The Relation between Prosody and Syntax: The case of different types of Left-Dislocations in Spanish

The Relation between Prosody and Syntax: The case of

different types of Left-Dislocations in Spanish*

Ingo Feldhausen Goethe-Universität Frankfurt (Germany) & Laboratoire de Phonétique et Phonologie, LPP - Paris 3(France)

This paper sheds new light on the validity of claims concerning the prosody of specif-ic constructions in the syntactic literature. Time and again, these assertions fail to be supported by broad experimental results and, as a consequence, it is unclear whether these claims are actually valid. The present paper demonstrates this for claims made concerning the prosody of hanging topic left-dislocations (HTLD), clitic left-dislocations (CLLD) and left-dislocations without a resumptive pronoun (LDw/oRP) in Spanish. By means of a production experiment, this paper shows that these construc-tions have a similar intonational pattern. They are tonally realized by a rising nuclear pitch accent and a high edge tone and may be followed by a pause (more often in HTLD than in the other constructions, however). There is a sharp contrast between HTLD in interrogatives and HTLD in declaratives; only the former is obligatorily realized with a pause and may have a low edge tone. The results strongly contradict assertions previously made pertaining to the prosody of these constructions in the syntactic literature and call for a revision of the claims.

Keywords: Hanging Topic Left-Dislocation; Clitic Left-Dislocation; Spanish; Pro-sodic Phrasing; Edge tones

1. Introduction

This paper deals with the prosody of different left-dislocation construc-

tions in Spanish. More precisely, hanging topic left-dislocation (HTLD), clitic

left-dislocation (CLLD), and left-dislocation without resumptive pronoun

* DRAFT, February, 20, 2014. I would like to thank Nicole Dehé, Gerrit Kentner, Imme Kuchenbrandt, Cecilia Poletto, and the two anonymous reviewers for thoughtful observa-tions and comments. Special thanks go to my student assistant Alina Lausecker. My grati-tude also goes to Audrey MacDougall for her assistance with editing. This work was sup-ported by the French Investissements d’Avenir - Labex EFL program (ANR-10-LABX-0083).

2 Ingo Feldhausen

(LDw/oRP) are considered here (see (1), (2) and (3) respectively).1 Their main

unifying syntactic characteristic is the presence of a phrase in the left periphery

of a clause, which is typically connected with the clause by means of an ana-

phoric element (called resumptive element here).2 The results obtained in this

study show that the dislocated element is realized by a high edge tone in all

constructions and that a pause between the dislocation and the following

clause is not obligatory.

Despite several studies on the differences in syntax and information

structure observed between these constructions in Spanish (e.g. Hernanz &

Brucart 1987, Escobar 1995, Zubizarreta 1999, Villalba 2009 [2000], Casiel-

les-Suárez 2003, Bosque & Gutiérrez-Rexach 2009:#11.3, López 2009, Olar-

rea 2012), no detailed prosodic studies on this topic exist as of yet. It is there-

fore unclear whether these constructions are in fact prosodically unique – a

claim typically made in syntactic studies. The present paper addresses this

open issue.

In syntax, HTLD and CLLD are distinguished on the basis of different

criteria. Two important criteria are illustrated here using examples (1) and (2),

taken from López (2009:4).3 Throughout the paper, the left-dislocated constit-

uents are printed in bold type, whereas the resumptive elements are in italics.

1 The terms HTLD and CLLD can be traced back to Cinque (1983, 1990). The term LDw/oRP is derived from Casielles-Suárez (2003). 2 As we will see in (3) below, the construction "Left-Dislocation without resumptive pronoun (LDw/oRP)" is characterized by the lack of a resumptive pronoun. 3 Since discussing syntactic differences between HTLD and CLLD is not the objective of this paper, we refer to Bosque & Gutiérrez-Rexach (2009:#11.3) and Olarrea (2012:610) for further criteria and information.

Revised manuscript - Different types of Left-Dislocations in Spanish 3

(1) Hanging Topic Left-Dislocation (HTLD)

María, hace tiempo que no veo a esa sinvergüenza. M. does time that NEG see.1ST A that shameless ‘Maria, I haven’t seen that shameless woman in a long time.’

(2) Clitic Left-Dislocation (CLLD)

A María, hace tiempo que no la veo A M. does time that NEG CL.ACC see.1ST ‘Maria, I haven’t seen (her) in a long time.’

First, the resumptive element in HTLD constructions can be either a

weak or a strong pronoun or even a phrase (a so-called epithet; see

Hirschbühler 1975), such as a esa sinvergüenza ‘that shameless woman’ in (1).

The resumptive pronoun in CLLD constructions is obligatorily a weak pro-

noun, such as the accusative clitic la in (2). Second, there is "obligatory identi-

ty of Case and subcategorization between the dislocated element and the re-

sumptive pronoun in CLLDs" (Olarrea 2012:612). This is why the dislocated

noun María is preceded by the differential object marker a in (2), but not in (1).

The third construction, left-dislocation without resumptive pronoun

(LDw/oRP), is a special case, as it does not include any resumptive elements. In

Spanish, there is no resumptive element for dislocated PPs and bare nouns,

such as dinero ‘money’ in (3) (e.g. Bonet 1991:25ff., Zubizarreta 1998:157).

There is disagreement in the literature as to whether LDw/oRP are instances of

CLLD (e.g. Casielles-Suárez 2003, López 2009) or HTLD (Olarrea

4 Ingo Feldhausen

2012:614).4 The present study gives further evidence that LDw/oRP is in fact an

instance of CLLD, since it behaves prosodically as a CLLD.

(3) Left-Dislocation without resumptive pronoun (LDw/oRP)

a. Dinero, me pregunto quién tiene. [HTLD] money me ask.1SG who have.3SG ‘I wonder who has money.’ (Olarrea 2012:614) b. Dinero dicen que no tiene. [CLLD] money say.3PL that not have.3SG

‘They say that he doesn’t have any money’ (C.-S. 2003:332)

With respect to the differences in information structure observed be-

tween these constructions, Casielles-Suárez (2003:331) and Zubizarreta

(1999:4220) note that the HTLD constituent typically changes the topic in a

given discourse (known as "shifting topic"), while the CLLD constituent con-

tinues the established topic.5 According to Zubizarreta (1999), this is why the

HTLD construction can be optionally introduced by an as for- expression, as

shown in (4); see Villalba (2009 [2000]:ch.2), however, for arguments against

including as for-constructions in the notion of HTLD.

4 Casielles-Suárez (2003) labels this construction "CLLD with no overt clitic". She shows that bare nouns behave like CLLD; they can appear in any order with other CLLD. In con-trast, when HTLD and CLLD appear together, they must have the order HTLD >> CLLD (Escobar 1995, Olarrea 2012:614, Villalba 2009:75). Thus, a sentence such as (i) shows that bare nouns behave syntactically as CLLD, since CLLD elements can appear in any order (examples from Casielles-Suárez 2003:335). The same holds for dislocated PPs. (i) a. A mí dinero Juan nunca me deja b. Dinero a mí Juan nunca me deja. 5 Casielles-Suárez (2003) does not use the term HTLD, but rather speaks of Strong Pronoun Left-Dislocation (SPLD). As far as I can see, she does so due to the fact that she deals only with HTLD constructions in which the resumptive element is a strong pronoun.


(4) As for + HTLD

En cuanto a María, hace tiempo que no veo a esa sinvergüenza. As for M. does time that NEG see A that shameless ‘As for Maria, I haven’t seen that shameless woman in a long time.’

HTLD and CLLD share the characteristic of referring to material already pre-

sent in the discourse, i.e. they do not refer to non-given, new material. HTLD

and CLLD diverge, however, in their differing degrees of accessibility in the

discourse.

Syntactic scholars frequently make reference to the prosody of HTLD

and CLLD, often to argue for different structural positions. They claim that the

HTLD constituent is separated from the rest of the clause by an obligatory

pause, while there is no (need for a) pause in the case of CLLD. Olarrea

(2012:615), for example, notes that "there is a sharp intonation break between

the dislocated phrase in HTLD and the rest of the sentence, while such pause is

not present in CLLD", even though CLLD might occasionally be separated by

a pause. Casielles-Suárez (2003) also claims that only HTLD "includes a

pause (which separates the dislocated element from the rest of the sentence),

and gives the preposed element a rising intonation similar to that of questioned

NPs". A third scholar, Kempchinsky (2008), further comments that HTLD

constituents are characterized by a "pause prosody", while CLLD constituents

need no such prosody. The assumed intonational difference constitutes a fur-

ther motivation for her claim of two different structural positions for HTLD

6 Ingo Feldhausen

and CLLD, with the former in the ForceP area and the latter in the FinP area.6

However, there is thus far a striking lack of actual prosodic evidence for these

claims.7 In fact, to my knowledge, no studies exist that deal with the prosody

of HTLD and CLLD in Spanish.

In order to address this open issue, I employed a production experiment

based on scripted speech. Even though there are no previous prosodic studies

that deal with both HTLD and CLLD at the same time, there are some studies

on Spanish CLLD (mainly Feldhausen 2012; but also Fant 1984, Domínguez

2004, and Hualde 2005). The present work relies strongly on the detailed study

in Feldhausen (2012) for the hypotheses (see section 2) as well as for estab-

lishing the CLLD portion of experiment (see section 4.1). The prosodic analy-

sis was conducted in the tone and break index transcription system for Spanish

(Sp_ToBI, see section 3). The results (section 4.2) show that pauses are gener-

ally not obligatory for HTLD (contra Casielles-Suárez 2003, Kempchinsky

2008, Olarrea 2012 and others). Nevertheless, there is a significant difference

between HTLD in declaratives and HTLD in interrogatives, with interroga-

tives showing an obligatory pause between the dislocation and the following

clause.

6 In her account, HTLD targets a high position in the left periphery (in the ForceP area) and is hosted in the specifier of a functional projection whose null head has to be realized with “comma intonation”, while CLLD targets a low position in the left periphery (in the FinP area) and there is no need for a “comma intonation” (Kempchinsky 2008:4). 7 Neither Casielles-Suárez (2003) nor Kempchinsky (2008) provide any reference of studies dealing with the prosody of HTLD and CLLD in Spanish, whereas Olarrea (2012) does refer to some studies. Unfortunately, these works do not address dislocations at all (Face 2001, 2002, and Beckman et al. 2002).


2. The hypotheses

This study is guided by several previously established hypotheses (5),

which shall be presented here. Hypothesis 1 is based on claims made by

Casielles-Suárez (2003), Kempchinsky (2008) and Olarrea (2012). Accord-

ing to hypothesis 1, there should always be a pause after the left-dislocated

element. In order to see whether this pattern holds, I considered HTLD not

only in declaratives, but also in interrogatives (see section 4.1.2). Hypothe-

sis 1 states that there should be no difference between the prosodic behavior

of HTLD in declaratives and interrogatives. Hypothesis 2 is based on results

by Feldhausen (2012), who has shown that CLLDs are typically accented

and end with a high edge tone. A pause may be realized, but is not mandato-

ry.8 Hypothesis 3 follows the view put forward in Casielles-Suárez (2003)

and López (2009) that LDw/oRP is just “another [syntactic, I.F.] instance of

CLLD with a phonetically null clitic” (López 2009:31). Thus, if LDw/oRP and

CLLD are syntactically the same, they should also be prosodically the same.

8 Domínguez (2004:150f.), in contrast, claims that Spanish CLLD is not prosodically sepa-rated from the rest of the sentence, but rather creates a single intonational unit with the following material. This view is not adopted here for three specific reasons. First, Domínguez (2004) only considers objects consisting of a single prosodic word. Feldhausen (2012) has shown that dislocations consisting of one ω can be reconstructed with the subse-quent main clause to form a single, larger prosodic unit – even though this occurs very rarely. Second, Domínguez (2004) is concerned primarily with focus in Spanish and not with left-dislocations. As a consequence, she addresses dislocated objects only briefly and offers few details on her dislocation study. Thus, the example provided by Domínguez’ (2004:151) could very well be a simple instance of prosodic reconstruction in Spanish, which does not represent the default case. Finally, Fant (1984:28) already shows that CLLD has a contour that rises until the end of the dislocated constituent.

8 Ingo Feldhausen

Hypothesis 4 is derived from results from Italian and Catalan (Frascarelli

2000 and Feldhausen 2010, respectively), in which each instance of a dislo-

cated element in multiple CLLD constructions is marked by a prosodic

break.

(5) Hypotheses

1. HTLD is obligatorily separated from the rest of the clause by a high edge tone and a pause.

2. CLLD can but must not necessarily be separated by a pause; it is, however, obligatorily separated from the rest of the clause by a high edge tone.

3. LDw/oRP behaves prosodically like a CLLD.

4. In the case of multiple Left-Dislocations (valid for CLLD and LDw/oRP), each dislocated XP behaves as a simple CLLD, i.e. there is an obligatory edge tone after each dislocated XP.

3. The boundary cues

The latest versions of the Tone and Break Indices transcription system

for Spanish (Sp_ToBI; Aguilar et al. 2009, Estebas-Vilaplana & Prieto 2009,

Prieto & Roseano 2010, Hualde & Prieto 2013) were used for intonational

analysis.9 Thus, I assume pitch accents and edge tones. Pitch accents associ-

ate with metrically strong syllables (and are marked by an asterisk ‘*’),

whereas edge tones (representing tonal boundary cues) associate with the 9 For detailed information on Sp_ToBI and the Autosegmental-Metrical (AM) theory of into-nation on which Sp_ToBI is based, I refer the reader to works by Beckman et al. (2002), Aguilar et al. (2009), Estebas-Vilaplana & Prieto (2009) for Sp_ToBI; and Pierrehumbert (1980), Ladd (2008) for the AM theory.


edge of higher-level prosodic constituents of the prosodic hierarchy (e.g.

Selkirk 1984). In the latest versions of Sp_ToBI, two levels in the prosodic

hierarchy are assumed above the prosodic word (ω): the intermediate phrase

(ip) and the intonational phrase (IP). The corresponding edge tones are

marked by “-” and “%”, respectively. However, there is some discussion on

whether these two levels actually exist in Spanish (with Sosa 1999, Beck-

man et al. 2002 and Vizcaíno Ortega et al. 2008, for example, arguing for

just one (IP) level, and Aguilar et al. 2009, Estebas-Vilaplana & Prieto 2009

and others for two levels.)10 Since the discussion of the number of levels

above ω is far beyond the scope of this paper, the following compromise is

made: Theoretically, two levels are assumed; practically, the term prosodic

phrase is used (which can be considered as a hypernym for ip and IP). The

last pitch accent in a prosodic phrase is called a nuclear accent.

10 An argument for just one level stems from Vizcaíno Ortega et al. (2008:36f.), who give empirical evidence that preboundary lengthening does not justify a different phonological representation of the edges of ips and IPs in Spanish (in contrast to Prieto et al. 2012). On the other hand, Aguilar et al. (2009) note that IPs can be clearly distinguished from ips, either through the application of sandhi rules or by perception. As for the latter, they state that “[i]n Spanish prosodic transcriptions, transcribers clearly distinguish between two levels of degree of perceived disjuncture. The end of the weaker disjuncture corresponds to a level 3 break index in the ToBI system, while the strong disjuncture corresponds to a level 4 break index”. However, they fail to further specify what constitutes weak or strong (for example, does a pause signal a strong boundary? If so, are all sentence-internal pauses located at the BI level 4? How long does the pause have to be? 20ms, 50ms, 100ms or even longer?). As these issues remain contentious, lengthening is not considered here. As for pauses, every stretch of silence is considered to be a pause (with the exception of the occlu-sion of plosives).

10 Ingo Feldhausen

The following cues are considered in the present study, indicating pro-

sodic boundaries in Spanish (based on Frota et al. 2007, Feldhausen et al.

2010)11:

(a) continuation rise (H-) (b) sustained pitch (!H-) (c) low tones (L) (d) pauses (p) (e) complex boundary tones (i.e. LH)

In what follows, I briefly describe the main characteristics of these boundary

cues (following Frota et al. 2007:134f.). For reasons of space, the cues are

illustrated in the results section. A continuation rise (CR) is realized by an on-

going rise in the fundamental frequency (F0) starting at the onset of the

stressed syllable until the end of the prosodic word. A sustained pitch (SP) is

also characterized by a F0 rise on the stressed syllable, but ends in a raised

elevated plateau that continues until the end of the ω. A decrease in the con-

tour until the end of the ω characterizes a low boundary tone. Pauses are

stretches of silence located at phrase boundaries. A complex boundary tone is

realized by two tonal targets at the word edge (T-T% in Beckman &

Pierrehumbert 1986:288). Here, only LH is called a complex boundary tone.

This pitch event has a F0 dip located between the rising pitch accent on the

stressed syllable and the high part of the tonal movement located at the end of

11 Since tonal movement and pauses are explicitly mentioned in the syntactic literature (see section 1), I focus solely on these cues here. Note that there are also several other tonal and non-tonal boundary cues listed in the phonological literature on prosodic phrasing in Span-ish (such as preboundary lengthening, perception and sandhi rules; see e.g. Nespor & Vogel 1982, Nibert 2000, Prieto 2006, Frota et al. 2007, Vizcaíno Ortega et al. 2008, Rao 2010, Feldhausen et al. 2010, 2011).


the ω (see Feldhausen 2010:55f.). A prosodic break occurs whenever one of

these cues is realized. While the tonal cues are mutually exclusive (either a CR

or a SP occurs), pauses and tonal cues can occur together.

4. Left-dislocations in Spanish

4.1 Methodology

A production experiment was conducted based on scripted speech. The

advantage of scripted speech is clear: the data can be optimally controlled,

since the subjects utter exactly the sentences necessary to test the hypotheses -

at the expense of naturalness and spontaneity. (Semi-) spontaneous data, on the

other hand, are optimally natural, but the data cannot be controlled (see Face

2003, Rao 2009, Feldhausen et al. 2011 and the references cited there for a

discussion of the differences between scripted and spontaneous speech (in

Spanish)).

4.1.1 Location, subjects, and recordings

Five monolingual native speakers (four female, one male) of the variety

of Peninsular Spanish spoken in the greater region of Murcia, ranging in age

from 27 to 33, were recorded in Murcia. All subjects held a university degree.

They remained naïve as to the purpose of the investigation. Using praat (Bo-

ersma & Weenink 2013) and a MacBook, the data were recorded directly

12 Ingo Feldhausen

as .wav-files with a sample rate of 44.1 kHz. The F0 tracks were analyzed us-

ing praat; the pitch tracks and spectrograms were used to guide the segmenta-

tion as well as the text-to-tune alignment.

4.1.2 Material

The material comprised the three constructions mentioned above: 1)

Hanging Topic Left-Dislocation (HTLD), 2) Clitic Left-Dislocation (CLLD),

and 3) Left-Dislocation without resumptive pronoun (LDw/oRP). In total, 260

sentences were recorded (120 HTLD, 40 CLLD, 50 LDw/oRP, and 50 filler

clauses). The three constructions have several characteristics in common. The

dislocation is (i) always an object12, (ii) always part of the root clause13, and

(iii) either a paroxytonic or a proparoxytonic word (for better detection of rele-

vant tonal movements). Since the dislocated elements must be contextually

salient, each target sentence was introduced by an appropriate context.

4.1.2.1 HTLD

There are four conditions for HTLD: (a) pronoun vs. epithet: the re-

sumptive element is either a strong pronoun (e.g. 6a) or an epithet (e.g. 6b); (b)

direct vs. as for: the dislocated element can be either bare (6a-d) or introduced

by en cuanto a 'as for' (6e-f); (c) short vs. long: the HTLD element is either

12 Adjuncts are only used in multiple dislocations (without resumptive pronoun); see ap-pendix. 13 This means that no embedded dislocations are considered here. See Feldhausen (2012) for the intonation of embedded CLLD in Spanish.


prosodically short or long (e.g. 6a vs. 6c); and (d) declarative vs. interrogative:

the hosting sentence is either a declarative or an interrogative; (6) vs. (7).

Dealing with condition (d) later, I first concentrate on the declarative

material. Based on conditions (a-c), there are eight target sentences (2 x 2 x 2)

for context I (6). The translation is given after (6h).

(6) Example of a set of HTLD constructions

Context I: Persona A: Vuestros abuelos siempre tenían muchos animales domésticos raros, ¿¡no?! ¿Qué me podéis contar de su boa? Person A: Your grandparents always had many weird pets, right? What can you tell me about their boa? Person B:

Nada. a. Pero su águila soñábamos con ella en la juventud. but their eagle dreamt.2PL with her in the youth b. Pero su águila soñábamos con este monstruo but their eagle dreamt.2PL with this monster

en la juventud. in the youth c. Pero el águila de mi abuela soñábamos con ella but the eagle of my grandma dreamt.2PL with her

en la juventud. in the youth d. Pero el águila de mi abuela soñábamos but the eagle of my grandma dreamt.2PL

con este monstruo en la juventud. with this monster in the youth

14 Ingo Feldhausen

e. Pero en cuanto a su águila soñábamos but as for their eagle dreamt.2PL

con ella en la juventud. with her in the youth f. Pero en cuanto a su águila soñábamos but as for their eagle dreamt.2PL

con este monstruo en la juventud. with this monster in the youth g. Pero en cuanto al águila de mi abuela soñábamos but as for.the eagle of my grandma dreamt.2PL

con ella en la juventud. with her in the youth h. Pero en cuanto al águila de mi abuela soñábamos but as for.the eagle of my grandma dreamt.2PL

con este monstruo en la juventud. with this monster in the youth 'Nothing. But (as for) the eagle (of my grandmother), we dreamt of it

during our youth.'

A second set of declarative HTLD was created in addition to that in (6); see

appendix. Thus, there were a total of 80 declarative HTLD target sentences (2

x 8 target sentences x 5 subjects).

As for condition (d), one context with eight target sentences (condition

a-c) was set up. The goal of the context was to evoke information seeking yes-

no-interrogatives as target sentences. See (7) for the interrogative equivalent of

(6a) and the appendix for the complete set.

(7) Example of HTLD in interrogatives

Context II: Estás en La Manga en la casa de tu padre. Viniste a ver a tu amiga

Bárbara, que también pasa un tiempo ahí. Pero hace días que no puedes contactarla por teléfono. Tu padre te pregunta:


‘You are at La Manga in your father’s house. You came in order to see your friend Barbara, who also spends some time over there. How-ever, you couldn’t reach your friend by phone for several days now. Your father asks you:’

Tu amiga ¿hablaste con ella por fin? your friend speak.2SG.PST with her for end ‘Your friend, did you finally speak with her?’

(7) is introduced by a context that causes the target sentence to be yes-no-

question. The HTLD constituent tu amiga ‘your friend’ in (7) is in sentence

initial position (i.e. direct HTLD) and the resumptive element ella ‘her’ is a

strong pronoun. In total, there were 120 HTLD target sentences (80 declara-

tives + 40 interrogatives [8 x 5 subjects]).

