores the role different phonological constraints play in EX-Rel. First, I will consider the role of the interface constraints, then the role of EXHPPh, which has been argued by Hartmann (2013) to drive extraposition in German, and finally, the role of focus structure. In order to examine the effect of different phonological constraints, OT is the framework of choice because it allows the parallel evaluation of various prosodic structures based on the canonical word order and on the scrambled order. Strictly speaking, in this framework rightward movement is not triggered by any of the constraints. The reason is that the GENERATOR (GEN) and EVALUATOR (EVAL) are different components of an OT Grammar. While GEN provides a number of candidates from a given input, EVAL chooses the optimal one by evaluating the candidates against a hierarchy of ranked constraints. According to Prince and Smolensky (1993/2004), a process is apparently triggered when a structural option is favored by some constraint A. Satisfaction of this constraint typically leads to violation of a lower ranked constraint B, which bans this structural option or candidate. The converse is apparent blocking of a process, which emerges when a lower ranked constraint favors some structural option that is rejected by a higher ranked constraint. Both triggering and blocking are the consequence of constraint domination. Consequently, the main purpose of the following subsections is to show that constraint domination can provide phonological solutions for rightward displacement. 3.1. The role of interface constraints This section extends the analysis of extraposition of PP (EX-PP) developed in Göbbel (2007, 2013) to EX-Rel in focusneutral contexts. There it is argued that the constraints ALIGN-XP and PH=PPH, which are independently needed for an account of optional phrasing (cf. section 2.3), are also responsible for optional EX-PP, illustrated in (27) with recorded prosodic structures. (27)

a. b.

(You’ll fínd a review of Túrner) (in your ín-tray) (You’ll find a revíew in your ín-tray) (of Túrner)

The basic idea is that extraposition is a process that adjusts word order to the requirements of the interface constraints. Due to the complexity of the noun phrase, the spelled-out domain (i.e., v*P) becomes too large to be contained in one PPh. Either a PPh boundary is inserted after the complex object or the PP has to be removed from it. The ranking ALIGN-XP >> PH=PPH will force a PPh boundary after the complex object in (28). Failure to comply with ALIGN-XP incurs

86

E. Göbbel / Lingua 136 (2013) 77--102

Fig. 7. Extraposition of PP.

one violation for each nP that is not aligned with a PPh boundary. Here I follow Fodor (2002), who argues that ALIGN-XP is a gradable constraint and that the number of coinciding XP edges has a direct effect on phonological phrasing. (28)

a. b.

You’ll [vP find a [nP review of [nP Turner]] in your in-tray] (You’ll fínd a review of Túrner) (in your ín-tray)

The ranking PH=PPH >> ALIGN-XP will prefer a syntactic structure from which the PP complement has been removed, as in (29). This allows the v*P phase to correspond to a PPh in prosodic structure, hence satisfying PH=PPH.10 (29)

a. b.

You’ll [vP find a [nP review] in your in-tray] of Turner. (You’ll find a revíew in your ín-tray) (of Túrner)

In this example, the number of phonological phrases can be kept to a minimum with the constraint MINBIN(PPH). The structures in (30) have an additional PPh containing only one (recursive) PWd. (30)

a. b.

(You’ll find a review) (of Turner) (in your in-tray) (You’ll find a review) (in your in-tray) (of Turner)

The analysis of EX-PP is summarized in Fig. 7. In each tableau, one winner is selected depending on the ranking of ALIGNXP with respect to PH=PPH. Essential for the analysis is that ALIGN-XP is violated for each nP that is not aligned with the right edge of a PPh. Hence, candidate (a) incurs two violations of ALIGN-XP, whereas candidate (d) incurs only one. The upshot of the analysis of EX-PP is that the driving force behind extraposition is the constraint PH=PPH, more precisely when it outranks ALIGN-XP. The full force of PH=PPH becomes apparent when the shifted constituent is a syntactic phase and spell-out domain itself, like the relative clauses in (31) and (32) or the control infinitives in (33). Sample pitch tracks of both the canonical and the scrambled word order of (31) can be viewed in Fig. 8. In (31) the adjunct from Rome modifies knew, whereas in (32) in the dark is an adjunct of the matrix verb. In (32), the adjunct forms a separate PPh if it follows the relative clause, but it can have a reduced pitch accent (L* or !H*) if the relative is extraposed.

10 As stated in section 1, I stay neutral on the syntactic derivation of the construction, particularly on whether the PP moves in the syntax or not. However, the definition of SODs, i.e., the syntactic objects that correspond to PPhs, must be adapted to the specific syntactic analysis. On a rightadjunction approach, as exemplified in Fig. 1, the SOD for example (29) must be defined as the lower vP segment. If the PP does not move in the syntax, but is linearized at the right edge (cf. Chomsky, 2008) in order to meet an interface requirement, namely the ranking PH=PPH >> ALIGN-XP, then there is no two-segment category and v*P is a phase and SOD, as assumed throughout the paper. Strictly speaking the syntactic structure is not altered on this latter approach as no syntactic movement occurs. The PP is only pronounced at the right edge of the syntactic object that constitutes a SOD. A third approach would be movement of the PP at PF (cf. Chomsky, 1986, 1995; Göbbel, 2013), which allows the remaining constituents of the original v*P SOD to form a PPh.

E. Göbbel / Lingua 136 (2013) 77--102

87

350 300

Pitch (Hz)

250 200 150 100 L a

H* man

L who we

knew

from

H*

L-

Rome

H*

H*

walked

into the

bar

L on

H*

L-L%

Monday

0

2.528 Time (s)

350 300

Pitch (Hz)

250 200 150 100 H* a

man

H* walked

into

the

bar

L on

H*

L-

Monday

H* who

we

0

knew

H* from

L-L%

Rome 2.728

Time (s)

Fig. 8. EX-Rel from subject.

(31)

Let me tell you something. a. (A mán who we knew from Ro´me) (wálked into the bár on Mo´nday) b. (A mán walked into the bár on Mo´nday) (who we knéw from Ro´me)

(32)

Let me tell you something. a. (I búmped into a wíndow) (that so´meone had o´pened) (in the dárk) b. (I búmped into a wíndow in the dark) (that so´meone had o´pened)

(33)

Tell me what happened last night! ´ rders were given to the rébels) (to blo´w up the ráilway bridge) a. (O ´ rders were given by two génerals) (to blo´w up the ráilway bridge) b. (O

Recall from section 2.2 that relative clauses tend to be phrased together with the noun they modify unless the noun can form a PPh with a word that precedes it. I argued that examples like (31a), which have the syntactic structure in (34), form a recursive PPh, as in (35). (34)

[TP [DP a [nP mani [NP [NP ti [CP who we knew from Rome]]]]] [T0 T [vP walked into the bar on Monday]]]

(35)

(A mán (who we knew from Ro´me)) (wálked into the bár on Mo´nday)

Why do the relative clauses extrapose? All the sentences considered here have unaccusative/passive predicates. In both (32a) and (35), only the relative corresponds to a PPh, but not the whole matrix clause, which is a phase and SOD, too. The solution to extraposition is straightforward: rightward displacement yields a prosodic structure in which both the matrix

88

E. Göbbel / Lingua 136 (2013) 77--102

Fig. 9. Evaluation of (31).

clause and the relative clause each correspond to a PPh. Particularly, the matrix clause will not be scattered across several PPhs. Truckenbrodt (1995a) has already proposed a constraint to the effect that extraposition is only possible if the PP/relative forms a prosodic constituent that is adjacent to the prosodic constituent formed by the material from which the PP/relative clause has been removed. However, Truckenbrodt does not analyze the prosodic structure induced by the canonical word order and therefore fails to formulate a trigger for the operation. On the approach pursued here, extraposition occurs if PH=PPH dominates ALIGN-XP, which forces both the matrix clause and the relative clause into separate PPhs. The evaluation of the examples in (31) can be inspected in the tableaux in Fig. 9. In candidate (a), the noun man forms one PPh with the relative clause. This candidate violates ALIGN-XP once because the noun bar is not aligned with a PPh edge. It violates PH=PPH twice because neither the relative clause nor the matrix clause corresponds to a PPh. In candidate (b), the noun man is procliticized onto the PPh based on the relative, forming a recursive PPh. This structure violates PH=PPH only once because the relative clause satisfies this constraint, but not the matrix clause. This candidate is therefore preferred over candidate (a). Candidates (c) and (d) are extraposition candidates. Candidate (c) violates ALIGN-XP twice because the nPs headed by man and bar, the former not modified now, are not aligned with a PPh boundary. Candidate (c) does not violate PH=PPH. So if PH=PPH outranks ALIGN-XP, the ranking represented in the second tableau, this candidate is the optimal one. If ALIGN-XP is ranked higher than PH=PPH, candidate (b) is the most harmonic one. Consequently, the account developed for EX-PP carries over to EX-Rel because PPs can and relatives must form PPhs. The analysis also predicts that extraposition is only possible within domains that are syntactic phases (i.e., transitive v*P and unaccusative/passive sentences; cf. also Chomsky, 2008). By removing the PP or relative, the syntactic object that constitutes a phase will also form one PPh. The analysis here provides a solution for the ungrammaticality of (36b) and (37b). In these examples, the verb phrase and the subject correspond to separate PPhs. PH=PPH is satisfied and so is ALIGN-XP. Both rankings of the interface constraints select the canonical word order as optimal, as shown in Fig. 10, predicting the unacceptability of the (b) examples.11 (36)

a. b.

A young man walked in today from India. [unaccusative] *A young man walked in the park from India. [unergative]

(37)

a. b.

(A críminal from the Co´sa No´stra) (sho´t a láwyer yesterday) *A criminal shot a lawyer yesterday from the Cosa Nostra.

11 I assume that PP adjuncts like from India are integrated into the DP like relative clauses. They are adjoined to NP, while N moves to n. In (i), the focus particle only can license the NPI contained in the PP. There is also no observable difference between adjunct and complement PPs concerning phrasing and phrasal stress in the data I have recorded. In other words, candidate (b) in Fig. 10 does not violate ALIGN-XP because the right edges of the nPs headed by man and India coincide, while phrasal stress is assigned to India.

(i) [DP the [nP only [nP studentsi [NP ti from any Western Australian university]]]] Note that in this analysis it is a size constraint, i.e. MINBIN(PPh), that excludes candidate (e) in Figs. 7 and 10. One could, as well, evoke a more general constraint that keeps the number of PPhs at a minimum by prohibiting them altogether (e.g., *PPh, proposed by Truckenbrodt, 1999). Such a constraint must also be ranked lower than the interface constraints.

E. Göbbel / Lingua 136 (2013) 77--102

a young man from India walked in the park

89

Align-XP Ph=PPh MinBin

(a young man from India walked in the park) a.

*!*

**

*!

**

(a young man from India) (walked in the park) b. (a young man) (from India) (walked in the park) c.

*!

(a young man walked in the park) (from India) d. (a young man) (walked in the park) (from India) e. a young man from India walked in the park (a young man from India walked in the park) a.

* * *!

Ph=PPh Align-XP MinBin *!*

**

(a young man from India) (walked in the park) b. (a young man) (from India) (walked in the park) c.

*!

(a young man walked in the park) (from India) d.

*!*

(a young man) (walked in the park) (from India) e.

* *

* *!

Fig. 10. Blocked extraposition.

However, a reviewer rightly observed that SX is not restricted to unaccusative/passive sentences. Firstly, thetic sentences based on transitive verbs, which can be optionally deaccented, readily allow extraposition, as shown in (38).12 Such predicates behave like unaccusative ones and have generated a fair amount of discussion and controversial analyses in the past (cf. Drubig, 1992; Jacobs, 1999; Rochemont, 2013). Thetic sentences will be addressed in sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.3. (38)

What about Mary? Why is she so upset? a. (A mán she dídn’t kno´w) (phoned her úp) b. A mán she didn’t KNOW phoned her up. c. (A mán phoned her úp) (she dídn’t kno´w)

Secondly, examples like (37b) improve considerably if the PP is replaced with a relative, as in (39). In this case, the relative forms a separate IP (39b). With canonical word order, the whole root clause normally forms one IP (cf. Downing, 1970; Nespor and Vogel, 1986; Selkirk, 2005). In this example, extraposition gives rise to a more balanced phrasing, involving two binary IPs. (39)

Have you heard the news? a. [(A pétty críminal) (who políce said) (was from the Co´sa No´stra) (robbed a bánk this morning)]IP b. [(A pétty críminal) (ro´bbed a bánk this morning)]IP [(who políce said) (was from the Co´sa No´stra)]IP

Thirdly, as observed by Rochemont and Culicover (1990:65ff.), defocusing (part of) a transitive/unergative predicate also allows extraposition. The relative forms either a PPh (40) or an IP (41b), depending on the complexity of the relative and also of the overall sentence. (40)

a. b.

(41)

We were waiting for my sister to join us at John’s farewell party last night, a. [(when we no´ticed) (that an élderly mán) (who no´ne of us knéw) (had acco´mpanied her to the party)]IP b. [(when we no´ticed) (that an élderly mán) (had acco´mpanied her to the party)]IP [(who no´ne of us) (knéw)]IP

Who asked Mary to dance at the party last night? (A mán asked Mary to dance) (who she didn’t kno´w)

Examples like these suggest that the relative can extrapose from the subject of a transitive verb only if it forms a prosodic constituent of the same type as the root clause (cf. also Truckenbrodt, 1995a). Since relatives do not normally map to IPs in English (unless they are syntactically fairly complex), extraposition is most natural if the root clause forms a PPh, as in (38) and (40). If the root clause maps to an IP, the relative must also map to an IP in order to avoid a violation of EXHAUSTIVITY at the IP level. At the moment, I have no phonological explanation for extraposition in the last two cases mentioned in this subsection.

12 The following examples in this subsection were provided by the reviewer without context questions/statements. Some of them can be traced back to Rochemont and Culicover (1990). The examples were recorded and analyzed together with similar examples.

90

E. Göbbel / Lingua 136 (2013) 77--102

3.2. The role of exhaustive parsing In this section, I consider the problem posed by short predicates and other lightweight constituents at the right edge of the sentence, which particularly favor and in some cases seem to require extraposition. An example which strongly favors extraposition is (42), discussed by Quirk et al. (1986:1398). They suggest that extraposition in this case occurs in order ‘‘to achieve a stylistically well-balanced sentence in accordance with the norm of English structure; in particular to achieve end-weight. For example, it would be usual to avoid forming a sentence with a long subject and a short predicate. Thus we would prefer [(42b)], with discontinuity, to [(42a)], without discontinuity.’’ (42)

a. (?)The story of her phenomenal success in Australia is told. b. The story is told of her phenomenal success in Australia.

While heaviness unquestionably plays a role in extraposition from NP (cf. Francis, 2010), Hartmann (2013) argues that rightward movement may also be caused by a light constituent at the right edge. She reaches this conclusion by examining German complement clause extraposition, as in (43), which is obligatory in focus-neutral contexts. She argues that the verb in (43a) is prosodified as a PWd and dominated directly by an intonational phrase (IP), violating EXH at the level of the PPh (EXHPPh), i.e., the verb cannot be parsed into a PPh. (43)

a. *?Peter hat Hans, dass Melanie kommt, erzählt. Peter has Hans that Melanie comes told ‘Peter told Hans that Melanie will come.’ b. Peter hat Hans erzählt, dass Melanie kommt.

It is tempting to seek a similar explanation for (42) or the verb-particle construction in (44). To the extent that speakers accept and can produce sentences like (44), they also set the relative clause off from the noun in a separate PPh, as in (45a). In fact, the constraint PH=PPH requires the relative clause to be mapped to one PPh. Furthermore, the particle does not seem to be integrated into the PPh formed by the relative because it is preceded by three lexical phrasal projections whose right edges coincide, as shown in (45b). ALIGN-XP requires that they be all aligned with a PPh boundary. If the relative is extraposed, both the vP and the relative form separate PPhs, as in (45c). (44)

a. What did he do next? b. ?He called a woman who he knew from Rome up.

(45)

a. b. c.

(He cálled a wo´man) (who he knéw from Ro´me) up He called a [nP woman who he [vP knew from [nP Rome]]] up. (He called a wo´man up) (who he knéw from Ro´me)

The particle (Prt) in (44) can only be prosodified as a PWd, like any stranded preposition (cf. Itô and Mester, 2009; Selkirk, 1995a). If it is dominated by an IP, it violates EXHPPh. However, this explanation cannot be upheld. One reason is that not all examples with light, unaccented constituents at the right edge are as marginal as (44). In (46), extraposition is just an option. The lexical verb arrived in (46a) is analyzed as a PWd by ALIGN-LEX R/L. In fact, many unaccusative verbs, particularly verbs of appearance, and many passivized verbs do not tolerate or avoid phrasal stress and therefore do not naturally form a PPh.13 (46)

Let me tell you something. a. Last night, a mán who we’d néver séen before arrived. b. Last night, a mán arrived who we’d néver séen before.

Other examples are deictic expressions at the right edge of the sentence, e.g., now, then, here, there, today, this morning, at the moment, etc. These all resist phrasal stress unless they are narrowly focused (cf. Rochemont, 1986). In (47a), the temporal adjunct forms a (recursive) PWd with this, which is a footed clitic. Lack of phrasal stress prevents it from forming a PPh on its own. If the relative clause moves to the right, as in (47b), the temporal adjunct is integrated into the left-hand PPh and may also be associated with non-prominent accents, particularly L*. In the postnuclear stretch, however, no tonal events

13 Note that phrasal stress on a certain constituent is a sufficient, but not a necessary condition for PPh status. In section 3.3.1, I argue that a PPh which is formed as a consequence of the demands of the interface constraints can also be completely deaccented. The light constituents discussed in this section are neither accented nor mapped to separate PPhs by the interface constraints.

E. Göbbel / Lingua 136 (2013) 77--102

91

vP

v

VP

received j

DP

VP V tj

this morning

QP nP

Q some

n lettersi

N(P) N(P)

CP

ti

that are of interest

Fig. 11. Syntactic structure of (48a).

are possible. The temporal adjunct in (47a) is completely deaccented, which I take as an indication that it is not integrated into the PPh to its left. (47)

a. b.

[(I recéived some létters) (that are of ínterest) {this morning}PWd]IP [(I recéived some létters this morning) (that are of ínterest)]IP

The second reason why EXHAUSTIVITY is not the trigger for extraposition is the optionality of the operation. Although it is strongly preferred in the case of the V-Prt construction, EX-Rel is nevertheless optional.14 The solution, I think, is a recursive PPh, as in (48). This structure is practically enforced by the ranking EXHPPh >> NONRECPPh, established in section 2.2. (48)

a. (I recéived some létters) ((that are of ínterest) this morning) b. ? (He cálled a wo´man) ((who he knéw from Ro´me) up)

Obligatory parsing of PWds at the PPh level may be due to EXHPPh, but can also be a consequence of other constraints. ALIGN-XP already demands a PPh boundary after interest and after the whole vP, accounting for the recursive structure of the right-hand PPh. This constraint, however, is not responsible for the PPh boundary after letters or woman. It is exactly in these situations that the effect of EXHPPh is noticeable, accounting for the formation of the left-hand PPh. Consequently, EXHPPh is not needed for the accommodation of light constituents at the right edge of the sentence. It is, therefore, not an obvious ‘trigger’ for extraposition in English.15 The evaluation of (48a), based on the syntactic structure in Fig. 11, can be inspected in the tableaux in Fig. 12.16 In candidate (a) all material spelled out on the v*P cycle is unparsed at the PPh level. Insertion of a PPh boundary at the right

The degraded acceptability of the Prt at the right edge may be due to the independent availability of ‘Prt shift.’ I assume that the underlying structure is (ia). The verb merges with the Prt and together they determine the theta-role of the object, which is merged as the specifier of VP. Either the verb moves alone (ib) or the Prt incorporates into the verb and takes a ride up to v (ic), stranding the object at the right edge. Cf. Göbbel (2003:119ff.) for further discussion and a different analysis of predicative particles. 14

(i) a. b. c.

[vP v [VP a woman [V0 call up]]] [vP calli [VP a woman [V0 ti up]]] [vP call+upi [VP a woman [V0 ti]]]

15 Unfortunately, the ranking of this constraint with respect to the interface constraints cannot be established on the basis of the data considered here, but it must be ranked at least higher than NONRECPPh. 16 MINBIN(PPh) has no effect on the evaluation and has been omitted for the sake of clarity.

92

E. Göbbel / Lingua 136 (2013) 77--102

Fig. 12. Extraposition across a light constituent.

edge in candidate (b), as demanded by ALIGN-XP, still leaves two PWds unparsed. Hence, this candidate is excluded by EXHPPh. Candidate (c) integrates these two PWds in terms of a recursive structure. This structure is not attested (there is an L- boundary tone after letters) and is ruled out by NONRECPPh. Insertion of a PPh boundary after letters, as in candidate (d), yields the optimal structure. In candidate (e), the deictic expression is integrated into the PPh based on the relative, although it does not bear any syntactic or semantic relation to this clause. This violates PH=PPH for the relative clause, but also for the matrix clause. It also incurs two violations of ALIGN-XP because the nPs headed by letters and interest, whose right edges coincide, are not aligned. Candidate (f) is the extraposition candidate, which is chosen as optimal in the second tableau, in which PH=PPH dominates ALIGN-XP. This section has examined sentences with light constituents at the right edge in order to determine whether EXHAUSTIVITY plays any role in extraposition. The fact that light constituents can be pronounced after the relative suggests that English has a strategy to accommodate them, namely a recursive prosodic structure. The recursive PPh structure follows from the requirements of the interface constraints. Since these constraints are freely ranked, the driving force behind extraposition in English is PH=PPH, specifically, when it dominates ALIGN-XP. This ranking forces the relative to the right edge of the matrix clause, allowing the light constituent to be phrased with material it is syntactically and semantically related to. 3.3. The role of focus structure Focus structure has played an important role in earlier accounts of extraposition from NP, for example, in work by Guéron (1980), Rochemont (1986), Rochemont and Culicover (1990), Huck and Na (1990), Möck (1994) and Drubig (1997). Particularly extraposition from subjects often exhibits the accentual pattern of thetic sentences and has a presentational function. In the 80s and 90s, thetic sentences were important for theories of focus projection, which are theories of accentuation in presentational sentences (cf. Gussenhoven, 1983; Selkirk, 1984, 1995b). This may explain why the authors just mentioned virtually all classify extraposition as a focus construction. The view expressed in these works is that extraposed PPs or relatives are necessarily focused or part of a broader presentational focus, be it the whole sentence or just the DP containing the PP/relative. Nevertheless, the role focus plays in this construction has never been fully clarified and it is doubtful that a general focus constraint can be formulated that can be used for an explanation of the data (cf. also Göbbel, 2013). In this section I examine the role of focus structure in this construction from a phonological perspective. The view taken here is that the computation of prominence in presentational sentences need not refer to focus or focus exponents (cf. also Féry and Samek-Lodovici, 2006; Selkirk, 2007; Rochemont, 2013). In fact, the account developed so far manages to deal with them without any reference to focus. However, narrow focus affects the prosodic structure of sentences (Chomsky, 1972) and the interpretation of propositions (Rooth, 1992). It is therefore necessary to examine whether narrow focus plays a role in EX-Rel, possibly indirectly, because focused constituents contain the main prominence of an IP and headalignment constraints require prominent constituents to occur at the right edge of phonological categories (cf. SamekLodovici, 2005). Section 3.3.1 discusses the effect of focus on phrasing and establishes the ranking of the head-alignment

E. Göbbel / Lingua 136 (2013) 77--102

93

constraints. Section 3.3.2 examines extraposed focused relatives, section 3.3.3 examines relatives that can be optionally deaccented, and section 3.3.4 briefly discusses extraposition of defocused relatives. 3.3.1. On focus and phrasing Following Jackendoff (1972), I assume that narrow focus, as in question-answer pairs like (49), is marked with an F-feature in the syntax. Focused constituents contain the nuclear stress, which, according to Truckenbrodt (2006), is determined by STRESS-XP at the PPh level and strengthened to IP-level metrical prominence. The defocused material is completely deaccented.17 Accentuation of an F-marked constituent is due to STRESS-F (50), while accentuation of defocused material is generally assumed to be prohibited by DESTRESS-GIVEN (abbreviated as D-GIVEN; cf. Féry and Samek-Lodovici, 2006; Truckenbrodt, 2006). (49)

a. b.

(50)

STRESS-F: An F-marked constituent contains IP-level metrical prominence.18

(51)

D-GIVEN: A given constituent is not accented.

Who invented the wheel? [F The inhabitants of MESOPOTAMIA] invented the wheel.

The constraint D-GIVEN in (51) prohibits both phrasal stress and phrase-initial accents, but it is often violated in the prenuclear stretch. For example, in (52), it suppresses phrasal stress on the direct object, but the verb remains accented due to ALIGN(PPh,T*,L). Contextually given material preceding the nuclear stress may even form a separate PPh, particularly if the focus comes late in the utterance, as in the HNPS construction in (53) and in the examples discussed in section 3.3.2. These examples contrast with (49), in which accenting is strictly prohibited after the focused subject. Consequently, there is an asymmetry between prenuclear and postnuclear accentuation, which is captured here with the constraint POSTNUCLEAR DEACCENTING in (54).19 (52)

a. b.

Who does Mary read the letters from her lover to? (She réads the letters to MELINDA)

(53)

a. b.

What did Jason sell at Sotheby’s yesterday? (He so´ld at Sotheby’s)(a páinting he’d acquíred in NORWAY)

(54)

POSTNUC-D: No pitch accents are realized in the postnuclear stretch.

The interface constraints ALIGN-XP and PH=PPH derive for (49b) the prosodic structure in (55a). Support for this analysis comes from Féry (2010), who provides compelling arguments and experimental evidence from German that the phrasing derived from the syntax is preserved under deaccenting. If this is correct, then the head-alignment constraints, particularly ALIGN H-IP (cf. section 2.1), must be ranked lower than the interface constraints. (55)

a. b.

[(The inhabitants of MESOPOTAMIA) (invented the wheel)]IP √ [((The inhabitants of MESOPOTAMIA) invented the wheel)]IP

Under the categorical interpretation (McCarthy, 2003), ALIGN H-PPh receives one violation mark for every PWd that separates the head-word from the right edge of the PPh. ALIGN H-IP receives one violation mark for every PPh that

17

Whenever necessary, nuclear stress will be marked with big caps and phrasal stress with small caps. A potential problem for this definition is Rooth’s (1992) example in (i). According to Féry and Samek-Lodovici (2006), only the second focused adjective has IP-level metrical prominence. I will not pursue this issue as it does not bear on the discussion here. 18

(i) [(An AMERICANF farmer) (was talking to a CANADIANF farmer)]IP 19 Katz and Selkirk (2011) argue that discourse new material following a (contrastive) focus cannot be deaccented although the focus contains IP-level metrical prominence. An example they discuss is (i), in which even associates with Minnie and a Mariners game is new to the discourse. (i) Bill chooses the most awful companions. He was dating that horrible lawyer last year, and then there was Kate, who we all hated. He even took [MINNIE]F to [a MARINERS game]. And she’s insufferable. A solution is offered by Büring and Truckenbrodt (2011), who propose two constraints that prohibit accentuation of only given material, one of them ranked higher for the postnuclear stretch. However, this will not solve the problem posed by thetic sentences like (56), in which new material can be (optionally) deaccented.

94

E. Göbbel / Lingua 136 (2013) 77--102

separates the head of the IP from the right edge of that IP. Hence, ALIGN H-PPh is violated twice in (55b) because the head of the (recursive) PPh Mesopotamia is separated from the right edge of that PPh by two deaccented PWds. This constraint is not violated in (55a). The right-hand PPh has an unaccented head, namely the wheel. This representation violates ALIGN H-IP since the head of the IP, the left-hand PPh, is separated from the right edge of that IP by a deaccented PPh. If ALIGN H-IP were ranked higher than the interface constraints, the representation (55b) would be preferred since it does not incur any violation of this constraint, only a violation of PH=PPH. For a typical thetic sentence, the interface constraints derive the recursive prosodic structure (56a), rather than (56b). PH=PPH does not require the unaccusative vP to form a PPh, but ALIGN-XP requires the nPs headed by Turner and book to both be aligned at their right edge. Evidence for a PPh boundary after Turner comes from the fact that no tonal events occur after this constituent (cf. also section 3.2). (56)

a. b. c.

[((A néw bo´ok about TURNER) appeared last year)]IP √ [(A néw bo´ok about TURNER) (appeared last year)]IP [(A néw bo´ok about Túrner) (appéared lást yéar)]IP √

The choice between (56a) and (56b) requires that ALIGN H-IP be ranked higher than ALIGN H-PPH since ALIGN H-IP is violated in (56b) but not in (56a). Nevertheless, a PPh can be formed from the vP if the material it contains is accented, as in (56c).20 Anticipating the discussion in section 3.3.3, we may reasonably ask what is responsible for the optionality of phrasing and stress patterns. It seems that the optionality in (56) is related to (i) the size of the predicate, which is heavy enough to form a PPh, (ii) the occurrence of a constituent that is eligible for accenting (i.e., last year), and (iii) the position of the nuclear stress, which in examples like these can be a matter of speaker choice. If a prominent (L+H*) accent is associated with Turner, the material following it is deaccented. However, if Turner is not emphatically accented (i.e., its accent is downstepped with respect to the previous accent, following the natural declination of the intonational contour), the predicate can also be accented. In (56c), the nuclear stress is simply on the last constituent that carries phrasal stress, namely year. Deaccentuation in (56a) cannot be due to D-GIVEN since the material contained in vP is not recoverable from the context. Hence, it is technically not ‘given’. Postnuclear deaccenting will be attributed to POSTNUC-D since the nuclear stress occurs within the argument. On the other hand, stress on the predicate in thetic sentences depends on an inactive POSTNUC-D and the formation of a PPh. If no early nuclear accent occurs on the argument, STRESS-XP can apply within the predicate and ALIGN H-IP ensures that a PPh is constructed from the material within the predicate phrase, thereby providing a right-peripheral head for the IP. In other words, the default prosodic structure is derived by the interface constraints and the possibility of accentuation allows formation of a separate PPh at the right edge of the IP. Hence, the constraint ranking in (57), also needed for the following sections, can be established. (57)

STRESS-F, POSTNUC-D >> ALIGN-XP, PH=PPH >> ALIGN H-IP >> ALIGN H-PPH, NONRECPPh

3.3.2. Extraposition of focused relatives Relative clauses can be narrowly focused or they can be part of a broader focus. A focused constituent that is not rightperipheral in the sentence may lead to violations of the head-alignment constraints. This section explores whether these constraints are potential ‘triggers’ for rightward movement. In (58), the relative clause is focused. It is also phrased separately, both in its base and extraposed position. The lefthand PPhs in (58b) and (58c) only consist of defocused material. Defocused material can be accented in prenuclear position and two or three PWds can be grouped into one PPh. (58)

Did a. b. c.

he leave a review on the table? He left a review [F that someone had written about Mondrian] on the table (He léft a revíew) (that so´meone had wrítten about MONDRIAN) on the table (He léft a revíew on the táble) (that so´meone had written about MONDRIAN)

If the whole complex DP is focused, as in (59), extraposition gives rise to a discontinuous DP focus and the sentence has the prosodic structure of a multiple focus construction. The noun review in (59c) is associated with an L+H* accent, which has a much higher pitch excursion than in the corresponding examples in which the noun is defocused. The intonational difference between a focused relative clause (see (58c)) and a discontinuous DP focus (see (59c)) can be viewed in the two pitch tracks in Fig. 13. In the former, but not in the latter, the pitch accents in the left-hand PPh are successively downstepped, following the natural declination of the intonational contour.

20

A reviewer points out that an alternative pronunciation of the predicate is with a single accent on appear.

E. Göbbel / Lingua 136 (2013) 77--102

95

350 300

Pitch (Hz)

200

70 H* he

left

L a

H*

review

H* on the

L-

table

H* that

L

someone

had

written

H*

about

L-L% Mondrian 2.913

0 Time (s)

350 300

Pitch (Hz)

200

70 H* he

left

L a

H*

review

Lon the

table

H* that

someone

H* had

written

H* about

L-L% Mondrian

0

2.703 Time (s)

Fig. 13. Focused relative vs. discontinuous DP focus.

(59)

What did he leave on the table? a. He left [F a review that someone had written about Mondrian] on the table b. (He léft a revíew) (that someone had written about MONDRIAN) on the table c. (He léft a REVIEW on the table) (that so´meone had wrítten about MONDRIAN)

When the relative clause or the complex DP is focused in situ, POSTNUC-D (and also D-GIVEN) prohibits any phrasal stress in the postnuclear stretch. The examples (58b) and (59b) both have a deaccented PWd at the right edge. The resulting prosodic structure is similar to the examples discussed in section 3.2 in which deictic elements or unaccented predicates occur at the right edge. Some plausible prosodic structures are given in the tableaux in Fig. 14, which are evaluated on the basis of the syntactic structure in (60). (60)

he [vP lefti [VP [DP a [nP review [CP that someone had written about Mondrian]]] [V0 ti on the table]]]

Candidate (a) violates ALIGN-XP twice because the vP headed by left and the nP headed by table are not aligned. It also violates PH=PPH because the constituents spelled out in the second cycle do not form a PPh. If the PWd on the table is parsed into a deaccented PPh, as in candidate (b), it is excluded by ALIGN H-IP.21 The recursive structure of candidate (c) satisfies ALIGN H-IP and it is the optimal candidate if ALIGN-XP outranks PH=PPH. If the ranking of these two constraints is reversed, the extraposition candidate (d) is the optimal one. This candidate violates ALIGN-XP only once because the nP headed by review is not aligned.

21 Note that this candidate would also be excluded by MINBIN(PPh) because the right-peripheral PPh contains only one PWd, but this constraint would be satisfied if the PP were more complex (e.g., on the table in the corner). It is therefore justified to consider the effect of ALIGN H-IP separately.

96

E. Göbbel / Lingua 136 (2013) 77--102

Fig. 14. Focused relative clause.

From the discussion in this section, it cannot be concluded that focus plays any role in extraposition. The constraint ALIGN H-IP, which favors focused constituents at the right edge of an IP because they contain the nuclear stress, has too low a rank in the English constraint hierarchy to have an influence on rightward movement. The optimal candidates both satisfy this constraint: either the focused relative moves rightward forming the head of the IP or the right-peripheral deaccented PP is integrated in a recursive PPh structure, thereby avoiding a violation of this constraint. The fact that extraposition is optional is solely due to the free ranking of the two interface constraints. 3.3.3. Extraposition in thetic sentences An interesting subcase of relative clause extraposition is discussed by Bolinger (1992). He argues that in certain cases the relative clause can be completely deaccented even if it is not given in the context, as in (61). These examples are thetic sentences that raise questions about their prosodic representation and focus structure. (61)

What caused all that ruckus? a. A BOMB exploded that somebody must have planted somewhere. b. A DIAMOND was found that everybody was looking for. (Bolinger, 1992:284)

I was somewhat sceptical about Bolinger’s claim concerning (61), but one of my study participants pronounced such sentences exactly that way. For her, the relative is also deaccented in situ, as can be seen in Fig. 15. The second informant that was recorded accented the predicate of the relative clause regardless of its position, as in (62). Other speakers that I consulted also preferred accented relatives, but they were not recorded. (62)

a. b. c. d.

A A A A

exploded that somebody must have PLANTED somewhere. that somebody must have PLANTED somewhere exploded. DIAMOND was found that everybody was LOOKING for. DIAMOND that everybody was LOOKING for was found. BOMB BOMB

If the relative clause is completely deaccented, it presumably forms a deaccented PPh, as required by PH=PPH. The head noun is not required to form a PPh, but is prominent enough to do so. The PWd was found must also be parsed at the PPh level and can be adjoined to the preceding PPh, as in (63a). Movement of the deaccented relative clause to the right results in a prosodic structure in which both the main and the subordinate clause form separate PPhs, as in (63b). (63)

a. b.

(A DIAMOND) ((that everybody was looking for) was found) (A DIAMOND was found) (that everybody was looking for)

These two prosodic structures both violate ALIGN H-IP. The question is what makes accentuation optional in these examples. The relative clause is deaccented although it is not defocused (in the sense that it is not ‘given’ information). Bolinger argues that in these sentences all but the subject NP can be omitted without jeopardizing the communicative event. In other words, the relative clause (and also the matrix predicate) is more or less redundant. The speaker can therefore choose to place the nuclear accent on the subject. Once this decision has been made, the rest of the sentence

E. Göbbel / Lingua 136 (2013) 77--102

97

400

Pitch (Hz)

300

200

100 50 L a

H*

L-

diamond

L%

that

everybody

was

looking

for

was

found 2.271

0 Time (s)

400

Pitch (Hz)

300

200

100 50 L a

H* diamond

L-

L% was

found

that

everybody

was

0

looking

for 2.12

Time (s)

Fig. 15. Extraposition of a deaccented relative clause.

must be deaccented. One possible way to distinguish (61) from (62) is to assign them different focus structures, which are responsible for the different positions of the nuclear stress. The subject-prominent sentence can be represented as a nested focus structure, as in (64a). In this case, diamond attracts nuclear stress because STRESS-F demands that a focused constituent bear IP-level metrical prominence. The other case is simply a broad focus, as in (64b), and a default prominence pattern is computed with right-peripheral nuclear stress.22 (64)

a. b.

[F a [F DIAMOND] that everybody was looking for was found] [F a DIAMOND was found that everybody was LOOKING for]

The evaluation of (63) on the basis of the structure in (65) can be inspected in the first two tableaux in Fig. 16. Nuclear stress is indicated by capitalization of DIAMOND, to distinguish it from regular phrasal stress on LOOKING, marked with small caps. The latter is ruled out by POSTNUC-D (candidates (b) and (d)). Depending on the ranking of the two interface constraints, the relative clause stays in situ or is shifted rightward. Note that candidate (b), represented separately in terms of a bracketed metrical grid in (66), does indeed violate ALIGN H-IP. Although the right edge of the IP is aligned with the recursive PPh, which contains phrasal stress on looking, this PPh does not contain IP-level metrical prominence. The designated terminal element (DTE) of the IP is diamond, contained in the left-hand PPh. This candidate also violates ALIGN H-PPh twice because the head of the recursive PPh, looking, is separated from the right edge of that PPh by two prosodic

22 The nested focus structure mimics earlier approaches to thetic sentences in terms of focus projection (Selkirk, 1984, 1995b). Huck and Na (1992) argue that only the head of the relative in examples like (61) is focused, while the rest is given, presupposed information. This is unlikely given the context question and also the optionality of accentuation. On nested foci, see Neeleman and Szendröi (2004) as well as Féry and Samek-Lodovici (2006). The latter offer an OT account which differs from the one developed here.

98

E. Göbbel / Lingua 136 (2013) 77--102

Fig. 16. Evaluation of (63) and (67).

words, namely was found and the stranded preposition for. Stranded Ps occur in their strong form, are footed and are prosodified as PWds due to EXHPWd (cf. Itô and Mester, 2009). (65)

[TP [DP a [nP diamond [CP that everybody was looking for]]] [T0 was [vP found]]]

(66)

( ∗ ( ∗ ) (( ( ∗ )( ∗ ) ( a DIAMOND that everybody was

) ) ) ) ( ∗) ( ∗ ) LOOKING for was found ∗ ∗

IP PPh PWd

The nested focus diamond attracts nuclear stress and leads to complete deaccentuation of postnuclear material. However, I noted above that most speakers I have consulted do not prefer a subject-prominent sentence. If secondary accents are also considered, then the phrasing and accentuation of such examples is as in (67). The accent on everybody, which is not the target of STRESS-XP, is presumably due to the fact that it occurs at the left edge of a PPh, i.e., it is an effect of ALIGN(PPh,T*,L). The evaluation of this example can be viewed in the third and fourth tableaux in Fig. 16. POSTNUC-D is not violated in any of the candidates and ALIGN H-IP takes care that the relative clause contains phrasal stress, which is assigned to looking. (67)

a. b.

(A díamond) ((that éverybody was lo´oking for) was found) (A díamond was found) (that éverybody was lo´oking for)

Needless to say, focus does not trigger extraposition in these examples, because focus is broad. Only the free ranking of the interface constraints is responsible for it. 3.3.4. Extraposition of defocused relative clauses I now turn to extraposition of defocused relatives. Although Huck and Na (1990) as well as Rochemont and Culicover (1990) argue that the relative clause must be focused or be contained in a larger focus, they actually admit that an extraposed relative can be defocused. Concretely, Rochemont and Culicover (1990) argue that either the source NP or the extraposed constituent must be focused. In the following examples it is the noun that is focused.

E. Göbbel / Lingua 136 (2013) 77--102

(68)

a. b.

Is there anyone here that Mary likes? Yeah, a SOLDIER just came in that Mary likes. (p. 64)

(69)

a. b.

Did John get anything that he saw in Paris for his mother? Yeah, John bought a PICTURE for his mother that he saw in Paris. (p. 65)

99

My own recordings of examples like (68) show that the relative is in fact deaccented regardless of whether it is extraposed or not. This is expected because defocused material cannot be accented in the postnuclear stretch.23 However, Bolinger (1992) effectively refutes the claim that a focus requirement holds of all extraposition constructions. The following example, which was modeled and recorded after one of his examples, shows that neither the source NP nor the extraposed relative clause has to be focused. Everything after want is defocused and deaccented. Yet extraposition is possible and optional in this case, too. (70)

A: Aren’t you going to invite Rupert and Martin? B: Don’t you know they fight all the time? a. I don’t WANT people who are so quarrelsome in my house. b. I don’t WANT people in my house who are so quarrelsome.

Example (70a) has the syntactic structure in (71) and the focus structure in (72). Everything after want is deaccented. In fact, the whole sentence is focused, but three of its constituents are construable from the context and, therefore, G(ivenness)marked. Any phrasal stress after the verb is ruled out by POSTNUC-D (and also by D-GIVEN). Arguably, the relative clause forms a deaccented PPh to which the deaccented PWd in my house is adjoined, as in (73a). This representation incurs one violation of ALIGN H-IP because the head of the IP, the left-peripheral PPh, is separated from the right edge by one (recursive) deaccented PPh. The alternative representation (73b), in which the PP in my house forms a separate PPh, incurs two violations of ALIGN H-IP. If the relative clause shifts to the right, the relative and the vP can form separate PPhs, as in (73c). (71)

I don’t [vP wanti [VP [DP D [nP people [CP who are so quarrelsome]]] [V0 ti in my house]]]

(72)

[F [G I] don’t WANT [G people who are so quarrelsome] [G in my house]]

(73)

a. b. c.

[(I don’t WANT people) ((who are so quarrelsome) in my house)]IP √ [(I don’t WANT people) (who are so quarrelsome) (in my house)]IP (I don’t WANT people in my house) (who are so quarrelsome) √

Concluding, section 3.3 has examined both focused and deaccented relative clauses and the role ALIGN H-IP plays in this construction. Focus on a non-final constituent leads to a violation of this constraint if the defocused material is phrased separately. However, the requirements of this constraint can be met either by a recursive phonological structure or by extraposition. The fact that extraposition is optional in English is due to the free ranking of the interface constraints. 4. Conclusion The goal of this paper was to explore whether phonological triggers can be established for extraposition in English. The only phonological aspect that played a role in previous work was the accentual pattern of extraposition constructions

23

The deaccented material after the nuclear stress is normally low and flat. However, if sentences like (68b) are associated with a fall-rise contour, as produced by one of my informants, the ToBI conventions require postnuclear lexical words to be analyzed as being associated with an L* tone, as in (ib). This notation does not reflect the more complex phonological structure argued for here since it is analyzed as one PPh, and also one IP, by these conventions. But a perceivable temporal disjuncture after likes and the optional occurrence of the rise (H-) on likes, as in (ic), suggest that at least the matrix predicate forms a separate PPh. In one pitch track, represented in (id), the rise (H-) occurs on the particle with the contour rising successively toward the end of the sentence. In this case, the deaccented relative arguably forms a separate PPh. (i) a. Is there anyone here that Mary likes? L+H* L* L* L* L* H-H% b. A MARINE that Mary likes just came in. L+H* L* L*HH% c. A MARINE that Mary likes just came in. L+H* L* L* HH% d. A MARINE just came in Mary likes.

100

E. Göbbel / Lingua 136 (2013) 77--102

induced by focus structure. It is certainly true that (narrow) focus must be marked prosodically, but accentuation in focusneutral sentences is computed automatically on the basis of the prosodic and syntactic structure. Inspired by Truckenbrodt (1995a), this article focused on phonological phrasing. By comparing the phonological structures of the canonical word order and the scrambled order, completely different conclusions emerged from those of earlier work. The main result of this paper is that the optionality of extraposition can be attributed to the interaction of the interface constraints ALIGN-XP and PH=PPH, which are freely ranked and independently needed for an account of optional phrasing in English. Specifically, the ranking PH=PPH >> ALIGN-XP prefers transitive vPs and unaccusative/passive clauses to be phrased separately, which can be achieved by extraposing PPs and clausal constituents. This result could be established within the framework of OT, which allows parallel evaluation of different prosodic structures. In section 1 I asked the question of what improves from the phonological perspective if rightward movement occurs. This question is a legitimate one, particularly for those cases of extraposition in which a light deaccented or defocused constituent occurs at the right edge and which the psycholinguistic literature has identified as particularly favorable for extraposition. Following suggestions by Hartmann (2013), I examined the prosodic structure of such constructions in order to determine whether constraints on prosodic domination play a role. It turned out that the recursive phonological structure based on the canonical word order can be enforced by ALIGN-XP and is not necessarily the result of exhaustive parsing at the PPh level. Nevertheless, rightward movement in these cases does lead to optimization of the phonological structure since recursive phonological structures are thereby avoided. Finally, I examined prosodic structures induced by variable focus structures. The hypothesis was that focus could play an indirect role, at least in those cases in which the relative or the whole DP is focused. Head-alignment constraints could in principle be responsible for rightward movement, giving rise to the preferred prosodic structure in which the IP has rightedge prominence. However, the fairly low rank of the head-alignment constraints in the English constraint hierarchy does not motivate such a conclusion. ALIGN H-IP can only enforce a recursive PPh structure for the canonical word order, but not extraposition. The operation remains optional regardless of the focus structure of the sentence. While focus or its induced prosodic structure cannot be evoked as a ‘trigger’ for extraposition, I think that, in the context of this special issue, it was important to examine this question because rightward movement constructions have traditionally been considered focus constructions. Acknowledgments This article has benefited greatly from comments and suggestions by Jutta Hartmann, Susanne Winkler, Michael Rochemont, Tibor Kiss, Gert Webelhuth, Caroline Féry, Carsten Breul, Luis Lo´pez, Erich Groat and the audience at the workshop ‘Focus, Contrast and Givenness in Interaction with Extraction and Deletion’ (Tübingen, March 2010). Portions of this work have also been presented at the GLOW’32 conference (Nantes, April 2009), at the Linguistics Department in Bochum (July 2009) and at the English Department in Frankfurt (March 2012). Special thanks go to two reviewers, whose constructive criticism and suggestions have led to major improvements. References Adger, D., 2003. Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford. Arnold, J.E., et al., 2000. Heaviness vs. newness: the effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76, 28--55. Baltin, M.R., 1981. Strict bounding. In: Baker, C.L., McCarthy, J.J. (Eds.), The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 257--295. Baltin, M., 2006. Extraposition. In: Everaert, M., Riemsdijk, H.C., van, (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol. 2. Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp. 237--271. Beckman, M.E., Ayers Elam, G., 1997. Guidelines for ToBI Labelling, Version 3. Ms. and Accompanying Speech Materials. Ohio State University, http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/tobi/ame_tobi. Beckman, M.E., Pierrehumbert, J.B., 1986. Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook 3, 255--309. Bolinger, D., 1992. The role of accent in extraposition and focus. Studies in Language 16, 265--324. Büring, D., Truckenbrodt, H., 2011. A theory of syntax--phonology correspondence. In: Handout of Talk at the Workshop ‘‘Prosodia e Sintassi in Ambito Italo-Tedesco’’, Venice, 16--17 September 2011. Chomsky, N., 1972. Deep structure, surface structure and semantic interpretation. In: Chomsky, N. (Ed.), Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 62--119. Chomsky, N., 1986. Barriers. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Chomsky, N., 1995. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Chomsky, N., 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In: Martin, R., Michaels, D., Uriagereka, J. (Eds.), Step by Step: Essays in Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 89--155. Chomsky, N., 2001. Derivation by phase. In: Kenstowicz, M. (Ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1--52. Chomsky, N., 2008. On phases. In: Freidin, R., Otero, C.P., Zubizarreta, M.L. (Eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 133--166.

E. Göbbel / Lingua 136 (2013) 77--102

101

Downing, B.T., 1970. Syntactic structure and phonological phrasing. University of Texas at Austin, (Ph.D. Dissertation). Drubig, H.B., 1992. Zur Frage der grammatischen Repräsentation thetischer und kategorischer Sätze. In: Jacobs, J. (Ed.), Informationsstruktur und Grammatik. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen, pp. 142--195. Drubig, H.B., 1997. Fokuskonstruktionen. Technical report 115, SFB 340. University of Tübingen. Fabb, N., 1990. The differences between English restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses. Journal of Linguistics 26, 57--77. Féry, C., 2010. Syntax, information structure, embedded prosodic phrasing and the relational scaling of pitch accents. In: Erteschik-Shir, N., Rochman, L. (Eds.), The Sound Patterns of Syntax. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 271--290. Féry, C., Samek-Lodovici, V., 2006. Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci. Language 82, 131--150. Fodor, J.D., 2002. Psycholinguistics cannot escape prosody. Speech Prosody 2002, 83--90. Francis, E.J., 2010. Grammatical weight and relative clause extraposition in English. Cognitive Linguistics 21, 35--74. Göbbel, E., 2003. Syntactic and Focus---Structural Aspects of Triadic Constructions. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main. Göbbel, E., 2007. Extraposition as PF movement. In: Bainbridge, E., Agbayani, B. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Western Conference on Linguistics 2006, vol. 17. California State University, Fresno, Fresno, CA, pp. 132--145. Göbbel, E., 2013. Extraposition of defocused and light PPs in English. In: Webelhuth, G., Sailer, M., Walker, H. (Eds.), Rightward Movement in a Comparative Perspective. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 399--438. Guéron, J., 1980. On the syntax and semantics of PP extraposition. Linguistic Inquiry 11, 635--677. Gussenhoven, C., 1983. Focus, mode and the nucleus. Journal of Linguistics 19, 377--417. Gussenhoven, C., 1991. The English rhythm rule as an accent deletion rule. Phonology 8, 1--35. Gussenhoven, C., 2005. Procliticized phonological phrases in English: evidence from rhythm. Studia Linguistica 59, 174--193. Hartmann, K., 2013. Prosodic constraints on extraposition in German. In: Webelhuth, G., Sailer, M., Walker, H. (Eds.), Rightward Movement in a Comparative Perspective. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 439--472. Hayes, B., 1995. Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Huck, G.J., Na, Y., 1990. Extraposition and focus. Language 66, 51--77. Huck, G.J., Na, Y., 1992. Information and contrast. Studies in Language 16, 325--334. Ishihara, S., 2007. Major phrase, focus intonation, multiple spell-out. The Linguistic Review 24, 137--167. Itô, J., Mester, A., 2009. The extended prosodic word. In: Grijzenhout, J., Kabak, B. (Eds.), Phonological Domains: Universals and Deviations. Mouton de Gruyter, New York, pp. 135--194. Jackendoff, R.S., 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Jacobs, J., 1999. Informational autonomy. In: Bosch, P., Sandt, R., van der, (Eds.), Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 56--81. Kabak, B., Revithiadou, A., 2009. An interface approach to prosodic word recursion. In: Grijzenhout, J., Kabak, B. (Eds.), Phonological Domains: Universals and Deviations. Mouton de Gruyter, New York, NY, pp. 105--133. Katz, J., Selkirk, E., 2011. Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: evidence from phonetic prominence in English. Language 87, 771--816. Kentner, G., 2013. Rhythmic parsing. The Linguistic Review, (in press). Konieczny, L., 2000. Locality and parsing complexity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29, 627--645. Kratzer, A., Selkirk, E., 2007. Phase theory and prosodic spellout: the case of verbs. The Linguistic Review 24, 93--135. Ladd, R.D., 1992. Compound prosodic domains. Edinburgh University Linguistics Department Occasional Paper. McCarthy, J., 2003. OT constraints are categorical. Phonology 20, 75--138. McCarthy, J., Prince, A., 1993. Generalized alignment. In: Booij, G., van Marle, J. (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1993. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 79--153. Möck, J., 1994. Extraposition aus der NP im Englischen. Technical report 44, SFB 340. University of Tübingen. Neeleman, A., Szendröi, K., 2004. Superman sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 35, 149--159. Nespor, M., Vogel, I., 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Foris, Dordrecht. Pierrehumbert, J.B., 1993. Alignment and prosodic heads. In: ESCOL, vol. 93. pp. 268--286. Platzack, C., 2000. A complement-of-N0 account of restrictive and non-restrictive relatives: the case of Swedish. In: Alexiadou, A., Law, P., Meinunger, A., Wilder, C. (Eds.), The Syntax of Relative Causes. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 265--308. Prince, A., Smolensky, P., 1993/2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Blackwell, Oxford/Malden. Quirk, R., et al., 1986. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman, London. Rochemont, M.S., 1986. Focus in Generative Grammar. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Rochemont, M.S., 2013. Discourse new, F-marking, and normal stress. Lingua 136, 38--62. Rochemont, M.S., Culicover, P.W., 1990. English Focus Constructions and the Theory of Grammar. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rooth, M., 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1, 75--116. Samek-Lodovici, V., 2005. Prosody--syntax interactions in the expression of focus. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23, 687--755. Selkirk, E., 1984. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation Between Sound and Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Selkirk, E., 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3, 371--405. Selkirk, E., 1995a. The prosodic structure of function words. In: Beckman, J., Walsh Dickey, L., Urbanczyk, S. (Eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory. GLSA Publications, Amherst, MA, pp. 439--469. Selkirk, E., 1995b. Sentence prosody: intonation, stress, and phrasing. In: Goldsmith, J.A. (Ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Blackwell, Cambridge, MA, pp. 550--569. Selkirk, E., 2000. The Interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing. In: Horne, M. (Ed.), Prosody: Theory and Experiment. Studies Presented to Gösta Bruce. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 231--261. Selkirk, E., 2005. Comments on intonational phrasing in English. In: Frota, S., Vigário, M., Freitas, M.J. (Eds.), Prosodies: With Special Reference to Iberian Languages. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 11--58. Selkirk, E., 2006. Bengali intonation revisited: an optimality theoretic analysis in which FOCUS stress prominence drives FOCUS phrasing. In: Lee, C., Gordon, M., Büring, D. (Eds.), Cross-linguistic Perspectives on Meaning and Intonation. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 215--244.

102

E. Göbbel / Lingua 136 (2013) 77--102

Selkirk, E., 2007. Contrastive focus, givenness and the unmarked status of ‘‘discourse-new’’. In: Féry, C., Fanselow, G., Krifka, M. (Eds.), The Notions of Information Structure. Working Papers of the SFB 632, ISIS 6. Universitätsverlag Potsdam, Potsdam, pp. 125--146. Shiobara, K., 2004. Linearization: a derivational approach to the syntax--prosody interface. University of British Columbia, (Ph.D. Dissertation). Taglicht, J., 1998. Constraints on intonational phrasing in English. Journal of Linguistics 34, 181--211. Truckenbrodt, H., 1995a. Extraposition from NP and prosodic structure. In: NELS, vol. 25. pp. 503--517. Truckenbrodt, H., 1995b. Phonological phrases: their relation to syntax, focus and prominence. MIT, (Ph.D. Dissertation). Truckenbrodt, H., 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 219--255. Truckenbrodt, H., 2006. Phrasal stress. In: Brown, K. (Ed.), The Encyclopaedia of Languages and Linguistics. 2nd ed. Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 572--579. Uszkoreit, H., et al., 1998. Studien zur performanzorientierten Linguistik: Aspekte der Relativsatzextraposition im Deutschen. Kognitionswissenschaft 7, 129--133. Visch, E., 1997. Edge-based prominence in phrases and compounds. Rivista di Linguistica 9, 217--244. Visch, E., 1999. The rhythmic organization of compounds and phrases. In: Hulst, H., van der, (Eds.), Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 162--231. Wasow, T., 2002. Postverbal Behaviour. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Webelhuth, G., Sailer, M., Walker, H., 2013. Introduction by the editors. In: Webelhuth, G., Sailer, M., Walker, H. (Eds.), Rightward Movement in a Comparative Perspective. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 1--60.