Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prosody and recursion in coordinate structures and beyond

  • Published:
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adger, David. 2007. Stress and phasal syntax. Linguistic Analysis 38: 238–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agbayani, Brian, and Chris Golston. 2010. Second-position is first-position: Wackernagel’s Law and the role of clausal disjunction. Diachronica (to appear).

  • Aissen, Judith L. 1992. Topic and focus in Mayan. Language 68(1): 43–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alonso-Ovalle, Luis. 2006. Disjunction in alternative semantics. PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Andrews, Avery. 1983. A note on the constituent structure of modifiers. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 695–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arad, Maya. 2005. Roots and patterns: Hebrew morpho-syntax. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arregi, Karlos. 2002. Focus on basque movement. PhD dissertation. Cambridge: MIT.

  • Bachrach, Asaf, and Roni Katzir. 2007. Right-node raising and the syntax-phonology interface. Talk presented at SPINE. Cornell University.

  • 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 

  • Bresnan, Joan W. 1971. Sentence stress and syntactic tranformations. Language 47: 257–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresnan, Joan W. 1972. Stress and syntax: a reply. Language 48: 326–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, Katy Jr., Charles Clifton, and Lyn Frazier. 2001. Prosodic boundaries in adjunct attachment. Journal of Memory and Language 45: 58–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrier, Jill, and Janet H. Randall. 1992. The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultatives. Linguistic inquiry 23(2): 173–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Matthew Y. 1987. The syntax of Xiamen tone sandhi. Phonology Yearbook 4: 109–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. Mouton: The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of a theory of grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale. A life in language, ed. M. Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Christiansen, Morten, and Nick Chater. 1999. Toward a connectionist model of recursion in human linguistic performance. Cognitive Science 23(2): 157–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cinque, Guillermo. 1993. A null-theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 239–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clifton, Jr. Charles, Katy Carlson, and Lyn Frazier. 2002. Informative prosodic boundaries. Language and Speech 45: 87–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, William, and Jeanne Paccia-Cooper. 1980. Syntax and speech. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culicover, Peter W., and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Déchaine, Rose-Marie. 1993. Predicates across categories: towards a category-neutral syntax. PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Derbyshire, Desmond C., and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 1986. Vol. I of Handbook of Amazonian languages, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobashi, Yoshihito. 2003. Phonological phrasing and syntacic derivation. PhD dissertation. Cornell University.

  • Downing, Bruce T. 1970. Syntactic structure and phonological phrasing in English. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

  • Dresher, Bezalel Elan. 1994. The prosodic basis of the Tiberian Hebrew system of accents. Language 70: 1–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Everett, Daniel, L. 2005. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã. Current Anthropology.

  • Féry, Caroline, and Hubert Truckenbrodt. 2004. Tonal scaling and the sisterhood principle. Universität Potsdam and Universität Tübingen.

  • Fox, Danny. 2002. Antecedent contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 63–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Frank, Robert. 2002. Phrase structure composition and syntactic dependencies. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazdar, Gerald, Ewan Klein, Geoffrey Pullum, and Ivan Sag. 1985. Generalized phrase-structure grammar. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimshaw, Jane. 2005. Words and structure. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guimarães, Maximiliano. 2004. Derivation and representation of syntactic amalgams. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.

  • Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1986. English Plosive Allophones and ambisyllabicity. Gramma 10: 119–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haider, Hubert. 1993. Deutsche syntax—generativ. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Halle, Morris, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1987. An essay on stress. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hankamer, Jorge, and Ivan Sag. 1976. Deep and surface Anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7(3): 291–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, Zellig S. 1957. Co-occurrence and transformation in linguistic structure. Language 33: 283–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, Katharina. 2001. Right node raising and gapping: interface conditions on prosodic deletion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoeksema, Jacob. 1983. Plurality and conjunction. In Studies in model-theoretic semantics, ed. A. ter Meulen, 63–83. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2001. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulsey, Sarah, and Uli Sauerland. 2006. Sorting out relative clauses. Natural Language Semantics 12: 111–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunyadi, László. 2006. Grouping, the cognitive basis of recursion in language. Argumentum 2: 67–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurford, James R. 1974. Exclusive or inclusive disjunction. Foundations of Language, 410–411.

  • Idsardi, William J. 1992. The computation of Prosody. PhD dissertation. MIT.

  • Ishihara, Shinishiro. 2003. Intonation and interface conditions. PhD dissertation. MIT.

  • Jackendoff, Ray S. 1977. X’-syntax: a study of phrase structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger, T. Florian, and Elisabeth J. Norcliffe. 2005. Post-nuclear phrasing. Presented at the LSA Meeting, Oakland, CA.

  • Kahn, David. 1976. Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. New York: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2004. The syntax of sentential stress. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.

  • Kaisse, Ellen M. 1985. Connected speech. The interaction between syntax and phonology. Orlando: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Kratzer, Angelika. 2010. The event argument and the semantics of verbs. Cambridge: MIT Press (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, Angelika, and Elisabeth Selkirk. 2007. Phase theory and prosodic spell-out: the case of verbs. Manuscript, UMass, Amherst.

  • Kubozono, Haruo. 1989. Syntactic and rhythmic effects on downstep in Japanese. Phonology 6: 39–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ladd, D. Robert. 1986. Intonational phrasing: the case for recursive prosodic structure. Phonology Yearbook 3: 311–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladd, D. Robert. 1988. Declination and ‘Reset’ and the hierarchical organization of utterances. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 84: 530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladd, D. Robert. 1992. Compound prosodic domains. Occasional papers. Linguistics Department, University of Edinburgh.

  • Ladd, D. Robert. 2008. Intonational phonology, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Langendoen, D. Terence. 1998. Limitations on embedding in coordinate structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 27: 235–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Larson, Richard K., and Sungeon Cho. 1999. Temporal adjectives and structure of possessive DPs. In Proceedings of WCCFL 18. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasersohn, Peter N. 1995. Plurality, conjunction and events. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Legate, Julie Anne. 2001. Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34(3): 506–516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehiste, Ilse. 1973. Phonetic disambiguation of syntactic ambiguity. Glossa 7: 107–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, Mark Y. 1975. The intonational system of English. PhD dissertation. MIT.

  • Liberman, Mark Y., and Alan S. Prince. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 249–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, Philip. 1967. Intonation, perception, and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Local, John, Richard Ogden, and Rosalind Temple, eds. 2003. Phonetic interpretation: papers in laboratory phonology VI. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, Alec. 2001. Words and things. Manuscript, MIT.

  • Marvin, Tatjana. 2002. Topics in the stress and syntax of words. PhD dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  • McCawley, James D. 1998. The syntactic phenomena of English, 2nd edn. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, Jason. 2003. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics in Philosophy (to appear).

  • 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 

  • Moortgat, Michael. 1988. Categorial investigations. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.

  • Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nevins, Andrew, David Pesetsky, and Cilene Rodrigues. 2007. Pirahã exceptionality: a reassessment. Manuscript, MIT/Harvard.

  • Newman, Stanley S. 1946. On the stress system of English. Word 2: 171–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Pak, Marjorie. 2005. Explaining branchingness effects in phrasal phonology. Manuscript, UPenn.

  • Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlmutter, David M., and John Robert Ross. 1970. Relative clauses with split antecedents. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax. Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, Colin. 1996. Order and structure. PhD dissertation. MIT.

  • Phillips, Colin. 2003. Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 37–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Pinker, Steven, and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. The faculty of language: what’s special about it. Cognition 95(2): 201–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Prieto, Pilar. 2005. Syntactic and eurythmic constraints on phrasing decisions in Catalan. Studia Linguistica 59: 194–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, Alan S. 1983. Relating to the grid. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 19–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. PhD dissertation. MIT.

  • Reich, Peter A. 1969. The finiteness of natural language. Language 45(4): 831–843.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD dissertation. MIT.

  • Rothstein, Susan D. 1983. The syntactic forms of predication. PhD dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  • Salanova, Andrés. Pablo. 2007. Nominalizations and aspect. PhD dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  • 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 

  • Schein, Barry. 1993. Plurals and events. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, Barry. 1997. Conjunction reduction redux. Manuscript, USC.

  • Schwarzschild, Roger. 1996. Pluralities. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and syntax. The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3: 371–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Stanley, Richard P. 1997. Hipparcus, Plutarch, Schröder, Hough. American Mathematics Monthly 104: 344–350. http//www-math.mit.edu/~rstan/papers.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steedman, Mark. 1985. Dependency and coordination in the grammar of Dutch and English. Language 61: 523–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steedman, Mark. 1991. Structure and intonation. Language 67(2): 260–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steedman, Mark. 2001. The syntactic process. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steedman, Mark. 2004. Surface compositional scope-alternation without existential quantifiers. Manuscript, University of Edinburgh.

  • Stockwell, Robert P. 1960. The place of intonation in a generative grammar. Language 36(3): 360–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Streeter, Lynn A. 1978. Acoustic determinants of phrase boundary perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 64: 1582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svenonius, Peter. 2001. Impersonal passives: a phase-based analysis. In Proceedings of the 18th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, 109–125.

  • 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 

  • Taglicht, Josef. 1998. Constraints on intonational phrasing in English. Journal of Linguistics 34: 181–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomalin, Marcus. 2007. Reconsidering recursion in syntactic theory. Lingua 117: 1784–1800.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tranel, Bernard. 1990. On suppletion and French liaison. Probus 2(2): 169–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological phrases: their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence, PhD dissertation. Cambridge: MIT.

  • Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30(2): 219–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple spell-out. In Working minimalism, eds. S.D. Epstein and N. Hornstein, 251–283. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uriagereka, Juan. 2008. Syntactic anchors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Wagner, Michael. 2005. Prosody and recursion. PhD dissertation. MIT.

  • Wagner, Michael. 2006. Givenness and locality. In Proceedings of SALT XVI, eds. M. Gibson and J. Howell, 295–312. Ithaca: CLC Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, Michael. 2008. And, or, and ∅. Snippets 17: 11–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, Duane G. 2002. Intonational phrasing in language production and comprehension. PhD dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Brain and Cognitive Sciences.

  • Watson, Duane, and Edward Gibson. 2004. The relationship between intonational phrasing and syntactic structure. Language and Cognitive Processes 16(6): 713–755.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, Rulon S. 1947. Immediate constituents. Language 23(2): 81–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, Yoad. 2001. Flexibility principles in Boolean semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, Yoad. 2006. Multiple coordination: meaning composition vs. the syntax-semantic interface. Manuscript, Technion/NIAS.

  • Zec, Draga, and Sharon Inkelas. 1990. Prosodically constrained syntax. In The phonology-syntax connection, eds. Sharon Inkelas and Draga Zec. CSLI and CUP.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, McGill University, 1085, Dr. Penfield Avenue, Montreal, H3A 1A7, Canada

    Michael Wagner

Authors
  1. Michael Wagner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Wagner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wagner, M. Prosody and recursion in coordinate structures and beyond. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 28, 183–237 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-009-9086-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-009-9086-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation