1932

Abstract

It is well known that syntax matters to phonology, but does phonology matter to syntax? This question is controversial, partly because judging whether a phenomenon is syntactic or phonological is not always straightforward, and partly because the relevant data (e.g., well-formedness judgments) are often noncategorical, yet grammatically structured in ways that elude performance explanations. This review discusses examples of phonologically constrained syntactic variation and shows how they can be understood in terms of the variation + filtering theory of syntax–phonology interaction. This theory has the following key properties: () Phonology refers to syntax, but syntax does not refer to phonology; () syntax predicts variation by admitting alternative linearizations as well as alternative choices among constituents; and () phonology acts as a filter by evaluating the phonological well-formedness of the variants. I conclude that phonological effects on syntactic variation are limited, but real.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040845
2016-01-14
2024-06-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/2/1/annurev-linguistics-011415-040845.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040845&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Adger D. 2006. Combinatorial variability. J. Linguist. 42:503–30 [Google Scholar]
  2. Agbayani B, Golston C, Ishii T. 2015. Syntactic and prosodic scrambling in Japanese. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 33:47–77 [Google Scholar]
  3. Albright A. 2009. Feature-based generalisation as a source of gradient acceptability. Phonology 26:9–41 [Google Scholar]
  4. Albright A, Hayes B. 2003. Rules versus analogy in English past tenses: a computational/experimental study. Cognition 90:119–61 [Google Scholar]
  5. Anderson SR. 2008. English reduced auxiliaries really are simple clitics. Lingue Ling. 7:169–86 [Google Scholar]
  6. Anttila A. 1997. Variation in Finnish phonology and morphology PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA 161 [Google Scholar]
  7. Anttila A. 2007. Variation and optionality. The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology P de Lacy 519–36 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  8. Anttila A. 2008. Phonological constraints on constituent ordering. Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics CB Chang, H Haynie 51–59 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla [Google Scholar]
  9. Anttila A. 2012. Modeling phonological variation. The Oxford Handbook of Laboratory Phonology A Cohn, C Fougeron, M Huffman 76–91 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  10. Anttila A. Stress, phrasing, and auxiliary contraction in English. The Morphosyntax–Phonology Connection: Locality and Directionality at the Interface V Gribanova, S Shih. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. Forthcoming [Google Scholar]
  11. Anttila A, Adams M, Speriosu M. 2010. The role of prosody in the English dative alternation. Lang. Cogn. Process. 25:946–81 [Google Scholar]
  12. Anttila A, Andrus C. 2006. T-Orders. Manuscript and Software. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ http://web.stanford.edu/∼anttila/research/torders/t-order-manual.pdf [Google Scholar]
  13. Anttila A, Cho YMY. 1998. Variation and change in Optimality Theory. Lingua 104:31–56 [Google Scholar]
  14. Baart JLG. 1987. Focus, syntax and accent placement PhD thesis, Univ. Leiden, Neth 196 [Google Scholar]
  15. Barth D, Kapatsinski V. 2014. A multimodel inference approach to categorical variant choice: construction, priming and frequency effects on the choice between full and contracted forms of am, are and is. Corpus Linguist. Linguist. Theory. doi:10.1515/cllt-2014-0022 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bennett R, Elfner E, McCloskey J. Lightest to the right: an apparently anomalous displacement in Irish. Linguist. Inq. Forthcoming [Google Scholar]
  17. Berwick RC, Chomsky N. 2011. The biolinguistic program: the current state of its development. The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty AM Di Sciullo, C Boeckx 19–41 Oxford, UK/New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  18. Bierwisch M. 1968. Two critical problems in accent rules. J. Linguist. 4:173–78 [Google Scholar]
  19. Breen M. 2014. Empirical investigations of the role of implicit prosody in sentence processing. Lang. Linguist. Compass 8:37–50 [Google Scholar]
  20. Bresnan J. 1971. Sentence stress and syntactic transformations. Language 47:257–81 [Google Scholar]
  21. Bresnan J. 1978. Contraction and the Transformational Cycle in English Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Linguist. Club [Google Scholar]
  22. Bresnan J, Cueni A, Nikitina T, Baayen RH. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation G Boume, I Kraemer, J Zwarts 69–94 Amsterdam: R. Neth. Acad. Sci. [Google Scholar]
  23. Bresnan J, Dingare S, Manning CD. 2001. Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: voice and person in English and Lummi. Proceedings of the 2001 Lexical Functional Grammar Conference (LFG 01) M Butt, T Holloway King 13–32 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf. [Google Scholar]
  24. Bruening B. 2010. Double object constructions disguised as prepositional datives. Linguist. Inq. 41:287–305 [Google Scholar]
  25. Chomsky N. 1959. A review of B.F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior. Language 35:26–58 [Google Scholar]
  26. Chomsky N, Halle M. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English New York: Harper & Row [Google Scholar]
  27. Chung S. 2003. The syntax and prosody of weak pronouns in Chamorro. Linguist. Inq. 34:547–99 [Google Scholar]
  28. Cinque G. 1993. A null theory of phrase and sentence stress. Linguist. Inq. 24:391–444 [Google Scholar]
  29. Coetzee AW, Pater J. 2011. The place of variation in phonological theory. The Handbook of Phonological Theory J Goldsmith, J Riggle, ACL Yu 401–34 Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  30. Cohan J, Quené H, Kager R, Nooteboom S. 2002. Heavy constituent extraposition: experimental evidence for parallel processing. Proceedings of the 32nd Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 32) M Hirotani 41–52 Amherst, MA: Grad. Stud. Linguist. Assoc. [Google Scholar]
  31. Culy C. I996. Null objects in English recipes. Lang. Var. Change 8:91–124 [Google Scholar]
  32. Davies M. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 Million Words, 1990–2012 Provo, UT: Brigham Young Univ http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/ [Google Scholar]
  33. Djalali AJ, Jeffers C. 2014. OTOrder, Software Package Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ http://rc-linguistics.stanford.edu/about/#citing [Google Scholar]
  34. Duanmu S. 2012. Word length preferences in Chinese: a corpus study. J. East Asian Linguist. 21:89–114 [Google Scholar]
  35. Embick D. 2008. Variation and morphosyntactic theory: competition fractionated. Lang. Linguist. Compass 2:59–78 [Google Scholar]
  36. Embick D. 2010. Localism Versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  37. Erteschik-Shir N. 2005. Sound patterns of syntax: object shift. Theor. Linguist. 31:47–93 [Google Scholar]
  38. Feng S. 2003. Prosodically constrained postverbal PPs in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistics 41:1085–22 [Google Scholar]
  39. Fodor JD. 2002. Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. Proceedings of the 32nd Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 32) M Hirotani 113–32 Amherst, MA: Grad. Stud. Linguist. Assoc. [Google Scholar]
  40. Frank A, Jaeger TF. 2008. Speaking rationally: uniform information density as an optimal strategy for language production. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society BC Love, K McRae, VM Sloutsky 933–38 Washington, DC: Cogn. Sci. Soc. [Google Scholar]
  41. Fraser B. 1998. A phonological constraint on the alternate to-dative form Work. pap., Sch. Educ., Boston Univ., Boston, MA [Google Scholar]
  42. Golston C. 1995. Syntax outranks phonology: evidence from Ancient Greek. Phonology 12:343–68 [Google Scholar]
  43. Greenberg JH. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of Language JH Greenberg 58–90 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  44. Gries ST. 2007. New perspectives on old alternations. Papers from the 39th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society II The Panels JE Cihlar, AL Franklin, DW Kaiser 274–92 Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguist. Soc. [Google Scholar]
  45. Grimshaw JB. 2005. Words and Structure Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf. [Google Scholar]
  46. Grimshaw JB. 2013. The structure of syntactic typologies. Mind Lang. 28:538–59 [Google Scholar]
  47. Gussenhoven C. 1983. Focus, mode and the nucleus. J. Linguist. 19:377–417 [Google Scholar]
  48. Gussenhoven C. 1992. Sentence accents and argument structure. Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar I Roca 79–106 Berlin/New York: Foris [Google Scholar]
  49. Halle M, Marantz A. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honour of Sylvain Bromberger K Hale, SJ Keyser 111–76 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  50. Harford C, Demuth K. 1999. Prosody outranks syntax: an Optimality approach to subject inversion in Bantu relatives. Linguist. Anal. 29:47–68 [Google Scholar]
  51. Harley H. 2007. The bipartite structure of verbs cross-linguistically (or: Why Mary can't exhibit John her paintings) Presented at Associação Brasileira de Linguística (ABRALIN), Belo Horizonte, Braz. [Google Scholar]
  52. Harley H, Noyer R. 1999. Distributed morphology. Glot Int. 4:3–9 [Google Scholar]
  53. Hawkins JA. 1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  54. Hayes B. 1990. Precompiled phrasal phonology. See Inkelas & Zec 1990 85–108
  55. Hetzron R. 1972. Phonology in syntax. J. Linguist. 8:251–265 [Google Scholar]
  56. Hockett CF. 1942. A system of descriptive phonology. Language 18:3–21 [Google Scholar]
  57. Holmberg A. 1999. Remarks on Holmberg's Generalization. Stud. Linguist. 53:1–39 [Google Scholar]
  58. Hosono M. 2010. Scandinavian object shift as the cause of downstep. Work. Pap. Scand. Syntax 85:1–36 [Google Scholar]
  59. Inkelas S, Zec D. 1990. The Phonology–Syntax Connection Chicago/London: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  60. Inkelas S, Zec D. 1993. Auxiliary reduction without empty categories: a prosodic account. Work. Pap. Cornell Phon. Lab. 8:205–53 [Google Scholar]
  61. Inkelas S, Zec D. 1995. Syntax–phonology interface. The Handbook of Phonological Theory JA Goldsmith 535–49 Cambridge, MA: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  62. Jaeger TF. 2006. Redundancy and syntactic reduction in spontaneous speech PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA 460 [Google Scholar]
  63. Josefsson G. 2010. Object shift and optionality. an intricate interplay between syntax, prosody and information structure. Work. Pap. Scand. Syntax 86:1–24 [Google Scholar]
  64. Kager R, Zonneveld W. 1999. Phrasal phonology: an introduction. Phrasal Phonology R Kager, W Zonneveld 1–34 Nijmegen, Neth: Nijmegen Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  65. Kaisse EM. 1983. The syntax of auxiliary reduction in English. Language 59:93–122 [Google Scholar]
  66. Kaisse EM. 1985. Connected Speech: The Interaction of Syntax And Phonology Orlando, FL: Academic [Google Scholar]
  67. Keyser SJ, Roeper T. 1992. Re: the abstract clitic hypothesis. Linguist. Inq. 23:89–125 [Google Scholar]
  68. Kiparsky P. 1993. Variable rules Presented at Rutgers Optimality Workshop 1, Oct. 22, New Brunswick, N. J. [Google Scholar]
  69. Kiparsky P. 2000. Opacity and cyclicity. Linguist. Rev. 17:351–66 [Google Scholar]
  70. Krug M. 1998. String frequency: a cognitive motivating factor in coalescence, language processing, and linguistic change. J. Engl. Linguist. 26:286–320 [Google Scholar]
  71. Labov W. 1969. Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45:715–62 [Google Scholar]
  72. Lavandera BR. 1978. Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop?. Lang. Soc. 7:171–82 [Google Scholar]
  73. Levy RP, Jaeger TF. 2007. Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2007) JC Platt, D Koller, Y Singer, ST Roweis 849–56 Red Hook, NY: Curran Assoc. [Google Scholar]
  74. Liberman M, Prince A. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguist. Inq. 8:249–336 [Google Scholar]
  75. MacKenzie L. 2011. English auxiliary contraction as a two-stage process: evidence from corpus data. Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 29) J Choi, EA Hogue, J Punske, D Tat, Jessamyn, A Trueman 152–60 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla [Google Scholar]
  76. MacKenzie L. 2012. Locating variation above the phonology PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., Univ. Pa., Philadelphia 301 [Google Scholar]
  77. McCarthy JJ. 2008. Doing Optimality Theory Malden, MA: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  78. McElhinny BS. 1993. Copula and auxiliary contraction in the speech of white Americans. Am. Speech 68:371–99 [Google Scholar]
  79. Miller PH, Pullum GK, Zwicky AM. 1997. The principle of phonology-free syntax: four apparent counterexamples in French. J. Linguist. 33:67–90 [Google Scholar]
  80. Nespor M, Vogel I. 2007. Studies in Generative Grammar 28 Prosodic Phonology Berlin: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  81. Newman SS. 1946. On the stress system of English. Word 2:171–87 [Google Scholar]
  82. Newmeyer F. 2003. Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language 79:682–707 [Google Scholar]
  83. Pak M. 2008. The postsyntactic derivation and its phonological reflexes PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., Univ. Pa., Philadelphia 280 [Google Scholar]
  84. Pesetsky D. 1998. Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation. Is the Best Good Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax P Barbosa, D Fox, P Hagstrom, M McGinnis, D Pesetsky 337–83 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  85. Pierrehumbert J. 1994. Knowledge of variation. Papers from 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 2 The Parasession of Variation in Linguistic Theory K Beals, J Denton, R Knippen, L Melnar, H Suzuki, E Zeinfeld 232–56 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc. [Google Scholar]
  86. Pike KL. 1947. Grammatical prerequisites to phonemic analysis. Word 3:155–72 [Google Scholar]
  87. Pitt MA, Dilley L, Johnson K, Kiesling S, Raymond W. et al. 2007. Buckeye Corpus of Conversational Speech. Columbus: Dep. Psychol., Ohio State Univ. 2nd release. http://www.buckeyecorpus.osu.edu [Google Scholar]
  88. Prince A, Smolensky P. 1993/2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar Malden, MA: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  89. Pullum GK, Zwicky AM. 1988. The syntax–phonology interface. Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey I Linguistic Theory: Foundations FJ Newmeyer 255–80 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  90. Reinhart T. 1995. Interface strategies. OTS Work. Pap. Theor. Linguist. 1995:55–109 [Google Scholar]
  91. Reynolds WT. 1994. Variation and phonological theory PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., Univ. Pa., Philadelphia [Google Scholar]
  92. Richards N. 2014. Contiguity theory Work. pap., Dep. Linguist., MIT, Cambridge, MA. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002247 [Google Scholar]
  93. Riggle J. 2010. Sampling rankings Work. pap. ROA-1075, Dep. Linguist., Univ. Chicago. http://roa.rutgers.edu/files/1075-0510/1075-RIGGLE-0-0.PDF [Google Scholar]
  94. Ross JR. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., MIT, Cambridge, MA [Google Scholar]
  95. Schlüter J. 2005. Rhythmic Grammar: The Influence of Rhythm on Grammatical Variation and Change in English Berlin: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  96. Selkirk EO. 1984. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation Between Sound and Structure Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  97. Selkirk EO. 1995. Sentence prosody: intonation, stress, and phrasing. The Handbook of Phonological Theory JA Goldsmith 550–69 Cambridge, MA: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  98. Selkirk EO. 2011. The syntax–phonology interface. The Handbook of Phonological Theory JA Goldsmith, J Riggle, A Yu 435–83 Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  99. Shih S. 2014. Towards optimal rhythm PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA 250 [Google Scholar]
  100. Sohoglu E, Peelle JE, Carlyon RP, Davis MH. 2012. Predictive top-down integration of prior knowledge during speech perception. J. Neurosci. 32:8443–53 [Google Scholar]
  101. Spencer JD. 2014. Stochastic effects in the grammar: toward a usage-based model of copula contraction PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA 156 [Google Scholar]
  102. Speyer A. 2010. Topicalization and Stress Clash Avoidance in the History of English. Berlin/New York de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  103. Sun H, Jurafsky D. 2003. The effect of rhythm on structural disambiguation in Chinese. Proceedings of the 2nd SIGHAN Workshop on Chinese Language Processing 1739–46 Stroundsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist. [Google Scholar]
  104. Szendrői K. 2003. A stress-based approach to the syntax of Hungarian focus. Linguist. Rev. 20:37–78 [Google Scholar]
  105. Taglicht J. 1998. Constraints on intonational phrasing in English. J. Linguist. 34:181–211 [Google Scholar]
  106. Thráinsson H. 2001. Object shift and scrambling. The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory M Baltin, C Collins 148–202 Malden, MA: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  107. Tranel B. 1998. Suppletion and OT: on the issue of the syntax/phonology interaction. Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 16) E Curtis, J Lyle, G Webster 415–29 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf. [Google Scholar]
  108. Truckenbrodt H. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguist. Inq. 30:219–55 [Google Scholar]
  109. Truckenbrodt H. 2007. The syntax–phonology interface. The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology P de Lacy 435–56 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  110. Vogel I, Kenesei I. 1990. Syntax and semantics in phonology. See Inkelas & Zec 1990 339–63
  111. Vogel R. 2006. Weak function word shift. Linguistics 44:1059–93 [Google Scholar]
  112. Wagner M. 2005. Asymmetries in prosodic domain formation. MIT Work. Pap. Linguist. 49:329–67 [Google Scholar]
  113. Wagner M. Phonological evidence in syntax Syntax—Theory and Analysis. An International Handbook T Kiss, A Alexiadou. Berlin: de Gruyter. Forthcoming [Google Scholar]
  114. Wasow T. 2002. Postverbal Behavior Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf. [Google Scholar]
  115. Wasow T, Levy R, Melnick R, Zhu H, Juzek T. 2015. Processing, prosody, and optional to. Explicit and Implicit Prosody in Sentence Processing L Frazier, E Gibson 133–58 Berlin: Springer [Google Scholar]
  116. Wilder C. 1997. English finite auxiliaries in syntax and phonology. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 140 Clitics, Pronouns, and Movement JR Black, V Motapanyane 321–62 Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  117. Zec D, Inkelas S. 1990. Prosodically constrained syntax. See Inkelas & Zec 1990 365–78
  118. Zubizarreta ML. 1998. Prosody, Focus, and Word Order Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  119. Zwicky AM. 1970. Auxiliary reduction in English. Linguist. Inq. 1:323–36 [Google Scholar]
  120. Zwicky AM. 1986. The unaccented pronoun constraint in English. Ohio State Univ. Work. Pap. Linguist. 32:100–13 [Google Scholar]
  121. Zwicky AM, Pullum GK. 1986. The principle of phonology-free syntax: introductory remarks. Ohio State Univ. Work. Pap. Linguist. 32:63–91 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040845
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040845
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error