Download - On the left edge of Yorùbá complements

ELSEVIER Lmgua 111 (2001) 81-130

www elsewer nl/locate/hngua

On the left edge of Yorhb i complements

Rose-Marie D6chaine

Umverslty of Brlttsh Columbta, 1866 Mam Mall, E270, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z1

Received 1 October 1999, revised version 16 July 2000

Abstract

In Standard Yor~b~i, syntax affects the tone of both lexlcal and functional heads m different ways. Before an Accusa t ive-marked complement , the mherent low tone of a monosyl labic verb is suppressed. Conversely, m certain empty funct ional head posit ,ons, a ' spur ious ' h igh tone appears Both phenomena arguably demonstra te the interaction of labeled phrase-structure with tonal feet. Accordingly, Yor6bfi prosody counts as an example of direct access by phonology to surface syntax, as proposed by Kalsse (1985) and Odden (1990a). © 2001 Elsevter Science B.V. All rights reserved

1. Audible phrase structure

Some famous phonological processes m natural languages depend on phrase structure, e.g. Bantu 'boundary tones', Chinese tone sandhi, English compound stress, French haison, Italian radoppiamento, Irish consonant mutation, Japanese

Earher versions of this paper include D6chame (1993 83-104, 1995a) and colloquium presentations at tile 0hwersmes of Bratlsfi Cofumbla, fbhdhn, florin, Leiden, Manitoba and Vlctona. Researcfi was supported by the Social Sciences and Humamties Research Councd of Canada (grants 410-96-1445 and 412-97M3016), by Humamtles and Social Sciences grant 70069 from UBC, and by a UBC research leave to attend the Umverslty of ]lorln and M I T as a V,Sltmg scholar m 1997-98 Thanks to two anonymous rewewers and to O Aboh, F Ad6k,6y~, O. Ad6sol~i, A. Ad6tfigb6, 'B. Aj~yf, Q Aj~6y~, A Aklnlabf, O Aw6b~lfiyl, 'Y Aw6yal6, M Bamba, A Bfifflgb6,s6, H Davis, G D,mmendaal, L Downing, K. Hale, T. Hukan, H v d Hulst, J Kaye, Y L~infran, M. Llberman, J Lowenstamm, F,anuw~, V Man- fredl, 'K Ow61abf, F Oy~b~id6, 'S Oy~l~irhn, 'L Q16runy6ml, D Pulleyblank, J. Renmson, K Russell, I S~t~infis[, L Saxon, T Schadeberg, O T Stewart, S Urbanczyk, Q Yfasuf, c Zoll and Egb,6 EI,6mu u Yunilorln. Abbrewatlons. 1/2/3=lst/2nd/3rd person, ACCusative, DEMonstratwe, Focus, GENltWe, GERund, IMPerfectlve, K = case, Locative, NEGation; Nom=nommahser; NoMmattve, P = plural, PV = preverb, RELatlve marker, s = singular.

0378-2166/01/$ - see front matter © 2001 Elsev,er Science B V All rights reserved PII. S 0 0 2 4 3 8 4 1 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 2 5 - 5

82 R -M Ddchame / Lingua 111 (2001) 81-130

pitch-accent. Such phenomena raise the question of whether syntactic objects affect phonology directly, or whether syntax and phonology are mediated by prosodic representations which are less than fully syntactic, though they may have phrasal char- acterlstics. Selkirk's (1972) dissertation developed the indH'ect mapping theory of The Sound Pattern o f Enghsh (Chomsky and Halle, 1968)' only a subset of post- cyclic phrase boundaries are relevant to the application of phonological rules. ~ The contrary view - direct mapping - was arttculated around the same time, in Bresnan's claim that Chomsky and Halle 's (1968) "Nuclear Stress Rule is ordered within the transformational cycle" (1971' 257, emphasis added).

In its third decade, the debate is far from done (cf. Boolj, 1992). Kalsse (1985) and Odden (1990a) defend direct mapping, Nespor and Vogel (1986) take the contrary view, and others have proposed hybrid theories (Selklrk, 1984a, 1986; Halle and Marantz, 1993) Moreover, recent reassignments of the functions of grammahcal modules in principles and parameters theories have reframed the discussion. In par- tlcular, economy-based analyses - w h e t h e r derlvatlonal (Chomsky, 1995) or representational (RlZzl, 1997) - force a reappraisal of the architecture of the grammar as it pertains to overt syntax, w~th consequences In turn for the analysis of syntax-sen- sitxve phonological processes.

This paper considers audible effects of phrase structure - principally, the suppression of lexlcal low tone m Yorfibfi - and argues that direct mapping permits a 'null ' or nonstlpulative theory consistent with independent generahsatlons m the grammar (Clnque, 1993). More abstractly, phonological and syntactic representations respect the same structural condttions on locahty and recoverability. Most abstractly, there IS a convergence of syntactic and prosodic conditions on the hcensmg of null positions, in the form of the phonosyntacttc ECP which requires that an ungoverned null functional head be prosodically strong. This result converges with Longobardl (1994) who argues that null functional heads obey strict recoverability conditions Understood analogously, the phonosynlacttc EcP is one of the mechanisms available in Universal Grammar to satisfy recoverabdity.

Section 2 mtroduces the phenomenon Section 3 surveys ItS syntactic environment: the left edge of case-marked DPs, as well as certain CPs. The former are widely d~scussed m the hterature, the latter less well so. Section 4 derives the effect from the direct co-representation of phonology and syntax, what Rlzzl and Savola (1992) call phono~yntax : Specifically, the phenomenon is argued to reflect a recov- erabihty condition on null functional heads. Section 5 concludes by considering the relationship of this condition to other phonological and syntactic constraints.

Selklrk's me&atlng representations are derived according to an algorithm that slmphfles syntactm bracketing The separate theory ot LexJcal Phonology addresses structule-sensltJve word-internal phonology, although the distinction between 'lextcal' and 'post-lextcal' phonology remains problematic (cf Boolj and Rubach 1987) Pulleyblank (1986a 7) dlstmgmshes lextcal fiom phrasal phonology b) charactensmg the lauer as exceptlonles,, Some exceptlonles,, processe% e g Yor~?.tb~t gerund reduphca- tlon, are nonelheles., treated as lexlcal via feedback loops m stratal ordermg (Akmlabf and Oy6bfid6. 1987, Pulteyblank and Akmlabi, 1988)

Also known as wnta.~-phrmolo~,,~ ~ohabltat;on (Ddchalne and Manfredk 1995)

R -M Ddchame / Lingua 111 (20(91) 81-130 83

2. L-drop in monosyllabic verbs

Based on their fo rms in i so la t ion (e.g. in impera t ives ) , in deve rba l root n o u n s and in some n o m i n a l i s a t i o n s , Yorfibd m o n o s y l l a b i c verbs d iv ide into three tone c lasses : low (L), m i d (M), h igh (H). C o n s i d e r the ge runds in (1). 3

(1) a. m r - m 6 [ [ rn im55]] L tone ve rb i

GER-knOW ' k n o w i n g '

b. j f - je [[d3id3~]] M tone ve rb GER-eat ' e a t i n g '

c. kf-k,6 [[k~fi]] H tone ve rb GER-build ' b u i l d i n g '

In S tandard Yorfibfi, before a direct ob jec t (DP), m o n o s y l l a b i c L-tone ve rbs are p r o n o u n c e d M (Abrah am, 1958: xii i ; Bfiffagb6s& 1967: 23; Aw6bfi l t ly l , 1978a: 52). Cal l this L-drop. In the s ame context , m o n o s y l l a b i c H- and M-tone verbs m a i n t a i n their respec t ive lex ica l tones :4

(2) a. M o m o i16 e r~. [[ . . .mS.. .11 l s k n o w house GEN 3S ' I k n o w his /her r e s idence '

b. M o je ilfi [ [ . . . d3~ . . . ] ] l s eat okro ' I ate ( some/ the) ok ro '

c. M o k6 i16. [[ . . .k5. . .11 l s bu i ld house ' I bu i l t a h o u s e '

L-drop is ob l iga to ry before ob jec t DPs bea r ing any tones. Bu t before an e m b e d d e d c lause (CP), an L-tone ve rb surfaces with e i ther L or M, cor re la ted to a d i f fe rence in

3 Data are presented in the orthography, which marks L and H tones with grave [" ] and acute ['] accents respectwely (B~i~gb6st, 1970a). M tone is unmarked m the orthography, but where phonetic representations m double brackets are added for clarity, a macron [[-]] m&cates M. Following the convention of the Yorfibd linguistic community m Nigeria, phonetic contour tones are transcribed as sequences of level tones. This makes no claim as to vowel length, which is orthogonal to present concerns - although lmpresslomsucally vowels with contour tones seem longer The superscript exclamation mark represents downstep - what B~,Tagb6s6 (1966b) calls the "assimilated L tone". 4 O. Aw6b01tlyl (p.c) observes that L-drop falls to occur m eastern dialects such as Ofid6 All data reported here belong to Standard YorOb& broadly identified with the &alect of Qy6 and its descendant towns Keeping to the practice of Yorfibfi hngmsts, I m&cate L-drop m orthographic transcription (as well as m phoneuc double brackets). That this non-lexlcal tonal effect is reflected m the orthography is notable, smce grammatical tone is usually omitted from wrmng.

84 R -M Dd( hame / Lingua 111 (2001) 81-130

lnterpretatmn. (3) shows this with an embedded in&catwe clause introduced by the c o m p l e m e n b e r pd.

(3) a. Mo m6, [p6 a nflb iyen] [[...m,5..1] l s know c 2P have.use that 'I know that we need that"

b. Mo mo [pC a nil6 ~yen]. [[.. m,5...]] 'What I know ,s that we need that'

The optlonahty of L-drop before clauses Is not hmlted to the indicative pd-complementlser, but extends to the complementlser k[, and to lnterrogatwe clauses introduced by b[. Throughout, the retentmn or non-retentmn of the lexlcal L tone has interpretive consequences.

(4) a. Mo gb~ [kf 6 lol. [[ gbh...]] ls receive c 3s go 'I agree that s/he should go'

b. Mo gba [kf 6 lo]. [ [ . . . gba . ]] 'I accept the suggesnon that s/he should go' 'What 1 accept is that s/he should go'

(5) a. Mo m9 [ b f 6 tl pa eklhn]. [[ mS . . ] ] ls know way 3s pv kill leopard 'I knew 0t) as soon as s/he killed the leopard'

b. Mo m 9 [ b i 6 tl pa ekfm] [ [ . . .m5. . ] ] ' I know how s/he killed the leopard'

To summarlse" before a DP complement, L-drop always apphes, before a CP complement, L-drop apphes only on certain lnterpretatmns. In other words, L-drop ~s a phonological process whose apphcatlon is constrained by syntax/semantics Accordingly, an analysis faces two tasks (i) to account for the phonetic effect of tone change from L to M; (u) to characterlse the syntactlco-semantic contexts that block or trigger it. As a first step, consider how earher stu&es have addressed these points

2.1 The mght contex t

Standard autosegmental analyses of Yorfib4 tone (Akmlabf, 1985: Pulleyblank, 1986a) hold that both L and H are marked by tonal features in underlying representation, while M is the pronunciation of tonelessness - the absence of tone specification (cf. also Kaye, 1981). From th~s standpoint, that L tone verbs ever surface with M does not require substitution of M for L, but can be understood as rule-governed deletion of lexical L and default pronuncmtlon of the resultant toneless syllable

As the context of the rule. Pulleyblank (1986a 117) posits a right-adjacent NP'

(6) L - - - ~ @ / _ I v [YP

R -M D~chatne / Lingua 111 (2001) 81-130 85

For an example like (2a), the derivation proceeds as follows. In the input, only L and n tones are specified, (7a). L-drop applies to m,b 'know', (7b). Subsequently, toneless vowels are assigned M by default, (7c).

(7) a. M o [m o Iv [ i l 6 e r ~, ]NP INPUT I I I

L H L b. M o [m o ]v [ i l 6 e r ~, ]NP L-DROP

I I I Q~ H L

c. M o [m o ]v [ i l 6 e r ~ ]N~ OEFAULTM I I I I I I

M M M H M L

A problem for (6) is posed by the fact that embedded CPs can also trigger the rule. Carstens (1987: 10) attempts to handle this by restating the context in terms of case features so that a verb's lexical L is deleted before any Accusative XP:

(8) L --'-> ~ / --Iv [XP+Acc

(8) correctly predicts that since DPs must be case-marked, they obligatorily trigger L-drop. But (8) is formulated in a framework that adopts the Case Resistance Princi- ple (Stowell, 1981), which bans [-WH] clauses from case-marked positions. This incorrectly predicts an asymmetry between WH-clauses and non-wrt-clauses: the former should trigger L-drop and the latter should fail to do so. This expectation is con- founded by the fact that L-drop is opnonal with embedded CPs of both types.

The present analysis makes five claims. First (following Pulleyblank), L-drop as syntax-sensitive. Second (following Carstens), it signals case assignment. Third, its apparent optionality with embedded CPs reflects a structural ambiguity: nominalised CPs trigger L-drop, bare CPs don't. Fourth, the fact that polysyllabic L-tone verbs are affected differently from monosyllabic ones reflects independent differences between Genitive and Accusative case assignment. Fifth (following Manfredi, 1995b), a metrical analysis of tone makes possible a null theory of syntactically conditioned L-drop. Taken together, these claims require a model of grammar in which syntax and phonology meet directly.

2.2. Try the direct approach

If L-drop is a syntax-sensitive case-marking rule, then it entails mapping a syntactic representation onto a phonological one. Thus, we must ask which component of the grammar regulates case, and consider how L-drop, as a phonological process, can access this information. In the principles and parameters frameworks, there is general agreement that case is a configurational property: a given DP is associated with a given case if the DP occupies a position relative to some local head; call this a case-relation. Thus, the task is to determine the necessary and sufficient conditions

86 R -M D~chame / Lingua 111 (2001) 81-130

for a case-relation to hold. The solution can be cast in a representational or a deriva- tional model. This paper adopts the representational case theory of Bittner and Hale (1995). Assuming this much, we can ask how a phonological process such as L-drop can access the syntactic structure relevant for case.

Consider the model in (9), in which the relation between syntactic and phonological representations is mediated by phonosyntax. At such a level, syntactic and phonological representations may be understood as holding concurrently, or else perhaps as ordered relative to each other.

(9) Direct mapping theory

NON-PHONOLOGICAL S-REPRESENTATION

PHONOSYNTAX labeled syntactic bracketing of word-level P-representations

NON-SYNTACTIC P-REPRESENTATION

Indirect mapping theories exclude the architecture in (9), and account for syntax- sensitive P-rules by appealing to a level of representation in which syntactic information is only partially represented; this corresponds to the adjusted S-representation in (10). The claim is that only syntactic information which is consistent with independently motivated prosodic constraints is available to the phonology. For example, it has been argued that phonology is sensitive to edges, but not to phrasal constituents or to category labels (Nespor and Vogel, 1986; Selkirk, 1986).

(10) Indirect mapping theory


I PROSODICALLY ADJUSTED S-REPRESENTATION(S)

[ NON-SYNTACTIC P-REPRESENTATION ]

The schemas in (9) and (10) represent strong versions of direct and indirect mapping. It is also possible to countenance a hybrid theory, as in ( l l ) , where some P- rules result from a direct mapping between syntax and phonology, while other P- rules result from a mediated S-representation. 5

s Such a theory is adopted by Selklrk (1984a: 34), who recognizes the existence of P-rules that are directly determined by S-representations (her S-structure), as well as P-rules that apply to adjusted representations (her Sn" and Sn"). In Selklrk's model, Focus rules and the Sense Unit Condition require PF to feed back into LF. In a theory where phonology is syntax-sensitive, focus intonation would be read off of overt syntax, and so would automatically have LF consequences.

R -M Dgchame / Lmgua 111 (2001) 81-130 87

(11) Hybrid theory


PHONOSYNTAX

labeled syntactic bracketing of word-level P-representations

PROSODICALLY ADJUSTED S-REPRESENTATION(S)

NON-SYNTACTIC P-REPRESENTATION

How does L-drop bear on the status of syntax-sensitive P-rules? Following Selkirk (1984a), if a P-rule refers to labeled syntactic bracketing, then it is directly conditioned by S-representation. Recall that both Pulleyblank's and Carstens' versions of L-drop crucially refer to labeled syntactic bracketing, so if they are correct, L-drop motivates a level of phonosyntactic representation. This finding is prima facie consistent with either a strong theory of direct mapping, or with a hybrid theory, but not with a strong theory of indirect mapping.

Exactly the opposite conclusion is drawn by Hayes (1990), who argues that rules such as YorOb~i L-drop, which seem to be syntax-sensitive, "are actually lexical rules, which precompile allomorphs for insertion in particular phrasal contexts" (Hayes, 1990: 103). This allows him to retain a strong version of indirect mapping, but at the cost of reintroducing syntactic information elsewhere in the grammar. By nature, pre-compiled rules are restricted to a particular diacritic lexical class (Hayes, 1990: 95). Thus, a pre-compilation analysis ~ la Hayes necessarily denies that L- drop is related to other tone processes in Yor0b~i, in particular H-insertion. With this in mind, the next two sections demonstrate that L-drop is irreducibly phonosyntactic in nature, requiring a model of grammar where phonology has direct access to syntax.

3. The syntax of L-drop

L-drop is obligatory before a DP complement (§3.1), but optional before a CP complement, with a corresponding difference in interpretation (§3.2). The targets of L-drop are surveyed in §3.3.

3.1 DP complements

Starting from Carstens' (1987) claim that L-drop is the reflex of Accusative case- marking, a theory of case is introduced and the labeled syntactic bracketing which triggers L-drop is identified (§3.1.1). Confirmation that L-drop applies to labeled syntax comes from its sensitivity to both the complement/non-complement distinction (§3.1.2) and to complement type (§3.1.3).

88 R-M Ddchame / Lingua 11l (2001) 81-130

3 1 1 Accusat ive case -markmg Case can be informally defined as a relation between a head and a dependent,

where head corresponds to a morphosyntact lc syntactic head such as V or Infl, and dependent to DP The head is the ' source ' o f the case feature, e.g. Infl is associated with Nominative, transitive verbs with Accusative. The dependent DP bears a case whose value is determined by the position it occupies in the structure, loosely a DP I'S associated witfi Nominative i f it is in tile vicinity o f f n f f (i.e., in subject position). and Accusative i f i t is in tile vicinity o f V (i.e., fn object position) Wfien the position that a DP occupies determines the case that it bears, it is often referred to as 'structural case ' (Chomsky, 1981). For concreteness, this paper adopts the theory of Blttner and Hale (1995). Their proposal distinguishes two types of structural case: unmarked and marked, with the former corresponding to a bare DP, and the latter corresponding to a DP contained with a Kase Phrase (KP)J ~ In a Nominative/ Accusative configuration, Nominative is the unmarked structural Case (=DP), while Accusative is the marked structural Case (=DP introduced by KP). Accusative is a feature associated with a K which heads a KP projection between V and DP. Nomi- native, by contrast, is a feature associated with some functional head above VP (for Yorhbfi at least, this seems to be T). K ' s Accusative feature 1s assigned under lexical head government, while T ' s Nominative feature is assigned under Specifier-head agreement, cf (12). 7

(12) TP J %

DP T

T VP [NOMI

V KP

K DP [ACCl

If the labeled bracketing relevant for Accusative case assignment is (13), and if L-drop with verbs is the reflex of Accusative case-marking, then this labeled bracketing is the descriptive context for L-drop.

+' Lamontagne- a n d T,-a~ ~ ¢ 19~7) dlxo- proW,'~¢ a" KP" sira~-rmx:-, {Tat h ' , r fi~m-, all" cw;ewrrdrke~ m-g-am~W, are KPs F o r Bl t tner and Hale , only ' m a r k e d s i ruclural case" (Erga iwe . Accusa lwe) a n d mherenl c~se (Geni t ive . Da twe . etc ) is reaf ized t~v K-P H i e presen-Patlorr 111 [fie lIfalll I~JKI - I x, d SllT[p/:lfit~aI'lolI (Ii z [flu Bl l tner and Hale proposal v Altel 'nalveel?; cane" calf be" mwfon'n-ly th'e-ated- as a" i'c, rm-a] ~%-ai'm-e" ow ,c Pan-ct-am-a'l" Ir~ad: so- i'Irai ~ ,all" ca~,e "

re la t ions are Spec-Head conf igura t ions (e g , C h o m s k y . 1995) Al though the KP notat ion is t ransla table into a Spec-Head iheoLy of case, flTe two ai la lyses m a k e & f f e r e n l Neehcn~ms a N m l possJhle phonosyntactic in teract ions e spec ia l ly as regards Accusa t ive case This is related to the broader quesi ion of how

t ; ) - t rea t subjecffobject- a.~?imwetne-~ anal- iread:gx~eTmne-lrc rff m-mmcairq- h=n-rre~u-cks tci- ~k~rn',i~z/m 1995)

R -M Ddchame / Lmgua 111 (2001) 81-130 89

(13) ..-]v [KP.-.

3.1.2. Some complement~non-complement asymmetries Nominal complements trigger L-drop, nominal adjuncts don' t (Aw6btdt~yL

1992b; Aw6yal6, 1997a), cf. (14). There are even minimal pairs where one and the same nominal expression triggers L-drop as an argument but not as an adjunct or adverbial modifier, (15).

(14) a. 0 ja ogun m6ta y]i. 3s fight war three DEM 'S/he waged these three wars ' (cf. Abraham, 1958: 337)

b. 0 fi j~ p~ti-p~tL 8 3s IMP fight determination 'S/he is fighting doggedly' (Abraham, 1958: xiil)

(15) a. Mo ta j~ibu-j~bu. ls sell unimaginable ' I sold unimaginable things' (i.e. everything you can think of)

b. Mo ta j~ibu-jabu. ls sell unimaginable 'I sold (my wares) incredibly' (i.e. very successfully)

These contrasts show that L-drop Is sensitive to the complement relation. In terms of bracketed strings, a case-marked complement is separated from V by one right- hand bracket (...]v [KP..-), whereas an adjunct is two right-hand brackets away

(...]v]vP [NP...). A complement/non-complement asymmetry appears with gerunds too (Abraham,

1958: xili, 306,425). Gerunds are formed by prefixal CV reduplication plus a grammatical H tone. Relevant here is the surface tone of the verb root. If L-drop occurs, the DP following the gerund is construed as the object/theme of the gerund, (16a). If the lexical L-tone of the verb is pronounced, the DP gets subject/agent construal and Genitwe case, (16b).9

(16) a. [Gbf-gbon iy~,fun n~i~t ktlrb ninfi hpb y)f] sbro. [[gbfgbS...]] GER-shake flour the leave Loc.mslde bag this difficult 'Shaking the flour out of this bag is difficult'

b. [Gbf-gbbn on m6tb ylf] ja mi laaya. [[gblgb~55...]] GER-shake GEN car this strike ls LOC.chest 'The car 's shaking frightened me '

s The Afncamst hterature describes items like piti-piti as ldeophones. They are variously translated into Enghsh as adjectives or adverbs and their syntactic category is a matter of debate (cf Q Stewart, 1998, Aw6yal6, 1998). 9 The vowel of the gerund prefix is z, arguably Yor~b~'s unmarked vowel (Aw6bf~ltlyl, 1978a, Pulley- blank, 1988a, 1998) Gemtlve in Yor~bfi shows up m the form of a M-tone mora, which acqmres segmental content from the preceding vowel In (16b), the relevant vowel is [[5]], which Yor~bfi orthography spells on

9 0 R -M Dd(halne / Lmgua I I I (2001) 81-130

The complementarity between L-drop and Genitive case confirms the claim that L- drop requires Accusative case-marking. Moreover, if nomlnahsers freely attach to different layers of a verb projection (Abney, 1987), then the contrasts in (16) can be accounted for in terms of where the gerund attaches.

If the gerundive prefix attaches to VP, as in (17a), such a nommalisation has the external syntax of a nominal (Le., it may occur in argument position) but retains the internal syntax of VP In particular, VP nominalisation satisfies the structural conditions for L-drop (...]~ [K~. -)- The other possibility IS that the gerundive prefix attaches to V, as in (17b). This type of nominahzation has the external and internal syntax of N. Crucially, since KP is not sister to V, the conditions for Accusative L- drop are not satisfied; instead Genitive is assigned.

(17) a NomP b. NomP

gerund VP NomP KP f

I V KP gerund V K DP I I I r i I I

gb[- gbo, n iy~un ndd gb[- gbOn on mdtC) yi[ shaking the flour.ace shaking GEN tl~e car

These &fferences in case assignment correlate with differences in the thematic role assigned to the post-nominal KP. In (17a) KP is construed as a theme (the flour is being shaken), but in (17b) KP is construed as a possessor/agent (the car is doing the shaking). This leads to the following two generalizations for nominahsed L-tone verbs (Manfredi, 1992b, Ddchaine, 1993). First, if a nomlnahsed verb loses its lexlcal L-tone, it is construed transitively and the post-nominal KP is interpreted as object/theme; this is VP-nomlnalisation. Second, if a nomlnalised verb retains its lexical c-tone, then it is construed intransitively, and the post-nominal KP has a subject/possessor/agent interpretation; this is V-nomlnahsatlon.

These complemenffnon-complement asymmetries support the claim that L-drop is the reflex of Accusative case-marking. Nominal complements trigger Accusative L- drop, nominal adjuncts don't. VP-nomlnahsatlon satisfies the structural conditions for Accusative L-drop, V-nominahsatlon does not.

3 1.3 DP-types and the necessary conditions for L-drop Classical case theory (e.g. van Riemsdijk and Williams, 1986: 256; Haegeman,

1991: Ch. 3) divides argument-positions into case-marked and caseless. The predic- tion is that whenever a DP occupies an Accusative case-marked position it should trigger L-drop, but the observed situation is more complex, cf. (18)

Cased? P-word? L-drop? (18) a. Overt DP YES YES YES

b. Trace of A-bar movement (= WH-trace) YES c. Pronominal clitic YES d. Trace of A-movement (= 'NP-trace ' ) NO e. SubJect PRO NO

NO NO ] I

NO NO j

NO NO

NO (n/a)

R -M Ddchame / Lmgua 111 (2001) 81-130 91

(18) shows that the necessary conditions for L-drop are both syntactic - the trigger must occupy a case-marked position - and prosodic - the trigger must be a phonological word. Consider how the contexts in (18) satisfy (or fail to satisfy) these twin conditions. L-drop applies consistently before overt DP's that need case, as illustrated above. This extends to in sttu WH-words, as in an object echo question:

(19) a. O ra kfni? [[...r~...]] buy what

'You bought WHAT?' (echo question) b. *O r?a kfni? [[...r~...]]

But L-drop fails with A-bar movement (Carstens, 1987: 5; Yfisuf, 1989), e.g. WH- movement, focus-movement and relativisation, (20). The standard view of A-bar chains is that the head is [-case] and the tail is [+case]. This means that an object WH-trace is contained in a KP. Although this configuration satisfies the syntactic condition for L-drop, it fails the prosodic condition: by definition, an empty category like WH-trace is not a phonological word.

(20) a. Kfi ni o r~ ti ? what FOC 2S buy 'What did you buy? '

b. Isui nl mo r~ ti • yam FO¢ ls buy 'Yam is what I bought'

c. isu, tf o r~ t~... yam c 2s buy 'the yam that you bought . . . '

Another context where L-drop fails to apply is with object clitics, (21). Chtics are case-marked argument-type expressions, but they are not phonological words. Since the trigger must be a cased independent word, clitlcs are correctly predicted not to trigger L-drop.

(21) ls mi Kb m6 mr. [ [ . . .mSmil]] 2s ,e/o Kb m6,6/6. [[ . . .mS~/. . .m555]] 3s O Kb m6 fin. [[...m55]] 1P wa Kb m6 w~i. [[...mS w~t~i]] 2P yfn Kb mb yfn. [[. . .m~ja~]] 3P won Kb m6 w6n. [[...mSrjW5 5]]

'S/he doesn't know X'

To verify that the failure of L-drop with these object pronominals is due to their clitlc status requires independent evidence that that they are indeed clitics. Analyses of Romance-type clitics put them m an A-position, and posit successive DP and D movements (Kayne, 1990; Chomsky, 1995; Sportiche, 1998). At first glance,

92 R -M D&hame / Lingua I I I (2001) 81-130

Yorhbfi chtlcs do not exhibit D-movement effects since they occupy the same linear position as phrasal arguments. Yet many reasons still exist to dlstingmsh them. First, Yor/abfi chtlcs fail standard syntactic tests of independent words (Bfirhgbds6, 1967: Pulleyblank, 1986b: 49; cf Kayne, 1975): they can ' t be modified, conjoined. focused or topicahsed, while the independent forms permat all these things Second, chtics differ f rom the corresponding independent pronouns in terms of their prosody, most chtlcs lack inherent tone, whale the independent forms consistently show a LM tonal melody. Further, chtlcs are either V or CV, whale the independent forms have the canonical VCV stem shape of ordinary nouns '

(22) ACC CLITICS INDEPENDENT PRONOLNS ls mt b-m1 2s ,e/o, i-wo 3s O 6-un lP wa h-wa 2P yfn ~-ym 3P won h-won

i I

Representationally, the contrast between independent and chtlc pronouns in Yorhbfi can be reduced to a difference between phrasal and non-phrasal constituents The tonal, segmental and distributional properties of independent forms quahfy them as phrasal As illustrated in (22), the relation between independent pronouns and corresponding object clltics is transparent: except for the lmtIal vowel, the latter are segmentally identical to the former. The initial vowel of the independent pronouns ts plausibly a Determiner-like position, while the CV component of the pronoun occupies a nominal posmon, (23a). ~° Thas is consastent with the fact that noun-initial vowels are vestiges of old noun class prefixes (Welmers, 1973: Stahlke, 1976. Wflhamson, 1976, Akfnkugb6, 1978, Aw6b~ltiy], 1997, S6td6yb, 1997). Suppose then that an object c lmc is what it seems: the truncated form of an independent pronoun. Specifically, an object cllttC is a bare N-head in a D-projection where D lacks content, (23b) l~ Accordingly, the failure of I -drop wath Accusatwe chhcs follows from the fact that they are not phrasal

(23) a. [,~,, 9- [~ c v l ] b. [D Q [ , c v l ]

INDEPENDENT PRONObN ACCUSATIVE CLITIC

So far, we have considered A-positions that are case-marked but don ' t trigger L-drop. wH-traces and clitlcs in object position Next, consider how L-drop interacts with A-positions that are not case-marked If an overt DP must occupy a case-marked

m It may be that the outer functional layer is distract from DP, e g Ddchame and Wlltschko (2000) treat Yor/~bfi pronouns as q~Ps, a proJection located between D and N t t The syntax of Accusative cllhcs ~s discussed in more detail below The dlstlnchon between phlasal and non-phrasal pronominal elements recalls Chomsky% (1995 337) distraction between complex and sample pronominal elements respechvely

R -M D~chame / Lmgua 111 (2001) 81-130 93

position, then a DP that occupies an uncased A-position has to move: this is A- movement (or 'NP movement ' cf. Chomsky, 1981; Jaeggli, 1986; Baker et al., 1989). Typical examples occur with verb-forms that fail to assign Accusative case to their internal argument, e.g. passive, middle, unaccusative and rinsing verbs:

(24) a. [Dozens of mystery novels] were purchased [top] in Seattle. b. [Three boxes of mystery novels] arrived [tDp ] yesterday. c. [Mystery novels] sell [top] well. d. [Dale] seems [tDp] to like mystery novels.

All the examples in (24) have a caseless A-position. In the case theory adopted here Accusative case is a marked structural case requiring a KP-projection, as in (25a). Consequently, a caseless object position will simply consist of a DP, (25b).

(25) a . . . . ]v [KP [oP . . . 1 ] b . . . . ]v 1o. . . . ]

case-marked complement DP caseless complement DP

If L-drop requires Accusative KP, then the corresponding A-movement structures in YoNbfi should not be L-drop contexts. Yonabfi lacks passive, and unaccusative diagnostics are equivocal (Carstens, 1986:5 lf.), but clear instances of A-movement exist in the form of object-fronting (Awdyal6, 1997a ). In matrix clauses, this yields a middle construction with an object raised to subject position, (26). In control envi- ronments, the object of the embedded verb raises to some intermediate position, (27).

(26) a. Ad6 ta bata. [[.. .ta.. .]] sell shoe

'Ad6 sold shoes' b. Bhta~ fi ta t,.

shoe NOM sell 'Shoes sold'

(27) a. Mo f,6 ,6 ra bath. [[...ra...]] ls want H buy shoe 'I want to buy shoes'

b. Mo f,6 batai fi ra ls want shoe H buy 'I want to

c. Mo f,6 ls want 'I want to

[[...tfia]]

t i . [[... r~ia]]

buy some shoes' bata, rf-ra tj. shoe GER-buy buy shoes' / 'I want shoe-buying to occur'

[[...r~ia]]

In (26), the DP raises to Spec,TP, where it is assigned Nominative case via Spec- head agreement. The DP-movement in (27) has not been extensively treated in the literature: it minimally involves raising to the specifier of some functional head;

94 R -M Ddchame / Lmgua 111 (2001) 81-130

Manfredl (1997) treats ~t as movement to Spec,AspectP. In the present analysis, sup- pressrun of Accusative case correlates with the absence of a KP projection Hence, these structures involve a caseless complement DP which predictably fails to trigger Accusative L-drop.

In sum, the claim that L-drop occurs in the context .. ],, [~.. captures the fact that Accusanve KPs trigger L-drop. It also accounts for the possibility of L-drop with nomlnalised VPs: wherever the Accusative case configuration is present, L-drop occurs. The analysis correctly predicts that L-drop will fail to occur if a nominal is not case-marked: nominal adjuncts don' t trigger L-drop, nor do caseless DP-traces But as noted by Y~suf (1989), the failure of L-drop with a case-marked WH-trace is not predicted by a purely syntactic analysis, and we have seen that L-drop also fails with object clltlCS, even though they are case-marked. It Is these two contexts that establish that L-drop is determined not just in syntax but m phonosyntax. We can now turn to CP complements

3.2. CP complements

Recall that L-drop is optional with CP complements. The CP complements that trigger L-drop are argued to be nominahsed and case-marked, consistent with the claim that L-drop is the reflex of Accusative case-marking (§3.2.1). Independent evidence for a link between Accusative L-drop and CP-nominahsahon includes the pos- siblhty of marking clauses with overt Genitive case (§3 2.2). In conjunction with a language-specific ban on embedded WH-clauses, recognizing that L-drop is possible only with nominal complements provides insight Into the pattern of L-drop with embedded clauses headed by b{ (§3.2.3).

3 2 1 Nommahsed CPs are triggers for Accusative L-drop If L-drop marks Accusative case, and if L-drop occurs in the context of an embed-

ded clause, this implies the clause is case-marked. If only DP arguments need case, then these case-marked complement CPs are nominahsed Suppose that th~s is the effect of an abstract nomlnaliser, m the form of null D'

(28) VP

V KP

K DP

Dxo m CP

C TP

In other words, embedded clauses are structurally ambiguous between CP and nominahsed CP. If so, we expect to find evidence - independent of L-drop - for DP-

R -M D&haine / Lingua 111 (2001) 81-130 95

syntax in nomina l i sed clauses. Extrac t ion f rom a nomina l i sed clause - with L-drop - should violate subjacency, since nomina l l sa t ion adds a boundmg node, but extract ion should be poss ib le i f the matr ix verb keeps its lexical L. 12 This is true:

(29) a. ]w6 ni mo m6, p6 a nfl6. book FOC l s know c 1P need ' I t ' s a book that I know we need '

b. "]w6 ni mo mo p6 a nfl6. book FOC lS know c 1P need [ ' I t ' s a book that I know i t ' s a fact that we need ' ]

Whi l e L-drop is opt ional before most CP complements , there are some contexts where it is obl igatory . Some representa t ive examples are given in (30).

(30) a. N -nf ow6 pfip6, kb {*khn/kan} p6 a se is6 lfle. GER-have money plenty NEG reach c lP do j o b hard 'You d o n ' t necessar i ly get rich by engaging m hard labour ' . (Lit. 'Hav ing plenty of money doesn ' t require that we work ha rd ' )

b. I-se yen {*gbh/gba} 106 kf a jf lw6 wb. 13

NOM-dO that receive c c 1P steal book look 'Tha t ass ignment requires that we copy from our notes ' . (Lit., 'Do ing that requires that we p lag ia r i se ' )

I suggest that L-drop is ob l iga tory wheneve r a CP complemen t denotes a state-of- affairs, which ts dist inct f rom both event nomina ls and propos i t ions (Zucchi , 1993). 14 It seems that i f the subject denotes an abstract proper ty , this forces the e m b e d d e d CP to do the same, which requtres a s ta te-of-affairs nominahsa t ion , which in turn tr iggers L-drop. This is consis tent with the fact that the predica tes kdn and gbd normal ly take an animate subject and select a propos i t iona l complemen t ; in such cases L-drop is opt ional , cf. (4) above for gb~. But when the subject ~s i tsel f a nominal isat ion - as in (30a) n:ni ow6 p @ b ' hav ing plenty of m o n e y ' , and (30b) i s (yen ' do ing that ' - the complemen t denotes a state-of-affairs . Al though it is at present unclear what forces this s ta te-of-affairs constural , its corre la t ion with Accusa t ive

12 To my knowledge, Yor~Jb~i does not have a contrast between so-called bridge verbs (e.g. Who did you ~ay left?) and non-bridge verbs e.g (*Who did you whisper left's) See Carstens (1986) for relevant discussion i~ The p~ k{ sequence is a series of two distinct Comps' indicative p~, followed by subjunctive ki See D6chalne (2000) for an analysis based on RlzzFs (1997) exploded Comp, with p~ mstantlatlng a higher 'force' Comp, and k{ a lower 'finiteness' Comp 14 Zucchl's criteria predict the following for Yorl)b~ (1) events should correspond to Gemtlve gerunds, (u) states-otZafl~urs should be reafised by Accusative gerunds and nomlnahsed Cffs, (in) proposltlonai entitles should be CPs and thctlve ctauses "Uais classification may provide a way to distinguish the abstract 'fact' noun posited by Collins (1994) for Gbb from the event nommahser proposed by Manfredi (1997 96f) for Yor~b£ The former should act like a proposmonal entity, the latter like a state-of- affairs.

96 R - ~ 4 Dd~hame / L n q, ua t l l (2001) 8 1 - 1 3 0

L-drop provMes lndtrect support for the claim that Yonhb;i CPs undergo abstract nommahza tmn ~5

3 2 2 N o m m a h s e d CPs with G e n m v e case By hypothes~s, a nommahsed CP m obJect positron - triggering L-drop - ts

marked Accusative. This predicts that nommahsed CPs can occur m other cased posmons, and th~s ms true Alter a noun that takes a proposmonal argmnent, e g hi 'way/manner" and 0,sdn ' reason ' , both pd and Lf-clauses can bear overt Genmve case in the form of the ~4-tone mora (Abraham. 1958' 107; OyElfirhn, 1982a 116f )

(31) a As~in an [p~ Reagan j,d b'abfi r~,l k6 j d kf a sun,. reason GEN C equal father 3s NEG allow c lp rest 'The fact that Reagan ts his father doesn ' t allow us to rest"

b Ewfir6 wo alfihpat'a bf t [ki 6 kfi] goat look butcher way GEN C 3S die "The goat looked at the butcher hke it would dte'

While monosy l laNc verbs assign Accusanve case, polysyllabic verbs assign Gem- tive. 132a). With such verbs, Gemtlve Is opnonal before CP. 132b,c)

(32) a. (5 rfin'ti ] ml 3s remember GEN lS "S/he remembered me '

b. Mo rfin'ti [pd e w~i]. ls remember c 2P come "I remembered that you (pl.) came"

it L-drop is also ob l iga tory belore e m b e d d e d c lauses conta ined m rhetorical quesnons (l) Note the

remoteness ol the hteral mterpretat ton 0-a) , with the e m b e d d e d subject a "we" con,,trued as ths lomt t i om the matr ix wl~-word ta who ' More sahent is the bound var iable reading (bb)

(1) Ta m k~ { * m ~ j m o } pd ki a i i ]x~e ~ 6 '~ ,aho to ( Mc, know. ~ ¢ lp steal book look ; e / a ) ' W h o doesn ' t know that we cheat >"

= (b) ' W h o doe,,n ' t know how to c h e a t " ' A quesnon may be represenlend m one ol two ways ( G r o e n e n d @ and Stokhol . 1983. Engdahl 1986, Chmrchm 1993, H o m s t e m 1996) It can ask lor the value ol an mdpddua l , ,armble ~, a,, m (n-a) to which a fehcmtous answer provides a hst o[ ind iv idua ls Add, B(>s~ and Mr Friday (don ' t know that we

cheat ) ' This interpretat ion is precisely, the one not awulab le foi O) Or a que ' ,non can ask for the value ot a funcnon var iable / as m (u-b) I ln the h tera tme, this is ca l led a tunct2onal rote@re/anon ) Here, the ques t ion being asked is ' I sn ' t it true that ever~ X knows F(X) '~ , 2 e ' l sn t ~t true that ever) ~ k n o w s cheats '~ This funcnona l mterpre ta tmn Js the only one ava i lab le for (2) and seem,, to be hnked to the s ta le -o l -a l tmrs construal associa ted wnh the n o m m a h s e d ( 'Ps that t r igger L-drop

(u) ~ ( a ) Q { P P l s t r u e a n d l o r s o m e x P = x N o r k n o w w e c h e a l } = ( b ) Q {P P J s t r u e a n d l o r s m n e f , P = ( N o l some, X k n o , a F I X ) ) }

Note that (u-b) unphes that IP a Is a bound var iable This is consp, lent with Ek0nda>6 (1976) who argues that the express ion gbo~,,h() o wa all ol us combines the umvcr~al quannf le t ghogbo with ~aa which he t ransla tes as "per,,ons who me here ' , subsuming the denotanon of Ip Gbo~,,l~o cannot appear b 5 i tsel l

R -M Ddchame / Lingua 111 (2001) 81-130 97

c. Mo r~in'tf i [p6 e w~i]. ls remember GEN C 2P come 'What I remembered is that you (pl.) came '

The optionahty of Genitive with clausal complements shadows the optlonality of Accusative L-drop. Such case-marked clauses are often translated into English by Yorfib~i speakers with a what-cleft, e.g. (3b) and (4b) for Accusative-marked clauses, and (32c) for Genitive-marked clauses. This is presumably an attempt to render the state-of-affairs construal associated with CP-nominalisatIon. The claim that nomlnalised complement CPs trigger Accusative L-drop also has implications for the analysis of embedded wu-clauses, to which I now turn.

3.2.3. On the impossibility of embedded WH-clauses From examples like (33), Carstens (1988) concludes that L-drop is obligatory with

embedded WE-clauses. The picture is more complicated, however. (34) shows that such examples can also be pronounced with L tone on the matrix verb m,b 'know' , so L-drop is evidently optional, even there.

(33) a. Mo mo [bf 6 ti pa ekfin]. ls know way 3s PV kill leopard 'I know how s/he killed the leopard' (Carstens, 1988)

b. Mo f6 6 mo [bf o ti rf]. i I i

Is want NOM know way 2s pv see 'I want to know how you look' (Abraham, 1958: 104)

c. O mo [bf a ti fi dural. i

3s know way 1p pv IMP balance 'S/he knows how to keep one 's balance' (Abraham, 1958: 104)

d. A m o [bf a tl se nfl~iti s6]. 1p know way 1p PV do must do.3s 'We know how we must do it' (Abraham, 1958: 104)

(34) a. Mo m6, [bf 6 tl pa ,ektm]. ls know way 3s pv kill leopard 'I knew (it) as soon as s/he killed the leopard'

b. Mo f6 6 m6 [bf o ti rf]. ls want NOM knOW way 2s PV see 'I want to know how you look' (Abraham, 1958: 104)

c. 6 m6 [bf a ti fi dura]. i

3s know way 1P PV IMP balance 'S/he knows how to keep one 's balance' (Abraham, 1958: 104)

d. A m6 [bf a ti se nflfitl s6]. 1P know way lp pv do must do.3s 'We know how we must do it' (Abraham, 1958: 104)

(< m,b)

A second observation is also pertinent: all the examples in (33) and (34) contain b/-clauses. Other than b/-clauses, Yon)b~i lacks embedded WH-clauses as a general

98 R-M D&hame / Lmqua l l l (2001) 81-130

matter (Carstens, 1988: 16, fn 3). Presented with an i l l -formed embedded wu-clause like (35a), speakers volunteer the relative clause construction m (35b) In the latter, the nominal head of the relahve clause (era "person') triggers L-drop as expected

(35) a. *Add mb /mo [ta nl Ktinl6 rf]. know who c see

[Add knows who Ktinl6 saw] b. Add mo em tf Kfinld rf.

, i

know person (' see "Ad6 knows who Ktinld saw' (Lit 'Add knows the person Ktinl6 saw' .)

The above points can be assessed together If L-drop apphes before a KP. it is reasonable to look for Independent evidence that interrogative b/-clauses which trigger L-drop meet this structural description. The absence o f other types of embedded WH- clauses In Yorfibfi suggests that b/-clauses are not [+wn] CPs. But if b/-clauses don ' t have the structure of wft-clauses, what ~s their structure '~ There are reasons to tbmk that b[ is the nominal head of a relative clause:

(36) [,,, b[, [~,, OP, [,~. t, ..]1]

Accordingly, b/-clauses that fail to trigger L-drop will be analysed in the same way as nominal adjuncts In both instances, the nominal head is introduced as a VP- adjunct, so L-drop falls:

(37) a. Mo m6 [bf 6 tl pa ektm] Is know way 3s pv kill leopard ' I knew (it) as soon as s/he killed the leopard'

b. Mo t~ jfibu-jhbu. I s sell ummagmable 'I sold (my wares) incredibly' (1 e. very successfully)

And b/-clauses that trigger L-drop will be analysed in the same way as nominal complements. Both are in an Accusative configuratlon, so L-drop applies.

(38) a Mo mo [bf 6 tl pa ekan] ls know way 3s pv kill leopard 'I know how s/he kdled the leopard" (Carstens, 1988)

b Mo ta jfibu-j~bu. ls sell unimaginable 'I sold unimaginable things' (1 e. everything you can think of)

In other words, the contrast between (37a) and (38a) reflects the attachment site of the b/-clause' as a VP-adjunct m (37a), as a case-marked complement to V m (38a).

R -M D&hame / Lmgua 111 (2001) 81-130 99

This is consistent with the interpretive difference between the two examples. Now consider the evidence that bf heads a relative clause.

The present analysis concurs with the tra&tional view that bf is a noun meaning 'way, manner' (Abraham, 1958; Aw6bhlfiyi, 1978a; Oy~hir~, 1982a). With respect to its internal syntax, b[ behaves like a noun in its ability to assign Genitive case to a following noun:

(39) 13 wf ej6 [bf i aw6wa]. 3s say case way GEN grumbler 'S/he complains like a grumbler' (Oyhl~iran, 1982a: 114)

With respect to external syntax, a phrase headed by b[ can stand in the full range of case positions. In subject position, a b/-clause is marked Nominative by the H tone spell-out of null T, (40a). A b/-clause in object position can trigger L-drop, which by hypothesis reqmres Accusative, (40b). A b/-clause is marked Genitive as the complement of the locative nominal in~ 'stomach, inside', (40c). Finally, a b/-clause can be a prepositional (Oblique) object of s[ ' to ' , (40d).

(40) a. [BI isu 6 se ta] fi yh mf l',6nu. way yam NOM Pv sell NOM open lS K-mouth 'The way yam sold surprised me'

b. Mo mo, [bf 6 ti pa ekhn]. ls know way 3s Pv kill leopard 'I know how s/he killed the leopard' (Carstens, 1988)

c. So flin mi ohun tf k6 dfira n'fnti un tell give ls thing c NEG good P-inside GEN [bf ~ia tl se lo 6r6, , yii]. way 1P PV do use word this 'Tell me what is wrong in the way we have used this word' (Abraham, 1958: 104)

d. 13 pad?~ sf [bf 6 ti wh rf ]. 3s return P way 3s PV be.at look 'It changed back to the way it was before' (Abraham, 1958: 105)

This establishes that the external and internal syntax of bf-phrases (including bi- clauses) is that of a nominal expression. And if b[ is a noun, it can host a relative clause, so b/-clauses predictably trigger L-drop. This contrasts with Carstens' proposal that b/-clauses are wn-clauses, which leaves unexplained why b/-clauses differ from all other WH-clauses in YonhNi in that the latter cannot be embedded. What remains to be shown is that the b/-clauses have the internal structure of relative clauses.

Yorhb~i relative clauses are head-initial; the head is usually followed by the element tL Obligatory ti is seen in (41a) with object relativisation. However, a restricted set of head nouns mcluding ~ i 'person', ohun ' thing', ,bnd 'way' and igba ' t ime', allow t f to be suppressed as in (41b), cf. Aw6bhlfiyl (1978a: 36).

100 R -M D& hame / Lingua 11 l (2001) 81-130

(41) a. ajfi, [*(tf) B6sb, ,6 rf t,]. . dog REI. NOM see ' the dog that B6s~, saw

b. ent, [(ti) B6sb, ,6 rf t,]. . person RE[. NOM see "the person that B()s} saw .

A stmdar contrast occurs wtth relatlvtsed adjuncts. The adjunct gap ~s licensed by a preverb, usually tt or se (Carstens, 1986). ~e' Almost all adjunct relatives require t[ as in (42a) Like other adjunct relatives, clauses headed by the manner noun b[ require a preverb: but in a b[ relative, 1[ is ungrammancal , (42b).

(42) a . [ l b l ] , [*( t i )B6s~ tt fi ser6 t,] .. place REL PV [MP play ' the place where B6,s6 is p laymg . . . ' (Carstens. 1986" 4)

b. [bfl. [(*tf) B6@ ,6 tl rf t , ] . . . way RLL NOM PV see ' the way Bds6, seemed . ' (Carstens. 1986' 7)

The fol lowing picture emerges. Relativisation of both arguments and adjuncts mostly requires the relattve marker t[. (43a,b). AdJunct extractton also needs a preverb (43b). A small set of head nouns do not requtre the relattve marker (43c), while the relatlvlsed manner noun b[ "way' actually excludes tt (43d). 17

(43) a. NP, [~, t[ [,~, t, .11 b. NP, [~.~ t[ [~,, PV . . t, . . . l l c NP, [~,.(tt') [~ t, . l l d. b[, [ , , . 0 [~e pv . . . t , . . . ] l

In the present analysis, the opt lonahty of L-drop before b/-clauses is accounted for as follows. As a noun. b[ can host a relative clause; this is a h#clause Like other nominal expressions, hi may be introduced as an adjunct to VP (and so does not trigger L-drop) or as a complement to V (and so triggers L-drop). This closes the discussion of the trtggers of L-drop; now consider the target of the rule.

3 3 Monosy l l ab i c verbs a l e the target o [ A c c u s a t t v e L-drop

L-drop targets an element that bears L tone If the trigger is an Accusative KP, then only L-tone verbs can be targets Th~s predicts that no other case-asstgnlng head

16 These preverb particles are related to the independent predicates )e 'do' and tt 'from' (Ward, 1952 I091:, 13'-)) /g-'~'~e-' J'~ also iJo-,sd~le- a~ a- pre~erb- wnlr ad]mrct-extracnolr (Ward; 19~2 i09) 17 Ttns accords with AwdbfJlfiy] (1978a 36), who d~stmgmshes three types of relatives according to whether C is obhgatordy filled(most Ns), opnonaily hiled (clauses headed by ~2" "person , ohun "thing" tOi pellod'), ol obhgatorfly null (clauses headed by hi "way')

R -M Ddchame / Lmgua 111 (2001) 81-130 101

- in particular L-tone stems which assign Genitive case - will be a target for L-drop (§3.3.1). If the context for L-drop is the head-complement configuration ...]v [KP .... this predicts that no other head-complement structure will be a context for L-drop (§3.3.2). Confirmation of these two predictions provides additional evidence that L- drop is a phonosyntactic process that refers to labeled syntactic bracketing.

3.3.1. Genitive L-drop Within a KP analysis, the difference between the case configuration of Accusahve

and Genitive reduces to whether or not K is underlyingly empty (Bittner and Hale, 1995: 6f.). A marked structural case such as Accusative is an underlyingly empty K that satisfies the ECP. An inherent case such as Genitive is an underlymgly filled K selected by a governing head. This predicts that Accusative K will be null, while Genitive K will have content. This contrast is borne out in YonSbfi. While Accusative has no overt content, Genitive shows up m the form of a M-tone mora or timing unit:

(44) a. ]v [KP [n 9 ] [DP " ' '1] Accusative KP b. ]x [KP [K g] [OF "'" ] ] Genitive KP

In Yor6b~i, Accusative and Genitive configurations also reflect the prosody and category of the head. Accusative KP is found with all monosyllabic verbs, (45a). Gen- itive KP is found with all polysyllabic verbs (Oybl~ir~n, 1970; Aw6bfalfiyL 1978a; Elimelech, 1982; Aw6yal6, 1997a), and all nouns, (45b,c). Is

(45) a. tJ lv [KP [K Q ] [DP . . . l ] b. (. . . tJ) tJ C~]v [KP [K B] [DP " " ]1 c. ]N [K,. [K .U,] [D,, ---11

monosyllabic verbs polysyllabic verbs noutlS

If L-drop is a reflex of Accusative case, then it will occur only in contexts such as (45a). However, if L-drop marks the presence of KP, then it is expected to occur in all the contexts of (45). In fact, Genitive KPs trigger something akin to L-drop, but it does not have the same propemes as Accusative L-drop.

In deliberate speech, before a DP, the overt form of Genitive is an M-tone mora that borrows the segmental content of the preceding vowel. This holds of nouns, all of which assign Genitive case:

(46) a. ilO u b~t~i [[]ltJOb~t~ia]] drum/beating GEN [type of drum] 'the bdtd type of drum, playing of bg~td drums'

b. p~t~tk) i Timi importance GEN 'Timi ' s importance'

[[kp~tSkiifimi]]

Js The preose case configuration of Yor/ab~ denomlnal polysyllaNc (Le. Gemtlve-asslgnlng) verbs is beyond the scope of this paper, Manfredl (1997b 110-112) gives one possible structure

102 R -M Ddc hame / Lingua I 11 (2001) 81-130

After po lysy l l ab ic verbs, a Geni t ive M-tone mora also appears, (47). Po lysy l lab ic verbs d iv ide into two classes" those that are denomlnal verbs (e.g. pdtglM 'make important" < pgztglki ' impor t ance ' ) . and those d e n v e d from V-N compounds (e.g (¢'rc~n < 12j 'want + b lan ' p rob l em ' ) . l~

(47) a. Mo phthk] 1 T]mL [[ . . .kphthkiif im]]] ls impor tant GEN 'I made T)m] impor tan t '

b. Mo fd 'rhn an T~mL [ [ . . . f ~ r 5 5 t i m i ] ] i

ls love (;EN "I love TimV

At faster speech rates, a po lysy l lab ic head loses the L on its final vowel : an LL stem such ih'~ ' d r u m ' surfaces LM, (48a): an LLL stem such as pg~tgzki ' impor t ance /make Important" surfaces ELM, (48b,c): and a HE verb such f¢ ' rdn "love' surfaces HM, (48d). This is ' G e m t l v e L-drop ' .

(48) a ]lu bhtfi [[ilfibhtfih]] b. pht~tkl Tim] [ [kphthkifim] 1] c Mo phthkl TimL [[.. .kpht~tkitimi]] d M o f ¢ ' . r a n Timi. [[ . f ~ ' r 3 t ~ m i ] ]

These fas t -speech forms show that the L tone is jus t retracted by one syl lable, and not deleted. Accord ing to the Obl iga tory Contour Pr inciple (Leben, 1973). L-tone stems have a single L-tone autosegment . I f Geni t ive L-drop dele ted the L-tone, this would predict the unat tes ted outputs in (49), where all the syl lables of the head surface with defaul t M-tone.

(49) a. *itu bhtfi *[[ilabhtfi~t]] b. *patakl Tim] *[[kpfitfikifimi]] c. *Mo pataki Timi *[[. kpfitfikTfim]]]

The local nature of Geni t ive L-drop - Jt affects only the last vowel o f the head - suggests that it is a phonolog ica l process . This accounts for Its sensi t ivi ty to whether the fo l lowing noun is C- lmt ia[ or V'-inltlaL as weir as its sensi t ivi ty to tile init ial tone of V-ini t ial nouns (Bfiffagbds6, 1966a. 100f.). We have seen Geni t ive t - d r o p is opt ional before a C-ini t ial noun. Before a V-Init ial noun, Geni t ive L-drop is obl igatory, as long as the lmtlal vowel does not bear L, (50). If the initial vowel bears L, then nei ther the Geni t ive mora nor Geni t ive L-drop occur. Instead. the head noun surfaces with its lexlcal L throughout , (51) 2o

~'~ The- drffeTence be-twee-ct de-aomrrtal- verbs artd V-N compotmds r,; rtor so gweat, strtc-e the ~atter are semanncally noncomposmonal (OyOlfirhn, 1970, Aw6b~10yi, 1978a, Aw6yal6, 1997 lfi) -~ The d~rectlon of vowel ass~mflanon m any gwen instance is determined by vowel quahty, among other condmons (OyOlfirhn, 1970, Bfi~gb6%, 1986, Aw6b~lfiyL 1987. Pulleyblank, 1988a,b, 1998)

R -M Ddchame / Lmgua 111 (2001) 81-130 103

(50) a. *phthki 1 emu importance GEN palmwine 'the importance of palmwme'

b. ph t~ i emu (51) a. pht~tki bgfar6,

importance raphia.wine 'the importance of ~g~trb'

b. *p~t~k~ 1 ~)g?ar6 c. *p~t?~kl 5g?ar6

*[[kp~t~k~g~m~]]

[[kp?~thk~gm~]] [[kphtakbbgfar5]]

* [[kp?~t~tkb66gfarS]] * [[kpht?ak66gt~r5]]

In sum, both Accusative and Genitive L-drop affect stems that end in L-tone, and both are the byproduct of a case configuration. However, the phonologically conditioned behaviour of Genitive L-drop contrasts with the syntactically conditioned behaviour of Accusative L-drop. Accusative L-drop is automatic and obligatory before all overt DP complements, and is insensitive to the prosody of the following DP complement. In contrast to this, the application of Genitive L-drop is determined by phonological context: it is optional before consonant-initial stems, obligatorily before vowel-initial stems that don't begin m L-tone, and ~mpossible before vowel- initial L-initial stems.

3 3.2 O n l y . . ] v [Kp... ts a context f o r L-drop To maintain the claim the Accusative L-drop is sensitive to labeled syntactic

bracketing one must also show that no other head-complement structure is a context for L-drop. We have established that Genitive L-drop, which occurs with nouns and polysyllabic verbs, is phonologically conditioned, while Accusative L-drop is syntactically conditioned. There are two other case configurations to consider: those headed by prepositions and adjectives. Morphosyntactic prepositions in Yor~bfi are limited to two items: s[ and n[ (Oy~l~r~m, 1989); both bear H tone, so no L-drop context arises. As for adjectives, they are scarcer still: all transitive stative predicates in the language are morphosyntactic verbs (Aw6btdtiyl, 1972). A limited set of attribu- tive adjectives exists (Aw6btflfiyL 1978a), but none is transitive so none provides a potential context for L-drop. This exhausts the inventory of lexical heads: only verbs which assign Accusative case trigger L-drop; no other lexical category triggers L- drop.

It remains to consider head-complement structures where the head is functional. The relevant F-heads are Tense, Comp, Det and K. The first two form part of the extended projection of V; the last two form part of the extended projection of N (Grimshaw, 1991; Fukui, 1995).

Starting with Comp, we see that, in Yor~b~i, all overt subordinating complemen- tisers bear H: pg (indicative), k[ (subjunctive), t[ (relative). And there is also M-tone m, generally analysed as a WH/focus Comp (Aw6bfahiy] 1978b, 1992a; Aw6yal6 1985, 1997b). Since no Yor~bfi Comp bears L, this means they can't be targets for L- drop.

Next, consider Tense. Of the elements which occupy Tense in Yol~bfi, only two have final L: kb 'NEG' and y6d 'future'. Neither undergoes L-drop:

104 R -M D&hame / Lingua 111 12001) 81-130

(52) a. K6 1o. i

NEG go 'S /he d tdn ' t go '

b. Y66 1o. kUY go "S/he will go '

There ts a second set o f auxes that occurs between T and VP (Oyblfir'~n, 1982b). Of these, only one has a lexlcal L-tone, namely h ~ ' ab le ' . Here too, L-drop falls to occur: 21

(53) O 16 lo. i

2s able go 'You can go '

This exhausts the Inventory of F-heads assocmted wtth the extended project ion of V. Now cons ider the ex tended projec t ion of N, which tncludes D and K Overt D e lements are few, perhaps the only one is the U tone redupl ica t ive prefix of gerunds. 22 A n d only two overt e lements realise K: n "of' and the M tone vowel copy which marks Geni t ive None of these bears L tone, so none can be the target ol L- drop.

3 4 L - d r o p s y n t a x A summap3'

The preceding has shown that L-drop is t r iggered by lextcal head-government of an Accusa t ive KP, (54a). This captures the fact that Accusa t ive L-drop occurs before any case -marked lexlcal DP, including those contained wtthin nomlnal i sed VPs L- drop also appl ies before CPs that are conta ined wtthin a nominal structure: thts includes nomlna l i sed complemen t CPs (pd- and k/-clauses) , and relat ive clauses (h[-

clauses). Accusa t ive L-drop contrasts with Gent twe L-drop in that it ~s syntact ical ly condl t toned, whale ItS G e n m v e counterpar t ts phonologica l ly condi t ioned, (54b). Conf i rmat ion that L-drop is t r iggered by a case configurat ion comes from the fact that it fails to app ly in contexts where a verb is fo l lowed by a const i tuent that is not a case -marked complemen t : thts mcludes nominal adjuncts, DP-traces. VP-comple - ments and CP-complement s , (54c) That L-drop requires lexlcal head-government is conf i rmed by its fai lure to target funchonal heads, (54d). In addi t ion to being syntax- sensit ive, L-drop also has an i r reducibly phonologtca l character : the Accusa t ive KP

2~ Oy61~iran 11970 193) notes that l~ freely alternates with ld0 (Fit) and le I~), lo m~ knowledge these variants are not syntactically condmoned Before an H tone, y6~) can be pronounced 3'(L but the final i_ Js recoverable from the initial rising tone of the lollowmg word, e g Ydc) 1~d "S/he wdl come" can be pronounced [L16w/l~i]] but not *[[j6wfi]] A similar effect occurs with the non-mdlcatwe negator rod& e g Mdd him? 'Don't be angry I" can be pronounced [[mfib~/nu]] but not *[[mfib/nu]] fDdchame, 1995b) e~ Tl.~e 3~ ~ tmteperrdem Vc(tr~(~rm~a~ ,~.~(,I,/~, c'ar~ a~s(r ac'~ as a 9rer~ornma~ 9?~r~a?rser ~tjz~ "(~he/a'p dog" ~ fiwon aid '(the/some) dogs" Man#edl (t997a 104) suggests that, rather than occupying D, ~h~on is licensed via adjunctlon/apposmon

R -M Ddchame / Lmgua 111 (2001) 81-130 105

complement must be a full word. Thus L-drop fails to occur before wn-traces and before Accusative chtics, (54e).

(54) SYNTACTIC L-DROP.9 CONFIGURATION a . . . . ]v [KF' [K Q~] [DP "'" ] ] YES Accusative KP b . . . . ]x [Kp [K ~t] [op ... ] ] NO Genitive KP C . . . . ]v]vP [NP''" NO nominal adJunct

• -.]v [oP NO DP-trace • -.]v [vp.-. NO V-AUX (e.g. gb6d6,, I t . . . ) • ..]v [cP... NO CP complement

d . . . . IT [vp... NO T-AUX (e.g. k6, y66) • ..]c [Tp''" n/a (no items with L tone) • '']D [NP''" n/a (no Items with L tone) • ..]p [DP''" n/a (no items with L tone)

e . . . . ]v [Kp [DP t]] NO WH-trace • ..]v [K [D [N] NO Accusattve clitic

The failure of L-drop before WH-trace and object chtics in (54e) can be understood in two ways. One could state L-drop as a phonological rule with syntactic dia- crincs. This is essentially the view of Hayes (1990), but with the undesirable consequence of importing syntax into the lexicon. The alternative is to derive the phonology of L-drop from syntax plus independently needed prosody• Such a result, which would qualify L-drop as a genuine phonosyntactic effect, is the goal of the next section•

4. The syntax-sensitive phonology of L-drop

From a phonological perspective, Yorfib~i has three surface tones, two of which are lexically specified (n and L), and one of which is a default tone (M). From a syntactic perspective, one of the lexically specified tones (L) is suppressed in an Accusative configuration; this is L-drop. The possibihty of L-drop raises the question of whether the other lexically specified tone, namely H, is ever suppressed. The answer is no. If this is not accidental, it suggests that H and L do not have equal prosodic status. I begin by reviewing the evidence that Yonhb~i tones show asymmetric behaviour (§4.1). I then argue that L-drop is one way of satisfying the Empty Category Principle (§4.2).

4.1 The tone hierarchy: [ H > L > M }

Different tones differ in relative strength or prominence. H is universally stronger than L. Of Yon3bfi's three tones, if M is unmarked (radically underspecified), then it is certainly weaker than L. By transitwity, this gives the following ranking:

(55) { H > L > M } ( M = ~ )

106 R -M D&hame / Lingua I l l (2001) 81-130

L and H are cover symbols for feature arrays. I assume K a y e ' s (1981) theory whereby low is [+L], high ts [+n] and mid is neither. 23 For Y o r 6 b £ ms tmmenta l acoust ic observa t ions support the t reatment of H and L as pos i t ive ly specif ied tonal features, while M is unspeci f ied: an unbounded series of n tones has gradual r ising pitch, while uninterrupted L tones show gradual pi tch decline, but a stretch of '~ tones does not stray from a flat pi tch contour (Connel l and Lad& 1990: L~infran, 1992). In effect, n and L are act ive glottal gestures, while M (O) leaves the glott is m a neutral state so far as pi tch is concerned.

The tone h ierarchy in (55) is supported by both phonologica l and syntactic evidence (§4.1.1, §4.1.2). And the asymmetr ic behav iour o f tones can be accounted for by a metr ical analysis of tone (§4 1 3).

4 1.l Phono logwal e v i d e n c e f o r a tone hterarchy

The H > L rankmg is i l lustrated in Yor6bfi m contexts where H and L compete for a single tone-bear ing posi t ion (Bfiffagb6,s6, 1970b, Chumbow. 1982). As i l lustrated in (56), in a vowel sequence where the first vowel bears n- tone and the second vowel bears L-tone, even when the first vowel deletes tts associa ted H tone is retained, and It IS the L tone which ts suppressed.

(56) a. r i + hp6 ' see + bag" b. *r'ap6 [ [ rhkp6]] c. r~ip6 [[r~kp66]]

Yonhbfi M can be d ts t inguished from both H and L on the basis of its inertness wtth respect to tone spreading. Both within and across words, Yorthbfi H and L spread au tomat ica l ly onto each other, (57). By contrast, M ls not affected by spreading (58). nor does it spread (59)

(57) a HL rf-r?a 'buying ' [[rfr~a]] Ow6 wh. 'There is money ' [[6w6wfih]]

b LH ]we 'book ' [[]w66]] Ow6 k6 p6. 'The money is incomplete ' [[6w66kph6]]

(58) a HM jf-je, ' ea t ing ' [[d3fd3r.]] *[[d3fd3/;g]] A,s6 pupa. 'The cloth is red" [ [~ffkpnkpal l *[[afakp6~kpal l

b LM 6fro ' l aw ' 1161~11 *116fii]1 bath pupa "red shoes' I[ bhtakp0kpfi]l *[I bhtakp60kpfi]]

(59) a. MH ajfi "dog' l[ada~ill *[[adgafill aso pdfip6 'short cloth ' [[~fakp6rjkp6]] ~[[aJ'akpedrjkpe]]

b ML 9j~ 'market ' [[5d3~]] *[[5d3~h]] aso o Tim] 'T imi ' s cloth ' [[ ~J'5 5 f imil l *[[aJ3 5 tfim]]]

2~ In the closely related Kru languages of C6te d'Ivolre and Liberia, Kaye et al (1982) postulate the existence of a mid tone defined as [+L. +n] - ~ e doubly marked. Many Kru languages contrast four lexlcal tone classes (H, "raised' M, M, L), as opposed to three m Yorhbfi 0t, M, i ) and two in most of the rest of Kwa (H, L)

R -M D~chame / Lmgua 111 (2001) 81-130 107

The inertness of Yor~b~i M can be derived by analyzing it as underspecified (Akin- labf, 1985, 1991; Pulleyblank, 1986a). As tonal autosegments, H and L spread, and are the target of spreading, (60). The absence of an 'M' toneme accounts for its neutral behaviour with respect to tone-spreading, (61).

(60) a. H L b. L H

r i I J X X X X

r i r a i w e 'buying' 'book' [[rfr~i~]] [[iw~6]]

(61) a. H b. H I I

X X X X

j i j e a j a 'eating' 'dog' [[ dsf d3g ]] [[ ad3fi]]

4.1.2. Syntactic evtdence for a tone hierarchy Structuralist tone theory (Welmers, 1959; Voorhoeve, 1961) bequeathed to

generative grammar the tonal morpheme - a category whose underlying representation has no phonetic content apart from specification on the tonal tier (Gold- smith, 1973; Williams, 1976). Thesemant ic content of such an item is obviously poor, i.e. we never expect to find a language where the word for 'dog ' is just a u tone and 'cat ' ts simply L. In view of recent phrase structure theory, it is plausi- ble to hypothesise that the tonal morphemes of natural languages belong to the set of closed-class items or functional heads (Fukut, 1995; Hoekstra, 1995). Although few studies of grammatical tone have exploited the theory of functional elements, the descriptive glosses of tonal morphemes in the Niger-Congo literature consistently refer to notions of case, agreement, tense, definiteness and clause type (e.g. Dimmendaal, 1995) - all of which suggest an analysis in these terms.

Williams (1976) argues that one should expect massive homophony among tonal morphemes because 'the tonal alphabet' is so small. This predicts that H and L are equally suitable as tonal morphemes, but in fact, in Yor~b~i all grammatical tones are pronounced H; none is pronounced L. Grammatical H tone is a general phenomenon in YorOb~i, occurring in all the major closed-class items of basic phrase structure. 24 When they otherwise lack content, the functional heads C, T, K and D can be spelled out with a high tone:

24 Enlarging the sample to the rest of Kwa and Benue-Congo, grammatical L tone IS far less common than grammatical H This IS especially true i f one sets aside tile abstract L tone posited as a diacritic trigger of nonautomatic downstep in ,~k~in (J M Stewart, 1965, Schachter and Fromkln, 1968) and Igbo (Hyman, 1976, Wllhamson, 1986, Clark, 1989)


(62) CP

C TP

[Q--~H] T VP

i

[Q--~H] V KP

K DP

[Q--~H] D .. I i

[Q---)H]

According to (62) certain empty categories - the functional heads - are active m phonology. Such PF interpretation of syntax is ruled out m an mdtrect mapping theory, but direct mapping expects it. One context for n-insertion is embedded infint- twes: after a matrix control verb (wtth any tone) a non-lexlcal H-tone appears ( B ~ g b 6 s 6 , 1971, Awdyald, 1974: 338ff., 1983), (63a). Thts infinmval n-tone is analysable as the spell-out of a non-finite Comp. 25 H-insertion also spells out null T (D6chame, 1993): in finite clauses whose tense position is not filled by an auxihary, a non-lexical n-tone appears between the subject DP and the verb, (63b). In the hterature this is often referred to as the "high tone syllable'. Recall that the KP analysis treats Accusative K as an underlylngly empty K: the spell-out of null K ts a plau- stble source of the H-tone of Accusative chtics (Manfredi, 1992b, 1995a) (63c). Spell-out of null D is arguably attested m the H-tone assocmted wtth prefixal redu- pllcatmn of gerunds (Ddchame, 1993), (63d)

(63) a 6 f,~ ~ f;, a~o,. I[. f~:e .11 3s want H wash clothes 'S/he wants to wash clothes'

b Agb6 6. w~. [['agbgi.. 11 farmer H swim/bathe 'The farmer bathed'

:s The control 1t could mstantlate a finiteness Comp (hke ltahan de ~.f Rlzzl, 1997). a non-flmte T (Ddchame, 199~), or some combmauon ot these (like Salentmo ku. ct Calabre~e, 1997) In t~vom ol the Comp analysp, is the tact that YorOb6 mhmtlva[ 1t is in complementa D distnbuhon with the complementlser ldtl (Aw6yal6, 1974 3381 ) (i) a Olfi fd 6 Io

want I I ~20 'Olu wants to go"

b O10 fO tfih 1o want for to go

R -M D&hame / Lmgua 111 (2001) 81-130 109

c. r~t ~i buy 3S.H 'buy it'

d. ri-r~ H.GER-buy 'buying '

[[ra~il]

[[rfr~ial]

How does grammatically conditioned H-insertion bear on the analysis of Accusative L-drop? If the inventory of grammatical tones were based on the inventory of lexical tones, then for a language such as Yor~b~i, which has two lexlcal tones (n and L), this predicts two grammatical tones (H and L). On this view, in addition to the H-insertion contexts catalogued in (63), one expects to find instances of grammatically conditioned L-insertion. However, L-insertion is unattested. Instead, from a syntactic perspective, the L-tone counterpart of H-insertion is L-drop - the suppression of L in lexical categories. 26 Note in this regard that the grammatical H-tone of Accusative clitics which spells out null K is complementary to the environment of Accusative L-drop:

(64) a. 0 mb 6n. 3s know 3S.H 'S/he knows him/her/it '

b. 0 mo ~w6. i

3s know book 'S/he is hterate' (Lit., 'S/he knows book(s) ' .)

There is no L-drop before an Accusative clitic, and there is no u-insertion before a full DP:

(65) a. * 0 mo on. p I

3s know 3s b. * 0 m6, 6n iw6.

3s know H book

I now present a theory of tonal prosody that captures the asymmetric behaviour of tones and explains why, and where, Yonhb~i suppresses L and inserts H.

4.1.3. Tones are organtsed m metrical f ee t Direct mapping claims that some phonological effects are determined by syntac-

tic structure. A 'null ' theory of direct mapping should postulate no mechanisms beyond those needed independently in the phonology and syntax. Paraphrasing Cmque 's (1993: 239) comments in this regard for Enghsh phrase and compound stress, the ideal analysis would be one in which no language-specific proviso is

26 Beside Yorfibfi L-drop, L-deletion is widely attested in Niger-Congo, e g ]gbo has many contexts where a lexlcal L tone is not pronounced, but none where lexlcal H suffers the same fate, cf Clark (1989).

110 R -M Dr;¢hame / Lingua 111 (2001) 81-130

necessary and surface tone can be enttrely de te rmined on the basis of surface syntactic const i tuent structure, gxven the lexmal tone melodtes and general pr inciples of tone mapp ing To this end, the formal t reatment of tone assumed here ~s couched wt thm a general theory of mtonat tonal p rominence that embraces both "stress' and ' t one ' (Bamba, 1992: Llberman. 1995)

A metr ical analysis of Yorhbfi tone can capture the markedness phenomena rev iewed above, speci f ica l ly the H > L > m rankmg. By means of underspecif icat ton, au tosegmenta l theory captures the inertness of Yor~hbfi M w~th respect to delet ion, mser t lon and spreading, but au tosegmenta l theory by ttself does no! predtct the other two basic p r o p e m e s of Yorflbfi tones: the lnsertabt l i ty of H (as the spel l -out of null functtonal heads) and the suppressabth ty of L (m an Accusa t ive configurat ton) These asymmet r ies be tween H, L and M are, however , ideal ly suited for metr ical analysts : (i) some i tem (H) Is umquely pr iv i leged to hcense a syntagmat lc domain, as a head: (it) another i tem (L) Is uniquely d ispensable from the same point of vtew, (in) a third ttem (M) is mvis tble to syntagmat lc processes al together.

An account of these tone asymmetr tes ts given by Manfredl (1992a,c, 1995b), who draws on metr ica l tone analyses m government phono logy (Bamba, 1992), and on instrumental studies of Yorfibfi p rosody (Connell and Lad& 1990: Lfinffan, 1992). 2v The m l m m a l prosodtc object ts a bmary foot c o m b m m g a strong (,s) and a weak (w) post t ton (Llberman, 1975; L lberman and Prince, 1977). In government phono logy (Kaye et al.. 1990, Charette, 1991; H a m s , 1994), phonologmal domams are conf igurat lonal , e.g. a foot mstant tates the head-complemen t relatton, with ,s the govern ing head, and w the governed complemen t Notat tonal ly , the head of the foot is domina ted by a v e m c a l hne ( H a m s , 1994 150)'

(66) " ~ 3 14'

If tones are p rosodlca l ly l icensed, (67a), then the government relat ton is constra ined by prosodic a l ignment : the most p romment tone aligns with s, the least p romment tone with w, (67b). Tonal p rominence is s t ipulated by the famil iar hierarchj, , (67c)

(67) a. P r o s o d i c hcensmg" All tones must be p roso&ca l ly l icensed. 2s b. P r o s o & c a h g n m e n t . Align the strongest tone with ~s, ahgn the weakest tone

wtth w 29

27 For other analyses positing memcal tone feet see Huang (1980), Odden (1984), KJmenyl (1989) and Ladd (1990) Essentially the same approach to tone prosody is assumed m register tone theories (Clements, 1981, lnkelas et al, 1987) 2, Prosodic licensing, which reqmres that every pitch accent of an intonation contour be assigned, is the tonal counterpart to constraints that associate each segment to a syllable or mola {McCarthy, 1979 SelMrk, 1981, 1984b, It6, 1988, Prince and Smolensky, 1993, Harms, 1994, Myers, 1997) > Prosodic alignment generahses to 2-tone languages hke ",Ed6, ]gbo and Efi k-lbibi6 which have an H/L opposition In such languages, the weakest tone is predictably L This proposal departs from Man- tredi (1995b 175), who proposes two conditions that do the same work ,is ploso&c allgmnent (l) t?;o- ject*OJl prevents ~i linking to s (Kaye, 1981) *[, M ], in) ,~,Ole;nme;lt torces H to link 1o ~ (Bamba. 1992) [, H ]

R -M Ddchame / Lmgua 111 (2001) 81-130 111

c. Tone hierarchy: H > L > Q~.

In a language where prosodic licensing holds of tones, foot structure is built directly on tonal elements rather than on rhymal or syllabic constituents. 3° There is typolo- gical support for this: tone languages typically lack rhymal weight distinctions, or lack polysyllabic morphemes, or both, hence there is no rhymal/syllabic work for metrical structure to perform (Manfredl, 1991: 93f., 1992a). On the same lines, languages with the most lexical tone contrasts (e.g. Mandarin) have less complex words and syllables. Thus, in tone languages, tones intervene in the prosodic licensing of feet and rhymes/timing units (cf. Odden, 1997). Now consider how the well-formed- ness conditions in (67) account for the surface realization of tone in Yor~bd.

Prosodic alignment requires that H -- the strongest tone - aligns with s, and that O (phonetic M) - the weakest tone - aligns with w. Thus a HM melody (b(tre 'spinach') and a simple-n melody (pdfild 'stockfish') are both licensed by a single foot, as in (68a,b). A simple-M melody (saworo 'ritual bell') may invoke no prosodic licensing at all, on the assumption that, in isolation, a zero element is invisible to licensing requirements, (68c).31

(68) a. ~ b. S W S W

I I I I H ~ H

X X X X X

bu re p a n la [[b6re]] [[kp~fild]] 'spinach (Tahnum Triangulare )' 'stockfish'

C.

x x x

sa wo ro [[fawSr~]] 'ritual bell'

(68b) also illustrates that s implies w even if the latter has no rhymal content (Bamba, 1992). This follows from the locality of the government relation, (69a).

~0 This departs from Qld (1995) and Ql~i-0n6 and Pulleyblank (1998, 2000), who assume rhymal foot projection for Yorflbd ~t By hypothesis, non-isolated M - M in a string containing posmvely specified tones - is integrated into prosodic structure This does not reflect any inherent requirement for prosodic licensing of M, but Is parasitic on the hcensmg of the skeletal x-slot (moralc timing umt) For example, an MLH melody can be resolved as LLH, e g Yor~bd is optionally pronounced [[jb(r)hbh~i]], by footing the initial, tonally unspec- lfied syllable

O) a. b. [ " N S W S W

A I P L H ~ L H

I / I X X X X X X

I l l I I I yo (r)u ba yo (r)u ba [[J~(r)~bg~ill [[jb(r)6bS~il]

112 R -M Dd{ hame / Lingua 111 (2001) 81-130

Conversely, the presence of a syllabically empty w posmon ts recoverable under government , (69b)

(69) a. L o c a h O ' . a governor must be strictly adjacent to its governee. b. R e c o v e r a b d l t v : a null position is recoverable under government .

This accounts for the prosodic structures associated with tt and g. What of L '~

Prosodic l icensing requires all tones to be footed. Smce prosodic ahgnment refers only to the strongest and the weakest tones, L lS not subject to any al ignment condition: ~t can ' t be parsed as the head (st because tt ~s not the strongest tone; tt can ' t be parsed as the complement (w) because it 's not the weakest tone So if L can be neither head nor complement , and if it must nevertheless be footed, then the only other posslbthty ts that L attaches as an adJunct. In prmctple there are four potentml adjunct lon sites, as In (70). L could left-adjoin, either to s or w, (70a.b) Alterna- tively, L could rlght-adjom, again rather to s or w, (70c,d).

(70) a ' ~ b * ('~--.,.. c. * ~ d. S /4 ' ', 1,4 5 14

L H ~ H L ~ t! L

%\\

,,%

H Q L

Smce locality requires that a governor be adjacent to its govemee, this means that adjomed L can ' t intervene between s and w, excluding (70b), and (70c). This leaves two possibilities L adjoins to the left-edge of a foot, (70at: or L adjoins to the right- edge of a foot, (70d) Manfredt (1995b) argues that (70at ts the option selected by Yor~bfi, and that (70d) is the option selected by [k6m-Y'al'a (cf. Armstrong, 1968)

One argument in favour of (70at ts that It accounts for Yombfi 's unique property amongst the Kwa languages in permtttmg automatm spread of t, onto H (deriving a phonetic LH contour) Not only ~s automatic spreading of L onto H typologically rare, it is perceptually more salient than the reverse This suggests that L-spread and H- spread, lhough they look symmetrical m autosegmental terms, express different structural relations. Manfredt ' s idea is that automatic spreading of L ~s a smct ly local effect occurring within a smgle, branching metrical position. This is consistent with the stronger acoustic profile of a denved LH contour, as compared with derived m . In (71a,b), the dotted hne indicates L-spread. (71c) shows Yorfibfi t, alone in a foot: it locally identifies s, which m turn governs w. Crucmlly, L by itself Is not a prosodic governor, i.e. it merely adjoms to s ~2

~-' There remains the question ot the lormal status of left-adJoined t Govermnent phonology lecog- roses three hcensmg conhgurat~ons constituent hcensmg, rater-constituent licensing, and proJection licensing (Harris, 1994) The members of a branching con,~tltuent stand m an as3,mmetllc relation, and one must be the head, such ~ on~tgtuc:t: hcetl,~l/tk, is head-mmal There can al',o be as3,mmemc fclahons between con,,tltuents, such gttte~ < oa~ttguent h~ en~taq, is head-final It is ,dso possible lut a head to project, plo/e~ ltoll hc ensmg is subject to parametric variation (head-initial m some language',, head-hnal in others) As presented in the main text, the [s w] constituent can be defined either by constituent hcensmg or by projection hcensmg It mter-conshtuent licensing wele mw~lved m the [elt-adlomed structure ,a hlch licenses k In Yur~b,i th~s would force I, to head a consltuent (l e to [orm it,, m~'n foot) making I ,1 prosodic governol in its o w n light an unwelcome consequence

R -M Ddghaine / Lmgua 111 (2001) 81-130 113

(71) a.

s w

/ q I L H Q~

I l l x x

o ku

[[Ok~fits]] ' stone'

x

ta

b. ~ . ~ c. S W S W

,,4 I / N I L H ~ L ~ ~

I I J ? ~ X X X X X

ko ko k e n gbe [[k6k661] [[khl3gbhl] 'cacao' 'winegourd'

If L is left-adjoined to s, it necessarily marks the left edge of a foot. Consequently, any HL sequence requires two successive feet, as in (72a). The only effect of an inter- vening M is to block automatic spreading, as in (72b).

(72) a. S W S W S W S W

I I / ~ I I I / q I H ~ L ~ {~ H ~ L ~ ~

I I I I I X X X X X

ko ko kt ko ro [[k6k66]] [[kNOr6]] 'taro (Colocasta Esculentum)' 'bitterness'

In (72b), the hnkmg of M to w which blocks H-spread is achieved via licensing of the rhymal timing unit (x). Even though M is zero in YonhbL a rhyme cannot be pronounced unless it is prosodically licensed. This shows that there is a close relation between prosodic licensing of tone and timing units. Central to this analysis Is the claim that tones intervene between rhymes and metrical structure, i.e. tonal strength m tone languages is the counterpart of rhymal/moraic quantity-sensitivity in stress languages.

Having introduced the organising principles of a metrical theory of tone, I now show how the effects of L-drop and H-insertion are derived from the interaction of metrical structure (specifically tonal feet) and recoverability conditions on syntactic and phonological representahons.

4.2. ECP effects in syntax, in phonology and tn phonosyntax

In both syntax and phonology, null positions are constrained by recoverability. For syntax, this is usually stated in terms of the Empty Category Prmciple (Rizzi, 1990: 87):

(73) Syntactw ECP'.

A non-pronominal empty category must be properly head-governed

114 R -M Ddchame / Lmgua 1 l l (2001) 81-130

The syntactic ECP IS a special case of recoverability: a null position is recoverable under government (cf Harris, 1994' 193). This accords with Lowenstamm's (1987) claim that the Ec'P is relevant to phonology. Conceptually, that empty positions are subject to recoverability in both syntax and phonology is the kind of parallelism that phonosyntax expects. Just as the syntactic ECP determines the distribution of null syntactic categories, the prosodic ECP determines the distribution of null prosodic categories'

(74) Prosodtc Ece: A null position must be prosodically governed

Not only does phonosyntax predict a parallel between the syntactic and prosodic Ecp, it predicts that empty syntactic positions must sometimes satisfy the prosodic ECP. This section argues that null functional heads m YoriJb~i have this property. I refer to this convergence of syntactic and phonological recoverability as the phonosyntactlc Ecp, (75) Because the phonosyntactlc ECP lS a byproduct of the syntactic and prosodic EcP, strtctly speaking, it need not be hsted separately. I do so here for convenience.

(75) Phonosyntacttc ECP If a null F-head is not properly head-governed, then it must be proso&cally governed 33

The phonosyntactlc ECP mentions 'null F-heads' , rather than 'null heads" or 'null syntactic positions'. This is a byproduct of Independent constraints on the licensing and identification of empty syntactic categories Of the possible null syntactic positions, one may distinguish two classes: empty XPs (phrasal projections) and empty X°s (heads). Empty XPs arise via chain formation, and their content is recoverable in the syntax via antecedent-government (Rlzzl, 1990). As for empty X°s, they arise in one of two ways: via chain formation or they are introduced as such in the structure. In the former case, like XP-chalns, the content of the tail of an X°-chain is recoverable from antecedent-government. What of the empty X°s that are introduced telle quelle? UG countenances two types of X°s, namely lexlcal and functional. If we consider which syntactic head positions are likely to be empty, 1[ is clear that null functional heads are more easily recoverable than null lexlcal heads. All things being equal, one expects null F-heads to be more pervasive than null L-heads. leading to the formulation m (75).

The phonosyntactic EC'P has consequences for the analysis of Accusative L-drop as a syntax-sensitive P-rule, as the latter revolves a case configuration wtth a null functional head, namely K. More generally, it will be shown that both H-insertion and lo- drop are different ways of satisfying the EcP.

~ For Manfred l (1995a 246), this is plo,sodtc ,~ovelnment a null X °, X a c losed-c lass e lement , is s t rong ~f X is both ungove rned and govern ing

R -M D~chame / Lmgua 111 (2001) 81-130 115

4.2.1. How H-insertion satisfies the phonosyntactic e ce In Yor~b~i, if a null functional head (F-head) is spelled out tonally, the tone is u.

That H-insertion correlates with a null F-head suggests ECP activity. By hypothesis, H is a prosodic governor, so tt is reasonable to think that H-insertion satisfies the phonosyntact ic ECP by providing a prosodic governor for a null-F head. This effect appears in the surface tone of object clitics, which is sensitive to the lexical tone of the verb. After an H-tone verb the clitic surfaces as M, but after an M or L-tone verb it is pronounced H:

(76) a. k6 o build.n 3s 'build it '

b. je 6 eat 3S.H 'eat it '

c. ra fi buy 3S.H 'buy it'

On morphosyntact ic grounds, object pronouns are N-clitics, contained in a D-shell (§3.1.3). Syntactically, the H-tone of object clitics is the spell-out o f the null K associated with Accusat ive case (§4.1.2). I f no other factor intervenes, this yields (77a). However , there are reasons to think that N-clitics undergo movement f rom N to D to K, and that (77b) is the correct structure.

(77) a. KP b. KP

K DP K DP

[9---)8] D NP D K to NP

I I I I O N N D [ ~ H ] tN

Evidence in support o f (77b) comes from the linearization of the H-tone associated with the null K position. If the Accusative clitic remained in-situ, then the grammatical n tone would linearise before the clitic, yielding ungrammatical (78a), instead of the attested (78b). 34

"~4 In Nominative contexts, by contrast, the grammatical H hneanses to the left of the verb, and is pronounced on the final vowel of the subject, 0). The outcome m (I) follows from the absence V-to-T movement (D6chaine, 1992).

(I) imb 6n le. knowledge NOM H hard 'Knowledge is difficult'

116 R -M D&hame / Lingua 111 (2001) 81-130

(78) a. *K6 m6 6n wa. i i

NEG know H lP b. K6 m6 w~ I

NEG know 1P.H 'S/he doesn ' t know us"

The contextually determined reallsatlon of H tone with object clJtics is the effect of the phonosyntact lc ECP. In a chtm configuration, null K is ungoverned: V does not head-govern K, because ~t does not govern all segments of K (K is a two-segment adjunct). Since null K is not properly head-governed, the phonosyntactlc ECP requires that it be prosodically governed: this is satisfied by H-insertion) s (79) illustrates the reahsatmn of an object c lmc after a H-tone verb. The phonosyntactic ECP is apparently satisfied by the verb ' s lexlcal H, so pronunciation of the chtic as M follows. For example, a ls clitm m this context is pronounced [[ .. mi]], while a 3s clitlc surfaces as an M tone copy of the verb ' s vowel: -~

(79) a. ~ b. - ~

S HI' S 14'

, I I I H Q H Q

I I I I X X X X

i I I I [, r;] [[[mr ,1 ~o] ~ l [, r t l [[O,,1 Q~]

[[ rfmil] [[ rill]

' see me ' 'see 3s '

Now consider what happens after an k-tone verb. L is not a prosodic governor, yet ungoverned null K must be prosodically governed. The only way to satisfy the prosodic ECP is to insert U. In addJtmn, there is automatic spread of L onto H, Deld- m g a surface rising tone, (80a). The 3s chtic copies the vowel of the verb. so ~t ~s the copy that hosts the inserted H, yielding a surface rising contour, (80b).

~s in this configuration null D is also lexlcally ungoverned, so n-msemon may also be providing a prosodm governor for D ~' hvthe-followmg-drscu,~slon; l-s ,m-relmeserrts d|ltqre-ch*Jc,~ w(drseg.lrrevgrdlCt)lrim~, as ot~r, ed-t~r3~. which for Accusative objects contnbutes only vowel length

R -M D&hame / Lmgua 111 (2001) 81-130 117

(80) a. b S W S W

L H L H

I I X X X X

I I I I Iv mol [[[m~ N] QD] ~KI [v moj [[OD] QKI [[mSmi t]] [[m55]] 37

'know me' 'know 3s'

After an M-tone verb, i.e. a verb without lexically specified tone, san 'bite', the phonosyntactic ECP predicts that the clitic will surface w~th H, and it does: 38

a. U.

S W S W

I I I I H ~ H

x x x x

I I I I [~san] [[[mi~] ~ ] ~ 1 [~san] [[~D] Q~]

[[ sSmll] [[ s ~ n ]1 'bite me' 'bite 3s'

We have so far looked at clitics which lack inherent tonal content, but there is one clitic that has lexical tone: H-tone 2P yfn. Ifyin follows an H-tone verb, the two H'S must be contained in distinct feet, and a 'buffer' mora with M appears between them, (82a). On the present analysis, this M-tone is the spell-out of the weak metrical position that

~7 It is not c lear whe the r there is au tomat ic spread ing of L in this context , or whether this a l t e m a n v e

has any au&ble consequences ~8 Wi th 3rd person Accusa t ive cl l t lcs, a verb-cllt lC sequence may be contracted, i f the verb is l ex lca l ly

e i ther H or M. HM IS reso lved as M, MH IS resolved as H

0) a. rf i [[ri]] ' s aw lt ' b j e ,6 [[ds~]] 'a te lt ' Notab ly , sequences of L-tone verb plus cht lc do not contract

(n) ra a [[ra~i]] ' bough t i t ' I f cont rac t ion is a rhy thmic effect (Pu l leyb lank , 1986a 140f) , then the con t rac tabd l ty of HM and MH c l m c sequences can be at t r ibuted to the fact that they occupy distract metr ica l posmons , w h d e the non- cont rac t ion of LH reflects the fact that L and H share one ( s t rong/branching) p o s m o n Also note that when

contrac t ton does occur, tt ~s the tone of the cht~c that is p reserved: HM ----). M, MH ----). H. This can be under- s tood as a recoverab i l i ty ef fect ' were the cht~c tone to delete , It wou ld not be recoverab le

t 18 R -M D&hame /Lingua 11l (2001) 81-130

I n t e r v e n e s b e t w e e n the H t o n e o f the

a n d L- tone v e r b s , n o b u f f e r m o r a is n e c e s s a r y , ( 8 2 b - c ) . ~'~

verb and that of the clitlc pronoun. After N-tone

(82) a. ~ ~ b. ~ - ~ S 14' S /4' S It'

I I ! I I .0 H Q L n

I I I I I X X X X X

I I l I [v rt} [[ymN] Q,~] D~]] I, mo] lLwn ~] QD] O~1]

l[ rfisl7 ]1 1[ m~jah 1] 'see you(ply 'know you(pl)'

S It'

i i H ®

x x I i i I I

I, ~s~ n] [[>,m ,I ~,1 Q I I [[s~jlill 'bite you(pl)'

In addition to accountmg for the presence of H with object clltics, the phonosyntactic ECP generalises to other cases of H-insertion. 4° The grammatical H-tone that appears with infinitival complements spells out the lower finiteness C. which is not properly head-governed, (83a). The 'high tone syllable' of null T is reqmred in finite clauses because T is not properly head-governed, (83b). The appearance of H tone on reduplicated gerunds also follows: null D is not properly head-governed, so must be prosodlcally governed, (83c) 41

~9 lgb6m~n'5_ differs from Standard Yor/lb4 in treating all object clmcs as inherently toneless Conse- quently, with H tone verbs, even the 2p verb-chtlc sequence is HM m lgb6mina (Aw6~al6, 1996)

(i) a rf i-yin 'see you(pl)" Standard Yor~bfi b. rf yin "see you(pl)' Igb6mlnh

4~.~ Aklniab/ t i 99 r j gives subject and; object c[ltlcs inherent H but treats genitive critics as toneless The present view - that, other than 2P 7h7, all clmcs lack lexlcal tone and the source of H In subject and object clltiCS is an empty F-head - provides a more general account of the distribution o[ iL as well as a more consistent treatment of pronominal chtics 41 The phonosyntactic ECP also predacts that the null ncrmmahsmg D a.~socmted wffh cased-marked CP.. (§3 2 1) should be spelled out with H-tone since it is lexicall~ ungoverned. (l) However. no detectable H-insertion occurs in this context The dtlference between the H-tone nommahser ol gerunds and the null nommahser of case-marked CPs remains to be accounted for

(l) * [D~[ ...... Q~HI [,,, I1 One posslbhty is that the null nommahser is not a governor in the relevant sense, and so is not subJect to the ECP That something along these lines is going on is confirmed by the margmahty of clausal subjects (cI Koster. 1978) For Yorfibfi. this is illustrated by the contraq between (n) and (ni) A clausal subject is possible if it is clefted, in which case a resumpUve subject clmc is obhgatory. (n) A clause in subject position, with ,- tone agreement, is dispreferred. (m)

(11) [P6 kbk6 t5], m 6, wO mf ( cocoa sell ~oc 3s please Is "That cocoa sells well is what pleases me'

(ln) ?[Pal k6k6 th] J wiJ mf c cocoa sell AGR please l s ['That cocoa sells pleases me']

The margmahty of (m) may be related to the impossibility of H-insertion with nommallsed clauses


(83) a . . . . [CP [C Q~----gH ] [TP ..- ] ] b. [TP [DP ...1 [T Q~--)H] [VP . . - ] ] C . . . . [DP [D ~---)H] [NOMP CV-] [v(P) " " ] ]

4.2.2 How L-drop satisfies the prosodic Ece H-insertion satisfies the phonosyntactic ECP: a null F-head which is not properly

head-governed must be prosodically governed. We have just seen how this applies to null K for object clitics. It remains to see if L-drop can also be understood as an ECP effect. The relevant forms combine H, M and L-tone verbs with object clitics versus DPs:

(84) ObJect clittc Object DP

a. rf i 'see 3s' rf g~rf 'see tapioca' b. je ,6 'eat 3s' je g~trf 'eat tapioca' c. r~ fi 'buy 3s' ra g~rf 'buy tapioca'

With object DPs, H-insertion is not possible, instead there is L-drop. This poses two questions: (i) what prevents H-insertion before object DPs?; (ii) what forces L-drop? Both answers are syntactically rooted.

Consider the structure of an Accusative KP, (85). V properly head-governs null K, so prosodic government is not required, and H-insertion is not necessary:

(85) [v- . . [K ® ~ * H [Dp ...

The syntactic ECP accounts for the failure of H-insertion before Accusative KPs. But why is L-drop obligatory in the same context? To answer this, one must consider the three relevant Accusative case configurations: an Accusative KP introduced by an H- tone, an M-tone, and an L-tone verb, as in (86).

(86) a. [vH [KP[K~] [OP''" b . [ v M [ ~ [ X O ] [D~''" C. *[V L [KP [K 0 ] [DP "'"

As regards null K, the structures in (86) all satisfy the syntactic ECP: null K is properly head-governed by V. L-drop must therefore be an effect of the prosodic ECP, which requires a null position to be prosodically governed. Thus, while (86a,b) satisfy the prosodic ECP, (86C) must fail to satisfy it in some way. It is instructive to consider the relevant metrical structures. With H-tone verbs, the prosodic ECP is automatically satisfied, as the H-tone of the verb prosodically governs null K:


(87) a . . ~ ~ b. S 14' S W

I I I I H ~ H

["--- . ] I x @ x x x @ x rl K kl Ill rl K (l)3"tl

' s ee ' ' w h o ' 'see" "yam'

[[rfkfni]] [[ risa ll

5 /4' S /4'

I I / i 1 H @ L @ @

l //'2 X Q~ X X

r[ K be) t~ 'see" 'shoes" [[ r~fh th ]]

As for M-tone verbs, prosodic alignment requires that M, as the weakest tone, ahgn with w. This means that M is always prosodically governed. Consequently, following an M-tone verb. null K will be prosodically governed. (88) dlustrates this for an M- tone verb before DP objects that start with H, L and M.

(88) a. ~ , , ~ b. S 14' S 14'

' I I H ~ H ~J

X X Q~ X X

o je K bH re ' 3 s ' ' ea t ' ' sp inach ' [[ 6d3e btire ]]

S It ' 5 14' S 14'

I 1 / I I

x x Q x x x x @ x 0 Jq K ga 17 0 1(" K (;)SII

"38" 'eat ' ' tapioca ' "3s' 'eat ' "yam'

[[ 6d3eghfif]] [[ 6d3eJfi ]1

Now consider L-tone verbs. By hypothesis, Yorhbfi L is prosodlcally licensed as a left-adJunct to a strong position, so It is neither a prosodic governor, nor is it prosodlcally governed. Consequently, m (89) although the null functional head K is head- governed by an L-tone verb, it is not prosodmally governed: this result~ m a viola- tion of the prosodic ECP.

(89) a. * ~ b. * ~ *

S W S 14'

L H @ L H @

] / ? ' > ~ J x @ x x x x @ x x

ra K p a n la ra K ga rt

'buy" ' s tockfish ' 'buy" ' tapioca '

• [[rh~ikp4fil~]] * [[ r,aghfif]]

S 14'

J J ' l i L @ @

X @ x x x ra K sa wo ro t

"buy' 'ritual bell*

* [[ r'aJ'~w6r6]]

A minimal way to resolve this clash is to fail to parse L into the metrical structure. This is L-drop

R -M D(chatne / Lmgua 111 (2001) 81-130 121

(90) a.

s w

I I L H

X ~) X X X

ra K p a n la

'buy' 'stockfish' [[rakpfifil~i]]

b. S W

L L H

I I I X ~) X X

ra K ga ri

'buy' 'tapioca' [[rag~fif]]

C.

I X Q~ X X X

ra K s,a wo ro

'buy' 'ritual bell' [[raf~wOr6]]

In (90), L Is present but unfooted (minimally violating P r o s o d t c L icens ing) , so the verb is pronounced as toneless (M). Indirect evidence that something hke this is correct comes from the non-occurrence of L-drop w~th wu-trace, to which we now turn.

4.2.3. W h y L-drop d o e s n ' t apply before a wH-trace

In the analysis proposed, Accusative L-drop is an effect of prosodic government. Because L is not a prosodic governor, null K is not governed, making (91a) ill- formed. One way to resolve this is to not link L to metrical structure, yielding (91b). However, when a L-tone verb is followed by a KP that has no phonological content, e.g. a wH-trace, the verb maintains its lexical tone, (91c).

(91) a. * ~ b. c. S W S W

L 0 0 L L ~

[ I t x O x x x x O x x x x

ra K s a w o ro ra K s a w o r o [ra]v[Kpt°]

'buy' 'ritual bell' 'buy' 'ritual bell' 'buy' • [[ra JSwor~]] [Ira fawOr6]] [[r~]]

To explain the absence of L-drop with WH-trace, one might invoke Nespor and Vogel 's (1986: 48ff.) 'deletion convention' that erases syntactic empty categories at the input to phonology. However, this won' t work for Yo~b~, since both H-insertion and L-drop crucially depend on the presence of null functional heads. One could stipulate that the deletion convention only applies to empty phrasal expressions, but this would import a syntactic distinction - XP vs. X ° - into the phonology.

Another way out is to say that WH-traces are not case-marked (Borer, 1983), so they do not satisfy the context for Accusative L-drop. But language-internal evidence says the contrary. With object extraction, there is no direct evidence that the gapped position is [+case], (92a). But subject and possessor extraction respectively require a Nominative and Gemtive clitic at the extraction site, (92b,c):

122 R -M Dd~hame / Lmgua 111 (2001) 81-130

(92) a. KI, nt o ra t , ? what Foc 2s buy 'What did you buy?"

b. Ta, ni 6, ra lSU? i

who FOC 3S.NOM buy yam ' W h o bought yam9"

c. Ta, nl o ra iw6 e r~,i? who FOE 2s buy book GEN 3S.GEN 'Whose book did you b u y ? ' (L~t., 'Who, dtd you buy hts, b o o k ? ' )

cf. *Ta, ni t, ra tsu?

cf. *Ta, nl o ra iw6 t, ?

Moreover , Accusat ive chtics become obhgatory whenever wH-movement wolates subjacency:

(93) Ki nl o mo bf Oj6 ,se je *(,6) ? what Foc 2s know way pv eat 3S.ACC 'Wha t do you know how Oj6 ate it?"

Thus, the failure of L-drop with WH-traces is not accounted for by a deletmn con- vennon for empty categories, nor is it accounted for by a stipulation about the case properties of WH-traces. There is a third posslbihty, namely that the failure of L-drop with WH-trace fol lows f rom foot structure. By hypothesis, null metrical posttions are licensed only if they are recoverable. In particular, L, as the left adjunct to a strong position, can locally hcense a null posmon. This is precisely what happens ~qth L-tone verbs fo l lowed by a wry-trace. In (91c), the L-tone verb constttutes its own metrical foot, and L-drop doesn ' t occur because there is no null K to prosodical ly govern. 42

4 3 l~-drop phonology" A summary

The possibil i ty of I_-drop, and the absence of H-drop, follow from a metrical analys~s of tone: all tones are prosodical ly licensed, tonal prominence ~s determined by the hierarchy: H > u > O, with the most prominent tone (14) aligning with s, the weakes t (O = M) with w, and L attaching as a left-adjunct to s. A leading idea of the phonosyntact tc analysis proposed here is that both phonological and syntactic representations respect similar structural conditions regarding the recoverabdt ty of null p o s m o n s ' the syntactic zcp requtres that an empty syntactxc category be properly head-governed; the prosodic ECP requires that a null posit ion be prosodtcalty governed. When these two conditions converge on the same element, this yields phonosyntact tc ECP effects ' a null F-head which Is not properly head-governed must

42 One might conclude from this that the context for L-drop Is more accurately stated as ( ], [~. [~ O ) rather than ( ], [~p ) However, since the KP analysis treats Accusanve case as an underlymgly null K, the latter automatically ]mphes the former

R -M D~chame / Lmgua 111 (2001) 81-130 123

be prosodically governed. 43 The phonosyntactic ECP accounts for the occurrence and distribution o f H-insertion. Finally, Accusative L-drop was also analysed as the effect o f phonosyntax: when a properly governed null K lacks a prosodic governor, the lexical tone of the governor is not parsed; this is L-drop.

This analysis accords with the general proposal that syntactic null heads obey recoverablhty, e.g. null D-heads in Romance and Germanic (Longobardi, 1994). 44 Understood analogously, the phonosyntactic ECP is one of the mechanisms available in Universal Grammar to satisfy recoverability. These conditions are formulated in a f ramework in which the government relation is an organizing principle for both syntactic and phonological representations. An open question is what determines, for a given language, if the prosodic ECP is active for tone. Speculatively, I would answer that this is the case when prosodic structure links directly to tones. There is the further question of why null syntactic positions are permitted at all. One possibility is that null positions are never allowed, so languages choose between spelling them out (as in Yorfab~i) or deleting them, i.e. deletion of null elements is a parametric option. On another scenario, null positions would be permitted if they are recoverable, with recoverabtlity defined configurationally: a position may be null ff it is governed. The latter is the view adopted here.

5. Conclusion

The conditions under which a lexical tone is suppressed in Yorfab~i, as well as the conditions which determine when a tone is inserted in a functional head, disprove the extreme view that mapping in phrasal phonology is never directly triggered by syntax.

One way to reconcile this result with Universal Grammar is to claim that part of phonology - specifically, rules o f pitch - requires direct mapping between surface syntactic structure and phrasal phonology, while indirect mapping obtains elsewhere (cf. Selkirk, 1986: 400f.). Indeed, many of the clearest examples o f direct syntax- phonology mapping involve tone and/or intonation. Chinese languages are contour- tone systems, and tone sandhi in those languages is apparently syntax-sensitive (Chen, 1990; Lin, 1994). Bantu languages are level tone systems, and many of their tone rules have been analysed phonosyntactical ly (cf. Odden, 1990a,b, 1994, 1995). In effect, this reclassifies pitch as ' syntax ' and not ' phono logy ' - a suggestion which is not unprecedented. For example, Remhart (1997), updating a tradition that

4"~ If the phonological analysis in this paper were framed in Optimality Theory (OT, cf McCarthy and Prince, 1993, 1994), both H-insertion and L-drop would violate Faithfulness constraints H-insertion vlo- fates the constraint banning msertlon ira tone is m the output, then it is also in tile input (DEP-IO(TONE)')" L-drop violates the the constraint banning d-eli~tion, ltoa tone is in tile input, then it is also in the output (MAXqO(TONE)) The fact that L-drop applies only when H-insertion fails indicates that the constraint pro- hlbltlng deletion is more highly ranked than the constraint prohibiting insertion: MAXqO(TONE) ~ >> DEP- IO(TONE) But even an OT analysis needs to state that the contexts where Faithfulness wolatlons arise are syntactic, so phonosyntax remains relevant 44 Longobardfs (1994) analysis is extended to |gbo by D6chaine and Manfredl (1998)

124 R -M Dd(hame / Lingua 111 (2001) 81-130

includes Jackendoff (1972), holds that, because focus intonation has interpretive effects, semantic interpretation reads both PF (phonology) and LF (syntax). In the present proposal, this would be captured by saying phonosyntax determines semantic interpretation.

Alternatively, following the sptrIt of Kayne (1994) and Marantz (1995) one could reclassify the ' syntax ' of L-drop, namely the head-complement configuratmn, as part of morpho-phonology This is possible to the extent that L-drop has no semantic consequences, so the immediate problem would be to find an independent account of the semantic effect of L-drop before clausal complements.

If one wanted to nevertheless keep L-drop m the phonology, the most opttmlsttc scenario lS to dispense with labeled syntactic bracketing and claim that the trigger for the rule is a generahsed head-complement configuratton: L-drop occurs at the left edge of any complement XP. Any such attempt to save indirect mapping faces several hurdles. First, there are head-complement structures where a monosyllabic head bears L-tone, but there ts no L-drop, e.g. 1.-tone auxiliary verbs (cf. §3 3.2). Sttpulatmg the target as a lextcal head may manage to exclude these, but at a price which an indirect mapping theory worthy of the name cannot afford. The only open lexlcal classes in Yor/Jbfi are V and N, so restrtctlng the target of L-drop to "lexlcal heads' smuggles syntactic category back into the structural description, hence the indirect alternattve is not so different from what Jt wants to disprove Second, embedded CPs are head-complement structures which undergo t-drop only optionally Recall that if L-drop does occur the CP is a weak island for extractmn, and conversely there is no island effect if L doesn' t drop. Thts is exactly the reverse of what a generahsed head-complement analysis expects, since fl is obhged to treat the non- L-drop cases as extraposed or adjoined in some way (c) la Carstens). By contrast, the syntactic solution proposed in §3.2, which posits an abstract nommahser in the L-drop cases, pushes more, not less, syntactic categorlal infomaation into the phonology. Finally, indirect mapping is less economical than the phonosyntacnc account, because the prosodic mechanism of tonal feet (§4 1.3) is needed lndependentl), to handle a wide range of facts about the &strlbutlon and reallsatmn of tone in Yor~bfi and other languages. This last pomt makes any diacritic treatment of L-drop (e.g a precomptlation analysts along the lines of Hayes (1990)) undesirable smce such an approach would fail to capture significant generalisations about the relation of L- drop to H-insertion.

Phenomena discussed throughout this paper point to further simplification of the syntax-phonology archttecture. For example, stem shape m Yorfabfi correlates with grammatical category root verbs are canonically monosyllabic CV, while derived verbs are polysyllabic. This has implications for case: monosyllabic verbs assign Accusattve; polysyllabic verbs assign Genitive 4s Pronouns also divide into prosodic

4s The hnk between prosody and category is conhrmed by the behavlour o[ "sphttlng' verbs such as bgl/¢ damage', which are synchromcally opaque the interpretation of bd;l¢ is not reducible to its con- slituent parts bdr 'come into contact with" and j¢ "be equal to" Such verbs assign Accusatwe or Genitive according to whether the nommat complement occurs inside or outside the verb complex (Av, db/flfiyL 1969 Awdyal6, 1996 12) If the oblect of hdtl¢ follow~; the first s)llable (glo~,,,ed ~ ,~'~ I, it trigger,, I -drop


classes, with syntactic consequences: VCV pronouns are phrasal, while (C)V pronouns are clitics. Taken together, these effects suggest that, in addition to a direct mapping between tonal prosody and syntax, in Yonhb~i there may even be a direct phonology-syntax connection between syllable-based phonology and syntactic representation. 46 (Dis)confirmation awaits further research.

and bears Accusatwe, (1). Alternatively, for some speakers and some verbs, the object can follow the second syllable, but then it bears Oblique case, (11) a full DP is case-marked by preposmonal ni, and the object critic is Genmve File object offa splitting verb may be fronted, and-L-d~op predictalSl~¢ tltl[S to occur, (m)

(1) a. Mo ba 116 j~. ls cv~ house ACC CV 2

'I damaged the house ' b Mo b'~ ~i j,6

l s CV~ 3S.ACC CV 2 'I damaged it'

(11) a Mo b'hj6 nf 116. l s damage OBL house 'I damaged the house ' (nonstandard)

b Mo bhj6 e, r~. l s damage GEN 3S.GEN 'I damaged it' (nonstandard)

(Ul) I16 b~j ,~. house damage 'The house got damaged '

45 fn addition, vowel-del-etlon, which applies to contiguous vowels at word-6ounditrles, is afso sensitive to the number of syllables m the first word If the stem is monosyllabic 0 e a CV verb), vowel deletion applies, (1) In (1), L-drop could hypothencally be said to affect td 'sell ' before Og&-,b and ilO, kO, ' beads ' , but the lhcts are equivocal- vowel-elision makes Accusative L-drop inaudible betore a vowel--lmtml. L-mltlaf noun - whether efislon is letiward as m (i-a)` or r ightward as in (i-b)

(l) a Kb ' ta ' 6gfarb, [[kb t6g~rS]] NEG sell r a p h m w m e 'S/he did not sell Og~rb'

b K6 ' ta ' il~,k~ [[k6 thlkk~]] NEG sell beads 'S/he did not sell beads '

If the stem IS polysyllabic (nouns and derived verbs), the vowels ass ,mdate but there is no ehslon: (ll) a Mo f,6'rhn 6gOrb [[.. fkrbbgtar5]]

1 s love raphm.wme 'I love ~gftrb'

b Mo p~thki bg~r6, [[. kp~thkbbg~r5]] l s important raphla wine 'I made Ogi~rb important '

Again, we see a correlatmn betwen prosody and case Vowel deletion apphes m contexts where Accusative is assigned, l e. with monosyllabic verbs And vowel delehon fads to apply in contexts where Gemtlve is assigned, i e with polysyllabic stems (nouns and derived verbs) The one exception to this last generahsatlon is b[ 'way ' , the only monosyllabic noun m the language. Like all other nouns, It assigns Genitive case. Ftbwever, its betiawour wltti respect to vowel- ehsmn is compii~x when b fheads a relative clause it behaves like other monosyllabic stems and undergoes vowel deletion, (rim). However, when hi is tbllowed by a case-marked Genitive DP, it fads to undergo deietlon, ( i l lb)`

126 R -M D~achatne / Lingua 111 (2001) 81 130

References

Abney, S , 1987 The Enghsh noun phrase m its sententlal aspect Dissertation, MIT, Cambrtdge, MA Abraham, R , [958 Dlchonary of Modem Yorhbfi London Umverslty of London Press Akfnkugb6, O , 1978 A comparative phonology of Yor/Jbfi dmlects Dissertation, Umverslty of Ib'ad'an Aklnlabf, A , 1985 Tonal underspeclflcatlon and Yorhbt~ tone Dissertation+ Umverslty of ]b'adan Akmlabf, A 1991 A two-tone analysis of Yor6bfi Research m Yorflbfi Language and Literature 2,

59-85 Akmlabf, A and F Oyhbfid4, 1987 Lexmal and postlexlcal rule apphcatlon Vowel deletion m Yor~ba

Journal of West African Languages 17, 23-4-2 Armstrong, R 1968 Yhlh (Ikom) A "terraced level' language with three tones Journal of West AfNcan

Languages 5, 49-58 Aw6bhhiyi, O. 1969 Sphttmg verbs m Yor/ab~i Actes du 8e CongrOs de la Socl6t4 Lmgulshque de

l 'Alrlque Occidental 1, 151-64 Umversltd d'Abldjan Aw6bhhiyL Q, t972 Predtcattve a.dject, v e s m Y~thbfi A crtttque In A B',ir~_gbd,~d ( e d L The YorhbA

verb phrase, 103-118 [b-aden lbi~d'an Umverslt}¢ Press Aw6btlhiyi, O, 1978a Essennals ol Yortlbti grammar lb'ad'an Oxlord Umverslty Press AwOb'-hl~yL. Q . tg-TSb Fov.o:s o:~tt;VJa~ct,:,~,xs a:.;. m3m:t ~kca'5:¢,; kcrt_$~'J:e;i:cc A_ctdi:yx,:,, 4. e*'~-i: i_'4 Aw6b~hlyi, Q , 1987 Towards a typology of coalescence Journal ol West Mrlcan Languages 17 5-22 ,'~"~'6"b'i"j~:i'£y{. Q . 1:9q'75£ [%.~,'ft':.'*. ,:,X 8Xe'_ ~.},:¢Z.£~-; ,;t,*2. '~J'=.~X,~.ks-XO~ 'k'[,;tO';~2 g.'t¢,X¢.. ,:_~a,:t~.i:.,rcX,;5~,;t,;r2;. J:,a,x,~=r;axk ,a~ ~.V+e'~g

African Languages 22, 69-88 Aw6b~hlfiyL Q ~ t992b Aspects of comemporary standard Yodab,:t m &.alecmIogmal perspecttve l.n. A

l~olfi (ed). New findmgs m Y-ori~ba studies (J F Qdtinj<,) Memorial Lecture Serms 3), 8-79 Distrib- uted by Department of Llngmstlcs and African Languages, Umverslty of ]b-adan

Aw6bMfiyL O , 1997 Vowel epenthesls m YorOb~i Manuscript, Umverslty ol ]lorm Awdyaid, "Y. [974 Stttt}ies tit t[-te syrttay., arut sem.a~tccs of Y-oo'd~:~_ m:u:tto:t.t[r..r,~to{tx {)e,,~ect,..~.~ U_rtt-

verslty of IIhnols at Urbana-Champmgn Aw6yaid, "Y, t983 On the deveMpment of the verb-mfimtlve phrase m ~"o~fibg Studms m Afhcan Lm-

gmstlcs 14, 71-102 Aw6yal6, ' Y , 1985 Focus as an unbounded movement rule m Yor/abfi Journal ol the Lmgmstlc Asso-

ciation of N~germ 3, 75-84 Aw6yal6, ' Y , 1996 C 'la~ss hOleS on Y<~rfib'g photmlogy aox.t ~ynta.x+ 24 942 Dept of Lmgu!stws and Ph:-

losophy, MIT Cambridge, MA Aw6yald, ' Y , 1997a O~ect positrons m Yori]b'g In R -M Ddch~n_e. V M,.mfre& (eds ,L ObNct pos~-

uons in Benue-Kwa, 7-30 The Hague Holland Academic Graphtcs Aw6~ral6, ' Y , 1997b The interrelationship between focus and sentence-hnal phenomena m YorObfi

EvMence from w~thm and beyond the syntax Paper presented at the 9th Niger-Congo Syntax dnd Semanucs Workshop, Umverslty ol Ghana, 30 June-2 July 1997

Aw6yal6, ' Y , 1998 Adtcttonary ~t Y o r ~ , i tde<~ph~me~ M~ • Lmgmsttc Data Consort:urn Un:,~ers:ty of Pennsylvama, Phdadelphla

Baker. M . K Jotmsott aJa_d [ Robert~ 1989 Pass,_ve argumems ra:sed Lmgu>t,~c [nqmry 20, 219-252. Bamba, M , 1992 De l'lnteractlon entre tons et accent D~ssertahon, Umverslt6 du Qudbec ~ Montrdal Btiff~gb6s6, A , 1966a A grammar of Yor~)bfi Cambridge Cambridge Umverslt> Press Btiff~gb6s4. A . t96@ The assimilated low tone m Yorflbfi Lmgua 16. 1-13

(m) a 0 mo bf IAd6 se .If ow6l [[ bdd6 ]] 3s know way Add pv steal money 'S/he knows how Ade stole the money' (QIfi-(Snh and Pulleyblank, 2000, (9b))

b 6 ri l b '6 tl d~ira bf 1 6,stlm'ar~. * [[ b6,~flmar~ 1] 3s see 3s wa3, 3s PV beautiful way <;EN rainbow He saw th-a-t she was a', beaatffM ,is gne rainbow' (Abraham, t9.58 [07)

Whether or not these restrmons on vowel deletion are redumble to case conhguratlons remains an open quesnon See Qlfi-0nh and Pulleyblank (1998, 2000) for prosodic restrictions on vowel deletion

R -M DOchalne / Lingua 111 (2001) 81-130 127

B~irhgb6s6, A , 1967. A short Yorfib~i grammar. ]b~td~n: Hememann B~iffagb6s& A, 1970a Yorfib~i orthography Ibadhn' Ib~tdb.n Umverslty Press B~irhgb6s6, A, 1970b Zero m tonal analysis Actes du X ~ Congress International des Lingulstes, 15-

20 B~irhgb6s6, A , 1971 The verb-mfimtlve phrase in Yorhb~i. Journal of West African Languages 8, 37-

52 B~irhgb6s6, A , 1986. Yorfib~i: A language m transit,on J.F ,Oddnjoo, Memorial Lecture Committee,

Lagos Blttner, M and K. Hale, 1995 The structural determlnat,on of Case and agreement Lmgmstlc Inquiry

27, 1~8. Boolj, G , 1992. Review of S. Inkelas, D. Zec (eds), The phonology-syntax connection Phonology 9,

145-152 Boolj, G. and J Rubach, 1987. Postcychc versus postlexlcal rules in Lexlcal Phonology. Linguistic

Inqmry 18, 1~.4. Borer, H., 1983. Parametric syntax Dordrecht. Forts Bresnan, J., 1971 Sentence stress and syntactic transformatxons Language 47, 257-297. Calabrese, A , 1997. Distributed Morphology and sentent,al complementatlon in the Salentmo dialect of

Itahan Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 6, 47-85. Carstens, V , 1986 Proper government m YorOb~i M A thesls, Umverslty of Cahfornla, Los Angeles Carstens, V , 1987. On empty categories and phonolog,cal rules Ms, UCLA and Yale Umverslty. Carstens, V., 1988 Sententml subjects and the Case Resistance Pnnclple' A reanalysls. Ms, UCLA and

Yale University. Charette, M. 1991. Conditions on phonological government. Cambridge Cambridge University Press Chlerchm, G. t993 Questions with quantlfiers Natural Language Semantics 1, 181-234. Chen, M., 1990 What must phonology know about syntax? In S Inkelas, D Zec (eds), The phonol-

ogy-syntax connection, 19-46. Chicago, IL" Umverslty of Chicago Press Chomsky, N., 1981 Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht Forts. Chomsky, N., 1995. The mlmmahst program Cambridge, MA MIT Press Chomsky, N. and M. Halle, 1968. The sound pattern of Enghsh. New York Harper and Row Chumbow, B., 1982 Contraction and tone polarization in Ogbfi. Journal of West African Languages 12,

89-103. Cmque, G., 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress Linguistic Inquiry 24, 239-97 Clark, M. 1989. The tonal system of ]gbo Dordrecht. Forts. Clements, G.N., 1981/1983 The hierarchical representation of tone. Harvard Studies m Phonology 2,

50-t08 Reprinted m I Dlhoff (ed.), Current approaches to African Lmgu,stlcs, 145-176. Dor- drecht. Forts

Colhns, C., 1994. The facUve construction m Kwa. Paper presented at Vakgroep Afnkaanse Taalkunde, Leiden Umverslty, 30 May

Connell, B. and D Ladd, 1990. Aspects of pitch reahsatlon in Yorfab~i. Phonology 7, 1-20. D6chame, R.-M., 1992. Inflect,on m ]gbo and Yorfib,'i. MIT Working Papers m Linguistics 17, 95-119. D6chame, R.-M, 1993 Predicates across categories; towards a category-neutral syntax. D~ssertatlon,

Umverslty of Massachusetts, Amherst. D6chame, R.-M, 1995a The Complement,ser position m Yorfib~i Paper presented at the 23rd Collo-

quium on African Languages and Linguistics, Leiden University, 30 August-1 September D6chalne, R -M., 1995b Negation m ]gbo and Yorfib~i Niger-Congo Syntax and Semantics 6, 135-150

Afrtcan Studies Center, Boston University D6chame, R.-M., 2000 Layered Comp in Yorfibfi Paper presented at ACAL 31, Boston Umverslty, 3

March 2000. D6chame, R.-M. and V Manfredl, 1995. Cohabitations of syntax and phonology. Paper presented at

HILP2, Umversltelt van Amsterdam, 26 January. D6chame, R.-M. and V. Manfredi, 1998. SVO ergatwlty and abstract ergatwlty. Recherches Lmgms-

tlques de Vincennes 27, 71-94. Ddchame, R.-M and M Wdtschko, 2000. Decomposmg pronouns Ms, Umverslty of British Columbia

and Umversltat Wlen

128 R -M D&hame / Lingua 111 (200l) 81-130

D~mmendaal, G (1995) Metatony in Benue-Congo Some further evidence for an original augment In E Em6nanj% Q i'qdlm6le (eds), Issues in African languages and linguistics, 30-38 ~.b~i National Institute for Nigerian Languages

Ektinday~). A, 1976 The calculus of the Yort)bti umversal quantlfiel Journal of the Yofflbfi Studies Association ot Nigeria 2, 59-70

Eilmeiech. B-, f982- SyifaNie counting zn Y-orfiba Stucfies in Alrlcan Linguistics 13, 77-88 Engdahl E. 1986. Constituent questnms Dordrecht Reldel Fukul, N i995 Theory of projectJ~m m ',ynJax QNL1 PuhlJcallons~dJstr!buJ.ed~by Czu~_br!dge Umverslty

Press Goldsmith. J 1973 Autosegmental phonology New York Garland Grlmshaw. J , 1991 Extended prolectum Ms Brandeis University, Waltham, MA Groenendljk, J and M Stokhol. 1983 Interrogative quantlflers and Skolem-functlons In K Ehhch, H

van Rlemsd@ (eds), Sen_tern'e. discourse and mxt T!!burg Tdburg Un:,,ersz V Press tlaegeman. L, 1991 Introduction to government and binding theory (2nd ed ) Oxlord Blackwell Halle. M and A Marantz 1993 Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection In K Hale. S J

Keyser (eds), The view from Building 20, 111-176 Cambridge MA MIT Press Harris, J , 1994 Enghsh sound structure Oxford Blackwell Hayes. B .. 1990 Pmcamptl_ed pbr_a>,aJ_ pbsan£).l.o.g~ b.~. S l.o.kN.as.. O Z3-..,: (,e:~k~, k. Tbe p.b,~JaN.o.gy-,,yma.x.

connection, 85-108 Chlcagoo, IL University of Chicago Press Hoekstra, T 1995 The function of functional categories GLOT International 1(2). 3-6 Hornstetn, N, 1995 Logical lorm From GB to mmlmahsm Oxford Blackwell Huang. C -T J t980 The metrical structure ot terraced-le'~el tones NELS 10, 257-270 Hyman, L, 1976 The great ]gbo tone shift In E Voeltz (ed), Thwd annual conference on African hn-

gulstlCS, 11 t-125 Bloomington, IN Indiana University Press lnkelas, S, W Leben and M Cobler, 1987 The phonology ol Intonation m Hausa NELS 18, 327-

342 It6, J , 1988 SyllaNc theory in prosodm phonology New York Garland Jackendoff, R, 1972 Semantic interpretation in generative grammar Cambridge. MA MIT Press Jaeggh, O, 1986 Passive Linguistic Inquiry 17 587-622 Kalsse. E, 1985 Connected speech The interaction ol syntax and phonology New York Academic

Pless Kaye. J . [98 [ Tone sensmve rules in Dlda Studies in African Linguistics, Supplement 8, 82-85 Kaye. J , H Koopman and D Sportlche 1982 Projet sur les langues kru, premlel rappolt Groupe de

recherche en hngulstlque alrlcanlste, Unlverslt6 du Qudbec ~ Montrdal Kaye, J , J Lowenstamm and J -R Vergnaud. 1990 Constituent structure and government in phonology

Phonology Yearbook 7, 193-23 I Kayne, R, 1975 French syntax The transformational cycle Cambridge, MA MIT Press Kayne, R 1990 Romance chtlcs and pro NELS 20, 255-302 Kayne, R, 1994 The antlsymmetry of syntax Cambridge, MA MIT Press Klmenyl, A , 1989 L'haplogle tonale ou la Iol de Meeussen In F Jouannet (ed). Mod61es en tonolo-

gle (Klrundl et Klnyarwanda) Pans Editions du CNRS Koster, J , 1978 Why su~ect sentences don't exist bt SJ Keyse~ (ed)~Rx~_cenJ transformaI!ona! >tud-

les in european languages, 53-64 Cambridge, MA MIT Press Ladd D, 1990 Metrical representatmn of pitch register In J Kingston. M Beckman (eds), Papers in

laboratory phonology 1 35-57 Calnbrldge Cambridge University Press Lamontagne, G and L Travls. 1987 Fhe syntax ol adlacency WCCFL 6, 173-186 Stanford CSLI

Publications LS.nfran, Y, 1992 Intonation in tone languages, the phonetic implementation o! tones in YorL)bfi Dis-

sertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, N Y Leben, W, 1973 Suprasegmental phonology New York Garland Llberman, M, 1975 The intonational system of English Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA Llberman, M 1995 The sound structure ot Mawu words In L Glettman M Llberman (eds), Invita-

tion to cognitive science, 55--86 Cambridge, MA MIT Press Llberman M and A Prince, 1977 On stress and llngmstJc lhythm Lmgmstlc Inqulr 3 8, 249-336

R -M Ddchame / Lmgua 111 (2001) 81-130 129

Lm, J.-W, 1994 Lexical government and tone group formation m Xlamen Chinese Phonology 11, 237-275

Longobardl, G , 1994 Reference and proper names. Ltngmstlc Inqmry 25, 609-665 Lowenstamm, J. 1987 Prosodic government In' J Kaye et al. (eds), Projet de hngulstIque afncamste

l~tudes phonologlques et syntaxiques; Rapport de l'Ann6e 1986-87,248-251 Umverslt6 du Qu6bec Montr6al

M~anfi'edl, V , f99f ~.gb6 and t~, fiugb6, ]-gbo hngulstJc consciousness, ~ts origins and hm~ts Dissertation, Harvard Umverslty, Cambridge, MA

Manfredl, V , 1992a Spreading and downstep Prosodic government m tone languages. In: H v d Hulst, K Smder (eds), The representation of tonal register, 133-184 Berlin Mouton de Gruyter

Manfredl, V , 1992b A typology of Yor~b~i nommahzatlons MIT Working Papers in Lmgmstlcs 17, 205-217

Manfredl, V , 1992c The limits of downstep in A.gb6, sentence prosody In: M LIberman, C MacLemore (eds.), IRCS Report 92-37, 103-115 Institute for Research m Cognmve Studies, Um- versity of Pennsylvania.

Manfredl, V., 1995a Syntactic (de)composition of Yor~b~i 'be' and 'have' In. L Nash, G Tsoulas (eds.), Langues and grammalre-1, 237-252. D6partement des Sciences du Langage, Umverslt6 de Paris-8

Manfredi, V , 1995b. Tonally branching s in Yor~bfi Is [LH] Niger-Congo Syntax and Semantics 6, 171-182 African Studies Center, Boston Umverslty

Manfredl, V., 1997. Aspectual hcensing and object shift In' R -M D6chalne, V Manfredl (eds), Object posmons m Benue-Kwa, 87-122 The Hague Holland Academic Graphics

Marantz, A., 1995 The minimahst program In G. Webelhuth (ed), Government and binding theory and the mmlmahst program, 349-382. Oxford. Blackwell

McCarthy, J 1979. Formal problems m Semitic morphology and phonology Dissertation, MIT, Cam- bridge, MA

McCarthy, J and A Prince, 1993. Generalized ahgnment Yearbook of Morphology 1993, 79-153. Dor- drecht' Kluwer

McCarthy, J and A Prince, 1994. The emergence of the unmarked NELS 24, 333-379 Myers, S., 1997 OCP effects in optlmahty theory Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15,

847-892 Nespor, M and I Vogel, 1986. Prosodic phonology Dordrecht Forts Odden, D , 1984. An accentual approach to tone m Klmatuumbl In' D Goyvaerts (ed), African hn-

gmstlcs, Studies m memory of M.W.K. Semlkenke, 345-419 Amsterdam Benjamms Odden, D , 1990a C-command or edges m Makonde '~ Phonology 7, 163-169. Odden, D, 1990b Syntax, lexlcal rules and postlexlcal rules m Kimatuumbi In: S Inkelas, D Zec

(eds), The phonology-syntax connection, 259-277. Chicago, IL University of Chicago Press Odden, D , 1994 Syntactic and semantic conditions m Klkongo phrasal phonology In J Cole, C.

KIsseberth (eds), Perspectives in phonology, 167-202. Stanford, CA. CLSI Publications Odden, D , 1995 Phonology at the phrasal level m Bantu In' F Katamba (ed), Bantu phonology and

morphology, 40-68 Mtinchen' Lmcom-Europa. Odden, D , 1997 Domains and levels of representation m tone In R K Herbert (ed.), African hnguIs-

tics at the crossroads. Papers from Kwalusem, 119-146. Koln. Rudlger Koppe QI~, O, 1995 Optimality in Benue-Congo prosodic phonology and morphology. Dissertation, Umverslty

of Brmsh Columbm Ql~i-(3rl~, O. and D. Pulleyblank, 1998. Vowel ehslon is not always onset-driven Ms., Tulane University

and Umverslty of Brmsh Columbia Qhi-(3n& Q and D Pulleyblank, 2000 Yorfib~i vowel elision. Mlmmahty effects Ms, Tulane Umver-

slty and University of Brmsh Columbm Oy~l~irhn, O., 1970. Yor~b~t phonology. Dissertation, Stanford Umverslty Oy~l~irhn, O., 1982a. On the scope of the serml verb construction m Yor~bfi. Studies in African Llngms-

tics 13, 109-46 Oy~l~iran, Q, 1982b/1992 The category AUX in Yo~bd phrase structure Paper presented at the 15th West

African Languages Congress, Port Harcourt Research m Yor~bfi Language and Literature 3, 59-86.

130 R -M Dd¢halne / Lingua 111 (2001) 81-130

Oy6l~iran, O, 1989 Morphological and syntacuc constraints on verbal auxlhanes in Yorhb~i. Paper presented at the 4th Niger-Congo Syntax and Semantics Workshop, Tllburg Umverslty, 2 June

Prince, A and P Smolensky 1993 Ophmahty theory Constraint interaction in generative grammar Ms, Rutgers Unlversaty

Pulleyblank, D, 1986a Tone in Lexacal Phonology Dordrecht Reldel Pu.l je~bl, '~k~. 1) ,. 1 .986h CAJtJc~. ,n. YorJ'lb,'~ 1~. Izl l~o.r.e_r. (~A.).. T.be. ~,y.r~t,tx. o£ Ws~njlmJnal_ clJJk~-~,,, a.3-6~.

New York AcademIc Press Pulleyblank, D, 1988a Vocahc underspeclfication in Yorfibfi LmguastK lnqulry 19, 233-270 Pulleyblank. D, 1988b Vowel deletmn in Yorfibfi Journal of African Languages and Llngmstacs 10,

117-136 Pulleyblank, D, 1998 Yorhbfi vowel patterns Deriving asymmetries by the tension between opposing

constraints Ms, University of British Columbm Pulleyblank, D and A Aklnlabi, 1988 Phrasal morphology in Yorhb,i Lingua 74 141--166 Relnhart, T, 1997 Interface economy Focus and markedness Studla Grammataca 40, 146-169 van Rlemsdljk, H and E Williams, 1986 Introduction to the theory of grammal Cambridge, MA MIT

Press RazzL L., 1990 Relatavased mlmmahty Cambridge, MA MIT Press Razzi, L, 1997 The line structure ot the left periphery in L Haegeman (ed), Elements of grammar A

handbook of generatave syntax, 281-337 Dordrecht. Kluwer ~lZZl. 1~ and'L b~avom, lgtYY Conditions on//J/propagation m southern ftafian dialects, a locafity para-

meter for phonosyntactlc processes In A Bellettl (ed). Syntactic theory and the daalects of Italy. 252-318 Tormo Rosenberg and Selher

Schachter, P and V Fromkm. 1968 A phonology of Akan [= Working Papers m Phonehcs 9 ] Dept of LlnguNacs. UCLA

Selkark, E, 1972 The phrase phonology of English and French Dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MA ,%:~J]~?)a~L ~.2. l '~rl" F~l:~PJ~lnNl5~ ?link ,llo~'eglvaTdJtz2 ,z].ll~J~P2<. !/£ ~_~l~ @)Nlr. o;.,9.~11 ,,i17~_xs. |Lt~T~DM?I2 DBI~DI ~, I-I-

563-605 Selkark, E, 1984a Phonology and syntax The relataon between sound and structure Cambridge. MA,

MlT Press Selkark, E, 1984b On the major class features and syllable theory In M Aronoff. R T Oerhle (eds).

Language sound structure, 107-136 Cambridge, MA MIT Press Selklrk, E, 1986 On derived domains In sentence phonology Phonology Yearbook 3, 371-405 S6tal6y6. B. 1997 l~ghngbb synchromc phonology A dmlectal approach Dissertation. University of

]lqrln Sportache,.D.,. 1998 Par_tatifmsand_at~ms.of_cJanse_~t~lu'Jltr_e_ ~ltt'tje.~s°.agA'_e.eJ~e.nt,.case_and_cJJtif.~ LJm,

don Routledge Stewart, J M, 1965 The typology of the Tw~ tone system. Bulletin of the Institute of African Studies

(Legon) 1, 1-27 Stewart, O, 1998 The serial verb constructaon parameter Dassertataon, McGIll Unlversaty, Montrdal Stowell, T, 1981 OnNns ot phrase structure Dl~sertatian, MJT, Camhndge~ MA Stahlke, H 1976 The noun prefix in Yorhb~i Studms m African lJngmstm~ SulLo/emenl 6~ Z43 53 Voorhoeve, J , 1961 Le ton et la grammalre dans le Saramaccan Word 17 t46-63 Ward, I C , 1952 An mtroduchon to the YorhNi language Cambridge Heifers Welmers. W, 1959 Tonemacs, morphotonemlcs and tonal morphemes General Lmgmsncs 4, 1-9 Welmers,.W ,_ 1_9_73 A£rJt'.an_LangJutg_e_ S}l'_ll[~JlllZe_k Be~r_kele_y..CA_ Llmxer.~aty. of CNJ£orma_Press Walhams, E S, 1976 Underlying tone m Marga and ]gbo Llngulshc Inquiry 7. 462-484 WIllIamsfm. K , 1976 No~_m-d~L,,s preD_xes m Proto-Lower Niger Presented at the !2th West African

Languages Congress, I14-If6 • r Wilhamscm:. I~,_ l-9~'r T_he: I~3~: ~k';S~:~:J~m~¢ ~unl: ,qx'JM~ ~)~'e,-i~:~t.r~,< i~: K B~.~g~.~. ~: M: (:e~js):. T.he

phonologacal representation of suprasegmentals, 195-208 Dordrecht Forls Yhsuf, O, 1989 The denvahon of the focus construction an Yorhbg A problem h)r the trace theory

Journal of the LlngmstlC Association of N~gena 5, 56-71 Zucchl, A, 1993 The language of proposatlons and events Dordrecht Kluwer