The Phonology of Cliticization [Reprint 2012 ed.] 9783111403144, 9783111039732

Table of contents :
Contents
Acknowledgements
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2. Prolegomena to a Prosodic Theory of Cliticization
Chapter 3. The Phonology of Dutch Cliticization
Chapter 4. Clitic Phonology in other Languages
Chapter 5. Summary and Conclusions
References
Index

Citation preview

The Phonology of Cliticization

Egon Berendsen

The Phonology of Cliticization

¥

1986 FORIS PUBLICATIONS Dordrecht - Holland/Riverton - U.S.A.

Published by: Foris Publications Holland P.O. Box 509 3300 AM Dordrecht, The Netherlands Sole distributor for the U.S.A. and Canada: Foris Publications U.S.A. P.O. Box C-50 Riverton N.J. 08077 U.S.A. Cip-data

ISBN 9 0 6 7 6 5 255 5 © 1986 Foris Publications - Dordrecht No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the copyright owner. Printed in the Netherlands by ICG Printing, Dordrecht.

Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Introductory remarks on cliticization 1.2. Background assumptions 1.2.1. The organization of grammar with respect to phonology 1.2.2. Phonological representations

vii 1 1 6 6 6

2. PROLEGOMENA TO A THEORY O F CLITICIZATION 2.1. Types of clitics 2.2. Phonological aspects of cliticization 2.3. A prosodie theory of cliticization 2.3.1. M-incorporation 2.3.2. 0-incorporation 2.A. Summary Notes to Chapter 2.

19 19 23 25 28 29 30 33

3. THE PHONOLOGY OF DUTCH CLITICIZATION 3.1. Introduction 3.2. Dutch clitics 3.3. The syntax of Dutch in a nut-shell 3.4. Dutch clitics and voicing phenomena 3.4.1. Introduction 3.4.2. The behaviour of clitics with respect to voice 3.4.2.1. Initial observations 3.4.2.2. A prosodie account 3.4.2.3. Consonant-initial clitics 3.4.3. Concluding remarks 3.5. Schwa reduction in Dutch cliticization 3.5.1. Introduction 3.5.2. The input structure of CSR 3.5.3. The output structure of CSR 3.5.4. Conclusions 3.6. Ν in hiatus 3.6.1. Introduction 3.6.2. N-deletion 3.6.3. N-insertion 3.6.4. Concluding remarks 3.7. Conclusion Notes to Chapter 3.

35 35 36 Al 45 45 48 48 52 57 74 75 75 75 80 84 84 84 86 91 94 95 97

-

vi

-

4. CLITIC PHONOLOGY IN OTHER LANGUAGES 4.1. Introduction 4.2. Cliticization, lexical and post-lexical processes 4.2.1. Cairene Arabic 4.2.1.1. Hollow verb roots 4.2.1.2. Hollow verb roots and lexical processes 4.3. Prosodie structure and cliticization 4.3.1. Dakota 4.3.1.1. Shaw's analysis 4.3.1.2. A new account of cliticization in Dakota 4.3.2. English 4.3.2.1. Destressing of function words 4.3.2.2. A prosodie account 4.4. Phonological processes and cliticization 4.4.1. Cibaeno Spanish 4.4.1.1. Harris' analysis of Liquid Gliding 4.4.1.2. Clitics and Liquid Gliding revisited 4.4.2. Greek 4.4.2.1. Stressed clitics 4.4.2.2. Some extensions 4.4.3. Palestinian Arabic 4.4.3.1. High Vowel Deletion and Epenthesis 4.4.3.2. Some remarks with respect to cliticization 4.4.4. Margi 4.4.4.1. Tone Polarity 4.4.4.2. A reanalysis of the Margi clitic facts 4.5. Conclusion Notes to Chapter 4.

99 99 101 101 101 102 103 103 103 105 107 107 109 114 114 114 116 117 117 120 123 123 125 128 128 136 139 141

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

143

REFERENCES

149

INDEX

155

Acknowledgements

Many people have contributed to the realization of this thesis. I would like to take

the

opportunity to thank them here, although it is impossible to mention

them all. However, the following people deserve to be mentioned explicitly. First, Wim Zonneveld and Henk Verkuyl who were most intimately involved with this

work. I would like to thank Wim for his many suggestions for improvements

of content and exposition. My gratitude also goes to Henk, who

suggested

some

important changes and supported me in meeting deadlines. Secondly, I would like to thank René Kager and Ellis Visch for their careful reading

of

the prefinal version and for their requests for clarification, and

Marcel van den Broecke for his suggestions and his help with my English. grateful

to

Professor

Cohen

Phonetics at the University of Utrecht for allowing me to finish this am

I

am

and Marcel van den Broecke of the Department of work.

I

also grateful to the members of my dissertation committee, Prof. Bordelois,

Prof. Cohen and Henk Schultink, for the time they spent in reading

the

manus-

cript. Furthermore, I would like to thank Riny Huybregts and Thijs Pollmann for introducing me to linguistics, my former

colleagues of the Section

guistics of the Institute De Vooys and my colleagues of the netics both at the University of Utrecht,

Modern

Lin-

Department of Pho-

for their support,

and Wim de Haas,

Det Paulissen, Mieke Trommelen and Jip Wester for their part in creating such a stimulating phonological environment in Utrecht. Finally, without the non-linguistic support

of

Berendsen this study would not have materialized.

Diana,

Sjoerd

and

Marina

Chapter 1

Introduction

1. Introductory remarks on cliticization

One inevitable task of the modern linguist is the isolation of the morphemes of the language he investigates. When he does this, he finds that they come in two types, bound and unbound. Unbound morphemes, like task, type, hand, and so may

appear

independently,

say,

intuitively

as

'words'.

on,

Bound morphemes ,

however, may not, and we may say that they are the affixes of the

language

in

question, such as -s for plural, un- for negation, and so forth. The latter may occur in plurals such as tasks, types, and hands, and the former in tive

such

an

adjec-

as unbound, but statements such as they are -s and it turned out to

be un- are utterly unacceptable. It will come as no surprise that it is not always easy to this

simple

binary

classification

clearly

maintain

among morphemes. The most recalcitrant of

them are the so-called clitics. Thus, Zwicky (1977, p. 1), one of the most nowned

linguists

working

in

the

languages (...) have morphemes that present analytic difficulties because are

neither

re-

area of cliticization, observes that 'most they

clearly independent words nor clearly affixes. The problem is re-

cognized (...) in traditional language descriptions, where certain elements are set

apart from the ordinary words and affixes of the language by being labeled

clitics.' He then goes on as follows: 'For generative grammarians these

diffi-

culties were obscured for some years, since the traditional domain of morphology was assumed to be apportioned between syntax and phonology. With a return to the

traditional

position that morphological structure and syntactic structure

obey different principles by and large, as

do

morphophonemics

and

phonology

proper, has come the realization that there are borderline cases (...) The generative grammarian's striving for both precision and generalization in linguistic

descriptions

has,

in

fact,

led to the uncovering of a host of analytic

problems (...)'. As an example, consider the Dutch question

is

asked

example

in

(1),

where

a

and answered. If the answer consists of a clitic only, the

answer is ungrammatical. In this respect, the clitic behaves like a bound

mor-

-

2

-

pheme.

(1)

Wie heeft dat gedaan? *Ie Hij

(Who did it?) (He (clitic)) (He (unbound))

On the other hand, the environment does not always seem to govern clitic occurrence:

verbs

(gaf),

nouns (boek), interrogative pronouns (wie), and conjunc-

tions (dat) can occur to the left of ie and articles (een), prepositions (aan), nouns (boeken), and verbs (ging) may occur to its right, as in (2).

(2)a

Gaf ie een boek? (Did he give a book?) Ik vroeg welk boek ie aan Henk gaf. (I asked which book he did give to Henk) Ik vroeg wie ie boeken gaf. (I asked to whom he did give books) Ik dacht dat ie ging. (I thought he went)

b c d

In generative syntax, there has been interest in cliticization-phenomena the

late

sixties.

This

interest

was

order, and, more specifically, by the role of the syntactic language.

In

cycle

(1975)

natural

(1971)

and

on surface filters, and those by Kayne (1969, 1975) on the syn-

tactic cycle. From this, an interest grew in issues selves,

in

these cases, clitics could be used as highly illuminating illus-

trations as demonstrated by a number of studies such as Perlmutter Emonds

since

initially aroused by research on word

concerning

clitics

them-

such as the relationship between weak clitic form and strong form, or,

in other words, the question whether latter,

and

if

so,

the

former

must

be

derived

from

the

whether this must be so for all syntactic positions (cf.

Kayne (1975), Emonds (1975), Strozer (1976), Jaeggli (1982)), and, more recently,

clitic doubling phenomena (cf. Jaeggli (1982), Borer (1984), Aoun (1982)),

and the question theoretical

where

notions

clitics

such

stand

with

respect

to

recently

developed

as the θ-criterion, the case filter, government and

binding, and so on (cf. Jaeggli (1982), Borer (1984), Aoun (1982)). These tactic

investigations

our understanding of this phenomenon, but with almost equal say

that

syn-

into the nature of cliticization have no doubt enlarged certainty

we

can

there is still a great deal about syntactic aspects of cliticization

-

3

-

that is unclear or even unexplored.

As compared to the generative syntactic literature on cliticization, the phonological literature on this topic is much more limited and, apparently relatively more observational. This may be due to the ways syntacticians

and

phonolo-

gists have until recently looked upon this phenomenon. As Kaisse (1985) puts it in the preface of her things,

book:

'(there

are)

syntacticians

interested

in

big

syntacticians interested in little things, arid (...) phonologists. The

first group concerned themselves with movement rules (...);

the

second

group

thought about the generation (or local movement, at most) of single morphemes clitics, auxiliaries, and so forth. Phonologists (...) dealt only segments

within

single

with

single

words.' Even if this view strikes one as an exaggera-

tion, it does contain at least a grain of

truth,

and

so

it

is

really

not

surprising that we do not understand very well the phonological characteristics of cliticization, of which the frequent unstressability of sometimes

clitics

and

logical processes are the most remarkable ones. Cliticization has been of

their

slightly baffling behaviour with respect to otherwise regular phonothought

by phonologists primarily as a sub-area of syntax. Of course, syntacticians

concerned as they are with mining the deeper areas of grammar, were bled

very

not

gated the side-effects of their proposals to the waste-basket of the tive

trou-

much with the surface appearance of their business, and often releinterpre-

components, phonology in this case. Phonologists, if interested, then ti-

died things up with notions such as minor rules, boundary weakening, or just

a

separate clitic boundary. Let me give some brief examples of this situation. For English, Selkirk (1972) postulates a Post Verb Pronoun Clitic mation,

which

Chomsky-adjoins

monosyllabic

personal

pronouns

Transfor-

to preceding

verbs, resulting in structure (3).

V

(3) V

CI

This transformation is assumed solely on the basis of phonological evidence. Of course,

one

wonders why a syntactic operation is thought necessary when there

is no syntactic evidence for such an operation. Specifically, tions

between

syntactic

rela-

elements are disturbed without any convincing syntactic reason.

Furthermore, even if there would be syntactic evidence for this operation,

the

-

4

-

structure in (3) does not provide any information about how it acts in the phonological component of grammar. Clearly, Selkirk wants it to act with

respect

as

one

unit

to phonological operations, but this does not follow immediately

from its syntactic representation. Our second example is taken from Shaw (1980). Following Chambers (1974), she assumes

that

in

Dakota

clitics are separated from the preceding stem by the

clitic-boundary = blocking the rule that assigns primary stress to syllable

from

the

left

in

polysyllabic

words

monosyllabic words. This boundary has the same influence as the on

phonological

stressed

on

processes.

the

clitic-boundary

first

the

second

and to the only syllable in word

boundary

Thus, monosyllabic words followed by a clitic are

syllable.

Of

course,

the

postulation

of

this

is in fact no more than saying that clitics are clitics and as

such relatively uninsightful, and perhaps contrary to fact: if they behave like words,

one's

first

thought is to represent them as such rather than as some-

thing different. We will take the opportunity to come back to Dakota cliticization in Chapter 4.3.1. Finally, OzkaragBz (1981) assumes for Turkish an optional process

of

boun-

dary weakening (from # to =) and a subsequent obligatory rule of vowel-deletion deriving

clitics

vowel-harmony.

from

words

However,

it

in

casual

speech.

These

clitics

undergo

is highly unlikely that vowel-harmony is a casual

speech process. It seems quite clear that such cases reflect a considerable amount of uncertainty with regard to the phonology of cliticization. In my opinion, this situation is essentially due to the confusion of two notions: first, the acceptance that

syntax

and

phonology

are

to

a

large extent mutually autonomous, and

second, the premature conclusion that the phenomenon therefore

have

of

cliticization

as so often, cliticization may have both a syntactic and a the

specific

should

to belong to either. This to the detriment of the option that, phonological

task of the linguist being to reconcile these two to the best of

his abilities. In a broad sense this also describes the actual purpose of study.

The

side,

view

expressed

this

above is not new, and has been worked out for in-

stance in recent work by Klavans (1982, 1985) and Zwicky and Pullum (1983), although

in

this work, without denying it its useful and precise character, the

exact nature of phonological cliticization is not clarified. My decision, embarking

upon

this

study,

standing of the various aspects of cliticization phonology

introduced

seems

have

to

by

several

when

was to try to find links towards a better under-

Liberman advantages.

with

respect

to

non-linear

(1975) and Goldsmith (1976). This approach First,

the

hierarchical

notation

of

-

non-linear,

5

-

especially metrical, phonology has proved itself to be excellently

suited for establishing the Groundbreaking

proper

relation

between

syntax

and

phonology.

work in this respect has been executed by Selkirk (1980b,c) and

Nespor and Vogel (1982). Furthermore, one of the main results of this and other work

was

the discovery that boundary-symbols, such as those postulated by Oz-

karagöz (1981) and Shaw (1980), are not the proper phenomena

mechanism

account

for

of this type. Napoli and Nespor (1979) and Kaisse (1985), among oth-

ers, show that the theory of boundaries proposed by Chomsky and

to

Selkirk

(1972)

and

Halle

(1968)

is inadequate for handling several phonological processes

found in a variety of languages. Furthermore, Selkirk (1980b) argues that

this

theory predicts phonological processes which do not seem to exist. And finally, Napoli and Nespor (1979) argue that the postulation of boundary deletions in

the

(and

same vein: weakenings) overgenerates heavily in ways that seem to defy

constraining.

In Chapter 2. of this study, I will outline my

prosodie

clitic

theory

along

general lines. First, I will briefly go into the various types of clitics known from the literature and will limit the discussion to one type: lexically stored clitics

which cliticize phonologically. Secondly, I will consider more or less

general phonological aspects of cliticization, briefly alluded to above. I will illustrate

these

aspects

by

briefly

comparing

cliticization

in

various

languages, pointing to similarities and differences. Third, a general

prosodie

theory of cliticization will be established, accounting in broad terms for phonological properties of the lexically theory

will

be

parametric,

parameters which make it

stored

clitics.

This

prosodie

clitic

i.e. it will be shown to have certain options or

possible

to

account

for

the

differences

between

languages with respect to cliticization phenomena. The best imaginable test for a general theory of a linguistic phenomenon to

put

it

to

the

test

language. We set ourselves this task in Chapter 3., where the of

is

in a thoroughly executed analysis of one particular prosodie

theory

cliticization is tested against a wide variety of phonological processes in

Dutch which seem to take cliticization into account.

The

following

processes

will be considered: Syllable Final Devoicing and other voicing phenomena, Schwa Reduction in processes

clitics,

N-deletion

and

N-insertion.

The

analyses

of

these

with respect to cliticization provide firm evidence for the prosodie

clitic theory proposed in Chapter 2. Since the second best imaginable test for a linguistic theory is to see it

how

works in a variety of preferably unrelated languages, we will in Chapter 4.

-

6

-

give a survey of cliticization phenomena in Dakota, English, Greek,

Palestinian

surveyed

Spanish,

Arabic, Margi, and Cairene Arabic, basing ourselves on the

literature, but reanalyzing the observations phenomena

Cibaeno

made

there

in

our

terms.

The

are both linear and non-linear in nature, and they have to

do with the proper position of clitics in prosodie

structure.

Again,

I

will

show how they fit into the general theory proposed in Chapter 2. In particular, the different parameters of this theory will be shown to be relevant. Finally, Chapter 5. summarizes our findings. In that chapter, we

will

also

take the opportunity to make some concluding remarks. Since my background assumptions are crucial for an understanding of the proposals

and analyses in the rest of this study, I will first deal with them be-

fore going on with the next chapter.

2. Background assumptions

2.1. The organization of grammar with respect to phonology

In Chomsky and Halle (1968) (=SPE) the phonological rules of grammar were

ori-

ginally considered to apply simply after all syntactic rules, i.e. to syntactic surface structure containing items in their underlying where

surface

form.

In

those

cases

structure failed to be an adequate representation for phonology

to operate on, it was adjusted by so-called readjustment rules

placed

between

syntax and phonology proper. Among the tasks of these rules was to insert boundary-symbols into the

bracketed

syntactic

structure.

Certain

operations took also place here. This SPE-model is given in (4).

morphological

-

w

7

-

SYNTAX

LEXICON lexical items

->

->

SEMANTICS

base rules

1 transformations

i

surface structure

i PHONOLOGY readjustment rules

1 phonological rules

i

phonetic representation

This view of the organization of grammar, since

SPE.

After

the

place in grammar, notably as part of the basket

module

of

however,

has

considerably

changed

publication of Chomsky (1970), morphology took its own lexicon

rather

than

in

the

waste

the omnifunctional readjustment sub-component. This line of

research was taken up by Halle (1973), Siegel (1974), and Aronoff (1976). These studies

investigated

the contents of the morphological component of a genera-

tive grammar, specifically with regards to its rule types and internal

organi-

zation. One of the most relevant consequences of these investigations was the

claim

that some morphological operations were in fact dependent upon information provided by phonological rules, and vice versa. Thus, a certain type of entered

the

phonology

lexicon, leaving the phonological component. Out of this grew the

model of so-called Lexical Phonology which assumes a certain amount of interaction

between

morphology

and

lexical

phonology (cf. Mascaro (1976), Mohanan

(1981), Kiparsky (1982), and Strauss (1982)). Of course, the phonological component came out none the worse and its proper characteristics

may

now be considered the following. Lexical phonology has as

its domain 'the word', and rules apply cyclically after the word's cal

structure.

Post-lexical

(and

post-syntactic)

'sentence'-phonology, and non-cyclic. Its domains, however, ways

morphologi-

phonology are

prosodie,

is in

to be specified below. Boundaries have been recognized as an improper way

of limiting these domains, after Selkirk (1980b), who proposed instead

a

map-

ping of syntactic surface structures into prosodie structures to mark phonolog-

-

8

-

ical domains. Furthermore, she proposed that phonological rules which act

upon

syntactic information, apply before the mapping of syntactic surface structures into prosodie structures and that phonological rules proper

apply

after

this

mapping. Berendsen (1985a) argues for the same division on the basis of the effects of phonologically empty elements upon

a

certain

type

of

phonological

rules. Recently, Kaisse (1985) has augmented this model of post-lexical phonology with a fourth subcomponent to account for rules,

which

are

influenced

so-called

late,

casual

speech

by performance factors such as style and speech

rate. Under these assumptions, the organization of grammar is that of (5).

(5)

SYNTAX

LEXICON lexical items

base rules ->

1 transformations

-> SEMANTICS |

I surface structure

Ï PHONOLOGY phonosyntactic rules

I mapping rules

Ì phonological rules

i casual speech rules

I phonetic representation

It is this model of grammar that I take to be

one

of

the

basic

assumptions

behind the research into the phonology of cliticization reported on below.

-

9

-

2.2. Phonological representations

Another area of

research

representations.

has

concentrated

on

the

nature

of

phonological

Until the raid-seventies a phonological representation in gen-

erative phonology was considered to exist of a linear non-hierarchical sequence of

segments

and

boundaries.

Each of these segments consisted of a bundle of

distinctive features, each with a plus or a minus value. At least two sorts boundaries

were

assumed:

the

affix

of

boundary (+) and the word boundary (#).

Word-boundaries arose by insertion rules in the readjustment component, operating

upon

the labelled bracketing of surface syntax. These boundaries could be

altered by subsequent readjustments in various ways, for instance #,

by

deleting

or by weakening # to +. To give an example: the syntactic surface structure

in (6a) was assumed to be changed into the structure with boundaries in (6b) by insertion

of

these

boundaries at the edge of every lexical and syntactic ca-

tegory (graphemes in fact represent feature bundles

for

brevity).

Subsequent

readjustments altered (6b) into (6c).

(6)a

[ S [ N P [ N John]][ v p [ v [ v meet]ed][ N p [ d e t the][ N boy]]]]

b

[S*[NP#tN# John# I#11 VP#[ V#[ V r a e e t # ] e d # I [ N P # [ d e t t h e Π N # b ° y #

c

t S# [ NP# [ Ν J o h n ] # Π VP# [ V [ V m e e t ] + e d ] [ NP # U e t t h e Η N#b°y I ] # ] # J

Following the lines set out by SPE, representations

such

subsequent

research

W * W

showed

for several types of phonological phenomena. Nowadays phonological tion

is

assumed

that

linear

as those in (6) made it impossible to account adequately representa-

to be three-dimensional in order to account for phonological

phenomena. It is not my purpose to go into details of arguments for the

postu-

lation of all aspects of a three-dimensional phonological representation over a linear one. I will simply indicate here what sort of phenomena made sary

to

broaden

our

view

on

it

neces-

phonological representation and point towards

phenomena which can be dealt with more adequately in a three-dimensional framework (see for a handy summary the first chapter of Van der Hulst (1984)). After that, I will deal with those aspects of three dimensional phonology of particular relevance to our proposals concerning cliticization.

which

are

- 10 -

SPE considered segments to be the building blocks of tion.

phonological

representa-

However, tonal phenomena such as contour tones and tone stability, could

not be adequately accounted for Goldsmith

in

this

approach.

This

led

Leben

should not be represented within the segmental feature bundle, should

(1973),

(1976) and Williams (1976) to the conclusion that the tonal features

appear

on

a

separate

level

but

that

they

of their own (a so-called autosegmental

tier), associated with the segmental representation by association lines. sequent

research

into

the

Sub-

proper characteristics of autosegmental phonology

made it clear that harmony processes could be dealt with more adequately if one assumes

that the harmonizing feature(s) have a position on a separate autoseg-

mental level. Furthermore, ambisyllabicity, vowel length, and affricates

could

be accounted for in a framework which consists of a central core of only consonantal and vocalic elements, while the so-called

segmental

remaining

features

are

placed

on

a

tier. Thus, segments are now considered to be C or V ele-

ments associated with autosegments from several independent planes, rather than as bundles of features, as represented in (7).

C V c

(7)

"i'Yx Y Y Y ζ ζ ζ

Another aspect of SPE's segmental approach was that in stress

phenomena,

the

theory

order

to

account

had to allow for ad hoc elaborations. However,

Liberman (1975) and Liberman and Prince (1977) convincingly showed that did

for

stress

not fit in a segmental approach. Their primary observation with respect to

stress was that it is a relative property, which branching

trees

in

which

the

sister

they

represented

in

binary

nodes were labeled either s(trong) or

w(eak). This approach is called metrical phonology. Subsequent research

showed

that the syllable is represented most adequately within a metrical framework as well, with structure built upon the CV-elements of within

the

CV-tier.

Furthermore,

metrical phonology, certain nodes were assumed to be labelled with pro-

sodie categories, such as syllable and phonological word, which delimit domains for

the

application of phonological rules, thus doing away with boundary sym-

bols. So above CV-elements one may for example prosodie structure.

find

the

following

metrical,

-Ii-

M

is)

Λ ΛΑ

w

s

w

w

s

w

w

s

w

C

V

C

C

V

C

C

V

C

In much work on metrical phonology, metrical trees have a tion,

the

so-called

for rhythmic phenomena and is supposed to be rather Hayes

(1984a)).

Recently,

Prince

(1983)

and

phonetic

Selkirk

grid-only framework, that is, a framework virtually without structure.

However,

derived

because

of

in

(1984)

myself

to

these

(cf.

argued for a prosodie

Hayes (1984a), I will not follow this latter so

I

res-

short remarks. In this study I will be primarily con-

cerned with metrical prosodie structure. The relation between the the

nature

metrical

proposal. Actually, grids are not really dealt with in this study, trict

representa-

metrical grid. This representation is assumed to account

CV-tier

and

segmental tier will play a role in some respects as well. Below, I will go

into some details of these topics.

Syllable structure will not be our primary concern here. However, it will

play

a role in some respects and therefore it is necessary to make the following remarks. The sw-relation of sister nodes in the syllable is not one of prominence but

one

of

sonority.

Furthermore, the syllable is divided in an onset and a

rime, the latter existing of a peak and a coda. Onset, peak, and coda each dominate elements of the CV-tier.

-

12

-

$

(9) /

rime

onset w C

peakg V

coda,w C

The syllable is built according to the so-called sonority hierarchy (cf. Kiparsky

(1979)) in such a way that vowels, the most sonorant segments, are members

of the peak and consonants (less sonorant) are placed around them. less

universal

A

more

or

principle is the Maximal Onset Principle (cf. Selkirk (1983)),

which requires that onsets are filled maximally, whenever possible,

i.e.

with

respect to the sonority hierarchy and language specific constraints on syllable structure. Another relevant part of syllable theory for operation

ble structure does not meet universal syllable

structure

anymore

(for

purposes

is

the

again

and

language-specific

requirements

of

example after deletion or insertion of seg-

ments, or after affixation) automatic 'optimal'

our

of resyllabification. It appears to be the case that whenever sylla-

resyllabification

applies

to

make

it

(cf. Lowenstamm (1979), Clements and Keyser (1983) and Harris

(1983)). The domain in which resyllabification takes place seems to be

univer-

sally determined within the word. Of course, there may be language-specific deviations.

As already mentioned, syllable structure is constructed on the elements of central

CV-tier.

Therefore, this is the place to go into the relation between

syllable, CV-tier and segmental tier. In fact, I assume the onset and the to

the coda

dominate C's of the CV-tier and the peak to dominate V's. Most of the time,

I omit indications of onset, peak and coda in the representations that

follow.

Furthermore, elements of the segmental tier must be associated with elements of the CV-tier. This association is constrained crossing

association

by

a

condition

which

excludes

lines, and by a condition which in general prevents that

consonantal elements on the segmental tier

are

associated

with

V's

on

the

CV-tier, and vice versa. However, this condition leaves open the possibility of having an element on one tier associated with other,

thus

making

two

or

more

elements

on

the

it possible to account for long vowels, consisting of two

vocalic elements on the segmental tier associated with one on the CV-tier,

and

for ambisyllabic consonants, i.e. two C's of the CV-tier associated to one consonantal element on the segmental tier. All this is represented in (10).

- 13 -

/ Χ C V C

A

C V c

m b a b

I Ν b a b

(10)

*$

CM^C

/ χ C V C C V c

Λ

/ X C V c

ΙΛΙ ba ab

I I V b a b

II ab

I II b a b

$

I now turn to the relevance of metrical stress-patterns.

I

assume,

$

structure

and

the

the

repesentation

of

after Liberman (1975), Liberraan and Prince (1977)

and others, that the stress-pattern of a word must trees

for be

derived

from

metrical

way in which the nodes of these trees are labelled: a syllable

only dominated by s's has the main stress; the degree of stress on other syllables

is

inversely

proportional to the depth of embedding of these syllables.

Furthermore, a [stress] feature to achieve a proper interpretation of trees

metrical

is not necessary (cf. Selkirk (1980a) and Hayes (1981)). Thus, the words

órigin, difficùlt, and hâmamelidânthenum are represented as in (11).

Λ Λ A

(11)

M

F

F„

F.

s w difficult

s w w origin

Fι w

F¿ w

Fs

Λ

s w s w s w w hamamelidanthemum

Furthermore, it is observed in particular by Hayes (1981) that

many

languages

have words with a regular foot pattern, but that some of them have an irregular pattern at the edge of some words, while the rest of the word is regular. It is in these latter cases that the notion 'extrametricality' is useful. At the edge of words, elements, i.e. segments, syllables, and morphemes, can trametrical

by

lexical

be

made

ex-

marking or by rule. The extrametrical elements do not

count as relevant for the foot construction rules of the language, and they are adjoined

later

in

the derivation as a weak node. Thus for example, in Latin,

feet are binary with the restriction that a heavy syllable may not be w. Furthermore,

final

syllables

of words are assumed to be extrametrical and thus do

not count for foot-construction in the word in question. After the

foot

construction

application

rules, the extrametrical syllable is adjoined by Stray

Adjunction as a weak node to the foot, in this case to its left. Stray tion

is

a

convention

of

Adjunc-

which applies whenever it can be applied. It is an in-

•In-

stance of a general condition requiring that all elements

should

be

part

of

prosodie structure: i.e. that there are no floating elements. The derivation in (12) shows this. Extrametrical elements are placed within parentheses.

(12)

refec(tus) part.perf.

refee(cit) refi(cit) (to remake) ind.perf. ind.pres. 3 pers.sing. 3 pers.sing.

s w refectus

s w refeecit

Foot Construction

Stray Adjunction

Word tree

M I F

s w w reficit

Adjunction of floating elements will be one of the

leading

ideas

behind

the

prosodie theory of cliticization to be proposed in the next chapter.

At this point we arrive at the third area in which prosodie structure has ven

to

be

relevant:

pro-

domains of phonological rules. Prosodie categories also

happen to function as the domains of phonological rules. This was already known for

the

categories

syllable and phonological word, but is also the case with

respect to other prosodie categories. With respect to domains and prosodie tegories

above

the

ca-

word level, research is still in an early stage. However,

these prosodie categories will be very important in the following chapters,

so

it is worth going into aspects of prosodie structure above the word level here. The most careful and promising study in this area is Nespor and

Vogel

(1982).

They base their assumptions about prosodie categories largely on the domains in which several external sandhi rules apply. Furthermore, they assume these sodie

pro-

categories to be derived by mapping rules (cf. (5)). In particular their

-

15 -

investigation into the first prosodie category above the word level, called

0,

is very interesting, because they claim to have developed a universal mechanism for 0-construction. Their procedure for 0-construction is the following.

(13)a

b

Join into a 0 any lexical head (X) with all items on its non-recursive side within the maximal projection and with any other non-lexical items on'the same side (e.g. prepositions, complementizers, conjunctions, copulas, ...) 0 branches in the same direction as the syntactic trees

As one can see, crucial use is made of syntactic information. is

clear

that

the

lexical

item

non-lexical items are weak. An example of 0 as the rule

Furthermore,

it

in 0 is the strongest element and that the domain

of

a

phonological

can be found in Tuscan Italian. There, the well-known process of Raddopi-

amento Sintattico (RS) is restricted to apply in 0. RS

lengthens

the

initial

consonant of a word that is preceded by a word ending in a stressed vowel. This will be clear when one considers (14) in which tre and cani are in one and

the

same 0, while blu and misteriosi are not. So only the k of cani lengthens.

(14)

0

0

0

/ \ tre cani

I blu

misteriosi

(three mysterious blue dogs)

1 k:

Nespor

and

Vogel

0-construction.

(1982) The

add

first

two

is

proviso's

that

there

to are

their

0-restructuring rules, enlarging the domain 0. Secondly, appear

in

a

syntactically

marked

position,

instruction

language-specific

count

lexical as

for

optional

items

non-lexical

which for

0-construction. The next prosodie category is I, the Intonational Phrase. Nespor also

propose

an

instruction

admit that it is a first guess.

for

and

Vogel

I-construction, although they more or less

-

(15)a

16

-

Any displaced syntactic constituents, parentheticals and nonrestrictive relative clauses obligatorily form at least one I Starting with the first 0 of a sentence, join as many 0's as possible into an I until either 1) the end of the maximal projection of an Ν is reached, or 2) another S 1 begins. Once such an I is formed, proceed in the same way until the end of the main sentence is reached. Join any remaining 0's at the end of a sentence into an I. I is right branching

b

c

By further rules two or more very short I's, constructed by (15b), can be

made

longer, and conversely very long I's can be broken up into smaller ones. Finally, all I's in a root sentence are brought together in a right-branching structure dominated by U (Utterance), the highest prosodie category. Of course, both I and U function as domains for phonological rules. Thus Nespor and serve

that

Flapping

in

American

English

Vogel

ob-

is restricted to apply within the

domain I. This is shown in (16). In (16a) met and Anne are in one I, thus Flapping

is

applied, whereas in (16b) rat and eat are not in one I, thus Flapping

cannot be applied in this case.

(16)a

John met Anne

i

D

0 I

0 ι

0

. I

/ \

Roger, alias the rat, eats only

cheese

.1

*D

These remarks about prosodie structure above the word level end this section on background

assumptions.

The

notions

dealt with here, will play an important

role in the sccount that is going to be given of clitic phonology· In the

rest

of this study, I will concentrate on an account of phonological aspects of eli-

- 17 -

ticization. It is my purpose to establish a cliticization

within

post-lexical

prosodie

theory

of

the framework of non-linear phonology in Chapter 2. This

theory will be tested by closely investigating the phonology of Dutch

clitici-

zation in Chapter 3. In Chapter 4., the testing will be continued more globally for the clitic-phonology of other languages. Finally, in summarize our findings.

Chapter

5.,

I

will

Chapter 2

Prolegomena to a Prosodie Theory of Cliticization 1. Types of clitics

In a generative treatment to the phonology of cliticization, it is hard to nore

Zwicky's

(1977)

oft-cited

overview

of

types

of

clitics

ig-

in natural

languages. He distinguishes three types: 1. 'simple clitics', which are phonologically reduced forms of corresponding strong forms, occupying the same positions as these corresponding strong forms; 2. 'special clitics', which are at least semantically related to a strong form, have a superficially similar phonological shape, but otherwise special syntax and special phonology; 3. 'bound words', which do not correspond to unbound words and show large syntactic freedom. Some examples may clarify these distinctions. As an example of Zwicky

cites

simple

clitics

weak object pronouns in English. According to him, these clitics

are derived from a corresponding unbound word by phonological

reduction

(see,

however, Chapter 4.3.2. for a non-reduction approach to English pronominal clitics) and they appear in the same syntactic positions. This is shown in (1).

(l)a b

He sees hér (unbound word) He sees r (clitic)

An example of the second, special type of clitics can be found that

in

French.

In

language, clitic-pronouns such as le (him) and me (me) are normally used,

whereas their unbound counterparts lui and moi are used if the pronoun must stressed.

be

Furthermore, the clitic pronouns occur in front of the verb, whereas

the full pronouns occur after the verb.

-

(2)a b

20

-

Je vois lúi (unbound word) Je le vois (clitic) (I see him)

One of Zwicky's examples of bound words is Latin - q u e (and) which cally

associated

is

semanti-

with a word, phrase, or clause, though it is attached to the

first word in such a unit. Two examples are given in (3).

(3)a

Duasque ibi legiones conscribit two and there legions (he) enrolls (and (he) enrolls two legions there) arma virumque (arms and the man (acc.))

b

A similar, though more refined, division can be striking

feature

found

in

Klavans

(1982).

of this type of work, one which we had also occasion to com-

ment on in Chapter 1.1., is that in its argumentation it does not in the place

distinguish

A

between

phonological,

first

morphological and syntactic charac-

teristics of clitics. Secondly, this work is relatively pre-theoretical in that the

inventories

themselves appear to be its main aim rather than the possibly

stimulating context of a theory which predicts certain inventories rather others.

than

Precisely the latter track will be taken here. In a modular generative

approach to the phenomenon of cliticization, we expect syntactic properties

to

differ from phonological ones, lexical ones from syntactic ones, and so on, although all may interact in ways that themselves may be tion.

subject

to

investiga-

To be slightly more precise, the various aspects of cliticization may be

approached as follows. Zwicky's division into three types of clitics makes clear that there are two ways

for

clitics

to

arrive at their clitic-status. The first is to become a

clitic by phonological reduction from unbound words as is the case with clitics.

In

the

simple

second option, clitics are not to be derived by phonological

reduction, but rather have a status of their own: they are stored

as

such

in

the lexicon. Thus, special clitics are listed in the lexicon, probably as allomorphs of their strong counterpart, and bound words are listed in without

any

allomorphy-relation.

the

lexicon

Clitics depend on a host, to which they are

adjoined. For clitics which are derived by phonological reduction, this adjunction

can

only take place in the phonological component, because they only ob-

tain their clitic-status there. For lexically

stored

clitics,

there

are

at

-

least

three

components

of

grammar

21

-

in which adjunction can potentially take

place. Since these clitics are stored in the lexicon, they can adjoined

in

potentially

be

the lexicon itself, in the syntactic component, and in the phono-

logical component. However, if the clitic is adjoined to a host in the lexicon, there

is

little

reason to call this adjunction cliticization. It is more ap-

propriate to call it affixation. Thus, I assume here a definition of cliticization

in which this notion is limited to non-lexical adjunction. So the differ-

ence between affixation and cliticization is expressed by their position of application

in the grammar. Notice that a consequence of this definition of cli-

ticization is that lexical phonological rules cannot be applied to sequences of word plus clitic, since these sequences are not encountered as such in the lexicon. As I already remarked in (1982,

Chapter

1.1.,

following

in

particular

1985), cliticization may have a syntactic and a phonological side. This

means that cliticization may be syntactic adjunction, phonological or

both.

adjunction,

The most spectacular examples are those cases in which the clitic is

syntactically adjoined to one side and phonologically to the to

Klavans

Klavans

(1985),

such

a

other.

According

case is found in Kwakwala. In that language, the

function-marking clitics da (deictic), xa (object) and sa (oblique) are syntactically

adjoined

to the Ν to their right. Phonologically, however, these cli-

tics are adjoined to the word to their left. This is exemplified in (4),

where

= means phonological adjunction.

(4)

Ν Cl I I ganamen = xa throw deic child obj house obi rock (the child hit the house with a rock by throwing)

Only clitics belonging to Zwicky's special clitics and bound words have two potential adjunction sides.

From this, the following areas of investigation cliticization,

aspects

arise:

aspects

of

syntactic

of phonological cliticization of lexically stored eli-

-

22

-

tics, aspects of cliticization by phonological reduction, and the lexical relationship

between

special clitic and corresponding bound word. Another area of

investigation is the generation of the lexically stored structure.

In

clitics

base generation, transformational operation, spell-out of other

in

syntactic

the literature, several means to generate clitics can be found: case,

theta

and/or

features, and allomorphy. Furthermore, one could investigate the differ-

ences in generation between those clitics which are only

syntactic

in

nature

and those which are only phonological in nature. Of these possible topics of investigation, I have deals

with

vestigated. I will try to find links towards various

selected

the

aspects

of

cliticization

I

which

a

better

understanding

will

of

cliticiza-

not be concerned about aspects of phonological cliticization by

reduction. The phonological reduction of words to clitics appears to be enced

by

performance

speech

influ-

factors, such as style and speech tempo. This makes the

phonological reduction rules likely candidates for casual

the

with respect to non-linear phonology. This

does not mean that I will deal with all aspects of the phonology of tion.

one

the phonology of cliticization, a subject which is rather underin-

a

position

in

the

late,

module of the post-lexical phonology. However, since the proper

characteristics of this module are rather obscure, it is difficult to

go

into

details about clitic reduction. Furthermore, the obscurity of the casual speech component is the reason that we are not in the position to make insightful servations

about

phonological

reduction

type of cliticization for what it is. It will only be considered when against

such

a

ob-

of clitics. Therefore, I leave this I

argue

reduction analysis and in favour of a lexical storage of cli-

tics. Fortunately, the situation with respect to lexically stored clitics is promising.

As

these

they may play a role as clitic in the post-lexical phonological component the

more

clitics originate in the syntactic component of grammar, from

start. The early sub-components of the post-lexical phonology, in contrast

to the casual speech part, are relatively well-understood. Thus we are in a position to enlarge our understanding of phonological aspects of cliticization on the basis of our existing knowledge of the early parts of the post-lexical phonology. In the next section, I will attempt to deepen our preliminary view upon the object of investigation of this study.

- 23 2. Phonological aspects of cliticization

In the preceding section, I have surveyed types of clitics and limited the discussion to phonological cliticization of lexically stored clitics. In this section I will survey phonological phenomena triggered by these clitics.

One of the initially most striking phonological aspects the

fact

that

of

cliticization^

is

clitics generally appear to lack accent. It is impossible, for

example, for Dutch clitics to receive contrastive stress, as is

shown

by

the

examples in (5).

(5)a b

*Ws eten vlees, maar za eten kip (we (cl) eat meat, but they (cl) eat chicken) Wij eten vlees, maar zij eten kip (we eat meat, but they eat chicken)

Empirically, though, we cannot say that clitics languages

appear

are

always

unstressed.

Some

to have stressed clitics. Thus in Chapter 4.4.2. we will en-

counter Greek cases in which a clitic is stressed,

one

example

of

which

is

property

of

given here.

(6)

fére (bring)

fère mú to (bring to me it)

In such cases, however, stress on the clitic appears not to be the

clitic

a

itself, but rather of clitic plus host. Thus, we can say here that

clitics are inherently unstressed, but may receive

some

degree

of

so-called

derived stress in some languages.

A second phonological characteristic of clitics is their slightly attitude

toward

otherwise regular word-internal phonological processes, which

they undergo in some cases, whereas they fail to do so in 4.4.1.,

we

will

schizofrenie

deal

with of

an

example

from

Liquid

Gliding

(1,

others.

Cibaeno r

->

i)

Spanish. at

the

In

Chapter

There,

a

word-internal

process

righthand

syllable-edge

is applied if a liquid-final word precedes a vowel-initial word,

- 24 as exemplified in (7a). However, this rule is bled

if

a

liquid-final

clitic

stands in front of a vowel-initial word, as is shown in (7b).

(7)a

*el avisa (he advises) ei avisa

b

el aviso (the advice) *ei aviso

It seems that the clitic in (7b) has 'affix'-status and

is

incorporated

into

the following word. This incorporation triggers resyllabification which results in the bleeding of Liquid Gliding. In (7a), however, el

is

an

unbound

word,

thus its final 1 undergoes Liquid Gliding. An example in which clitics do found

in

Dakota,

an

not

Amerindian

influence

word-internal

processes

is

language we will consider in Chapter 4.3.1.

Here, consonant final stems at the end of a word optionally followed by a

cli-

tic, are augmented with the vowel a. Thus in (8) not only the stem i^ap is augmented with a, but also the stem 3uk which is followed by the clitic wa.

(8)

3uk wa - > Suka (dog a (cl))

wa

£hap -> £hapa (beaver)

As will be noted, clitics do not influence this word-internal process. These two types of behaviour processes

may

with

respect

to

word-internal

co-occur in one single language, and in fact in one single cli-

tic. Thus, in Dutch, vowel-initial clitics may, but do not have general

phonological

process

of

Syllable

to

bleed

the

Final Devoicing, if preceded by an underlyingly

voiced word- and syllable-final obstruent: both pronunciations of

heb

in

(9)

are possible. These cases will be dealt with in Chapter 3.4.

(9)a b

He[b]ak dat gedaan (did I do that) He[p]ak dat gedaan

Finally, the vast majority of clitics one finds discussed in the literature monosyllabic

Wiese (to app.)). This clearly strikes one as the unmarked case. On hand,

is

as is also illustrated by the clitics considered so far (cf. also

observations

on

solely

the

other

consonantal, and polysyllabic clitics occur as

- 25 -

well and I will make suggestions about the status of these marked cases

as

we

proceed. Together with the host-dependency, considered in Chapter 1.1., it seems that at least

the following phonological characteristics are typical of the phenomenon

of cliticization as described in this study: (a) clitics 'depend on hosts'; (b) clitics are inherently unstressed; (c) clitics behave schizofrenically with respect to their influence on word-internal phonological processes; (d) clitics are normally monosyllabic. These observations will be the subject of this study, or, in other

words,

our

goal will be to derive a theory, based on the modular approach to grammar, that accounts for them in a natural way and, to the plains

largest

possible

extent,

ex-

them in the usual generative sense of this word. In the next section, I

will establish the initial foundations of such a theory.

3. A prosodie theory of cliticization

Within the framework of this study, a prosodie have

to

account

for

theory

of

cliticization

will

the above-mentioned characteristics of lexically stored

clitics in a natural and straightforward fashion. In establishing this theory I will

follow

the

line

parametric approach.

of current linguistic research which takes a so-called

The

leading

idea

is

that

Universal

Grammar

is

the

characterization of the innate principles which make it possible for a child to learn a language. Universal Grammar consists for example construction

of

of

devices

of

Universal

Grammar

admit

a

certain

language-learning child, the so-called parameters. data,

the

the

the rule system, the system of representations, the system of

conditions on rules and representations, and the components of devices

for

number Based

of on

grammar.

These

choices for the the

experienced

child selects devices of Universal Grammar and fixes the parameters

belonging to these devices. Thus, the child is constructing a core grammar. this

core

grammar

To

a periphery of marked elements and constructions are added

-

26

-

(cf. Chomsky (1982, p. 1-16))· Setting a certain parameter may

have

consider-

able consequences, whereas the differences between the choices seems to be very limited. Consider as an example the following. One of the devices of Grammar

seems

to

be

that

Universal

phonological structure is represented in a binary

branching metrical structure, the direction of branching being a parameter. The language-learning

child

has

to

fix

this

parameter,

either

left-

right-branching, on the basis of the experienced data. Let us assume for ple

or

exam-

that the branching parameter has to be set for the level of the phonologi-

cal word: either structure (10a) or structure (10b) must be chosen.

A consequence of this choice between left- or right-branching will

be

encountered

is

that

stress

word-initially or word-finally respectively. I will show

that this approach is rather fruitful in accounting for phonological aspects of cliticization. Given these preliminaries, let us see what the contours of

a

prosodie

clitic

theory will look like, starting with observations on the inherent unstressability of clitics. In the theory of metrical prosodie phonology, stress is tially

considered

to

vowel or the peak of the syllable, is more prominent (stressed) This

binary

than

stress

seems

to

another.

is expressed by the labels 's1 versus 'w' in a binary

opposition

branching metrical structure, as exemplified in Chapter 1.2.2. This of

essen-

a relative notion: one 'stress-bearer 1 , usually the

be

make

relativity

it impossible to analyze monosyllabic words as in-

herently stressed, that is, stressed in the lexicon. In this case, there are no s-

and

w-labels,

so

one

cannot speak about prominence here. However, it is

well-known that many monosyllabic words are in fact inherently Selkirk

(1980a)

stressed.

Both

and Hayes (1981) account for the stress of monosyllabic words

by stipulating that 'being a (Foot) always implies some degree

of

prominence'

(Selkirk (1980a, p. 565)). This is relevant to the phonology of cliticization in the following way. pointed

out

above,

clitics

are

As

usually monosyllabic and are inherently un-

- 27 -

stressed. If we ask our theory how to treat monosyllables under the

demand

of

unstressability, a type of element surfaces which is left undominated lexically by the prosodie categories foot or word. Although initially this one

may

be

only

alternative out of several, it seems to me highly attractive as a starting

point in the sense that in this way we account for the fact inherently

that

clitics

are

unstressed. If a clitic receives some degree of stress, this stress

must be derived by post-lexical mechanisms. A further consequence appears to be the following. It is likely that the fact that two or more syllables belong together lexically, is also expressed phonologically by putting

these

syllables

together in a foot and/or phonological word, resulting in sw-relations and thus in stressed syllables. These polysyllabic elements in fact lack one of the most stable clitic-characteristics, viz. inherent unstressability, and are therefore highly reluctant to show phonological clitic b e h a v i o u r R e c a p i t u l a t i n g , logical

phono-

clitics are provided in the lexicon only with prosodie information re-

garding syllable structure. They are marked as not undergoing the lexical footand

phonological

word-construction

rules.

This implies that clitics are in-

herently unstressed.

These clitics meet with other elements in syntactic structure. As above,

out

the generation of clitics in syntactic structure may take place by sev-

eral means. Crucial for us here is that the clitic's mains

pointed

lexical

information

re-

unchanged under its insertion in syntactic structure. This holds for the

insertion of other elements in syntactic structure as phonological

clitics

are

still

provided

well.

being a syllable only. As soon as these clitics enter the logical

This

means

that

with their prosodie information of post-lexical

phono-

component, the clitic-syllables are floating. Since floating syllables

have to be incorporated

into

prosodie

structure

both

in

the

lexicon

and

post-lexically, these clitic-syllables have to be incorporated too. The characteristic that clitics may behave schizofrenically with respect to processes

(i.e.

phonological

they behave either more like an affix or more like an unbound

word) suggests that this may happen in at least two ways: (a)

clitics

may

be

incorporated into already existing phonological words to their left or to their right, or (b) clitics may be part of higher prosodie categories. Below, I deal with these two possibilities in this order.

will

-

28

-

3.1. M-incorporation

As remarked above, syntactic surface structure has already been specified the

prosodie

categories

of

and under the word level. Before one proceeds to

construct prosodie structure above the word level, one of away

with

floating

with

clitic-syllables

is

the

options

to

to incorporate them as members of a

neighbouring phonological word by Stray Syllable Adjunction. In that case, clitic

will

do the

automatically occupy a weak position. Together with the plausible

notion 'direction of cliticization', this results in the schematic

representa-

tions in (11).

One further aspect of adjunction of clitics to phonological

words

has

to

be

considered: is there any information necessary to trigger adjunction and if so, what is the nature of this information? If the information is (in

part)

based

on syntax, the adjunction of clitic-syllables to phonological words has to take place in the phonosyntactic module of the post-lexical phonology since

syntac-

tic information is only allowed there. However, if the information is phonological in character or if there is no need for the

adjunction

is

part

of

further

triggering

information,

the mapping of syntactic structure onto prosodie

structure. The fate of the representations in (11) as they are sent through the logical ing of

phono-

component is schematically as follows. First, a subsequent restructurprosodie

structure

may

follow,

depending

upon

the

universal

and

language-specific requirements with respect to this structure. For syllabification, there seems to be a universal resyllabification (cf. Harris (1983),

Cle-

ments and Keyser (1983)), if the syllables in a word do not fit universal principles

(such

as

language-specific

Maximal

Onset

requirements

Principle

and

Sonority

Hierarchy)

and

for syllabification, so as to conform to these

principles and requirements. In Chapter 3. and 4., I will give many examples of resyllabification

triggered

by

cliticization.

Furthermore,

we

claim

that

clitic-syllables must be incorporated into feet if a language has this prosodie

- 29 category

and

the

feet construction rules require such an incorporation. This

will eventually result in feet consisting only of clitic-syllables and thus stressed

clitic-syllables,

as

I

will

in

show in Chapter 4.A.2. and 4.4.3. for

Greek and Palestinian Arabic respectively. Second, post-lexical phonological processes which have the phonological word as their domain, with or without clitics, will be applied on the output of this procedure. Thus, if adjunction of clitic-syllables is a tion,

phonosyntactic,

phonosyntactic

opera-

phonological and casual speech processes are applied to

phonological words with clitics. However, if clitic-syllables are

adjoined

to

phonological words as part of the mapping from syntactic structure onto prosodie structure, only phonological and casual speech processes are applied to phonological words, including clitics. In this case, clitic-syllable and phonological word to which it will be adjoined, are two separate entities for phonosyntactic processes. So if a clitic-syllable is adjoined to a neighbouring phonological word, one has to know the following: - direction of cliticization (to the right or to the left); - the information required for adjunction to apply (the place of application of adjunction is dependent upon this information). Furthermore, a readjustment of prosodie structure ing)

accompanies

the

(resyllabification,

refoot-

adjunction of clitic-syllables. What we see now is that

adjunction of clitic-syllables to phonological words has many things in with

regular

common

(weak) affixation: however, affixation is lexical and cliticiza-

tion to phonological words is not.

3.2. 0-incorporation

If clitics are not to be adjoined to a neighbouring phonological word (the junction

being

optional),

the clitic-syllable will remain floating. So it is

necessary to look for structure of a higher level. Under this option, clitic-syllables

will

become

part

of

rules, which are part of the mapping from structure.

In

this

prosodie

thus

behave

floating

structure by 0-construction

syntactic

structure

onto

prosodie

case, clitics are considered to be non-lexical items. Be-

cause of this, clitics will automatically occupy weak clitics

ad-

positions

in

0.

Since

like other non-lexical items the directional position of

- 30 their host need not be specified: it follows directly from the

formulation

of

the 0-construction rules as such (cf. Chapter 1.2.2.)· This gives the following options.

Notice that in these structures the clitic word-internal

phonological

cannot

exert

any

influence

do not constitute a phonological word. At the same time, clitics are able

within

these

upon

processes, since clitics and neighbouring elements recogniz-

structures as syllables directly dominated by 0 and can be

referred to as such. A number of

Dutch

phonological

processes

discussed

in

Chapter 3. will refer to this property. Of course, the clitic-syllable may also undergo both phonological processes which are limited to o i.e. I, and U, and processes of casual speech .

the

higher

If it is not possible to incorporate floating clitic-syllables

domains,

into

higher

prosodie structure, the resulting representation with floating syllables is excluded because floating elements which cannot

be

incorporated

into

prosodie

structure, are not admitted.

4. Summary

The central aim of this study is to account for phonological characteristics of cliticization. In this chapter, we have pursued this aim along general lines. After having limited our discussion of cliticization to

clitics

which

are

not derived by phonological reduction, i.e. which are stored in the lexicon and which meet with other morphemes in the syntactic component of grammar, I considered

general phonological characteristics of cliticization, of which the fol-

lowing are encountered:

•al-

ia) clitics 'depend on hosts'; (b) clitics are inherently unstressed; (c) clitics behave schizofrenically

with respect to their

influence on word-internal phonological processes; (d) clitics are normally monosyllabic. In Section 3., I have outlined a prosodie theory of cliticization to account for

these

characteristics.

This

theory consists of the following framework.

Clitics are mono-syllables without further prosodie categories in

the

lexicon.

being

provided

Thus, they are inherently unstressed. Since clitics mix with

other morphemes in the syntactic component of grammar, this prohibits them from having any influence upon the application of lexical phonological rules. In the post-lexical phonological component, the floating clitic-syllables have

to

be

incorporated into higher prosodie structure. This is done by fixing the universal clitic parameters: either the clitic is adjoined to a logical

word,

neighbouring

phono-

or the clitic, as a non-lexical category, is directly dominated

by 0. If the clitic-syllable becomes part of a phonological word, the direction of

cliticization

has

to

be

fixed.

The

proper

position

in

grammar

clitic-adjunction depends on the triggering environment: if syntactic

of

informa-

tion is necessary, adjunction is phonosyntactic; if no syntactic information is necessary, adjunction is part of the mapping from syntactic structure onto prosodie

structure. The prosodie structure after adjunction is subject to a read-

justment of prosodie structure, such as resyllabification. A consequence of adjunction of clitic-syllables to phonological words is that the sequence of host and clitic can be subject to word-internal post-lexical processes. If the

cli-

tic is directly dominated by 0, the direction of cliticization follows from the formulation of the 0-construction rules in word-internal

processes

the

language.

they do not constitute a phonological word. The situation depicted in (13).

In

this

case,

no

can be applied to sequences of clitic and host, since described

above

is

- 32 -

ARE CLITICS ADJOINED TO A PHONOLOGICAL WORD?

(13)

Optional

Yes -direction of cliticization -information necessary for adjunction to apply (proper place of application in grammar follows) -restructuring (resyllabification, refooting) -word-internal processes apply to clitic plus host

-dominated by 0 -position in 0 fixed by 0-construction rules -no word-internal processes apply to clitic plus host

-either 'yes' -or 'no'

Notice that under the theory presented here, it is in fact unnecessary sume

the

as-

notions 'phonological clitic' and 'phonological cliticization ' to be

primitives. They can be derived from more primitive notions who

to

(cf.

Neyt

(1985)

makes a similar observation). In our prosodie theory, phonological clitics

are to be recognized as monosyllabic morphemes which are marked as not dergo

the

to

un-

lexical foot and phonological word construction rules and which are

generated in syntactic structure. Cliticization is the adjunction clitic-syllables

of

floating

to higher prosodie structure either by Stray Syllable Adjunc-

tion to a neighbouring phonological word, or by

0-construction

rules

of

the

language. However, I will use the notions 'clitic' and 'cliticization' for sake of clarity. In the next chapters, I will investigate phonological aspects of

cliticiza-

tion in a variety of languages against the background of the prosodie theory of cliticization proposed here. In particular, I will investigate depth

in

Chapter 4.

Chapter

3.,

while

Dutch

to

some

other languages are considered more globally in

Notes to Chapter 2

1. Next to phonological characteristics of cliticization, there are syntactic characteristics of this phenomenon as well. In the literature the following relevant information can be found. Clitics have a preference to be localized next to the word they are dependent upon syntactically or at the periphery of a syntactic constituent. In French for example, object clitic pronouns are located in front of the verb they are dependent upon, and nothing may intervene between these two.

(i)a Le garçon le voit peut-etre (the boy him sees maybe) b *Le garçon le peut-etre voit

Articles in Dutch, however, are left-peripheral in NP.

(ii)a De jongen (the boy) b een erg händige en slimme jongen (a very handsome and smart boy)

Secondly, general syntactic transformations such as topicalization do not have any effects on clitics. So it is not possible to topicalize clitic pronouns in Dutch, while strong pronouns can be topicalized.

(iii)a De jongens zagen em (the boys saw him) b *am zagen de jongens c De jongens zagen hem d Hem zagen de jongens

A third syntactic characteristic is that clitics often occupy a structural position different from real words and constituents with the same syntactic function as the clitic. This is especially clear in the Romance languages, for example in Spanish, where the object position for NP's is to the right of the verb, while object clitic pronouns occupy a position to the left of the verb.

(iv)a b

Vio Maria (I see Mary) La vio (I see her)

Furthermore, when there are two or more clitics grouped together, there is a strict ordering of clitics. The clitics ne and en in French for example must have the order just specified, when grouped together.

- 34 (v)a Elle m'en semble capable (she seems capable of it) b *Elle en me semble capable Finally, clitics cannot be part of a coordination. This is examples in (vi).

clear

from

the

(vi)a Vio Maria y Juan (I see Mary and John) b *La y lo vio

2. Many, and maybe all examples of polysyllabic clitics found in the literature are to be considered syntactic clitics only. Zwicky (1977), for example, mentions bisyllabic clitics in Bikol, a Philippine language, which do not behave phonologically like the monosyllabic clitics: the former bear stress, and do not trigger a rule lengthening certain preceding vowels, while monosyllabic clitics are not stressed and trigger the lengthening rule. Of course, the bisyllabic clitics in Bikol are syntactic clitics only, while the monosyllabic ones are both syntactic and phonological clitics. 3. As is the case with almost all phonologically weak elements, they are likely candidates to undergo rules of casual speech (cf. reduction of unstressed vowels to schwa and deletion of schwa for example). Thus, it comes as no surprise that there seems to be a tendency of clitics as the weakest element of 0 to undergo casual speech rules. It may eventually be the case that clitic syllables dominated by 0 are restructured in processes of casual speech in such a manner as to become incorporated into phonological words. However, I did not investigate the latter processes here, and for that reason I will leave them undiscussed.

Chapter

3

The Phonology of Dutch Cliticization

1. Introduction

Although very interesting in itself, the phonology of Dutch

cliticization

has

not received much attention. Recently, the attention has been growing somewhat. The following papers are relevant in this respect, although (Dutch)

cliticization

is

just

a

in

some

of

them

secondary issue: Neyt and Zonneveld (1980,

1982b), Zonneveld (1982, 1983), Neyt (1985),

Booij

(1985) Booij

and

Rubach

(1985), Gussenhoven (1986), and Berendsen (1983b, 1985b, to app.). The most important drawback of most of these papers is the lack about

of

comprehensive

present an account of several aspects of the phonology of Dutch In

theory

the phonological nature of cliticization itself. In this chapter, I will cliticization.

analyzing the phonology of Dutch cliticization, I will be guided on the one

hand by the prosodie clitic theory developed in Chapter 2. On the however,

Dutch

clitic

phonology

will

other

hand,

function as a testing ground for this

theory. In Section 4., I will analyze voicing phenomena with respect tion,

elaborating

proposals

by

others.

In

Section

5.,

to

cliticiza-

the phenomenon of

Schwa-reduction in clitics is dealt with. This process seems to be unrelated to voicing phenomena, but it is accounted for within the prosodie clitic theory of Chapter 2. as well. The topic of Section 6. is the relation between

N-deletion

and N-insertion, in which clitics and other non-lexical items play a role. Some issues necessary to understand Sections 4. - 6. in full detail are presented in Sections 2. and 3. In Section 2., an overview of Dutch clitics is presented and arguments are provided for their storage in the lexicon. the syntax of Dutch are dealt with in Section 3.

Relevant

aspects

of

- 36 -

2. Dutch Clitics

Dutch has a large amount of 'function' words: pronouns, articles, adverbs, non-main

verbs

and

belong to this class. Many of these function words have phono-

logical clitic characteristics: they only occur in unstressed form, they depend on hosts, they are monosyllabic, and, as we will see below, sometimes they have an unexpected influence on the application of phonological processes. For of

these

clitics,

their

only vowel is schwa. Furthermore, some of these clitics strong

have

a

corresponding

form. As is well-known among Dutch linguists, Dutch in a broad sense is

far from homogeneous as regards phonological clitic data. The form word

most

unstressability is particularly clear because their

may

a

function

have differs from dialect to dialect, and what counts as a clitic in

one dialect need not do so in another. However, here my aim will not be to give a complete overview of the phonology of cliticization of all variants of Dutch. Therefore, I will analyze my own dialect, standard Western Dutch, and extend it at

specific

stages

with data from other dialects, but only cursorily so. The

tables in (1) below give an overview of the function words currently Except

for

some

relevant.

exceptional cases, these tables give only the basic forms of

both strong and weak forms. Other variants will be discussed as we proceed.

(1) PERSONAL PRONOUNS subject strong weak ik ok (I) ja/ie (you) jij u u (you) die/tie/ie (he) hij za (she) zij 1 het at (it) wa (we) wil jullie ja (you) za (they) zij

object strong weak mij ma (me) jou ja (you) u u (you) hem am (him) haar dar/tar/ar (her) het 1 at (it) ons ons (us) jullie ja/ie (you) hun za (them)

- 37 POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS strong mijn jouw uw zijn haar ons/onze jullie hun

weak man/ma (my) ja/ie (your) uw (your) zan/za (his/its) dar/tar/ar (her) ons (our) ja (your) dar/tar (their)

REFLEXIVE PRONOUNS strong mazelf jazelf uzelf zichzelf onszelf jazelf zichzelf

ARTICLES strong

hetl een 1

ADVERBS strong eens daar er

weak ma (myself) ja (yourself) zieh (yourself) zieh (himself/herself) ons (ourselves) ja (yourselves) zieh (themselves)

weak da/ta (the) at (the) an (a)

weak ans/as (once) dar/tar/ar (there) dar/tar/ar (there)

NON MAIN VERBS strong is

weak as (is)

Note that in many cases the alternation between strong and weak form taken

as

be

the result of a purely phonological process reducing a full vowel to

the reduced vowel schwa. This may well be the will

might

correct

diachronic

account.

I

argue, however, that synchronically the clitic forms in Dutch are not the

result of phonological reduction, but must exist independently next to a possibly

existing strong form. This idea is one of the most important initial steps

toward the analysis of phonological cliticization to be developed for Dutch

in

this chapter. The evidence for this approach is presented below. First, not all weak forms have a corresponding strong

form

from

which

it

could be derived by reduction straightforwardly. The tables in (1) show that da simply lacks a corresponding strong form and that the

phonological

outfit

of

- 38 some strong forms is rather different from that of the clitics. Furthermore, in other cases one needs extra rules which are only necessary in a reduction lysis:

one

has

ana-

to change h into d, t or zero in the pairs haar/dar, tar, ar,

hij/die, tie, ie and het/at. In the pair er/dar one has to change zero into The

other

d.

clitics can in principle be derived from corresponding unbound mor-

phemes by reducing their vowels to schwa in most cases and by only

destressing

them in others. However, unbound morphemes which may undergo reduction (and deI

stressing) have to be marked as such, since not morphemes

can

all

monosyllabic

non-lexical

be reduced. Thus, in a phonological reduction analysis, one has

to allow for some lexically stored clitics and the unbound morphemes which undergo

can

reduction, have to be marked as such. However, if we store all clitics

in the lexicon, we do not need a marking of corresponding strong form, but simply

extend

the lexical storage of clitics which is already necessary on inde-

pendent grounds. Second, observe that the clitics za, ja and wa may have

a

deviant

meaning

from the corresponding strong forms zij/hun, jij and hij. For example the third person plural subject clitic za and the second person singular ja

may,

subject

clitic

next to the meaning of simply zij (they) and jij (you), respectively,

also have a more general interpretation, comparable to English people.

(2)a

c

(3)a

c

za zeggen zoveel (i they say a lot) (ii people say a lot) za doen maar (i they just go on) (ii people just go on)

b

d

ja wil snel te veel b (i you quickly want too much) (ii people quickly want too much) js ziet maar d (i you have to do your own thing) (i people have to do their own thing)

zij zeggen zoveel (i they say a lot) (ii*people say a lot) zij doen maar (i they just go on) (ii*people just go on) jij wil snel te (i you quickly (ii*one quickly jij ziet maar (i you have to (ii*people have own thing)

veel want too much) wants too much) do your own thing) to do their

Similarly, the clitic za can be used to denote both persons and things, whereas normally

the

corresponding

Van Haeringen (1951)).

strong forms zij and hun only denote persons (cf.

- 39 (4)a b

Kees zegt dat de fietsen (Kees is saying that the Kees zegt dat de jongens (Kees is saying that the

daar nog bicycles daar nog boys are

staan, raaar zs/*zij zijn weg are still there, but they have gone) staan, maar za/zij zijn weg still there, but they have gone)

The clitic va also has an interpretation which its

corresponding

strong

form

wij lacks. Wij corresponds to English we, including the speaker, whereas wa may also have a meaning comparable to English you (plur), excluding the speaker.

(5)a

b

Wat doen (i what (ii what Wat doen (i what (ii*what

wa hier eigenlijk are we doing here) are you (plur) doing here) wij hier eigenlijk are we doing here) are you (plur) doing here)

A reduction analysis thus needs a phonological rule that has to keep the

track

of

semantics of the function word that is to be reduced. This type of rule is

incompatible with the current model of grammar (see Chapter 1.2.1.). An sis,

however,

which

treats

analy-

corresponding weak and strong forms as separate,

lexically stored elements, does not encounter this problem. A third indication that thougths of a phonological reduction be

abandoned

hold for va, za and ja, but for other clitics as well.

b c

d e f g

must

in favour of a lexical storage is the existence of idiomatic ex-

pressions which allow only a weak, and not a strong form. This

(6)a

analysis

daar kun j9/*jij donder op zeggen (you can bet your bottom dollar) dat haal ja/*jij de koekoek (you got to be kidding) als js/*jij van de duvel spreekt, dan trap ja/*jij op zan/*zijn staart (speaking of the devil, you will step on his tail) daar gaat ie/*hij dan (there you go) laat ma/*mij niet lachen (don't make me laugh) za/*zij achter de elleboog hebben (to act selfishly) daar zit am/*hem de kneep (that is the crux of the matter)

does

not

only

- 40 -

h i j k 1 m η o ρ

sm/*hem ora hebben (to be legless) am/*hem knijpen (to be scared) am/*hem smeren (to make oneself scarce) 3m/*hem op zetten (to do the best one can) am/*hem van katoen geven (to go for it) zo zijn ws/*wij niet getrouwd (that is no way to handle this) 8r/dar/*haar/*daar/*er geweest zijn (to kick the bucket) op zan/*zijn elf en dertigst (very slowly) op z3n/*zijn jan boeren fluitjes (carelessly)

Under the normal assumption that idiomatic expressions are stored in the con,

the

relevant

pronouns

in

lexi-

(6) should contain a rather peculiar feature

[obligatory reduction] in the reduction analysis. However, in an analysis which treats weak and strong forms independently, the account of these expressions is straightforward: the clitic occurs in the idiom from the outset,

that

is,

in

the lexicon. A fourth argument against a reduction analysis for Dutch clitics is provided by

the

behaviour of reflexive pronouns. Inspection of the tables in (1) shows

that a selection of Dutch weak object pronouns plus zieh function as flexives.

They

occur

weak

re-

obligatorily in constructions with inherently reflexive

verbs, as is exemplified in (7).

(7)a b c d

ik (I ik (I ik (I ik (I

vergis m8/?*mij am mistaken) schaam ma/?*mij am ashamed) werk ma/?*mij suf work very hard) herinner ma/?*mij dat remember that)

jij vergisi js/*jou (you are mistaken) jij schaamt jo/*jou (you are ashamed) jij werkt js/*jou suf (you work very hard) jij herinnert ja/*jou dat (you remember that)

Again, the reduction analysis would need some notion of 'obligatory

reduction'

which simply describes the observation. This does not appear to be very attractive, and we therefore conclude that a lexical storage of both weak and

strong

form provides a more straightforward means to account for these constructions.

- 41 -

To take stock, I have argued so far that there are four arguments in of

a

favour

lexical storage of clitics and against a phonological derivation of cli-

tics by reduction of unbound morphemes. 1. Cases in which the clitic differs considerably in phonological shape from a corresponding strong form (da, zieh, ja ( (NP/PP)

NP

V

As is well-known, Dutch moves the finite verb in root sentences Evers

to

INFL

(cf.

(1982)). In subordinate clauses INFL may be filled by a conjunction word

like dat (that) or of (whether) or left empty, i.e. is not filled with material.

COMP

lexical

is filled by NP's (subject formation and topicalization) or by

WH-elements (wh-questions in root and subordinate clauses and relative pronouns in subordinate clauses). With respect to NP and PP the following basic structure for these

syntactic

categories is assumed. NP consists of a noun which may be preceded by a specifier and/or an adjectival complement, and may be followed by a or

a

PP.

normally followed by a NP, together however,

relative

clause

The base rule in (9a) accounts for this situation. A preposition is constituting

a

PP,

as

in

(9b).

Note,

that the so-called R-pronouns such as daar and er (it) always precede

a preposition and that there are also postpositions (cf. Van Riemsdijk (1978)).

(9)a b

NP - > Spec AP PP - > Ρ NP

Ν

(S'/PP)

In structure (11) of the sentence in (10)

(10)

de jongen geeft het meisje dat op de straat staat een boek (the boy gives a book to the girl who is on the street)

many of the above mentioned basic structures and transformations fied.

are

exempli-

- 43 -

(H) COMP

INFL

NP

V

NP

A

Spec Ν Spec

Ν COMP INFL I NP

S

NP

VP PP NP / S Ρ Spec Ν

c de g o n g e n geeft j het meisje dat

c

e | op de straat Staat een boek

The question is now how clitics fit in. With respect to object clitic

pronouns

of V, I argued in Berendsen (1983a) that these clitics are syntactically dependent upon V and must be situated in the left periphery of VP making use of projection

the

of V, as is shown for example in (12a). This object clitic position

is argued for on the basis of syntactic considerations. In Everaert (1986), reflexive clitic pronouns are argued to occupy the same position as object clitic pronouns do. The position of the articles is similar to clitics in VP, left

periphery,

but

in

the

now in NP, as is illustrated in (12b). This position ap-

pears to be undisputed in the literature.

(12)a

NP / \ Spec Ν

I

I

Cl

I

dat de jongen am (that the boy gives him books)

geeft

- 44 -

da aardige (the nice boy)

jongen

Most object clitic pronouns within PP's are situated in phery

of

that

constituent.

The

the

right-hand

peri-

exception is the pronoun clitic a r which is

left-peripheral in PP, and it is even possible to extract this clitic from The

clitic

behaviour of ar is still not accounted every

PP.

ar has puzzled many syntacticians, but in my opinion the syntactic for

satisfactorily.

Furthermore,

not

preposition may take a clitic with it, but to account for that situation

here would be outside the scope of this study. The two clitic positions

in

PP

are represented in (13).

(13)a

PP Ρ met

PP Cl

CI

am (with him)

ar

Ρ

I .1., in (in it)

The syntax of Dutch subject clitics has not been very closely investigated. The fact that these clitics circle around the INFL-node without intervening material suggests that subject clitics in Dutch are part of INFL. The

syntactic

de-

pendence of subject clitics from INFL is furthermore suggested by the fact that these clitics only occur if their inflectional host induces a finite There

seem

to

be

sentence.

no problems with respect to government-binding theory (cf.

Chomsky (1982)) for this point of view, so let us assume it tures in (14) are intended to clarify this.

( 14)a COMP

INFL / \ Conj

(hij dacht) ((he thought) that

CI

J I

dat ak would come)

NP ι e

VP kwam

here.

The

struc-

- 45 b

S' COMP

INFL

/\

V

Cl

S NP

VP NP

V ι e

e

I boeken gaf ie boe (did he give books)

The other clitics are assumed to be

allomorphs

of

the

corresponding

strong

forms and may be inserted freely in place of the strong form. Some syntactically possible insertion positions for these clitics are excluded later on in

the

derivation by prosodie and pragmatic constraints. So much for syntactical remarks. In the rest of this chapter, I will not concerned

with

Dutch

syntactic

structure,

but

structure with respect to cliticization. Of course, prosodie structure in

part

on

syntactic

be

primarily with its prosodie depends

structure (cf. Chapter 1.), and in this respect syntax

will sometimes become relevant. However, I will show that phonological cliticization

in Dutch only depends on prosodie structure (as a derivative of syntax)

and not directly on syntactic structure, showing, like Klavans (1982, 1985) and Zwicky

and

Pullum

(1983)

did, that phonological cliticization and syntactic

cliticization are independent of each other. In this respect, this

study

con-

tributes to a clarification of the relation between syntax and phonology.

4. Dutch clitics and Voicing Phenomena^

4.1. Introduction

Like many related languages, Dutch phonoloy has a process of Final Devoicing of obstruents. The literature formulates this rule either with a word- or a syllable-boundary as a right-hand environment (for example neveld (1981) and Booij (1981), respectively):

in

Trommelen

and

Zon-

- 46 (15)

Final Devoicing a

[-son] - > [-voice] /

b

[-son] - > [-voice] /

#

Both rules account for the data in (16), if syllabification has the

phonologi-

cal word as its domain which causes word- and syllable-boundaries to coincide.

hui[t] (skin) kwa[p] (lobe) hui[s] (house)

hui[t]#arts (dermatologist) kwa[p]#aal (pout eel) hui[s]#nummer (house number)

hui[d]en (skins) kwa[b]en (lobes) hui[z]en (houses)

po[t] (pot) knoo[p] (button) ka[s] (pay desk)

po[t]#huis (cellar shop) knoo[p]#laars (button boot) ka[s]#houder (cashier)

po[t]en (pots) kno[p]en (buttons) ka[s]en (pay desks)

Another well-known phonological phenomenon in Dutch is voicing assimilation

in

obstruent-clusters. Voicing Assimilation manifests itself in two ways depending on the type of rightmost consonant: rightmost fricatives induce PROGRESSIVE ASSIMILATION;

for

other

rightmost

obstruents

assimilation is REGRESSIVE. The

rules are as follows (cf. Trommelen and Zonneveld (1981)).

(17)a

Progressive Assimilation [-son, +cont] - > [-voice] / [-voice] (#)

b

Regressive Assimilation [-son] - > [+voice] /

And these are the data to match.

(#) [-son, +voice]

- 47 -

har[ts]eer (heart-ache) zi[tx]at (bottom) tre[kf]ogel (migrant)

[z]eer (pain) [y]at (hole) [v]ogel (bird)

zi[db]ad (hipbath) ka[zb]oek (account book) knoo[bd]oek (shawl)

zi[t]en (sit) ka[s]en (pay desks) kno[p]en (buttons)

There is an exhaustive and transitive ordering relation between (15)

and

the

rules

in

(17): they apply linearly, in the order given as argued convincingly

in Trommelen and Zonneveld (1981) and Booij (1981). Usually, this analysis of the voicing assimilation phenomena built

on

the

in

Dutch^

behaviour of internal clusters in compounds. In this section, I

will discuss a set of additional data which one should like to fall within descriptive

range

of

the

support

to,

the

the

above analysis, and it will not be surprising that

these data include Dutch clitics. In this analysis, I will give

is

general

make

use

of,

and

prosodie theory of cliticization presented in

Chapter 2.3. Unavoidable side-topics will include the allomorphy

in

the

past

tense verb suffix between - d a and - t a and we will have occasion to go into some properties of Dutch syllable structure.

- 48 -

4.2. The Behaviour of Clitics with respect to Voice

4.2.1. Initial Observations

The most fruitful observations to start out from is the behaviour of verb-forms followed by a schwa-initial clitic. Using first person singular forms, we avoid inflection, and are thus able to inspect Final Devoicing. A fact is that forms

these

have two possible pronunciations, one in which FD apparently applies and

another in which FD fails. Since dialects seem to differ as tion,

I

want

speech, and in rime-related

order pairs

to which

bring vary

this

out

between

most voice

verb-final obstruent.

(19)ai

ii

m

bi

ik (I ik (I ik (I ik (I ik (I ik (I ik (I ik (I ik (I ik (I ik (I ik (I ik (I ik (I ik (I ik (I

to

this

observa-

to emphasize that this is a clear phenomenon of at least my own

he[b] ar met rietjes (cf. he[b]an) have her with straws) le[b]ar met rietjes (cf. le[b]eran) sip through straws) he[p] or met houtjes(cf. he[b]an) have her with bits of wood) kle[p]sr met houtjes (cf. kle[p]eran) clapper with bits of wood) kra[b] ar goed (cf. kra[b]an) scratch her well) zwa[b]er goed (cf. zwa[b]eran) swab well) kra[p] er hard (cf. kra[b]en) scratch her hard) kla[p]er hard (cf. kla[p]eren) clapper hard) schro[b] er flink (cf. schro[b]en) scrub her hard) do[b]er flink (cf. do[b]eren) bob enormously) schro[p] en boek (cf. schro[b]en) scrub a book) klo[p] en boek (cf. klo[p]en) pat a book) laa[d] am uit (cf. la[d]en) unload it) a[d]em uit (cf. a[d]emen) breathe out) laa[t] am uit (cf. la[d]en) unload it) laa[t] em uit (cf. la[t]en) let him out)

clearly, and

lack

(19) of

below voice

gives for the

- 49 ii

ik (I ik (I ik (I ik (I

ha[d] ar veel (cf. had many of them) kla[d]ar veel (cf. often daub) ha[t] an boek (cf. had a book) ja[t] an boek (cf. steal a book)

ha[d]an) kla[d]aran) ha[d]an) ja[t]an)

However clear these facts are, they are somewhat obscured by optionally

voices

a

process

which

t's preceded by a vowel before schwa-initial clitics except

ar. This is exemplified in (20).

(20)a b c d e f

Hoeveel pata(t/d} ak eet (How many chips I eat) Ik ha{t/d) an leuk zaakje (I had a nice shop) Hij moe{t/d) am zien (He must see him) Jan ee(t/d} at niet (John does not eat it) Wa{t/d) as je dat waard (What is that worth to you) Ik wee{t/*d} ar te vinden (I know how to find her)

This latter phenomenon is only triggered by clitics and as such must be dered

a

pure

cliticization

consi-

process. I will return to these cases in section

4.2.2. In addition to the facts given in (19) d-facts

which

are

and

(20)

we

can

add

other

not influenced by clitic-t-voicing, cases in which d and t

are not preceded by a vowel, but by a consonant. The underlyingly sive

some voiced

plo-

shows again two possible pronunciations, while the underlyingly voiceless

one does not,

the

latter

being

an

indication

clitic-t-voicing.

(21)a

b

c

Ston{d/t) ak daar (cf. ston[d]an) (Did I stand there) Welke lon{t/*d) ak daar zag (cf. lon[t]an) (Which fuse I saw there) Welk woor(d/t} ak hoor (cf. woor[d]an) (Which word I hear) Hij hoor{t/*d) a n woord (He hears a word) Welke waar{d/t} as dat (cf. waar[d]an) (Which host is that) Welke vaar{t/*d) as dat (cf. vaar[t]an) (Which canal is that)

of

the

non-application

of

- 50 We may conclude

that

final

underlyingly

voiced

obstruents

followed

by

a

vowel-initial clitic have a voiceless as well as a voiced pronunciation. Furthermore, there is the complicating phenomenon of clitic-t-voicing which may

ob-

scure these two possible pronunciations. So

far,

(19)

vowel-initial

and

(20)

clitics

were

preceded

biased by

toward

plosives.

With

This

to

fricatives, the facts are comparable, but

this is more difficult to demonstrate due to the relative paucity examples.

respect of

relevant

time, the argument goes as follows. Verbs with an underlyingly

voiced final fricative allow both the voiceless and the voiced variant before a vowel-initial

clitic,

but

underlyingly

voiceless fricatives surface only as

voiceless.

(22)ai

ii

bi

ii

ik krij{s/*z) ar twee bij elkaar (cf. krij[s]an) (I shout two together) ik wij{s/z) ar twee bij elkaar (cf. wij[z]an) (I point two together) ik la(s/*z} ar twee bij elkaar (cf. la[s]an) (I weld two together) ik la{s/z} ar twee bij elkaar (cf. la[z]an) (I read two together) pa(f/*v) ak iets (cf. pa[f]an) (Did I shot something) ga{f/v) ak iets (cf. ga[v]an) (Did I give something) ik le(*f/v)ar drie dagen in (cf. le[v]aran) (I hand in three days) ik lee{f/v) ar drie dagen in (cf. le[v]an) (I have lived there for three days)

In so far as distinction in voice can be observed for velar behaviour is the same as for the other fricatives.

(23)ai

ii

dan jui{x/*Y) ak (cf. jui[x]an) (Then I jubilate) dan bui(x/y) ak (cf. bui[y]an) (Then I bow) la(x/*y) ak erg hard (cf. la[x]an) (Did I laugh very loudly) lafx/γ} ak erg hard (cf. la[y]an) (Did I lay very uncomfortably)

fricatives,

their

- 51 -

These data demonstrate also (cf. also Zonneveld (1982)) that the voiced

frica-

tives of wijz ar etc. are not due to a rule of intervocalic voicing of a finally voiceless fricative, as the literature sometimes suggests. So also an

underlyingly

voiced

fricative

in

case

occurs in front of a vowel-initial clitic,

there are two possible pronunciations for these

fricatives:

a

voiced

and

a

voiceless one. So far, the examples consist of a finite verb form plus They

schwa-initial

clitic.

can easily be extended to other vowel-initial clitics (ie, u, uw and ons)

as in (24a) and to other constructions as in (24b) as well. There seems to be a preference distance

1

to

apply

FD in (24b). This is probably due to a 'larger syntactic

between word and clitic. This syntactic distance might

be

expressed

in prosodie structure, but this is an issue that will not be pursued here.

(24)a

b

ga{f/v) ie het boek (cf. ga[v]on) (Did he give a book) wee{s/z) ie naar mij (cf. we[z]an) (Did he point at me) ha{t/d} u eraan gedacht (cf. ha[d]an) (Did you think about it) ik kra{p/b) u niet hard (cf. kra[b]an) (I do not scratch you very hard) ik laa{t/d) uw auto uit (cf. la[d]on) (I unload your car) ik proe{f/v) uw drankje (cf. proe[v]an) (I taste your drink) hij wee{s/z) ons na (cf. we[z]an) (He pointed after us) ik ga{f/v) ons boek weg (cf. ga[v]an) (I gave our book away) ... welke hoe{t/d} am past (cf. hoe[d]an) (which hat suits him) ... welk we{p/b} ie heeft gezien (cf. we[b]an) (which cobweb he has seen) ... welke roo{s/z) ons bevalt (cf. ro[z]an) (which rose pleases us) ... welk hui{s/z} ak koop (cf. hui[z]an) (which house he buys) ... dat de kaa{s/z} ar niet beviel (cf. ka[z]an) (that the cheese did not please her) ... dat de naa{f/v) en beetje kapot was (cf. na[v]an) (that the hub was somewhat broken) ... dat de kra{p/b) u bevalt (cf. kra[b]an) (that the crab pleases you) ... dat het ba{t/d) am te heet is (cf. ba[d]an) (that the bath is too hot)

- 52 -

The data in (19), (21), (22), (23) and (24) clitics

represent

excellent

examples

of

which are 'schizophrenic' with respect to 'affix' or 'word' status. If

the clitic behaves like an affix, the preceding word and clitic are one logical

phono-

word so that FD cannot apply. If the clitic has 'word' status, FD must

make the final voiced obstruent of the verb-form voiceless. voiceless

obstruents

both

Thus,

voiced

and

occur before vowel-initial clitics, and it is this

observation that we will rephrase into an analysis in the next subsection.

