Advertisement

The Interaction of Constraints on Prosodic Phrasing

  • Elisabeth Selkirk
Chapter
Part of the Text, Speech and Language Technology book series (TLTB, volume 14)

Abstract

The notion that the prosodic phrasing structure of a sentence plays a crucial role in organizing the segmental, tonal and prominence structures of a sentence’s phonological representation and its phonetic implementation as well is quite widely assumed in work in both phonology and phonetics. It is also quite widely assumed that this prosodic phrasing structure is independent of, but related to, the syntactic and/or information structure of a sentence. Yet no consensus has emerged within the various traditions of research on prosodic phrasing concerning the nature of the relation between prosodic phrasing and these other distinct types of grammatical representation. Certain approaches foreground the role for syntactic constraints on prosodic phrasing1, others the role for constraints appealing to aspects of information structure2. There are, moreover, properly phonological constraints on prosodic phrasing which ignore these interface representations3. An adequate theory has to recognize the full diversity of constraints on prosodic phrasing, and in addition, make explicit the manner in which these constraints interact4.

Keywords

Pitch Accent Vowel Length Prosodic Structure Faithfulness Constraint Prosodic Phrasing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beckman, J., Dickey, L.W. and Urbanczyk, S. (eds), 1995. Papers in Optimality Theory. Univ. of Mass. Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18.Google Scholar
  2. Beckman, M. and Ayers, G. 1994. Guidelines for ToBI Transcription. Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  3. Beckman, M. and Pierrehumbert, J. 1986. Intonational structure in English and Japanese. Phonology 3, 255–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bickmore, L. 1989. Kinyambo Prosody. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  5. Bickmore, L. 1990. Branching nodes and prosodic categories. In S. Inkelas and D. Zec (eds), 1–17.Google Scholar
  6. Bing, J. 1979. Aspects of English Prosody. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  7. Bruce, G. 1977. Swedish Word Accents in Sentence Perspective. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
  8. Bruce, G., Granström, B., Gustafson, K. and House, D. 1991. Prosodic phrasing in Swedish. Working Papers 38, 5–17.Google Scholar
  9. Department of Linguistics, Lund University. Bruce, G., Granström, B., Gustafson, K. and House, D. 1993. Prosodic modelling of phrasing in Swedish. In Proc. ESCA Workshop on Prosody. Working Papers (Dept. of Linguistics, Lund University ) 41, 180–183.Google Scholar
  10. Bruce, G., Granström, B., and House, D. 1991. Strategies for prosodic phrasing in Swedish. Proc. XIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (Aix-en-Provence), 182–185.Google Scholar
  11. Chen, M. 1987. The syntax of Xiamen tone sandhi. Phonology 4, 109–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clements, G.N. and Ford, K. 1981. On the phonological status of downstep in Kikuyu. In D. Goyvaerts (ed), Phonology in the 80’s. Ghent: Story-Scientia, 309–357.Google Scholar
  13. Delais-Roussarie, E. 1996. Phonological phrasing and accentuation in French. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  14. Dresher, B.E. 1994. The prosodic basis of the Tiberian Hebrew system of accents. Language 70, 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gee, J. and Grosjean, F. 1983. Performance structures: a psycholinguistic and linguistic appraisal. Cognitive Psychology 15, 411–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ghini, M. 1993. Phonological Phrase Formation in Italian. Master’s thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  17. Gussenhoven, C. 1983. Focus, mode and the nucleus. Journal of Linguistics, 19, 377417.Google Scholar
  18. Gussenhoven, C. 1984. On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  19. Hayes, B. and Lahiri, A. 1991. Bengali intonational phonology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9, 47–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Helsloot, K. 1995. Metrical Prosody: A Template-and-Constraint Approach to Phonological phrasing in Italian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  21. Hirst, D. 1993. Detaching intonational phrases from syntactic structure. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 781–788.Google Scholar
  22. Inkelas, S. and Zec, D. (eds), 1990. The Phonology-Syntax Connection. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. lnkelas, S. and Zec, D. 1996. Syntax-phonology interface. In J. Goldsmith (ed), The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 535–549.Google Scholar
  24. Jun, S-A. 1993. The Phonetics and Phonology of Korean Prosody. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  25. Kanerva, J. 1989. Focus and Phrasing in Chichewa Phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  26. Kanerva, J. 1990. Focusing on phonological phrases in Chichewa. In S. lnkelas and D. Zec (eds), 145–162.Google Scholar
  27. Kenstowicz, M. and Kisseberth, C. 1990. Chizigula tonology: the word and beyond. In S. lnkelas and D. Zec (eds), 163–194.Google Scholar
  28. Kisseberth, C. 1984. Digo Tonology. In G.N. Clements and J. Goldsmith (eds), Autosegmental Studies in Bantu Tone. Dordrecht: Foris, 105–182.Google Scholar
  29. Kisseberth, C. and Abasheikh, M. 1974. Vowel length in ChiMwi:ni. A case study of the role of grammar in phonology. In M. LaGaly, A. Bruck and R. Fox (eds), CLS 10: Parasession on Natural Phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 193209.Google Scholar
  30. Ladd, D.R. 1986. Intonational phrasing: The case for recursive prosodic structure. Phonology 3, 311–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McCarthy, J.J. and Prince, A. 1993. Generalized alignment. In G. Booij and J. van Marie (eds), Yearbook of Morphology. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 79–153.Google Scholar
  32. McCarthy, J.J. and Prince, A. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In J.N. Beckman, L.W. Dickey and S. Urbanczyk (eds), 249–384.Google Scholar
  33. McHugh, B. 1987. Syntactic structure, empty categories and phrasal phonology in Chaga. In D. Odden (ed), Current Approaches to African Linguistics 4. Dordrecht: Foris, 247–65.Google Scholar
  34. McHugh, B. 1990. Cyclicity in the Phrasal Phonology of Kivunjo Chaga. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  35. Nagahara, H. 1994. Phonological Phrasing in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, UCLA. Nespor, M. and Vogel, I. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  36. Odden, D. 1987. Kimatuumbi phrasal phonology. Phonology 4, 13–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Odden, D. 1990. Syntax, lexical rules, and postlexical rules in Kimatuumbi. In S. Inkelas and D. Zec (eds), 259–278.Google Scholar
  38. Pierrehumbert, J. 1980. The Phonetics and Phonology of English Intonation. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  39. Pierrehumbert, J. 1993. Alignment and prosodic heads. Proc. Eastern States Conference on Formal Linguistics, vol. 10. Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University, 268–286.Google Scholar
  40. Pierrehumbert, J. and Beckman, M. 1988. Japanese Tone Structure. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph Series No. 15. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Pierrehumbert, J. and Hirschberg, J. 1990. The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P.R. Cohen, J. Morgan and M.E. Pollock (eds), Intentions in Communication. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 271–311.Google Scholar
  42. Prince, A. and Smolensky, P. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms., Rutgers University and Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
  43. Selkirk, E. 1984. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Selkirk, E. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology 3, 371–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Selkirk, E. 1989. Modularity in the syntax-phonology mapping the case of Chinese dialects. Paper presented at GLOW 12, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  46. Selkirk, E. 1995a. The prosodic structure of function words. In J.N. Beckman, L.W. Dickey and S. Urbanczyk (eds), Papers in Optimality Theory. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, GLSA, 439–470. Also appears in J.L. Morgan and K. Demuth (eds), Signal to Syntax: Bootstrapping from Speech to Grammar in Early Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996, 187–214.Google Scholar
  47. Selkirk, E. 1995b. Sentence prosody: intonation, stress and phrasing. In J. Goldsmith (ed), The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 550–569.Google Scholar
  48. Selkirk, E. and Tateishi, K. 1988. Minor phrase formation in Japanese. In L. Macleod et al. (eds), Papers from CLS 24, 316–336. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  49. Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., Ostendorf, M. and Ross, K. 1994. Stress shift and early pitch accent placement in lexical items in American English. Journal of Phonetics 22, 357–388.Google Scholar
  50. Truckenbrodt, H. 1995. Phonological Phrases: their Relation to Syntax, Prominence and Focus. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  51. Vogel, I. and Kenesei, I. 1990a. Focus and phonological structure. Paper presented at GLOW 13, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  52. Vogel, I. and Kenesei, 1. 1990b. Syntax and semantics in phonology. In S. Inkelas and D. Zec (eds), 339–364.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisabeth Selkirk
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of LinguisticsUniversity of Massachusetts at AmherstAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations