Modularity, Linearization and Phase-Phase Faithfulness in Kayardild

©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.1,!2011,!81>118! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989>8525! ! Modularity,!Linearization!and!Phase4Phase!Faithfulness! in!Kayardild1! Dragana!Šurkalović! [email protected]! University-of-Tromsø- - Abstract:!This! paper! investigates! the! effects! of! the! Multiple! Spell>Out! Hypothesis! (MSOH)! (Uriagereka! 1999,! Chomsky! 2000,! 2001,! 2004)! on! the! phonology>syntax!interface!in! a! modular! view! of!language.! It! derives!the! effects!of!(morpho)syntactic!structure!on!prosody!without!referring!to!that! structure!in!the!phonological!computation,!contra!the!alignment!constraints! that!map!(morpho)syntactic!edges!to!prosodic!ones!in!Prosodic!Phonology! (Selkirk! 1986,! 1995,! Truckenbrodt! 1999! inter! alia).! ! It! provides! an! explicit! account!of!how!the!outputs!of!different!phases!get!linearized!wrt!each!other,! providing! arguments! that! spell>out! does! not! proceed! in! chunks! but! produces!cumulative!cyclic!input!to!phonology.!It!argues!that!phonological! computation! needs! to! proceed! in! phases! in! order! to! achieve! domain! mapping! while! maintaining! an! input! to! phonology! consisting! of! purely! phonological! information.! An! analysis! is! provided! deriving! prosodic! domains! from! phases! by! phonological! computation! being! faithful! to! the! prosodification! output! of! the! previous! phase,! introducing! Phase>Phase! Faithfulness!to!Optimality!Theory.!!Languages!with!cyclic!effects!at!Prosodic! Word!level!(exemplified!by!Kayardild!and!English)!differ!from!languages! with!cyclic!effects!at!Foot!level!(exemplified!by!Ojibwa)!by!ranking!Phase> Phase! faithfulness! constraints! differently! wrt! prosodic! well>formedness! constraints!regulating,!for!example,!the!binarity!of!prosodic!constituents!or! their!alignment!to!one!another.! Keywords:!phases,! modularity,! linearization,! syntax>phonology! interface,! prosody,!OT.! Resumen:!Este! artículo! investiga! los! efectos! de! la! Hipótesis! de! la! Transferencia!Múltiple!(Multiple!Spell>Out!Hypothesis!(MSOH),!Uriagereka! 1999,!Chomsky!2000,!2001,!2004)!en!la!interfaz!fonológico>sintáctica,!bajo!una! perspectiva! modular! del! lenguaje.! Se! derivan! los! efectos! de! la! estructura! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 1!I! would! like! to! thank! Martin! Krämer! for! his! advice! and! guidance,! Bruce! Morén>!Duolljá,!Patrik!Bye!and!Pavel!Iosad!for!discussing!the!phonological!side!of!the! interface,!and!Peter!Svenonious,!Michal!Starke,!Naoyuki!Yamato,!Pavel!Caha,!Marina! Pantcheva,! Monika! Bader,! Björn! Lundquist! and! Éva! Dékány! for! helping! me! in! my! attempts!to!understand!syntax.!Many!thanks!to!the!audiences!at!NAPhC!6,!What’s-in-a- Word!workshop,!SinFonIJA!3!and!OCP!8!for!their!comments!on!the!parts!of!this!work! presented!there.!The!responsibility!for!any!flaws!is!mine,!and!mine!alone.! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.1,!2011,!81>118! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989>8525! 82! Modularity,!Linearization,!and!Phase>Phase!Faithfulness!in!Kayardild!! morfosintáctica! en! la! prosodia! sin! apelar! a! dicha! estructura! en! la! computación! fonológica,! contra! las! restricciones! de! alineamiento! que! proyectan! extremos! (morfo)sintácticos! a! extremos! prosódicos,! propuestas! por! la! Fonología! Prosódica! (Selkirk! 1986,! 1995,! Truckenbrodt! 1999! entre! otros).! Se! ofrece! una! explicación! explícita! de! cómo! los! productos! de! diferentes! fases! quedan! alineados,! argumentando! que! la! transferencia! no! ocurre! en! partes,! sino! que! proporciona! a! la! fonología! entradas! cíclicas! y! acumulativas.!Se!propone!que!la!computación!fonológica!necesita!proceder! en! fases! para! conseguir! la! proyección! de! un! ámbito/dominio! y! al! mismo! tiempo! mantener! una! entrada! (input)! a! la! fonología! consistente! en! información! fonológica! pura.! Se! ofrece! un! análisis! en! el! que! se! derivan! ámbitos/dominios!prosódicos!a!partir!de!las!fases,!en!el!cual!la!computación! fonológica!es!fiel!al!producto!(output)!de!la!prosodificación!de!la!fase!previa.! Se! introduce,! así,! el! concepto! de! la! Fidelidad! de! Fases! en! la! Teoría! de! la! Optimidad.!Las!lenguas!que!presentan!efectos!cíclicos!a!nivel!de!la!Palabra! Prosódica!(ejemplificados!por!el!kayardild!y!el!inglés)!difieren!de!las!lenguas! que!presentan!efectos!cíclicos!a!nivel!del!Pié!Prosódico!(ejemplificado!por!el! ojibwa).!Esto!ocurre!debido!a!la!diferente!ordenación!de!las!restricciones!de! fidelidad! de! fases! con! respecto! a! las! restricciones! de! buena! formación! prosódica! que! regulan,! por! ejemplo,! la! binaridad! de! los! constituyentes! prosódicos!o!su!respectivo!alineamiento.!!! Palabrasclave:!fases,! modularidad,! linearización,! interfaz! sintactico> fonológica,!Teoría!de!la!Optimidad.!! Resumo:!Este!artigo!investiga!os!efeitos!da!Hipótese!de!Múltiplos!Spell>Out! (MSOH)! (Uriagereka! 1999,! Chomsky! 2000,! 2001,! 2004)! na! interface! fonologia>sintaxe! numa! perspectiva! modular! da! linguagem.! Deriva! os! efeitos! da! estrutura! (morfo)sintáctica! na! prosódia! sem! referência! a! essa! estrutura!na!computação!fonológica,!contra!as!restrições!de!alinhamento!que! projectam! as! fronteiras! (morfo)sintácticas! para! fronteiras! prosódicas! na! Fonologia! Prosódica! (Selkirk! 1986,! 1995,! Truckenbrodt! 1999! inter! alia).! Fornece!uma!explicação!explícita!de!como!os!outputs!de!diferentes!fases!são! linearizados!relativamente!uns!aos!outros,!fornecendo!argumentos!de!que!o! spell>out!não! procede! em! unidades! (chunks)! mas! produz! input!cíclico! cumulativo! para! a!fonologia.! Defende! que! a! computação! fonológica! necessita!de!proceder!em!fases!para!atingir!a!projecção!de!domínio!enquanto! mantém!um!input!para!a!fonologia!consistindo!de!informação!puramente! fonológica.!É!apresentada!uma!análise!que!deriva!os!domínios!prosódicos!de! fases!através!de!uma!computação!fonológica!fiel!ao!ouput!de!prosodificação! da! fase! anterior,! introduzindo! a! Fidelidade! Fase>Fase! à! Teoria! da! Optimalidade.! Línguas! com! efeitos! cíclicos! ao! nível! da! Palavra! Prosódica! (por!exemplo,!o!Kayardild!e!o!Inglês)!diferem!de!línguas!com!efeitos!cíclicos! ao!nível!do!Pé!(por!exemplo,!o!Ojibwa)!na!medida!em!que!organizam!as! restrições!de!Fidelidade!Fase>Fase!de!modo!diferente!no!que!diz!respeito!às! restrições! de! boa! formação! prosódica! que! regulam,! por! exemplo,! a! binariedade! dos! constituintes! prosódicos! ou! o! seu! alinhamento! relativamente!um!ao!outro.! Palavras1chave:!fases,! modularidade,! linearização,! interface! sintaxe> fonologia,!prosódia,!Teoria!da!Optimalidade!(OT).! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!! vol!3.1,!2011,!81>118! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989>8525! 83! Dragana!Šurkalović!! 1.!Introduction! The!term!‘modularity’!as!it!is!used!in!this!paper!refers!to!the!notion!that! language!consists!of!three!independent!modules,!(morpho)syntax,!phonology! and!semantics.!This!model!originated!in!Chomsky!(1965)!and!has!been!the!basis! for!generative!theories!of!grammar!ever!since.!These!modules!are!considered!to! be!independent!from!one!another,!operating!on!domain>specific!primitives!and! not! understanding! the! ‘vocabulary’! of! the! other! modules.! We! cannot! ‘see! sounds’,! and! in! the! same! way! phonology! cannot! understand! or! operate! on! syntactic! primitives.! Furthermore,! the! view! here! is! derivational! and! uni> directional,! in! the! sense! that! phonology! follows! syntax,! and! output! of! the! syntactic!computation! serves!as! input!for! the!phonological! computation.!The! term! ‘interface’! refers! to! the! translation! of! information! from! one! module! to! another.!In!the!case!of!the!syntax>phonology!interface,!‘spell>out’!is!used!to!refer! to!the!process!of!linearising!the!syntactic!tree!structure!and!performing!lexical! insertion,! which! provides! phonology! with! a! linear! input! consisting! of! underlying!forms!of!the!lexical!items.! However,!certain!interactions!between!the!modules!do!seem!to!exist,!as! we!will!see!in!section!2,!and!this!has!been!a!problem!for!current!theories!of!the! syntax>phonology!mapping.!!As!a!result,!they!have!been!unable!to!maintain!full! modularity.!The!goal!of!the!work!presented!here!is!to!account!for!the!interaction! of!syntax!and!phonology!in!a!modular!view!of!language.!The!questions!I!will!be! answering!are:!i)!How!can!we!derive!the!effects!of!(morpho)syntactic!structure! on! prosody! without! referring! to! that! structure! in! the! phonological! computation?,!ii)!If!syntactic!computation!proceeds!in!phases,!does!phonology! proceed!in!phases,!too?;!iii)!If!so,!what!is!the!nature!of!input!to!phonology?!! This! paper! focuses! on! data! from! Kayardild,! a! Southern! Tangkic! language,! due! to! its! peculiar! case>stacking! properties! and! syntax>phonology! interaction.!!The!category!of!CASE!encodes!a!number!of!syntactic!and!semantic! relations! between! elements! of! the! clause,! including! tense,! aspect! and! mood! information,!in!the!form!of!suffixes!on!nouns.!Phonologically/prosodically,!each! root!and!its!suffixes!form!a!single!Prosodic!Word!domain!(Evans!1995,!Round! 2009),!illustrated!in!(1)!below!(Prosodic!Word!boundaries!will!be!indicated!by! {},!while!()!will!mark!Foot!boundaries):! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.1,!2011,!81>118! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989>8525! 84! Modularity,!Linearization,!and!Phase>Phase!Faithfulness!in!Kayardild!! (1)!maku!yalawu>jarra!!yakuri>na!!!!!!!!!dangka>karra>nguni>na!!mijil>nguni>na! !!!!![{maku}ω!{jalawu>cara}ω!{jakuɻi>na}ω!!!!!!!!{ʈaŋka>karaɲ>ŋuni>na}ω!!! {micil>ŋuni>na}ω]! !!!!!woman!catch>PST!!!!!!fish>MABL!!!!!!!!!man>GEN>INSTR>MABL!!!!!!!!!!!!!net>INSTR>MABL2! !!!!!‘The!woman!caught!the!fish!with!the!man’s!net.’! ! !!!!!(Evans!1995:!115,!transcription!following!Round!2009)! Thus,!the!left!edge!of!each!Prosodic!Word!corresponds!to!and!is!defined! by!the!left!edge!of!a!root,!i.e.!of!what!is!referred!to!in!Prosodic!theory!as!‘lexical! word’.!!It!is!this!correspondence!that!is!being!restated!in!modular!terms!in!this! paper!by!making!reference!to!phases!of!spell>out.!However,!in!Kayardild,!due! to! the! fact! that! spell>out! of! case! features! is! delayed! until! the! verbal! domain! features!are!merged!into!the!tree,!the!order!in!which!parts!of!the!tree!are!spelled! out,!i.e.!lexicalized!and!sent!to!phonology,!does!not!match!with!the!ultimate! linear!order!of!those!elements!in!an!utterance.!This!paper!shows!how!current! linearization! algorithms! are! unable! to! derive! the! correct! linear! order,! and! provides!an!alternate!account!that!solves!both!the!linearization!problem,!and! the!issues!related!to!modularity!and!nature!of!phonological!input.!!It!is!not!the! case!that!outputs!of!different!phases!reach!phonology!as!separate!chunks,!as!is! assumed!in!current!phase!theory,!but!that!the!input!to!phonology!at!each!phase! is!cumulative,!consisting!of!the!spell>out!of!the!current!phase!together!with!the! spell>out! of! the! previous! phases.! Thus,! as! the! syntactic! derivation! of! the! sentence!unfolds,!the!input!to!phonology!gets!bigger!with!each!step.!!However,! phonology!does!fully!parse!each!phase,!starting!from!the!first!or!‘smallest’!one,! and!has!the!ability!to!refer!to!the!output!of!the!phonological!computation!of!the! phase!that!precedes!the!currently!parsed!one.!This!allows!us!to!achieve!what! seems!to!be!syntax>phonology!domain!mapping,!but!is!actually!an!effect!of!the! course!of!the!derivation.! Phonological! systems! of! different! languages! vary! in! the! level! of! faithfulness!to!the!parsing!of!the!previous!phase.!!Kayardild!is!an!example!of!a! language! where! parsing! of! the! left! edge! of! a! Prosodic! Word! is! maintained! throughout!the!derivation,!whereas!the!right!boundary!expands!to!incorporate! suffixes!(cf.!section!5.1).!Ojibwa,!an!Algonquian!language,!is!briefly!presented! for!comparison!purposes!(section!5.2),!as!a!language!which!values!faithfulness! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 2!PST!=!Past,!MABL!=!Modal!Ablative!(Case!that!is!assigned!by!the!Tense!of!the! Verb),!GEN!=!Genitive,!INSTR!=!Instrumental)! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!! vol!3.1,!2011,!81>118! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989>8525! 85! Dragana!Šurkalović!! to! Foot! structure! parsed! in! the! initial! phase! more! than! prosodic! well> formedness,!resulting!in!ill>formed!Feet!consisting!of!a!single!light!syllable,!as! in!(2b)!below,!opposed!to!the!optimal!parsing!of!(2c):! (2)!(a)!![ni!!![[bi:mi>Ø]! ! [gi:we:>Ø]]]! ![1P![[ALONG>FIN!AP]!! [GO!HOME>FIN!VP]vP]...CP]! !'ʹI!walk!on!home'ʹ! !!!!!!(b)!! (nibì:)(mí)(gì:)(wè:)-! ! !!!!!!(c)!!!*(nibì:)(migì:)(wè:)! ! ! ! ! ! (Newell!2008:!34)! In!section!5.3,!I!address!the!data!on!the!prosodification!of!function!words! in!English!discussed!in!Selkirk!(1995)!inter!alia,!due!to!the!role!this!data!played! in! establishing! the! relevance! of! (morpho)syntactic! structure! for! prosodic! parsing.! Namely,! in! English,! like! in! many! other! languages,! function! words! (determiners,!prepositions!etc.)!are!not!associated!with!Prosodic!Word!status,! whereas! lexical! words! always! are.! In! English,! function! words! do! not! incorporate!into!the!Prosodic!Word!in!the!way!that!suffixes!in!Kayardild!do,!but! they!have!the!status!of!a!free!clitic,!adjoined!outside!the!Prosodic!Word!at!the! Prosodic!Phrase!level.!This!is!evident!from!the!fact!that,!while!there!is!at!most! one!unstressed!syllable!at!the!left!edge!of!a!PWd!in!English!(McCarthy!&!Prince! 1993),!a!lexical!word!can!be!preceded!by!a!number!of!function!words!which!all! remain!unstressed!and!unfooted,!shown!in!(3)!below:! (3)!te!(!le!!pa!)Ft!thy!! vs.!(te!le)Ft!(pa!thic)Ft!vs.!*te!le!(pa!thic)Ft! !a!mas!(sage)Ft! ! vs.!for!a!mas!(sage)Ft!! vs.!*for!(a!mas)Ft!(sage)Ft! This!paper!accounts!for!this!difference!in!behaviour!by!deriving!it!from! the!difference!in!derivational!status!between!lexical!and!function!words,!in!that! the!lexical!words!are!those!that!the!derivation!starts!with,!and!are!thus!parsed! as!Prosodic!Words!first.!On!one!hand,!in!English,!like!in!Kayardild,!this!initial! Prosodic!Word!is!faithfully!mapped!throughout!the!derivation.!!On!the!other! hand,! unlike! Kayardild,! English! does! not! incorporate! subsequently! added! material!into!that!Prosodic!Word.! Section!2!presents!an!overview!of!current!theories!of!syntax>phonology! mapping! and! shows! how! they! violate! modularity.! Section! 3! gives! a! brief! overview! of! recent! advances! in! syntax,! focusing! on! aspects! relevant! to! phonology.!Section!4!offers!a!solution!to!the!modularity!issues!by!combining! our!views!on!phonology!and!its!interface!with!syntax!with!Phase!theory,!while! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.1,!2011,!81>118! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989>8525! 86! Modularity,!Linearization,!and!Phase>Phase!Faithfulness!in!Kayardild!! section!5!offers!a!way!of!formally!capturing!the!proposed!solution!in!Optimality! Theory,!and!applies!it!to!data!from!Kayardild,!Ojibwa!and!English.!Section!6! gives!some!concluding!remarks!and!offers!directions!for!future!research.! 2.!Prosody!and!Modularity! Prosodic! Phonology! is! the! part! of! phonological! theory! dedicated! to! modelling!the!mapping!from!syntax!to!phonology!(e.g.!Selkirk!1981,!1986,!1995,! Nespor! &! Vogel! 1986,! Hayes! 1989,! Truckenbrodt! 1995! et! seq).! Since! in! the! modular! view! of! grammar! syntactic! representations! are! not! phonological! objects!and!phonology!cannot!access!syntax!directly,!it!does!so!indirectly!via! prosodic!structure.!Prosodic!constituents!mediate!between!syntactic!structure! and!phonological!rules/constraints.!In!Prosodic!Phonology!this!is!known!as!The! Indirect!Reference!Hypothesis.!Suprasegmental!representations!are!organized! into! a! Prosodic! Hierarchy! of! domains! (PH),! consisting! of! Syllable,! Foot,! Prosodic!Word,!Prosodic!Phrase,!Intonation!Phrase!and!Utterance!levels3.!The! original! motivation! for! proposing! PH! and! evidence! for! the! various! prosodic! domains!comes!from!a!number!of!segmental!processes!that!seem!to!be!sensitive! to! them.! Since! then,! PH! has! assumed! an! increasingly! important! role! in! the! syntax>phonology!interface.!! ! Computationally,!when!accounting!for!the!mapping!from!the!output!of! the! syntactic! component! to! a! phonological! representation,! current! work! in! Prosodic! Phonology! uses! constraints! and! constraint! interaction! as! defined! within!Optimality!Theory!(Prince!&!Smolensky!1993,!McCarthy!&!Prince!1993,! 1995).! The! most! active! group! of! constraints! are! the! Alignment! constraints,! originally!stemming!from!the!end>based!theory!of!the!syntax>prosody!mapping! proposed!by!Selkirk!(1986),!and!later!developed!into!the!Generalized!Alignment! theory!of!McCarthy!&!Prince!(1993).!They!are!used!to!align!edges!of!different! prosodic!domains,!the!head!of!a!domain!with!an!edge!of!its!respective!domain,! as!well!as!to!align!edges!of!syntactic!domains!with!edges!of!prosodic!domains.! The! most! developed! and! currently! most! influential! account! of! the! interface! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 3!More!detailed!versions!of!PH!exist!in!various!works!(e.g.!Selkirk!1980![1978]!et! seq.,!Nespor!&!Vogel!1986,!Hayes!1989).!I!list!here!the!most!general!view,!as!it!will! suffice!for!the!discussion!at!hand.! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!! vol!3.1,!2011,!81>118! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989>8525! 87! Dragana!Šurkalović!! between!syntax!and!prosody!has!been!proposed!by!Truckenbrodt!(1995,!1999,! 2006,! 2007).! His! system! uses! Selkirk’s! edge! alignment! and! introduces! the! WRAPXP!and!STRESSXP!constraints:!!! (4)! ALIGN>XP,R/L:!!ALIGN(XP,!R/L;!P>PHRASE,!R/L)! !The!right/left!edge!of!each!syntactic!XP!is!aligned!with!the!right/left!edge!of!a!p>phrase! ! WRAP>XP!!!!! ! !For!each!XP!there!must!be!a!p>phrase!that!contains!the!XP! ! STRESS>XP!! ! !Each!XP!must!contain!a!beat!of!stress!on!the!level!of!the!p>phrase! In!addition!to!edges!of!syntactic!constituents,!it!is!the!distinction!between! lexical! words! (nouns,! verbs,! adjectives)! and! function! words! (determiners,! prepositions,! auxiliaries,! complementizers! etc.)! that! seems! to! be! relevant! not! only!in!the!morpho>syntactic!module!of!language,!but!also!in!the!phonological! one! (Chen! 1987,! Inkelas! &! Zec! 1993,! Selkirk! 1995! inter! alia).! This! idea! that! lexical!government!plays!a!role!in!syntax>prosody!mapping!dates!back!to!Hale! &!Selkirk! (1987).!In!prosodic!phonology,!it!has!been!assumed!that!all!lexical! projections! share! the! common! ‘lexical’! feature! under! their! V,! N! or! A! head,! which!percolates!to!the! phrasal! projection!of!which!they! are! the!head.!!This! feature! marks! both! the! morphological! word! inserted! into! that! head! and! its! projection!as!lexical.!!This!is!made!clear!in!Truckenbrodt!(1999:!227)!where!he! states! that! in! cases! of! complex! VPs,! those! containing! more! than! one! object,! where!the!verb!moves!from!VP!to!vP,!it!is!the!vP!that!is!“a!lexically!headed! projection!in!the!relevant!sense”.!In!other!words,!the!verb!moves!and!becomes! head!of!vP,!which!in!turn!becomes!a!lexically>headed!projection.!! Selkirk!(1995)!has!argued!that!the!mapping!constraints!relating!syntactic! and!prosodic!structure!apply!to!lexical!elements!and!their!projections,!but!not!to! functional!elements!and!their!projections:! (5)!!The!Word!Alignment!Constraints!(WdCon)!! ! ALIGN!(LEX,!L/R;!PWD,!L/R)!! !Left/right!edge!of!a!Lexical!Word!coincides!with!the!Left/right!edge!of!a!Prosodic!Word!! !The!Prosodic!Word!Alignment!Constraints!(PWdCon)!! ! ALIGN!(PWD,!L/R;!LEX,!L/R)!! !Left/right!edge!of!a!Prosodic!Word!coincides!with!the!Left/right!edge!of!a!Lexical!Word! ! ! ! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.1,!2011,!81>118! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989>8525! 88! Modularity,!Linearization,!and!Phase>Phase!Faithfulness!in!Kayardild!! ! !Phrasal!Alignment!Constraints! ! ALIGN!(LEXMAX,!R;!PPH,!R)! ! !The!right!edge!of!a!maximal!phrase!projected!from!a!lexical!head!coincides!with!the! right!edge!of!a!Prosodic!Phrase.! The!example!used!to!argue!for!this!comes!from!the!fact!that!in!English! monosyllabic!function!words!can!occur!both!in!their!full,!‘strong’,!form!and!in! their!reduced,!‘weak’!form,!depending!on!their!position!in!an!utterance.!!!In! contrast,!lexical!words!always!appear!in!their!full!form!(that!is,!even!though! some!reduction!may!appear!in!lexical!words,!they!can!never!be!fully!reduced,! unlike!function!words,!since!the!stressed!syllable!of!the!lexical!word!remains!in! its!full!form).!On!one!hand,!if!we!look!at!lexical!words,!a!sequence!of!two!lexical! words!in!a!phrase!will!be!prosodified!as!a!sequence!of!Prosodic!Words.!On!the! other!hand,!in!a!sequence!of!a!function!word!and!a!lexical!word,!the!function! word! can! be! mapped! onto! a! Prosodic! Word,! or! onto! a! prosodic! clitic,! i.e.! a! (morpho)syntactic! word! which! is! not! a! Prosodic! Word.! ! Thus,! the! special! prosodic!status!of!function!words!is!simply!a!reflection!of!the!Prosodic!Word! organization!of!an!utterance.! Truckenbrodt! (1999:! 226)! formalizes! this! restriction! in! his! Lexical! Category!Condition! (6)!Lexical!Category!Condition!(LCC)!! Constraints!relating!syntactic!and!prosodic!categories!apply!to!lexical!syntactic!elements! and!their!projections,!but!not!to!functional!elements!and!their!projections,!or!to!empty! syntactic!elements!and!their!projections.!! He!shows!that!the!LCC!is!relevant!not!only!for!alignment!constraints!but! for! WRAP>XP! as! well.! ! In! (7)! and! (8)! below! in! Chichewa,! the! lexical! NP! projections!are!contained!within!a!lexical!VP!projection,!and!thus!wrapping!the! VP!satisfies!WRAP>XP!for!the!NPs!as!well.!However,!when!two!lexical!XPs!are! contained! in! a! higher! functional! projection,! as! in! (9),! the! resulting! prosodic! structure!wraps!the!NP!and!the!VP!in!individual!prosodic!phrases4.!Because!of! the!LCC,!IP!or!CP,!functional!projections,!do!not!invoke!WRAP>XP.!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 4!Evidence! for! the! phrasing! comes! from! processes! of! penultimate! vowel! lengthening,!tone!retraction!and!tone!doubling.!The!reader!is!referred!to!Truckenbrodt! (1999)!for!details.! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!! vol!3.1,!2011,!81>118! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989>8525! 89! Dragana!Šurkalović!! (7)! ![X1!XP2]XP1!!![!!V!!NP!]VP! !(!! )P!!! ! ! (tinabá!káluúlu)P! !!!!!we>stole!hare! !!!!!‘We!stole!the!hare.’! !(8)! ![X1!XP2!XP3]XP1!!! (a)! ![!V!!!!!!!!!!NP!![!P!!!!!NP!]PP]VP! ! (! !!!!!!)P!!! ! ! !(anaményá!nyumbá!!ndí!mwáála)P! !! ! ! ! ! !!!he>hit!!!!!!!!!house!!!!!!!!!!!with!rock! ! ! ! ! ! !‘He!hit!the!house!with!a!rock.’! ! ! ! ! (b)!![!V!!!!!!!!NP!!!!!!!!!NP!]VP! !!!!!(tinapátsá!!mwaná!njíínga)P! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!we>gave!!!!child!!!!!!bicycle! !!!!!‘We!gave!the!child!a!bicycle.’! (9)! ![XP1!!!XP2]!IP/CP! ! ! [!NP!! ! VP!]IP! !(!!!!!)P!(!!!!)P! ! ! (kagaálu)P!!!(kanáafa)P! !! ! ! ! ! (small)!dog!died! !!!!!‘The!(small)!dog!died.’! (Truckenbrodt!1999:!245)! As!we!can!see!from!the!constraints!presented!above!and!the!LCC,!even! without!referring! to!specific!syntactic!categories,!labels,!syntactic!relations! or! the!rest!of!the!syntactic!information!present!in!the!tree,!constraints!do!refer!to! edges!of!syntactic!constituents!and!the!distinction!between!lexical!and!function! words! (cf.! Selkirk! 1995,! Truckenbrodt! 1999! inter! alia).! Despite! the! modular! underpinnings!of!the!Indirect!Reference!Hypothesis,!in!order!to!account!for!the! prosodic! phrasing! patterns! current! theory! assumes! that! prosody! still! sees! certain!syntactic!information.!Also,!prosody!is!not!a!separate!module,!but!part! of! the! phonological! computation,! which! means! that! the! separation! of! the! syntactic!and!phonological!module!is!not!achieved.!For!full!modularity!to!exist! we!would!need!a!‘No!Reference!Hypothesis’5!(cf.!also!Scheer!2011),!which!is! what!this!paper!is!arguing!for.! Section! 3! below! gives! an! overview! of! the! aspects! of! current! syntactic! theories!that!are!relevant!to!phonology!and!shows!how!some!of!them!force!us! to!change!the!current!views!of!syntax>phonology!mapping!presented!in!section! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 5!I!use!the!term!Direct!Reference!to!signal!phonology!having!direct!access!to! syntax,!and!the!term!No!Reference!to!refer!to!phonology!only!processing!phonological! information!and!not!referring!to!syntactic!notions.!Scheer!(2011)!uses!the!term!Direct! Reference!for!what!I!call!No!Reference.! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.1,!2011,!81>118! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989>8525! 96! Modularity,!Linearization,!and!Phase>Phase!Faithfulness!in!Kayardild!! Further!examples!of!this!are!seen!in!Dutch!and!German!syllable>final!obstruent! devoicing,! where! vowel>initial! suffixes! induce! re>syllabification! which! bleeds! the!devoicing!rule!(Kenstowicz!1994).!! In!Kayardild,!one!of!the!languages!discussed!in!this!paper,!suffixes!have! ‘word!final’!and!‘protected’!(i.e.,!word>internal)!allomorphs!(Evans!1995,!Round! 2009)!as!well!as!word>final!reduction!that!changes!vowel!length!and!quality.!If! the!second!phase!were!built!on!an!output!of!the!first!phase,!the!word>internal! form!would!never!surface.! (12)! (a)! thawurr>karran>ji! (b)!! kamarr>karra! ! ! ! [taur>karaɲ>ci]!!![kamar>kara]! ! ! stream>GEN>LOC! ! stone>GEN! ! ! (Round!2009)! In!addition!to!GENitive,!illustrated!in!(12)!above,!suffixes!that!also!show! this!alternation!are!ABLative!(word>internal![>naa]/[>naba]!vs.!word>final![>na]),! PROPrietive!! !([>kuu]/[>kuru]!vs.!word>final![>ku]),!ALLative!([>ɻiŋ]!vs.![>ɻi]),! NEGative!([>naŋ]!vs.![>na]),!etc.!7! Thus,! an! adequate! modular! account! of! the! syntax>phonology! interface! utilizing! Phase! theory! would! need! to! account! for! (i)! proper! linearization! of! outputs!of!different!phases!once!they!reach!phonology,!(ii)!phonological!access! to! the! input! underlying! form! of! one! phase! while! processing! the! input! from! subsequent!phases!(capturing!the!insights!of!a!non>phase>based!account)!and! (iii)!phonological!access!to!the!output!form!of!processing!each!phase!separately! in! order! to! capture! prosodic! domain! mapping! modularly! (capturing! the! insights!of!a!phase>based!account).! In! this! paper! I! argue! that,! if! modularity! is! the! basic! organizational! principle! of! the! computational! system! of! human! language,! our! theory! of! language!must!satisfy!the!three!conditions! outlined! above,! which! is!possible! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 7!It!is!not!clear!from!Evans!(1995)!and!Round!(2009)!whether!there!is!only!one! underlying!form!and!the!alternation!is!the!result!of!word>final!truncation!in!Kayardild,! or!if!there!are!two!allomorphs,!one!of!which!is!specified!for!word>final!position.!The! analysis!here!does!not!depend!on!which!account!we!choose!(cf.!tableaux!(22)!and!(23)).! ! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!! vol!3.1,!2011,!81>118! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989>8525! 97! Dragana!Šurkalović!! only!if!spell>out!does!not!proceed!in!chunks!but!in!concentric!circles,!producing! cumulative!cyclic!input!to!phonology:!! (13)!phase1!input:!/bʊks/! !phase2!input:!/ɹi:dz!bʊks!/! !phase3!input:!/dʒɔn!ɹi:dz!bʊks!/! This! goes! against! the! traditional! view! of! phases! creating! inaccessible! domains!in!syntax,!since!syntactic!structure!does!not!get!‘flattened’!but!stays! fully!accessible!to!lexical!matching.!Nevertheless,!the!idea!that!the!part!of!the! tree!already!sent!off!to!be!interpreted!at!the!interfaces!is!still!visible!in!syntax! and,!thus,!accessible!for!later!rounds!of!spell>out!is!not!new.!Nissenbaum!(2000)! and! Newell! (2008)! argue! that! upon! spell>out! information! is! read! off! of! the! syntactic!structure!for!the!sake!of!lexical!access!and!phonological!interpretation,! but!it!is!not!altered!nor!removed!from!syntax,!since!syntactic!nodes!of!already! spelled>out!domains!can!be!targets!for!Late!Adjunction.!The!idea!that!domains! are!inaccessible!comes!from!a!ban!on!movement!out!of!them.!In!the!system!used! here!this!follows!from!the!fact!that!all!features!in!that!domain!are!interpreted,! leaving! nothing! to! drive! movement.! This! is! also! compatible! with! the! Nanosyntax!view!of!spell>out,!where!the!whole!tree!needs!to!be!accessible!for! lexical!matching!throughout!the!derivation.!! By!applying!this!view!to!the!syntax>phonology!interface,!we!account!for! (i)!proper!linearization!by!only!linearising!the!syntactic!elements!wrt!each!other! and!by!keeping!linearization!outside!Phonology,!(ii)!continuous!phonological! access!to!the!input!underlying!form!by!receiving!that!form!in!each!phase!due!to! lexical!insertion!and!linearization!occurring!every!time!we!spell!out,!and!(iii)! phonological!access!to!the!output!form!of!processing!each!phase!separately!by! being!faithful!to!the!phonological!output!of!the!previous!phase,!as!presented!in! section!5!below.! 5.!Derivation!as!the!Interface:!Phase4Phase!Faithfulness! This! section! offers! an! Optimality! Theoretical! account! of! how! prosodic! domains!are!modularly!derived!from!Phases.!A!Prosodic!Word!is!created!not! by! phonological! constraints! referring! to! (morpho)syntactic! words,! but! by! parsing!the!input!from!the!first!phase!as!a!string!of!phonological!segments!with! no!(morpho)!syntactic!information.!Phonology!simply!receives!a!phonological! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.1,!2011,!81>118! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989>8525! 98! Modularity,!Linearization,!and!Phase>Phase!Faithfulness!in!Kayardild!! string!in!the!input!and!parses!it!in!the!most!optimal!way!it!can.!!This!is!done! without! knowing! or! caring! what! piece! of! the! syntactic! tree! that! string! represents.!This!domain!is!further!maintained!in!the!computation!of!subsequent! phases!by! the!phonological!computation!being!faithful!to!the!prosodification! output!of!the!previous!phase.!The!degree!of!faithfulness!to!the!prosodification! from!the!previous!phase!depends!on!the!interaction!of!Phase>Phase!Faithfulness! constraints! (introduced! here! into! the! OT! computation)! and! general! prosodic! well>formedness! constraints.! As! we! will! see! from! the! example! derivations! below,! the! fact! that! lexical! words! are! parsed! as! Prosodic! Words,! while! functional!material!attaches!to!them,!is!simply!an!effect!of!the!way!syntactic! derivation! proceeds,! starting! from! lexical! material! (roots)! and! building! functional!structure!on!top.!In!addition!to!this,!when!it!comes!to!the!Prosodic! Phrase! level,! Cinque’s! (1993)! idea! that! the! most! embedded! element! receives! highest!stress!prominence!can!be!derived!from!the!fact!that!the!most!embedded! element!will!be!processed!by!phonology!first,!and!the!prominence!assigned!to!it! there!will!be!maintained!faithfully!throughout!the!computation!of!subsequent! phases!of!the!derivation.!Prosodic!Phrases!will!be!built!starting!from!the!most! embedded!elements.!This!derives!the!tendency!of!the!Verb!and!the!Object!to! form!a!PPh!to!the!exclusion!of!the!Subject!from!the!fact!that!they!are!prosodified! together! before! the! Subject! reaches! the! phonological! computation.! Prosodification!changes!at!PPh!level!later!in!the!derivation!of!an!utterance!will! again! depend! on! the! interaction! of! Phase>Phase! Faithfulness! constraints! and! prosodic!well>formedness!constraints;!for!example,!those!requiring!PPh!to!be! binary.!For!reasons!of!space,!the!scope!of!this!paper!is!limited!to!the!PWd!level! and! lower.! For! an! account! of! the! prosodification! of! these! and! higher! levels! within!the!system!presented!in!this!paper,!the!reader!is!referred!to!Šurkalović! (in! preparation).! Below! are! examples! of! how! phases! of! spell>out! and! phonological!derivation!proceed!in!the!system!outlined!above,!focusing!on!the! Prosodic!Word,!using!Kayardild,!Ojibwa!and!English.!! 5.1.!Kayardild! Kayardild! is! a! moribund! Southern! Tangkic! language,! traditionally! spoken!by!the!Kaiadilt!people!of!the!Southern!Wellesley!Islands!off!the!north! coast! of! Australia.! The! main! sources! on! the! language! are! Evans’! (1995)! Grammar! of! Kayardild! and! Round’s! (2009)! PhD! dissertation! on! Kayardild! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!! vol!3.1,!2011,!81>118! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989>8525! 99! Dragana!Šurkalović!! syntax,!morphology!and!phonology.! The! most! peculiar! linguistic! property! of! Kayardild! is! that! it! is! a! case> stacking! language.! The! category! of! CASE! encodes! a! number! of! syntactic! and! semantic! relations! between! elements! of! the! clause! (such! as! relations! among! NPs,! tense,! aspect! and! mood! information),! as! well! as! performs! a! complementizing!function.!Thus,!some!CASE!features!on!NPs!do!not!get!valued! until! projections! as! high! as! T! or! C! are! merged! into! the! tree.! Phonologically/prosodically! each! root! and! its! suffixes! form! a! single! Prosodic! Word!domain!(Evans!1995,!Round!2009),!as!illustrated!in!(1),!repeated!here:! (1)!maku!yalawu>jarra!!yakuri>na!!!!!!!!!dangka>karra>nguni>na!!mijil>nguni>na! !!!!![{maku}ω!{jalawu>cara}ω!{jakuɻi>na}ω!!!!!!!!{ʈaŋka>karaɲ>ŋuni>na}ω!!! {micil>ŋuni>na}ω]! !!!!!woman!catch>PST!!!!!!fish>MABL!!!!!!!!!man>GEN>INSTR>MABL!!!!!!!!!!!!!net>INSTR>MABL! !!!!!‘The!woman!caught!the!fish!with!the!man’s!net.’! ! !!!!!(Evans!1995:!115,!transcription!following!Round!2009)! The!syntactic!tree!representation!of!the!sentence!in!(1)!is!given!in!(14)! below,!following!Svenonius’!(2010b)!work!on!the!Kayardild!case!system.!I!will! not!address!the!full!tree,!for!the!sake!of!simplicity,!since!a!subpart!is!enough!to! carry!out!the!discussion! (14)! catch>PST!!!!fish>MABL!! !!man>GEN>INSTR>MABL!! net>INSTR>MABL! (following!Svenonius!2010b)! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.1,!2011,!81>118! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989>8525! 100! Modularity,!Linearization,!and!Phase>Phase!Faithfulness!in!Kayardild!! In! the! system! outlined! above! the! derivation! proceeds! as! follows.! The! ‘lexical’!words!‘man’!and!‘net’!each!start!their!own!derivation!before!merging! together! into! the! main! derivation! (‘fish’).! They! get! spelled! out! since! all! the! features!are!interpretable!(Newell!2008)!or!because!lexical!matching!is!possible! (Nanosyntax)8.!(In!theories!that!do!not!subscribe!to!this!view,!spell>out!starts! from!the!second!step,!at!KP!level.)!Input!to!phonology!is!as!in!(15):! (15)!/jakui/!‘fish’;! ! /ʈaŋka/!‘man’;! ! /micil/!‘net’! In! the! second! step,! ‘man’! merges! with! CASE! features,! none! of! them! interpretable!until!P!is!merged,!at!which!point!KNP!is!interpretable,!and!input!to! phonology! is! /karaɲ/,! which! needs! to! be! linearized! wrt.! /ʈaŋka/! ’man’.! Next,! ‘net’! merges! with! CASE! features! (none! of! them! interpretable! yet)! and! Poss! merges!the!two!derivations!together.!KPP!and!KTP!are!still!uninterpretable!on! both! constituents,! so! PossP! is! uninterpretable! and! cannot! be! spelled>out! yet.! Instrumental!P!is!merged!on!top!of!the!created!DP!and!KPP!is!now!interpretable,! but!the!two!constituents!are!still!part!of!separate!derivations!since!PossP!is!still! not! interpretable! and! are,! thus,! not! linearized! wrt! each! other.! The! input! to! phonology!is!/>ŋuni/,!which!needs!to!be!linearized!wrt!/ʈaŋka>karaɲ/!‘man.GEN’! in!the!one!path!of!embedding!,!and!/>ŋuni/!which!needs!to!be!linearized!wrt! /micil/’net’!in!the!other!path!of!embedding.!At!this!point!the!Instrumental!PP!is! adjoined!to!the!VP!in!the!main!derivation,!but!none!of!the!CASE!features!on!the! object!DP!are!interpretable!yet,!nor!is!the!V!(see!fn.8).!The!verb!and!the!two!DPs! are!still!separate!constituents!as!far!as!PF!is!concerned.!When!T!is!merged,!V,!T! and! KTP! are! interpretable! at! the! interface,! which! makes! all! constituents! interpretable!and!spell>out!needs!to!linearise!the!parallel!constituent!derivations! wrt! each! other! and! wrt! new! material.! Thus,! by! joining! the! minor! paths! of! embedding!into!the!major!one,!‘catch>PST’!and!‘fish>MABL’!and!‘man>GEN>INSTR> MABL’!and!‘net>INSTR>MABL’!all!need!to!be!linearized!in!the!right!order!wrt!each! other.!Furthermore,! the! input! /na/-needs! to! be! linearised! wrt! /jakui/’fish’,! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 8!To!keep!things!slightly!simpler,!I!assume!the!traditional!view!where!V!has!an! uninterpretable!T!feature!and!is!not!spelled>out!until!it!moves!to!T.!Nanosyntax!has!a! very!different!account!of!V>T!dynamics.!An!alternative!closer!to!Newell!(2008)!would! be!to!say!that!V!can!spell>out!on!its!own,!in!which!case!it!needs!to!be!linearized!wrt.!the! object!before!the!Instrumental!PP!and!the!T!are!merged.! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!! vol!3.1,!2011,!81>118! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989>8525! 101! Dragana!Šurkalović!! another! /na/! wrt.! /ʈaŋkakaraɲŋuni/’man>GEN>INSTR’,! and! another! /na/! wrt! /micilŋuni/’net>INSTR’.! Thus,!in!the!traditional!view!of!spell>out,!phonology!needs!to!linearise! the!following!individual!chunks!of!segments!wrt!one!another!when!they!reach! the!phonological!computation!in!separate!phases:! (16)!(a)!!/ʈaŋka/!!!!wrt.! ! /karaɲ/!! ! ! !!!!!!!!(b)!!/>ŋuni/!!!wrt.!! ! /ʈaŋkakaraɲ/! ! ! />ŋuni/!!!wrt! !! /micil/! !!!!!!!!!(c)!/ʈaŋkakaraɲŋuni/!wrt.! ! /micilŋuni/! !/jakuɻi/!! ! wrt!! ! /ʈaŋkakaraɲŋuni!micilŋuni/! !/jalawucara/! ! wrt!! ! /jakuɻi!ʈaŋkakaraɲŋuni!micilŋuni/! !/na/!!!wrt.! ! /jakuɻi/! !/na/!!!wrt.! ! /ʈaŋkakaraɲŋuni/! !/na/!!!wrt!.! ! /micilŋuni/! As!we!have!seen!in!section!4!above,!phonology!has!no!principled!way!of! linearising!these!chunks.!Alternatively,!it!is!argued!here!that!spell>out!cannot! proceed!in!chunks!but!in!concentric!circles,!producing!cumulative!cyclic!input! to!phonology:! (17)!!! ! Phase!1:!! !/jakui/!‘fish’;!! /ʈaŋka/!‘man;! ! /micil/!‘net’!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!__________.! Phase!2:!!!!!/ʈaŋka>karaɲ/!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!______________.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Phase!3:!!!!!/ʈaŋka>karaɲ>ŋuni/! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! /micil>ŋuni/!!!!!!!!!!!!!!__________.! Phase!4:!/jalawu>cara/! !!!!!!/ʈaŋka>karaɲ>ŋuni!micil>ŋuni/! !! ! ! ! /jakui>ʈaŋka>karaɲ>ŋuni!micil>ŋuni/! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!/jalawu>cara!jakuɻi!ʈaŋka>karaɲ>ŋuni>micil>ŋuni/!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !/jalawu>carajakuɻi>naʈaŋka>karaɲ>ŋuni>namicil>ŋuni>na/___________________.!!! Thus,! for! the! path! of! embedding! starting! with! /ʈaŋka/’man’,! input! to! phonology! in! each! phase! would! be! as! in! (18),! with! that! path! of! embedding! merging!with!others!in!Phase!3>4!:! (18)!!!Phase!1:!!/!ʈaŋka!/!! !Phase!2!:!/!ʈaŋka>karaɲ!/! !Phase!3:!/!ʈaŋka>karaɲ>ŋuni!micil>ŋuni!/! !Phase!4:!/!jakuɻi>na!ʈaŋka>karaɲ>ŋuni>na!micil>ŋuni>na!/! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.1,!2011,!81>118! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989>8525! 102! Modularity,!Linearization,!and!Phase>Phase!Faithfulness!in!Kayardild!! Languages!such!as!Kayardild!differ!from!languages!where!phases!induce! cyclic! effects! within! words! (e.g.! Ojibwa,! in! Newell! 2008)! by! ranking! Phase> Phase! faithfulness! constraints! differently! wrt.! prosodic! well>formedness! constraints!regulating,!for!example,!the!binarity!of!prosodic!constituents!or!their! alignment!to!one!another.!The!constraints!I!use,!adapted!from!Round!(2009),!are! given!in!(19)!below:! (19)!!! NONRECURSIVITY! !No!prosodic!constituent!dominates!another!constituent!of!the!same!type.! !*LAPSE! ! !!! !The!output!does!not!contain!adjacent,!unfooted!syllables.! ! PARSE!Ft! ! !! !Assign!a!violation!for!each!Foot!not!dominated!by!a!word! ! WDBINMIN! ! ! !Prosodic!words!are!minimally!binary!! ! FTBIN! ! ! ! !Feet!are!minimally!and!maximally!binary! ! ALIGNL!(FT,!WD)! ! !Align!the!left!edge!of!each!Foot!with!a!left!edge!of!a!Prosodic!Word! The! Phase>Phase! Faithfulness! constraints! I! introduce! into! the! OT! constraint! system! are! given! in! (20)! below.! PHASE>ANCHOR>L(PWD)! replaces! Round’s! (2009:! 331)! L>ANCHOR(GRWD,PWD)! constraint! which! maps! morpho> syntactic!structure!to!prosodic!structure!by!stating!that!‘The!leftmost!syllable!of! any!grammatical!word!is!the!leftmost!syllable!of!a!prosodic!word’.!It!restates! the! non>modular! reference! to! grammatical! words! with! reference! to! the! phonological!output!of!the!previous!phase.!The!PHASEMAX!constraint!requires! that!the!prosodic!structure!created!in!one!phase!be!maintained!throughout!the! subsequent! phases.! Data! from! Kayardild! shows! the! importance! of! PHASE> ANCHOR>L(PWD),!as!does!the!data!from!English!in!section!5.3,!whereas!Ojibwa! is!used!in!section!5.2!to!exemplify!the!importance!of!PHASEMAX!at!the!Foot! level.!The!output!of!the!previous!phase!will!be!shown!in!each!tableau!above!the! input!string,!and!indicated!by!vertical!lines,!e.g.!|!{(mi.cil)Ft!(ŋu.ni)Ftna}ω!|.! (20)! PHASE>ANCHOR>L(PWD)!>!PALPWD! ! The!left!edge!of!a!PWd!constituent!in!phase!n!must!correspond!to!its!left!edge!in!phase! n>1! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!! vol!3.1,!2011,!81>118! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989>8525! 103! Dragana!Šurkalović!! PHASEMAX9!>!PMAX! ! A!prosodic!constituent!in!phase!n!must!have!a!correspondent!in!phase!n+1! The!derivation!of!a!part!of!the!Kayardild!sentence!in!(1),!repeated!below! for!convenience,!following!the!course!of!the!derivation!in!the!four!Phases!given! in!(17),!is!presented!in!tableaux!(21)!through!(25).!!! (1)!maku!yalawu>jarra!!yakuri>na!!!!!!!!!dangka>karra>nguni>na!!mijil>nguni>na! !!!!![{maku}ω!{jalawu>cara}ω!{jakuɻi>na}ω!!!!!!!!{ʈaŋka>karaɲ>ŋuni>na}ω!!! {micil>ŋuni>na}ω]! !!!!!woman!catch>PST!!!!!!fish>MABL!!!!!!!!!man>GEN>INSTR>MABL!!!!!!!!!!!!!net>INSTR>MABL! !!!!‘The!woman!caught!the!fish!with!the!man’s!net.’! ! !!!!!(Evans!1995:!115,!transcription!following!Round!2009)! The! tableaux! (21a)! and! (21b)! show! the! computation! of! the! output! of! Phase1! for! the! two! different! paths! of! embedding.! We! see! how! the! initial! Prosodic!word!is! parsed!from!the! input!string!that! Phonology!receives!from! spell>out! without! knowing! or! needing! to! know! what! (morpho)syntactic! structure!that!string!spells!out.!On!the!one!hand,!the!requirement!that!Prosodic! words!be!minimally!binary!(WDBIN)!is!outranked!by!the!requirement!that!the! utterance!is!parsed!into!Words!(PARSE>Ft),!which!is!why!Prosodic!Words!are! created!in!computing!the!very!first!phase.!On!the!other!hand,!presumably,!the! requirement! that! Prosodic! Phrases! be! minimally! binary! outranks! the! requirement!that!the!utterance!be!parsed!into!Prosodic!Phrases,!which!is!why! Phrases! are! only! created! when! two! paths! of! embedding! merge! and! two! Prosodic! Words! are! joined.! Moreover,! PHASE>ANCHOR>LEFT(PWD)! is! not! violated!since!it!does!not!apply!due!to!the!fact!that!there!is!no!previous!phase! and!thus!no!phase!computation!output!to!be!faithful!to.!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 9!Although!a!PHASEDEP!constraint,!stating!that!a!prosodic!constituent!in!phase! n!must!have!a!correspondent!in!phase-n71,!is!assumed!to!exist,!it!will!not!be!discussed! in!the!paper,!as!it!is!not!active!in!the!data!presented.! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.1,!2011,!81>118! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989>8525! 104! Modularity,!Linearization,!and!Phase>Phase!Faithfulness!in!Kayardild!! ! The!tableaux!(22a)!and!(22b)!show!the!computation!of!Phase2!when!the! GEN!suffix!is!added!to!‘man’.!As!mentioned!in!section!4,!Kayardild!suffixes!have! ‘word!final’!and!‘protected’!(i.e.,!word>internal)!forms,!GEN!being!one!of!those! suffixes.!!It!is!not!clear!from!Evans!(1995)!or!Round!(2009)!whether!there!is!only! one!underlying!form!of!this!suffix!and!the!alternation!is!the!result!of!word>final! truncation!(for!example,!Kayardild!banning!consonants!in!word>final!position! (22a))!or!if!there!are!two!allomorphs,!one!of!which!is!specified!for!word>final! position! (22b)10.! The! analysis! here! does! not! depend! on! which! account! we! choose,! since! they! both! provide! us! with! the! right! allomorph! in! the! right! location,!and!both!accounts!are!presented!in!the!tableaux!below.!This!lack!of! relevance!will!be!evident!in!the!next!phase,!tableau!(23).! In!both!tableaux!(22a!–!22b)!below,!candidate!(a)!faithfully!maps!both! PWd!edges!parsed!in!the!computation!of!Phase1!in!(21a)!and!parses!the!suffix! as! a! separate! PWd,! which! violates! the! requirement! that! PWd! be! minimally! binary.! The! candidates! in! (b)! also! map! faithfully! the! initial! PWd,! but! have! recursive!structure,!and!violate!NONRECURSIVITY.!The!optimal!candidate!in!(d)! satisfies!*LAPSE!by!parsing!the!suffix!as!a!Foot,!but!satisfies!WORDBINMIN!by! incorporating! that! foot! into! the! PWd! parsed! in! Phase1.! As! we! can! see,! the! winning!candidate!can!be!chosen!without!appealing!to!the!Phase!Faithfulness! constraint.!It!is!tableau!that!(25)!provides!us!with!the!crucial!example,!where! two!lexical!words!with!their!suffixes!are!joined,!producing!dangka>karra>nguni> na!mijil>nguni>na.!This!is!where!the!constraint!L>ANCHOR(GRWD,PWD)!had!to! be!invoked!to!account!for!the!location!of!the!left!edge!of!the!prosodic!word.!It!is! also! crucial! for! the! theory! presented! here,! as! it! illustrates! how! Phase! Faithfulness!constraints!can!outrank!the!prosodic!well>formedness!constraints! and!provide!us!with!a!winning!candidate!that!is!not!prosodically!optimal!but! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 10!I! will! not! go! into! details! of! allomorph! selection,! as! it! is! orthogonal! to! the! issues!addressed!in!this!paper.! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!! vol!3.1,!2011,!81>118! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989>8525! 105! Dragana!Šurkalović!! does!reflect!the!course!of!the!derivation.!However,!since!this!is!a!derivational! account,!presenting!the!steps!leading!up!to!(25)!will!nevertheless!be!necessary.! ! ! In! (23a)! and! (23b)! we! see! the! computation! of! Phase3,! when! the! INSTR! suffix!ŋuni!becomes!available!for!spell>out.!Here!we!see!an!example!of!a!crucial! part!of!the!‘spell!out!at!each!merge’!approach!argued!for!in!this!paper.!Lexical! lookup,!as!part!of!the!process!of!spelling!out!the!syntactic!structure,!applies!to! the! whole! tree! every! time,! including! the! already! spelled! out! part.! Thus,! the! input!to!phonology!will!be!/ʈaŋkakaraɲŋuni/,!and!not!just!/ŋuni/.!Namely,!as! we! saw! in! section! 4,! we! need! to! maintain! the! full! underlying! form! of! each! lexical!item! in!each!phase,!since,!in!Kayardild,!word>edge! phenomena!apply! only!to!the!word!edge!in!the!final!phase,!and!there!are!no!effects!on!the!word! edges!created!by!intermediate!phases.!We!cannot!simply!use!the!output!of!(22),! [ʈaŋkakara],!and!build!on!it!in!(23a).!This!would!give!us!the!unattested!output! *[ʈaŋkakaraŋuni].!We!need!to!process!the!whole!string!independently,!and!only! selectively!refer!to!the!output!of!Phase2;!as!in!the!Phase!faithfulness!constraints.! It!is!also!evident!that!only!Phase!Faithfulness!to!prosodification!is!relevant!in! Kayardild,!and!not!faithfulness!to!segmental!material.!! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.1,!2011,!81>118! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989>8525! 112! Modularity,!Linearization,!and!Phase>Phase!Faithfulness!in!Kayardild!! ! EXHAUSTIVITY- - !No!Ci!!immediately!dominates!a!constituent!Cj,!!j!<!i>1!(No!PWd!immediately!dominates! a!σ)! ! NONRECURSIVITY!! ! !No!Ci!!dominates!Cj,!!j!=!i!(No!Ft!dominates!a!Ft)! ! Nevertheless,!if!modularity!is!to!be!maintained,!we!need!to!restate!the! difference! in! such! a! way! that! phonology! need! not! refer! to! syntactic! (lexical)! features.! In! the! system! presented! here,! using! the! derivation! itself! as! the! interface! tool,! the! key! difference! between! lexical! and! function! words! is! that! ‘lexical’!words!are!those!with!which!the!derivation!starts,!and!thus!are!sent!to! PF!first.!They!are!phrased!as!Prosodic!Words!at!the!start!of!the!derivation,!at! phase1,! and! the! phonological! computation! in! languages! such! as! English! remains!faithful!to!this!phrasing!later!on.!We!already!saw!how!lexical!words! start! the! derivation! by! being! parsed! as! Prosodic! Words! in! the! Kayardild! analysis!in!section!5.1,!more!specifically!in!(21a,b).!In!(31)!below!an!example!is! given!of!how!(30)!can!be!restated!in!a!modular!approach,!deriving!the!Prosodic! Word!status!of!lexical!words!from!their!status!as!phase1!in!the!derivation!and! capturing! the! difference! in! prosodic! behaviour! by! using! the! difference! in! derivational!status.! Tableau! (31b)! shows! how! the! output! parsing! is! achieved! by! incorporating! the! suffix! into! the! already! existing! PWd,! without! creating! recursive!structure! and,!thus,! violating!PHASEDEP(PWD).!In!tableau!(31c)!we! see!the!relevance!of!PHASEANCHORL(PWD).!In!candidate!(b)!it!prevents!function! words!linearized!to!the!left!of!the!material!from!the!previous!phase,!such!as! determiners,!from!incorporating! into! the!PWd!created! in! the!first!phase.!We! also!see,!in!candidate!(c),!how!PHASEDEP(PWD)!again!prevents!the!formation!of! recursive!structure.!The!constraints!are!unranked!since!there!is!no!evidence!for! their!ranking!based! on!the!data! sample!discussed!here.!For!a! more!in>depth! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!! vol!3.1,!2011,!81>118! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989>8525! 113! Dragana!Šurkalović!! discussion! of! English! in! the! theory! presented! here,! the! reader! is! referred! to! Šurkalović!(in!preparation).! (31)! ! PHASE>ANCHOR>L(PWD)!–!PAL!PWD! ! !The!left!edge!of!a!PWd!constituent!in!one!phase!corresponds!to!its!left!edge!in!the!other! phase!! ! PHASEDEP(PWD)!>!PDEPPWD! ! !A!Prosodic!Word!constituent!in!phase!n!must!have!a!correspondent!in!phase!n>1! ! PARSE!Ft! ! !!!!!!!!!! !Assign!a!violation!for!each!Foot!not!dominated!by!a!word! ! EXHAUSTIVITY! ! !No!Ci!!immediately!dominates!a!constituent!Cj,!!j!<!i>1!(No!PWd!immediately!dominates! a!σ)! ! 6.!Conclusion! This! paper! has! attempted! to! reconcile! current! syntactic! theories! with! what!we!know!about!prosody,!in!order!to!arrive!at!a!fully!modular!theory!of! the! syntax>phonology! interface.! It! has! argued! that! modularity! can! be! maintained,!unlike!in!the!current!theories!of!the!syntax>phonology!interface,!if! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.1,!2011,!81>118! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989>8525! 114! Modularity,!Linearization,!and!Phase>Phase!Faithfulness!in!Kayardild!! we!assume!that!spell>out!is!the!only!means!of!communication!between!syntax! and!phonology,!and!that!the!only!source!of!information!used!in!phonological! computation!is!the!phonological!information!in!the!Lexical!entry.!! If!we!utilize!the!current!Phase!theory!in!syntax!and!assume!that,!as!an! effect!of!syntactic!phases,!phonology!proceeds!in!phases!as!well,!we!can!achieve! domain!mapping!while!maintaining!an!input!to!phonology!consisting!of!purely! phonological! information.! Input! to! phonology! is,! thus,! a! linearized! string! of! phonological!underlying!forms!of!lexical!items,!created!as!output!of!syntactic! spell>out.!It!is!not!an!output!of!each!syntactic!phase!separately,!but!necessarily!a! cumulative! output! including! the! material! spelled>out! in! previous! phases.! Linearization! of! one! phase! with! respect! to! another! thus,! requires! no! special! mechanism,! and! linearization! algorithms! still! operate! only! on! syntactic! elements.! We!can!derive!the!effects!of!(morpho)syntactic!and!information!structure! on!prosody!without!referring!to!that!structure!in!the!phonological!computation! by! creating! prosodic! structure! at! each! phase,! thus! reflecting! the! syntactic! derivation!and!structure,!and!by!referring!to!the!prosodic!structure!created!in! previous!phases!when!computing!the!output!of!the!current!phase.!! This! is! formalized! within! the! Optimality! Theory! framework! by! introducing! Phase>Phase! Faithfulness! constraints.! The! lexical/functional! distinction!can!be!captured!in!a!completely!functional!syntax!by!deriving!the! difference!in!prosodic!behaviour!from!the!difference!in!derivational!status.!If! we!assume!that!spell>out!happens!not!at!designated!nodes!in!the!tree,!but!at! any! point! when! all! the! features! are! valued! and! lexical! matching! can! occur,! ‘lexical’!words!are!those!with!which!the!derivation!starts,!and!thus!are!sent!to! PF! first.! As! a! result! they! are! phrased! as! Prosodic! Words! at! the! start,! with! phonological!computation!being!faithful!to!this!phrasing!later!on.!The!Prosodic! Word! status! of! lexical! words! is! derived! from! their! status! as! Phase1! in! the! derivation.! REFERENCES! Borer,!Hagit.!2005.!!Structuring-Sense.!Oxford:!OUP!! Borer,! Hagit.! 2009.! Roots! and! Categories.! 19th! Colloquium! on! Generative! Grammar,! Vitoria>Gasteiz.! <http://www.kongresuak.ehu.es/p275> ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!! vol!3.1,!2011,!81>118! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989>8525! 115! Dragana!Šurkalović!! content/en/contenidos/informacion/generative_grammar09/en_inf/adjunt os/Handout%20HAGIT%20BORER.pdf!>! Caha,!Pavel.!2009.!The!Nanosyntax!of!Case.!Ph.D.!thesis,!University!of!Tromsø,! Tromsø.<http://www.ub.uit.no/munin/bitstream/handle/10037/2203/thesi s.pdf?sequence=1!>! Chen,!Matthew.!1987.!The!syntax!of!Xiamen!tone!sandhi.!Phonology-Yearbook!4,! 109–149.! Chomsky,!Noam.!1965.!Aspects-of-the-theory-of-syntax.!Cambridge,!MA:!The!MIT! Press! Chomsky,!Noam.!1995.!The-Minimalist-Program.!Cambridhe,!MA:!MIT!Press! Chomsky,!Noam.!2000.!Minimalist!inquiries:!The!framework.!In!Roger!Martin,! David! Michaels! &! Juan! Uriagereka! (eds.),! Stepby- Step:- Essayson! Minimalist- Syntax- in- Honor- of- Howard- Lasnik,! 89–155.! Cambridge,! MA:! MIT!Press.! Chomsky,!Noam.!2001.!Derivation!by!phase.!In!Michael!Kenstowicz!(ed.),!Ken- Hale:-A-Life-in-Language,!1–52.!Cambridge,!MA:!MIT!Press.! Chomsky,!Noam.!2004.!Beyond!explanatory!adequacy.!In!Adriana!Belletti!(ed.),! Structures-and-Beyond:-The-Cartography-of-Syntactic-Structures,!vol.!3,!104– 131.!Oxford:!Oxford!University!Press.! Cinque,! Guglielmo.! 1993.! A! null! theory! of! phrase! and! compound! stress.! Linguistic-Inquiry!24,!239–297.!! Epstein,!Samuel!David!&!T.!Daniel!Seely.!2002.!Rule!applications!as!cycles!in!a! level>free! syntax.! In! Samuel! David! Epstein! and! T.! Daniel! Seely! (eds.)! Derivation-and-Explanation-in-the-Minimalist-Program.!Oxford:!Blackwell! Epstein,! Samuel! David! &! T.! Daniel! Seely.! 2006.! Derivationsin- Minimalism.! Cambridge:!Cambridge!University!Press.! Evans,!Nicholas.!1995.!A-Grammar-of-Kayardild.!Berlin:!Mouton!de!Gruyter.!! Fox,!Danny!&!David!Pesetsky.!2005.!Cyclic!Linearization!of!Syntactic!Structure.! Theoretical-Linguistics!31.1>2:!1–46!! Hale,! Kenneth! &! Elisabeth! Selkirk.! 1987.! Government! and! tonal! phrasing! in! Papago.!Phonology-Yearbook!4,!151–183.! Halle,!Morris!&!Alec!Marantz.!1993.!Distributed!Morphology!and!the!Pieces!of! Inflection.!In!Kenneth!Hale!and!Samuel!Jay!Keyser!(eds.)!The-View-From- Building-20,!111–176.!Cambridge,!MA:!MIT!Press.!! Harley,!Heidi!&!Rolf!Noyer.!1999.!Distributed!Morphology.!Glot-International,!4,! 4,!3–9.!! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.1,!2011,!81>118! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989>8525! 116! Modularity,!Linearization,!and!Phase>Phase!Faithfulness!in!Kayardild!! Hayes,! Bruce.! 1989.! The! prosodic! hierarchy! in! meter.! In! Paul! Kiparsky! and! Gilbert!Youmans!(eds.),!Phonetics-and-Phonology.-Rhythm-and-Meter.!New! York:!Academic!Press,!201–260.! Inkelas,! Sharon! &! Draga! Zec.! 1993.! Auxiliary! reduction! without! empty! categories:! a! prosodic! account.! Working- Papers- ofthe- Cornell- Phonetics- Laboratory-8,!205–253.! Kayne,! Richard.! 1994.! The- Antisymmetry- of- Syntax.! Linguistic! Inquiry! Monograph!25.!Cambridge,!MA:!MIT!Press.! Kenstowicz,!Michael.!1994.!Phonology-in- Generative-Grammar.!Cambridge,!MA:! Blackwell.!! Kratzer,!Angelika!&!Elisabeth!Selkirk.!2007.!Phase!theory!and!prosodic!spell> out.!Linguistic-Review!24,!93–135!! Lundquist,! Björn.! 2008.! Nominalizations! and! Participles! in! Swedish.! PhD! dissertation,!University!of!Tromso.! ! <http://www.ub.uit.no/munin/bitstream/handle/10037/1840/thesis.pdf?se quence=1!>!! Lundquist,!Björn.!2009.!Restrictions!on!reflexive!and!anti>causative!readings!in! nominalizations! and! participles.! ms,! CASTL! (available! at! lingBuzz/000960).! Marvin,! Tatjana.! 2002.! Topics! in! the! Stress! and! Syntax! of! Words.! PhD! Dissertation.!MIT.!! McCarthy,! John! &! Alan! Prince.! 1993.! Generalized! Alignment,! Yearbook- of- Morphology,!79–153.!! McCarthy,!John!&!Alan!Prince.!1995.!Faithfulness!and!Reduplicative!Identity.!In! Jill! Beckman,! Susanna! Urbanczyk! and! Laura! Walsh! Dickey! (eds.)! University- of- Massachusetts- Occasional- Papersin- Linguistics- 18:- Papersin- Optimality-Theory,!249–384.!! Nespor,!Marina!&!Irene!Vogel.!1986.!Prosodic-Phonology.!Foris,!Dordrecht.! Newell,!Heather.!2008.!Aspects!of!the!morphology!and!phonology!of!phases.! PhD!Dissertation,!McGill!University,!Montréal.! ! <http://digitool.library.mcgill.ca:80/webclient/StreamGate?folder_id=0&d vs=1305453728345~670!>! Nissenbaum,! Jon.! 2000.! Investigations! of! Covert! Phrase! Movement.! PhD! Dissertation.!MIT.!<http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/8842!>! Prince,!Alan!&!Paul!Smolensky!(1993).!Optimality!theory:!Constraint!interaction! in! generative! grammar.! Ms.! Brunswick,! New! Jersey,! and! Boulder,! Colorado:! Rutgers! University! and! University! of! Colorado,! Boulder.! <http://roa.rutgers.edu/files/537>0802/537>0802>PRINCE>0>0.PDF>.!! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!! vol!3.1,!2011,!81>118! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989>8525! 117! Dragana!Šurkalović!! Ramchand,! Gillian.! 2008.! Verb- Meaning- andthe- Lexicon:- A- First- Phase- Syntax.! Cambridge:!Cambridge!University!press.! Revithiadou,!Anthi!&!Vassilios!Spyropoulos.!2009.!A!dynamic!approach!to!the! syntax>phonology! interface:! A! case! study! from! Greek.! In! Kleanthes! Grohmann!(ed.)!InterPhases.!Oxford:!Oxford!University!Press.!! Richards,!Norvin.!2010.!Uttering-Trees.!Cambridge,!MA:!MIT!Press.! Rizzi,! Luigi.! 2004.! (ed.)! The- Cartography- of- Syntactic- Structures,- Vol.- 2:- The- Structure-of-CP-and-IP.!Oxford:!Oxford!University!Press.! Round,! Erich.! 2009.! Kayardild! morphology,! phonology! and! morphosyntax.! PhD!dissertation.!Yale.!! ! <http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/faces/viewItemFullPage.jsp?itemI d=escidoc:457948!>! Scheer,! Tobias.! 2011.! A- guide- tomorphosyntax7phonology- interfacetheories:- howextra7phonological- informationis- treatedin- phonologysince- Trubetzkoy’sgrenzsignale.!Berlin:!Mouton!de!Gruyter.! Selkirk,! Elisabeth.! 1981.! [1978].! On! prosodic! structure! and! its! relation! to! syntactic! structure.! In! Thorstein! Fretheim! (ed.)! Nordic- Prosody- II.! Trondheim:!TAPIR,!111–140.!! Selkirk,!Elisabeth.!1986.!On!derived!domains!in!sentence!phonology.!Phonology! 3,!371–405.! Selkirk,! Elisabeth.! 1995.! The! prosodic! structure! of! function! words.! In! Jill! Beckman,!Laura!Walsh!Dickey!and!Suzanne!Urbanczyk!(eds.)!Papers-in- Optimality- Theory.! University! of! Massachusetts! Occasional! Papers! 18.! Amherst,!MA:!GLSA,!439–469.! Starke,! Michal.! 2009.! Nanosyntax:! A! short! primer! to! a! new! approach! to! language.! Tromsø- Working- Papersin- Language- and- Linguistics:! Nordlyd! 36.1,!1–6.! ! <http://www.ub.uit.no/baser/septentrio/index.php/nordlyd/article/view/ 213>! Svenonius,!Peter.!2010a.!Spatial!p!in!English.!In!Guglielmo!Cinque!and!Luigi! Rizzi!(eds.)!The-Cartography-of-Syntactic-Structures.!Vol!6.!Oxford:!Oxford! University!Press.! Svenonius,!Peter.!2010b.!Case!and!Thematic!Roles.!Advanced!research!seminar,! CASTL,!University!of!Tromsø.!! Šurkalović,! Dragana.! in! preparation.! No! Reference! Hypothesis:! A! modular! account! of! the! Syntax>Phonology! interface.! Ph.D.! thesis,! University! of! Tromsø,!Tromsø.! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!3.1,!2011,!81>118! http://www.siff.us.es/iberia/index.php/ij/index!ISSN!1989>8525! 118! Modularity,!Linearization,!and!Phase>Phase!Faithfulness!in!Kayardild!! Truckenbrodt,! Hubert.! 1995.! Phonological! phrases:! their! relation! to! syntax,! focus!and!prominence.!Unpublished!Ph.D.!dissertation,!MIT.!! ! <http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/theses/truckenbrodt95.pdf!>! Truckenbrodt,! Hubert.! 1999.! On! the! relation! between! syntactic! phrases! and! phonological!phrases.!Linguistic-Inquiry!30(2),!219–255.! Truckenbrodt,!Hubert.!2006.!Phrasal!stress.!Handbook!article!in!Keith!Brown! (ed.),! The- Encyclopedia- of- Languages- and- Linguistics,! 2nd! Edition.! Vol.! 9.! Oxford:!Elsevier.! Truckenbrodt,!Hubert.!2007.!The!syntax>phonology!interface.!In!Paul!de!Lacy! (ed.),! The- Cambridge- Handbook- of- Phonology,! Cambridge:! Cambridge! University!Press.!!! Uriagereka,!Juan.!1999.!Multiple!Spell>Out.!In!Samuel!David!Epstein!&!Norbert! Hornstein! (eds.),! Working- Minimalism,! 251–282.! Cambridge,! MA:! MIT! Press.! Reception!date/Fecha!de!recepción/Data!de!recepção:!! Revision!date/Fecha!de!revisión/Data!de!revisão:! Acceptation!date/Fecha!de!aceptación/Data!de!aceitação:! ! Dragana!Šurkalović! ! [email protected]!! University!of!Tromsø! ! !