4.2.2. A Prosodie Account

Essentially against the background of Chapter 2.3., the data in

the

preceding

section showed clearly that Dutch is a likely candidate of a language which exploits both ways of phonological clitic-adjunction. The first is to optionally adjoin the clitic-syllable to left,

the

word

on

its

resulting in a weak syllable node. This triggers resyllabification, thus

bleeding FD.

(25)

underlying

M

I

λ heb adjoin $ to M

1

am

h

heb resyllabification

$

Λ

$

1

am

$

H bam J

he FD

he [b Jam

Notice that, although the prosodie category Foot plays a crucial description

role

in

the

of Dutch word stress (cf. Neyt and Zonneveld (1982a) and Visch and

Kager (1984)), cliticization does not influence it. So feet are not represented here and in further illustrations in this chapter.

- 53 The second possibility is for the clitic-syllable not to adjoin to the on

its

left.

In

that

case,

word

it is considered to be a non-lexical item with

respect to the syntax-phonology mapping rules of Nespor and Vogel

(1982)

(cf.

Chapter 1.2.). In this way it will be dominated by the prosodie category 0. Although there is one particular situation in Butch Vogel

for

which

the

Nespor

and

proposals appear to be in need of revision, I will adopt their proposals

here and modify them below. Primarily on the basis of the fact that in NP's the recursive

side

is to the right of Ν, I consider Dutch to be a right-recursive

language. So 0's are usually constructed above every lexical category with non-lexical

items

all

to its left. Thus, the underlyingly voiced obstruent of the

relevant words in the examples of the preceding section^ are now word- and syllable-final, and must undergo FD. It does not matter whether the word preceding the clitic is non-lexical as in (26a) or lexical as in (26b). To clarify syntactic structure is indicated in underlying representation.

(26)a

underlying

S* COMP

^

^

INFL NP VP NP

I I

AUX

Cl

V

ik heb am gezien (I have seen him) 0-construction

0

Λ-

ik heb em gezien FD

Ρ he[p]em

this,

- 54

b

underlying

NP / \

V ¿

gav xe een boek (did he give a book) 0-construction

t gav îe een boek

FD

f ga[f]ie However, there are sentences in which a non-lexical item is the last element of the

sentence,

and

hence

cannot

be taken into account by Nespor and Vogel's

0-construction rules. I propose that such a floating non-lexical joined

by

item

is

ad-

convention as a weak member to the phonological phrase on its left,

as shown in (28)· This analysis accounts for the voiceless obstruent variant of the finite verb in (27), as is also shown in (28).

(27) (28)

De jongen za{x/y) am (The boy saw him) underlying

de jongen 0-construction

0

zay

0

d ' de ^ jongen zay adjoin to 0

am

0 0 A Κ d de jongen zay am

FD za[x]am

- 55 As shown before, the adjunction of the clitic-syllable to the finite

verb

can

be held responsible for the fact that the underlyingly voiced obstruent in (27) may also remain voiced. One final complication concerns the optional rule of clitic-t-voicing, which voices

pre-clitic

t between a vowel on its left and a schwa on its right. For

ease of exposition some relevant examples are repeated here.

(29)a b c

Hoeveel pata(t/d} ak eet (How many chips I eat) Ik wee{t/d) an leuk zaakje (I know a nice shop) Hij moe{t/d} am zien (He must see him)

This process has four currently relevant characteristics. First, gered

by

schwa-initial

clitics

it

is

trig-

only^. Second, it thus does not apply before

truly suffixal -an and - a r , as shown in (30)

(30)

wee{t/*d)an (know) maa{t/*d)an (sizes) pata{t/*d)an (chips) moe{t/*d)an (must) ui{t/*d}an (utter)

Third, it can occur

across

ee{t/*d)ar (eater) groo{t/*d}ar (bigger) plo{t/*d}ar (plotter) zoe(t/*d)ar (sweeter) slui{t/*d}ar (shutter)

a

case-marked

trace

left

behind

by

syntactic

WH-movement.

(31)a b c

wat^ denkt hij da{t/dl e^ am is overkomen (What does he think that has happened to him) wieH ee{t/d} eH at op (Who will eat it) ik vraag me af welke staaft/d^ e ± an koning heeft (I ask myself which country has a king)

Within the context of our left-hand

conception

of

the

internal

of

the

side of grammar (cf. Chapter 1.2.1.), this implies that this process

is purely phonological, and will have to be accounted well.

organization

Fourth,

for

in

this

style

as

the examples in (32) show that the schwa-initial clitic must be

preceded by a phonological word ending in t, and not by the syllable-final t of a clitic for clitic-t-voicing to apply.

- 56 -

(32)a b c

geef a{t/*d) as aan hem (Give it to him, please) om a{t/*d) am te geven (To give it to him) dat a{t/*d} an keer gebeurd (That it happens once)

Since ,pre-clitic t differs from pre-suffixal t the

most

in

allowing

clitic-t-voicing,

obvious choice in our parametric theory is to say that t-voicing ap-

plies to 0-joined clitic-syllables, because this is the level where clitics are recognizable as such^. This is taken care of by the following rule.

(33)

Clitic-t-voicing t -> d / ...V —

M

)

($

...

Sample derivations run as follows:

(34)

1

^ I L. I Î Λ I.Í υI A

M

$

M

$

M

(ik) braad am 0-constr.

0

(ik) weet an zaakje

M

braad am adj. to 0

weet an zaakje

M

braad am FD

t

t-voicing

d

vac. d

The variation in application of FD in case a vowel-initial clitic by

is

preceded

an underlyingly voiced obstruent is accounted for in a straightforward way,

couched within the prosodie theory of cliticization as proposed in

Chapter

2.

Depending on whether the clitic has become part of the phonological word to its left or part of 0, the underlyingly voiced obstruent will surface as voiced voiceless

or

respectively. The analysis presented to account for these facts will

provide the basis for our further account of the phonology of Dutch

cliticiza-

- 57 tion. Having thus succesfully dealt with the behaviour of vowel-initial clitics with respect to the voice rules of Dutch phonology, the question arises ally

natur-

how our prosodie analysis accounts for the behaviour of consonant-initial

clitics with respect to these rules. This will be the topic of

the

next

sec-

tion.

A.2.3. Consonant-initial Clitics

In this section, I will deal with consonant-initial clitics within work

which

tics come in two types, obstruent-initial and sonorant-initial deal

with

the

frame-

has been developed above. For our purposes, consonant-initial cliones.

We

will

them in this order. To be more precise: first the clitics za, zieh,

and zan will be analyzed, then I will deal with the vacillation between d and t in

dar/tar

and

die/tie, third I will look at the consequences of the account

for d/t vacillation for the allomorphy in the past tense suffix between -da and -ta, and finally the sonorant consonant-initial clitics will be accounted for.

The obstruent-initial clitics which fit exactly in the above framework are zieh

and

zan.

s's and in other cases they remain z. In responsible

the

former

cases,

FD

and

PA

are

for the voiceless s, while in the latter neither FD nor PA are ap-

plicable. This is shown through the derivations of (35).

(35)a

za,

After obstruent-final words clitic-initial z's are turned into

underlying

M

gav ze had za (gave she) (had she) adjoin to M

vièl za (fell she)

h Jp t¡

FD

gav za

had za

PA

f

t s

ga[fs]a

¥ .

viel za

s ha[ts]a

zou za (would she)

zou[z]a viel[z]a

- 58 b

underlying

M gav Z9

had ζ s

Λ „ M iA$

0 0 1 M $I 1 1 1 gav ΖΘ FD

x

f

I

M

ι

$

hid z i t

PA

s

s ga[fs]s

ha[ts]3

viel[z]a

zou[z]a

The left-most two derivations in (35a) give evidence that FD applies at ble-edge

rather

than

sylla-

at word-edge: if FD were to apply at word-edge only, it

would be inapplicable in (35a), bleeding, incorrectly, PA. In effect, then, for fricative-initial

clitics our two ways of adjunction will always give the same

output, which is a formal representation of the fact that there is indeed one

output

rather

than

two

only

(as with vowel-initial clitics) per word-clitic

pair.

When we consider the d-initial clitics, we find several tions.

It

seems

that

unexpected

pronuncia-

the initial d's of the clitics die, dar and da allow a

voiced as well as a voiceless

pronunciation,

if

they

are

preceded

by

ob-

struents, as in the following examples.

(36)a b c d e f

tro[ft]ie doel (did he strike goal) [vd] ik ga[ft]ar een boek (I gave her a book) [vd] hij hee[st]a kist op (he hoisted the box) [zd] wee[st]ie naar mij (did he point at me) [zd] daar lie[pt]a weg (there was the road) [bd] ik kra[pt]ar niet (I do not scratch her) [bd]

This vacillation of initial d goes beyond the scope of clitics. The same viour

beha-

is exhibited by the non-lexical items dan (than), die (this, which), dat

- 59 (that), daar (there), deze (this) and dit (this). This

vacillation

between

d

and t has already been observed in the older literature (cf. Leenen (1954), Van Haeringen (1955) and Kloeke (1956)). Zonneveld (1982)8 attempts to analyze this phenomenon framework.

within

a

generative

In order to account for the assimilations observed, he assumes that

these non-lexical items begin with underlying é, which may be subject to an optional

'vacillation

rule1 changing é into d. Because Dutch phonetics does not

have é's and 0's, they are changed into the regular dental plosives d and t the

end

of

the

these ideas into our prosodie account, some relevant derivations are (37).

at

derivation by a rule of Absolute Neutralization. Translating those

in

Again, observe that our two types of adjunction trigger derivations with

identical outputs.

(37)a

M

M

/\ /\ lili

$

$

gav èie Vacill. FD

Abs. Neutr.

$

gav èie

0

f

0

0

IΛ IΛ II II

M

$

gav èie

d

PA RA

$

0

M

$

gav èie

d f

f θ

ν t ga[vd]ie ga[ft]ie

f θ

ν

ga[vd]ie

t ga[ft]ie

-

M

M

/\

/\

$I

1$

krab dir Vacill. FD

60

$ ι

-

$ I

krab élr

Ρ

PA b

Abs. Neutr.

—

0

ι r\

M

$

J J krab éar

Ρ θ

RA

0

d

d Ρ

-

Ρ -

θ

-

t

b t

kra[bd]ar M

kra[pt]ar M

$I 1$ 1 1 viel èie Vacill.

0 0 1 A M $ι I 1 1 krab éar

$ 1 1$ 1 1 viel èie

-

kra[bd]ar 0 0 1 Λ M $ι Ι I 1 viel èie

d -

-

PA

-

-

RA

-

-

-

-

d viel[d]ie

0

0

I Λ M $ I t 1 1 viel èie

d

FD

Abs. Neutr.

kra[pt]ar

viel[d]ie

viel[d]ie

d viel[d]ie

The outputs obtained tally perfectly with the observed facts: after there

is

vacillation

There is one snag, however, as Zonneveld (1982) observes, have

in

cases

where

we

a word ending in d or t followed by one of the é-forms or one of the cli-

tics ie and ar which are optional variants of die and dar. In these never

obstruents

between d and t, while after sonorants d is obligatory.

cases

one

finds the d-variant^, as is illustrated in (38), in spite of the predic-

tions of our analysis so far.

-

ston[t]ie von t ar boo t 3 laa t Θ zie t sr maak[t]a

61

-

4> / (j

[-son]

The left-hand syllable-break of rule (62) ensures that the rule applies to clitic-schwa, and prohibits the rule from applying to word-internal syllables with schwa: normally, syllable-initial schwa in Dutch is containing

out,

since

under consideration is adjoined to the word to its left, schwa duced.

any

syllable

a schwa begins with a consonant. Therefore, when one of the clitics

This

cannot

be

re-

is particularly clear in examples with vowel-initial clitics pre-

ceded by underlyingly voiced obstruents.

(63)ai Ga[f] á k ii *Ga[v] i k bi Kra[p] is ii *Kra[b] is ci Ik he[p] ii *Ik he[b]

vier boeken (Did I give four books) vier boeken over mijn rug (Please, scratch my back) over mijn rug it boek hier (I have the book here) it boek hier

We derive example (63ai) in its schwa-less variant by structure

applying

rule

(62)

to

(64a). Conversely, we capture (63aii), because that sentence has the

structure of (64b) where resyllabification blocks both FD (as explained in section 4.) and CSR.

(64)a

0 gaf

1 sk vier boeken

b

ga

vak

We now have a first approximation of how CSR operates. However, there occasions in which it fails, and these must be dealt with as well.

are

two

- 77 First, if the clitic schwa is preceded by a non-lexical item ending in struent,

CSR

is

impossible,

but

if

an

ob-

a preceding non-lexical item ends in a

sonorant, CSR may apply. This is illustrated nicely by the prepositions op (on) in

and

(in). If the former precedes clitic schwa, CSR is prohibited, while if

the latter does, CSR may apply.

(65)a b c d

op *op in in

at it at it

huis (on the house) huis huis (in the house) huis

The same can be illustrated by the Dutch complementizer for t h a t which may have the pronunciation dat as well as daji in casual speech. I assume the t of dat to be victim of a casual speech rule of t-deletion. If dat precedes clitic CSR

may

not

be

schwa,

but if daji precedes the clitic, application of CSR

applied,

seems to be the most natural situation.

(66)a b c d

dat *dat ?dat daji

ak ¿k ak ik

zit (that I sit) zit zit zit

However, if a lexical item precedes clitic schwa, CSR may apply. In it

this

case

does not matter at all whether this lexical item ends in an obstruent as in

(67a) or in a sonorant as in (67b).

(67)ai ii iii bi ii

Ik koop it huis (I buy the house) Praat és een keer (Just talk once) Welke maat ik pas (Which size suits me) Ik win it huis (I win the house) Ik zie it boek (I see the book)

Recalling our discussion of prosodie structure above the word level in

Chapter

1.2.2. and Section 4., it is clear that the crucial distinction between the examples in (67) on the one hand, and the examples in (65) and (66) on the other, hinges

on

a

difference

in

0-structure.

In

(65) and (66) both the element

- 78 -

preceding the clitic and the clitic itself belong to the (67)

they

same

0,

whereas

in

belong to different 0's. So I assume that the ungrammaticalities in

(59) and (60) must be explained in terms of the phonological domain 0. Following this line of thought, it has been suggested in Booij (1981, p. 98) that

in

casual speech the final consonant of a word becomes ambisyllabic with

the initial consonants of a following word. Booij's arguments for this position seem

to me purely intuitive, And not supported by evidence from any phonologi-

cal process. However, it seems that in the process of CSR, we have hand

a

case

at

in which ambisyllabicity plays a highly useful role. If within 0 the last

obstruent of an item is linked with the onset of the initial next

word,

we

syllable

of

the

are now in the position to explain the facts of (65), (66) and

(67) in the following way. The ungrammatical examples in (65) and (66) contain an now

ambisyllabic

with

which

is

a clitic. The clitic is no longer schwa-initial as re-

quired by rule (62) and hence cannot undergo CSR. In the of

obstruent grammatical

examples

(65) and (66), the clitics will still be schwa-initial as the words preced-

ing the clitic end in a sonorant which cannot be ambisyllabic. Finally, in (67) the words preceding the clitic are 0-final and hence their final consonant cannot be ambisyllabic, hence CSR may apply.

The second occasion in which CSR fails, is its overapplication in

cases

where

the clitic is sentence-final. In these case CSR is impossible, as is illustrated in (68).

(68)a b

dat *dat Jan *Jan

doe doe wil wil

ak (I will do that) ék at (John wants it) ét

Precisely because nothing follows the clitics of (68), their cannot

final

obstruents

be ambisyllabic. Thus, if one requires that the obstruent of the clitic

which has to undergo CSR, be ambisyllabic, the facts of (68) are accounted for: in

(68)

the k of ak and the t of at are not ambisyllabic and hence CSR cannot

apply. Notice furthermore that it is no longer necessary to assume nant

in

the

conso-

rule (62) to be an obstruent. Sonorants cannot be ambisyllabic, so in

place of [-son] we had better use the variable 'x' as part of the environment. It is now possible to reformulate rule (62) as a multi-level rule resulting

in

-

the

formulation

79

-

given in (69). It is of crucial importance here that the C of

the left-hand environment is not linked to a segmental

position,

representing

in fact an empty onset.

(69)

CSR (second version) $ $ / X X X c ν c -> c ν c

I

1/

1/

θ X X where 'x' is a variable consonant

The syllabic representations in (70a) of the examples in (65) show that in

the

first example the ambisyllabic ρ blocks application of CSR (69), whereas in the second the η is not ambisyllabic and hence does not block CSR. With respect the

examples

one of its examples shows. Finally, the examples of (68) are the

to

(67), rule (69) can be applied as the representation in (70b) of

clitic-obstruent

is

not

ambisyllabic

excluded

because

as required by rule (69). This is

shown for (68a) in (70c).

(70)a

$

$

$

/ X / X / X cvccvccvc I 1/ aι t Mhu AisI op

M I $ / χ

$ / X

$ $ $ / X / X / X cvccvccvc ! ι aI t Mhu AisI in

$ / X

cvccvccvc I Al I M A ! ko op

Λ

a t hu is $

/ X

c ν c c ν c

ΙΑ

do e

11

a k

We now have a good insight into the optimal input structure of step is to take a look at the output structure.

CSR.

The

next

-

80

-

5.3. The Output Structure of CSR

If we assume that CSR is a deletion process, it seems reasonable that after the application

of

CSR an automatic process of resyllabification takes place, at-

taching the already ambisyllabic consonant to the syllable on deletes

the

after

resyllabification

is

in

between

sentences

First,

accordance

language-specific requirements. Second, it must now be ambiguities

right:

CSR

schwa, and hence the syllable loses its head and as a consequence

its capacity to be a syllable. We now expect two things. structure

its

with

possible

the

syllable

universal to

and

construct

with clitics in which CSR has applied and sen-

tences without clitics. However, both expectations do not turn out to be

true,

as we will show below. First, the examples in (71) show that CSR and the accompanying

resyllabifi-

cation may result in extremely queer consonant clusters in onset position, such as tbl and ksn. These clusters only occur in case of ambisyllabicity.

(71)a b

¿t_bloedt behoorlijk (it is bleeding enormously) ¿k_snoep niet veel (I do not eat many candies)

Second, the data of (72) are selected so as to enforce ambiguities between sentences with a clitic in which CSR has applied and sentences without them.

(72)ai ii bi ii

¿k_aas op een mooi Delfts blauw bord (I lie in wait for a beautiful Delft-blue plate) kaas op een mooi Delfts blauw bord (cheese on a beautiful Delft-blue plate) ik zag ze ¿t_rekken (I saw them stretch it) ik zag ze trekken (I saw them pull)

Upon listening to these sentences, however, even the less trained ear perceives a

difference: they are not ambiguous, although it is not easy to describe pre-

cisely what the perceived difference is.

In order to gain some insight in why the sentences in (72a) and (72b) lack

am-

biguity, and guided by the idea that CSR is a rather late (casual speech) rule,

-

81

-

it turned out to be useful to make oscillograms of these sentences in search of relevant

phonetic

detail.

The oscillograms have been made of three speakers:

since I am primarily concerned with my own dialect, I first from

my

own

with oscillograms from two other speakers. All tendencies^

made

oscillograms

speech and, second, I tested their reliability by comparing them

Relevant

portions

of

some

oscillograms

showed

the

same

of these oscillograms are given in

(73).

(73)ai

fur

ék

a

aa

(73)aii

HÉÉIÌÌ k

aa

s

(73)bi

w ζ

ét

e

(73)bii

M ζ

4 év τ

e

^ e

t

r

e

k

k

e

n

—

^

kk

—

e

η

-

82

-

First, consider the sentences in (72b) and the

corresponding

oscillograms

in

(73b). There are two differences between these two sentences. The first difference is the duration of the silent interval between za and clitic t on the

one

hand, and za and the verb trekken on the other. In the oscillograms represented in (73), the former is two to three times as long as difference

the

latter.

The

second

is that clitic t seems to be rather different from the initial t of

trekken. Sentence-initially, that is in the oscillograms of

(73a),

the

first

difference cannot be observed, of course, but the second difference seems to be even clearer than in sentence-medial position. Phonetically speaking, there appears

to be a rather long silent interval in the position of the deleted schwa

and the remaining clitic-obstruent seems to be onset-position.

different

from

obstruents

in

This is the phonetic raw material. Now what do we make of this

from a phonological perspective? As the oscillograms show, a complete deletion of the clitic

schwa

has

not

occurred, although there does not seem to be a real vowel segment. For a phonological account, we must look for some sort of degenerate segment or

syllable,

i.e. an underspecified segment or syllable which has as one of its consequences a period of phonetic silence. A possible explanation may come from (1983)

Trommelen's

proposals for the underlying shape of schwa, especially with respect to

its behaviour in Dutch syllable structure. On the basis of a number of butional

and

phonological

observations

distri-

Trommelen proposes to consider Dutch

schwa a bimoric (=long) vowel in underlying representation: the peak of a

syl-

lable containing schwa consists of an empty position to the left and a position filled by 'schwa' to the right, as in (74).

(74)

V

/\

This makes the phonological shape of schwa-consonant clitics that of (75).

- 83 -

(75)

$ C

V

c

Λ I

A

s

χ

My tentative proposal here now is, that, adapting the (1983),

it

is

framework

of

Trommelen

indeed the schwa on the segmental tier that is deleted by CSR,

but, at the same time, the empty position remains unaffected. Although here

with

the

I

deal

output-structure of CSR, on the basis of this structure, it is

necessary to reformulate CSR once again, as is done in (76).

(76)

CSR (final version) $ $ / X / X c ν c -> c ν c

Λ1/

IL/

Δ sx Δχ where 'χ' is a variable consonant^

CSR now generates a degenerate syllable with a dummy V on the CV-tier and hence there

is

still

a residue of schwa. I propose that this may be the way to ac-

count for the lack of ambiguity in (72). In (72a) k and aas of are

one

the

noun

kaas

syllable while clitic k belongs both to the degenerate syllable after

application of CSR and to the syllable formed by the verb aas. The

same

holds

for the examples in (72b). (77) intends to make this clear.

$

(77)ai C

V

Λ c1

!

k a a s bi

$

/X C V c Λ Ik I tre

AV c I Δ k

C

c

Ac Λ I a a s V

Λ

c

V

c

$ / Χ C V c

IM I I Δ t r e k

Precisely this difference in prosodie structure can also for

be

held

responsible

the fact that the paired sentences in (72) are not ambiguous. Notice also,

- 84 -

however, that we can now solve our second problem. longer

It

is

not

necessary

any

to account for the awkward syllable-initial strings of clitic-consonant

and initial consonants in (71). One can simply remain silent on them, clitic-consonants

are

ambisyllabic,

a

situation

which

as

both

is rather normal in

Dutch. Notice finally that the empty V-position will be interpreted as a silent interval by the phonetic part of

g r a m m a r

5.4. Conclusions

In this section, I have given an analysis of speech.

the

process

of

CSR

in

It turns out to depend on prosodie structure and the the notion of am-

bisyllabicity, and to fit into the theory of cliticization proposed in 2.,

casual

in

that

only

the relevant clitics which are dominated by 0, may undergo

CSR. The composition of the vowel schwa, with an empty and a position

associated

Chapter

to

V

filled

segmental

on the CV-tier as proposed by Trommelen (1983) may

play an important role in explaining some characteristics

of

CSR.

Under

her

proposal, it is now easy to obtain a degenerate syllable which provides the explanation for some unexpected disambiguities. This degenerate syllable

is

in-

terpreted as a silent interval by the phonetic part of grammar.

6. Ν in Hiatus

6.1. Introduction

A natural tendency in languages is to avoid sequences of two or vowels

tions, many grammars tend to employ some phonological operation them.

more

adjacent

at the phonetic level. If such sequences arise in the course of derivato

annihilate

One of the vowels may be deleted, or a consonant is inserted between the

sequence of vowels. Dutch has both types of processes. For example, within pho-

- 85 -

nological

words

in the lexicon a schwa is deleted if it stands before another

vowel as illustrated in (78) (cf. for example Trommelen and Zonneveld (1981, p. 68)).

(78)

ambassade (embassy) syllaba (syllable) synoda (synod) genada (mercy) boeta (fine)

ambassadá-eur (embassador) syllató-isch (syllabic) synodé-aal (synodal) genad¿-ig (mercyful) boet¿-en (pay)

The other option is exemplified by the process of Homorganic

Glide

Insertion,

inserting j or w between nonlow long vowels including diphthongs, and a following vowel (see for example Trommelen and Zonneveld (1981, p. 69)).

(79)

knie/knie-j-en (knee(s)) ree/ree-j-en (deer(s)) kei/kei-j-en (stone(s))

stratego/stratego-w-en (stratego) judo/judo-w-en (judo) kano/kano-w-en (canoe)

A third hiatus-filling phenomenon inserts an η between a schwa and a word-initial

following

or clitic-initial vowel which bears a very low or no stressl6, as

is shown in (80).

(80)

Met Mieka-n-op de kast Ik wilda-n-at graag zien (With Mieke on top of the cupboard) (I wanted to see it) Bij Joka-n-in de tuin Geloofda-n-ie Jan niet (With Joke in the garden) (Did he not believe John) Door schada-n-en schände Hij gaf ma-n-at boek (By trial and error) (He gave me the book)

The rightmost column of (80) makes quite clear vowel-initial

clitic

that

the

position

between

a

and a preceding schwa is a potential input for this pro-

cess. This motivates us to study this process. A second reason lies in the fact that

this

process also shows a very interesting interaction with a process in

Western dialects of Dutch deleting η in a comparable context, as is clear the

formulation

of

from

this deletion rule by Trommelen and Zonneveld (1981), and

from the accompanying mono- and poly-morphemic examples.

-

(81)a

86

-

N-deletion (T/Z's version) [+nas, +cor] -> i> / 8

b

(# / [+cons, +cont]}

bovafi bovafi-st (above) lov-arf lov-an-d (praise) heidafl heidan-afi (heathen) ochtand ochtand-afl (morning) keukaj! keukarfs (kitchen) tangajis (tangent)

I assume here that rule (81a) is ordered before n-insertion, which will be formulated

in

Section

6.3. Thus the former will feed the latter, giving surface

counterexamples to it, such as those in (82). This will be worked out below.

(82)

wij rekanan at uit (we calculate it)

i

n-deletion n-insertion

η

Further details of the phenomenon of n-deletion badly

understood,

however,

and

n-insertion

seem

to

be

and one of the aims of this section is to enlarge

our understanding of it. In section 6.2., I

will

first

give

an

account

of

n-deletion and in section 6.3., I will discuss n-insertion.

6.2. N-deletion

The first observation relevant to our account was made by

Trommelen

and

Zon-

neveld (1981) who formulated rule (81a), and also attempted to explain why this rule could not apply to first person singular and imperative verb-forms in stem-final -an, as in (83).

(83)a b c

ik opan/*opajl deuren (I open doors) tekon/*tekai< dat uit (draw that) wij opanaft deuren (we open doors) wij tekanafi dat uit (we draw that) de opajl deuren (the open doors) het tekari (the sign)

ending

- 87 -

Their explanation of this fact, based not only on number

of

different

phenomena,

n-deletion

but

also

on

a

runs as follows (see also Zonneveld (1982)).

Dutch weak verbs have a so-called 'theme-vowel1 immediately after the stem. The theme-vowel

is

deleted in the course of the derivations, and if n-deletion is

ordered before theme-vowel deletion, the cases in which η unexpectedly

remains

at word-edge are explained. This is illustrated by the following derivations.

(84)

(ik) opan-V n-del. theme-del

i> open

(wij) opan-V-an j> i opana

This analysis could be carried further when we

opan (adj.) é

opa

consider

compounds

and

words

derived by suffixation. Since Dutch compounds consist of two or more (phonological) words, one expects to find n-deletion compound-internally at This

is

indeed

word-edges.

the case (examples are partly taken from Van Oordt and Reimer

(1983)).

(85)

examarí-vrees (exam fear) wapafi-handel (weapon trade) rekaji-eenheid (nit of measure) dekaji-fabriek (blanker factory) wagarf-dwarsstraat (waggon cross road) buitafl-huis (out house) gararf-winkel (small-ware shop) keuka»4-prinses (kitchen princess)

Words derived by suffixation must be divided into at least two categories: in

which

the suffix behaves like a phonological word itself (for example with

respect to stress assignment and syllabification), and the other in suffix

is

just

part

I

which

the

of a full word, triggering resyllabification in the re-

levant cases. This difference corresponds, respectively, to the Class

one

Class

II

and

type of suffixations as defined by Siegel (1974). For the former, one

expects to find no η before the suffix, and for the latter one expects η to remain, except in front of s. This turns out to be true.

-

(86)

88

-

suffix behaves like phon. word gedegarf-heid (reliability) wetap-schap (science) eigajl-dom (property) herssrf-loos (brainless) suffix does not behave like phon. word tekan-an (draw) opan-ar (opener) volgan-da/volgan-da(next) (cf. mono-morphemic ochtand) bovafí-sta/bovafí-sta ( upper ) Leuvarl-s (from Louvain) (cf. mono-morphemic tangajís)

This seems plausible for the data presented, but clitics raise

one

particular

question: why do the clitics a n s , man and zan undergo the rule of n-deletion at least in Western Dutch, and if this is so, why does the clitic an not. first-mentioned

In

cases the η is normally deleted, although it is not word-final

here, because clitics do not form a phonological word, but only a syllable, proposed

in

the

Chapter

2.

In

as

fact, it seems that this question can be handled

rather easily by a reformulation of the rule:

N-deletion (my version)

(87)

η -> i / a

{ $) / s}

As can be seen, the deletion of η in ans, man and zan is explained by postulating

a

syllable-boundary

instead of a word-boundary as righthand environment.

N-deletion is not applied to an, on the other hand, since syllables and

maybe

in

in

vowel schwa. If η is deleted in an this syllable has schwa as its only and

exactly

Dutch,

other languages as well, can presumably not consist only of the member,

this would be excluded. Another seemingly undesirable consequence

of the reformulation of rule (81a) into (87) is that we do not seem to

account

for the fact that η is not deleted in cases such as volganda in which η is syllable-final, but remains. For an explanation of these cases we

first

have

to

make a slight digression. Berendsen and Zonneveld (1984)

propose

to

consider

consonants

preceding

schwa and following a liquid, to be ambisyllabic. This proposal was made to account for the optional schwa-insertion between liquids and nants at syllable-edge, as is shown in the examples in (88).

non-coronal

conso-

- 89 (88)

werk/werak half/halaf

werkan/werakan (work) halva/halava (half) varkan/varakan (pig) rabarbar/rabarabar (rhubarb)

Let us assume here that ambisyllabic consonants preceding schwa tricted

are

res-

to follow liquids only, but that they are always ambisyllabic^. Under

this assumption, the d of volganda is ambisyllabic, hence bleeding This

not

n-deletion.

is illustrated in (89), where schwa is represented for convenience as one

segment on the segmental tier.

$

$

$

/Χ /X A c v c c v c c v c I IΝ IΝ ι

v o l g a n d a

We now have to consider cases like opanar in which η stays. The of

representation

opanar in (90) makes it quite clear that the η is ambisyllabic. Why is this

η not deleted, although it is syllable-final?

(90)

$

$

$

/Χ A /X c v c c v c c v c I NIp aI Νη aI rI o

The answer to this question is that the non-application of n-deletion due

here

is

to a general condition on geminates, which I already dealt with in Section

4.2.3. This condition can be stated as in (91).

(91)

Geminates, i.e.

χ / \ C

, cannot be split up. C

In case of opanar the η is a geminate belonging to two C's which are each of

different

syllables,

one

syllable-final

part

and the other syllable-initial.

- 90 However, the path from syllable-final C to η does not trigger cause

condition

(91)

demands

that

n-deletion,

be-

also the other part of the n-geminate is

taken into account. In other words, the integrity of the geminate should be ensured.

See

also note 17 with respect to condition (91) and the application of

FD If we now turn to cases such as (little

blanket),

keukantja

(little

kitchen)

and

dekantja

we see that the η is deleted here as well. This is also ac-

counted for in the framework developed above. If we assume that n-deletion plies

ap-

before the merging of tj into c, dealt with in Section 4.2.3., keukantja

is represented as in (92). This representation shows

that

t

does

not

stand

directly in front of schwa, and hence cannot be ambisyllabic. Thus, η is syllable-final and is deleted by n-deletion.

(92)

ke u

k a nt is

I

Finally, we have to consider that part of grammar in which n-deletion is to placed,

i.e.

be

whether it is a lexical or a post-lexical rule. As mentioned be-

fore Trommelen and Zonneveld (1981) made it quite clear

that

n-deletion

must

take place before theme-vowel-deletion. Theme-vowel-deletion simply deletes the theme-vowel from the segmental

string.

Thus,

this

rule

is

morphologically 1 ft governed and therefore a likely candidate to be a lexical rule . Let us assume it is. In that case n-deletion must also be a lexical rule. Otherwise it not

be

ordered before theme-vowel-deletion. Some motivation for this point of

view might come from consonant-initial clitics. If after

a

word

ending

in

-an

(except

these

clitics

are

placed

of course words such as opan (1 pers.

subj.)), η is deleted. Assuming a post-lexical rule of expect

could

n-deletion,

one

would

this state of affairs if the clitic is directly dominated by 0, because

then η is syllable-final. However, if the clitic is adjoined to the word to its left,

it is comparable to "lexical words" of the same shape. So the phonologi-

cal words rekanan da... (calculate the) and represented

in

hindaranda

(hindring)

should

be

the same way, and in both representations n-deletion cannot be

applied. For rekanan da, this is not in conformity with the facts.

91

(93)

$ $ $ / Χ / Χ / Χ Λ c v c c v c c v c c V c I I Ν I NI I Ν , re k η a η d a

/ C I h

$ $ $ $ Χ / Χ / Χ / Χ V C C V C C V C C V C I Ν I Ν I Ν I inds randa

However, if we assume n-deletion to be a lexical rule, this rule is applied before

the

post-lexical operation of clitic-adjunction, resulting in a deletion

of η in rekanan which is in conformity with the facts. We see here that lexical rules can be applied to clitics proper. The η in ans, man and zan is deleted in the lexicon before these clitics become part of syntactic and post-lexical prosodie

structure.

This

is in conformity with our assumptions on cliticization

since only clitic-adjunction is assumed to be post-lexical, but clitics

them-

selves are stored in the lexicon. Now we are only left with examples consisting of words followed

ending

in -an and

by vowel-initial clitics and other non-lexical items in which a η can

be heard. As suggested earlier this is due to a process

of

n-insertion. This

process will be considered in the next section.

6.3. N-insertion

When we reconsider the left-hand examples of n-insertion given in (80) and peated

here

in (94) for convenience, it is quite clear that the domain of the

rule which accounts for this phenomenon must be a prosodie

category

because η is inserted here at the break between two 0's, cf. (96).

(94)

Met Mieka-n-op de kast Bij Joks-n-in de tuin Door schada-n-en schände

(95)

0 Met

re-

A Mieka

op de kast

above 0,

- 92 -

Bij

Joka

Λ

in de tuxn

A

Door schada

en schände

I (the Intonational Phrase) seems to b¿ the proper domain of this process, cause

no

η

is

be-

inserted in between two I's, even if all other conditions are

met. In (96), for example, η is not inserted between Joka and op.

See

Chapter

1.2.2. for the construction of I.

(96)

Ik dacht dat Joka, op wie Jantien erg lijkt, weg was (I thought that Joke, who looks much like Jantien, had gone)

Ik dacht dat Joka op wie Jantien erg lijkt weg was

This gives us the following formulation of n-insertion:

(98)

N-insertion (first version) i - > η / (j ... a 0)

(0

V

... j)

[-str]

When we consider cases in which a non-lexical item is in tion,

we

sentence-final

posi-

do find η in the relevant examples. However, that is not the correct

environment

with

non-lexical

items

respect do

not

to

0

start

for

rule

(98)

to

apply.

Sentence-final

a new 0, but are incorporated into the 0 to

their left.

(99)

ik hoorda-n-am (I heard him) Miep gaat tegen de moda-n-in (Miep goes against fashion) ?Kees vaart tegen de kada-n-op (Kees hits the quay with his boat)

This implies that the 0-boundaries in (98) are not

really

adequate,

and

the

- 93 -

rule had better be formulated as in (100).

N-insertion (final version)

(100)

i -> η / (j ... a

V

... j)

[-str]

One of the characteristics of this analysis is also that schwa-initial may

form

vowel-initial clitics may form part of the right-hand environment (cf. Notice

clitics

part of the left-hand environment of rule (100) (cf. (101)) and that (102)).

that it is irrelevant whether the clitic is dominated by the phonologi-

cal word or by the phonological phrase.

(101)

ik gaf ja-n-an boek (I gave you a book) liepen wa-n-in de tuin (did we walk in the garden) sloegen za-n-am (did they hit him)

(102)

ik gaf Wieka-n-an boek (I gave Wieke a book) wilda-n-ie niet komen (didn't he want to come) heb je de schada-n-ans bekeken (did you look at the damage)

We are now in the position to explain counterexamples in which the quite general

rule

of

n-deletion, as formulated in (87), apparently fails to apply, al-

though η is syllable-final, as in (103). In fact, n-deletion does not apply

here,

but

the

former

to

after the η has been deleted, n-insertion may again fill the

same position with n. This ordering is likely to that

fail

is

a

follow

from

the

assumption

lexical rule, as suggested in Section 6.2., while the

latter is post-lexical, since n-insertion is an I-domain rule. The

derivations

in (104) are illustrations of these assumptions.

(103) wij lagan op het gras (we lay on the grass) wij zagan am niet (we did not see him) zij zien de dekan an huis ingaan (we saw the deacon enter a house)

- 94 -

(104)

lagan op η-del. (lex.) i n-ins. (post-lex.) η

zagen am i η

dekan an έ η

lagan op

zagan am

dekan an

6.4. Concluding Remarks

We have seen in this section that within the proposed prosodie Dutch

clitics,

a

well-founded

motivation

structures

for

can be given for the fact that in

words ending in -an, η sometimes does not seem to be deleted, while it normally is.

I

argued, however, that this η is deleted in the lexicon and another η is

again inserted by a post-lexical rule under this

conclusion

proper

neveld (1981) and by proposing an analysis of the Trommelen

circumstances.

I

reached

by extending the analysis of n-deletion by Trommelen and Zonphenomenon

of

n-insertion.

and Zonneveld's rule was changed in such a way as to apply at sylla-

ble-edge instead of word-edge and it was, furthermore, assumed to be a rule.

With

this

lexical

reformulation, I explained why the η in the clitic-syllables

ans, man and zan can be deleted as well. These cases also provide an example of a lexical rule applied to clitics themselves, i.e. those which are not yet part of syntactic and post-lexical prosodie structure. Furthermore, ambisyllabicity

the

notion

of

of consonants before schwa in the phonological word, was shown

to be of crucial importance.

The

process

of

n-insertion

was

shown

to

be

post-lexical. I argued that the domain of this post-lexical process is I (Intonational Phrase) with no further category information rule

could

apply

both

word-internally

and

required,

externally.

schwa-final and vowel-initial clitics function as part of n-insertion.

The

the

so In

that

the

particular,

environment

of

two adjunction sides for these clitics appear to provide the

input required for this rule.

- 95 7. Conclusion

In this chapter, I argued for two

positions

for

Dutch

clitics

in

prosodie

structure, based on the proposals for phonological clitic-adjunction in Chapter 2. The argumentation was initially built on the phenomenon of of

Final

Devoicing

obstruents. Vowel-initial clitics trigger variation with respect to FD when

preceded by an underlyingly voiced obstruent: this obstruent is

either

voice-

less at phonetic representation, or voiced. An analysis was given in which clitics are either dominated by the phrase.

phonological

word

or

by

the

phonological

In the former case, a process of resyllabification takes place, bleed-

ing FD, while in the latter FD can apply normally. Thus the variation in application of FD has been explained in terms of different prosodie structures. This analysis of FD was extended to other voicing phenomena, i.e. voicing tion

and

clitic-t-voicing.

After

this,

two

other

assimila-

relevant phenomena with

respect to cliticization were accounted for. First, casual speech schwa reduction in at, ak, and as, was shown to be limited to the situations where these clitics are dominated by 0. Furthermore, the need for ambisyllabic obstruents between words within 0 was shown to be sary

in

neces-

casual speech, explaining why Clitic Schwa Reduction (CSR) is blocked

when the clitic is preceded by an obstruent-final

non-lexical

item.

Further-

more, it was argued that the consequence of schwa reduction is not a subsequent resyllabification, but that the clitic-syllable remains unaffected with a dummy vowel

as nucleus. This explains why we cannot enforce ambiguities between sen-

tences with a clitic in which CSR has been applied and sentences without them. Second, apparent counter-examples in clitic constructions to n-deletion have been

explained by showing that n-deletion is a lexical rule, whose application

is undone by a post-lexical rule inserting η in approximately the same environment

where

n-deletion had deleted n-s. With respect to cliticization, two as-

pects of this analysis are relevant. The first aspect concerns the of

lexical

rules

to clitics proper, i.e. clitics which have not yet been in-

serted into syntactic structure. n-deletion

As

has

been

shown,

the

may

lexical

rule

of

deletes η in ans, man and zan. Furthermore, the prosodie structures

assumed for Dutch clitics provide the input for n-insertion: tics

application

occur

environment.

schwa-final

cli-

as left-hand environment and vowel-initial ones as right-hand

- 96 -

Thus, the prosodie structure for Dutch cliticization

is

well-motivated

by

the analyses of several totally different and unrelated processes. This is evidence that we are on the right track in our proposal of the parameters for prosodie

cliticization. Further consequences of this proposal will be examined in

the next chapter.

Notes to Chapter 3

1.

It may be the case that the full forms het and een are just spelling pronunciations (see Van Haeringen (1937)). With respect to the articles, this cannot be tested against the diagnostic tests of chapter 2. However, the pronoun het has some syntactic clitic characteristics. For example, object pronoun het cannot be topicalized, while a corresponding NP can. This is exemplified in (i).

(i)a b c d

Hij gaf het aan de jongen (he gave it to the boy) *Het gaf hij aan de jongen (It gave he to the boy) Hij gaf het boek aan de jongen (he gave the book to the boy) Het boek gaf hij aan de jongen (The book he gave to the boy)

2.

Parts of this section are based on Berendsen (1983b), although the analysis given here deviates crucially in some respects from the one in Berendsen (1983b).

3.

See also note 17 for some effects concerning FD.

4.

Phonetically speaking, voicing does not seem to have a binary value, but rather a gradual one. However, this does not mean that in phonology the voicing feature has to be gradual as well. Over the years, binary features in phonology have proven to be a very useful tool for classification of segments and for the description of phonological processes. As such, the binary phonological feature for voice assumed here is rather well-established. Unfortunately, the precise relation between phonological [voice] and phonetic [voice] has remained unclear, although recently some interesting remarks are made from phonological (cf. Hayes (1984b)) as well as phonetic (cf. Keating (1984)) point of view.

5.

The appearance of underlying d followed by ΘΓ or ie as t and not d considered in the next section.

6.

The impossiblity for ar to trigger clitic-t-voicing will the next section.

7.

In his unpublished M.A.-thesis Wester (1982) assumes clitic-t-voicing to apply word-internally. Furthermore, he assumes that clitics occupy a different adjunction level than suffixes. This separate clitic adjunction level is in fact nothing more than saying that clitics are clitics, and as such less insightful than the analysis presented here.

8.

Zonneveld (1983) changed his position somewhat, arguing now that, whatever the status of the obstruents may be, obstruent-clusters within words must be voiceless. This is stated by 'lexical rule' and presupposes a lexical cliticization rule. However, there is strong evidence that Dutch clitics originate in the syntactic component of grammar (cf. Berendsen (1983a)). Thus

be

will

be

considered

in

- 98 Zonneveld (1983) does not seem to be on the right track. 9. There is an exception to this generalization, i.e. in case there is a pause between the two relevant forms. However, this does not concern us here. 10. People who pronounce the past tense of staan (stand) and vinden (find) ston and von, of course, do not judge these examples as ungrammatical.

as

11. Parts of this section are based on Berendsen (to app.). 12. It seems possible in some dialects to delete schwa if it is clitic-final. However, this seems to be a different process from the one under investigation. It will not be considered here, because the facts are not quite clear to me. 13. I thank Hugo Quené for helping me in matters concerning phonetics. 14. It might be necessary to reformulate rule (76) somewhat because there are some word-internal cases in which syllables containing schwa do not have a filled onset. This is the case if the vowel a is followed by schwa, as for example in sambasn. So rule (76) may apply in ga ak whether or not ak is adjoined to ga. To prohibit word-internal application of CSR we may demand the syllable containing schwa to be directly dominated by 0. 15. Rialland (to app.) independently arrives at a comparable conclusion with respect to deletion of certain a's in French. In that language, there are constructions which are potentially ambiguous after a-deletion, but which do not turn out to be ambiguous. An example of this unexpected lack of ambiguity is provided by the pair in (i). (i)

Le bar trouvé hier (the bar found yesterday) Le basi retrouvé hier (the stocking recovered yesterday)

16. It seems to me that this process occurs more frequently if the element lowing schwa has no stress, i.e. is a clitic.

fol-

17. Notice that this move has some consequences for the formulation of Final Devoicing, which we considered in section 4. There we argued that obstruents at the end of the syllable become voiceless. However, we did not mention ambisyllabic obstruents there. Certainly these obstruents have to remain voiced if they were voiced originally. This has been established by the general condition requiring that geminates (here ambisyllabic obstruents) may not be split up (Steriade (1982)). 18. That is not to say, however, that the proponents of this rule argue in fact for its lexical status. In what follows, I give the most likely analysis, although I admit that alternative analyses are possible.

Chapter 4

Clitic Phonology in other Languages

1. Introduction

This study has as its main theme the development of a prosodie theory ticization

which

of

cli-

accounts for the following more or less general phonological

clitic characteristics: (a) clitics depend on hosts (b) clitics are inherently unstressed (c) clitics behave schizophrenically with respect to their influence on word-internal phonological processes (d) clitics are monosyllabic Under the assumption that clitics are specified in the lexicon with the prosodie

category syllable only, clitics are inherently unstressed because only syl-

lables dominated by the prosodie categories foot and phonological word count as stressed.

As clitics originate in the syntactic component of grammar, they are

'floating syllables' in prosodie structure when entering the phonological ponent.

Since

com-

floating syllables have to be incorporated into prosodie struc-

ture both in the lexicon and post-lexically, these clitic-syllables have to incorporated

as

well.

This

may

be

achieved

in two ways: one in which the

clitic-syllable is adjoined to a neighbouring phonological word, and the in

which and

in

the

latter

it

is

more

like

a

word.

more

like

which

may

itself

result

an

The adjunction of a

clitic-syllable to a phonological word may trigger a restructuring of structure

other

the clitic is considered as a non lexical item which becomes part of

the prosodie category 0. In the former case, the clitic behaves affix,

be

prosodie

in a bleeding or feeding of phonological

processes. A further characteristic of the proposed theory is that there is ence

between

be prosodie clitics while not being syntactic ones, vice versa, or sodie

a

differ-

prosodie cliticization and syntactic cliticization. Elements can both.

Pro-

cliticization is relatively independent of syntax. Syntactic clitics may

be poly-syllabic (see Chapter 2., note 3.), but then they are not

phonological

-

100

-

clitics. As mentioned before, we are only concerned here with prosodie cliticization. In the preceding chapter, I have shown that the proposed theory tion

gives

a

correct

of

cliticiza-

explanation of phonological cliticization phenomena in

Dutch. In this chapter, I will examine the phonological behaviour of clitics in seven

different languages, each with their own phonological phenomena. In this

way, the universal status of my proposals about prosodie structure with respect to clitic phonology is tested, and, as we will shortly see, supported by a wide variety of languages and phonological aspects of cliticization. The aspects of cliticization involved in the test

can

be

roughly

divided

into three categories: 1. lexical and post-lexical processes with respect to cliticization. 2. prosodie structure and cliticization 3. phonological processes and cliticization These categories will be considered in the order given. For the first category, Cairene Arabic is investigated in Section 2. The second category is illustrated in Section 3. with phenomena encountered in Dakota and English. tegory

can

be

subdivided

The

last

ca-

into stress-phenomena (Greek, Palestinian Arabic),

'segmental' processes (Spanish

and

Palestinian

Arabic)

and

'autosegmental'

processes (Margi). These will be considered in Section 4. Each section discussing a particular language is divided

into

two

subsec-

tions. In the first subsection the relevant data are given together with a previous analysis found in the literature on which I base phonological

aspects

of

unclear. Most of the time, side-issues.

However,

I

cliticization have

a

Literature

on

phenomena

are

just

considered

as

attempted to choose for this chapter phenomena

taken from work by native speakers or have

myself.

cliticization is rather scarce, and sometimes rather

well-known

linguists,

which

therefore

relatively solid basis. In the second subsection, difficulties for the

analysis given in the preceding subsection

are

mentioned

and

a

re-analysis

along the lines of the proposals made in this study is presented. My main point will be that the denial of a separate level of phonological cliticization makes it

difficult

to understand cliticization phenomena. Under the prosodie theory

of cliticization advocated here, our understanding of cliticization will and,

what

is

grow,

more, several different clitic-facts are accounted for within a

general theory and in a uniform fashion.

- 101 -

2. Cliticization, lexical and post-lexical processes

2.1. Cairene Arabic

2.1.1. Hollow Verb Roots

A well-known phenomenon in Arabic languages is the appearance of so-called hollow verb roots, in which the exact perfect tense form depends upon the suffixed material. Thus, Kenstowicz and Kisseberth (1979) observe that in bic,

verb

roots

with

Cairene

ferent shapes in the perfect tense: [CiC] and [CuC], respectively, before sonant-initial

Ara-

the underlying shape /CayaC/ and /CawaC/ have two dif-

suffixes,

con-

and [CaaC] before vowel-initial or zero suffixes (or

possibly no suffix at all).

(1)

sil - na saal saal - it

(we carried) (he carried) (she carried)

suf - na saaf saal - it

However, if an object clitic, whether vowel-initial attached

to

(we saw) (he saw) (she saw)

or

consonant-initial,

is

a hollow root, the root is always formed as if a vowel-initial or

zero suffix were attached.

(2)

saal - na saal - u saal - ha

(he carried us) (he carried him) (he carried her)

saaf - na saaf - u saaf - h a

(he saw us) (he saw him) (he saw her)

Of course, this difference in behaviour can be traced back to the difference in status of subject and object pronouns. Subject pronouns in Arabic are suffixes, while object pronouns are clitics. Kenstowicz and Kisseberth (1979) account for these

facts by assuming a +-boundary for subject pronouns and a ^-boundary for

object pronouns, the latter blocking the hollow root process.

102 -

2.1.2. Hollow Verb Roots and Lexical Processes

As remarked in Chapter 1., boundaries are domains.

not

a

(1979) who use boundaries, is in need of revision. fresh

proper

instrument

to

mark

Thus, the analysis of hollow roots given by Kenstowicz and Kisseberth Let

us

therefore

take

a

look at the facts guided by both the theory of lexical phonology and the

prosodie clitic theory proposed in Chapter 2. The difference in behaviour of hollow roots before suffixes and before tics

as

if

cli-

there was a zero suffix, suggests that the allomorphy in the verb

root is a lexical matter. As cliticization is a post-lexical process, the shape of

the

attached

clitic

cannot have any influence on the allomorphy process;

thus the host root assumes a shape as if no suffix were attached. This will

be

clear immediately by comparing the derivation of silna and saalna.

(3) Suffixation (lex.) Allomorphy (lex.) Cliticization (post-lex.)

/sayal/ sayal-na sil-na

/sayal/ saal saal-na

Thus, the account of allomorphy in hollow verb roots fits naturally within proposed

the

prosodie clitic theory, assuming that allomorphy processes take place

in the lexicon.

- 103 -

3. Prosodie Structure and Cliticization

3.1. Dakota

3.1.1. Shaw's analysis

Dakota is an Indian language spoken in some parts States

of

of

Canada

the

United

America. It is a member of the Mississippi sub-family of Siouan and

it is generally considered to have four dialects. Here basic

and

clitic-facts

I

will

only

consider

of the Dakota language and will not go into dialect varia-

tions. I base myself on the facts given by Shaw (1980).

Shaw (1980) works within the linear framework set (1968)

out

by

Chomsky

and

Halle

in SPE. She distinguishes four sorts of boundaries: a morpheme-boundary

(+), a compound-boundary (%), an enclitic-boundary (=) and a word-boundary (#). The

difference

between

enclitic boundary and word boundary is of special re-

levance to us here. The postulation of these boundaries is based on morphological and phonological considerations. The most important phonological consideration for Shaw boundaries

is

the

way

to

postulate

in which main word stress is assigned: generally, the

second syllable from the lefthand edge of polysyllabic words is this

stress-assignment,

morpheme-

and

compound-boundaries

stressed.

observation.

For

are disregarded.

Monosyllabic words are stressed too, with clitics forming an exception to last

these

this

Both clitic boundary and word boundary block stress assign-

ment in Dakota. These observations about Dakota stress assignment are

exempli-

fied in (4), where the secondary stress in (4e) is assumed to be derived from a primary stress by a later rule.

(4)a b c d e

thani (to be old) ma + tháni (I am old) äha Ζ hi (wood skin = bark) SpS = Ini (cooked not = raw) # wak â^ (night holy = a holy night)

As one can see, the clitic-boundary and the

word-boundary

behave

alike

with

- 104 -

respect to stress assignment. However, stress assignment is not the only phonological process in which these boundaries behave alike. Shaw (1980, p. 41) marks

the

re-

following: 'Indeed, the morphophonemic facts of Dakota substantiate

this argument in that the two boundaries = and # function together in any rules which

make

crucial

reference to either of them.' As an example, she mentions

the rule of stem-formation in (5), which is ordered

after

stress

assignment,

and is illustrated by the examples in (6).

(5)

i -> a / C

(6)a b

# Súk = wa # # í^áp #

{# / =)

-> ->

# Súka = wa # (dog 'det') # cfápa # ( wood)

The question arises now whether clitic-boundary and word-boundary are the

in

fact

same. In Shaw's view, indirect evidence for the existence of both boundar-

ies can be obtained from what she calls which

has

syntactic

compounds,

an

example

of

already been given in (4e). Another example of a syntactic compound

is the one in (7).

(7)

# yi = kta # iyè£ h e£a # go fut. end be proper

Shaw's motivation to between

yji

postulate

(he ought to go)

a

clitic-boundary

and

not

a

word-boundary

and the clitic k t a is twofold. Her first argument runs as follows.

According to Shaw, y i k t a originates

syntactically

as

an

embedded

sentence

under the higher predicate iye2^e2a. She assumes that the postulation of a clitic-boundary expresses the syntactic relationship while

between

yi

and

kta

best,

a word-boundary between them does not. For the sake of clarity, the cor-

responding syntactic structure is given in (8).

- 105 -

(8) NP I S yi

kta

iye£ h e&i

Secondly, the postulation of a word-boundary between yjL and kta cannot the

express

fact that this sequence functions as a phonological phrase more or less in

the sense of SPE, i.e. as a string of formatives which is for

phonological

processes,

the

maximal

domain

whereas the postulation of a clitic-boundary can

express this function.

3.1.2. A new account of cliticization in Dakota

Although Shaw can account for the observed facts in the her

analysis

makes

a

rather

way

described

above,

ad hoc and unconvincing impression against the

background of present-day phonological theory. Furthermore, it suffers from the fact that she does not or cannot sharply separate phonology from morpho-syntax. Especially the postulation of a separate clitic-boundary whose behaviour is exactly

like

that of a word-boundary with respect to phonological processes, is

unconvincing. Fortunately, we now have the tools to remedy these will

show

here

that

Dakota

drawbacks.

I

clitic phonology can be handled more adequately

within the prosodie clitic theory as proposed in Chapter 2. Of course, under the proposals of Chapter 2., Dakota with

the

clitics

are

provided

prosodie category syllable only, and not foot and/or word, thus pre-

venting these clitics from being stressed. Under the assumption that in

Dakota

clitics are not adjoined to the word to their left, an assumption which

is con-

trary to the one proposed by Shaw, it can be easily explained why these clitics do

not influence phonological processes at word-edge. In this way, Dakota cli-

tics are

considered

0-structure.

In

non-lexical

Shaw's

items

and

as

such

they

become

part

terms this means that there is always a word-boundary

between a clitic and a preceding word, so that clitics cannot influence logical

processes

phono-

at word-edge. Thus, the situation described here is compar-

able with those cases in Dutch vowel-initial

of

in

which

Final

Devoicing

applies

before

a

clitic. It now immediately becomes clear why verb plus following

clitic function as a phonological phrase. Although Shaw mentions an SPE-type of phonological phrase, this type of phonological phrase seems to me comparable to

-

phonological phrases in

metrical

106

theory

-

as

proposed

by

Nespor

and

Vogel

(1982)1, Shaw (1980) does not discuss many syntactic characteristics of

Dakota,

but

enough to make it possible to construct 0-structure. On p. 10 Shaw remarks that 'Dakota has a basic SOV order 1 . Furthermore, her examples make

it

clear

that

the specifier position of NP is to the right of N. Therefore, we may tentatively conclude that Dakota is a left-recursive language, which implies that a lexical

category

with

all

non-lexical

items to its right forms a phonological

phrase. This is compatible with Shaw's remark that verb

(a

lexical

category)

and following clitic (a non-lexical category) function as a phonological phrase in Dakota. Limiting ourselves to the analysis of clear

clitic

constructions,

it

is

quite

how example (4d) has to be represented in our new account of Dakota cli-

tic phonology. In this example Spá is a lexical category and consequently

head

of 0, while Sni is a clitic syllable dominated by the same 0^·

The examples in (6) can now be accounted for as well, assuming that the rule of Stem Formation has the word edge as its righthand environment^.

Finally, the syntactic structure in (8) which was originally intended

to

evidence for a separate clitic-boundary, obtains a prosodie counterpart.

give

- 107 -

(H)

S NP

V

S yi.

kta

iyeí^eía I

r

Notice that in (11) both considerations to accept a clitic-boundary follow from the above analysis in which no clitic-boundary is postulated. The syntactic relationship between yà and the clitic kta is expressed by the

syntactic

struc-

ture, while the phonological relationship between these two elements (forming a phonological phrase) is expressed by the phonological structure. In this section, I have shown that the basic facts of Dakota clitic phonology

can be explained on the basis of the following assumptions: (a) clitics are

just syllables without any further inherent prosodie information, and (b) tic-syllables

are

dominated

cli-

by 0, because Dakota seems to make this specific

choice with respect to the clitic parameters. Furthermore, in this analysis

no

ad hoc stipulations such as a special clitic boundary are necessary.

3.2. English

3.2.1. Destressing of function words

One of the languages most thoroughly studied by generative lish.

It

is

not

linguists

is

Eng-

surprising that the phenomenon under consideration here has

been given considerable attention in the literature on English generative

pho-

nology, starting with publications by Zwicky (1970) and Selkirk (1972) and ending with recent publications by Selkirk (1984) and Kaisse (1985). However, this has

not

led to a consensus about the way the clitic facts should be accounted

for theoretically. I will mainly follow the relevant portions of the

study

by

Selkirk (1984) which is largely a reanalysis in grid-terms of parts of her doctoral dissertation (Selkirk (1972)). In particular, I will deal with the

beha-

viour and distribution of monosyllabic non-lexical items, which have one strong

-

108

-

and several weak variants, and go into the exceptional

behaviour

of

pronouns

with respect to the above mentioned distribution. With respect to monosyllabic non-lexical items the facts are as mally,

a

non-lexical

follows.

item may appear in its weak form when available if fol-

lowed by a lexical category, and if there is no 'break' between them. when

there

However,

is such a 'break', or when the non-lexical item is sentence-final,

the strong form is required. Furthermore, a strong non-lexical

Nor-

item

bears

pitch

accent

(see

form

is

required

if

the

especially Selkirk (1984) on the

latter topic). The examples in (12) show this behaviour quite clearly ('

indi-

cates weak, and ' strong).

(12)a b c d

Would you sit in/in the car Would you let the car *in/in You càn/càn do nothing (I cannot do anything) But you *càn/càn do the following

Selkirk accounts for these facts by assuming a post-lexical rule of destressing which

destresses

monosyllabic

function

words

and other syllables which are

stressed 'a little'. In case of pitch-accented function words, their stress too

heavy,

is

so they cannot be destressed; and in case the function word occurs

in front of a break, the output of destressing is excluded by a

separate

con-

vention. An exception to the picture given here is the behaviour break.

Pronouns,

although

pronouns

at

a

of the syntactic category NP, are considered to be

function words. So one expects them to remain stressed in environment.

of the

above-mentioned

However, this expectation does not always turn out to be true, as

the examples in (13) show.

(13)a b

She found him They will give it to you

Considering cases like (14), Selkirk accounts for this behaviour by postulating the syntactic encliticization rule in (15).

- 109 -

(14)a b (15)

She put his on the table He showed his mother thêm [Χ] +verb

[Ν

]

v

=>

l#2 i

1 2 Condition: 1 c-commands 2

After rule

(15)

word-internally,

has

applied,

reduces

the

the

rule

of

destressing

which

also

works

stress of the encliticized pronoun. In the next

section, I will argue against such a syntactic analysis of this encliticization and will give a prosodie analysis instead.

3.2.2. A prosodie account As noted, most of the relevant monosyllabic function next

to

a

strong

words

of

English

form, a weak form with several possible pronunciations. In

this section, I will argue, against Selkirk's destressing analysis, forms

that

weak

are not derived from strong ones, but that they are allomorphs stored in

the lexicon. In this way, it is not only possible to give a plausible of

have,

analysis

the distribution of strong and weak non-lexical items, but also of the spe-

cial behaviour of the pronouns.

The first strange thing in a destressing analysis is monosyllabic

function

words

the

their, out, like and through, too, no and on, up and but morph.

With

respect

nonapplication non-lexical

of

items

fact

that

not

all

may destress. For example, the non-lexical items have

no

weak

allo-

to examples such as out and like Selkirk argues that the

destressing composed

here

depends

on

syllable

structure:

most

of a long vowel and a consonant in their rime are

reluctant to undergo destressing. This strikes one as

reasonable,

and

it

is

probably correct from a diachronic point of view. In the other cases, her arguments are less convincing. With respect to examples such as too and no, Selkirk observes

a

contrast in frequency with the items to and do which may destress.

Too and no are less frequent than to and do and this contrast responsible

for

the

lack

should

be

held

of application of destressing in the former class.

Now, frequency may play a role in the application of phonological rules, but see

I

no reason to assume too and no to be infrequent^ and therefore this cannot

be the reason to block destressing in these cases. Finally,

examples

such

as

-

but,

110 -

on and, up are simply listed by Selkirk as exceptions to the general pro-

cess of destressing. In an analysis which does not derive the weak form strong

one,

such a rather vague notion as frequency and on processes.

from

the

corresponding

but stores them both in the lexicon, one does not have to rely on exception

devices

to

general

Some monosyllabic non-lexical items simply have a strong form and a

weak form and others have not. This state of affairs should be learned

by

any

language learning child and stored in his or her lexicon. Further evidence in favour of an analysis which puts both the strong and the weak

form

of a non-lexical item in the lexicon, is provided by Kaisse (1985).

In her analysis of auxiliary reduction^ she remarks that English has no general rule deleting w which should be required for the phonological derivation of the weak forms of will and would. Furthermore, in normal speech h is not deleted in English,

with

the

exception of the weak forms of has, have and had. Finally,

Kaisse mentions an example observed by Carden, in which

it

is

impossible

to

have a strong form, as is the case with the example in (16).

(16)

There 's/*is/*has a new book been written

These arguments to separate strong and weak forms from each other able

to

are

compar-

those given for Dutch in Chapter 3.2. Therefore, we can safely assume

that it is correct to list strong and weak non-lexical allomorphs in the

lexi-

con separately. Recall that the crucial difference between the two allomorphs is that the variant

is

a

clitic

only dominated by the prosodie category syllable, while

strong variants behave as a complete phonological word. respect

to

prosodie

weak

labeling

is

This

difference

with

also the explanation for the difference in

stressability between the two allomorphs. The next question we must consider in this analysis is there

following.

Are

any prohibitions against the insertion of variants of non-lexical items?

I think there are not, except maybe for the marginal leave

the

case

in

(16),

which

I

aside here. In the syntactic component of grammar, it is possible to in-

sert a strong variant or a clitic variant in the relevant non-lexical position. Normally

either

variant will be dominated by 0 as they are non-lexical items.

This is exemplified for the examples of (12a) and (12c) in (17).

- Ill -

0

(17)a would

you sit

in/in

the

car

0 you cán/cán do

nothing

In case there are prohibitions against the distribution of clitics, this

seems

due to the fact that a stressed form is required. Exactly this is an impossible shape for clitics to obtain. Let us examine the two constructions which are some

detail.

The

first

prohibited

for

clitics

(12b). Here, the non-lexical item in must be stressed. We can account lack

in

occurs if a non-lexical item is sentence-final as in for

the

of clitics here if (a) we assume that the grammar of English lacks a rule

like the one in Dutch which adjoins non-lexical items sentence-finally to the 0 at its left and (b) we assume instead that those elements which have phonological word status start a new 0 and occupy a strong position. As clitics are words,

they

may

not

occupy

a

strong

position

in

0.

So

sentence-final, we get a prosodie structure in which the clitic

not

if a clitic is is

not

fully

integrated into prosodie structure. This is rejected because floating syllables may not occur in prosodie structure. Thus only cases with strong forms occur in sentence-final

position.

The

prosodie structure of (12b), given in (18) will

make this clear.

(18)a

Ax A

*

V

would you let

Ψ

th'e

car

i

in

, .. A »

would you let

the

car

iA

In the same vein, no function word occupying a i.e.

starting

prosodically

strong

a new 0, can appear in its weak form. That is in fact what Sel-

kirk (1980c) and Nespor and Scoretti (1986) suggested in a metrical and

position,

framework,

Selkirk (1984) in a grid framework. On the basis of these publications, we

may assume that our analysis makes

the

correct

predictions

as

regards

the

-

112

-

prohibition of weak function words phrase-finally. With respect to function words which bear pitch accent, we may make remarks.

A

pitch accented word must be stressed, and exactly this property of

being stressed cannot be expressed in case the function word is clitics

similar

a

clitic.

As

are only syllables without foot and/or word status, they cannot appear

in a stressed form. The question of how to account for these aspects of prosody in

the

framework

adopted here will be left open for further research. For an

answer to this question in a grid-only framework see especially Selkirk (1984). I have shown here that the phonological clitic theory proposed in Chapter 2. accounts for the basic facts of the distribution of weak and strong variants of English function words in a straightforward way without the need for devices,

special

exception

phonological rules, and reliance on frequency counts. Let us

now turn to some complications.

As already indicated, an exception with respect to the above analysis is formed by

sentence-final

monosyllabic pronouns (cf. (13) and (14)). This exceptional

behaviour of pronouns was already observed by Selkirk accounts

for

this

behaviour

by

(1972).

Selkirk

(1984)

the optional syntactic encliticization rule

given in (15). However, I will argue that it is not a syntactic rule, but rather a phonosyntactic one. On this account, one can explain why only monosyllabic pronouns are attached to the phonological word to their left, whereas Selkirk's syntactic approach cannot explain this fact. A major drawback of the syntactic rule encliticizing the

pronoun,

is

that

there appears to be no truly syntactic evidence for such a restructuring operation, the only evidence being prosodie. Moreover, syntactic relations are

dis-

turbed without any convincing syntactic reason. So it is initially plausible to give a prosodie account for this encliticization within the theory proposed

in

Chapter 2. At the stage where syntactic surface structure enters the phonological ponent

of

grammar,

com-

prosodie structure has already been constructed up to the

phonological word in the lexicon. As clitics are only dominated by

the

sylla-

ble, they must still be incorporated into higher prosodie structure. One of the possibilities to do this is to attach them to phonological words. In that case, not

only

phonological

information must be available for the encliticization,

but also syntactic information. As Selkirk makes clear, only category

[+V]

are

elements

of

c-command the pronoun· Due to the feet that we need syntactic information y encliticization

of

the

suitable hosts for pronouns, and, furthermore, [+V] has to the

pronouns can only take place in the phonosyntactic part of

- 113 -

grammar where phonology and syntax still mix. This adjunction

of

pronouns

is

schematized in (19).

(19)

π

I î

->

t+V] PRO [+V] Condition: [+V] c-commands PRO

PRO

It is important to emphasize that only prosodie structure is altered: the stray syllable is adjoined to the phonological word to its left; the syntactic structure however, is left in tact. Under this analysis, the examples of

(13)

cor-

respond to the structures in (20).

This analysis of encliticization of pronouns in English follows from our theory as

proposed

in Chapter 2. It fits precisely one of the parameters provided by

universal grammar. In comparison with this analysis, the syntactic encliticization

analysis by Selkirk seems ad hoc and syntactically unmotivated. Moreover,

it is only monosyllabic pronouns that encliticize. This fact follows

automati-

- 114 -

cally

from the analysis presented here, but not from Selkirk's. So, I conclude

that the encliticization of pronouns is essentially of

a

phonological

nature

and not a syntactic one. In sum, I have shown in this section that within the

limits

of

the

prosodie

clitic theory of Chapter 2., the behaviour of English function words with their two variants can be captured in a natural way. Both variants of a function word should

be

listed

separately

in

the lexicon: the weak clitic variant is not

derived from its strong counterpart by destressing, as was proposed earlier Selkirk

(1972,

1984).

by

In our analysis, we do not need exception devices, nor

highly specific phonological rules. Neither do we have to rely on a

vague

no-

tion such as frequency, whereas in a destressing analysis we do. Furthermore, I argued against a syntactic encliticization analysis for pronouns. cliticization

en-

should be accounted for prosodically because it is essentially a

prosodie phenomenon and not a syntactic one. Again, this prosodie tion

Pronoun

encliticiza-

is within the limits of the theory proposed in Chapter 2. which allows us

to account for the fact that only monosyllabic pronouns encliticize.

4. Phonological Processes and Cliticization

4.1. Cibaeno Spanish

4.1.1. Harris' analysis of Liquid Gliding

In a study on Spanish syllable structure, Harris (1983) notes, as others before him, that conjunctive environments for phonological rules as in (21)

(21)

—

(C / #}

- 115 should be replaced by an environment making use of the notion syllable

or

its

subconstituent rime, as in (22).

(22)

—

R)

or

—

$)

Harris takes his examples from a variety of Spanish dialects, each containing a phonological

rule

which is earlier argued to have the environment as in (21).

He reanalyses the processes under consideration in such a way that the environment

of

(21)

is

replaced

by

one

of

those given in (22). In one of these

processes, clitics are relevant in a way to be made more precise shortly. is

the

process

of

Liquid

Gliding in Cibaeno Spanish, spoken in El Cibao, a

north central region of the Dominican Republic. In this dialect the and

This

liquids

1

r are optionally changed to ¿ if they are in syllable- or rime-final posi-

tion. The examples in (23) illustrate this.

(23)a

b

$

$

$

$

I I I re vol ver i li é $

$

(revolver)

$

$

M i l re voi ve res i

i

i

*i

$

$

II car ta 1¿ $

$

(letter)

$

II pa pel 1i

(paper)

$

III pa pe les i *i

Harris' rule, slightly adapted here, is that given in (24).

(24)

(1 / r) - > i /

R)

Then consider the examples in (25), where the personal pronoun el (he) is trasted with the article el (the).

(25)

el da - > ei da (he gives) el dia - > ei dia (the day)

el avisa el aviso

- > ei avisa (he advises) -> *ei aviso (the advice)

con-

-

116

-

Here, Liquid Gliding does not apply in el aviso, which is unexpected if el were a

separate

phonological word. However, the specifier el, contrary to the pro-

noun of the same shape, is not clitic-hood.

Harris

assumes

stressed, that

this

and

thus

a

likely

candidate

forms one phonological word together with the following word, and, assumption,

Harris

for

unstressed el is indeed a clitic: it under

this

gives the following derivations for two of the examples in

(25).

(26)

M el syll. str. ass.

stress, ass.

M

Δ avisa

M

M

I $

$ $

el

a vi sa

$I J$ $II $

$

e la

él avisa

vi so

elavíso

Liquid Gliding [àiavisa]

[elavíso]

4.1.2. Clitics and Liquid Gliding revisited

It seems to me that the idea behind this proposal is fully correct,

yet

there

are details which strike me as questionable. Harris considers initial syllabification and stress assignment to be lexical processes. However, as explained in Chapter

2.

of

this

study, the most coherent view of grammar with respect to

cliticization is that clitics and other items are joined in the syntactic ponent

of

com-

grammar and not in the lexicon. Thus el cannot be adjoined to aviso

in the lexicon. So the proposed interaction of these two processes and cliticization is questionable. This objection disappears under the parts

of

view

developed

here:

the

Harris' analysis can be maintained, while the questionable parts can

be strengthened in the following way. Suppose that aviso obtains structure

convincing

and

its

its

syllable

stress in the lexicon, and that clitic el is only provided

there with the prosodie category syllable. These two elements meet

in

syntax,

and during the mapping from syntactic structure to prosodie structure, the clitic-syllable is adjoined to the word to its right by the interpretation of

the

- 117 -

clitic

parameter specific to Cibaeno Spanish. Because the domain of syllabifi-

cation in Spanish is the phonological word (Harris (1983, p. 49)), this adjunction is accompanied by automatic resyllabification if the syllable structure is no longer optimal. In the case of el aviso, this results in a

syllable-initial

1, bleeding Liquid Gliding. This gives the derivation in (27).

(27)

M

$ $ : $I LI

el

a v: so

Adjoin to M $ $ $ $ ' l ' I ' el a vi so Resyll.

M

$•J$ !$ 1 $

e la vi so Liquid Gliding [elavlso]

It will be clear that viewed in this way, the process of Liquid Gliding in baeno

Ci-

Spanish, and more specifically its attitude toward clitics, confirms our

hypothesis about phonological cliticization proposed in Chapter 2.

4.2. Greek 6

4.2.1. Stressed clitics So far, our theory is partly based on the herently

unstressed.

However,

there

are

observation

that

clearly stressed clitics. As explained earlier, this does not are

clitics

are

in-

examples in several languages with mean

that

they

inherently stressed: their stress must be a derived property. In this sec-

-

118 -

tion, I will consider Greek, in which under certain circumstances stressed.

are

I will show that this fact can be explained under the present theory

provided some independently needed language-specific structure

clitics

are

added.

My

sources

are

Kaisse

limitations

(1977)

and,

in

on

metrical

particular,

Malikouti-Drachmann and Drachmann (1981). In Greek, the position of primary stress seems to be a lexical is

to

property.

That

say, one cannot predict which syllable in the word is most prominent on

the basis of some other property than that primary stress always occurs in

the

domain of the last three syllables of the word. This will be clear from the examples in (28).

(28)

Lárisa (a town) Athina (a town) Pireás (a town)

ánthropos (man) skilo (dog) mikrós (boy)

apénandi (opposite) dòlofóni (murdering) efxáristó (thanks)

If clitics are adjoined to words, the stress pattern may be influenced by

this

cliticization in a way exemplified below.

(29)a

ì athina ò mikrós (the boy) to skilo (the dog)

b

ánthropós mu (my man) fère mú to (bring it to me) apénandi mu (opposite me)

Malikouti-Drachmann and Drachmann (1981) account for these facts by postulating the following set of rules, slightly simplified here.

(30)a b c

Form a 'lexical' trochee on the lexically accented and the following syllable, Make trochees within the phonological word, right and left of the lexical trochee, Form a right-dominant word-tree.

Thus, the righthand examples of (28) are handled in the following way. The terisks under the accented syllable indicate lexical accent.

as-

- 119 -

(31)

dolofoni *

efxaristo *

apenandi φ

s w dolofoni *

efxaristo *

apenandi

(30a)

(30b)

A

A I

s w s w dolofoni *

efxaristo

(30c) w

s

Λ A

s w s w dolofoni *

The procliticizations of (29a) are handled in the same way, assuming

proclitic

and following word to be one phonological word.

(32)

i athina *

o mikros *

to skilo *

s w i athina *

o mikros *

/ \ s w to skilo *

/ \ s w s w athina *

s w I o mikros

(30a)

(30b)

(30c) w

s

w

Λ Λ

Α ι

s3 w s w i athina *

s

s ww l o mikros *

The examples of encliticization in (29b) are also assumed

/ s

/ Λ

w W Ss W to skilo *

to

be

phonological

words to which the rules in (30) must be applied. Furthermore, according to the Drachmanns, both the limitation that primary stress never falls to the left the

antepenultimate

syllable

and

the

of

wordtree labelling convention LCPR of

Liberman and Prince (1977) (in AB, Β is strong if it branches) are

responsible

-

for

the

fact

120

-

that enclitics may have primary stress. The derivations in (33)

illustrate this.

(33)

anthropos mu *

fere mu to *

apenandi mu *

anthropos mu *

s w fere mu to *

s w apenandi mu *

w s w anthropos mu

/s s w s w fere mu to *

•N s w s w apenandi mu *

Λ Λ

ΛΛ

(30a)

(30b)

(30c)

S W S W anthropos mu *

w

s

s w s w fere mu to *

w s w sw s'^V apenandi mu *

4.2.2. Some extensions Again observe that the Drachmanns assume stress to be a lexical property: assume

they

lexical accent and lexical trochees. Hence precisely the same objection

can be raised against their analysis as against Harris's above. And as in

that

case, I will show that the prosodie theory of cliticization proposed in Chapter 2. will give a better account, obviating this point. Following first the proposals of the Drachmanns, I feet

are

assume

that

in

Greek,

created from the lexically accented syllable to the right, resulting

in mono-, bi- and trisyllabic feet^ with the stressed syllable as its strongest member.

Foot

is used here as a metrical category label. Furthermore, I assume

that as many bisyllabic sw-feet as possible are constructed to the left of this foot. After that, feet and syllables are combined in a right-branching wordtree (without assuming the LCPR, apparently a language-specific choice Thus,

the

following

column in (28).

structures

are

for

Greek).

created over the words of the righthand

-

121

-

Let us the consider the input structures for cliticization in the (29).

Proclitics

are

examples

in

adjoined to the phonological word to their right, some-

times resulting in a structure which seems clearly untypical of Greek, i.e. two adjacent

syllables

undominated by feet. These sequences of two weak syllables

directly dominated by the phonological word, are thus changed into a foot. This gives

us

exactly

the

prosodie

structure

required

to

stress-patterns of the examples in (28), as is illustrated by in (35).

(35)

A r

s w to skilo * Adjoin to M

w i Restructuring

w athina

Λ

s i

A w s w athina *

Κ Λw

fe

s W ι o mikros *

account the

for

the

derivations

-

122

-

Enclitics are adjoined to the word on their left. Again, some of the prosodie

structures

are

not

allowed

by

Greek

grammar:

resulting

right-peripheral

clitic-syllables not dominated by feet, and stressed syllables to the the

antepenultimate

syllable

left

of

in the phonological word. A slight extension of

the feet-construction rules for Greek will give exactly

the

output

required.

Let

us assume that bisyllabic feet are not only constructed to the left of the I foot containing the lexical stressed syllable, but also to the right of this foot,

here

with

the

additional

option

of

having

a

trisyllabic

word-edge. Under this assumption, the prosodie structures after clitics

are

automatically

foot at

adjunction

of

restructured according to these rules for prosodie

tree construction in Greek, resulting in trees which give

exactly

the

output

required.

(36) r

A

f

S ww I anthropos mu

A îî

S w fere mu to *

apenandi mu *

Adjoin to M

w W anthropos mu * Restr.

w s\i w w apenandi mu * M

r

F

A s S W S W anthropos mu *

/Âw Λ

w s w s ape * nandi

w mu

Notice that under this analysis we do not have to say anything about the possibility

for clitics to become (primary) stressed. This follows from the adjunc-

tion of clitic syllables and the foot-construction rules for Greek, also assumed to apply post-lexically to readjust prosodie structure.

which

are

- 123 -

Thus, the existence of stressed clitics does not phonological

cliticization

undermine

the

theory

of

proposed in Chapter 2. The influence of clitics on

the stress patterns of Greek words follows in fact from

the

assumption

that,

after clitic-adjunction, the foot-construction rules apply lexically as well as post-lexically and readjust foot-structure. In general, at every stage

in

the

derivation, prosodie structure can be readjusted by the rules building prosodie structure. This However,

I

picture

propose

that

is

familiar such

a

with

respect

restructuring

to

may

syllable

also

structure.

occur

above the

syllable-level, viz. at least at the foot-level, as in Greek. Languages, appear

to

choose

which

then,

level of prosodie structure may be readjusted by the

prosodie structure building rules during derivation. In this way, we may

speak

of «syllabification and refooting.

A.3. Palestinian Arabic

4.3.1. High Vowel Deletion and Epenthesis

In this section, I will show how High Vowel Deletion (HVD) Palestinian

and

Epenthesis

in

Arabic can be accounted for in the prosodie clitic theory proposed

in Chapter 2. As remarked in Section 2.1.1., subject

pronouns

in

Arabic

are

suffixes, whereas object pronouns are clitics. With respect to High Vowel Deletion, this difference between subject and object pronouns can

be

demonstrated

in the stem fihim (understand), either with a subject pronoun or an object pronoun attached to it. In the former, HVD applies, but not so in the latter,

cf.

(37).

(37)

fhim-na (we understood) fihim na (he understood us)

HVD deletes unstressed short high vowels if

followed

by

a

consonant

and

a

vowel. Brame (1974) accounted for the data in (37) within a segmental framework by assuming that stress assignment is ordered before HVD and apply

cyclically.

that

both

rules

Recently, Abu-Salim (1982) has given a metrical analysis of

the same facts. In this analysis, an sw-foot is built over the

last

three

or

- 124 -

fewer

syllables

starting with the rightmost heavy syllable or, in the absence

of a heavy syllable, starting with the

antepenultimate,

regarding

the

final

consonant of a word as extrametrical. This procedure applies cyclically, and it is assumed that a foot of an earlier cycle retains its syllables,

shape.

Over

feet

and

a ws-wordtree is constructed. HVD takes place if the vowel is domi-

nated by a weak syllable which itself is not dominated by a foot, at any

stage

at which its structural description is met. Thus, this procedure results in the following derivations.

(38)

first cycle stress ass.

[fihim-na] M

[fihim] na

I Λ M

Λ

WS w fihim-na

F

s w fihim

HVD second cycle

[fihim na]

stress ass.

M

ΓΛ

F

F

I s w fi him na HVD [fhímna]

[fihimna]

Next to HVD, Palestinian Arabic has also a rule of i-epenthesis.

According

to

Abu-Salim (1982), this insertion of i is in fact due to two separate processes: one which makes it possible for unsyllabifiable consonants to

become

syllabi-

fied (Epenthesis I), and another to break up CC-sequences in those coda's which do not meet the requirements of the sonority hierarchy (Epenthesis thesis

I

is

therefore may change the stress pattern of the word. Epenthesis level

rule

to/for

Epen-

II

is

a

low

which only creates a weak syllable and does not alter the existing

stress pattern. Epenthesis I is exemplified wrote

II).

part of the subcomponent which constructs metrical structure and

in

katabtilha