7.1 Phases and PF
The focus of this section is on the relationship between phases (and/or Spell-Out domains) and PF. Given that phase heads determine Transfer (in that domains of phase heads get transferred to the two interfaces, sometimes non-simultaneously, as we saw in the previous section), it is not unreasonable to assume that phases will play a role in PF processes. In fact, many researchers point out that the theory of the syntax–phonology mapping in which phases or Spell-Out domains con-stitute phonological domains is the null hypothesis (see, among others, Adger 2007, Dobashi 2003, Ishihara2003,2007, Kahnemuyipour 2003,2004,2005, Kratzer & Selkirk 2007, Pak 2008, Samuels2011, Scheer2012). For the two
‘core’ phases CPs and vPs, the relevant phonological units on the null hypothesis would be TPs and VPs.
The very idea that there is a principled mapping between syntactic domains and phonological domains is by no means novel (or original) to Phase Theory, and I cannot do justice here to the vast literature on the subject of the syntax– phonology interface; I refer the interested reader to Elordieta (2008) and the references therein for a thorough overview of this interface instead.
Perhaps the most relevant PF fact about language is linear order. If lineariza-tion is not part of Narrow Syntax (as made explicit by Kayne’s1994 Linear Correspondence Axiom), and if linear order is established at Spell-Out (as seems reasonable given what Spell-Out is), and if Spell-Out happens phase by phase, linearization will happen phase by phase, too. This is what the title of Fox &
Pesetsky’s (2005)‘Cyclic Linearization’ paper, the gist of which I give below, refers to. The claim that linear order is established at Spell-Out, in a cyclic fashion, as expected in a Multiple Spell-Out architecture, is only one part of their proposal. The other part is the proposal, which they refer to as Order Preservation, that the ordering established within one Spell-Out domain cannot be changed in subsequent Spell-Out domains. Future Spell-Out domains can add information but not delete or change previously established information (see Fox & Pesetsky 2005: 6). Fox & Pesetsky consider the following scenario to
185
illustrate how Order Preservation works. In (1) below, there is a single Spell-Out domain (D1) consisting of three elements, X, Yand Z. The ordering statements for this domain D1are given in (1b).
(1) a.
X Y
Z
b. Ordering statements within D1: X >Y, Y > Z
If another element α is merged outside D1, it will be linearized in the next domain (D2).
(2) Mergeα
D2
D1 α
X Y
Z
Given the Order Preservation Principle, a number of things could happen next;
crucially, however, the relative order of elements established within D1cannot change.1This means that X, being at the edge of D1, can freely move out of D1. After movement, it will still precede all the elements within D1.
(3) a. Move X
D2
D1 Xi
α ti
Y Z b. Ordering within D1: X>Y, Y>Z c. Ordering within D2: X >α, α > D1
1 See, however, Richards (2007) for a proposal that phase-internal movements are order preserving but transphasal movements are not.
The ordering created at the next Spell-Out domain (D2) does not change the ordering previously established, it merely adds new orderings to the ones estab-lished at D1. This is how Fox & Pesetsky derive the fact that movement from a given domain has to proceed through the edge of that domain. If, on the other hand, movement from D1takes place from a non-left-edge position, as in (4a), the new linearization statements are going to contradict the previously established ones. Hereα both precedes Y (by virtue of preceding D1, which includes Y) and follows Y (due to Y having moved out of D1).
(4) a. Move X
Y1
D1 D2
α X
ti
Z b. Ordering within D1: X>Y, Y>Z
c. Ordering within D2: Y >α, α > D1→ α >Y
However, if it is essentially PF that rules it out, as Fox & Pesetsky point out, we expect tofind ways to fix it. And this is indeed what happens. If both X and Y move but their relative order is preserved, the new linearization statements are not going to contradict the previously established ones.2
(5) a. Move X and Y
D2
D1 Xj
Yi tj
ti α
Z b. Ordering within D1: X>Y, Y>Z
c. Ordering within D2: X > Y, Y >α, α > D1
This is how Fox & Pesetsky derive Holmberg’s Generalization, illustrated by the contrast in (6). This contrast shows that the object can undergo object shift only if the verb has shifted even further and the order of the two is preserved:
2 Ellipsis is another way to rescue a structure in which a non-final element moves out of a domain D.
Phases and PF 187
(6) a. [CP Jag kysstej hennei inte [VPtjti]. [Swedish]
I kissed her not
b. *[CP. . . att jag hennei inte [VP kysste ti].
. . . that I her not Kissed (cf. Fox & Pesetsky2005: 17) In the grammatical (6a), this is what happens. The ordering established at the CP level does not contradict the ordering established at the VP level:
(7) a. Ordering within VP:KISSED>HER
b. Ordering within CP: I >KISSED,KISSED>HER,HER>NOT,N O T>V P
However, in the ungrammatical (7b), the ordering established at the CP level does contradict the ordering established at the VP level: henne precedes kysste at the CP level but follows it at the VP level.
(8) a. Ordering within VP:K I S S E D>H E R
b. Ordering within CP:THAT> I, I >H E R,H E R>N O T,N O T>VP→H E R>K I S S E D3
Fox & Pesetsky’s Cyclic Linearization proposal establishes a direct link between Spell-Out domains and linearization domains. It is not clear, however, what in their system prevents the object from moving to the edge of VPfirst, in which case it could continue to move to the next Spell-Out domain with the verb remaining within VP without violating the Order Preservation Principle. The relationship between Fox & Pesetsky’s Spell-Out domains and phases (or complements of phase heads) is also not quite transparent. Given that vP is a phase, the Spell-Out domain should be a VP, which is consistent with their proposal. However, on standard assumptions about phases and successive cyclic movement, movement takes place through the edge of a phase (vP) not through the edge of the Spell-Out domain (VP).
In the rest of this chapter, I will be concerned with the relationship between phases (or Spell-Out domains) and phonological domains, and the issue of whether phases correspond to (or help determine) phonological domains. If so, what are these phonologically relevant domains, and what phonological pro-cesses apply to them?
The commonly assumed prosodic units are listed in (9) (see Nespor & Vogel 1995: 11). The question is which of them correspond to Spell-Out domains. Since phases correspond to larger chunks of structure, the most likely culprits are higher-level units such as intonational phrases.
(9) a. phonological utterance b. intonational phrase c. clitic group d. phonological word d. foot
e. syllable
3 This follows from transitivity. Given that henne precedes inte and inte precedes VP (and kysste is included within VP), henne will end up having to precede kysste.
We will focus below on sentential stress (also referred to as nuclear stress), which is a good example of a phonological process that applies to larger units and which has been shown to be sensitive to syntactic domains. The more specific questions about nuclear stress we will ask are:
(10) a. Do phases play a role in determining domains for nuclear stress assignment?
b. If so, does movement across phasal domains affect nuclear stress?
c. How can we account for the crosslinguistic variation (or the lack thereof) with respect to nuclear stress?
To ground the discussion empirically, let us start with some observations about the nature of nuclear stress and a brief summary of previous (not necessarily phase-based) accounts. Earlier accounts, such as Chomsky &
Halle’s (1968), or Halle & Vergnaud’s (1987), often refer to directionality of stress assignement. The rule governing the distribution of sentential stress (the so-called Nuclear Stress Rule (NSR)) operates cyclically and takes the element bearing the rightmost word-level stress in a given domain to project its stress to the next level. Applied to a concrete example, the NSR yields the following:
(11) ( * )
* ) ( * )
( * ) (
( * ) (* ) Parrots like NUTS
Cinque (1993) points out both conceptual and empirical problems with Halle & Vergnaud’s formulation and suggests the revision given in (12). The crucial innovation in his proposal lies in the fact that it makes no reference whatsoever to the directionality of stress assignment (right versus left).
(12) a. Interpret boundaries of syntactic constituents as metrical boundaries.
b. Locate the heads of line N constituents on line N + 1.
c. Each rule applies to a maximal string containing no internal boundaries.
d. An asterisk on line N must correspond to an asterisk on line N– 1.
(Cinque1993: 244) In most general terms, nuclear stress is sensitive to the level of embedding rather than directionality. This explains, for example, why there is not as much crosslinguistic variation with respect to sentential stress as there is with respect to word stress. It also explains why there is not as much crosslinguistic variation with respect to sentential stress as there is with respect to word order (as noted by Cinque 1993, Kahnemuyipour 2004 and the references therein). To illustrate, in simple transitive sentences, the direct object is the
Phases and PF 189