Folien - SFB 632

On the prosody and interpretation of some non-integrated constituents
Hubert Truckenbrodt and Werner Frey
- Sentence stress here connects to the intuition of separate FHGs by Reis (1997).
- Also broadly connected to prosodic level of intonation phrase (B. Downing 1970, Nespor and
Vogel 1986, Selkirk 2005, L.Downing 2011).
Some background
(1)
Der Maurer und sein Lehrling wollen dem Werner in Kamerun ein Lama malen.
from Truckenbrodt (2005); the grey
line tracks the average and two standard
deviations from the average of n=6
recordings of this prosodic pattern with
the same speaker SW.
(2)
Final strengthening (Uhmann 1991)
The final accent in the intonation phrase is strengthened to sentence stress.
(3)
[CP Dass die Lehrerin dem Lehrer eine Warnung geben will ] hat die Hannelore gewundert.
from Truckenbrodt (2005); n = 12
recordings of subject clauses in the
Vorfeld with a constant number of
accents in each clause
(4)
from Truckenbrodt (2005); n = 12
recordings with relative clauses in the
Mittelfeld and a constant number of
accents in each clause
[
x
]I [
x
]I
Die Lola hat dem Mann [CP der einem Maurer einen Löwen gemalt hat] ein Lob gegeben.
Account: EITHER require stress in each CP ... OR require I-boundary after each CP
(See also L. Downing 2011 on a related pattern and suggestion for Bantu languages.)
1
(5)
Stress-CP: Each CP must contain a beat of sentence stress.
(6)
from Truckenbrodt (2005); n = 6
recordings with object clauses in the
Nachfeld and a constant number of
accents in each clause
(similar recordings with shorter
matrix clauses showed the same
intonation pattern)
[
x
]I
Die Lehrerin und die Nonne haben der Hannelore gesagt [CP dass sie dem Werner das Weben
zeigen wollen]
Now, Stress-CP can be overridded if the CP is contextually given:
(7)
War denn Florian überrascht?
Die Maria und der Hans glauben zumindest [dass er überrascht war]
'Was Florian suprised? M and H at least believe that he was surprised.'
(8)
Givenness (Féry and Samek-Lodovici 2006)
Do not assign sentence stress to a contextually given constituent.
Givenness is stronger than Stress-CP: Givenness >> Stress-CP
Sentence-stess under givenness
When the entire sentence is given, it still receives sentences stress (Höhle 1992). Why?
(9)
Peter meint, dass Hans ein Papier geschrieben hat.
a. Das stimmt. Hans hat ein Papier geschrieben.
b. Das stimmt. Hans hat§ ein Papier geschrieben.
(all-given, still sentence stress)
(Verum-Fokus)
'Peter thinks that Hans wrote a paper. That's true. Hans wrote a paper.'
Is it simpy because each utterance requires sentence stress? No:
(10)
Wie war es draußen?
[Der Mond hat geschienen]I [und es ist kalt gewesen]I
(all-new)
'What's it like outside? The moon shone and it was cold.'
(11)
A: Peter meint, dass Mond geschienen hat und dass es kalt gewesen ist.
B: Das stimmt. [Der Mond hat geschienen]I [und es ist kalt gewesen]I
(all-given)
'Peter thinks that the moon shone and that it was cold.
That's right. The moon shone and it was cold.'
2
(12)
Hat der Mond geschienen? Ist es kalt gewesen?
Ja, [der Mond hat geschienen]I [und es ist kalt gewesen]I
(all-given)
'Did the moon shine? Was it cold? Yes, the moon shone and it was cold.'
B. Downing (1970): Each root-clause (not embeddd in a higher predicate) forms a separate
intonation phrase. Related constraints in Selkirk (2005) and L. Downing (2011).
However, there is an additional stress-pattern also:
(13)
Hat der Mond geschienen? Ist es kalt gewesen?
[Der Mond hat geschienen und es ist kalt gewesen]I
'Did the moon shine? Was it cold? Yes, the moon shone and it was cold.'
We notate assertive force as § and a CP with assertive force as CP§. We postulate a relation
between assertive force and sentence stress:
(14)
Stress-CP§: Each CP§ must contain sentene stress.
Stress-CP§ >> Givenness >> Stress-CP
(15)
Peter meint, dass Hans ein Papier geschrieben hat.
