Abstract
In late-insertion, realizational models of morphology such as Distributed Morphology (DM), the insertion of Vocabulary Items (VIs) is conditioned by cyclic operations in the syntax. This paper explores whether an isomorphic relationship can be established between cyclic operations such as phases and prosodic domains. In the spirit of D’Alessandro and Scheer’s (2015) proposal of a Modular Phase Impenetrability Condition (MPIC), we strive to provide an analysis in which prosodic boundaries in even smaller, word-level-like syntactic structures—the ‘lexical domain’—can be identified solely within the syntax. We propose a DM-account for the distribution of nominal plural exponency in German, which reveals a dominant trend for a trochaic-foot structure for all but -s-plural exponents (Wiese 2001, 2009). Inspired by Gouskova’s (2019) and Svenonius’ (2016) work concerning the prosody–morphology interface, we argue that the index of a Prosodic Word ω in non-s-plurals is associated with a specific feature configuration. We propose that only a n[+pl(ural)] configuration, in which the nominalizing head n hosts the SynSem-feature Num(ber)[+pl(ural)], rather than a general cyclic categorizing phase head such as n, indexes a Prosodic Word ω for nominal plural exponents in (Standard) German. Based on this empirical evidence from German plural exponency, we argue that (i) prosodic boundaries can be established directly by syntactic structures, (ii) these prosodic boundaries condition VI insertion during the initial stages of Spell-Out, and (iii) prosodic domains are based on individual languages’ syntactic structures and feature configurations, and are thus relativized and language-specific in nature.
Highlights
Theoretical explorations and analyses supporting the cyclic derivational properties of linguistic structure are a long-standing hallmark of the generative research program in both syntax and phonology, and go back at least to Chomsky and Halle’s (1968) proposal of bracket erasure
We adopt a non-lexicalist, late-insertion approach to morphology, Distributed Morphology (DM; Marantz 1997); “late-insertion” approaches presume that syntax operates without phonological content1, which becomes available only at Spell-Out, when morphosyntactic features are mapped onto the Phonological Form (PF) through the insertion of Vocabulary Items (VIs)
Our findings suggest that phases, headed by cyclic, categorizing heads such as n and v4 are inefficient in establishing prosodic boundaries in German; instead, we argue for phases that are relativized, i.e., that phases are not based on the status of a cyclic head, but rather are based on individual languages’ syntactic structures and feature configurations
Summary
Theoretical explorations and analyses supporting the cyclic derivational properties of linguistic structure are a long-standing hallmark of the generative research program in both syntax and phonology, and go back at least to Chomsky and Halle’s (1968) proposal of bracket erasure. Inspired by previous proposals by Gouskova (2019) and Svenonius (2016) on the prosody–morphology interface, we propose—in a nutshell—that relativized cyclic domains are determined in (Standard) German by the SynSem-feature NUM(ber) [+pl(ural)] in a particular node position, namely n We argue that this specific feature configuration of n[+pl(ural)] generates a Prosodic Word diacritic ω, which delimits the formation of Prosodic Words at Spell-Out. As such, our findings suggest that phases, headed by cyclic, categorizing heads such as n and v4 are inefficient in establishing prosodic boundaries in German; instead, we argue for phases that are relativized, i.e., that phases are not based on the status of a cyclic head, but rather are based on individual languages’ syntactic structures and feature configurations.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
