Abstract

The mapping of information structure onto morphology or intonation varies greatly crosslinguistically. Agglutinative languages, like Inuktitut or Quechua, have a rich morphological layer onto which discourse-level features are mapped but a limited use of intonation. Instead, English or Spanish lack grammaticalized morphemes that convey discourse-level information but use intonation to a relatively large extent. We propose that the difference found in these two pairs of languages follows from a division of labor across language modules, such that two extreme values of the continuum of possible interactions across modules are available as well as combinations of morphological and intonational markers. At one extreme, in languages such as Inuktitut and Quechua, a rich set of morphemes with scope over constituents convey sentence-level and discourse-level distinctions, making the alignment of intonational patterns and information structure apparently redundant. At the other extreme, as in English and to some extent Spanish, a series of consistent alignments of PF and syntactic structure are required to distinguish sentence types and to determine the information value of a constituent. This results in a complementary distribution of morphology and intonation in these languages. In contact situations, overlap between patterns of module interaction are attested. Evidence from Quechua–Spanish and Inuktitut–English bilinguals supports a bidirectionality of crosslinguistic influence; intonational patterns emerge in non-intonational languages to distinguish sentence types, whereas morphemes or discourse particles emerge in intonational languages to mark discourse-level features.

Highlights

  • When discussing the crosslinguistic variability in sentence stress patterns, Ladd (2008, pp. 251–53) asks himself whether languages can differ “without limit and in unpredictable ways” or if the variation is constrained in some principled way

  • That languages that have a rich morphology with particles or affixes that are used to mark questions, information structure or evidentiality tend to have a very limited use of intonation to mark, for example, sentence type or focus

  • The first one was whether there is a complementary distribution in the use of morphology and prosody to mark information structure and sentence type in Quechua and Inuktitut

Read more

Summary

Introduction

When discussing the crosslinguistic variability in sentence stress patterns, Ladd (2008, pp. 251–53) asks himself whether languages can differ “without limit and in unpredictable ways” or if the variation is constrained in some principled way. At the other extreme of the continuum, we find languages such as English and Spanish, which lack a rich set of grammaticalized morphemes that convey discourse-level information but use intonation to a relatively large extent (Ladd 2008; Vallduví 1990) Even within this latter group of languages, the division of labor between syntax and prosody varies, with English relying more on prosody and Spanish more on syntax to mark information structure. At one of the extremes of the continuum, a rich set of morphological markers with scope over constituents convey sentence-level distinctions, as in (1), and discourse-level values such as focus and evidentiality (attested or reported information), as in (2) In languages such as Inuktitut and Quechua, the alignment of intonational patterns and information structure is apparently redundant. Morphemes or discourse particles emerge in intonational languages to mark discourse-level features such as focus and evidentiality

Background
Empirical Evidence Supporting the Relevance of Morphology
Quechua
Inuktitut
Language Comparison
Implications
Findings
Conclusions

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

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.