Is Word-Level Recursion Actually Recursion?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (1)
2. Recursion at the Word-Level
- (2)
- Prosodic structure exhibits recursion if the constituents in question:
- a.
- are mapped in the same way from morphosyntactic structure, and
- b.
- are hierarchically embedded (an entity of prosodic category X is an atom hierarchically within another entity of prosodic category X), and
- c.
- share identical phonological properties (i.e., the same phonological processes apply iteratively at each recursive level)
2.1. Compound Phonology as “Recursion”
- (3)
- (4)
- Left-Branching Compound
/tanúki/ + /taní/ + /nobori/ → [[tanukidani]nóbori] badger + valley + climbing → climbing of badger valley
- (5)
- R-1 Type Compound2
/genkín/ + /furí/ + /komi/ → [genkin[fúrikomi]] cash + transfer + transfer → cash transfer
- (6)
- R-2 Type Compound
/hatsú/ + /kao/ + /áwase/ → [hatsu[kaoáwase]] first + face + meeting → first face-to-face meeting
- (7)
- R-3 Type Compound
/zénkoku/ + /kaisha/ + /annái/ → [zénkoku[kaishaánnai]] nationwide + corporate + guide → nationwide corporate guide
- (8)
- Align-Left (, MWd) >> MaxBin (Head()) >> Wrap (, Mwd)
/{{hatsu{{kao}{áwase}}} / Align-L (, MWd) MaxBin (Head()) Wrap (, Mwd) a. ☞[(hatsu) ((kao) (áwase))] * b. ((hastu) ((k’ao) (awase))) *!
- (9)
- Prosodic Structure of Compounds (Itô and Mester 2007, p. 7)
2.2. Distinct Domains and Properties as “Recursion”
- (10)
/pe:g -i/ [ˈpe:gi] stem -suffix go -IPL.S ‘We go’
- (11)
- a.
/a- oŋ -e:/ [ʔaˈʔoŋˌŋe:] prefix- stem -suffix 1POSS- brother.in.law -VOC ‘My brother in law!’ - b.
/ku- taŋ =mε/ [kuˈtaŋmε] prefix- stem =clitic 3POSS- horn =CTR ‘its horn, on the contrary’ - c.
/mε- tanŋ -e =aŋ/ [mεˈthaŋˌjaŋ] prefix- stem -suffix =clitic 3NS- come.up -PST =and ‘they come up and...’
- (12)
/ku- laːp/ [ˈkulaːp] prefix- stem 3POSS- wing ‘its wing’
- (13)
- Regressive Coronal to Labial Assimilation
- (14)
- a.
/ɔ:mɔt -maʔ/ [ʔɔ:mɔpmaʔ] stem -suffix look.at -INF ‘I did not tell him’ - b.
/mε- n- mε -paŋ/ [mεmmεppaŋ] prefix- prefix- stem -suffix NS.A- NEG- tell -1SG>3PST ‘I did not tell him.’ - c.
/si -aŋ -mεn -pa/ [sjaŋmεmba] stem -suffix -suffix -suffix die -1SG.S.PST -COND -IPFV ‘I might die’ - d.
/myaŋluŋ =hεlle hεn =phεlle/ [mjaŋluŋbhεllε hεmbhεlle] stem =clitic stem =clitic Myaŋluŋ =SUB what =SUB ‘What does Myaŋluŋ mean?’
- (15)
a. neret b. lipli ‘heart’ ‘earthquake’ c. pha -re siŋ d. mik -le raŋ stem -suffix stem stem -suffix stem bamboo -GEN wood eye -GEN color ‘the wood of bamboo’ ‘the color of the eyes’
- (16)
a. peːg -i =roː b. peːg -aŋ =loː stem -suffix =CLITIC stem -suffix =CLITIC go -PL =ASS go -1SG.PST =ASS ‘come on, let’s go!’ ‘I’m on my way!’
- (17)
- a.
ke- lɔʔ prefix- stem 2- say ‘you say’ - b.
mε l- lε -baŋ prefix- prefix- stem -suffix NEG- NEG- know -1SG>3.PST ‘I didn’t know it’
- (18)
- a.
/iŋghɔŋ/ [ʔiŋghɔŋ] ‘message’ - b.
/ku- iŋghɔŋ/ [kuʔiŋghɔŋ] prefix- stem 3POSS- message ‘his news’ - c.
/a- iːr -ε/ [ʔaʔiːrε] prefix- stem -suffix I- wander -PST ‘We (plural, inclusive) wandered.’ - d.
/nu- ba =iː/ [nubaiː] stem -suffix =clitic be.alright -NOM =Q ‘Is it good?’
2.3. Iterative Application as Convincing Recursion
3. The Models
3.1. Tri-P Mapping
3.2. Cophonologies by Phase
- (19)
- Example CbP vocabulary entry[n]
- (20)
- Phase containment principle (Sande and Jenks 2018; Sande et al. 2020):Morphophonological operations conditioned internal to a phase cannot affect the phonology of phases that are not yet spelled out.
3.3. Combining Tri-P Mapping and Cophonologies by Phase
4. Kaqchikel Inner and Outer Affixes
4.1. Kaqchikel Data
- (21)
- Initial glottal stop insertion
- a.
- ik [ʔikh] ‘chile’
- b.
- ixim [ʔi.ˈʃim] ‘corn’
- c.
- eleq’om [ʔe.le.om] ‘thief’
- (22)
- Low-attaching prefixes block glottal stop insertion
- a.
∫-ok 3sg-enter ‘(s)he entered’ (*∫-ʔok) - b.
r-ut∫uaʔ 3sg.poss-strength ‘his/her strength’ (*r-ʔut∫uaʔ) - c.
∫-aw-i 3sg-2sg-find ‘you found it’ (*∫-aw-i)
- (23)
- High-attaching prefixes and glottal stop insertion
- a.
oj aq ʔoχ=ʔaqx 1pl=pigs ‘We are pigs’ (cf. r-aqx ‘his/her pig) - b.
ajejqa’n ʔaχ=ʔeχqaχn agt=cargo ‘porter’ (cf. r-eχqaʔn ‘his/ her cargo’) - c.
in ajik’ ʔin=ʔaχ=ʔikʔ 1sg.abs=agt=month ‘I am a domestic worker’
4.2. Previous Analysis: Recursive Words
- (24)
- Order of low- and high-attaching prefixes
- a.
r-aχ=toʔ-o 3sg.erg-agt=help-nmlz ‘his/her helper’ - b.
w-aχ=tʔis 1sg.erg-agt=sew ‘my tailor’
4.3. Updated (Non-Recursive) Analysis: Phase-Based Spell-Out
- (25)
- Kaqchikel vocabulary items
- a.
- b.
- [agt]
- c.
- [3sg.erg]
- (26)
- Derivation of ʔaχ=ʔikʔ, ‘domestic worker’
/ikʔ/ Onset Max Dep a. [ ikʔ] *! b. [ kʔ] *! c. ☞[ ʔikʔ] *
- (27)
- Derivation of ʔin=ʔaχ=ʔikʔ, ‘I am a domestic worker’ (to be revised)
/aχ-[ω ʔikʔ]/ Onset Max Dep a. [ aχ. [ω ʔikʔ]] *! b. [ ʔa.χ [ω ikʔ]] *! c.☞[ ʔaχ. [ω ʔikʔ]] *
- (28)
- Derivation of ʔin=ʔaχ=ʔikʔ, ‘I am a domestic worker’
/aχ-[ωʔikʔ]/ *Recursive- Onset Max Dep a. [ aχ.ʔikʔ] *! b. [ a.χikʔ] *! c. [ ʔaχ.[ωʔikʔ]] *! * d. ☞[ ʔaχ.ʔikʔ] *
- (29)
- [1sg.abs]
5. Blackfoot Embedded Roots
5.1. Blackfoot Data
- (30)
- Root Adjunction to XP or X
- (31)
- a.
pi:n- otój -∅ -∅ -w NEG tail -AI -IND -PRX ‘wolverine’ - b.
á:wa -toj -â:piks:i -t -∅ wander -tail -throw/AI -2SG.IMP -CMD ‘wag your tail!’
- (32)
- a.
â:- ipon -ip -i: -∅ -w =áji̥ FUT- cease -by.mouth.v -3SUB -IND -3 =OBV.SG ‘She will stop carrying him with her teeth.’ - b.
á:to -p -i: -∅ -w =aji̥ taste -by.mouth.v -3SUB -IND -3 =OBV.SG ‘he tasted him’ (Taylor 1969, p. 239)
- (33)
- a.
p:o -íp -ist -a: -∅ -wḁ secure -tie -v -AI -IND -3 ‘she wore braids’ - b.
amo -p -íst -a -n -i̥ gather -tie -v -AI -NMLZ -IN.SG ‘ceremonial bundle’
- (34)
â:k -xxp -im: -i: -∅ -w =áji̥ FUT -ASSOC -by.mind.v -3SUB -IND -3 =OBV.SG ‘she will associate him with something or someone’
- (35)
sat -έm: -is -∅ (cf. /sata-im:-s-∅/) offended -by.mind.v -2SG:3.IMP -CMD ‘wish evil on him!’
- (36)
- a.
a:t -ó: -t -∅ growl -AI -2SG.IMP -IMP ‘howl (as a dog)!’ - b.
á- ja:t -kin -a -∅ -wḁ IPFV- growl -throat -AI -IND -3 ‘she is growling.’
- (37)
- a.
â:- ipʊ́m: -o -ji: -∅ -w =áji̥ FUT- transfer -v -3SUB -IND -3 =OBV.SG ‘he will transfer it to her.’ - b.
pʊm: -o -:s -∅ transfer -v -2SG:3.IMP -CMD ‘transfer (e.g., the medicine bundle) to him!’
- (38)
- a.
â:- ippit -εːstaw -at -a -∅ -wḁ FUT- aged -grow -v -3OBJ -IND -3 ‘she will be raised by the elderly.’ - b.
kipitá -a:ki aged -woman.n ‘old woman’
- (39)
- a.
â:k- xwpʊm: -a: -∅ -wḁ FUT- buy -AI -IND -3 ‘she will buy’ - b.
pʊm: -a: -t -∅ buy -AI -2.SG.IMP -CMD ‘buy!’
- (40)
- a.
â:- ikotski- εsto -ji -∅ -wḁ (c.f. /â:k-ko:tski-á-sto-ji-∅-wa/) FUT- extreme- cold.IPFV -II -IND -3 ‘it will be extremely cold.’ - b.
ko:tski- έ:saj- â:ki: -∅ -wḁ extreme- IPFV- lie.AI.IPFV- woman -IND -3 ‘she is a terrible liar.’ - c.
(i)sto -jí: -∅ -wḁ cold -II -IND -3 ‘it is/was cold.’
5.2. Previous Analysis: Recursive Words
- (41)
- Phase-based Correspondence in Blackfoot (Weber 2020, p. 15)
Phase II CP ⟷ PPh (phonological phrase) Phase I vP/VP ⟷ PWd (prosodic word) v*P ⟷ PWdmin (minimal prosodic word)
- (42)
- Potential Prosodic Structures in Blackfoot (Weber 2020, pp. 284–85)21
5.3. Updated (Non-Recursive) Analysis: Phase-Based Spell Out
- (43)
- Tri-P Word (Revised)The first, most embedded phase maps to .
- (44)
- ⟷
- (45)
- Derivation of /sto-ji-∅-wa/
/sto-ji-∅-wa/ *Recursive-ω *#C Dep *V: a. [ sto.ji.wa] *! ☞b. [ i.sto.ji.wa] *
- (46)
- Derivation of /ko:tski-á-[istojiwa]/
/ko:tski-á-[istojiwa]/ *Recursive-ω *#C Dep *V: *ai a. [ kot.ski.á.is.to.ji.wa] *! * b. [ i. kot.ski.á.is.to.ji.wa] * *! c. [ ko:t.ski.εs.to.ji.wa] *! * d. [ i.ko:t.ski.εs.to.ji.wa] * *! e. [ kot.ski.εs.to.ji.wa] *! ☞f. [ i.kot.ski.εs.to.ji.wa] * g. [ i.kot.ski [ εs.to.ji.wa]] *! *
- (47)
- Derivation of /á:k-[ikotεskistojiwa]/
/á:k-[ikotskiεstojiwa]/ *Recursive- *#C Dep *V: *ki Id-Manner a. [ á:k [ ikotskiεstojiwa]] *! * ☞b. [ â[ ikotskiεstojiwa]] * c. [ â[ ikotski[ εstojiwa]]] *!
6. Discussion and Conclusions
6.1. Do We Still Need Distinct Intermediate Domains between Word and Phrase?
6.2. What Prevents Recursive Words?
6.3. Questions for Future Work
6.4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
1 | first person |
2 | second person |
3 | third person |
A | transitive subject |
ABS | absolutive |
AGT | agent |
AI | animate intransitive |
ASSOC | associative |
ASS | assertive |
COND | conditional |
CTR | contrastive |
CMD | command |
ERG | ergative |
FUT | future |
GEN | genitive |
II | inanimative intransitive |
IMP | imperative |
IN | inanimate |
IND | independent order |
INF | infinitive |
IPFV | imperfective |
NEG | negative |
NMLZ | nominalizer |
NOM | nominative |
NS | non-singular |
OBV | obviative |
PL | plural |
POSS | possessive |
PST | past |
PRX | proximate |
Q | question particle |
S | sole argument of intransitives |
SG | singular |
SUB | subject |
VOC | vocative |
References
- Abels, Klaus. 2012. Phases: An Essay on Cyclicity in Syntax. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, vol. 543. [Google Scholar]
- Ahn, Byron. 2015. Giving Reflexivity a Voice: Twin Reflexives in English. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Anttila, Arto. 2002. Morphologically conditioned phonological alternations. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20: 1–42. [Google Scholar]
- Arad, Maya. 2003. Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21: 737–78. [Google Scholar]
- Bennett, Ryan. 2018. Recursive prosodic words in Kaqchikel (Mayan). Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3: 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 1999. Constraint interaction in Language Change: Quantity in English and Germanic. Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. [Google Scholar]
- Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2011. Cyclicity. In The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Edited by Marc van Oostendorp, Colin Ewen, Elizabeth Hume and Keren Rice. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, vol. 4, pp. 2019–48. [Google Scholar]
- Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2018. Stratal phonology. In The Routledge Handbook of Phonological Theory. Edited by S. J. Hannahs and Anna Bosch. London: Routledge, pp. 100–34. [Google Scholar]
- Booij, Geert. 1996. Cliticization as prosodic integration: The case of Dutch. The Linguistic Review 13: 219–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Booij, Geert, and Jerzy Rubach. 1984. Morphological and prosodic domains in lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook 1: 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Booij, Geert, and Jerzy Rubach. 1987. Postcyclic versus postlexical rules in lexical phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 1–44. [Google Scholar]
- Bošković, Željko. 2014. Now I’m a phase, now I’m not a phase: On the variability of phases with extraction and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 45: 27–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bošković, Željko. 2016. What is sent to spell-out is phases, not phasal complements. Linguistica 56: 25–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cheng, Lisa, and Laura Downing. 2021. Recursion and the definition of universal prosodic categories. Languages. in press. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, Lisa, and Laura J. Downing. 2007. The prosody and syntax of Zulu relative clauses. SOAS Papers in Linguistics 15: 51–63. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, and Laura J. Downing. 2016. Phasal syntax= cyclic phonology? Syntax 19: 156–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Edited by Michael Kenstowicz. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 1–52. [Google Scholar]
- Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Edited by Adriana Belletti. Oxford: Oxford University Press, vol. 3, pp. 104–31. [Google Scholar]
- Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Edited by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 133–66. [Google Scholar]
- Christiansen, Morten H. 1992. The (non)necessity of recursion in natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Indiana: Indiana University, pp. 665–70. [Google Scholar]
- Christiansen, Morten H., and Maryellen C. MacDonald. 2009. A usage-based approach to recursion in sentence processing. Language Learning 59: 126–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Compton, Richard, and Christine Pittman. 2007. Affixation by phase: Inuktitut word-formation. Paper presented at the 81st Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Society of America, Anaheim, CA, USA, January 4–7. [Google Scholar]
- Coon, Jessica, Nico Baier, and Theodore Levin. 2021. Mayan agent focus and the ergative extraction constraint: Facts and fictions revisited. Language 97. in press. [Google Scholar]
- Déchaine, Rose-Marie. 2002. On the Significance of (Non)-Augmented Roots. Toronto: Canadian Linguistic Association, University of Toronto. [Google Scholar]
- Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Natalie Weber. 2015. Head-merge, adjunct-merge, and the syntax of root categorisation. In Proceedings of the Poster Session of the 33rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Simon Fraser University Working Papers in Linguistics. Somerville: Cascadilla Press, vol. 5, pp. 38–47. [Google Scholar]
- Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Natalie Weber. 2018. Root syntax: Evidence from Algonquian. In Papers of the Forty-Seventh Algonquian Conference. Edited by Monica Macaulay. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Dobashi, Yoshihito. 2003. Phonological Phrasing and Syntactic Derivation. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Dobashi, Yoshihito. 2004a. Multiple spell-out, label-free syntax, and PF-interface. Explorations in English Linguistics 19: 1–47. [Google Scholar]
- Dobashi, Yoshihito. 2004b. Restructuring of phonological phrases in Japanese and syntactic derivation. Manuscript, Kitami Institute of Technology, Unpublished manuscript. [Google Scholar]
- Downing, Laura J. 1998. Prosodic misalignment and reduplication. In Yearbook of Morphology 1997. Berlin: Springer, pp. 83–120. [Google Scholar]
- Downing, Laura J. 1999. Prosodic stem≠ prosodic word in Bantu. Studies on the Phonological Word 174: 73–98. [Google Scholar]
- Downing, Laura J., and Maxwell Kadenge. 2020. Re-placing PStem in the prosodic hierarchy. The Linguistic Review 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Embick, David. 2010. Localism Versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge: MIT Press, vol. 60. [Google Scholar]
- Gerken, LouAnn. 1996. Prosodic structure in young children’s language production. Language 72: 683–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gouskova, Maria. 2010. The phonology of boundaries and secondary stress in Russian compounds. The Linguistic Review 27: 387–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Green, Christopher R., and Michelle E. Morrison. 2016. Somali wordhood and its relationship to prosodic structure. Morphology 26: 3–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guekguezian, Peter Ara. 2017a. Prosodic Recursion and Syntactic Cyclicity Inside the Word. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Guekguezian, Peter Ara. 2017b. Templates as the interaction of recursive word structure and prosodic well-formedness. Phonology 34: 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, T. Alan. 1999. The phonological word: A review. In Studies on the Phonological Word. Edited by Tracy A. Hall and Ursula Kleinhenz. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, vol. 174, p. 22. [Google Scholar]
- Han, Eunjoo. 1994. A prosodic analysis of Korean compounding. In Theoretical Issues in Korean Linguistics. Edited by Young-Key Kim-Renaud. Stanford: CSLI Publiciations for Stanford Linguistics Society, pp. 61–76. [Google Scholar]
- Hildebrandt, Kristine A. 2007. Prosodic and grammatical domains in Limbu. Himalayan Linguistics 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hildebrandt, Kristine A. 2015. The prosodic word. In The Oxford Handbook of the Word. Edited by John R. Taylor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 221–45. [Google Scholar]
- Hyman, Larry M. 2008. Universals in phonology. The Linguistic Review 25: 83–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inkelas, Sharon. 1990. Prosodic Constituency in the Lexicon. New York: Garland Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. [Google Scholar]
- Inkelas, Sharon, and Cheryl Zoll. 2005. Reduplication: Doubling in Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 106. [Google Scholar]
- Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2007. Major phrase, focus intonation, multiple spell-out (MaP, FI, MSO). The Linguistic Review 24: 137–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2003. Weak layering and word binarity. In A New Century of Phonology and Phonological Theory. A Festschrift for Professor Shosuke Haraguchi on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Takeru Honma, Masao Okazaki, Toshiyuki Tabata and Shin-ichi Tanaka. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. [Google Scholar]
- Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2007. Prosodic adjunction in Japanese compounds. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 55: 97–111. [Google Scholar]
- Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2009a. The extended prosodic word. In Phonological Domains: Universals and Deviations. Edited by Janet Grijzenhout and Baris Kabak. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 135–94. [Google Scholar]
- Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2009b. The onset of the prosodic word. In Phonological Argumentation: Essays on Evidence and Motivation. Edited by Steve Parker. Sheffield: Equinox, pp. 227–60. [Google Scholar]
- Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2012. Recursive prosodic phrasing in Japanese. In Prosody Matters: Essays in Honor of Elisabeth Selkirk. Edited by Toni Borowski, Shigeto Kawahara, Takahito Shinya and Mariko Sugahara. Sheffield: Equinox, pp. 280–303. [Google Scholar]
- Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2013. Prosodic subcategories in Japanese. Lingua 124: 20–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2015. The perfect prosodic word in Danish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 38: 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jackendoff, Ray, and Steven Pinker. 2005. The nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language (reply to fitch, hauser, and chomsky). Cognition 97: 211–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabak, Baris, and Anthi Revithiadou. 2009. An interface approach to prosodic word recursion. In Phonological Domains: Universals and Deviations. Edited by Janet Grizenhout and Baris Kabak. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 105–33. [Google Scholar]
- Kalivoda, Nick, and Jennifer Bellik. 2018. Prosodic Recursion and Pseudo-Cyclicity in Danish Compound stød. UC Santa Cruz: Festschrifts. Available online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5p06c4s0 (accessed on 1 February 2021).
- Karvonen, Daniel Howard. 2005. Word Prosody in Finnish. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. The Structure of Phonological Representations 1: 131–75. [Google Scholar]
- Kratzer, Angelika, and Elisabeth Selkirk. 2007. Phase theory and prosodic spellout: The case of verbs. The Linguistic Review 24: 93–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mansfield, John. 2017. Prosodic words in cyclic derivation: The strange case of Murrinhpatha compound verbs. Morphology 27: 359–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Marvin, Tatjana. 2002. Topics in the Stress and Syntax of Words. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Miller, Taylor L. 2018. The Phonology-Syntax Interface and Polysynthesis: A Study of Kiowa and Saulteaux Ojibwe. Ph.D. thesis, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Miller, Taylor L. 2020. Navigating the phonology-syntax interface and Tri-P mapping. In Proceedings of the Annual Meetings on Phonology. Edited by Hyunah Baek, Chikako Takahashi and Alex Hong-Lun Yeung. Washington, DC: Linguistics Society of America, vol. 8. [Google Scholar]
- Mohanan, Karuvannur Puthanveettil. 1982. Lexical Phonology. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Myrberg, Sara, and Tomas Riad. 2015. The prosodic hierarchy of Swedish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 38: 115–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordecht: Foris. [Google Scholar]
- Nikolou, Kalomoira. 2008. The role of recursivity in the phonological word. Paper presented at the First Patras International Conference of Graduate students in Linguistics (PICGL1), Patras, Greek, March 28–30; pp. 41–52. [Google Scholar]
- Orgun, Cemil Orhan. 1996. Sign-Based Morphology and Phonology with Special Attention to Optimality Theory. Ph.D thesis, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Orgun, Cemil Orhan, and Sharon Inkelas. 2002. Reconsidering bracket erasure. In Yearbook of Morphology 2001. Berlin: Springer, pp. 115–46. [Google Scholar]
- Pak, Marjorie. 2008. The Postsyntactic Derivation and Its Phonological Reflexes. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Paster, Mary. 2006. Phonological Conditions on Affixation. Ph.D. thesis, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Patal Majzul, Filiberto. 2007. Rusoltzij ri Kaqchikel. In Guatemala City: Asociación Oxlajuuj Keej Maya ‘Ajtz’iib’/Cholsamaj. Oslo: OKMA / Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs / CHOLSAMAJ. [Google Scholar]
- Pentland, Christina, and Mary Laughren. 2005. Distinguishing prosodic word and phonological word in Warlpiri: Prosodic constituency in morphologically complex words. In Proceedings of the 2004 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. Edited by Ilana Mushin. Sydney: Australian Linguistic Society. [Google Scholar]
- Peperkamp, Sharon Andrea. 1997. Prosodic Words. Den Haag: Holland Academic Graphics, vol. 34. [Google Scholar]
- Pesetsky, David. 1979. Russian Morphology and Lexical Theory. Available online: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.405.566&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed on 2 January 2021).
- Piggott, Glyne, and Heather Newell. 2006. Syllabification and the spell-out of phases in Ojibwa words. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 20: 39. [Google Scholar]
- Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First-Phase Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Samuels, Bridget D. 2011. Phonological Architecture: A Biolinguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Sande, Hannah. 2017. Distributing Morphologically Conditioned Phonology: Three Case Studies from Guébie. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Sande, Hannah. 2019. A unified account of conditioned phonological alternations: Evidence from Guébie. Language 95: 456–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sande, Hannah. 2020. Morphologically conditioned phonology with two triggers. Phonology 37: 453–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sande, Hannah, and Peter Jenks. 2018. Cophonologies by phase. In NELS 48 Proceedings. Amherst: Graduate Linguistics Association, vol. 3, pp. 39–53. [Google Scholar]
- Sande, Hannah, Peter Jenks, and Sharon Inkelas. 2020. Cophonologies by ph(r)ase. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 38: 1211–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sato, Yosuke. 2006. Spelling-out prosodic domains: A multiple spell-out account. Paper presented at the InterPhases Conference, Nicosia, Cyprus, May 18–20. [Google Scholar]
- Schiering, René, Balthasar Bickel, and Kristine A. Hildebrandt. 2010. The prosodic word is not universal, but emergent. Journal of Linguistics 46: 657–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology 3: 371–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1995. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Edited by John A. Goldsmith. Cambridge: Blackwell, pp. 550–69. [Google Scholar]
- Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1996. The prosodic structure of function words. In Signal to Syntax: Prosodic Bootstrapping from Speech to Grammar in Early Acquisition. Edited by James L. Morgan and Katherine Demuth. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 187–214. [Google Scholar]
- Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2009. On clause and intonational phrase in Japanese: The syntactic grounding of prosodic constituent structure. Gengo Kenkyu 136: 35–73. [Google Scholar]
- Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2011. The syntax-phonology interface. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Edited by John A. Goldsmith, Jason Riggle and Alan C. L. Yu. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 435–84. [Google Scholar]
- Shwayder, Kobey. 2015. Word-level recursion in Spanish compounds. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 28. [Google Scholar]
- Taylor, Allan R. 1969. A Grammar of Blackfoot. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 219–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van der Hulst, Harry. 2010. A note on recursion in phonology. Recursion and Human Language 104: 301. [Google Scholar]
- van Driem, George. 1987. A Grammar of Limbu. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [Google Scholar]
- Vigário, Marina. 2003. Prosody and sentence disambiguation in European Portuguese. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 2: 249–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vigário, Marina. 2010. Prosodic structure between the prosodic word and the phonological phrase: Recursive nodes or an independent domain? The Linguistic Review 27: 485–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vogel, Irene. 2009a. The status of the Clitic Group. In Phonological Domains: Universals and Deviations. Edited by Janet Grijzenhout and Baris Kabak. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 15–46. [Google Scholar]
- Vogel, Irene. 2009b. Universals of prosodic structure. In Universals of Language Today. Berlin: Springer, pp. 59–82. [Google Scholar]
- Vogel, Irene. 2012. Recursion in phonology? In Phonological Explorations: Empirical, Theoretical and Diachronic Issues. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 41–61. [Google Scholar]
- Vogel, Irene. 2019. Life after the Strict Layer Hypothesis. In Prosodic Studies: Challenges and Prospects. Edited by Homing Zhang and Youyong Qian. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Wagner, Michael. 2005. Prosody and Recursion. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Weber, Natalie. 2020. Syntax, Prosody, and Metrical Structure in Blackfoot. Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Weber, Natalie. 2021. Syntactic adjunction and prosodic word recursion in Blackfoot. Languages. in press. [Google Scholar]
- Wheeldon, Linda R., and Aditi Lahiri. 2002. The minimal unit of phonological encoding: Prosodic or lexical word. Cognition 85: B31–B41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
1. | The data for R-1, R-2, and R-3 Type compounds did not always include individual element glosses or underlying forms in Itô and Mester (2007). The underlying forms presented here have been checked with a Native Speaker. |
2. | [furikomi] is an exocentric compound which means ’bank transfer.’ /furí/ means ’shake’ and /komi/ means ’included.’ We have chosen to gloss them both as ’transfer’ above to avoid confusion. |
3. | In Pentland and Laughren (2005), the authors do not explicitly argue for multiple levels of the phonological word. Instead, they argue there is a distinction between what they call the "Phonological Word" and the "Prosodic Word." It is certainly an unorthodox proposal to distinguish these two terms as different constituents. As we understand, the two levels proposed are indeed quite similar to those works cited above and thus should be included in the overall discussion. |
4. | The formalization in (13) and all examples in (14) come from (van Driem 1987, pp. 17, 136, 230) as cited in (Schiering et al. 2010). |
5. | The phoneme /l/ also surfaces as [r] when it is the second member in initial clusters in native words. For our purposes, we only consider the first alternation as it is what references the minor prosodic word. |
6. | Schiering et al. (2010) reject the prosodic hierarchy and propose an alternative analysis, which we do not cover in detail here. |
7. | The three Ps of Phase-based, Prosodic, and Phonology are abbreviated as Tri-P. |
8. | While previous work in Tri-P has assumed the phase head is included in the Spell-Out Domain (as in Sande 2017; c.f. Bošković 2016), such an assumption is not necessary for the present analyses. Instead, we adopt the less controversial assumption that it is the complement of the phase head that spells out. We leave it to future work to determine the true status of the phase head for any interface model. |
9. | Here, we adopt ranked rather than weighted constraints for simplicity because we are not dealing with variable outputs. This choice is not crucial to our analysis, and weighted constraints could certainly also be used to model this data effectively. |
10. | |
11. | Previous work in CbP (Sande et al. 2020) has assumed that phase heads are spelled out together with their complements in order to account for category-specific phonology. The categorizing head, itself a phase head, can be associated with a morpheme-specific constraint ranking that affects only the categorizer and inner material. However, much of the syntactic literature assumes that phases are not spelled out with their complements, as we assume here. |
12. | Low-attaching absolutive prefixes are only those associated with non-verbal predicates. The syntactic difference between absolutive morphology on verbal and non-verbal predicates, and its relationship to phase-hood in Kaqchikel, is left to future work. |
13. | Weber adopts an analysis which allows an a-categorical to merge with a vP or VP structure without first merging with a categorizing head (Déchaine 2002; Déchaine and Weber 2015, 2018). |
14. | All examples have been edited to include only the IPA transcription, gloss, and translation. Please see (Weber 2020) for further analysis based on Blackfoot orthography. |
15. | The final /i/ is deleted before vowels in a different process, which is why it does not surface in either (31a) or (31b). |
16. | An unrelated phonological process deletes the root-final /a/ here. |
17. | An unrelated phonological process deleted the initial [o] here. |
18. | An unrelated process shortens the /o:/ here. |
19. | A similar phase-based Match account is presented in (Guekguezian 2017a, 2017b). |
20. | |
21. | High and Low Roots have been marked here for clarity. |
22. | The constraints used here are adapted from (Weber 2020). We use *#C rather than *#[-Cont] in order to account for why we get i-epenthesis before the /s/ in /sto/ in (45). We also leave out constraints that are not relevant to the specific derivation shown here. |
23. | The specific nature of the interaction between morpheme-specific prosodic requirements and Tri-P mapping is outside the scope of this paper and is left for future work, as discussed in Section 6. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Miller, T.L.; Sande, H. Is Word-Level Recursion Actually Recursion? Languages 2021, 6, 100. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6020100
Miller TL, Sande H. Is Word-Level Recursion Actually Recursion? Languages. 2021; 6(2):100. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6020100
Chicago/Turabian StyleMiller, Taylor L., and Hannah Sande. 2021. "Is Word-Level Recursion Actually Recursion?" Languages 6, no. 2: 100. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6020100