4.1.2.2 CLLD

The CLLD material consists of simple CLLD (8) and multiple CLLD

(9). In simple CLLD, there is a single condition: short vs. long CLLD element

(either 1ω (8a) or 2ω (8b), respectively). The material used for simple CLLD

is identical to that in Feldhausen (2012) in order to allow for a better compari-

son of the results.14 In our data, multiple CLLD is characterized by two fronted

elements consisting of just one ω (el águila ‘the eagle’ and a mi abuela ‘to my

grandmother’ in (9)). The target sentences are introduced by a corresponding

context question. The CLLD material is explicitly mentioned in that question,

while the remaining material in the target sentence is contextually new.

14 The replicated material is limited to the simple, non-embedded CLLD cases used in Feldhausen (2012), while embedded CLLD is not considered here. However, in contrast to Feldhausen (2012), the present study includes multiple CLLD.

16 Ingo Feldhausen

(8) Example set of simple CLLD constructions

Context I: Qué pasó con el águila que me compré en Málaga? Dónde esta? 15 ‘What happened to the eagle I bought in Malaga? Where is it?’

ω a. El águila la vendió mi hermano. the eagle CL sell.3SG.PST my brother ‘The eagle, my brother sold.’

ω ω b. El águila de Málaga la vendió mi hermano. the eagle of M. CL sell.3SG.PST my brother ‘The eagle of Malaga, my brother sold.’

(9) Example set of multiple CLLD constructions

Context I: ¿Por qué tiene tu abuela un águila? ‘Why does your grandma have an eagle?’

CLLD1 CLLD2 ω ω El águila a mi abuela se la vendió un mago. the eagle to my grandma CL.DAT CL.ACC sell.3SG.PST a wizard ‘A wizard sold the eagle to my grandmother.’

There were a total of 30 simple CLLD target sentences (3 sets x 2 target sen-

tences x 5 subjects) and 10 multiple CLLD sentences (2 sets x 1 target sen-

tence x 5 subjects); see appendix.

4.1.2.3 LDw/oRP

The LDw/oRP material was constructed in an analogous manner to that for

the CLLD. The materials consist of simple LDw/oRP (10) and multiple LDw/oRP

15 Note that the article el is used in front of feminine singular nouns in Spanish in cases in which the noun starts with stressed a- or ha-, as is the case with águila ‘eagle’.


(11). In the simple cases, the only condition was short vs. long dislocation

(either 1ω (10a) or 2ω (10b) respectively); the example is based on Casielles-

Suárez (2003:333). Multiple LDw/oRP are characterized by two short fronted

elements ((Esta) mañana ‘this morning’ and de los examines ‘of the exams’ in

(11)). An introducing context question guarantees the givenness of the dislo-

cated element, while the remaining material is contextually new.

(10) Example set of simple Left-Dislocations without resumptive pronoun

(LDw/oRP)

Context I: ¿Tienes novedades de los exámenes de enero? ‘Do you have any news of the exams we wrote in January?’

ω a. De los exámenes nadie ha hablado todavía. of the exams no one has spoken yet ‘About the exams, nobody has said anything yet’

ω ω b. De los exámenes de enero nadie ha hablado todavía. of the exams of January no one has spoken yet ‘About the January exams, nobody has said anything yet’

(11) Example set of multiple LDw/oRP constructions

Context I: ¿Han dicho algo de los exámenes esta mañana en la reunión? ‘Did they say anything about the exams this morning at the meeting?’

LD1 LD2 (ω) ω ω Esta mañana de los exámenes nadie ha hablado this morning of the exams no one has spoken ‘Nobody said anything about the exams this morning at the meeting’

18 Ingo Feldhausen

There were a total of 40 simple LDw/oRP target sentences (4 sets x 2 target sen-

tences x 5 subjects) and 10 multiple LDw/oRP sentences (2 sets x 1 target sen-

tence x 5 subjects); see appendix.

4.1.3 Procedure

The subjects were recorded in a quiet room. The stimuli were presented

in a pseudo-randomized order (across conditions) on 10 sheets of paper with

five or six target sentences and the corresponding context questions per sheet.

In order to avoid ordering effects, the order of the paper sheets was changed

between the speakers (three speakers got the order 1-10, two speakers 6-10, 1-

5). The subjects were asked to read the entire set of data one time. The subjects

were then told to read the stimuli out loud at a normal rate of speech only after

having silently read and understood the context (question) and the answer. As

the test sentences lacked the orthographically typical commas normally found

immediately behind LD constituents, the described procedure was especially

important in order to prevent prompting the subjects to realize a prosodic

break automatically. The recording session started with a small practice ses-

sion.


4.2 Results

4.2.1 HTLD

The results show that HTLD is not obligatorily separated from the rest

of the sentence by a pause. More precisely, HTLD in declarative sentences can

but need not be followed by a pause, while HTLD in interrogatives are always

followed by a pause. However, there is an obligatory edge tone at the right

edge of the HTLD constituent in both declaratives and interrogatives. This

tone is typically high, but can also be low. CLLD and LDw/oRP show identical

intonational patterns; they are marked by an obligatory high edge tone, which

can be followed by a pause. No difference was found between simple and mul-

tiple left-dislocations.

Table 1 concentrates on edge tones and the realization of pauses for

HTLD by giving the percentages of the attested boundary realizations occur-

ring immediately after HTLD in the two conditions (declarative and interroga-

tive). In the declarative data, there were a total of 80 boundary locations. Of

these, 91.25% were realized by high edge tones (Hp, LHp, H-, !H-, LH-; p

indicates pause). In interrogatives, there were 40 boundary locations. Of these,

77.5% were realized by H (i.e. Hp, !Hp, LHp).16 A chi-square test shows that

the difference in the number of H between the two conditions is significant (χ²

16 Capitalized H refers to the different types of high edge tones (H-, Hp, !H-, !Hp, LH-, LHp); it is underspecified for the exact realization.

20 Ingo Feldhausen

= 4.363, df = 1, p < 0.05 (p = 0.037)).17 Low edge tones were realized signifi-

cantly more often in interrogatives than in declaratives (22.5% vs. 7.5%

[= 1.25% (Lp) + 6.25% (L-)]; χ² = 5.095, df = 1, p < 0.05 (p = 0.02)). With

respect to boundary realization in general, there was more variation in declara-

tives than in interrogatives (with seven realizations of declaratives and four of

interrogatives). As for pauses (grey area in table 1), interrogatives were always

followed by a pause (40 times, 100%), while declaratives typically lacked this

pause (N pause = 23, 28.75%). This difference is highly significant (χ² =

54.286, df = 1, p < 0.0001).

HTLD Declarative (80 = 100%)

Interrogative (40 = 100%)

Hp 20 (25%) 29 (72.5%) !Hp 0 1 (2.5%) LHp 2 (2.5%) 1 (2.5%) Lp 1 (1.25%) 9 (22.5%) H- 28 (35%) 0 !H- 19 (23.75%) 0 LH- 4 (5%) 0 L- 5 (6.25%) 0 ? 1 (1.25%) 0

Table 1 Absolute number and percentages of edge tones attested immediately after the HTLD constituent illustrated for declaratives and interrogatives.18 The grey rows indicate the edge tones followed by a pause (p).

17 Preacher (2001) was used for the calculations. 18 Legend: L- = low boundary tone; Lp = low boundary tone followed by a pause; LH- = complex boundary tone; LHp = complex boundary tone + pause; !H- = sustained pitch; !Hp = sustained pitch + pause; H- = continuation rise; Hp = continuation rise + pause; ? = un-clear boundary. As already mentioned in fn. 16, capitalized H , which is used in the text, refers to the different types of high edge tones (H-, Hp, !H-, !Hp, LH-, LHp); it is under-specified for the exact realization.


The predominant nuclear accent in the HTLD constituent is L+H* for both

declaratives (N=67, 83.75%) and interrogatives (N=24, 60%). L+>H*, L*+H,

H*, H+L* and L* were also possible, but their occurrence varies in frequency

(Table 2). As a consequence of both H being the predominant edge tone and

L+H* being the predominant pitch accent, the predominant nuclear configura-

tion of the HTLD element is L+H* H (see figures 1 and 2 for F0 contours).

Table 3 gives the three most frequent nuclear configurations in declaratives

and interrogatives. Due to the large number of low edge tones in interrogatives,

L+H* Lp was the second most frequent configuration (see figure 3 for a F0

contour).

HTLD L+H* L+>H* L*+H H* H+L* L*

Decl. (80) 67

(83.75%) 3

(3.75%)1

(1.25%)6

(7.5%)1

(1.25%)2

(2.5%)

Interrog. (40) 24

(60%) 0

7 (17.5%)

4 (10%)

2 (5%)

3 (7.5%)

Table 2 Absolute number and percentages of the nuclear pitch accent in the HTLD constituent in declaratives and interrogatives.

HTLD L+H* H- L+H* Hp L+H* !H- L+H* !Hp L+H* Lp

Decl. (80) 27

(33.75%) 20

(25%) 12

(15%) 0 0

Interrog. (40) 0 16

(40%) 0

5 (12.5%)

6 (15%)

Table 3 Absolute number and percentages of the predominant nuclear configu-rations in the HTLD constituent in declaratives and interrogatives.

No significant difference was observed for the two conditions (i) short vs. long

HTLD element: H (χ² = 1.409, df = 1, p = 0.235); pause (χ² = 0.549, df = 1, p =

0.459) and (ii) pronoun vs. epithet: H (χ² = 0.157, df = 1, p = 0.69), pause (χ²

22 Ingo Feldhausen

0.549 =, df = 1, p = 0.459).19 With respect to the condition direct vs. as for,

there was no significance difference in the number of pauses (χ² 0.549 =, df =

1, p = 0.459). However, a difference was detected in the number of high edge

tones H, with as for-HTLD showing a significantly higher number of H than

direct HTLDs (χ² = 7.671, df = 1, p < 0.05 (p = 0.0056)). While all boundary

tones are high (H) in the as for condition (40 out of 40 instances; comprised of

H- (17 instances), Hp (11), !H- (8), LH- (2), and LHp (2)), it reaches only 82.5%

in the direct condition (33 out of 40; H- (11), Hp (9), !H- (11), and LH- (2)).

15% of the edge tones were realized by a low tone in the direct condition (6/

40). Hence, the six low tones in declaratives in table 1 stem from the direct

condition.

Figure 1 illustrates the HTLD nuclear configuration L+H* H- in a de-

clarative sentence. The short direct HTLD element is not separated from the

rest of the clause by a pause. The nuclear configuration at the IP level, i.e. the

utterance-final, is L* L-L% (the typical configuration for declaratives [see

Prieto & Roseano 2010]). Figures 2 and 3 show interrogative sentences. The

most common configuration, L+H* Hp, is shown in figure 2 (for a short and

direct HTLD element). The break is marked by “3 or 4”, since it is unclear

whether pauses promote the boundary to the IP level. An example of a low

edge tone followed by a pause is illustrated in figure 3 (in which the short

HTLD element is introduced by en cuanto a ‘as for’). Interestingly, en cuanto

a ‘as for’ is typically realized by a low plateau (figure 3). In line with Prieto &

19 Only the declarative condition is considered here.


Roseano (2010), all interrogatives in our data showed the typical rising move-

ment at the end of the utterance, labeled here as L+H* H-H%.

Fig. 1 Waveform, spectrogram, and F0 trace for the declarative HTLD sentence Pero su águila, soñábamos con ella en la juventud ‘But the eagle, we used to dream of him during our youth’ of speaker AL (sentence 2a), produced with a continuation rise (H-) at the right edge of the HTLD element. No pause was re-alized.

5050

120

190

260

330

400

Fun

dam

enta

l fre

quen

cy (

Hz)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

H* L+H* L+H* L+>H* L* L-L%

1 0 3 1 1 4

Pe á ñá n.e tud

Pero su águila soñábamos con ella en la juventud

5050

120

190

260

330

400

Fun

dam

enta

l fre

quen

cy (

Hz)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

H* L+H* H- L+H* L+>H* L* L-L%

1 0 3 1 1 4

Pe á ñá n.e tud

Pero su águila soñábamos con ella en la juventud

5050

110

170

230

290

350

Fun

dam

enta

l fre

quen

cy (

Hz)

0 0.5 1 1.5

L+H* Hp L+H* L* L+H* H-H%

3 or 4 1 1 4

mi 340ms blas n.e fin

Tu amiga ¿hablaste con ella por fin?

24 Ingo Feldhausen

Fig. 2 Waveform, spectrogram, and F0 trace for the interrogative HTLD sen-tence Tu amiga ¿hablaste con ella por fin? ‘Your friend, did you finally speak with her?’ of speaker JA (sentence 3a), produced with a high tone at the edge of the HTLD element followed by a pause.

Fig. 3 Waveform, spectrogram, and F0 trace for the interrogative HTLD sentence En cuanto a tu amiga ¿hablaste con ella por fin? ‘As for your friend, did you finally speak with her?’ of speaker AN (sentence 3e), produced with a low tone at the edge of the HTLD element followed by a pause.

4.2.2 CLLD

The results show that CLLD was typically separated from the rest of the

clause by a prosodic break (92%), which was realized by either a continuation

rise (without a following pause, H- [56%] or with a pause Hp [11%]) or a sus-

tained pitch (!H- [33%]), table 4. Thus, the CLLD edge tone was always high

and was occasionally followed by a pause. Table 4 also shows three unclear

boundaries (marked by ‘?’), and one instance without a boundary (BI 1), oc-

curring in the short condition. Only two types of pitch accents were attested in

7575

150

225

300

375

450

Fun

dam

enta

l fre

quen

cy (

Hz)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

L* L+H* Lp L+>H* H+L* L+H* H-H%

1 3 or 4 1 1 4

cuan mi 130ms blas n.e fin

En cuanto a tu amiga ¿hablaste con ella por fin


the data, (the predominant) L+H* and the rarely realized L+>H*, table 5.

There is no significant difference in the frequency of the pitch accents ob-

served between simple and multiple CLLD (χ² = 0.025, df = 1, p = 0.87). The

predominant CLLD nuclear configuration was L+H* H- (figure 4).20 The rise

started on the tonic syllable Má and continued until the word edge. The nucle-

ar configuration at the IP level was L* L-L% (as in HTLD declaratives). No

significant difference was observed for the condition short vs. long in simple

CLLD: H (χ² = 0.37, df = 1, p = 0.54); pause (χ² = 0.37, df = 1, p = 0.54).

CLLD simple

(30 = 100%) multiple

(2x10 = 100%)Total

(50 = 100%) Total boundaries

(46 = 100%)

Hp 3 2 5 5 (11%) H- 13 13 26 26 (56%) !H- 11 4 15 15 (33%) ? 2 1 3

BI 1 1 0 1

Table 4 Absolute number and percentages of edge tones attested immediately after CLLD as illustrated for simple and multiple CLLD (with each dislocated element in the multiple condition counted individually; indicated by 2x10). The grey rows indicate the edge tones followed by a pause (p).

CLLD L+H* L+>H*

simple (30 = 100%) 25

(83%) 5

(17%)

multiple (2x10 = 100%) 17

(85%) 3

(15%)

Table 5 Absolute number and percentages of the nuclear pitch accent in the CLLD constituent in simple and multiple CLLD (each dislocation counted in-dividually; indicated by 2x10).

20 Since CLLD and LDw/oRP do not differ prosodically, I refer the reader to figure 5 for an F0 example of multiple left-dislocation.

26 Ingo Feldhausen

Fig. 4 Waveform, spectrogram, and F0 trace for the CLLD sentence El águila de Málaga, la vendió mi hermano ‘The eagle of Malaga, my brother sold’ of speaker AN (sentence 10b), produced with a continuation rise (H-) at the right edge of the CLLD element. No pause was realized.

With respect to the question of whether CLLD and HTLD differ prosodically,

the data show that there is no significant difference with respect to the fre-

quency of H edge tones (declarative HTLD vs. CLLD: χ² = 0.022, df = 1, p =

0.88; and interrogative HTLD vs. CLLD: χ² = 3.781, df = 1, p = 0.052). How-

ever, there is a significant difference with respect to pauses (declarative HTLD

vs. CLLD: χ² = 8.051, df = 1, p < 0.01 (p = 0.004) and interrogative HTLD vs.

CLLD: χ² = 72.959, df = 1, p < 0.01; recall that there was also a significant

difference between declarative and interrogative HTLD with respect to pauses).

7575

150

225

300

375

450

Fun

dam

enta

l fre

quen

cy (

Hz)

0 0.5 1 1.5

L+>H* L+H* H- L+>H* L-L%

1 3 1 4

l.á Má dió ma

El águila de Málaga la vendió mi hermano


4.2.3 LDw/oRP

LDw/oRP does not show any significant prosodic difference compared to

CLLD. LDw/oRP is always separated from the following material by means of a

high edge tone (100%). This tone is realized predominantly by a continuation

rise (without subsequent pause, H- [60%]; or with a pause Hp [10%]), but also

by a sustained pitch (without subsequent pause, !H- [28%]; with a pause !Hp

[2%]), table 6. Since there are only high edge tones in my data, there was no

relevant difference between short and long dislocations. As for pauses, no sig-

nificant difference was observed in this case either (χ² = 0.173, df = 1, p =

0.68).

LDw/oRP simple

(40 = 100%) multiple

(2x10 = 100%)Total

(60 = 100%)

Hp 6 6 (10%)

!Hp 1 1 (2%) H- 21 15 36 (60%) !H- 12 5 17 (28%)

Table 6 Absolute number and percentages of edge tones attested immediately after the LDw/oRP constituent as illustrated for simple and multiple LDw/oRP (with each dislocation counted individually; indicated by 2x10). The grey rows indi-cate the edge tones followed by a pause (p).

L+H* is the predominant nuclear pitch accent of the dislocated element. How-

ever, L+>H*, H* and L*+H occurred in nearly 50% of the cases in the simple

condition (table 7). Thus, there was greater variation in the pitch accent reali-

zation in simple than in multiple LDw/oRP. The most common nuclear configu-

ration on the LDw/oRP element was L+H* H- (N=29, 48%), followed by

L+>H* !H- (N=10, 17%) and L+H* !H- (N=7, 12%). An example of the F0

28 Ingo Feldhausen

track of a multiple LDw/oRP is given in figure 5; the first dislocation is realized

by L+H* !H- (there is a clear plateau between the left edge of the stressed syl-

lable di of jardines ‘gardens’ and the word edge) and the second dislocation by

L+H* H-. The IP nuclear configuration is L* L-L%.

LDw/oRP L+H* L+>H* H* L*+H

simple (40 = 100%) 21

(52.5%) 11

(27.5%)6

(15%) 2

(5%)

multiple (2x10 = 100%) 20

(100%)

Table 7 Absolute number and percentages of the nuclear pitch accent in the LDw/oRP constituent in simple and multiple LDw/oRP (each dislocated element in the multiple condition counted individually; indicated by 2x10).

Fig. 5 Waveform, spectrogram, and F0 trace for the CLw/oRP sentence En los jardines, manzanas, come todos los días mi sobrina ‘My niece eats apples eve-ry day in the garden’ of speaker AN (sentence 9), produced with a sustained pitch (!H-) after the first dislocation and a continuation rise (H-) after the sec-ond dislocation. No pause was realized.

7575

150

225

300

375

450

Fun

dam

enta

l fre

quen

cy (

Hz)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

L+H* !H- L+H* H-H* H* L+>H* L* L-L%

3 3 1 1 1 4

di za co to dí bri

En los jardines manzanas come todo(s) los día(s) mi sobrina


With respect to the question of whether LDw/oRP and CLLD differ prosodically,

the data show that this is not the case. High edge tones are almost always real-

ized (100% in LDw/oRP and in 92% in CLLD). As for pauses, there no signifi-

cant difference was found between the conditions (χ² = 0.078, df = 1, p = 0.78).

However, with respect to the number of pauses, LDw/oRP differs significantly

from declarative HTLD (χ² = 5.943, df = 1, p < 0.05 (p = 0.015)) and from

interrogative HTLD (χ² = 75.177, df = 1, p < 0.01), such that LDw/oRP are real-

ized with pauses less frequently.

5. Discussion

In general, HTLD is prosodically characterized by a high edge tone and

pauses are not mandatory – falsifying hypothesis 1. However, an important

difference was observed between declarative and interrogative HTLD. The

former showed a high edge tone, but no obligatory pause. As such, the claims

made by Casielles-Suárez (2003), Kempchinsky (2008) and Olarrea (2012)

stating that HTLD is obligatorily marked by a pause cannot be maintained.

In contrast, interrogative HTLD shows an obligatory pause, and there was a

significant increase in the number of low edge tones compared to declarative

HTLD. This contradicts Casielles-Suárez (2003), who claims that pauses cause

a rising intonation. Kempchinsky (2008) and Olarrea (2012), on the other

hand, do not mention tonal movement, but based on their declarative exam-

30 Ingo Feldhausen

ples it is fair to assume that they did not base their claims on interrogatives.

As such, assertions made in the syntactic literature on the prosody of HTLD

are by and large untenable. Solely the fact that CLLD significantly shows

fewer pauses than HTLD might be considered to support the syntactic

claims. However, pauses still are not obligatory in (declarative) HTLD. In-

terestingly, prosodic studies on other languages also fail to expose a significant

difference between the intonation of CLLD and HTLD. Delais-Roussarie et al.

(2004:515), for example, show for French that two types of edge tones are

possible for left-dislocations, namely the illocutionary tone H(L)% and the

demarcative tone Hcont (similar to a continuation rise in the present study).

They demonstrate that the choice between the tones is made regardless of the

distinction between CLLD and HTLD and rather hinges on pragmatic factors.

Hypothesis 2 could be confirmed in this study. CLLD is marked by a

high edge tone and is only occasionally accompanied by a pause. The results

further support those of the study on Spanish by Feldhausen (2012), who

found the same characteristics for simple CLLD (short and long). As for the

obligatoriness of the break, the results also concur with studies on CLLD in

other Romance languages, such as French (Rossi 1999, Delais-Roussarie et al.

2004), Catalan (Astruc 2005, Feldhausen 2010), Portuguese (Frota 2000, Frota

& Vigário 2002), and Italian (Gili Fivela 1999, Frascarelli 2000); and with

studies on CLLD in Bantu languages such as Xhosa, Shingazidja or Chicheŵa

(see Zerbian 2007 and Downing 2011 for an overview). In the case of French,

however, Avanzi (2012) shows that there are differences between CLLD in


spontaneous and in laboratory speech, with CLLD showing fewer boundaries

in spontaneous speech. As for Italian, low boundaries and reconstruction ef-

fects (in the case of short CLLD constituents) are also attested in addition to

high edge tones. In the present study, only few rare instances of reconstruction

in the short CLLD condition were observed, but this cannot be taken as a pro-

ductive pattern in Spanish – especially because no significant effect was found

for the short vs. long condition.

Hypothesis 3 could be verified, since LDw/oRP behaves prosodically as

a CLLD. As a consequence, intonation provides further evidence for con-

sidering LDw/oRP to be an instance of CLLD (in line with Casielles-Suárez

2003 and López 2009).

The present study extends the CLLD insights from Feldhausen (2012)

by considering multiple CLLD: the data show that dislocations in a multiple

CLLD construction have the same prosodic pattern as simple CLLD (this was

also reported for Catalan in Feldhausen 2010). The same holds for LDw/oRP. As

such, hypothesis 4 can thus be considered to be verified.

The tonal boundary realizations of the three constructions are generally

classified as cues for ip (e.g. Aguilar et al. 2009). In line with this, the present

paper shows that HTLD, CLLD, and LDw/oRP only have ip edge tones. If paus-

es are considered to be a cue for IP (Aguilar et al. 2009, Rao 2010), these three

constructions might undergo a hierarchic promotion to an IP status. Since

pauses are not obligatory, left-dislocations are generally not IPs on their own

(in line with Feldhausen 2010, 2012, but in contrast to Frascarelli 2000).

32 Ingo Feldhausen

This work suggests several potential directions for future research. For

example, future experiments could consider more token sets (here: contexts)

in order to determine whether the difference between declaratives and inter-

rogatives is maintained across a larger set of data. In addition, all sentence

internal punctuation marks - and not only commas - could be avoided in

order to ensure that these do not influence intonation. CLLD in questions

could also be considered. Delais-Roussarie & Feldhausen (2014), for exam-

ple, show for French that the prosodic boundary at the right edge of CLLD

constituents is weaker in interrogatives than in declaratives. They attribute

the difference to the sentence type and argue that global intonational pat-

terns might be more important than the specific strength of a sentence-

internal boundary (for details on the interaction of boundaries see Clifton et

al. 2002, Frazier et al 2006). Finally, thus far little work has been completed

concerning CLLD and HTLD in spontaneous speech. If Avanzi (2012) is in

fact on the right track, phrasing differences might exist between these two

types of speech with respect to CLLD and HTLD.

6. Conclusions

The present paper has shown that hanging topic left-dislocations, clitic

left-dislocations and left-dislocations without a resumptive element have simi-

lar intonational patterns - in contrast to what has been typically assumed in the


syntactic literature. They are tonally realized by a rising nuclear pitch accent

and a high edge tone and may be followed by a pause (more often in HTLD

than in the other constructions). Only HTLD elements in interrogatives are

obligatory realized with a pause, and may have a low edge tone. The results

show that corresponding assumptions in the syntactic literature, which typical-

ly lack prosodic evidence and thus empirical underpinning, need to be refined,

with possible implications for syntactic analysis.

References

Aguilar, Lourdes, de la Mota, Carme & Prieto, Pilar. 2009. Sp_ToBI. Training materials. <http.//prosodia.upf.edu/sp_tobi/en/> (26 January 2012).

Astruc, Lluїsa. 2005. The Intonation of Extra-Sentential Elements in Catalan and English: University of Cambridge Ph.D. dissertation.

Avanzi, Mathieu. 2012. L’Interface Prosodie: Syntaxe en Français : Dislocations, Incises et Asyndètes. Bruxelles: Peter Lang.

Beckman, Mary & Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1986. Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook 3: 255–309.

Beckman, Mary, Diaz-Campos, Manuel, McGory, Julia & Morgan, Terrell. 2002. Intonation across Spanish, in the tone and break indices framework. Probus 14: 9-36.

Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2013. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. http://www.praat.org/.

Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after Syntax: pronominal Clitics in Romance. PhD Thesis, MIT.

Bosque, Ignacio & Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier. 2009. Fundamentos de sintaxis formal, Madrid: Akal.

Casielles-Suárez, Eugenia. 2003. Left-Dislocated Structures in Spanish. Hispania 86(2): 326-338.

Cinque, Guglielmo. 1983. ‘Topic’ constructions in some European languages and ‘Connectedness’. In Connectedness in Sentence, Discourse and Text. Ehlich, K., Riemsdijk, Henk van. (eds). Tilburg: KBU.

Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A’ dependencies. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Clifton Jr., Charles, Katy Carlson & Lyn Frazier. 2002. Informative prosodic boundaries. Language and Speech 45, 87–114.

34 Ingo Feldhausen

Delais-Roussarie, Elisabeth, Doetjes, J. and Sleeman, Petra. 2004. Dislocations in French. In C. Francis and H. de Swart (eds). Handbook of French semantics, pp. 501-528, CSLI.

Delais-Roussarie, Elisabeth & Feldhausen, Ingo. 2014. Variation in Prosodic Boundary Strength: a study on dislocated XPs in French. Speech Prosody 2014, Dublin.

Domínguez, Laura. 2004. Mapping Focus: The syntax and prosody of focus in Spanish. PhD Thesis, Boston University.

Downing, Laura J. 2011. The Prosody of "Dislocation" in Selected Bantu Lan-guages. Lingua 121(5): 772–786.

Escobar, María de los Angeles. 1995. Lefthand Satellites in Spanish. Utrecht: OTS.

Estebas-Vilaplana, Eva & Prieto, Pilar. 2009. La notación prosódica en español. Una revisión del Sp_ToBI. Estudios de Fonética Experimental XVIII, 263-283.

Face, Timothy. 2001. Focus and early peak alignment in Spanish intonation. Pro-bus 13: 223–246.

Face, Timothy. 2002. Local intonational marking of Spanish contrastive focus. Probus 14: 71-92.

Face, Timothy. 2003. Intonation in Spanish declaratives: differences between lab speech and spontaneous speech. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 2: 115–131.

Fant, Lars. 1984. Estructura informativa en español. Estudio sintáctico y entonativo. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.

Feldhausen, Ingo. 2010. Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan. Am-sterdam: John Benjamins.

Feldhausen, Ingo. 2012. Prosodic Aspects of Clitic Left-Dislocations in Spanish. Submitted Ms., Goethe-Universität Frankfurt & LPP, Paris 3.

Feldhausen, Ingo, Gabriel, Christoph & Pešková, Andrea. 2010. Prosodic Phrasing in Argentinean Spanish. Buenos Aires and Neuquén. Speech Prosody 2010, Chicago, IL.

Feldhausen, Ingo; Ariadna Benet & Andrea Pešková. 2011. Prosodische Grenzen in der Spontansprache: Eine Untersuchung zum Zentralkatalanischen und Porteño-Spanischen. Working Papers in Multilingualism 94, Folge B, Uni-versität Hamburg.

Frascarelli, Mara. 2000. The Syntax-Phonology Interface in Focus and Topic Con-structions in Italian. Kluwer: Dordrecht.

Frazier, Lyn, Katy Carlson & Charles Jr. Clifton. 2006. Prosodic phrasing is central to language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science 10(6): 244-249.

Frota, Sónia. 2000. Prosody and Focus in European Portuguese: Phonological phrasing and intonation. New York NY: Garland.

Frota, Sónia & Marina Vigário. 2002. Efeitos de peso no Português Europeu. In Maria H. Mateus & Clara N. Correia (eds.), Saberes no Tempo: Homenagem à Professora Henriqueta Costa Campos, 315–333. Lisaboa: Edições Colibri.


Frota, Sónia, D’Imperio, Mariapaola, Elordieta, Gorka, Prieto, Pilar & Vigário, Marina. 2007. The phonetics and phonology of intonational phrasing in Romance. In Segmental and prosodic issues in romance phonology, P. Prieto, J. Mascaró & M.-J. Solé (eds), 131−153. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Gili Fivela, Barbara. 1999. The Prosody of Left-Dislocated Topic Constituents in Italian Read Speech. Eurospeech 1999, 531–534.

Hernanz, María Luisa & José M. Brucart. 1987. La Sintaxis. Barcelona: Crítica.

Hirschbühler, Paul. 1975. On the source of lefthand NPs in French. Linguistic In-quiry 6(1): 155-165.

Hualde, José Ignacio. 2005. The Sounds of Spanish. Oxford: OUP.

Hualde, José Ignacio & Prieto, Pilar. 2013. Intonational variation in Spanish: Euro-pean and American varieties. Ms. (to appear in: Intonational Variation in Romance. Frota, Sónia & Pilar Prieto (eds). Oxford University Press).

Kempchinsky, Paula. 2008. How Much Structure Does the Left Periphery Need? Poster presentation, LSRL 38.

Ladd, D. Robert. 2008. Intonational phonology. Second edition. Cambridge: CUP.

López, Luis. 2009. A Derivational Syntax for Information Structure. Oxford: OUP.

Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene. 1982. Prosodic Domains and External Sandhi Rules. In: The Structure of Phonological Representations. H. van der Hulst and N. Smith (eds.). Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 225-255.

Nibert, Holly. 2000. Phonetic and phonological evidence for intermediate phrasing in Spanish intonation. PhD dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Olarrea, Antxon. 2012. Word order and information structure. In: Hualde, José Ignacio, Olarrea, Antxon & O'Rourke, Erin (eds). 2012. The Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 603-628.

Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1980. The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

Preacher, Kristopher. 2001. Calculation for the chi-square test. [Computer soft-ware]. Available from http://quantpsy.org.

Prieto, Pilar. 2006. Phonological Phrasing in Spanish. In Optimality-Theoretic Ad-vances in Spanish Phonology. Sonia Colina & Fernando Martínez-Gil (eds), 39–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Prieto, Pilar & Roseano, Paolo (eds). 2010. Transcription of Intonation of the Spanish Language. Lincom, München.

Prieto, Pilar, Vanrell, Maria del Mar, Astruc, Llüisa, Payne, Elinor & Post, Brechtje. 2012. Phonotactic and Phrasal Properties of Speech Rhythm Evi-dence from Catalan, English, and Spanish. Speech Communication 54 (6): 681–702.

Rao, Rajiv. 2009. Deaccenting in spontaneous Speech in Barcelona Spanish. Stud-ies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 2(1): 31–75.

Rao, Rajiv. 2010. Final Lengthening and Pause Duration in Three Dialects of Spanish. In: Selected Proceedings, 4th Conference on Laboratory Ap-

36 Ingo Feldhausen

proaches to Spanish Phonology. Marta Ortega-Llebaria (ed.), 69-82. Somer-ville, MA.

Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

Sosa, Juan Manuel. 1999. La entonación del español, Madrid: Cátedra.

Sosa, Juan Manuel. 2003. La notación tonal del espanol en el modelo Sp-ToBI. In: Prieto, P. (ed). Teorias de la entonacion. Barcelona: Ariel Lingüística, pp. 185-208.

Vizcaíno Ortega, Francisco, Estebas-Vilaplana, Eva, Cabrera Abreu, Mercedes & Astruc, Llüisa. 2008. The phonological representation of edge tones in Span-ish alternative questions. Language Design 2, 31–38.

Villalba, Xavier. 2009. The Syntax and Semantics of Dislocations in Catalan. Köln: Lambert Academic Publishing. [published version of: The Syntax of Sen-tence Periphery; PhD Thesis, UAB, 2000].

Zerbian, Sabine. 2007. Phonological Phrasing in Northern Sotho. The Linguistic Review 24(2-3): 233–262.

Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1999. Las funciones informativas: tema y foco. In: I. Bosque & V. Demonte (eds). Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, Vol.3, pp. 4215-4244.

Appendix

A) HTLD Context I (declarative): Persona A: Ayer tenía que hablar con la amiga de tu primo que no soportas nada de nada. a) Persona B: ¿De verdad? Esta amiga hace tiempo que no la veo a ella. b) Persona B: ¿De verdad? Esta amiga hace tiempo que no veo a esa

sinvergüenza. c) Persona B: ¿De verdad? Esta amiga de mi primo hace tiempo que no

la veo a ella. d) Persona B: ¿De verdad? Esta amiga de mi primo hace tiempo que no

veo a esa sinvergüenza. e) Persona B: ¿De verdad? En cuanto a esta amiga hace tiempo que no

la veo a ella.


f) Persona B: ¿De verdad? En cuanto a esta amiga hace tiempo que no veo a esa sinvergüenza.

g) Persona B: ¿De verdad? En cuanto a esta amiga de mi primo hace tiempo que no la veo a ella.

h) Persona B: ¿De verdad? En cuanto a esta amiga de mi primo hace tiempo que no veo a esa sinvergüenza.

Please note: In contrast to the set of HTLD given in (6), the present context does not automatically evoke a topic shift. Casielles-Suárez (2003:332) notes that the possible pragmatic difference between CLLD and HTLD ("Strong Pronoun LD" in her terms) is not clear and that "more naturally-occurring data needs to be gathered and analyzed". Despite this open issue, Context I is a clear example of HTLD due to the use of strong pronouns, epithets, and the as for-construction. The examples of Context I are based on López (2009:4). Context II (interrogative): Contexto: Estás en La Manga en la casa de tu padre. Viniste a ver a tu

amiga Bárbara, que también pasa un tiempo ahí. Pero hace días que no puedes contactarla por teléfono. Tu padre te pregunta:

a) Padre: Tu amiga ¿hablaste con ella por fin? b) Padre: Tu amiga ¿hablaste con esa perdida por fin? c) Padre: Tu amiga Bárbara ¿hablaste con ella por fin? d) Padre: Tu amiga Bárbara ¿hablaste con esa perdida por fin? e) Padre: En cuanto a tu amiga ¿hablaste con ella por fin? f) Padre: En cuanto a tu amiga ¿hablaste con esa perdida por fin? g) Padre: En cuanto a tu amiga Bárbara ¿hablaste con ella por fin? h) Padre: En cuanto a tu amiga Bárbara ¿hablaste con esa perdida por fin? Context III (declarative): see example (6) in section 4.1.2.1 B) CLLD w/o resumptive pronoun: Simple CLLDw/o

38 Ingo Feldhausen

4) Persona A: ¿Tienes novedades de los exámenes de enero? a) Persona B: De los exámenes nadie ha hablado todavía. b) Persona B: De los exámenes de enero nadie ha hablado todavía. 5) Persona A: ¿A ti te gusta tener un jardín tan grande? a) Persona B: Sí. En el jardín los niños se divierten mucho. b) Persona B: Sí. En el jardín tan grande los niños se divierten mucho. 6) Persona A: ¿Todavía piensas en el águila de tu abuela? a) Persona B: Sí. Con el águila sueño cada noche. b) Persona B: Sí. Con el águila de mi abuela sueño cada noche 7) Persona A: ¿Por qué estás en el sótano oscuro? a) Persona B: En el sótano mi padre vio mis zapatos. b) Persona B: En el sótano oscuro mi padre vio mis zapatos Multiple CLLDw/o 8) Persona A: ¿Han dicho algo de los exámenes esta mañana en la reunión? Persona B: Esta mañana de los exámenes nadie ha hablado. 9) Persona A: ¿Por qué hay tantas manzanas en los jardines? Persona B: En los jardines manzanas come todos los días mi sobrina. C) CLLD: Simple CLLD: 10 ¿Qué pasó con la águila que me compré en Málaga? ¿Dónde está? a) El águila la vendió mi hermano. b) El águila de Málaga la vendió mi hermano. 11) ¿Qué hacemos con la lámpara que me compré en Mérida? a) La lámpara la regalamos a unos vecinos. b) La lámpara de Mérida la regalamos a unos vecinos.


12) Ya he buscado el pájaro de mi hermano. ¿Dónde estaba? a) El pájaro lo he encontrado en la cocina. b) El pájaro de tu hermano lo he encontrado en la cocina. Multiple CLLD: 13) Persona A: ¿Por qué tiene tu abuela un águila? Persona B: El águila a mi abuela se la vendió un mago. 14) Persona A: ¿Por qué tiene tu hermano una lámpara tan chula? Persona B: La lámpara a mi hermano se la regaló el vecino.

The Relation between Prosody and Syntax: The case of different types of Left-Dislocations in Spanish

Documents

Transcript of The Relation between Prosody and Syntax: The case of different types of Left-Dislocations in Spanish