Skip to main content Accessibility help

Constituency in sentence phonology: an introduction*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 August 2015

Elisabeth Selkirk
University of Massachusetts Amherst
Seunghun J. Lee
Central Connecticut State University and University of Johannesburg


Some general questions about the role of constituency in sentence phonology and phonetics have informed research since Chomsky & Halle (1968) first put forward the hypothesis that the phonological representation of a sentence is in part a function of its syntactic representation.

Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.



We greatly appreciate all the help from the editors of Phonology, and have benefited from their knowledge and experience in every step of the process in preparing this thematic issue. We also thank the reviewers for helpful feedback on all the papers submitted to the issue. This work was partially supported by a National Science Foundation Grant #BCS-1147083 to Elisabeth Selkirk (‘The effects of syntactic constituency on the phonology and phonetics of tone’). The initial idea of putting this issue together was aired at the ‘Syntax–phonology interface from a cross-linguistic perspective’ workshop, held at the Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin in November 2012 with support from a postdoctoral fellowship to Seunghun J. Lee, generously funded by the Volkswagen Foundation and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.


Beckman, Mary E. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (1986). Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook 3. 255309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Ryan, Elfner, Emily & McCloskey, Jim (to appear). Lightest to the right: an apparently anomalous displacement in Irish. LI.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W. (1971). Sentence stress and syntactic transformations. Lg 47. 257281.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (2001). Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.) Ken Hale: a life in language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 152.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo (1993). A null theory of phrase and compound stress. LI 24. 239297.Google Scholar
Downing, Laura J., Rialland, Annie, Patin, Cédric & Riedel, Kristina (eds.) (2010). Papers from the Workshop on Bantu Relative Clauses. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 53.Google Scholar
Elfner, Emily (2012). Syntax–prosody interactions in Irish. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Elfner, Emily (2015). Recursion in prosodic phrasing: evidence from Connemara Irish. NLLT 33. DOI: 10.1017/S11049-014-9281-5.Google Scholar
Elordieta, Gorka (1997). Accent, tone and intonation in Lekeitio Basque. In Martínez-Gil, Fernando & Morales-Front, Alfonso (eds.) Issues in the phonology and morphology of the major Iberian languages. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 378.Google Scholar
Elordieta, Gorka (2007). A constraint-based analysis of the intonational realization of focus in Northern Bizkaian Basque. In Riad, Tomas & Gussenhoven, Carlos (eds.) Tones and tunes. Vol. 1: Typological studies in word and sentence prosody. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 199232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elordieta, Gorka, Frota, Sónia & Vigário, Marina (2005). Subjects, objects and intonational phrasing in Spanish and Portuguese. Studia Linguistica 59. 110143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elordieta, Gorka & Unamono, Lorea (in preparation). Absence of word accent and phonological phrasing in Northern Bizkaian Basque. Ms, University of the Basque Country.Google Scholar
Golston, Chris (1996). Syntax outranks phonology: evidence from Ancient Greek. Phonology 12. 343368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1995). Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Zec, Draga (eds.) (1990). The phonology–syntax connection. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Zec, Draga (1995). Syntax–phonology interface. In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.) (1995). The handbook of phonological theory. Cambridge, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell. 535549.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko & Mester, Armin (1999). Realignment. In Kager, René, van der Hulst, Harry & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.) The prosody–morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 188217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2003). Weak layering and word binarity. In Honma, Takeru, Okazaki, Masao, Tabata, Toshiyuki & Tanaka, Shin'ichi (eds.) A new century of phonology and phonological theory: a Festschrift for Professor Shosuke Haraguchi on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. 2665. Revised version of Report LRC-92-09, Linguistic Research Center, University of California, Santa Cruz (1992).Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2009a). The extended prosodic word. In Grijzenhout, Janet & Kabak, Barış (eds.) Phonological domains: universals and deviations. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 135194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2009b). The onset of the prosodic word. In Parker, Steve (ed.) Phonological argumentation: essays on evidence and motivation. London: Equinox. 227260.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2012). Recursive prosodic phrasing in Japanese. In Borowsky, Toni, Kawahara, Shigeto, Shinya, Takahito & Sugahara, Mariko (eds.) Prosody matters: essays in honor of Elisabeth Selkirk. London: Equinox. 280303.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2013). Prosodic subcategories in Japanese. Lingua 124. 2040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah (2005). Prosodic typology. In Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.) Prosodic typology: the phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 430458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan (2009). The syntax of sentential stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaisse, Ellen M. (1985). Connected speech: the interaction of syntax and phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Katz, Jonah & Selkirk, Elisabeth (2011). Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: evidence from phonetic prominence in English. Lg 87. 771816.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles (1994). On domains. In Cole, Jennifer & Kisseberth, Charles (eds.) Perspectives in phonology. Stanford: CSLI. 133166.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelica & Selkirk, Elisabeth (2007). Phase theory and prosodic spellout: the case of verbs. The Linguistic Review 24. 93135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubozono, Haruo (1993). The organization of Japanese prosody. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert (1986a). Intonational phrasing: the case for recursive prosodic structure. Phonology Yearbook 3. 311340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert (ed.) (1986b). Phonology above the foot. (Thematic section.) Phonology Yearbook 3. 252405.Google Scholar
Mascaró, Joan (1996). External allomorphy and contractions in Romance. Probus 8. 181205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myrberg, Sara (2013). Sisterhood in prosodic branching. Phonology 30. 73124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Odden, David (1987). Kimatuumbi phrasal phonology. Phonology Yearbook 4. 1336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pak, Marjorie (2008). The postsyntactic derivation and its phonological reflexes. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Prieto, Pilar (2005). Syntactic and eurhythmic constraints on phrasing decisions in Catalan. Studia Linguistica 59. 194222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya (2006). Interface strategies: optimal and costly configurations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, Norvin (2010). Uttering trees. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri (2015). The interaction of focus, givenness, and prosody. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1972). The phrase phonology of English and French. PhD dissertation, MIT. Published 1980, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1980). Prosodic domains in phonology: Sanskrit revisited. In Aronoff, Mark & Kean, Mary-Louise (eds.) Juncture. Saratoga: Anma Libri. 107129.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1981). On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. In Fretheim, Thorstein (ed.) Nordic Prosody II. Trondheim: Tapir. 111140.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1984). Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3. 371405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1996). The prosodic structure of function words. In Morgan, James L. & Demuth, Katherine (eds.) Signal to syntax: bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 187213. First published (1995) in Jill N. Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey & Suzanne Urbanczyk (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst: GLSA. 439–469.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (2001). On the phonologically-driven non-realization of function words. BLS 27. 257270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (2002). Contrastive FOCUS vs. presentational Focus: prosodic evidence from right node raising in English. In Bel, Bernard & Marlien, Isabelle (eds.) Speech prosody 2002. Aix-en-Provence. 643646. Available (February 2015) at Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (2006). Strong minimalist Spell-Out of prosodic phrases. Handout of paper presented at the Workshop on Prosodic Phrasing, GLOW 29, Barcelona.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (2009). On clause and intonational phrase in Japanese: the syntactic grounding of prosodic constituent structure. Gengo Kenkyu 136. 3573.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (2011). The syntax–phonology interface. In Goldsmith, John, Riggle, Jason & Alan, C. L. Yu (eds.) The handbook of phonological theory. 2nd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 435484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth & Elordieta, Gorka (2010). The role for prosodic markedness constraints in phonological phrase formation in two pitch accent languages. Paper presented at the 4th European Conference on Tone and Intonation (TIE 4), Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth & Shen, Tong (1990). Prosodic domains in Shanghai Chinese. In Inkelas & Zec (1990). 313337.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth, Shinya, Takahito & Sugahara, Mariko (2003). Degree of initial lowering in Japanese as a reflex of prosodic structure organization. In Solé, M. J., Recasens, D. & Romero, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Barcelona: Causal Productions. 491494.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth & Tateishi, Koichi (1988). Constraints on minor phrase formation in Japanese. CLS 24:1. 316336.Google Scholar
Tokizaki, Hisao (2008). Syntactic structure and silence: a minimalist theory of syntax–phonology interface. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert (1995). Phonological phrases: their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert (1999). On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. LI 30. 219255.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert (2007). The syntax–phonology interface. In de Lacy, Paul (ed.) The Cambridge handbook of phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 435456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan (2012). Spell-Out and the minimalist program. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wagner, Michael (2005). Prosody and recursion. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Werle, Adam (2009). Word, phrase, and clitic prosody in Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Zerbian, Sabine (2006). Expression of information structure in the Bantu language Northern Sotho. PhD dissertation, Humboldt University, Berlin.Google Scholar
Zerbian, Sabine (2007). Phonological phrasing in Northern Sotho (Bantu). The Linguistic Review 24. 233262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (1998). Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. & Kaisse, Ellen M. (eds.) (1987). Syntactic conditions of phonological rules. (Thematic section.) Phonology Yearbook 4. 1263.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 19
Total number of PDF views: 339 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 20th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-76cb886bbf-2rmft Total loading time: 0.503 Render date: 2021-01-20T04:25:37.066Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Constituency in sentence phonology: an introduction*
Available formats

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Constituency in sentence phonology: an introduction*
Available formats

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Constituency in sentence phonology: an introduction*
Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *