Abstract
Although the interfaces of phonology with other components of grammar are usually examined as pairs (e.g., phonology–syntax or phonology–morphology interface), this paper considers cases where it is less obvious how the interfaces should be partitioned. Specifically, complex compounds that involve both morphological and syntactic structures (e.g., (an) all you can eat restaurant), are examined in English, and it is shown that despite their potentially considerable morphological and syntactic complexity, their phonology is relatively simple. The analysis is advanced within the framework of Prosodic Phonology, modified to allow certain constituent levels to be skipped in accordance with proposals to weaken the Strict Layer Hypothesis, but still excluding recursive structures. It is demonstrated that a prosodic constituent between the Phonological Word and Phonological Phrase, the Composite Group (e.g., Vogel 2009, forthcoming); is crucially required, and that it is this constituent that serves as the domain for compound structure and related phonological phenomena. Within the Composite Group, moreover, the potential morpho-syntactic complexity of compounds is mapped to relatively flat prosodic structures, where all that is required for the correct prominence patterns to emerge is a general prosodic template that accounts similarly for simple two-word compounds as well as for complex compounds.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
For simplicity, here and in some cases below, the left and right brackets are shown only for the innermost member of the compound (e.g., [tuna]), although each member would be similarly bracketed as a word.
- 3.
The examples provided here and elsewhere are based on the author’s intuitions, confirmed by at least one other native English speaker.
- 4.
A model of grammar with a morphological component is assumed here. If a different type of model is adopted, it must also be able to account for the phenomena under consideration.
- 5.
The terms “level 1” and “level 2” affixes follow the usage of Lexical Phonology; however, they are only used descriptively here to refer to affixes that cohere more or less with their root, respectively, not as an endorsement of Lexical Phonology per se. Note that while -able, and certain other affixes have been analyzed differently in different studies, their classification is not relevant to the general issue here.
- 6.
It should be borne in mind that despite certain drawbacks, including the paradoxes just seen, the ordering of operations in Lexical Phonology does capture generalizations that would be missed if words are constructed in a haphazard way.
- 7.
Such structures have not previously received much attention, although Gussenhoven (1991) discusses their prosody in the broader context of the English Rhythm Rule. Many of Gussenhoven’s observations remain insightful, however, he does not address the problem of the ordering paradox created by introducing phrasal material into the morphological component. He simply constructs compounds at the second (of three) lexical phonological levels, along with “level 2” affixation (i.e., before level 3 inflection), regardless of the content of the compounds, by allowing apparently unlimited looping back and forth among levels.
- 8.
- 9.
See Plag (2008) for a detailed discussion of additional compound stress patterns of English.
- 10.
See Wagner (2005) for a different grid approach, where it is still argued, however, that grid levels only represent relative (quantitative), as opposed to specific (qualitative) stress properties. Nevertheless, it is also claimed that the different rows in a grid correspond to particular boundary strengths.
- 11.
Note that it is not simply the schwa in cantor that cues the absence of stress on the second syllable; the same pattern can be observed with an unstressed tense vowel (e.g., cándy).
- 12.
As both reviewers commented, there are multiple ways of constructing metrical grids; see Gussenhoven’s (1991) discussion. In many cases in this paper, the grid is just used as a descriptive tool to represent the prominence patterns of interest. To foreshadow the discussion below, however, the mechanism underlying the analysis advanced in this paper starts with a basic grid mark on each syllable, and then assigns additional grid marks in relation to (heads of) prosodic constituents.
- 13.
- 14.
The requirements are for the typical prominence patterns at each level. Any alternative patterns (e.g., different compound stress patterns in names: Fifth Street vs. Fifth Road) would need to be specified more precisely for a given type of structure. See also Gussenhoven (1991).
- 15.
Compound formation may involve templates more generally, such as morphological requirements on one or another member. For example, in English compounds such as dish washer, the first member must be singular, even when the meaning clearly involves a plural; the machine (or person) does not wash just one dish. In Italian compounds, the corresponding element is typically plural, even if the meaning is singular, as in segna libri ‘book mark,’ where one book is marked at a time. In addition, a compound structure template has been proposed to ensure the appearance of a specific verb form (Vogel and Napoli 1995).
- 16.
Such templates might lend themselves well to a constraint-based analysis. It is beyond the scope of the present paper to assess such a possibility, as the focus here is on providing a clear description of the compound prosodic phenomena any model would need to account for.
- 17.
The higher grid marks correspond to plausible prosodic constituent heads; the mechanism for their assignment is not relevant for the present discussion.
- 18.
- 19.
There may be subtle differences in the sequence of Foot level stresses, possibly due to eurhythmy principles, but they are not linguistically meaningful, in the way that primary stress is, for example.
- 20.
“His” would actually also fall within the κ as a function word; however, this is not relevant here.
- 21.
As with the CSR, the enhancement of the stress on the “landing site” of the Rhythm Rule is a perceptual effect, not due to increased stress properties on that syllable, but a reduction of the originally stressed syllable (e.g., Vogel et al. 1995). See Gussenhoven (1991) for detailed discussion of the Rhythm Rule.
References
Bauer, L. 1983. English word formation. Cambridge: University Press.
Chomsky, N., and M. Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. NY: Harper & Row.
Fiorentino, R., and D. Poeppel. 2007. Compound words and structure in the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 22 (7): 953–2000.
Gussenhoven, C. 1991. The English rhythm rule as an accent deletion rule. Phonology 8: 1–35.
Hayes, B. 1984. The phonology of rhythm in English. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 3–74.
Hayes, B. 1995. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Horne, M. 1990. Empirical evidence for a deletion analysis of the rhythm rule in English. Linguistics 28: 959–981.
Itô, J., and A. Mester. 2009. The extended prosodic word. In Phonological domains: Universals and deviations, ed. J. Grijzenhout, and B. Kabak, 135–194. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Liberman, M., and A. Prince. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 249–336.
Lieber, R. 1992. Deconstructing morphology. Chicago: University Press.
Meibauer, J. 2007. How marginal are phrasal compounds? Generalized insertion, expressivity, and I/Q interaction. Morphology 17: 233–259.
Nespor, M., and I. Vogel. 1986/2007. Prosodic phonology. Foris: Dordrecht.
Plag, I., G. Kunter, S. Lappe, and M. Braun. 2008. The role of semantics, argument structure, and lexicalization in compound stress assignment in English. Language 84: 760–794.
Padrosa Trias, S. 2010. Complex word formation and the morphology-syntax interface. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
Selkirk, E. 2011. The phonology-syntax interface. In The handbook of phonological theory, 2nd ed, ed. J. Goldsmith, J. Riggle, and A. Yu. Oxford: Blackwell.
Uffmann, C. 2015. Loanword adaptation. In Oxford handbook of historical phonology, ed. P. Honeybone, and J. Salmons, 644–667. Oxford: University Press.
Vogel, I. 1989. The role of the clitic group in prosodic phonology. In Proceedings of the speech research ’89 international conference, ed. T. Szende, 140–148. Budapest: Linguistics Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
Vogel, I. 2009. The status of the clitic group. In Phonological domains: Universals and deviations, ed. J. Grijzenhout, and B. Kabak, 15–46. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Vogel, I. (2010). The phonology of compounding. In Compounding: Theory and analysis, ed. Sergio Scalise and Irene Vogel, 145–163. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vogel, I. (forthcoming). Life after the strict layer hypothesis: Prosodic structure geometry. In Prosodic studies: Challenges and prospects, ed. Hongming Zhang. Routledge.
Vogel, I., H.T. Bunnell, and S. Hoskins. 1995. The phonology and phonetics of the rhythm rule. In Papers in laboratory phonology. IV, ed. B. Connell, 111–127. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vogel, I. & D.J. Napoli (1995). The verbal component in Italian compounds. In Proceedings of the linguistics symposium on romance languages. XXII, ed. J. Amastae, G. Goodall and M. Montalbetti, 367–381. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Wagner, M. 2005. Prosody and recursion. Ph.D. Dissertation. MIT.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vogel, I. (2018). The Morpho-Syntax-Phonology Interface in Complex Compounds. In: Bartos, H., den Dikken, M., Bánréti, Z., Váradi, T. (eds) Boundaries Crossed, at the Interfaces of Morphosyntax, Phonology, Pragmatics and Semantics. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 94. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90710-9_24
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90710-9_24
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-90709-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-90710-9
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)