Das stimmt. §[Hans hat ein Papier geschrieben]
(16)
Hat der Mond geschienen? Ist es kalt gewesen?
a.
§[Der Mond hat geschienen] §[und es ist kalt gewesen]
b.
§[Der Mond hat geschienen und§ es ist kalt gewesen]
Appositive and continuative ('weiterführende') relative clauses
Here the main clause and the non-integrated relative clause are separate assertions, and they require
separate sentence stress, see e.g. Reis (1997), Frey (2011), Frey and Truckenbrodt (2012):
(17)
§[Sie empfahl mir den Peter] §[der ja schon öfters für uns gearbeitet hat]
'She recommended Peter, who has often worked for us already.'
(18)
§[Peter hat einen Preis gewonnen] §[worüber er sich sehr gefreut hat]
'Peter won a prize, "about which event" he was delighted.'
Peripheral adverbial clauses (PACs); here: concessive PACs
These are structurally attached very high, cannot be c-commanded by elements inside of the clause
(Haegemann 2004, Frey 2011 for German):
(19)
a.
Keineri hat protestiert als eri unterbrochen wurde.
(central)
'Noone protested when he was interrupted.'
b.
* Keineri hat protestiert, obwohl eri unterbrochen wurde. (peripheral, PAC)
'Noonei protested although hei was interrupted.'
3
Yet at a high level, they are structurally integrated, as shown by c-command relations from higher
elements and their placement in the Vorfeld (Frey 2011):
(20)
Keineri hat gedacht, [[andere werden bevorzugt] [während eri doch der Richtige sei]]
'Noonei thought that others are preferred while hei is the right one.'
(21)
[Während Hans sonst gerne einen Ausflug macht] ist er gestern zu Hause geblieben.
'While Hans otherwise likes to make an excursion, he stayed at home yesterday.
They allow modal particles and are root-clauses (Conilio 2011); their high attachment is plausibly
forced by their root-clause-status (Frey 2011), which requires a close connection to the speakervariable that embeds the main clause (Frey 2011, see also Frey and Truckenbrodt 2012).
(22)
<Speaker>
CP
CP
PAC
main clause
PACs show two similar stress-options to coordinated V2-clauses:
(23)
Ist es dunkel gewesen? Hat der Mond geschienen?
Ja, <S> §[es ist dunkel gewesen] §[obwohl der Mond geschienen hat]
'Was it dark? Did the moon shine? Yes, it was dark although the moon shone.'
(24)
Ist es dunkel gewesen? Hat der Mond geschienen?
<S> §[Es ist dunkel gewesen obwohl§ der Mond geschienen hat]
'Was it dark? Did the moon shine? It was dark although the moon shone.'
PACs provide additional evidence for the assertion hypothesis:
(25)
A: Es ist dunkel gewesen.
B: i. §[Es ist dunkel gewesen obwohl der Mond geschienen hat]
ii. §[Es ist dunkel gewesen] §[obwohl der Mond geschienen hat]
'It was dark. It was dark although the moon shone.'
(26)
A: Ist es dunkel gewesen?
B: i. # §[Es ist dunkel gewesen obwohl der Mond geschienen hat]
ii. §[Es ist dunkel gewesen] §[obwohl der Mond geschienen hat]
'Was it dark? # It was dark although the moon shone.'
4
Right dislocation (RD) and afterthought (AT)
(27)
[Peter hat sie gesehen] die Maria.
'Peter has seen her, the Maria.'
(28)
[Peter hat jemand gesehen] (nämlich) die Maria.
'Peter has seen someone, the Maria.'
In RD the dislocated element is by definition stressless. This is possible only where it resumes a
definite pronoun with an antecedent in the context. In AT the dislocated element is by definition
stressed. This is the only option where additional content is presented in the AT constituent.
We use the biclausal deletion analysis of Ott and de Vries (2012). Both cases show similar
c-command and connectedness relations (see also Frey und Truckenbrodt 2012).
(29)
§[Peter hat sie gesehen] die Maria hat Peter gesehen.
(30)
§[Peter hat jemand gesehen] §[die Maria hat der Peter gesehen]
RD: no new content -> no assertion -> no sentence stress by Stress-CP§.
AT: new content -> additional assertion -> sentence stress by Stress-CP§.
(31)
a.
b.
$[Ich habe sie nicht gesehen] $[an keinem Ort habe ich sie gesehen]
$[Ich habe sie oft gesehen] $[jeden Tag habe ich sie gesehen]
'I have not seen her, in no place.' 'I have often seen her, every day.'
Multiple focus
Selkirk 2005: In a multiple-focus answer, each focus requires sentence stress. Examples are from
the board-game Clue. The implicit question is 'Who did it where with what?'.
(32)
I suggest that the crime was committed [in the lounge]F [by Mr. Green]F
[with a wrench]F.
(33)
Ich schlage vor, dass das Verbrechen im Salon begangen wurde,
von Mr. Green, (und) mit einer Rohrzange.
On the other hand, multiple foci are often content with accent on each F and a single sentence stress
for all F (Schwarzschild 1999, Kabagema-Bilan et al. 2011):
(34)
[Who read what to whom?]
§[HansF hat MariaF die ZeitungF vorgelesen]
§[und PeterF hat ClaudiaF ein BuchF vorgelesen]
'Hans read the newspaper to Maria, and'
'Peter read a book to Claudia.'
Stress-CP§ plausibly separates the two cases. In the Clue examples, it seems that each focus is a
separate claim, hence a separate assertion. Notice that the claims can also be conjoined with 'and'.
5
Parentheticals
(35)
§[Hans hat [sagt die Maria] gar keine Zeit]
'Hans doesn't have time, Maria says.'
Short V2-parentheticals do not require sentence stress. If Stress-CP§ is on the right track, then they
are not normally asserted. This is compatible with a perspective growing out of Rooryck (2001), in
which the parenthetical primarily spells out an evidential speaker variable and assertive relation
independently present in the left periphery of the host clause.
References
Coniglio, Marco. 2011. Die Syntax der deutschen Modalpartikeln: Ihre Distribution und
Lizenzierung in Haupt- und Nebensätzen. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Downing, Bruce Theodore. 1970. Syntactic structure and phonological phrasing in English. The
University of Texas. Doctoral thesis.
Downing, Laura. 2011. The prosody of 'dislocation' in selected Bantu langauges. Lingua 121, 77286.
Féry, Caroline & Vieri Samek-Lodovici. 2006. Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested
foci. Language 82, 131-50.
Frey, Werner. 2011. Peripheral adverbial clauses, their licensing and the prefield in German. In
Satzverknüpfung – zur Interaktion von Form, Bedeutung und Diskursfunktion, E. Breindl, G.
Ferraresi & A. Volodina (ed), Berlin: de Gruyter, 41-77.
Frey, Werner & Hubert Truckenbrodt. 2012. The border between syntactic integration and
disintegration in peripheral adverbial clauses and in right dislocation. To appear in a volume
ed. by Andreas Trotzke and Josef Bayer.
Haegeman, Liliane. 2004. The syntax of adverbial clauses and its consequences for topicalisation.
Antwerp Papers in Linguistics. 107. Current Studies in Comparative Romance Linguistics,
61-90.
Höhle, Tilman N. 1992. Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In Informationsstruktur und Grammatik,
J. Jacobs (ed), Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 112-41.
Kabagema-Bilan, Elena, Beatriz López-Jiménez & Hubert Truckenbrodt. 2011. Multiple focus in
Mandarin Chinese. Lingua 121, 1890-905.
Nespor, Marina & Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.
Ott, Dennis & Mark de Vries. 2012. Right-dislocation as deletion.
Reis, Marga. 1997. Zum syntaktischen Status unselbständiger Verbzweit-Sätze. In Sprache im
Fokus. Festschrift für Heinz Vater zum 65. Geburtstag, C. Dürscheid & K.-J. Ramers (ed),
Tübingen: Niemeyer, 121-44.
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. Givenness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent.
Natural Language Semantics 7, 141-77.
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2005. Comments on intonational phrasing in English. In Prosodies. With special
reference to Iberian languages, S. Frota, M. Vigário & M.J. Freitas (ed), Berlin, New York:
Mouton de Gruyter, 11-58.
—. 2011. The syntax-phonology interface. In The handbook of phonological theory, 2nd edition, J.
Goldsmith, J. Riggle & A. Yu (ed), Oxford: Blackwell, 435-84.
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2005. A short report on intonation phrase boundaries in German.
Linguistische Berichte 203, 273-96.
Uhmann, Susanne. 1991. Fokusphonologie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
6