Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 183–237 | Cite as

Prosody and recursion in coordinate structures and beyond

  • Michael Wagner


Generalizations about relative prosodic boundary strength are recursive. Initial evidence comes from the fragment of English consisting only of proper names and and and or. A systematic relation between the semantics, the syntactic combinatorics, and the prosodic phrasing of coordinate structures can be captured by recursively building up their prosody, in tandem with assembling their compositional meaning. Alternative edge-based approaches to prosodic phrasing fail to capture the recursive nature of the generalization, a result independent of whether or not prosodic representation itself is assumed to be recursive. The pattern generalizes beyond the grammar of coordination, despite two types of apparent counterexamples: Structures that are prosodically flat but syntactically articulated, and structures with an apparent outright mismatch between prosody and syntax. Closer inspection suggests that the syntax might actually be quite in tune with prosody. In both cases, natural language employs strategies to construe complex meaning with list-like structures rather than nested ones. The privileged status of lists may be due to processing factors.


Prosody Recursion Bracketing paradoxes Lists 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adger, David. 2007. Stress and phasal syntax. Linguistic Analysis 38: 238–266. Google Scholar
  2. Agbayani, Brian, and Chris Golston. 2010. Second-position is first-position: Wackernagel’s Law and the role of clausal disjunction. Diachronica (to appear). Google Scholar
  3. Aissen, Judith L. 1992. Topic and focus in Mayan. Language 68(1): 43–80. Google Scholar
  4. Alonso-Ovalle, Luis. 2006. Disjunction in alternative semantics. PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Google Scholar
  5. Andrews, Avery. 1983. A note on the constituent structure of modifiers. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 695–97. Google Scholar
  6. Arad, Maya. 2005. Roots and patterns: Hebrew morpho-syntax. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar
  7. Arregi, Karlos. 2002. Focus on basque movement. PhD dissertation. Cambridge: MIT. Google Scholar
  8. Bachrach, Asaf, and Roni Katzir. 2007. Right-node raising and the syntax-phonology interface. Talk presented at SPINE. Cornell University. Google Scholar
  9. Bierwisch, Manfred. 1983. Semantische und konzeptuelle Repräsentation lexikalischer Einheiten. In Untersuchungen zur Semantik, eds. R. Ruzicka and W. Motsch, Vol. 22 of Studia Grammatika, 61–99. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Google Scholar
  10. Bresnan, Joan W. 1971. Sentence stress and syntactic tranformations. Language 47: 257–281. Google Scholar
  11. Bresnan, Joan W. 1972. Stress and syntax: a reply. Language 48: 326–342. Google Scholar
  12. Carlson, Katy Jr., Charles Clifton, and Lyn Frazier. 2001. Prosodic boundaries in adjunct attachment. Journal of Memory and Language 45: 58–81. Google Scholar
  13. Carrier, Jill, and Janet H. Randall. 1992. The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultatives. Linguistic inquiry 23(2): 173–234. Google Scholar
  14. Chen, Matthew Y. 1987. The syntax of Xiamen tone sandhi. Phonology Yearbook 4: 109–149. Google Scholar
  15. Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. Mouton: The Hague. Google Scholar
  16. Chomsky, Noam. 1961. On the notion ‘rule of grammar’. In Proceedings of symposia in applied mathematics 12: structure of language and its mathematical aspects, ed. R. Jakobson, 6–24. Providence: American Mathematical Society. Reprinted in: Fodor, Jerry and Jerrold J. Katz. 1964. The structure of language: readings in the philosophy of language, 119–136. New York: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
  17. Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of a theory of grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  18. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  19. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale. A life in language, ed. M. Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  20. Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row. Google Scholar
  21. Chomsky, Noam, and M. P. Schützenberger. 1963. The algebraic theory of context-free languages. In Computer programming and formal systems, eds. P. Braffort and D. Hirschberg, 119–161. Amsterdam: North Holland. Google Scholar
  22. Christiansen, Morten, and Nick Chater. 1999. Toward a connectionist model of recursion in human linguistic performance. Cognitive Science 23(2): 157–205. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cinque, Guillermo. 1993. A null-theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 239–298. Google Scholar
  24. Clifton, Jr. Charles, Katy Carlson, and Lyn Frazier. 2002. Informative prosodic boundaries. Language and Speech 45: 87–114. Google Scholar
  25. Cooper, William, and Jeanne Paccia-Cooper. 1980. Syntax and speech. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
  26. Culicover, Peter W., and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. London: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  27. Davidson, Donald. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. In The logic of decision and action, ed. N. Reschler, 81–95. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Google Scholar
  28. Déchaine, Rose-Marie. 1993. Predicates across categories: towards a category-neutral syntax. PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Google Scholar
  29. Derbyshire, Desmond C., and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 1986. Vol. I of Handbook of Amazonian languages, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  30. Dobashi, Yoshihito. 2003. Phonological phrasing and syntacic derivation. PhD dissertation. Cornell University. Google Scholar
  31. Downing, Bruce T. 1970. Syntactic structure and phonological phrasing in English. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Google Scholar
  32. Dresher, Bezalel Elan. 1994. The prosodic basis of the Tiberian Hebrew system of accents. Language 70: 1–52. Google Scholar
  33. Elordieta, Gorka, Sonia Frota, Pilar Prieto, and Marina Vigário. 2003. Effects of constituent length and syntactic branching on intonational phrasing in Ibero-Romance. In Vol. 1 of Proceedings of the 15th international congress of phonetic sciences, 487–490. Google Scholar
  34. Everett, Daniel, L. 2005. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã. Current Anthropology. Google Scholar
  35. Féry, Caroline, and Hubert Truckenbrodt. 2004. Tonal scaling and the sisterhood principle. Universität Potsdam and Universität Tübingen. Google Scholar
  36. Fox, Danny. 2002. Antecedent contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 63–96. Google Scholar
  37. Fox, Danny, and Jon Nissenbaum. 1999. Extraposition and scope: a scope for overt QR. In Proceedings of the 18th west coast conference on formal linguistics (WCCFL 18), eds. S. Bird, A. Carnie, J.D. Haugen, and P. Norquest. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Google Scholar
  38. Frank, Robert. 2002. Phrase structure composition and syntactic dependencies. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  39. Gazdar, Gerald, Ewan Klein, Geoffrey Pullum, and Ivan Sag. 1985. Generalized phrase-structure grammar. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
  40. Ghini, Mirco. 1993. φ-formation in Italian: a new proposal. In Vol. 4 of Toronto working papers in linguistic, ed. K. Dick, 41–78. Toronto: University of Toronto. Google Scholar
  41. Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  42. Grimshaw, Jane. 2005. Words and structure. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  43. Guimarães, Maximiliano. 2004. Derivation and representation of syntactic amalgams. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland. Google Scholar
  44. Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1986. English Plosive Allophones and ambisyllabicity. Gramma 10: 119–141. Google Scholar
  45. Haider, Hubert. 1993. Deutsche syntax—generativ. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Google Scholar
  46. Haider, Hubert. 2000. Branching and discharge. In Lexical specification and insertion, eds. P. Coopmans, M. Everaert, and J. Grimshaw. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  47. Halle, Morris, and William J. Idsardi. 1995. General properties of stress and metrical structure. In The handbook of phonological theory, ed. John A. Goldsmith, 403–443. London: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  48. Halle, Morris, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1987. An essay on stress. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  49. Hankamer, Jorge, and Ivan Sag. 1976. Deep and surface Anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7(3): 291–428. Google Scholar
  50. Harris, Zellig S. 1957. Co-occurrence and transformation in linguistic structure. Language 33: 283–340. Google Scholar
  51. Hartmann, Katharina. 2001. Right node raising and gapping: interface conditions on prosodic deletion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  52. Hasegawa, Nobuko. 1979. Fast speech vs. casual speech. In Papers from the fifteenth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, eds. P.R. Clyne, W.F. Hanks, and C.L. Hofbauer, 126–137. Chicago, Il. Google Scholar
  53. Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Coordination. In Language typology and syntactic description, ed. Timothy Shopen. Vol. II of Complex constructions, 2nd edn., 1–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  54. Hauser, Marc D., Noam Chomsky, and W. Tecumseh Fitch. 2002. The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298: 1569–1579. Google Scholar
  55. Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  56. Hoeksema, Jacob. 1983. Plurality and conjunction. In Studies in model-theoretic semantics, ed. A. ter Meulen, 63–83. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  57. Hsiao, Franny. 2002. Tonal domains are stress domains in Taiwanese—evidence from focus. In Phonological answers (and their corresponding questions), eds. Csirmaz, Anikó, Zhiqiang Li, Andrew Nevins, Olga Vaysman, and Michael Wagner, Vol. 42 of MIT working papers in linguistics. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  58. Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2001. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  59. Hulsey, Sarah, and Uli Sauerland. 2006. Sorting out relative clauses. Natural Language Semantics 12: 111–137. Google Scholar
  60. Hunyadi, László. 2006. Grouping, the cognitive basis of recursion in language. Argumentum 2: 67–114. Google Scholar
  61. Hurford, James R. 1974. Exclusive or inclusive disjunction. Foundations of Language, 410–411. Google Scholar
  62. Idsardi, William J. 1992. The computation of Prosody. PhD dissertation. MIT. Google Scholar
  63. Ishihara, Shinishiro. 2003. Intonation and interface conditions. PhD dissertation. MIT. Google Scholar
  64. Jackendoff, Ray S. 1977. X’-syntax: a study of phrase structure. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  65. Jaeger, T. Florian, and Elisabeth J. Norcliffe. 2005. Post-nuclear phrasing. Presented at the LSA Meeting, Oakland, CA. Google Scholar
  66. Kahn, David. 1976. Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. New York: Garland. Google Scholar
  67. Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2004. The syntax of sentential stress. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto. Google Scholar
  68. Kaisse, Ellen M. 1985. Connected speech. The interaction between syntax and phonology. Orlando: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  69. Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  70. Keating, Patricia A. 2006. Phonetic encoding of prosodic structure. In Speech production: models, phonetic processes and techniques, eds. J. Harrington and M. Tabain, 167–186. New York, Hove: Psychology Press. Google Scholar
  71. Koster-Moeller, Jorie, and Martin Hackl. 2008. Quantifier Scope Constraints in ACD: Implications for the Syntax of Relative Clauses. In Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, eds. N. Abner and J. Bishop, 301–309. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Google Scholar
  72. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase structure in the lexicon, eds. J. Ryck and L. Zaring, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar
  73. Kratzer, Angelika. 2010. The event argument and the semantics of verbs. Cambridge: MIT Press (forthcoming). Google Scholar
  74. Kratzer, Angelika, and Elisabeth Selkirk. 2007. Phase theory and prosodic spell-out: the case of verbs. Manuscript, UMass, Amherst. Google Scholar
  75. Kubozono, Haruo. 1989. Syntactic and rhythmic effects on downstep in Japanese. Phonology 6: 39–67. Google Scholar
  76. Kubozono, Haruo. 1992. Modeling syntactic effects on downstep in Japanese. In Papers in laboratory phonology, vol. II: Gesture, segment, prosody, eds. G. Docherty and R. Ladd, 368–287. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  77. Ladd, D. Robert. 1986. Intonational phrasing: the case for recursive prosodic structure. Phonology Yearbook 3: 311–340. Google Scholar
  78. Ladd, D. Robert. 1988. Declination and ‘Reset’ and the hierarchical organization of utterances. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 84: 530. Google Scholar
  79. Ladd, D. Robert. 1992. Compound prosodic domains. Occasional papers. Linguistics Department, University of Edinburgh. Google Scholar
  80. Ladd, D. Robert. 2008. Intonational phonology, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  81. Langendoen, D. Terence. 1975. Finite-state parsing of phrase-structure languages and the status of readjustment rules in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 6(4): 533–554. Google Scholar
  82. Langendoen, D. Terence. 1987. On the phrasing of coordinate compound structures. In A festschrift for Ilse Lehiste, eds. B. Joseph and A. Zwicky, 186–196. Ohio: Ohio State University. Google Scholar
  83. Langendoen, D. Terence. 1998. Limitations on embedding in coordinate structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 27: 235–259. Google Scholar
  84. Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–391. Google Scholar
  85. Larson, Richard K.. 2005. Sentence final adverbs and ‘scope’. In Proceedings of NELS 34, eds. K. Moulton and M. Wolff, 23–43. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  86. Larson, Richard K., and Sungeon Cho. 1999. Temporal adjectives and structure of possessive DPs. In Proceedings of WCCFL 18. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Google Scholar
  87. Lasersohn, Peter N. 1995. Plurality, conjunction and events. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar
  88. Lasnik, Howard. 1997. Levels of Representation and the Elements of Anaphora. In Atomism and binding, eds. H. Bennis, P. Pica, and J. Rooryck, 251–268. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  89. Legate, Julie Anne. 2001. Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34(3): 506–516. Google Scholar
  90. Lehiste, Ilse. 1973. Phonetic disambiguation of syntactic ambiguity. Glossa 7: 107–122. Google Scholar
  91. Liberman, Mark Y. 1975. The intonational system of English. PhD dissertation. MIT. Google Scholar
  92. Liberman, Mark Y., and Alan S. Prince. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 249–336. Google Scholar
  93. Lieberman, Philip. 1967. Intonation, perception, and language. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  94. Local, John, Richard Ogden, and Rosalind Temple, eds. 2003. Phonetic interpretation: papers in laboratory phonology VI. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  95. Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  96. Marantz, Alec. 2001. Words and things. Manuscript, MIT. Google Scholar
  97. Marvin, Tatjana. 2002. Topics in the stress and syntax of words. PhD dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
  98. McCawley, James D. 1998. The syntactic phenomena of English, 2nd edn. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Google Scholar
  99. Merchant, Jason. 2003. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics in Philosophy (to appear). Google Scholar
  100. Miller, George A., and Noam Chomsky. 1963. Finitary models of language users. In Vol. II of Handbook of mathematical psychology, eds. D. Luce, R. Bush, and E. Galanter. New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
  101. Moortgat, Michael. 1988. Categorial investigations. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  102. Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland. Google Scholar
  103. Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  104. Nevins, Andrew, David Pesetsky, and Cilene Rodrigues. 2007. Pirahã exceptionality: a reassessment. Manuscript, MIT/Harvard. Google Scholar
  105. Newman, Stanley S. 1946. On the stress system of English. Word 2: 171–187. Google Scholar
  106. O’Malley, M., D. Kloker, and B. Dara-Abrams. 1973. Recovering parentheses from spoken algebraic expressions. IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics 21(3): 217–220. Google Scholar
  107. Pak, Marjorie. 2005. Explaining branchingness effects in phrasal phonology. Manuscript, UPenn. Google Scholar
  108. Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  109. Perlmutter, David M., and John Robert Ross. 1970. Relative clauses with split antecedents. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 350. Google Scholar
  110. Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax. Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  111. Phillips, Colin. 1996. Order and structure. PhD dissertation. MIT. Google Scholar
  112. Phillips, Colin. 2003. Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 37–90. Google Scholar
  113. Pijper, Jan Roelof de, and Angelien A. Sanderman. 1994. On the perceptual strength of prosodic boundaries and its relation to suprasegmental cues. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 96: 2037. Google Scholar
  114. Pinker, Steven, and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. The faculty of language: what’s special about it. Cognition 95(2): 201–236. Google Scholar
  115. Potts, Christopher. 2005. Lexicalized intonational meaning. In Papers on prosody, ed. S. Kawahara, Vol. 30 of University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics, 129–146. GLSA: Amherst. Google Scholar
  116. Price, Patti J., Mari Ostendorf, Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel, and Cynthia Fong. 1991. The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 9: 2956–2970. Google Scholar
  117. Prieto, Pilar. 2005. Syntactic and eurythmic constraints on phrasing decisions in Catalan. Studia Linguistica 59: 194–222. Google Scholar
  118. Prince, Alan S. 1983. Relating to the grid. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 19–100. Google Scholar
  119. Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. PhD dissertation. MIT. Google Scholar
  120. Reich, Peter A. 1969. The finiteness of natural language. Language 45(4): 831–843. Google Scholar
  121. Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD dissertation. MIT. Google Scholar
  122. Rothstein, Susan D. 1983. The syntactic forms of predication. PhD dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
  123. Salanova, Andrés. Pablo. 2007. Nominalizations and aspect. PhD dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
  124. Schafer, Amy J., Shari R. Speer, Paul Warren, and S. David White. 2000. Intonational disambiguation in sentence production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29: 169–182. Google Scholar
  125. Schein, Barry. 1993. Plurals and events. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  126. Schein, Barry. 1997. Conjunction reduction redux. Manuscript, USC. Google Scholar
  127. Schwarzschild, Roger. 1996. Pluralities. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  128. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and syntax. The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  129. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3: 371–405. Google Scholar
  130. Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1995. Sentence prosody: intonation, stress, and phrasing. In The handbook of phonological theory, ed. John A. Goldsmith, 550–569. London: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  131. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1996. The prosodic structure of function words. In Signal to syntax, eds. J. Morgan and K. Demuth, 187–213. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
  132. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2005. Comments on intonational phrasing in English. In Prosodies: with special reference to Iberian, eds. S. Frota, M.C. Vigário, and M.J. Freitas, 11–58. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  133. Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie, and Alice E. Turk. 1996. A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25(3): 193–247. Google Scholar
  134. Silverman, Kim, Mary Beckman, Mari Ostendorf, Colin Wightman, Patti Price, Janet Pierrehumbert, and Julia Hirschberg. 1992. ToBI: a standard for labeling English prosody. In Vol. 2 of Proceedings of the 1992 international conference of spoken language processing, 867–870. Google Scholar
  135. Snedeker, Jesse, and John Trueswell. 2003. Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: effects of speaker awareness and referential context. Journal of Memory and Language 48: 103–130. Google Scholar
  136. Stanley, Richard P. 1997. Hipparcus, Plutarch, Schröder, Hough. American Mathematics Monthly 104: 344–350. http// Google Scholar
  137. Steedman, Mark. 1985. Dependency and coordination in the grammar of Dutch and English. Language 61: 523–568. Google Scholar
  138. Steedman, Mark. 1991. Structure and intonation. Language 67(2): 260–296. Google Scholar
  139. Steedman, Mark. 2001. The syntactic process. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  140. Steedman, Mark. 2004. Surface compositional scope-alternation without existential quantifiers. Manuscript, University of Edinburgh. Google Scholar
  141. Stockwell, Robert P. 1960. The place of intonation in a generative grammar. Language 36(3): 360–367. Google Scholar
  142. Stockwell, Robert P.. 1972. The role of intonation: reconsiderations and other considerations. In Readings on intonation, ed. D. Bolinger, 87–109. Harmonsworth: Penguin. Google Scholar
  143. Streeter, Lynn A. 1978. Acoustic determinants of phrase boundary perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 64: 1582. Google Scholar
  144. Svenonius, Peter. 2001. Impersonal passives: a phase-based analysis. In Proceedings of the 18th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, 109–125. Google Scholar
  145. Taglicht, Josef. 1984. Message and Emphasis. On focus and scope in English. Vol. 15 of English language series. London and New York: Longman. Google Scholar
  146. Taglicht, Josef. 1998. Constraints on intonational phrasing in English. Journal of Linguistics 34: 181–211. Google Scholar
  147. Tomalin, Marcus. 2007. Reconsidering recursion in syntactic theory. Lingua 117: 1784–1800. Google Scholar
  148. Tranel, Bernard. 1990. On suppletion and French liaison. Probus 2(2): 169–208. Google Scholar
  149. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological phrases: their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence, PhD dissertation. Cambridge: MIT. Google Scholar
  150. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30(2): 219–255. Google Scholar
  151. Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple spell-out. In Working minimalism, eds. S.D. Epstein and N. Hornstein, 251–283. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  152. Uriagereka, Juan. 2008. Syntactic anchors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  153. van den Berg, Rob, Carlos Gussenhoven, and Toni Rietveld. 1992. Downstep in Dutch: implications for a model. In Papers in laboratory phonology, vol. II: Gesture, segment, prosody, eds. G. Docherty and R. Ladd, 335–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  154. Wagner, Michael. 2005. Prosody and recursion. PhD dissertation. MIT. Google Scholar
  155. Wagner, Michael. 2006. Givenness and locality. In Proceedings of SALT XVI, eds. M. Gibson and J. Howell, 295–312. Ithaca: CLC Publications. Google Scholar
  156. Wagner, Michael. 2008. And, or, and . Snippets 17: 11–12. Google Scholar
  157. Watson, Duane G. 2002. Intonational phrasing in language production and comprehension. PhD dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Brain and Cognitive Sciences. Google Scholar
  158. Watson, Duane, and Edward Gibson. 2004. The relationship between intonational phrasing and syntactic structure. Language and Cognitive Processes 16(6): 713–755. Google Scholar
  159. Wells, Rulon S. 1947. Immediate constituents. Language 23(2): 81–117. Google Scholar
  160. Winter, Yoad. 2001. Flexibility principles in Boolean semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  161. Winter, Yoad. 2006. Multiple coordination: meaning composition vs. the syntax-semantic interface. Manuscript, Technion/NIAS. Google Scholar
  162. Zec, Draga, and Sharon Inkelas. 1990. Prosodically constrained syntax. In The phonology-syntax connection, eds. Sharon Inkelas and Draga Zec. CSLI and CUP. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations