Prosodic Movement

Prosodic Movement Brian Agbayani, Chris Golston, and Dasha Henderer California State University, Fresno 1. Introduction A basic assumption in generative grammar is that all movement is syntactic. This paper proposes that hyperbaton in Classical Greek, Latin and Colloquial Russian involves post-syntactic movement of prosodic constituents to prosodic edges (for a full treatment of Classical Greek, see Agbayani and Golston 2010). We are led to this conclusion by two major observations about hyperbaton: it moves prosodic constituents (ω and φ) while ignoring syntactic constituency, and it respects prosodic constraints such as the Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP) while ignoring syntactic constraints like the Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC) or the Left Branch Condition (LBC). We propose that this is just what we should find with prosodic movement: sensitivity to prosodic constituency and prosodic constraints and insensitivity to syntactic constituents and syntactic constraints. 2. Prosodic constituency of the fronted string Previous analyses (e.g., Devine & Stephens 2000, 2006) have missed a critical observation, that the fronted material in hyperbaton—typically local fronting of discourse prominent material—is always a prosodic constituent. Examples (1)-(3) from Latin show that extracted material need not form a syntactic constituent; each element of these disjointed strings belongs to a different syntactic constituent. Prosodically, however, each fronted string forms a prosodic word (ω) with its lexical head right aligned with the word boundary. Less commonly, the fronted strings form phonological phrases (φ) as in (3) and (4). Here, lexical XPs are right aligned with the right edges of φs. (1) afferre contributeinf [ad [communem to commonnas fructum]]] fruitnas Æ (ad communem)ω afferre fructum to commonnas contributeinf fruitnas ‘to contribute to the common good’ (Cicero, Pro Archia 12) (2) dignus worthy [hoc [tam [thismas so [gravi heavymas [nomine]]]] namemas Æ (hoc tam gravi)ω dignus nomine Thismas so heavymas worthy namemas ‘worthy of this so dignified name’ (Cicero, De Oratione 1.64) (3) de for [compluribus severalfap aliis otherfap Latin Latin causis] reasonsfap Æ (compluribus aliis)ф de causis severalfap otherfap for reasonsfap ‘for several other reasons’ (Caesar, Bello Gallico 5.54.5) Latin © 2011 Brian Agbayani, Chris Golston, and Dasha Henderer. Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Mary Byram Washburn et al., 231-239. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 232 (4) dignum [[homine [ingenuo atque docto]] worthynas manmas noblemas and learnedmasÆ (homine ingenuo)ф dignum atque docto manmas noblemas worthynas and learnedmas ‘worthy of a learned and noble man’ (Cicero, Pro Plancio 14.35) Latin 3. Fronting of prosodic constituents In (5)-(7) extracted material is fronted to the left edge of its prosodic phrase. Devine and Stephens (2000) argue that this kind of fronting results from local syntactic movement of a complement to the specifier of the selecting lexical head. But their syntactic analysis is problematic for a number of reasons. First, it moves syntactic non-constituents, as we have just seen. Second, it appears to be insensitive to anti-locality conditions that restrict movement from the complement to the specifier of a single XP (Grohmann 2001; Abels 2003):1 (5) (6) (7) (es tās állās)ω épempe summakhíās to thefap otherfap sent3s alliesfap ‘he sent (messengers) to the other allies’ (Herodotus 1.82) Cl. Greek (in eodem)ω occiderint castello in samemds died3p.pf.subj castlemds ‘died in the same castle’ (Caesar, BG 37) Latin (za etu)ω blagodaren silu for this thankful powerfas ‘thankful for this power’ (Russian National Corpus 2007) Russian Hyperbaton is not always extremely local, so not all cases violate anti-locality. Examples (8)-(10), for instance, involve long-distance hyperbaton, where a ω is fronted to the left edge of its intonational phrase. (8) (táùta)ω es toùs pántas héllēnas apérripse ho kûros thesenap to themap allmap Greekmap directed3s themns Cyrus ‘Cyrus directed these words to all the Greeks’ (Herodotus 1.153) tà épea thenap wordsnap Cl. Greek (9) (ea)ω profugus ex Peleponneso auctoritate magis quam imperio regebat loca thosenap exiledmns from Peleponnese authority more than power ruled3ipf areasnap ‘exiled from Peleponnese, he ruled those areas more by authority than power’ (Livy, 1.8) Latin (10) (vot etu beluju)ω tože nado kip’atit’ rubašku one thisfas whitefas also must to.boil shirtfas ‘This one white shirt needs to be boiled as well.’ (RRR corpus 1973:387) Russian 4. Fronting obeys the Obligatory Contour Principle Hyperbaton is sensitive to prosodic well-formedness, as we might expect of movement that is prosodic rather than syntactic. Hyperbaton is blocked when movement would result in homophonous function words within the same prosodic word (Golston 1995), an instantiation of the OCP. In Classical Greek, where possessors are commonly fronted to a position between determiner and noun, e.g., (11), movement is not possible when it would bring together homophonous articles, e.g., (12). Fronting is permitted, however, when something appears between the homophonous articles, e.g., (13). 1 In Abel’s proposal, the anti-locality constraint holds of Phase heads (C and v), though see Grohmann (2001) for a more generalized, domain-based approach. 233 Note that in (13), hyperbaton must front the Det-N string to the left of the entire possessed DP to avoid the restriction on adjacent homophonous function words. (11) tèn (tôn Gergithíōn)ω pólin thefas themgp Gergithianmgs cityfas ‘the city of the Gergithians’ (Xenophon, Hellenica 3.1.22) (12) *(tôn tôn theôn)ω onomátōn thengp themgp godsmgp namesngp ‘of the names of the gods’ (construct) (13) (tôn theôn)ω (tôn onomátōn)ω themgp godsmgp thengp namesngp ‘of the names of the gods’ (Plato, Cratylus 400d) Cl. Greek Cl. Greek Cl. Greek Similarly, movement in Latin is blocked when it brings together homophonous complementizer cum ‘when’ and preposition cum ‘with’ as in (14), though PP fronting like this is very common in subordinate clauses. Such movement is freely allowed when another word appears between the homophonous function words as in (15). (14) (15) *cum cum sicario ... when with murderermas ... ‘when with a murderer...’ Latin cum loquerer cum Phania when speak1.impf.subj with Phaniamas ‘when I was speaking with Phania’ (Cicero, ad Familiares 3.5.1) Latin In Russian, fronting is blocked when it brings together homophonous function words čto ‘what’ in nominative and accusative cases and complementizer čto ‘that’, e.g., (16-17). Fronting is allowed when something appears between the homophonous function words, e.g., (18-19). (16) (17) (18) (19) *čto čto obuslovilo whatns whatas conditions ‘What conditions what?’ (Bošković 2002) Russian *ja priznaju čto čto ja sdelal bylo sdelano…. I admit that what I did was done ‘I admit that what I did was done…’ Russian čto neprestano čto obuslovilo whatns constantly whatas conditions ‘What constantly conditions what?’ Russian ja priznaju čto to čto ja sdelal bylo sdelano…. I admit that this that I did was done ‘I admit that this (thing) I did was done…’ (NRC 2003) Russian 5. Fronting disobeys syntactic island constraints A major problem with syntactic analyses of hyperbaton is that it exhibits insensitivity to a number of syntactic islands, including the Coordinate Structure Constraint (Ross 1967). In each of the following examples, the first conjunct is extracted out of its coordinate structure. 234 (20) (21) (22) polémou péri kaì asphaleíās warmgs about and safetyfgs ‘about war and safety’ (Thucydides 5.11.4) sapientiae laudem et eloquentiae wisdomfgs reputationmas and wisdomfgs ‘a reputation for wisdom and eloquence’ (Cicero, de Oratione 2.363) perila takije xorošije sdelani i stupen’ki railsapl suchap goodap made and stepsap ‘Made such good rails and steps’ (RNC 2005) Cl. Greek Latin Russian Hyperbaton is also insensitive to the Left Branch Condition, which prohibits fronting of left branch elements that strand their complements (Ross 1967). (23) (24) (25) pasin éreske taûta tóìs állois présbesin allmdp pleased these themdp othermdp ambassadorsmdp ‘these things pleased all the other ambassadors’ (Demosthenes 19.157) multas adferunt causas manyfap to.bring3p reasonsfap ‘they bring up many reasons’ (Caesar, BG 6.22) čiyu ty vstretyl ženu? whose you met wife ‘Whose wife did you meet?’ (Zavitnevich 2001:13) Cl. Greek Latin Russian Hyperbaton also disobeys the Adjunct Condition (Huang 1982, Chomsky 1986, Takahashi 1993). In (26)-(28) substrings of an adjunct phrase are fronted out of the adjunct. (26) (27) (28) eks állēs elthónta kómmēs from anotherfgs coming villagefgs ‘coming from another village’ (Herodotus 1.196) Cl. Greek suo stare loco theirngp stayed placengp ‘they stayed in their place (Livy, 9.37.3; D&S 11) Latin v raznom naxod’ats’a položeniji in differentnins are.present situationnins ‘They are present in a different situation.’ (RRR 1973:387) Russian Hyperbaton ignores so-called Freezing Islands (Wexler & Culicover 1980) as well. In (29) hósois ‘whatever’ moves from an object that has itself been moved and in (30)-(31) nullam ‘no’ and kakix ‘such’ have been fronted out of constituents that have themselves been fronted. (29) (hósois)ω ánthrōpoi sítoisin è potóisin hugiaínontes es díaitan khrôntai whatevermdp peoplemnp foodmdp or drinkmdp being.wellmnp in dietfas use3p ‘whatever food or drink healthy people use in their diet’(Hippocrates, Affections 39.1)Cl. Greek (30) (nullam)ω video (gravem)ω subesse causam noapl see1s seriousap be.thereinf reasonapl ‘I see there to be no serious reason.’ (Cicero, Epistulae ad Atticum 1.10.2) Latin 235 (31) (kakix)ω ja sebe (blinov)ω segodnja nadelala vkusnyx suchap I to.self pancakesap today made tastyap I made such tasty pancakes for myself today. (RRR 1970:236) Russian 6. Fronting violates lexical integrity Hyperbaton also ignores lexical integrity, splitting compounds and proper names that consist of two or more prosodic words. Names can be split in all three languages: (32) (Sólōnos)ω eipóntos Athēnaíou tèn gnōmēn Solonmgs speakingmgs Athenianmgs thefas opinionfas ‘after Solon-the-Athenian had spoken his opinion’ (Aeschines 3.108; D&S 2000, 93) Cl. Greek (33) (ad Castra)ω exploranda Cornelia to Campnap exploringnap Cornelianap ‘exploring Camp Cornelia’ (Caesar, Bello Civili 2.24; D&S 2006, 275) (34) (Gal’a)ω prijexala Smirnova iz Gal’afns came Smirnova fns from ‘Gal’a Smirnova came from Jerevan.’ (RRR 1973) Latin Jerevana. Jerevan. Russian Russian allows compounds to be split as long as each member of the compound is a prosodic word (Henderer 2009): (35) (36) (v vagon)ω ona xodila -restoran obedat’ to car she went dining to.eat ‘She went to the dining-car to eat.’ (RRR 1973:390) Russian (plat’je)ω ona sebe sšila -kostjum dressnas she to.self sewed suitnas ‘She sewed herself a dress-suit.’ (RRR 1973:390) Russian Such splitting of compounds is marginal in Latin, where it only occurs in poetry: (37) (septem)ω subiecta -trioni seven under oxenmds ‘under the SevenOxen (constellation)’ (Vergil, Georgiacs 3.381) Latin Greek compounds form single prosodic words and therefore cannot be split by hyperbaton. 7. Fronting is semantically vacuous Another strong argument for the prosodic nature of hyperbaton is its semantic vacuity. Fronted reflexive and reciprocals are interpreted as if they were in situ, following their antecedents. (38) (39) ei dé ge mēdamóù heautòni apokrúptoito [ho poiētēs]i if and prt never himselfmas conceal3s.opt themns poetmns ‘and if the poet should never conceal himself’ (Plato, Republic 393c11) sei Miloi continuit self Milomns restrained3s ‘Milo restrained himself’ (Cicero, Pro Milone 15.40) Cl. Greek Latin 236 (40) seb’ai onii ubirat’ ne budut themselvesap they get.rid not will ‘They are not going to get rid off themselves.’ (RNC 2003) Russian 8. Analysis Following Agbayani & Golston (2010), we assume a three-part serial model of grammar where syntax feeds an interface module, which, in turn, feeds phonology. In this model, the role of syntax is limited to determining dominance relations and has no say in linear precedence relations whatsoever. Thus, the syntax shapes the hierarchical structure of sentences, but it is phonology that determines the left/right order of words. (41) Syntax [ékheiV , [pûrN]NP]VP (immediate dominance) ⇓ Interface ((ékheiω) (pûrω)ф)ф (linear precedence) ⇓ Phonology ((pûrω)ф(ékheiω))ф (hyperbaton) The syntax determines the sisterhood relations of ékhei ‘has’ and pûr ‘fire’ but it does not decide which of them linearly precedes the other. The interface module creates prosodic constituency and determines linear precedence relations by right-aligning syntactic edges to prosodic edges. Thus, in the case of ékhei pûr the interface determines that ékhei and pûr are each a ω, that the XPs headed by ékhei and pûr are each a φ, and that the word order is ékhei pûr rather than pûr ékhei because XPs like pûr ‘fire’ right align with φs. We assume the following universally undominated constraints: (42) Universally undominated constraints (Selkirk 1995) LAYEREDNESS No Ci dominates a Cj, j>i. (e.g., no σ dominates a foot) HEADEDNESS Any Ci must dominate a Ci+1. (e.g., a ω must dominate a foot) The crucial constraints that determine left/right order in the Agbayani & Golston model are just those independently needed for the creation and alignment of prosodic structure: (43) ALIGNR(X0, ω): The right edge of every lexical X0 is aligned with that of a ω. ALIGNR(ω, X0): The right edge of every ω is aligned with that of a lexical X0. ALIGNR(XP, ф): The right edge of every lexical XP is aligned with that of a φ. These constraints are simultaneously responsible for assigning prosodic edges and for (right-)aligning syntactic heads and phrases to those edges. As the following shows, Classical Greek ‘head-initial’ ékhei pûr ‘has fire’ is preferred to ‘head-final’ pûr ékhei simply due to alignment: the former rightaligns every XP with a phonological phrase edge, which the latter fails to do: 237 (44) Lexical XP: ékhei pûr ‘has fire’ [ékheiV , pûrNP]VP ☞ a. (ékheiω pûrω)ф b. (pûrω ékheiω)ф c. (ékheiω pûrσ)ф d. (pûrσ ékheiω)ф e. (ékheiσ pûrω)ф f. (pûrω ékheiσ)ф g. (ékheiσ pûr)ф h. (pûrσ ékhei)ф ALIGNR(X0, ω) ALIGNR(XP, φ) ALIGNR(ω, X0) *! *! *! *! *! *!* *!* * * * AlignR(X˚,ω) aligns lexical heads ékhei and pûr with a prosodic word boundary as in (44a-b). AlignR(ω, X˚) determines head-initial order and rejects the head-final status of (44b). (44c-h) are rejected because one of the lexical words is parsed as a syllable. To keep the output of the postlexical phonology similar to the input, Agbayani & Golston propose three faithfulness constraints. (45) STAYω STAYф STAY ι No daughter of ω moves. No daughter of ф moves. No daughter of ι moves. Here is how these constraints maintain faithfulness to the input. Below is an example with the prosodic structure and linear order already defined by the interface constraints (Classical Greek). (46) (apoktéinantesω (mou tòn páìda)ω)ф killingmnp mymgs themas childmas ‘killing my child’(Antiphon, Tetralogia 3.7.1) ((apoktéinantes)ω (mouσ tònσ páìdaω) ω)ф ☞ a. ((apoktéinantes) ω (mouσ tònσ páìdaω) ω) ф b. ((mouσ tònσ páìdaω)ω (apoktéinantes) ω)ф c. ((apoktéinantes)ω (mouσ páìdaω tònσ) ω)ф d. ((apoktéinantes)ω páìdaω mouσ tònσ) ω)ф STAYω STAYф *! *! *!* No constraints are violated in (46a) since nothing moved within a ω or a φ. Candidate (b) violates STAYφ by moving leftward a daughter of φ, (mou tòn páìda)ω. Candidate (c) violates STAYω because (páìda), a daughter of ω, moved to the left. And candidate (d) violates STAYω twice, once for each syllable that separates it from the end of the phrase. Hyperbaton typically involves fronting of discourse prominent material. We assume that longer movement correlates with increased prominence in Classical Greek. To account for short and long distance movement we propose the following constraints (47) under which prominent material moves across only one element to the left of its interface position (short fronting), while what we call ‘maximally prominent’ material moves all the way to the left edge of an intonational phrase ι (long fronting). The case of short fronting is shown in the tableau for example (48). Here (48a) is the winning candidate because it does not violate PROML, while minimally violating lower ranked STAYф (example (48) is slightly abbreviated in the tableau for ease of exposition). (47) PROML ιPROM (48) Prominent material occurs to the left of its interface position. Maximally prominent material is initial in ι. tà dè toiáùta tôn helkéōn tomês déìtai suchnap thengp woundsngp incisionfgs require3p thenap and ‘and such kinds of wounds require incision’ (Hippocrtes, Headwounds 13.35) 238 (…(tônσ helkéōnω)ω)ф (déìtai ω tomês ω)ф) ι STAYω STAYф PROML ☞ a. (…(tônσ helkéōnω)ω)ф (tomês ω déìtai ω) ф) ι * b. (…tomêsω (tônσ helkéōnω)ω)ф (déìtai ω) ф) ι **!* c. (…(tônσ helkéōnω)ω)ф (déìtai ω tomêsω)ф)ι *! The case of long fronting is shown in the tableau for example (49). Here, the constraint ιPROM plays a role in ensuring that maximally prominent material undergoes long distance movement at the expense of lower ranked STAYф. Candidate (a) wins because it moves ‘maximally prominent’ material long distance, to the left edge of the intonational phrase. (49) tà epì deksià ho spasmòs thenap on rightnap themns spasmmns ‘the spasm seizes the (parts) on the right’ epilambánei seize3s (Hippocrates, Headwounds 13.48) (((hoσ spasmòs ω)ω)ф (epilambánei)ω (tàσ epìσ deksiàω)ω)ф) ι STAYω ☞ a. ((tàσ epìσ deksiàω)ω)ф ((hoσ spasmòsω)ω)ф (epilambánei)ω)ф ιPROM STAYф ** * b. (((hoσ spasmòsω)ω)ф (tàσ epìσ deksiàω)ω (epilambánei)ω)ф) ***!* c. (((hoσ spasmòsω)ω)ф (epilambánei)ω (tàσ epìσ deksiàω)ω)ф) ι ***!** d.((deksiàω)ф((hoσ spasmòs ω)ω)ф((epilambánei)ω(tàσ epìσ)ω)ф)ι *! * Finally, the OCP effects discussed in section 4 would result from the following undominated constraint (adapted from Yip 1993): (50) *ECHO No phonologically identical syllables occur within a ω. The constraint rules out identical function words which occur within the same phonological word. 9. Conclusion In this paper we proposed that hyperbaton in Classical Greek, Latin and Colloquial Russian involves post-syntactic movement of prosodic constituents to prosodic edges. We were led to this conclusion by two major observations about hyperbaton: it moves prosodic constituents (ω and φ) while ignoring syntactic constituency, and it respects prosodic constraints such as the OCP while ignoring a host of well-known syntactic constraints. This is just what we should find with prosodic movement: sensitivity to prosodic constituency and prosodic constraints and insensitivity to syntactic constituents and syntactic constraints. References Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut. Agbayani, Brian, and Chris Golston. 2010. Phonological movement in Classical Greek. Language 86.1. 133-167. Boškovič, Željko. 2002. On multiple Wh-Fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33. 351–384. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Devine, Andrew M. and Laurence D. Stephens. 2000. Discontinuous syntax: Hyperbaton in Greek. New York: OUP. Devine, Andrew M. and Laurence D. Stephens. 2006. Latin Word Order: Structured Meaning and Information. New York: OUP. Golston, Chris. 1995. Syntax outranks phonology: evidence from Ancient Greek. Phonology 21, 325-357. Grohmann, Kleanthes. 2001. Anti-locality and clause types. Theoretical Linguistics 27.3. Henderer, Dasha. 2009. Phonological movement is colloquial Russian. MS, CSU Fresno. 239 Huang, James Cheng-Teh. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT. Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Selkirk, Elizabeth.1995. The Prosodic Structure of Function Words. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18. UMass, Amherst: GLSA 439-470. Takahashi, Daiko. 1993. Minimality of movement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Yip, Moira. 1993. The interaction of ALIGN, PARSE-Place and *ECHO in Reduplication. Paper presented at the Rutgers Optimality Workshop. Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics edited by Mary Byram Washburn, Katherine McKinney-Bock, Erika Varis, Ann Sawyer, and Barbara Tomaszewicz Cascadilla Proceedings Project Somerville, MA 2011 Copyright information Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics © 2011 Cascadilla Proceedings Project, Somerville, MA. All rights reserved ISBN 978-1-57473-441-6 library binding A copyright notice for each paper is located at the bottom of the first page of the paper. Reprints for course packs can be authorized by Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Ordering information Orders for the library binding edition are handled by Cascadilla Press. To place an order, go to www.lingref.com or contact: Cascadilla Press, P.O. Box 440355, Somerville, MA 02144, USA phone: 1-617-776-2370, fax: 1-617-776-2271, sales@cascadilla.com Web access and citation information This entire proceedings can also be viewed on the web at www.lingref.com. Each paper has a unique document # which can be added to citations to facilitate access. The document # should not replace the full citation. This paper can be cited as: Agbayani, Brian, Chris Golston, and Dasha Henderer. 2011. Prosodic Movement. In Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Mary Byram Washburn et al., 231-239. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. www.lingref.com, document #2455.