Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Sisterhood in prosodic branching*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2013

Sara Myrberg
Affiliation:
Stockholm University

Abstract

This article discusses the syntax–prosody interface, drawing on evidence from Stockholm Swedish. It is shown that a Swedish main clause containing an embedded clause has three prosodic correlates, two of which are non-isomorphic to the syntactic bracketing. However, two coordinated clauses have only one – isomorphic – prosodic correlate. Optimality-theoretic constraints (Prince & Smolensky 1993) are used to derive this variation. A new markedness constraint, EqualSisters, is argued to be responsible for a preference for flat prosodic structures. This constraint requires that sister nodes in prosodic structure belong to the same prosodic category, and therefore sometimes conflicts with match constraints, which call for syntax–prosody correspondence (Selkirk 2009, 2011). When high-ranked, EqualSisters forces syntax–prosody non-isomorphism if the input syntactic structure contains embedding, whereas full isomorphism is predicted in coordinated structures. The previously suggested markedness constraints Non-recursivity and Exhaustivity (Selkirk 1996) cannot replace EqualSisters, and in the present account are rendered redundant.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

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

Footnotes

[*]

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to several people who have contributed to this paper in various ways. I would especially like to thank Tomas Riad, Lisa Selkirk, Shin Ishihara and the anonymous reviewers for Phonology for valuable advice and comments. I also want to thank Laura Downing, Caroline Féry, Fatima Hamlaoui, Gerrit Kentner and Fabian Schubö, the participants of the phonology colloquium in Frankfurt and the participants of the workshop on the phonology–syntax interface held in conjunction with the OCP conference at ZAS in Berlin in January 2012. I thank the editors of Phonology for their help during the review and editing processes. For financial support I am grateful to Sven och Dagmar Saléns Stiftelse and the Swedish Research Council. Of course, any remaining errors or mistakes in this article are entirely my own responsibility.

References

Ambrazaitis, Gilbert (2009). Nuclear intonation in Swedish: evidence from experimental-phonetic studies and a comparison with German. Lund: Department of Linguistics and Phonetics, Lund University.Google Scholar
Anttila, Arto (1997). Deriving variation from grammar. In Hinskens, Frans, van Hout, Roeland & Wetzels, W. Leo (eds.) Variation, change and phonological theory. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 3568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Hayes, Bruce (2001). Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. LI 32. 4586.Google Scholar
Bruce, Gösta (1974). Tonaccentregler för sammansatta ord i några sydsvenska stadsmål. In Platzack, Christer (ed.) Svenskans beskrivning 8. Lund: Lund University. 6275.Google Scholar
Bruce, Gösta (1977). Swedish word accents in sentence perspective. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Bruce, Gösta (1982). Developing the Swedish intonation model. Lund Working Papers 22. 51116.Google Scholar
Bruce, Gösta (1987). How floating is focal accent? In Gregersen, Kirsten & Basbøll, Hans (eds.) Nordic prosody IV: papers from a symposium. Odense: Odense University Press. 4149.Google Scholar
Bruce, Gösta (1993). On Swedish lexical stress patterns. Phonum (Reports from the Department of Phonetics, University of Umeå) 2. 4150.Google Scholar
Bruce, Gösta (1998). Allmän och svensk prosodi. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Bruce, Gösta (2005). Intonational prominence in varieties of Swedish revisited. In Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.) Prosodic typology: the phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 410429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, Gösta (2007). Components of a prosodic typology of Swedish intonation. In Riad, & Gussenhoven, (2007). 114146.Google Scholar
Bruce, Gösta, Granström, Björn, Gustafson, Kjell & House, David (1993). Interaction of F0 and duration in the perception of prosodic phrasing in Swedish. In Granström, Björn & Nord, Lennart (eds.) Nordic prosody VI: papers from a symposium. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. 722.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen & Downing, Laura J. (2009). Where's the topic in Zulu? The Linguistic Review 26. 207238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diderichsen, Paul (1946). Elementær dansk Grammatik. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Elfner, Emily (2012). Syntax–prosody interactions in Irish. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Elordieta, Gorka (2007). A constraint-based analysis of the intonational realization of focus in Northern Bizkaian Basque. In Riad, & Gussenhoven, (2007). 199232.Google Scholar
Engstrand, Olle (1995). Phonetic interpretation of the word accent contrast in Swedish. Phonetica 52. 171179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engstrand, Olle (1997). Phonetic interpretation of the word accent contrast in Swedish: evidence from spontaneous speech. Phonetica 54. 6175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldhausen, Ingo (2010). Sentential form and prosodic structure of Catalan. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline (1993). German intonational patterns. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline (2010). Syntax, information structure, embedded prosodic phrasing, and the relational scaling of pitch accents. In Erteschik-Shir, Nomi & Rochman, Lisa (eds.) The sound patterns of syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 271290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Samek-Lodovici, Vieri (2006). Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci. Lg 82. 131150.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Truckenbrodt, Hubert (2005). Sisterhood and tonal scaling. Studia Linguistica 59. 223243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frota, Sónia (2012). Prosodic structure, constituents and their implementation. In Cohn, Abigail C., Fougeron, Cécile & Huffman, Marie K. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of laboratory phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 255265.Google Scholar
Garlén, Claes (1988). Svenskans fonologi. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos (1992). Sentence accents and argument structure. In Roca, Iggy (ed.) Thematic structure: its role in grammar. Berlin & New York: Foris. 79106.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos (2004). The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos & Bruce, Gösta (1999). Word prosody and intonation. In Hulst, Harry van der (ed.) Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 233271.Google Scholar
Hansson, Petra (2003). Prosodic phrasing in spontaneous Swedish. Lund: Department of Linguistics and Phonetics, Lund University.Google Scholar
Heldner, Mattias (2001). Focal accent: f0 movements and beyond. Phonum (Reports in Phonetics, University of Umeå) 8. Available (December 2012) at http://www.speech.kth.se/~mattias/papers/heldner_thesis.pdf.Google Scholar
Hirschberg, Julia & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (1986). The intonational structuring of discourse. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Columbia University, New York. 136144.Google Scholar
Horne, Merle (1994). Generating prosodic structure for synthesis of Swedish intonation. Lund Working Papers 43. 7275.Google Scholar
Horne, Merle, Hansson, Petra, Bruce, Gösta & Frid, Johan (2001). Accent patterning on domain-related information in Swedish travel dialogues. International Journal of Speech Technology 4. 93102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, David (1990). Tonal perception in speech. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
House, David (2003). Hesitation and interrogative Swedish intonation. Phonum (Reports in Phonetics, University of Umeå) 9. 185188. Available (December 2012) at http://www.speech.kth.se/prod/publications/files/904.pdf.Google Scholar
House, David (2004). Final rises and Swedish question intonation. In Branderud, Peter & Traunmüller, Hartmut (eds.) Proceedings of the 17th Swedish Phonetics Conference (Fonetik 2004), Stockholm University. 5659. Available (December 2012) at http://www.speech.kth.se/prod/publications/files/1039.pdf.Google Scholar
Hulst, Harry van der (2010). A note on recursion in phonology. In Hulst, Harry van der (ed.) Recursion and human language. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 301341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon (1989). Prosodic constituency in the lexicon. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.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. 280340.Google Scholar
Jörgensen, Nils (1973). Meningsbyggnaden i talad svenska. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Kabak, Barış & Revithiadou, Anthi (2009). An interface approach to prosodic word recursion. In Grijzenhout, Janet & Kabak, Barış (eds.) Phonological domains: universals and deviations. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 105133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kawahara, Shigeto & Shinya, Takahito (2008). The intonation of gapping and coordination in Japanese: evidence for Intonational Phrase and Utterance. Phonetica 65. 62105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kristoffersen, Gjert (2000). The phonology of Norwegian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred (2007). Basic notions of Information Structure. In Féry, Caroline, Fanselow, Gisbert & Krifka, Manfred (eds.) The notions of Information Structure. Potsdam: Universitätsforlag Potsdam. 1355.Google Scholar
Kügler, Frank & Myrberg, Sara (2012). Initial focus in Swedish: a matter of scaling and alignment. Paper presented at Nordic Prosody XI, University of Tartu.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert (1986). Intonational phrasing: the case for recursive prosodic structure. Phonology Yearbook 3. 311340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert (1992). Compound prosodic domains. University of Edinburgh Linguistics Department Occasional Paper.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert (1996). Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert (2008). Intonational phonology. 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahiri, Aditi, Wetterlin, Allison & Jönsson-Steiner, Elisabet (2005). Lexical specification of tone in North Germanic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28. 6196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2002). A thematic guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1993). Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology 1993. 79153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mörnsjö, Maria (2002). V1 declaratives in spoken Swedish: syntax, information structure, and prosodic pattern. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Myrberg, Sara (2010). The intonational phonology of Stockholm Swedish. Stockholm: Department of Scandinavian Languages, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Myrberg, Sara & Riad, Tomas (forthcoming). The prosodic word in Swedish. To appear in Nordic prosody: proceedings of the XIth conference, Tartu 2012. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Nagy, Naomi & Reynolds, Bill (1997). Optimality Theory and variable word-final deletion in Faetar. Language Variation and Change 9. 3755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Nordström, Jackie (2010). The Swedish så-construction, a new point of departure. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 85. 3763.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer (1998). Svenskans inre grammatik: det minimalistiska programmet. En introduktion till modern generativ grammatik. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Riad, Tomas (1998). Towards a Scandinavian accent typology. In Kehrein, Wolfgang & Wiese, Richard (eds.) Phonology and morphology of the Germanic languages. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 77109.Google Scholar
Riad, Tomas (2006). Scandinavian accent typology. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 59. 3655.Google Scholar
Riad, Tomas (2009). The morphological status of accent 2 in North Germanic simplex forms. In Vainio, Martti, Aulanko, Reijo & Aaltonen, Olli (eds.) Nordic prosody: proceedings of the Xth conference, Helsinki 2008. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. 205216.Google Scholar
Riad, Tomas (2012). Culminativity, stress and tone accent in Central Swedish. Lingua 122. 13521379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riad, Tomas (forthcoming). The phonology of Swedish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riad, Tomas & Gussenhoven, Carlos (eds.) (2007). Tones and tunes. Vol. 1: Typological studies in word and sentence prosody. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.) Elements of grammar: handbook in generative syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 281337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roll, Mikael (2006). Prosodic cues to the syntactic structure of subordinate clauses in Swedish. In Bruce, Gösta & Horne, Merle (eds.) Nordic prosody: proceedings of the IXth conference, Lund 2004. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. 195204.Google Scholar
Roll, Mikael, Horne, Merle & Lindgren, Magnus (2009). Left-edge boundary tone and main clause verb effects on syntactic processing in embedded clauses: an ERP study. Journal of Neurolinguistics 22. 5573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreuder, Maartje, Gilbers, Dicky & Quené, Hugo (2009). Recursion in phonology. Lingua 119. 12431252.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1995). Sentence prosody: intonation, stress, and phrasing. In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.) The handbook of phonological theory. Cambridge, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell. 550569.Google 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. 187214.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (2000). The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing. In Horne, Merle (ed.) Prosody: theory and experiment. Studies presented to Gösta Bruce. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 231261.CrossRefGoogle 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 & Yu, Alan C. L. (eds.) The handbook of phonological theory. 2nd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 435484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strangert, Elisabeth & Heldner, Mattias (1995). Labelling of boundaries and prominences by phonetically experienced and non-experienced transcribers. Phonum (Reports from the Department of Phonetics, University of Umeå) 9. 85109.Google Scholar
Teleman, Ulf, Hellberg, Staffan & Andersson, Erik (1999). Svenska Akademiens grammatik. Stockholm: Norsteds Ordbok.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert (1999). On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. LI 30. 219255.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert (2005). A short report on intonation phrase boundaries in German. Linguistische Berichte 203. 273296.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
Wetterlin, Allison (2010). Tonal accents in Norwegian: phonology, morphology and lexical specification. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle 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: 6
Total number of PDF views: 145 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 25th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-898fc554b-z76t5 Total loading time: 0.414 Render date: 2021-01-25T21:35:21.751Z 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 no-reply@cambridge.org 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 @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ 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.

Sisterhood in prosodic branching*
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.

Sisterhood in prosodic branching*
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.

Sisterhood in prosodic branching*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *