Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan (I.feldhausen)

Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan
Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA)

Linguistik Aktuell!Linguistics Today (LA) provides a platform for original monograph
studies into synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Studies in LA confront empirical
and theoretical problems as these are currently discussed in syntax, semantics,
morphology, phonology. and systematic pragmatics with the aim to establish robust
empirical generalizations within a universalistic perspective.
General Editors
VVerneri\braharn Elly van Gelderen
University ofVienna I Arizona State University
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
Advisory Editorial Board

Josef Bayer Christer Platzack
University of Konstanz University of Lund
Cedric Boeckx Ian Roberts
ICRENUniversitat Autonoma de Barcelona Cambridge University
Guglielmo Cinque Lisa deMena Travis
University of Venice McGill University
Liliane Haegeman StenV!kner
University of Ghent University of Aarhus
Hubert Haider C. Jan- Wouter Zwart
University of Salzburg University of Groningen
Terje Lohndal
University of Maryland
Volume 168
Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan
by Ingo Feldhausen
Sentential Form and
Prosodic Structure of Catalan
Ingo Feldhausen
University of Hamburg
John Benjamins Publishing Company

Amsterdam I Philadelphia
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of
Amerkan National Standard for Information Sciences - Permanence of
Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI z39.48-1984.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Feldhausen, Ingo.
Sentential form and prosodic structure of Catalan I by Ingo Feldhau.sen.
p. em. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, ISSN 0166-0829; v. 168)
Includes bibliographical references and index..
Catalan language--Sentences. 1.. Catalan language--Syntax. 3· Catalan language--
Grammar. I. Title.
PC3872.F45 2010
449:95--dC22 20100331.60
ISBN 978 90 272 55518 (Hb; alk. paper)
ISBN 978 90 272 8759 5 (Eb)
© 2010 -John Benjamins B.V.

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any
other means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co.· P.O. Box 36224 • 1020 ME Amsterdam -The Netherlands
John Benjamins North America· P.O. Box 27519 ·Philadelphia PA 19118-0519 • usA
Table of contents
Acknowledgements IX
Conventions for glosses and translations XI
List of abbreviations XIII
CHAPTER 1
Introduction 1
1.1 Foundations and basic assumptions 3
1.1.1 Central Catalan 4
1.1.2 Clitic left- and clitic right-dislocations in Catalan 6
1.1.3 Information structure 8
1.1.4 Preverbal subjects are not dislocated 13
1.1.41 Preverbal subjects are in an A-position 14
1.1.42 All-new contexts 15
1.1.43 Islandhood 16
1.1.44 Subjects present for disambiguation 17
1.1.45 Non-referential QPs as preverbal subjects 18
1.1.46 Unambiguous wide scope 19
1.2 Outline of the empirical results and their theoretical analysis 21
CHAPTER 2
Fundamental aspects of Catalan intonation 27
2.1 Foundations of the theoretical model 27
2.1.1 The Autosegmental-Metrical (AM) model 28
2.1.2 The Tone and Break Indices transcription system (ToBI) 35
2.2 The Tone and Break Indices transcription system for Catalan 37
2.2.1 Pitch accents in Catalan 37
2.2.2 Suprasegmental prosodic levels in Catalan 40
2.3. Boundary cues in Catalan 43
2.3.1 Boundary cues in Romance languages 44
2.3.2 The continuation rise 45
2.3.3 The sustained pitch 50
2.3.4 Preboundary lengthening 51
2.3.5 Pauses 54
2.3.6 Complex boundary tones 55
2.3.7 Organization of boundary cues 56
2.4. Assumptions on phonological inventory of Catalan 58
vx Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan
CHAPTER 3
Phrasing patterns in Catalan SVO structures 61
3.1 Background and experiment hypothesis 62
3.1.1 Detailed background of Catalan phrasing patterns 63
3.1.2 The hypotheses 65
3.2 General outline of the experiments 66
3·3 Experiments on simple and complex SVO phrasing 70
3.3.1 Specific experiment design 71
3.3.2 Results -boundary cues 74
3·3·3 Results - phrasing patterns 8o
3·3·3·1 The simple SVO experiment 8o
3·3·3·2 Discussion 84
3·3·3·3 The complex SVO experiment 85
3·3·3·4 Discussion 93
3·3·4 Conclusion 94
3·4 An analysis for SVO and embedded SVO phrasing 95
3.4.1 Optimality-theoretic constraints
of the Syntax-Prosody interface 96
3.4.2 Accounting for simple SVO structures in Catalan 102
3.4.2.1 The relevant constraints 102
3.4.2.2 Motivation for the constraint hierarchy 104
3.4.2.3 Prieto's (2005) OT tables for SVO phrasing 107
3.4.2.4 Modifications of Prieto's approach
to SVO phrasing 109
3·4·3· Accounting for complex SVO structures in Catalan 112
3·4·3·1 The relevant constraints and their rankings 113
3·4·3·1.1 Reconciling long objects and
MAx-BIN-END- a tentative approach 117
3·4·3·2 Optionality in Optimality Theory 120
3·4·3·3 Stochastic Optimality Theory 121
3·4·3·4 Applying stochastic Optimality Theory to the phrasing
of complex sentences 124
3·4·3·5 Conclusion 126
CHAPTER 4
Syntactic aspects of Catalan ditic left- and ditic right-dislocation 127
4.1 Syntactic aspects of clitic left-dislocations (CLLD)
and clitic right-dislocations (CLRD) 127
4.1.1 Three syntactic approaches to CLLD and CLRD 127
41.2 CLLD and CLRD asymmetries 131
Table of contents vu
4.1.2.1Licensing of negative words 132

4.1.2.2 Binding 136
4.1.2.3 Obviation effects 140
4-1.2.3.1 A theoretical approach to the influence
of CLLD on obviation 145
4-1.3 Conclusion 147
CHAPTER 5
Prosodic phrasing of Catalan clitic left- and elitic right -dislocation 149
5.1 Background 150
5.2 The hypotheses 151
5·3 The experiment 156
5·4 Results 159
5·4·1 Results 160
5·4·2 Summary 169
5·4·3 Discussion 171
5·5 A theoretical approach to Catalan dislocation structures 174
5.5.1 Two further constraints: ALIGN-ToP,R and ALIGN-vP,R 174
5·5·2 The constraint hierarchy 177
5.6 Conclusion 182
CHAPTER 6
Left-dislocations and preverbal subjects 183
6.1 The hypotheses 183
6.2 The experiment 185
6.3 Results 187
6.4 Discussion and conclusion 191
CHAPTER7
Conclusion and outlook 197
References 203
Appendices 217
Inde." 281
Acknowledgements
A great number of people supported and influenced this work. I am extremely

grateful to all of them. Very special thanks are due to Caroline Fery and Pilar Prieto
as well as to Shinichiro Ishihara and Xavier Villalba for their support through-
out the years including constant availability for questions and detailed comments
on the book in general or on specific sections. Special thanks to Ariadna Benet,
Kerstin Blume, Mariapaola D'Imperio, Laura J. Downing, Gisbert Fanselow,
Christoph Gabriel, Izarbe Garcia Sanchez, James German, Luis L6pez, Markus
Meyer, and Hubert Truckenbrodt for different kinds of substantial support. I wish
also to thank Llu'isa Astruc, Joanna Blasczcak, Paul Boersma, Eva Brehm-Jurish,
Daniele Clement, Francesco Costantini, Susana Cortes, Jorg Dreyer, Martin Elsig,
Mara Frascarelli, Marco Garda Garda, Joachim Jacobs, Stefimie Jannedy, Frank
JanBen, Sam Hellmuth, Elena Kireva, Marije Michel, Nina Nanula, Daniela
Lentge, Jiirgen Meisel, Cedric Patin, Gisa Rauh, Philip Rausch, Gemma Rigau,
Esther Rinke, Paolo Roseano, Franziska Scholz, Elisabeth Selkirk. Barbara Stiebels,
Maria del Mar Vanrell, Anna Vilanova, Ralf Vogel and Malte Zimmermann. I am
indebted to my family and friends and to the participants of my experiments.
Further, I would like to acknowledge the support of the German Research Foun-
dation (DFG) through an important grant during the early stages of the research
(GK 275: Okonomie und Komplexitiit in der Sprache). Finally, I am grateful to
Jackie Adams for her assistance with editing and I owe special thanks to Werner
Abraham, Elly van Gelderen, Patricia Leplae, and Kees Vaes at John Benjamins for
their interest in my book and for the efficiency they brought to the collaboration.
Conventions for glosses and translations
The interlinear glosses used throughout this work are based on the Leipzig
Glossing Rules (LGR), 1 a standard set of conventions proposed to the community
of linguists. Hence, my glosses are left-aligned vertically, word by word, with the
example. If segmental morphemes are separated in the examples, they are done
so by hyphens('-'), both in the example and in the gloss. If clitic boundaries are
marked, they are marked with an equals sign ('='), both in the object language
and in the gloss. Grammatical morphemes are generally rendered by abbreviated
grammatical category labels which are printed in small capitals ('CAPITALs'). A
list of abbreviations is given at the end of this section. Instead of category labels a
word from the meta-language can also be used ('lPL' or 'we'; 'ART' or 'the'). When
a single object-language element is rendered by several meta-language elements
(words or abbreviations), these are separated by periods(' ';e.g.: '2PL.PsT'). Per-
son and number are not separated by a period ('lPL').
Deviations from the LGR: The LGR is not applied entirely in every example.
I include a minimum of information along the lines proposed in L6pez (2009a: 20):
Clitics (i.e. weak pronouns) in Catalan may appear in an invariant form (e.g. the
adverbial pronouns en or hi) or they may inflect for cp-features (number, gen-
der, and person). I include the minimum of information in order that a ditic
can be easily identified with the associate: the Catalan clitic for the masculine,
plural direct object, els, is glossed only as 'cL.Acc: so the reader sees it is associ-
ated with the accusative argument. Additionally, clitics and their associates are
co-indexed in the original example. This becomes important in cases where the
dislocated element is not marked with Case (i.e. where they are merely glossed
by 'cL'). Verbal morphology may inflect for tense, person, number, aspect, and
mood. However, if a verb is infinite, it is glossed by '.INF: otherwise it is finite
(Subjunctive is glossed by SBJ; aspect is not of relevance here). Ifl do not indicate
tense on a finite verb, it should be understood to be present. Likewise, if person
and number are not indicated on the finite verb, it should be understood to be
third singular (3sG). Determiners, for example, are not glossed for grammatical
morphemes. The indefinite, plural article for masculine nouns uns is rendered
by the word form 'a' of the meta-language English.
1. http ://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/pdf/LGR04.09.21.pdf
xn Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan
The English translations are nearly always in a neutral word order. As a native
speaker of German, I do not try to reproduce the information structure of the
original example (mostly Catalan) in the English translation. In general it is diffi-
cult to translate the information structure. For example is the Romance CLLD iden-
tical to that of an English topicalization (as proposed in Rochemont 1989: 154ff.);
or is CLRD better translated into an 'as for'- construction (e.g. Frascarelli 2000: 160:
ex.206b) or into a cleft-construction (e.g. Cecchetto 1999: 58: ex.40)?! I find
the translation into neutral word order is a prudent approach, and is the least
misleading choice.
With respect to quoted references and page numbers (as previous in the
preceding paragraph), they should be understood as follows:
Prieto etal (2009: 288&301) =>Page 288 and page 301

of Prieto et al. (2009)
Frascarelli (2000: 160: ex.206b) => Example 206b on page 160
of Frascarelli (2000)
Astruc (2005: 154: Table 4.3) =>Table 4.3 on page 154
of Astruc (2005)
List of abbreviations
1 first person M masculine

2 second person MBE MAx-BIN-END (OT constraint)
3 third person M-N-P MIN-N-PHRASES
ACC accusative (OT constraint)
AL-CP,L ALIGN-CP,L (OT constraint) NEG negation, negative
AL-XP,R ALIGN-XP,R (OT constraint) NOM nominative
BP Brazilian Portuguese NSR Nuclear Stress Rule
CAT Catalan OT Optimality Theory
CL clitic PL plural
CLLD clitic left-dislocation PRF perfect
CLRD clitic right-dislocation PrP prosodic phrase
COND conditional PRS present
COMP complementizer PST past
DAT dative PTCP participle
EP European Portuguese REFL reflexive
F feminine SBJ subjunctive
FOC focus SG singular
FUT future Se Subject (of the embedded
GLA Gradual Learning Algorithm clause)
intonational phrase Sm Subject (of the matrix clause)
IND indicative SP Spanish
INF infinitive svo Subject, Verb, Object
IntP intonational phrase ToBI Tone and Break Indices
ip intermediate phrase TOP topic
ITAL Italian cp phonological phrase
LOC locative w prosodic word
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
The present work deals with the intonational phrasing of preverbal subjects. object
clauses and clitic left- and right-dislocations in the Catalan language and thus deals
with complex syntactic structures. Since the late 1970s the intonational grouping of
sentences as a topic of linguistic research has received more and more attention, in the
scope ofthe prosodic hierarchy. Although the research often deals with relative clauses
and parentheticals in regular intervals, the literature concentrates mostly on simple
clauses. The studies of the last decade that are especially concerned with the place-
ment of intonational boundaries in Romance languages have often not inquired into
complex structures. For this reason the present study is devoted to embedded object
clauses, a special type of complex sentence. The intonational grouping of such sen-
tences is approached from two angles. First, the influence of sentential objects on the
phrasing ofthe matrix subject and verb is discussed (Chapter 3). Second, the grouping
of the embedded clauses themselves is discussed. It is shown that embedded clauses
are usually intonationally separated from the matrix clause (Chapter 3). This charac-
teristic changes. however, when the embedded clause includes a left-dislocated ele-
ment. Embedded left-dislocations phrase with the preceding matrix clause (Chapter
5). Despite these main characteristics, the intonational grouping ofcomplex sentences
allows for variation. The theoretical approach proposed in the present work accounts
for the data presented in this study (the approach is based on Boersma & Hayes' 2001
Stochastic OT; cf. below). When discussing preverbal subjects and left-dislocations
in one study; the status of preverbal subjects must be considered (cf. Section 1.1.4).
Several linguists argue that preverbal subjects are automatically left-dislocated.
There are however other linguists who interpret them differently: they argue that
preverbal subjects are not automatically left-dislocated. I am one of them. While
the first chapters inquire into subjects and left-dislocations separately; Chapter 6 is
dedicated to both.
The empirical data in the present work is completely new. Four intonational
experiments were conducted. The first on simple SVO structures. the second on
complex SVO structures. The third experiment is concerned with clitic left- and
right-dislocations. The fourth experiment compares preverbal subjects and left-
dislocations. These experiments show several interesting results which are now
briefly introduced. The most common phrasing in simple SVO structures is
2 Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan
(S)(VO), as in (la). However, (SV)(O) is possible when the object is branching, as

in (lb). Moreover, the number of (SV)(O) phrasings increases significantly, when
the object is not only branching but also sentential as in (2). Sentential objects
intensify the effect of branching objects. Object clauses typically are separated
from the matrix clause by a prosodic break, cf. (2). No break, however, precedes
the object clause when it contains a left-dislocated element: an embedded left-
dislocation phrases with the matrix clause and leaves out the remainder of the
embedded clause in a separate prosodic phrase, as in (3). This signals in turn a
strong right boundary. For this reason left-dislocations do not build a prosodic
phrase of their own. This constitutes empirical counterevidence to the claim that
focus is a prosodic domain of its own. Clitic right-dislocations are ahnost always
separated from the preceding main clause by a prosodic boundary, as in (4).
(1) SVO-phrasing in simple clauses (i.e. DP object)
( S ) (V 0 ) <= Prosodic Grouping
a. rAguila roba el ratoH.
the.eagle steal.3sG.PST the mouse
'The eagle stole the mouse:
s v ( 0
b. raguila rob a el ratoH del meu germa.
the.eagle steal.3sG.PST the mouse of.the my brother
'The eagle stole my brother's mouse:
(2) SVO-phrasing in complex structures (i.e. sentential object)

S V (q S ) (V 0
[La Barbara suposa [que !'aguila roba el ratoH]cp2 lcp1 •
the B. assume.3so that the.eagle steal.3sG.PST the mouse
(3) Embedded clitic left-dislocation (CLLD)
S V CLLD
[La Maria va dir [que les taules,
the M. PST.3so say.INF that the table.PL
v pp
les va portar al pis lcp 2 1cp1•
CL.ACC PST bring.INF to.the flat
'Mary said that (s)he brought the tables to the flat:
(4) Clitic right-dislocation (CLRD)
( v pp ) ( CLRD)
Les1 vaig portar al pis, les taules1•
CL.ACC PST.lSG bring to-the flat the tables
'I brought the tables to the flat:
Chapter 1. Introduction 3
SVO represents the canonical word order in Catalan: preverbal subjects are
not inherently left-dislocated; they can be left-dislocated, but this is not always
the case. Prosodic evidence for this statement is based on phrasing data. Non-
branching preverbal subjects which are contextually given show a strong right-
boundary, typical of left-dislocations. In contrast, non-branching preverbal
subjects that are not given clearly show the tendency for (SV)(O) phrasing when
the object is long.
The above empirical findings represent only the main characteristics. The
actual groupings, however, differ in certain respects. A theoretical approach to the
data must account for this variation. The analysis is grounded in the framework
of Stochastic Optimality Theory (Boersma & Hayes 2001), a variant of Optimality
Theory (Prince & Smolensky 1993/2004), for this reason. This model accounts
for the variation, while a non-probabilistic constraint ranking is unable to do so.
The analysis includes two important constraints: (1) ALIGN-CP,L, a constraint which
accounts for the boundary preceding the embedded clause; and (2) ALIGN-ToP(Ic),R,
a constraint which accounts for the obligatory right boundary of dislocations (i.e.
topics). Furthermore, although right-dislocations appear clause final, their syntac-
tic position is within the main clause (Chapter 4). Based on remnant movement of
vP to a clause-internal FocP the surface order can be accounted for. The prosodic
grouping is accounted for by a third constraint: ALIGN -vP ,R. This constraint aligns
the right edge of vP to the right edge of a prosodic phrase.
Chapter 1 is structured as follows. Section 1.1 introduces the founda-
tions and the basic assumptions of the research, which represent the starting
point of the study. In Section 1.2, an outline of the empirical findings and the
proposed theoretical analysis is shown by presenting the main topics of the
different chapters.
1.1 Foundations and basic assumptions
In this section the following foundations and basic assumptions of the present
work are introduced which represent the starting point of the work. The research
language Central Catalan is presented in Section 1.1.1. A brief description of
the constructions called clitic left-dislocation (CLLD) and clitic right-dislocation
(CLRD) is given in Section 1.1.2. In Section 1.1.3, two aspects of the component
called information structu1-e (IS) important for my work are introduced; namely:
(a) The relation between focus and question/answer pairs and (b) Givenness. In
Section 1.1.4, several arguments are given for the basic assumption of the thesis
that preverbal subjects are not (necessarily) left-dislocated.
1.1.1 Central Catalan

Catalan is a Romance language spoken in northeastern Spain (cf. Figure 1 at the
end of this section). It is spoken in the autonomous communities of Balearic
Islands, Catalonia, and Valencia. It has the status of a co-officiallanguage in these
communities. It is the official language in Andorra. It is also spoken in the French
department Pyrenees-Orientales (i.e. Rossell6 region) and in the city of :C Alguer
located on the western coast of the Italian island of Sardinia. The language has
between 7 and 10 million speakers, depending on the method of definition. The
territories of the Catalan language and culture are often called Paisos Ca.talans
'Catalan Countries' (presented by the shaded area in Figure 1).
During the history of the Catalan language it has often been degraded as a
mere dialect of Spanish. This view is incorrect. The degradation of the language
was especially pronounced during the last dictatorship in Spain (1939-1975). The
acknowledgement of Catalan as language in its own right is not a concession to
ideological and political demands but is based on linguistic data. The most notice-
able differences between Spanish (Castilian) and Catalan concern the sound
system, the lexicon, and other less grammatical aspects (typical in Romance
languages). 1 One example of these differences is the initial/- in Latin which under
certain circumstances became h- in Spanish. Later it became silent but remained
orthographically: FA CERE> hacer 'do: FOLIA> hoja 'leaf: FUGERE> huir 'flee'.
It is supposed that this change was due to the influence of the Basque substratum
during the Roman Empire. Catalan, in contrast, did not undergo the development:
fer, fulla, fugir. In addition, some Latin vowels became a diphthong in Spanish:
SEPTEM > siete 'seven', TERRA > tierra 'eartli, GROSSUM > grueso 'thick:
PONTEM > puente 'bridge'. Again, Catalan did not undergo the phenomenon:
set, terra, gros, pont. Furthermore, many Spanish words kept a final -n after the
transformation from Latin, whereas Catalan dropped the-n: be 'good',_fi 'End', ra6
'reason'. This in contrast to Spanish bien, fin, raz6n. The Catalan lexicon has more
words in common with Occitan (and French) than with Spanish. According to
Schlosser (2005: 61) nearly70% correspond with Occitan, andonly20% correspond
with Spanish. Some examples of the basic vocabulary that do not correspond with
Spanish are: arribar 'arrive' (sp. llegar, fr. arriver), blau 'blue' (sp. azul, fr. bleu),
cercar 'search' (sp. buscar, fr. chercher), formatge 'cheese' (sp. queso, fr. fromage),
menjar 'eat' (sp. come1·, fr. manger), res 'nothing' (sp. nada, fr. rien).Z
1. This paragraph is based mainly on Schlosser (2005: 60£).

2. For detailed information on the lexical relationship between Catalan and other Romance
languages cf. Melchor & Branchadell (2002: 43&51)
Catalan comprises a collection of dialects which are mutually intelligible. The

main dialects are organized into two major dialect blocks: Eastern Catalan (catala.
oriental) and Western Catalan (catala occidental); the division is marked by the bold
black line in Figure 1. Each block encompasses several regional varieties. The Western
Catalan block comprises the two dialects Northwestern Catalan and Valencian. The
Eastern Catalan block comprises four dialects: Central Catalan (marked by the italic
lines in Figure 1), Balearic, Rossellonese, and Alguerese. The dialects can further be
divided into difierent subdialects (e.g. Central Catalan is subdivided into Barcelonl
(in the area of Barcelona), Tarragon{ (in the eastern half ofTarragona province), and
Septentrional de tra.nsici6 (in the transition zone to Northern Catalan)).
Central Catalan can be considered the standard pronunciation of the language
and has the highest number of speakers. It is commonly spoken in densely popu-
lated regions such as the province of Barcelona, the eastern half of the province
of Tarragona and most of the province of Girona. In the northern part of Girona
a transition to Northern Catalan begins. Typical cities where Central Catalan is
spoken in addition to Barcelona are Berga, Cerdanyola, Granollers, Igualada,
Manresa, Matar6, Sabadell, Sant Celani, Sitges, Terrassa, and Vic. The domain
of Central Catalan does not equal the territory of Catalonia. The western part of
Catalonia (e.g. the area around Lleida) belongs to the Western Catalan block.
The most striking differences between catala oriental (Eastern Catalan) and
catala occidental (Western Catalan) are primarily of a phonetic nature. The occi-
dental dialects distinguish clearly between unstressed [a] and [e]. The oriental
dialects, in general merge them into one sole vowel [;)] ('schwa'), cf. Table 1. A
further distinction concerning unstressed vowels is the fact that [o] is substituted
by [u] in the oriental dialects, but not in the occidental dialects (nor in Majorcan),
cf. Table 2. These phenomena are comprised under the term vowel reduction. In
addition to these phonetic aspects, there are also morphological syntactic and
lexical differences (cf. Melchor & Branchadel12002: 71f.).
Table 1. Catalan dialects and the existence of the neutral vowel[~] (taken from Melchor &
Branchadell2002: 71)
Northwestern Catalan, Valencian Central Catalan, Balearic, Rossellonese
(Western/Occidental Catalan) (Eastern/Oriental Catalan)
mar[e) 'mother' mar[<~]
c[a]nfo 'song' cMnfo
Table 2. Catalan dialects and the existence of the neutral vowel [u] (taken from Melchor &
Branchadell2002: 71)
Northwestern Catalan, Valencian (Western/ Central Catalan, Balearic (not Majorcan),
Occidental Catalan), and Majorcan Rossellonese, Alguerese (Oriental Catalan)
p[o]sar'put' p[u]sar
jerr[o1'iro.It jerr[u]
Figure 1. Map of the Pa'isos Catalans (in dark grey) and their dialectal division (Western
Catalan to the left of the bold black line; Eastern Catalan to its right). The italic black lines
indicate the Central Catalan region3
1.1.2 Clitic left- and clitic right-dislocations in Catalan

Clitic Left- and Right-Dislocations are very common in Romance 4 languages.
Dislocated elements are often doubled by a weak pronoun, a so-called resump-
tive clitic, within the clause. These clitics5 immediately precede the verb. Due to
3· I would like to thank Joan Borras-Comes for creating the map.

4· There are similar constructions in other languages such as, for example, English or German.
However, the appropriate term for these constructions in these languages might be Topicalization.
There are also Left-Dislocation constructions, but they seem to be rather on a par with Romance
Hanging Thpic constructions. Howeve:t; this issue is far beyond the goal of this paper. BUl: ct: Frey
(2004) for a comparison between English and German Topicalization and Left-Dislocation and
ct: Casielles-Suarez (2003) fortopicalization vs.left-dislocation in Spanish.
5· As Anderson (2000: 304) points out the notion of a 'ditic' merges two rather different kinds
of behavior. Zwicky (1977) invented two terms reflecting the differences: on the one hand there
are simple ditics, on the other hand there are special ditics. Simple ditics are elements which
are phonologically dependent on an adjacent word Anderson considers them as prosodically
deficient insofar as «they lack some of the higher-level prosodic organization (assignment to
a phonological word, for example)" and must therefore "be incorporated into some adjacent
element of an appropriate prosodic type" (Anderson 2000: 305). Simple ditics in English are
e.g. the reduced auxiliary ~ (meaning is or has) or 'd (meaning would). Special ditics are
this doubling, these constructions are called clitic left-dislocation (CLLD) and clitic
right-dislocation (CLRD) respectively. Catalan examples for CLLD and CLRD are
given in (6) and (7). The normal word order is presented in (5).
(5) Normal word order (V-DO-PP)
Vaig portar les taules al pis.
PST.lsG bring the tables to-the flat
(6) Clitic Left-Dislocation (CLLD)
Les taules1, les1 vaig portar al pis.
the tables CL.ACC PST.lSG bring to-the flat
(7) Clitic Right-Dislocation (CLRD)
The normal word order in Catalan is SVO (cf. Section 1.2.4).6 This order is typical
for Romance languages (Hulk & Pollock 2001: 3).7 (5) reflects the canonical order
for Catalan. In (6) the accusative object les taules 'the tables' is left-dislocated and
precedes the clause; in (7) it is right-dislocated and follows the clause. In each case a
weak pronoun (here: 'les') is placed before V. In Catalan, direct and indirect objects
are obligatorily resumed by a clitic (Vallduvf 2002: 1233&1236).8 If the dislocated
argument is a locative (as in the case of verbs such as put), clitics are also obliga-
tory (Bonet 1991: 25).9 Dislocated subjects do not have clitics- there are no weak
"members of a class of (typically pronominal) forms, whose placement is unusual or unique

in terms of the syntax of corresponding non-ditic elements. The paradigmatic exemplars of
ditics in this sense are the non-subject pronominals of, e.g. French or Spanish. [ ... ] In most
cases special ditics are also prosodically deficient elements" (Anderson 2000: 304t:). This pro-
sodic deficiency of special ditics is also observable in Catalan ditics of CLLD and CLRD:
they lack independent stress and do not count as prosodic words, and lean (at this level of the
prosodic hierarchy) on another word, which is always the following verb(al complex). Ct: also
Rigau & Mascar6 (2002) and Kuchenbrandt, Kupisch & Rinke (2005) for more information
on Romance ditics.
6. Ct: Hernanz (2002: 1022) and L6pez (2003: 198); in ditransitive structures the canonical
word order is S-V-D0-10(/PP).
7· "There is a consensus among both traditional and generative grammarians that the canonical
surfuce word order of the Romance languages is subject -verb -object" (Hulk & Pollock 2001: 3).
8. The Catalan clitic resumption differs from Italian ditic resumption in that the resumption
in Italian is obligatory only for DOs and optional for lOs (cf. Frascarelli 2000: 145).
9· Spanish,forexample,doesnothavelocativeclitics(Catalanhi,Frenchy,ltalianci),although
dislocating a locative argument is acceptable - but it is not resumed by a clitic. Spanish also
nominative pronouns (Vallduvi 2002: 1242). 10 Adjuncts can also be dislocated

and corresponding resumptive pronouns are optional (Vallduvi 2002: 126lf.). In
the prosodic experiment on CLLD and CLRD (Chapter 5) I focus mainly on dis-
located objects. Consequently there is always a preverbal clitic in the TP. In the
cases where adjuncts are dislocated, I use a resumptive clitic. 11 1he general clitic
order in Catalan is DAT-ACC-PART(itive)-LOC(ative), although there is also a lot
of syncretism and dialectal variation (cf. Bonet 1991, Bonet 2002: 973, Brumme
1997: 135). The order in Catalan for elements in the left periphery ('Vorfeld') is
as follows: Relative-wh > as for > H1tD 12 > CLLD > wh (interrogatives, exclama-
tives) (cf. Villalba 2000, 2004). This is shown for Hanging Topic Left-Dislocations,
left-dislocations, and wh-interrogatives in (8). The left-dislocated object la Mcn·ia.
precedes the wh-element quan 'when' in (8a), whereas the left-dislocated PP
d'aquest tema 'about this subject' follows the hanging topic la Maria in (8b ).
(8) Order of elements in the Catalan left periphery (examples taken from Villalba 2004: 8)
a. La Marial' quan hi1 has parlat?
the M. when Loc have.2sG talk.PTCP
'Maria, when have you talked with her?'
b. La Maria 1, daquest tema2 no en2 parlis amb ellar
the M. of.this subject not of.it talk.SBJ .2sG with her
'Maria, do not talk with her about this subject:
One important characteristic of CLLD and CLRD constituents is that they are
contextually given. What this means is introduced in the following section on
information structure.
1.1.3 Information structure

Two aspects of the component called infm·ma.tion sh-ucture (IS) are important
for my work: (a) The relationship between focus and question/answer pairs
lacks a partitive clitic (Catalan and French en, Italian ne), ci Bonet (1991: 25&57), Zubizarreta
(1998: 157). Thus, Spanish has fewer clitics than the other three Romance languages.
10. Vallduvf (2002: 1242) notes that subject agreement takes over the resumptive function of
object ditics (cf. also Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1998: ch.6.2 ).
u. In addition to the dislocation of objects and subjects, Villalba (2000: 45f.) points out that
different maximal projections can be dislocated in Catalan: PPs, APs, AdvPs and even CPs
[±tensed] (cf. also Cinque 1990: 57). Even verbal projections can dislocate (but for details
cf. Vallduvf 2002: ch.4.6.1).
12. HTID =Hanging Topic Left-Dislocation (ct: Ale.xiadou 2006)
and (b) Givenness. These two aspects are important because they guide the
construction of the experimental data of the four prosodic experiments. All
the simple and complex SVO sentences in Chapter 3 are all-new sentences. The
sentences of the CLLD/CLRD experiment (Chapter 5) are clearly divided in
terms of focus and givenness: CLLD/CLRD is maximally salient in the common
ground (i.e. given), because they are mentioned in the preceding context. CLLD
and CLRD thus fall into the concept of familiarity topic. The rest of the clause
constitutes the focus domain. The preverbal subjects of the experiment described
in Chapter 6 are either maximally salient or part of the focus domain. In what
follows I briefly illustrate what is meant by information structure. After this,
background information on two relevant aspects of my work is presented and
the terms all-new focus, focus domain and given ness, and topic are introduced.
Information structure (IS) is the phenomenon of information packaging
(Chafe 1976, Vallduvf 1993, Krifk.a 2007) that responds to the demands of the
communicative situation by organizing the constituents of the sentence according
to communicative needs. The organization can be understood as a structuring of
the sentence by syntactic, prosodic, or morphological means. These means con-
stitute cues for the addressees to correctly interpret the intended meaning: they
enable the listeners to easily identify two things. On the one hand the listeners can
identify which part of the sentence is an actual contribution to their information
state at the time of the utterance, and on the other hand, which part represents
material already subsumed by this information state (Engdahl & Vallduvf 1996: 2).
The clear restriction ofiS regarding the aspects that respond to the tempora.ry state
of the listener's mind has been proposed in the seminal work by Chafe (1976). The
information mutually known by the speakers/listeners and which is continuously
modified in communication can be called common gmund (CG; Stalnaker 1974;
cf. Krifk.a 2007: 15). The basic notions ofiS are Focus, Givenness, and Topic (Krifk.a
2007). These basic concepts are briefly presented in what follows. The concept
of focus is illustrated by the relation of question/answer pairs. Such pairs are the
foundation of the experimental data and thus also have a great importance for my
work. In addition, the intersection of givenness and topic is likewise important:
the notion of givenness subsumes the notion of topic, because all topics in my
work are given. Nevertheless both notions are introduced separately.
Focus: the first aspect concerns the classical pragmatic use of focus, which
is to highlight the part of an answer that replies to the wh-part of a constituent
question (Paul1880, Krifk.a 2007: 21). The question specifies the way in which the
information state should develop in the immediate future. The answer connects
an expression to the immediately preceding context. The expression which adds
information to the immediately preceding context is the focus. The major principle
of focus interpretation at work in the grammar is that focus accommodates new

information (Selkirk 1984: 213). 13 Focus is thus a device for information-packaging.
In (9) I give a German example with different questions evoking answers which are
different in respect to the actual contribution which is added to the information
state of the addressee.
(9) Different focus domain
a. Question: What happened?
Answer: [Anna hat die ZEITschrift gekauft]p
A. has the magazine buy.PTCP
~nna bought the magazine:
b. Question: What did Anna do?

Answer: Anna [hat die ZEITschrift gekauft)p
c. Question: What did Anna buy?
Answer: Anna hat [die ZEITschrift]F gekauft
d. Question: Who bought the journal?
Answer: [Anna]p hat die ZEITschrift gekauft
The three examples (9a-c) differ neither with respect to word order, nor to the
position of the sentence accent (marked by capitals), but their focus domain
(marked by'[ ]p'), however, is difierent. The focus domain is the part of the answer
that responds to the question. 14 The typical result of failing to select the right
focus is incoherent communication (Krifka 2007: 21). In (9a) the complete clause
is contained in the focus domain. This is called all-new focus, sentence focus, or
whole focus reading. In (9b) only the constituent without the subject constitutes the
focus domain, and in (9c) it is only the object DP. The latter case can be called nar-
row focus, whereas the former domain can be called broad focus. These two terms
(cf. Selkirk 1984, Lambrecht 1994) are imprecise and can be used only when dif-
ferent focus alternatives are being discussed (Krifk.a 2007: 31). (9d) difiers with
respect to the three previous examples in the location of the sentence accent, which
is on the subject Anna. The obvious relation between sentence accent (i.e. promi-
nence) and focus is expressed by the Focus Prominence Rule (FPR, Chomsky 1971,
13. For a critical argument on the interpretation of the notion of focus as new information
cf. Krifka (2007: 29f.).
14. The different size of the focus domain can be explained by assuming with Selkirk (1984,
1995a) that the focus feature F of a constituent can project to higher syntactic nodes (cf. Focus
Projection Rule, Selkirk 1995a: 555; cf. also Selkirk 1984: 207ff.).
Jack.endoff1972, Zubizarreta 1998: 88). According to this rule, the focused marked
material must be more prominent than presupposed material; hence, focus bears
the sentence stress. 15
Givenness: elements that are not part of the focus domain are, in general,
already present in the common ground (CG) of the speakers/listeners, as is the
case with CLLD and CLRD. Being present means that they are given. Givenness
always refers to denotation, i.e. the denotation of the element, and the expres-
sion itself is not present in CG. Krifk.a (2007) offers the following definition of
givenness, (10), and I adopt this definition for the present work.
( 10) Definition of Givenness (Krifka 2007: 37):
A feature X of an expression a is a Givenness feature iff X indicates whether the
denotation of a is present in the CG or not, and!orindicates the degree to which it
is present in the immediate CG.
1his definition allows us to say that an expression is given to a particular degree.

It can be either maximally salient or given only in the immediately preceding CG.
It is also possible that it is given only in the general CG. Krifk.a's (2007) notion of
givenness is different from that of focus. His definition of givenness allows focused
constituents to be given (which becomes relevant in the case of second occurrence
focus). 16 I am not concerned, however, with the transition zones of the notions. In
my experimental work only constructions with a clear boundary between givenness
and focus are used (as explained at the beginning of this section).
Givenness can be indicated in several ways (Krifka 2007: 38). Some of them
are the realization of an expression in a non -canonical position and deaccentuation
(i.e. the reduction of the prosodic realization of given expressions). Typically the
non-canonical position is before the canonical position. These two strategies are
used in Catalan, where clitic left-dislocations as well as clitic right-dislocations
are not in their canonical position (cf Section 1.2.2). In addition, the former
15. Sentence stress is a form of phrasal stress. Phrasal stress is the stress assigned beyond
word stress (strongest stress in a prosodic word) in syntactic collocations of words. such
as phrases. clauses. and sentences (Truckenbrodt 2007). The most well-known accounts of
phrasal stress are the Nuclear Stress Rule (NSR) by Chomsky & Halle ( 1968) and the Sentence
Accent Assignment Rule (SAAR) by Gussenhoven (1983, 1992). The important role of Focus
in assigning sentence stress is mostly modeled by an abstract feature For FOC, which is
assigned to a syntactic constituent. Rooth (1992) developed a theory (alternative semantics
offocus) including the important role of focus. (For more information ct: Truckenbrodt 2007
and the references cited there).
16. For more details cf Schwarzschild (1999) who developed a detailed account on the
interaction of givenness and focusation.
is accented, but it does not bear sentence stress and the latter is deaccented
(cf. Chapter 5). Vallduvf (1993: 119) notes that Catalan has a very straightforward
way to represent information packaging. Left-dislocations precede the main clause
and right dislocations follow the core clause (cf. (6) and (7) in the dislocation sec-
tion). Whatever is left in the core clause must be interpreted as focal (with the
exception of clitics). For this reason no dislocated element can be part of the focus
domain (Vallduvi 2002: 1253).
Topic: dislocations are often taken as topics (Alexiadou 2006: 686, Frascarelli 2000,
Rizzi 1997, Zubizarreta 1998) and host the functional projection TopP (Rizzi 1997,
Villalba 2000 and many more)P According to Reinhart (1981, 1995) there are
two main schools of thought for the characterization of the concept topic. The two
concepts are presented in (11) (based on Frey 2004).
(11) a. Aboutness concept of topic: a topic is an expression whose referent the
sentence is about.
b. Familiarity concept of topic: a topic is that expression whose referent has
been already introduced into the discourse or is for other reasons already
familiar to the interlocutors.
The aboutness concept of topic assumes that the notion of topic refers to the object
the speaker is thinking about, whereas the rest of the utterance (the comment)
refers to what the speaker is thinking about the object. Hence, topic can be
understood in terms of aboutness: the comment is said about the topic (Hockett
1958: 201). 18 In conjunction with this concept the topic can also be new; it is only
important that the sentence is about the topic (cf. Krifka 2007:41 for discussion).
Due to the tact that CLLD and CLRD always must be given, I chose the familiarity
concept of topic as the appropriate one. For the purpose of the study, givenness
and familiarity are synonymous.
Subsuming CLLD and CLRD under the notion of givenness (or familiarity
topic) has the advantage of being able to move away from the differences which
exist between Catalan CLLD- and CLRD constituents. Vallduvf (1993) and Villalba
(2000) show that there are interpretational differences between these two kinds
of dislocations. 19 The difterences, though, are not of importance for the work at
17. Cf. L6pez (2002, 2009a: 140) for a critical assessment of the functional projections FocP
and TopP.
18. "The most general characteristic of predicative constructions is suggested by the terms
'topic' and 'comment' for their ICs [immediate constituents, I.E]: the speaker announces a
topic and then says something about it." (Hockett 1958: 20 1).
19. The main difference is that right -dislocations cannot act as links to the previous discourse
like left -dislocations. This is why Vallduvf (199 3) replaces the notion of topic by link for CLLD
hand because I am interested only in the main informational separation of the

clause as presented in Vallduvf (1993: 119): given constituents must precede or
follow the core clause. The question of why a constituent is located in the left or
right periphery of the clause is too detailed for this study. The intent is to make a
statement about the prosodic phrasing patterns of CLLD and CLRD.
1.1.4 Preverbal subjects are not dislocated

In this work I assume that SVO is the normal word order in Catalan. In this
section several arguments are presented supporting this assumption. In Romance,
there is a long lasting and involved discussion on the canonical position of sub-
jects. The main issue is determining if the canonical word order (WO) is SVO or
VOS. In Catalan, for example, there is consensus that the order of the verb and its
internal arguments is fixed: V-DO-IO(IPP) (cf. L6pez 2003, 2009a, Vallduvf 1993,
2002: 1230, Villalba 2000, Wheeler, Yates & Dols 1999). Opinions differ when it
comes to the subject position. Hernanz (2002: 1022) and Lopez (2003: 198, 2009a)
assume that the preverbal position is the canonical one, whereas Vallduvi (1993:
ch.5.2, 2002: 1245), Rossel16 (2000), and Sola (1992) assume that the canoni-
cal position is postverbal (i.e. VOS). Wheeler et al. (1999) have an intermediate
position. They propose that the postverbal subject order is only compulsory with
intransitive verbs (Venen h·ens 'Trains are coming') and optional in all other cases
(depending on informativeness, phonological weight, etc.). Due to this discussion,
it comes as a surprise that Hulk & Polio ck ( 2001: 3) state that" [t] here is a consensus
among both traditional and generative grammarians that the canonical surface
word order of the Romance languages is subject-verb-object': Nevertheless, this is
exactly the word order argued for in this section.
The approaches to preverbal subjects can be classified as being of two kinds: One
group assumes that preverbal subjects are always left-dislocated (e.g. Alexiadou &
Anagno stopo ulou 1998,20 Barbosa 1995, Contreras 1991, Ordonez & Trevino 1999,
Sola 1992, and Vallduvf 1993, 2002: 1245), whereas the second group assumes that
preverbal subjects can, but need not be, left-dislocated (Belletti 1990, Cardinaletti
1997, Costa 2004: ch.2, Gutierrez-Bravo 2007, 2008, L6pez 2003, 2009a: ch.3.7,
Pires 2007, Sheehan 2006).
and tail for CLRD. In addition, left -dislocations can be contrastive, whereas right -dislocations
can never be contrastive. For detailed information of differences between Catalan CLLD and
CLRD cf. Villalba (2000: 60ff., 1441f.).
20. A&A (1998) = Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1998)
The syntactic literature on the status of preverbal subjects is endowed with

many arguments for both groups. It shall be shown here that preverbal subjects are
not left-dislocated, but rather part of the focus domain. I rely mainly on the work
by Sheehan (2006) and L6pez (2009a). One of the most recent works on the status
of preverbal subjects by Sheehan (2006), discusses at length that (Romance) pre-
verbal subjects are not automatically CLLD (Sheehan 2006: ch.2). She draws the
conclusion that "it is certainly the case that preverbal subjects are CLLD on some
occasions in Romance, it need not be the case that they are always CLLD" (Sheehan
2006: 72), and adds that preverbal subjects in fact cannot always be CLLD. L6pez
( 2009a) draws in principal the same conclusion.21 The following six arguments for
why preverbal subjects cannot always be clitic left-dislocated are introduced in the
upcoming subsections:
1.1.4.1 Preverbal Subjects are in an A-Position (L6pez 2009a: 132, Sheehan 2006: 88)
1.1.4.2 All-New Contexts (L6pez 2009a: 132, Sheehan 2006: 75)
1.1.4.3 Islandhood (Sheehan 2006: 84)
1.1.4.4 Subjects Present for Disambiguation (Sheehan 2006: 82)
1.1.4.5 Non-Referential QPs as Preverbal Subjects (Sheehan 2006: 76)
1.1.4.6 Unambiguous Wide Scope (Sheehan 2006: 55)
1.1.4.1 Preverbal subjects a¥e in an A-position

L6pez (2009a: 132) states that an experiencer argument can interfere with NP-raising
in every Romance language, cf. (12), (13) [= his examples 3.122 and 3.123]. In
(12a) the subject 'Joan' raises out of the infinitival complement clauses to the
A-position of the raising verb semblar 'seem'. If an experience argument inter-
venes between the moved subject and the matrix verb (12b ), an intervention effect
arises. As L6pez (2007) shows, such an intervention effect does not appear with
es
a clear instance of dislocation, (13). Due to the finite verb 'is' in the embedded
clause, an analysis in terms of raising to subject is not possible. Hence, the subject
'Juan' must be dislocated and the presence of the dative experiencer em 'me' does
not change the grammaticality of the sentence.
(12) a. El Joan sembla ser intelligent [CAT]

the J. seem be.INF intelligent
'John seems to be intelligent:
11. However, there are at least two differences between L6pez (2009a) and Sheehan (2006).
(A) L6pez (2009a) takes CLLD as a result of movement, whereas Sheehan (2006) assumes a
base-generation approach, like Cinque (1990). (B) L6pez (2009a: 131) argues in the discussion
on preverbal subjects that if they are dislocated, they are very likely HTLD and not CLLD.
Nevertheless, they are dislocated
b. *El Joan em sembla ser intelligent [CAT]

the J. CL.DAT seem be.INF intelligent
'John seems to me to be intelligent:
(13) El Joan em sembla que es intelligent [CAT]
the J. CL.DAT seem that be intelligent
'John, it seems to me that he is intelligent:
L6pez (2009a) sees the contrast between (12) and (13) as evidence that an
A-movement of the subject exists (from Spec,v to Spec,T).
Sheehan (2006: 88) also states that many preverbal subjects must be in an
A-position. Relying on Sufier (2002) she says that Spanish ad sensum agreement
supports this view. Suiier (2002) shows that true CLLD subjects allow optional
ad sensum agreement. Ad sensum agreement refers to the fact that subject and
verb differ in number as in (14): whereas the predicate estaban presionados 'be
pressured' has 3pl agreement, the subject el jurado 'the jury' is grammatically
singular but semantically plural (examples taken from Sheehan 2006: 88).
(14) El jurado, Marla nos asegur6 que estaban presionados [SP]
the jury.3sG M. us assured.3sG that were.3PL pressured.3PL
'The jury, Maria assured us that they felt pressured:
(15) El jurado *estaban presionados I estaba presionado [SP]
the jury.3sG were.3PL pressured.3PL were.3sG pressured.3sG
'The jury felt pressured:
As can be seen in (15) ad sensum agreement is not possible with all preverbal sub-
jects. In (15) the preverbal subject is directly adjacent to the finite verb. According
to Sheehan, Sufier (2002) draws the conclusion from these data that ad sensum
agreement is only possible with CLLD subjects. If, as in (15), ad sensum agreement
is not possible, the preverbal subject is not an instance of CLLD.
1.1.4.2 All-new contexts

Vallduvf (1993: 119) notes that Catalan has a very straightforward representation
of information pa.ckagi.ng (term by Chafe 1976): "All links are left-detached, all
tails are right-detached, and whatever is left in the core clause (under the lowest
IP) must be interpreted as focal (with the exception of clitics)': The general idea
behind this description is that no dislocated element can be part of the focus
domain because it is not part of the rheme (Vallduvf 2002: 1253). Consequently, as
L6pez (2009a: 132) notes, a preverbal subject cannot be dislocated in an all-focus
sentence.22 A sentence counts as all-new/all-focus if it is an appropriate answer to
:21. The all-focus context presented here constitutes counter evidence to the assumption that
subjects are naturally topics (van Oosten 1986, Horn 1989: ch.7), where topic is understood in
the sense of theme confl.ating with the notion of old information (Dan~ 1970 ).
the question "What happens?" (ct~ Krifka 2007: 23). The word order SVO in the
answer is obligatory in the Catalan all-focus sentence in (16).
(16) [Context: What happened?] [CAT]

a. (que) el Joan finalement va portar elsllibres. SVO
that the J. finally PAST bring.INF the book.PL
'(that) John finally brought the books:
b. #(que) els llibres finalment els va portar el Joan. CLLD
that the books finally CL PAST bring.INF the J.
'(that) John finally brought the books:
(taken from L6pez 2009a: 132)
The concept that when a whole sentence is forced by the context to be a rheme, no
constituent can be dislocated is also taken up by Sheehan (2006: 75), citing Costa
(2001). Costa (2001) shows the same pattern for European Portuguese, (17).
( 17) [Context: What happened?] [EP]
a. 0 Pedro partiu o bra~o SVO
the P. broke the arm
'Pedro broke his arm:
b. #Partiu o Pedro o b~o vso
broke the P. the arm
'Pedro broke hisarm:
c. #0 bra~, o Pedro partiu-o CLLD
the arm the P. broke-cL
'The arm, Pedro broke it:
(taken from Sheehan 2006: 75)
1.1.4.3 Islandhood
Miiller &"Sternefeld (1993: 485) show that topics in German create an island for
wh-extraction. Gutierrez-Bravo (2007) cites an argument from Goodall (2001) as
evidence that preverbal subjects are not fronted topics based on the islandhood of
embedded topics. Whereas fronted topics in Spanish create islands for extraction,
(18a), preverbal subjects do not, (18b).
(18) a. *A qui.Cn crees [que el premio se lo dieron] [SP]
to whom think.2SG that the prize CL.DAT CL.ACC gave.3PL
Ut. 'Who do you think that the prize they gave to?'
b. A quien crees [que Juan le dio el premio] [SP]
to whom think.2so that ]. CL.DAT gave.3so the prize
'Who do you think that Juan gave the prize to?'
(taken from Sheehan 2006: 84; bold marking by I.F.)
According to Sheehan (2006: 85), approaches in which the preverbal subject

occupies an A-position do not have any difficulty in explaining the data in (18):
The CLLD element in (18a) is in an A-bar-position and has thus a different status
to the preverbal position of the embedded subject in (18b). The former blocks
A-bar-movement of another more embedded element, whereas the preverbal
subject, being in an A-position, does not block A-bar extraction. If the preverbal
subject is treated like being in an A-bar position (as do A&A 1998) it should block
wh-extraction, contrary to fact.
1.1.4.4 Subjects present for disambiguation

Subject pronouns in Catalan are seldom used: the phonetically null form is the
unmarked case regarding frequency and distribution (Vallduvi 1993: 99). Never-
theless, subject pronouns are used in the following circumstances. (a) When used
without a verb, (19); (b) When accented (mostly in contrastive contexts), (20); (c)
In combination with mateix '(same), i.e. myself, yourself, .. :, (21); and (d) When
verb forms are ambiguous, i.e. when two possible antecedents are present, and
the subject interpretation must be unambiguous, (22). (All examples taken from
Brumme 1997: 123).
(19) Qui vol gelat? Jo. [CAT]

who want ice-cream I
'Who wants ice-cream?- Me:
(20) Jo compra pa tu portes mantega [CAT]

I buy bread and you get.2so butter
'I will buy bread and you11 get butter:
(21) M'ho va dir ella mateix [CAT]

me.CL PST say.INP she -self
'She said it to me herself.
(22) Si pro hagues arribat primer [CAT]

if have.SBJ.PST.l/3PS arrive.PTCP first
'If I/(s)he had arrived first, .. .'
In the pastindicative (indicatiu imperfet), present subjunctive (subjuntiu present), past

subjunctive (subjuntiu imperfet), and conditional (condicional) of Catalan, 1st and
3rd person singular verb endings are all syncretic. In cases such as (22) the subject
pronoun is used in order to disambiguate between the possible antecedents, (23).
(23) a. Si jo hagues arribat primer [CAT]
if I have.SBJ.PST.lPs arrive.PTCP first
'If I had arrived first, .. .'
b. Si ell hagues arribat primer [CAT]
if he have.SBJ.PST.3PS arrive.PTCP first
'If he had arrived first, .. .'
Sheehan (2006: 82f.) shows similar examples for Italian (taken from Cardinaletti
1997). In Italian present subjunctive, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person singular verb end-
ings are syncretic; hence the ambiguity is three way. As for disambiguation, the 2nd
person singular requires an overt pronoun. Sheehan argues that the 2nd person
overt pronoun "is not a CLLD topic, but rather is merely required for functional/
pragmatics reasons to differentiate between ambiguous verb-forms~ (Sheehan
2006: 83). The same is true for (23). A CLLD approach to overt preverbal sub-
jects cannot account for non-topical preverbal subjects whose only function is
disambiguationP
1.1.4.5 Non-refenmtial QPs as preverbal subjects

Cinque (1990) claimed that robustly non-referential QPs or bare NPs in Italian,
Spanish, EP, or French are not possible as CLLD with a resumptive clitic (cf. also
Raposo 1986, Kato & Raposo 2006), cf. (24). Sheehan (2006: 77) states that similar
phenomena are true with respect to subject left-dislocation in Brazilian Portuguese
and French, (25).
(24) a. *Uvros do Tintim, li-os antes de adormecer [EP]
books of.the Tintin read:lso-cL.them before of sleep:INP.lso
Lit. 'Books about Tintin, I read them before going to sleep:
b. *Poucos candidatos, ouvi-os falar na televisao [EP]
few candidates heard-them speak on.the TV
'Few candidates, I heard them speak on the television:
(25) a. *Ninguem1 ele1 gosta de chorar [BP]

nobody he likes of cry.INP
'Nobody likes crying:
b. *Personne, il r1 aime pleurer [French]
nobody he not likes cry.INP
'Nobody likes crying:
In contrast to (25) preverbal non-referential QPs, however, are normal in Romance

NSLs, as can be seen in (26) for Spanish and Catalan.24 The conclusion is that
23. Cf. Mayol (2006: 76) for a further function of the use of overt pronouns, in which they
could help to select the less accessible antecedent.
24· In contrast to the general assumption that QPs are not tolerated as topics,A&A ( 1998: 508)
argue that CLID of QPs is possible (giving evidence from Italian). Cf. Sheehan (2006: 78) for a
short discussion and rejection of ditic left-dislocated QPs.
if elements which cannot be topics appear as preverbal subjects, they cannot be

left-dislocated.
(26) a. Nadie quiere ser politico [SP]
Nobody wants be.INF politician
'Nobody wants to be a politician:
b. NingU. vol ser el president del CF Badalona [CAT]
Nobody wants be.INF the president of.the CF Badalona
'Nobody wants to be the president of CF Badalona:
1.1.4.6 Unambiguous wide scope

Finally, I present the argument by Sheehan (2006) against the claim that Quantifier
Phrases (QPs) in preverbal subject position have unambiguous wide scope (A&A
1998: 504ft~). i.e. they fail to reconstruct.
If Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1998) are correct with their claim that
preverbal subjects in Null Subject Languages (NSLs) are always CLLD in an
A'-position, then preverbal subjects should display the same syntactic and seman-
tic properties as other CLLD elements.25 Sheehan (2006: 50) comes up with several
relevant properties of CLLD as diagnostics in an empirical evaluation of the status
of preverbal subjects. One of them is the unambiguous wide scope (i.e. failure to
reconstruct) of CLLD elements. 26
According to Cinque (1990: 66) CLLD elements do not reconstruct. For this
reason, they always take wide scope over IP internal elements. This means that
they are not ambiguous between a narrow scope reading and a wide scope read-
ing of the CLLD element. A&A (1998: 504.ff.) claim that preverbal QPs in Greek
and Spanish always take wide scope over other quantifiers in the clause. This sug-
gests that they are also CLLD, as in the Greek example (27a). (27b) shows the QP
in postverbal position, where the subject can have either narrow or wide scope
(cf. A&A 1998: 505).
(27) a. Kapios :fititis sitihiothetise kathe arthro [Greek]
some student filed every article wide scope only
'Some (particular) student filed every single article:
25. Due to the fact that A&A (1998) consider CLLD as base-generated in the peripheral
position (cf Cinque 1990), Sheehan also asswnes that CLill constituents are base-generated
in their surface position. She does so in order to fucilitate a comparison between the pattern
of preverbal subjects and the approach taken inA&A (1998).
26. In addition to the diagnostic introduced here, Sheehan (2006: 50ff.) mentions "free
positioning with respect to other fronted elements" and "restriction to referential XPs~ As for
the latter, (26) shows that non-referential QPs are normal in Romance NSLs.
b. Sitihiothetise kapios fititis kathe arthro [Greek]

filed some student every article ambiguous
i. 'Every article was filed by some student (or other):
ii. 'Some (particular) student filed every single article:
(28) a. AlgUn. estudiante sac6 prestado todos los libros [SP]

Some student took borrowed all the books
i. ?tAll the books were borrowed by some student: narrow scope subject
ii. 'Some (specific) student borrowed all the books: wide scope subject
b. AlgUn. estudiante sac6 prestado cada libro [SP]
Some student took lent each book
i. 'Each book was borrowed by some student (or other): narrow scope subject
ii. 'Some (particular) student borrowed each book: wide scope subject
The Spanish examples in (28) show a slightly different pattern. Whereas the mar-
ginality of the narrow scope reading in (28a) is by and large in line with A&A,
the possible narrow scope reading in (28b) is not. It is Sufter (2002) who claims
that preverbal subjects are ambiguous in Spanish and thus refutes A&Xs claim.
Sheehan (2006: 56ff.) gives further examples from other NSLs showing that the
preverbal subject position is often potentially ambiguous in scope. She concludes
that there is little empirical support for A&Xs claim outside of Greek and that,
like in the Spanish examples, scope seems to depend on pragmatic and semantic
factors relating to the particular quantifiers used.
As for the general claim that CLLD does not reconstruct, Zubi:zarreta
(1998: 114) shows that Spanish CLLD reconstructs to an intermediate position, a
position which is higher than its base position. Lopez (2009a: 116) translates her
argument into Catalan, (29).
(29) a. El se~ fill, cada mare1 haura d'accompanyar =lo el
the her child each mother must.FUT of.accompany =CL.Acc the
primer dia d'escola
first day of.school
'Each mother must accompany her child on the first day of school:
b. *El se~ fill, haura d'accompanyar=lo cada mare 1 el
the her child must.Fur of.accompany=cL.Acc each mother the
primer dia d'escola
first day of.school
'Each mother must accompany her child on the first day of school:
The subject quantifier cada 'each' in the preverbal position can bind the possessor
seu 'her' in the CLLD, (29a). This is an indication that CLLD must reconstruct
(L6pez 2009a: 117) at least below the high subject position. That CLLD does not
reconstruct to its initial merge position is shown in (29b), due to the fact that
binding is impossible here. L6pez takes this as evidence that CLLD elements
reconstruct to an intermediate position, where they are c-comrnanded by the
preverbal subject on the one hand, but c-command the postverbal subject on the
other hand.
In summary, based on Sheehan (2006: ch.2) and L6pez (2009a: ch.3.7) I
have shown that there are good reasons to claim that preverbal subjects are not
intrinsically CLLD constituents. For this reason I take for granted that preverbal
subjects can be non-left-dislocated as well as being left-dislocated. That prever-
bal subjects can have two functions is also supported by two possible structural
positions for them. Pires (2007) argues that Brazilian Portuguese allows pre-
verbal subjects to be realized either as left-dislocated elements (i.e. topics) or as
arguments internal to the clause, i.e. in [Spec,TP]. Consequently, the functional
division is mirrored by the structural position. Even Rossell6 (2000:105), who
assumes that preverbal subjects are always left-dislocated, mentions that in Cat-
alan preverbal subjects may merge in the Inflection Phrase or in the C-domain
and that only in the latter position would they have a position similar to 'true'
left-dislocated elements.
1.2 Outline of the empirical results and their theoretical analysis
Chapter 2 introduces fundamental aspects of Catalan intonation. The Cat_ToBI

system (Aguilar, de-la-Mota & Prieto 2009, Prieto, Aguilar, Mascaro, Torres-Tamarit &
Vanrell2009) is taken as the basic model for transcription and is explained in detail.
The two prosodic levels Inter·mediate Phrase (i p) and Intonationa-l Phrase (IntP, 1) are
assumed. The term prosodic phrase is used as a hypernym for ip and IntP. There are
five different boundary cues used for detecting intonational boundaries: continua-
tion rise, sustained pitch, preboundary lengthening, pauses, and complex boundary
tones. Only the last two cues indicate IntP-boundaries, while the first three repre-
sent ip-boundaries. Each recorded sentence was analyzed based on these boundary
cues. For this reason each cue is explained in detail. Several pitch tracks of recorded
examples are given in order to illustrate the boundary cues.
Chapter 3 is devoted to objects and their influence on the prosodic group-
ing of the (matrix) subject and verb. It is shown that sentential objects increase
the number of matrix (SV) phrasing. The finding is modeled in the framework
of stochastic Optimality Theory (Boersma & Hayes 2001) in order to account for
different possible groupings. Previous research shows that in simple Catalan SVO
structures, there is a tendency to produce (SV)(O) phrasings if the subject is short
and the object long (i.e. number of prosodic words in Prieto 2005; number of
syllables in D'Imperio, Elordieta, Frota, Prieto & Vigario 2005). Based on this,
:u Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan
the hypothesis is set up that sentential objects compared to DP objects increase

the number of (SV) phrasings. Although the (SV) phrasing is in line with Prieto
(2005), her analysis cannot account for the variation in phrasing.
Two experiments on SVO-phrasing in Catalan with ten native speakers of
Central Catalan were conducted. One with 0 being branching and non -branching
(simple SVO experiment), one with 0 being sentential (complex SVO experi-
ment). The first experiment has the goal of reproducing the findings of D'Imperio
et al. (2005). The second experiment has the goal of testing the hypothesis. I care-
fully controlled for the all-new status of the SVO structure via a context causing
the structure to be entirely new, (30).
(30) Context (question):
No et trobes be? Em sembla que estas de mal humor. Que
No you feel.2so good Me seem that be.2so of bad mood What
ha passat?
have.3so happen.PTCP
'Do you feel bad? You seem to be in a bad mood What happened?'
Target sentence (complex SVO):
La Barbara suposa que rA.guila roba el ratoli
the B. assume that the.eagle steal.3so.PsT the mouse
'Barbara assumes that the eagle stole the mouse:
The results of the first experiment show that the main phrasing pattern is
(S)(VO), where the subject is prosodically separated from the following predicate.
Nevertheless, the grouping (SV)(O) is possible, when the subject is short and the
object branching. The results of the complex SVO experiment show that the matrix
subject is phrased with (at least) the following matrix verb in around 66% of the
examples, whereas it is phrased alone only in around 34% of the examples. This
clearly supports the hypothesis. In addition, the embedded clause (including the
complementizer que) is prosodically separated from the matrix clause in around
80% of the examples. The embedded clause is internally separated by a prosodic
break after the embedded subject (100%). The most common prosodic group-
ing is (SV)(qS)(VO), where the matrix subject and the matrix verb are phrased
together, followed by the group complementizer + embedded subject, and by the
group embedded verb +embedded object. The next three most common groupings
are (S)(V)(qS)(VO), (SVqS)(VO), and (S)(VqS)(VO).
My analysis is based on Prieto's (2005) account for simple SVO and includes
her three constraints MIN-N-PHRASES >> MAx-BIN-END >> ALIGN-XP,R. Due
to the importance of Prieto's work, her approach and the constraints used are
explained in detail. A short overview of my modifications is given here. Prieto (2005)
accounts for the (SV) phrasing by both the binarity constraint MAx-BIN-END, which
demands that the prosodic phrase that bears sentence stress consists of maximally
two prosodic words, and the constraint for avoiding boundaries MIN-N-PHRASES,
which allows the subject to be not right-aligned (as demanded by ALIGN-XP,R).
These constraints and their strict ranking cannot, however, explain the variation
in phrasing. Thus, I depart from Prieto (2005) in three important aspects. First,
MIN-N-PHRASES and MAx-BIN-END are re-ranked in the reverse order (MAx-BIN-
END >> MIN-N-PHRASEs). There-ranking still accounts for her results (cf. Prieto
2005: 216) and it enables one to maintain the same constraint order for complex SVO
structures. Second, a new constraint is assumed: ALIGN -CP ,L. This constraint aligns
the left edge of a CP with the left edge of a prosodic phrase and thus accounts for
the pattern that the embedded clause is in general prosodically separated from the
matrix clause. This constraint is based on Gussenhoven (2004: 167), who introduces
the OT constraint ALIGN(S,t), which aligns the right edge of every sentence with the
right edge of an Intonational Phrase. It is additionally based on de Lacy (2003:60),
who argues that both constraints, ALIGN-LEFT and ALIGN-RIGHT, are presentin every
grammar. Third, the analysis is modeled in a stochastic OT framework (Boersma &
Hayes 2001), where the constraints are ranked on a continuous ranking scale. This
model is explained in detail. A short distance between the constraints causes a less
fixed order between them. I argue that ALIGN-CP,L, MIN-N-PHRASES, and AuGN-
XP,R are very close. The proposed general constraint hierarchy is given in (31).
(31) MAX-BIN-END>> ALIGN-CP,L >> MIN-N-PHRASBS >> ALIGN-XP,R
Due to these factors the actual ranking of the constraints will sometimes be the
reverse of their 'normal' ranking. Consequently, the second, third, or fourth best
candidate is able to win. Using this approach, the four most common groupings
of the data (which comprise 80% of the data) can be modeled. Table 3 pictures the
ranking of the most common pattern (SV)(qS)(VO).
Table 3. Actual ranking for the most common phrasing pattern (SV)(qS)(VO)
(matrix subject = Sm; embedded subject = Se)
z
~z
t-l I
I 0.,
z
.... u ~
~
z i "'1>1
~
< ~
0
::l
z ~ 0
::l
:::s ~ < ~ 0.,:I: <
=>a. 56% (SV)(qS)(VO) 3 Sm
b. 2496 (S)(V)(qS)(VO) 4!
c. 10% (SVqS)(VO) *! 2 Sm
d. 10% (S)(VqS)(VO) *! 3
e. (SVqSVO) *! .. 1 Sm,Se
f. (SVqSV)(O) *! 2 Sm,Se
Chapter 4 is devoted to syntactic aspects of clitic left- and clitic right -dislocations
(CLLD and CLRD respectively). It sets up the syntactic assumptions underlying
my optimality theoretic approach to the prosodic phrasing of these construc-
tions (Chapter 5). I argue for a clause-internal analysis of Catalan CLRD based on
CLLD/CLRD asymmetries and adopt the analysis by Villalba (2000). In such an
approach the CLRD constituent occupies a position below TP and above vP (and
does not move to CP). In order to appear at the right on the surface structure,
remnant movement of vP into an internal FocP is assumed, as is illustrated in
(32a,b). The CLRD constituent is inside TP, but preceded by vP, which hosts the
sentence accent. (32c) is relevant for the analysis in Chapter 5.
(32) a. TP
~
NegP
~
Neg IntFocP
~
vP 1 IntTopP
~
CLRD .ypt
b. vP] CLRD] TP] Syntactic Structure
c. ( )p (CLRD)p Prosodic Phrasing
The CLLD/CLRD asymmetries are highlighted in Villalba (1996, 1999a,b, 2000)

and Cecchetto (1999), but are refuted by Samek-Lodovici (2006) 27 amongst
others. I show that Catalan data still speak in favor of Villalba's and Cecchetto's
assumption.
Three tests for asymmetry are discussed. Two of them found in SL (2006):
licensing ofN-words (such as negative polarity items, NPI) and binding properties
( Cecchetto's 1999 'antireconstruction effects'). These two tests are disc us sed because
they appear to be controversial in the literature on Italian and Catalan. According
to SL, the tests show that dislocated elements in Italian are not c-commanded by
T0 or any other material within TP (such as a licenser for NPis) and thus support
his view that right-dislocated constituents must be external to the clause main
TP. I show that the Catalan counterparts behave contrariwise: Catalan CLRD is
c-commanded by T0 and this can be modeled only by a clause-internal analysis.
27. Henceforth SL (2006).

The third test is a completely new test. This test is based on obviation eftects.
Left-dislocations lead to a disappearance of obviation effects in subjunctive
complement clauses (Costantini 2005b). Right-dislocations, as is shown, keep
obviation effects. The pattern is explained by assuming a clause-internal analysis
ofCLRD.
Chapter 5 deals with the prosodic phrasing of CLLD and CLRD in Catalan.
It shows that embedded clitic left-dislocations are typically not preceded by a pro-
sodic phrase boundary (80% of the data), while clitic left-dislocations are, in
general, obligatorily followed by a prosodic boundary. Clitic right-dislocations
are obligatorily separated from the preceding main clause by a boundary. The
appearance of CLLD in embedded contexts is a topic that intonational research
has, in general, not been very concerned with until now. I present experimental
data that cannot be explained by Frascarelli (2000) and Prieto (2005). The rel-
evant data concerns complex CLLD structures presented in Villalba (2000) and
L6pez (2003, 2009a): left-dislocation out of clitic left-disloca.tions and embedded
left-dislocations.
In order to account for the data, a new constraint is introduced: ALIGN-
ToP(Ic),R. This constraint demands that the right edge of a CLLD and CLRD
constituent be aligned with the right edge of a prosodic phrase. This accounts for
the obligatory right boundary of dislocations (i.e. topics) and allows the constitu-
ent to phrase with preceding material. In order to account for the clause-internal
position of CLRD constituents, a further constraint is introduced: ALIGN-vP,R.
This constraint aligns the right edge of vP to the right edge of a prosodic phrase.
Due to the movement of 1'P into the internal FocP, the right boundary of the pro-
sodic phrase precedes the right-dislocated element, as in (32c) above. The two
constraints are added to the OT-approach established in Chapter 3.
Chapter 6 is dedicated to the prosodic difference between CLLD and pre-
verbal subjects. A fourth experiment comparing left-dislocations and non-
branching, non-given preverbal subjects was conducted. The results show that
non-given preverbal subjects are less often separated by a prosodic phrase from
following material than left-dislocations. This finding supports the constraint
ALIGN-ToP(Ic),R and thus supports the basic assumption addressed in Chapter 1
showing that preverbal subjects are not automatically left-dislocated. The data
further prove that givenness overrides the effects of branchingness and con-
stituent length (if the subject is non-branching): given non-branching subjects
do not show the tendency for (SV)(O) when the object is long. The percentage
of clear boundaries after the given (i.e. dislocated) subject comes to 88%. The
percentage of clear boundaries after new non-branching subjects only comes
to 67%. This means that the number of (SV)(O) phrasings of new subjects is
:16 Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan
much higher and thus in line with Prieto (2005). No new analysis is presented
in this chapter because the analysis established in the preceding chapters already
accounts for the data. This is demonstrated by three corresponding OT tables.
Chapter 7 summarizes the contribution of this work to the area of prosody,
syntax, and the prosody-syntax interface. It concludes the work by offering several
directions for further research.
CHAPTER2
Fundamental aspects of Catalan intonation
1his chapter deals with the theoretical foundations assumed throughout the present
study of Catalan prosody and intonation. The Tone and Break Index system for
Catalan (Cat_ToBI; Prieto, Aguilar, Mascar6, Torres-Tamarit & Vanrell 2009,
Prieto in press, Aguilar, de-la-Mota, Prieto 2009) is taken as the basic model for
transcription and- as in Cat_ToBI- I assume the two prosodic levels intermediate
phrase (ip) and intonational phrase (IntP, 1). The term prosodic phrase is used as a
hypernym for ip and IntP. There are five different boundary cues used for detecting
intonational boundaries: continuation rise, sustained pitch, preboundary length-
ening, pauses, and complex boundary tones. Only the last two cues indicate IntP-
boundaries. Experimental data are not presented here, but there are several pitch
tracks of recorded examples in order to illustrate the boundary cues.
The chapter starts with a brief general introduction to the phonology of into-
nation (Section 2.1) and then quickly turns to the case of Catalan (Sections 2.2,
2.3, and 2.4). In Section 2.1 the Autosegmental-Metrical (AM) model and the
Tone and Break Indices (ToBI) transcription model are presented. It includes an
overview of the prosodic hierarchy and a description of the prosodic levels which
are relevant to the present study. Readers familiar with the AM model and the
ToBI system may skip Section 2.1 and continue reading Section 2.2. In Section 2.2
the specific descriptive conventions of the ToBI system for Catalan are described.
The relevant pitch accents as well as the assumed edge tones (T- and T%) are pre-
sented (Section 2.2.1 and 2.2.2). The next section (2.3) is exclusively devoted to
the five boundary cues assumed for intonational phrasing in Catalan. Each single
cue is explained in detail. Section 2.4 summarizes in detail the main assumptions
discussed in this chapter.
2.1 Foundations of the theoretical model
ToBI (Tone and Break Indices) is a system for transcribing intonation. It is based
on the Autosegmental- Metrical (AM) model (Pierrehumbert 1980, Beckman &
Pierrehumbert 1986, Pierrehumbert & Beckman 1988, Ladd 1996, 2008). The
present section provides the reader, first, with an overview of the fundamental
:18 Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan
tenets of the AM theory! (Section 2.1.1) and, second, with a brief overview of the
main conventions of the ToBI transcription system (Section 2.1.2).
2.1.1 The Autosegmental-Metrical (AM) model
The main goal of intonational models is to explain the complexity and the diver-
sity of FO contours. The FO contour is the fundamental frequency of an utterance,
which can be measured physically in Hertz (Hz). Pitch is the perceived fundamen-
tal frequency, while intonation is the variation of the fundamental frequency when
speaking. To put it difierently: "By intonation we understand the overall melody of
an utterance, as reflected primarily by its tonal or FO contour" (Hualde 2002: 102).
In intonationa-l languages (such as English, Catalan, Spanish, or German) the
melody of an utterance is used to convey semantic/discoursal meaning (cf. Ladd
1996: 7). In these languages pitch is not used to distinguish words as is the case in
tonal languages (e.g. Chinese, Thai, or Hausa) where, in contrast the pitch within
a word lexically distinguishes them (cf. Tun 2005). Intonational contours are com-
posed of smaller units or primitives in order to account for the linguistic pro-
ductivity of intonation. In the AM model it is assumed that in languages such as
English, Catalan, or Spanish only particular points in the utterance are specified
for tone. These points are either stressed syllables or phrasal boundaries at the
phonological level. By phonetic interpolation between tonally specified points the
rest of the contour is filled in (cf. Hualde 2002: 102). There are two types of tonal
units: pitch accents and edge tones. They are briefly introduced here.2 A Catalan
specific presentation of the tonal units follows in Section 2.2.
Pitch accents associate with metrically strong syllables of a (prosodic) word. The
tone which associates with the stressed syllable is marked by an asterisk'*' (cf for
example 'L*' in Figure 2 in Section 2.2.2; for details on association cf. Pierrehumbert
1980: 11, Arvaniti, Ladd & Mennen 2000 and Prieto, D'Imperio & Gili Fivela
2005). Pitch accents are strictly locally determined, do not interact with each other
(i.e. they are independent from each other), and are categorically distinct. It is
assumed that only two tones, namely H(igh) and L(ow), suffice to describe a
language (Bruce 1977, Pierrehumbert 1980, Gussenhoven 2004). The tones can
either be monotonal, i.e. they consist of a single High tone (H) or a single Low
tone (L), or they can be hi- or tritonal. Bitonal pitch accents are a combination
of two low and high tones (e.g. L+H or H+L) and can either have a leading tone
1. The overview of the AM model is based mainly on Gussenhoven (2004: ch.7).

1. The presentation partly follows the one in Kligler (2007: 5).
Chapter 2. Fundamental aspects of Catalan intonation 29
before T* (e.g. H+L*) or a trailing tone after T* (e.g. L*+H). Tritonal pitch accents
are a combination of three tones (e.g. L+H+L).
Edge tones mark the edge of a prosodic constituent. In Pierrehumbert's (1980)
original proposal edge tones are divided into two types: boundary tones (notated
L% and H%) 3 and phrase accents (notated L-and H-). Boundary tones mark the
edge of an intonational phrase (IntP or L; cf. Figure 1 in this section or Figure 2
in Section 2.2.2). They can appear at the beginning or end of the IntP. In contrast
to pitch accents, they are independent of stressed syllables, since the end (or the
beginning) of an IntP does not always coincide with a stressed syllable. Boundary
tones serve as a demarcation; they are assigned for structural reasons (i.e. to signal
the prosodic constituent IntP) and not for prominence reasons. Just as with pitch
accents, boundary tones can be monotonal (as in English (Pierrehumbert 1980)
or German (Fery 1993)) or they can consist of a sequence of tones (as in Seoul
Korean (Jun 1993) or Bengali (Hayes & Lahiri 1991)).
Phrase accents used to be free-standing unstarred tones occuring between the
last pitch accent and the boundary tone in Pierrehumbert (1980). This proposal
was revised in Beckman & Pierrehumbert (1986), who introduced the intermedi-
ate phrase (ip) as an additional constituent of the prosodic hierarchy. They reana-
lyzed the phrase accents as a boundary tone ofip. 4 As a result, non-final ips end in
T- and IntPs in T-T%, since the right edge of every IntP coincides with a right edge
of an ip. The present study also assumes the intermediate phrase and the 'phrase
accent' is called ip-boundary tone (labeled T-) in the remainder of the work. 5
Pierrehumbert's (1980) work is based on both the models of metrical pho-
nology (Liberman & Prince 1977) and of autosegmental phonology (Leben 1973,
1975, Goldsmith 1976). The term Autosegmental-Metrical (AM) model has been
customary since the mid-1990s (a term coined by Ladd 1996), and the model is
currently one of the most used phonological frameworks for representing intona-
tion (Hualde 2003, Prieto 2003, Jun 2005, in press, Grice & Baumann 2007). It
combines the two abovementioned phonological areas in the following way. Due
to the fact that this model has separate tiers for tones and for segmental pho-
nemes, it is autosegmental (cf. Gussenhoven 2004: ch.3.3, Hall2000: ch.5). Tones
are not taken as inherent properties of a segment, but as entities which behave
3· Beckman et al. (2002: 23) and Prieto & Roseano (2010) argue for the presence of a mid
tone level M% for Spanish.
4· For details, ct: Ladd (1996: 273ft:, 2008: 10 l) and Gussenhoven (2004: 1301f.) or the original
papers directly.
5· There is an ongoing discussion as to whether phrase accents really exist or not. For details
cf. Grice, Ladd, and Arvaniti (2000) and Ladd (2008: 1421f.).
phonologically independently of their segments. Tones are autonomous segments;

in other words, they are autosegments. The element in the segmental structure to
which tone (T) associates is called the Tone Bearing Unit (TBU). Languages differ
in whether a vowel/consonant or the mora (fl), the syllable (a), or the foot (F)
counts as the unit to which tone is assigned. For example, Catalan and Spanish
assign tones to metrically strong syllables (a) and in Japanese the mora is the
relevant unit.
The model is metrical because the utterance is divided into phrases and relative
prominence is assigned to elements within the phrase. The division is character-
ized by a set of phonological constituents which are hierarchically organized,
cf. Figure 1. The hierarchy is called Prosodic Hierarchy (Selkirk 1984, Nespor &
Vogel1986/2007) 6 and is described quite nicely by Truckenbrodt (1999):
"In this theory, a hierarchical, layered representation structures a string of
phonological segments, grouping segments into syllables, syllables into feet, and
feet into prosodic words; the layers above the prosodic word are the phonological
phrase, the intonational phrase, and the utterance" (Truck.enbrodt 1999: 220).
~
---------
l
I
\}
~
T
l
; ----\
Utterance
Intonational Phrase
intermediate Phrase
I
w
w w w w Prosodic Word
I I I I I
F F F F F Foot
I1\ I
(J (J (J (J
I
(J (J
I
(J Syllable
/?J. 6 6/lJ. i~ 6& /6
I tu: me nil k.uks
I I
{ sp:nl ! br::l6 segmental structure
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
\
~H* "-t*+H \lf*
\ B*+L Lt tonal structure
Figure 1. Prosodic Hierarchy (adopted from Gussenhoven 2004: 124: 1)
In Figure 1, one possible pronunciation of the English saying Too maey cooks
spoil the broth is given and it illustrates the different levels of the pro so die hierarchy. 7
6. Henceforth N&V (1986/2007).

7· Several phonologists (such as Gussenhoven 2004, Fery 2004, 2010, and It6 and Mester
to appear (and references cited there)) assume that the Strict Layer Hypothesis (Selki.Ik 1984,
It is adopted from Gussenhoven ( 2004: 124) but differs from the original one in two
aspects. First, the phonological phrase level is replaced by the intermediate phrase,
because in the present work only the latter level is assumed. Second, two differ-
ent lines (dashed and solid) are used in order to represent the difference between
constituency lines and association lines (cf. Brentari & Bosch 1990: 2f.). Dashed
lines represent association lines. Association refers to the relationship between an
autosegment and the metrical position that licenses it (Beckman 2006: 1). Solid
lines represent prosodic constituency. They connect the constituents of the pro-
sodic hierarchy and thus represent category membership. The different constituents
of the prosodic hierarchy are motivated by representing domains in which certain
phonological processes apply (N&V 1986/2007). In what follows, the different lev-
els starting from the syllable are basically introduced. The focus lies on the levels of
the prosodic word, the intermediate phrase, and the intonational phrase, as these
domains are of great importance for the present study. I concentrate on the main
aspects of these prosodic constituents and do not present a detailed explanation of
the arguments motivating them (for details, cf. N&V 1986/2007).
A syllable (a) consists of a sequence of speech sounds. In intonational lan-
guages a certain syllable within a word is stressed, whereas the others are
unstressed. Hence, the former is more prominent than the latter. This pattern is
defined lexically. The prominence relations are clarified by indicating adjacent syl-
lables according to their relative stress pattern as strong ('s) or weak ('w'). Conse-
quently, the syllable 0 5 is more stressed than ow Only strong syllables are anchor
points for pitch accents.
The foot (F) is motivated as a phonological constituent due to word stress rules
(cf. N&V 1986/2007: ch.3.2 and references cited there; Hall 2000: 277ff.). A foot
consists of a stressed (i.e. strong) and an unstressed (i.e. weak) adjacent syllable,
which builds the underlying rhythm (trochee: strong-weak; iamb: weak-strong).
The level of prosodic word or phonological word (PW. w) dominates the foot
level and is thus composed of one or more feet. Also the unit of w is motivated
N&V 1986/2007) can be violated under certain circumstances (e.g. Roca 1997). In the case
of the definite article in Figure 1, the direct connection of the syllable with the level of the
phonological phrase is such a violation.
Strict Layer Hypothe.sis (SLH, Nespor&Vogel1986: 7):
i. A given nonterminal unit of the prosodic hierarchy, xP, is composed of one or more
units of the immediately lower category xP- 1•
ii. A unit of a given level of the hierarchy is exhaustively contained in the superordinate
unit of which it is a part.
iii. The hierarchical structures of prosodic phonology are n-ary branching.
iv. The relative prominence relation defined for sister nodes is such that one node is
assigned the value strong (s) and all other nodes are assigned the value (w).
on the grounds of being a domain where certain phonological processes apply

(cf. N&V 1986/2007: ch.6 for details). According to Vigario (2003: 22) one of the
mostintuitive diagnostics8 for the prosodic word domain in Portuguese (and many
other languages) is primary word stress. It is generally accepted that the prosodic
word must bear one and only one primary stress; consequently, elements which
cannot bear primary word stress do not count as a prosodic word. These elements
are called clitics and they are incorporated into the prosodic word, which hence
is an agglutinating entity: "Any element that is not dominated by a prosodic word
node must be adjoined to the following prosodic word" (Vigario 2003: 210&263).
For Catalan, a language that has lexical stress, the basic idea is by and large
clear; a stressed non-compound lexical word together with any adjacent clitic
counts as a prosodic word. Elements in Catalan which cannot bear primary word
stress are inter alia prepositions (which are often also asyllabic), determiners, and
(weak) pronouns.9 Strong pronouns are stressed; hence they are not clitics. In
general, itis easy to check if an element is unstressed in Central Catalan due to the
property of vowel reduction: A reduced vowel is unstressed (on the other hand,
full vowels are always stressed; cf. Tables 1 and 2 in Section 1.1.1 ). Clitics cannot be
utterances because utterances need stress (e.g.: Whom did you see?- *La/Ella/La.
viu 'Her/Shell saw her'). Definite articles, for example, are clitics since their vowel
is reduced ([al 1nen] el nen 'the child') and the vowel is often epithetic (lamic 'the
friend'; the IV cannot be a w, because there is no vowel). Prosodic words in Catalan
consist of at least a moraic trochee (Cabre 1993) 10 and the primary word stress
falls on the rightmost stressable element (Wheeler 2004: 1).
The intermediate phrase (ip) is the level above the prosodic word. The ip
groups (phonological) words into one phrase which have at least one accented
syllable, i.e. each ip contains at least one pitch accent. 11 ip-boundary tones
(labeled T-) signal the boundary of an ip. The term intermediate phrase stems
8. For a comprehensive overview of diagnostics for the prosodic word cf. Vigl\rio (2003: 22).
9· There are two types of pronouns in Romance. In general, the first type takes a position
adjacent to the verb and the second type occupies the canonical object position. The first type
is called weak or dit:ic pronoun because they are not stressed and they phonologically depend
on the verb. The second type is called strong pronoun, and they are stressed. (cf. FernAndez
Soriano 1993: 13&22; cf. also introduction to clitic left- and right-dislocations in Chapter 1.)
to. But d Wheeler (2005: 277) who states that there is a discussion on whether the Catalan
foot is an iamb or a trochee.
u. Sometimes there is another level assumed in-between the ip and the prosodic word: the
accentual phrase. Beckman & Pierrehumbert (1986) find dear evidence for this constituent
in Japanese, but less compelling evidence in English. Since this unit is not relevant in Catalan
(Aguilar et al. 2009, Prieto et aL 2009, Prieto in press), it is not considered here.
from Beckman & Pierrehumbert (1986) and is similar to the constituent N&V
(1986/2007) referred to as phonological phrase (PhP, cp or <j>). 12 However, whereas
the unit of PhP is rather based on postlexical phonological rules (such as Rad-
doppiamento Sintattico, cf. N&V 1986/2007: 165) and thus constitutes a domain
where phonological processes apply, the ip is principally motivated by intonational
aspects.B Due to the fact that until now there has been no evidence in Catalan for
phonological processes applying in this domain, I use the term intermediate phrase
in the remainder of the work. 14 There are several arguments supporting the assump-
tion of an intermediate phrase level (cf. Prieto in press). First, prosodic transcribers
of Catalan clearly distinguish between a weak and a strong disjuncture on a per-
ceptual base. The two different levels of degree of disjuncture correspond to a level
3 break index and a level 4 break index respectively. Furthermore, the ip is tonally
marked after its final pitch accent and often, the boundary tones at an ip-edge differ
from IntP-boundary tones. While H- typically signals the end of a sentence-internal
break. the low boundary tone L% signals the end of an intonational phrase-final
edge (cf. Frota, D'hnperio, Elordieta, Prieto & Vigario 2007).
The intonational phrase (IntP, 1) is formed by grouping together one or more
ips. The IntP constitutes the domain of an intonational contour and its edges are
positions where pauses are able to appear (N&V 1986/2007: 188, Hall2000: 310).
The role of pauses led researchers to postulate a systematic relation between
certain syntactic constructions and intonational phrases. Parenthetical expres-
sions and nonrestrictive relative clauses, for example, are delimited by pauses and
thus seem to form an intonational domain of their own (N&V 1986/2007: 188;
cf. Dehe 2009 for a recent study on this matter). Much attention has also been paid
to syntactic (root) clauses as an important factor that plays a role in the formation of
IntPs (cf. Downing 1970, N&V 1986/2007, Truckenbrodt 2005; cf. also Selkirk's 2005
'Comma Phrase'). 15 On the other hand, there are also phonetic indices such as the
so-called continuation rise (cf. below) and semantic conditions (c£ Selkirk's 2005: 43
12. Hayes & Lahiri (1991), for example, suggest that the intermediate phrase is equivalent to
N&V's ( 1986/2007) phonological phrase (cf. also Ladd 1996: 93).
13. Ct: Section 2.3.
14· Prieto (in press: ch.2.2) clearly states that the existence of the phonological phrase in
Catalan is an unresolved issue. Up to now, there is no conclusive evidence for that level of
phrasing. For example, it is not the domain of sandhi processes, because vowel merging
can even apply across two intermediate phrases. In addition, it is not the domain of Stress
Retraction, because the default way of avoiding stress clash in Catalan is the weakening or the
deletion of the first stress which is involved in the dash (cf Prieto 2008).
15. The role of root sentences is explained in the analysis of Chapter 3.
'sense unit') on intonational phrasing (Selkirk 1984: 287ft~, Selkirk 2005). Fur-
thermore, IntPs can vary with factors such as the rate of speech or the length of
constituents (N&V 1986/2007: 193). Exactly as with intermediate phrases, IntPs
are delimited by (initial and final) boundary tones. The tonal unit is labeled by
the symbol'%' (i.e. T%) (cf. Beckman & Pierrehumbert 1986, Selkirk 2000: 566).
Initial boundary tones are optional in English as well as in Catalan and Spanish.
The highest unit in the prosodic hierarchy is the Uttemnce (U, u). It is com-
posed of at least one IntP if the sentence consists of only one IntP. However, the
utterance can also consist of more than one sentence. The utterance is not of
interest in the present study and for this reason I refer to N&V (1986/2007: ch.8)
for details.
It~ and Mester (to appear) refer to the prosodic units above the prosodic word
as interface categories, because the parsing of these units is regulated by constraints
on the correspondence between phonological and syntactic constituents. For this
reason, the literature on prosodic grouping above the word level mainly concen-
trates on IntP and ip. Chomsky & Halle (1968) assume that the phonologicalinfor-
mation is contained within or at least derived from syntactic trees of the surface
structure. The theoretical framework at present (that Selkirk 2005: 31 describes as
the "theory of the syntactic grounding of prosodic categories"), though, assumes
that the relation between syntax and phonology is indirect. It proceeds from
the assumption that the hierarchy of prosodic constituents is separate from the
S-structure trees, but that its prosodic constituents show systematic relations to
syntactic constituent structure (for details cf. Section 3.4.1 and Truckenbrodt
2007). These systematic relations are characterized by Selkirk (1986 and subsequent
work), 16 N&V (1986/2007), and Truck.enbrodt (1995, 1999, 2005). Selkirk (1986)
and N&V (1986/2007) present approaches for constructing prosodic constituents:
relation-based mapping (N&V 1986/2007), (1), and edge-based mapping (Selkirk
1986), (2). Truck.enbrodt (1995, 1999) presents an account that calls for a syntactic
t6. In Selkilk (2009a,b) a new theory of the syntax-prosody interface is proposed, which
is labeled Match Theory. While in the Alignment theory of Selkirk (1995b), the frame-
work adopted in this study, only the right or the left edge of a syntactic constituent corre-
sponds to the right or the left edge of a prosodic constituent respectively, the Match Theory
of syntactic-prosodic structure faithfulness requires both edges to correspond causing "a
matching up of the constituents themselves" (Selkirk 2009a: ch.2). This is done, on the one
hand, by S-P faithfulness constraints, which require "that syntactic constituency be faithfully
reflected in prosodic constituency" and, on the other hand, by P-S faithfulness constraints,
which require that "prosodic constituency be a faithful reflection of syntactic constituency"
(Selkilk 2009a: ch.2).
constituent to be contained within a prosodic constituent (Wrap theory). In this

study, the edge-based (or end-based) theory and the Wrap theory are assumedP
(1) Relation-based Mapping (Nespor & Vogel1986/2007)
A phonological phrase contains a lexical head and elements on its non-recursive
side that are not themselves lexical heads.
(2) Edge-based Mapping (Selkirk 1986)
The right/left boundary of a prosodic constituent of the category C corresponds
to the right/left boundary of a morphosyntactic category X.
Whereas the relation -based theory concentrates on syntactic heads, the edge-based
theory concentrates on (edges of) maximal projections. In Selkirk's approach,
the right or the left edge of a certain syntactic constituent type matches up (i.e.
aligns) with the right or left edge of a corresponding prosodic constituent type.
The function of Truck.enbrodt's (1999) Wrap constraint is to suppress the effect of
Selkirk's alignment constraints because it prevents syntactic XPs from being split
up into multiple prosodic constituents. The exact application of these theories is
explained in detail in Section 3.4. At that time, non-syntactic factors that influ-
ence the prosodic phrasing and that help to account for nonisomorphism between
syntactic constituents and prosodic structure are also presented.
To summarize, the AM model assumes that intonation has a phonologi-
cal organization couched in a prosodic hierarchy. Intonation is described as a
sequence of distinctive tonal units (High (H) and Low (L), and their combina-
tions), and its contour is represented linearly by an auto segmental string of tones.
These tones are associated either with a specific syllable (pitch accents) or with
a specific location in a phrase (ip-boundary tones, IntP-boundary tones). This
association marks the prominence relations among the words and the prosodic
groupings of an utterance. Through phonetic realization rules (cf. Pierrehum-
bert 1980: 25ft~, Gussenhoven 2004: ch.7.2.4, Kugler 2007: 7), the phonological
representation of tones is mapped onto an actual phonetic representation, i.e. a
FO contour. Both the phonological representation and the phonetic realization
are language specific. 18
2.1.2 The Tone and Break Indices transcription system (ToBI)

The AM models of the 1980s were instantiated in the 1990s by a new transcrip-
tion system, called ToBI (Tone and Break Indices). In this section, the main tenets
17. Cf. Section 3.4.1 for details on the Wrap theory.

18. This passage is mainly based on Jun (2005: 2).
of the original ToBI transcription system for English are presented. Silverman,
Beckman, Pitrelli, Ostendorf, Wightman, Prica, Pierrehumbert & Hirschberg
(1992) replaced the by and large abstract tonal grammar of Beckman & Pierre-
humbert (1986) with a practically oriented transcription system ToBI. The pro-
sodic structure of a language is not only defined by its tonal patterns (intonational
phonology), but also by the degree of juncture (i.e. prosodic separation) between
any two adjacent words (Jun 2005: 2). ToBI annotates prosodic boundary strength
(degree of juncture) at each word edge by using a five-point scale from '0' for the
boundary between a word and a cliticized form up to '4' for signaling a boundary
between intonational phrases (Ladd 1996: 96, Gussenhoven 2004: 132). The five
possible boundary strengths on the ToBI break index tier are shown in Table 1
(A Catalan example transcribed for the different break indices is given in Figure 2
in Section 2.2.2).
Table 1. The ToBI break index system
Break Index Description
0 no word boundary (e.g. ditics +word)
word boundary
2 strong juncture with no tonal markings
3 intermediate phrase boundary
4 intonational phrase boundary
The five numerical break indices are in general used throughout the book in
the figures presenting the waveform, spectrogram. and the FO trace of a given sen-
tence. Nevertheless, the numerical break indices 3 and 4 represent those parts of
the hierarchy of the prosodic groupings that are most important to the present
study. BI 3 is used to signal an ip-boundary and it appears on the break index tier
any time a phrase tone is indicated on the tonal tier (cf. Ladd 1996: 96f.). The same
applies to BI 4 with respect to an IntP-boundary.
The prosodic model in ToBI is a phonological model, not a phonetic model;
ToBI is consequently language specific, and the system of one language is not
appropriate for describing another language's intonational system. 19 Four layers of
labeling ('tiers'), aligned with the appropriate speech signals were specified in the
19. Originally, ToBI was a transcription system for mainstream American English. Over the
years, it has become very well known and many language specific versions have been devel-
oped since the early 1990s based on the principles and annotation conventions of the 1992
model (for German: G_ToBI, Reyelt et al. 1996, Grice et al. 2005; for Slovak: Sk_ToBI, Rusko et
aL 2007; for Spanish: SP _ToBI, Mendma-Denton 1999, Beckman et al2002, Sosa 2003, Prieto
& Roseano 201 0; for Korean: K_ToBI, Jun 2000, for Japanese: J_ToBI, Vendetti 2005, X-JToBI,
Venditti, Maekawa & Beckman in press; for an overview cf. Jun 2005, in press). Due to this de-
velopment, the original ToBI was renamed in (M)AE_ToBI ((Mainstream) American English
original ToBI conventions: words, tones, break indices, and miscellaneous infor-
mation. Since the information that can be labeled is not fixed, the quantity and
types of tiers mirror the language specific prosodic system as well as the interests
of the researchers (Jun 2005: 3).
2.2 The Tone and Break Indices transcription system for Catalan
A ToBI system of prosodic transcription for (all varieties of) Catalan, called
Cat_ToBI, is relativelynew. 20 Pilar Prieto and colleagues established a first version
for Catalan some years ago and published it online in 2007. Since then several
modifications have been carried out and the most recent versions are the online
training materials by Aguilar et al. (2009) and the detailed descriptions of Prieto
et al. (2009) and Prieto (in press). The present study is a mixture of the different
Cat_ToBI versions. On the one hand, I follow the latest versions in adopting the
pitch accent inventory of Aguilar et al. (2009) for the tonal description of stressed
syllables. On the other hand, I do not follow the latest versions in assuming that
Catalan has bitonal and tritonal edge tones on both the ip and the IntP level
(cf. Aguilar et al. 2009). I follow the standard ToBI assumptions (which consti-
tuted also the base for the Cat_ToBI version of 2007) in taking complex bound-
aries as the result of an ip-boundary tone followed by an IntP-boundarytone (cf
Section 2.2.2 for details). Like ToBI systems in general, (every version of) Cat_
ToBI is also based on the autosegmental-metrical model and it gives informa-
tion on the language specific tonal patterns and the degree of juncture between
adjacent words. In what follows. I describe the Catalan pitch accent inventory
(Section 2.2.1) and the prosodic levels marked by the numerical break indices 3
and 4 (Section 2.2.2).
2.2.1 Pitch accents in Catalan

Central Catalan has six pitch accents. Besides the two simple tones L* ('low')
and H* ('high') there are four bitonal accents: L+H*, L+>H*, L*+H, and H+L*
ToBI) following the general practice of researchers of putting the initials of the language in
front of the term 'ToBI~
20. In earlier work (Prieto 1995, Estebas-V:daplana 2000, Astruc 2005) it was assumed that
the English ToBI system developed by Silverman et al. (1992) generally also works for Catalan
if some required modifications are considered
(Aguilar et al. 2009, Prieto in press, Prieto et al. 2009). 21 These pitch accents are
also assumed in the present work.
Table 2 presents a summary of the Catalan pitch accents and includes a
description of their default phonetic realization patterns as well as a description
of their core distribution. The shaded part of each schematic contour shape indi-
cates the stressed syllable (o5). Tonic syllables are metrically strong syllables and
weak syllables following tonic syllables are so-called posttonic syllables. Following
Prieto, D'Imperio & Gili-Fivela (2005) I assume with Prieto (in press) that the
main criteria for starredness is perception. If a syllable is perceived as high, the H
symbol is marked by a star '*'. A syllable is perceived as high, when the pitch level
stays high or rises in large parts of the accented syllable. Equally, if a syllable is per-
ceived as low- i.e. if the pitch level stays low or falls for large parts of the accented
syllable - the L tone is marked by a star '*'.
The phonetic difference of the four bitonal accents in Table 2 is signaled by
both the different association of the star'""' with 0'8 and by the different leading and
trailing tones. The difference between the two rising tones L+ H* and L*+H lies on
the position where the rise starts (cf. Table2). In L+H* the tonal movement starts
at the beginning of the stressed syllable ('early rise'), while in L*+ H the tonal move-
ment starts at the end of the stressed syllable and continues during the following
syllable ('late rise'). Whereas L+H* and L*+ H can capture the two-way alignment
contrast between early rising accent and late rising accent in Spanish (Face 2001,
2002, Hualde 2002, 2003), this transcription cannot capture existing Catalan con-
trasts. Prieto et al. (2005: 368ff.) show that there is a three-way alignment contrast
in Catalan and thus include the pitch accent L+ >H* in their tonal description. They
show that the three rising accents are contrastive and that they are used in a pro-
ductive manner in different Catalan intonation contours. The difference between
L+H* and L+>H* lies on the position where the rise ends (cf. Table 2). The rise of
both tones starts at the onset of the accented syllable, but the rise of L+ H* ends at
the end of the accented syllable, while the rise of L+ >H* is aligned with the post-
accentual syllable ('delayed peak'). The falling tone H +L* is characterized by a fall
which starts at the beginning of the stressed syllable (cf. Table 2). L*is realized as a
low tone sustained throughout the production of the stressed syllable, whereas H*
is realized as a high tone throughout the production of o8•
In the AM model pitch accents are divided into nuclear and prenuclear accents.
While the last accent of a phrase is taken as the nuclear accent, all non -final accents
countasprenuclear accents (cf. Ladd 2008: 133). In Catalan, the nuclear accent lies on
21. The H tones of the pitch accents can acquire etiquettes for upstep (iT) and downstep
(!T) and the following accents are attested so far: !H"", iH"". L+!H*, L+jH*, and !H +L* (Prieto
in press). In the case of a downstep (!H), the high tone is realized lower than the preceding
high tone, whereas in the case of an upstep (iH), the high tone is realized higher with respect
to the preceding one.
Table 2. Inventory of monotonal and bitonal pitch accents in Catalan and their schematic
representations. (descriptions and schematic representations from Prieto in press)
Monotonal pitch accents
UJ]L' This pitch accent is phonetically realized as a low plateau. It is

generally realized as a local pitch minimum in the speaker's range.
It is attested in nuclear position in broad focus statements and in
yes- no questions (rising type). (low accent)
This pitch accent is phonetically realized as a high plateau, and no

initial dip is observed. It is attested as one of the possible choices for
nuclear position in wh-questions. (high accent)
Bitonal pitch accents

This pitch accent is phonetically realized as a rising pitch movement
during the accented syllable. The rise starts at the onset of the accented
syllable and ends at the end of that syllable. It is attested in nuclear
position in broad and narrow focus, in anti-expectatlonal questions,
and in combination with a variety of boundary tones in calls, insistent
requests, obviousness statements, etc. (early rising accent)
L+>H* Thispitchaccentisalsophoneticallyrealizedasarisingpitchmovement.
Typically, the L tone is aligned with the onset of the accented syllable,
and the H tone is aligned with the postaccentual syllable. This is the
predominant choice for prenuclear accents in broad focus statements.
[]L'+H
(rising accent with delayed peak)
This pitch accent is realized as a low tone on the accented syllable
followed by a rise on the posttonic syllable. The peak is typically
realized at the end of the posttonic syllable, and sometimes later. It is
attested in prenuclear position in yes- no questions and requests. (late
rising accent)
This pitch accent is phonetically realized as a fall within the accented

syllable. The start of the fall is aligned with the beginning of the
accented syllable and the end of the fall is aligned (roughly) with the
end of the stressed syllable. It is attested in nuclear position in yes- no
questions (falling type). (falling accent)
the last stressed syllable of the utterance in broad focus declarative sentences (Prieto
et al. 2009: 299; cf. also Vallduvf 1993, Estebas-Vilaplana 2003b) -which is typical
for Romance languages (e.g. Ordonez 1997 and Zubizarreta 1998 for Spanish, Costa
1998 for Portuguese). In Cat_ToBI, the low pitch accent L* represents the typical
nuclear accent in broad focus statements.22 The predominant choice for prenuclear
22. There is still an ongoing discussion as to how to analyze the nuclear accent of declara-
tive sentences in the literature (Bonet 1984, Prieto 2002b, Estebas-V!laplana 2000, 2003b),
accents in statements is, on the other hand, the rising accent L+>H*. This tone
cannot be found in nuclear position (Aguilar et al. 2009).
2.2.2 Suprasegmental prosodic levels in Catalan

In accordance with standard assumptions, all Cat_ToBI versions claim two levels
above the prosodic word (w) in the prosodic hierarchy: the intermediate phrase
(ip) and the intonational phrase (IntP, 1). I adopt this view here. In addition, I fol-
low standard ToBI assumptions by assuming that each intonational phrase con-
tains at least one intermediate phrase and that an IP edge never occurs without a
preceding ip edge (Grice, Baumann & Benzmiiller 2005: 67f., Beckman, Hirschberg
& Shattuck-Hufnagel2005, Ladd 2008: 88). In consequence, all IntP tones are listed
as combinations (such as L-H% or 1-L%). Prieto et al. (2009) depart from this stan-
dard assumption. They do not assume a phrase accent category and only assume
one type of boundary tone, namely T%, at the right edge of intermediate and into-
national phrase boundaries. As a consequence of this departure, boundary tones
can be monotonal (such as L% or H%), bitonal (such as LH% or HL%) or tritonal
(such as LHL%).23 The number of tones in the boundary configurations (i.e. one,
two or three tones) corresponds to the number of targets that are produced in the
posttonic stretch (cf. Prieto in press). Thus they seem to be independent of the pro-
sodic constituents. Prieto (in press) and Aguilar et al. (2009) also dispense with the
phrase accent category. but they still assume two different types of edge tones: one
type of boundary tone (labeled T-) at the end of intermediate phrases and the other
type (labeled T%) at the end of intonational phrases. Despite this step back into the
standard direction, they still do not assume combinations of edge tones (T-T%). 24
For the present work, I adopt the three monotonal boundary tones L-, M -, and
H-as well as L%, M%, and H% of Aguilar et al. (2009), but in contrast to Aguilar
et al. (2009) I assume that the boundary tones can be combined - in accordance
cf Astruc (2005: 1591f.) for a detailed discussion. There are proposals to analyze the nuclear accent
either as a low target L* (Bonet 1984, Prieto 1999, 2002a,b), as a high target, which is strongly
downstepped, i.e. !H"" (Estebas-V!laplana 2000) or as a bitonal accent H +L* (Astruc 2005).
13. Cf. Aguilar et aL (2009), Prieto et aL (2009), and Prieto (in press) for the whole inventory
of edge tones.
24. This conclusion is drawn from the fact that no IntP-boundary tone is preceded by an
ip-boundary tone in the online training materials, i.e. every utterance ends with the nuclear
pitch accent and the IntP-boundary tone. However, since each intonation phrase contains at
least one intermediate phrase it sounds reasonable to assume that an IP edge never occurs
without a preceding ip edge. If bitonal and tritonal edge tones exist on the ip as well as on the
IntP level as assumed in Aguilar et aL (2009) and Prieto (in press), a combination of them,
such as LH-LM% or LHL- LHL% for example, should be theoretically possible. For the time
being, there is no empirical evidence for such complex boundaries and the exact interaction
between T- and T% at IntP edges thus still has to be discussed in detail.
with standard ToBI assumptions. Table 3 summarizes the monotonal edge tones in
Catalan according to Aguilar et al. (2009). The shaded part indicates the posttonic
syllable(s) containing the edge tone. Bitonal edge tones that are attested in my data
are presented during the presentation of the boundary cues in Section 2.3.
Table 3. Inventory of Catalan edge tones and their schematic representations. (descriptions
cited with slight modifications from Aguilar et al. 2009)
Boundary tones
L is manifested phonetically as a low sustained tone or a low
0][0 L-
descending tone that attains the baseline of the speaker
This tone is attested in nuclear position before a right-
dislocated element in broad and narrow focus statements,
imperatives, falling yes-no questions, wh-questions, etc.
L% This tone is found at the end of broad and narrow focus
statements, imperatives, falling yes-no questions, wh-
questions, etc.
M is manifested phonetically either as a rising movement to
[IJ[B a mid tone target when it occurs after a low tone or as a mid
level plateau when it occurs after a high tone (the mid tone
spreads to the left).
M- This tone is found in pedagogic enumerations and at the end
of inconclusive elements.
M% This tone is found in pedagogic enumerations, in obviousness
and disapproval statements and in stylized vocatives. In this
last case, it is normally accompanied by a lengthening of the
last syllable and is realized as a sustained mid tone.
H is manifested phonetically as a rising pitch movement,
coming from either a high or a low pitch accent.
H- This tone is found at the end of non-final constituents
(including left-dislocations), inconclusive statements, etc.
H% This tone is found at the end of neutral calling contours
and after sentence-initial topic phrases.
In general, the edge tones are realized within the posttonic area. However,
when the last syllable of the final word is stressed, both the pitch accent and the
edge tone are compressed and are realized within the same syllable. No tonal
truncation takes place because Catalan acts as a compressing language (Prieto in
press, Prieto 2002b ). In the material used in the present study, the stressed syllable
of the target words is located in the antepenultimate position so that the tones
need not be compressed in the posttonic stretch (cf. Section 2.3).
The descriptions in Table 3 indicate that there is a difference between sentence-
internal and sentence-final boundaries. For example, L-is attested in nuclear posi-
tion before a right-dislocated element in broad and narrow focus statements, while
L% is attested at the end of broad and narrow focus statements without following
material such as right-dislocations (Aguilar et a1 2009). The present study mainly

concentrates on clause-internal intonational boundaries, namely on boundaries
after S or V in the experiments on SVO phrasing (Chapter 3), boundaries after
clitic left-dislocations and before right-dislocations (Chapter 5), and boundaries
after preverbal dislocated and non-dislocated subjects (Chapter 6). The present
study confirms Aguilar et al.'s (2009) results in great parts. Nevertheless, the results
in the present study also show that L% can appear even if a right-dislocation fol-
lows. The speaker simply realized a stronger juncture between the final word and
the right-dislocated element The same pattern holds for sentence-internal high
boundaries. Aguilar et a1 (2009) say that H- is found at the end of non-final con-
stituents. while H% is found at the end of a sentence (to be exact: at the end of
neutral calling contours). The present data show that left-dislocations. which are
obviously non-final (and not neutral calling contours), can also be marked by H%.
These results are in accordance with previous work on ips and lntPs. which also
show thatlntP-boundaries can appear clause internally(e.g. N&V 1986, Frascarelli
2000 and Astruc 2005 among others. d. also Figure 1).
An example of a clause internal high ip-boundary (continuation rise) is given
below in Figure 2 The figure is taken from Aguilar et a1 (2009) and presents the
utterance Gelat de vainilla i gelat davellana Vanilla ice-cream and hazelnut ice-
cream~ The declarative sentence consists of two intermediate phrases. The first
one ends after the noun vainilla vanilla' and just before the coordination i •and';
the second ends at the end of the utterance and is aligned with the right edge of
the intonational phrase.
~ 450
2
~ 370
i' 290
.tl
.... 210
e 130
...,~ so
~"'
I 0 3 0 4
!AH* L+jH* H- I,H* L* L%
Figure 2. Waveform, spectrogram, and FO trace for the declarative sentence Gelat de vainilla i
gelat davellana 'Vanilla Ice-cream and hazelnut Ice-cream' (taken from Aguilar et al. 2009) . The
continuation rise (H-) can be seen after the first conjunct
The continuation rise represents the typical end of a sentence-internal pro-

sodic boundary (cf. Section 2.3, Figure 5). In Figure 2, it is located after the first
conjunct. The ip-boundary receives the numerical break index value 3. The rise
of the preceding pitch accent L+iH* continues rising until the end of the noun,
where H-is located. The pitch accent after H-is a downstepped high tone (!H*)
which triggers the FO fall. The nuclear accent, located on the last stressed syllable
of the utterance (lla of avellana), is the low tone L*. At the end of the utterance the
combined low boundary tone L-L% signals the end of the sentence (Recall that
Aguilar et al. (2009) do not mark IntP-boundaries as a combination ofT- and
T%. For this reason, the nuclear configuration in Figure 2 consists of L* directly
followed by L%).
I finish this section by summarizing the relevant terms used throughout this
work. The standard ToBI terms are 'phrasal accents' and 'boundary tones'. Due
to the fact that both are associated with phrasal boundaries (the former signals
an ip-boundary, the latter an IntP-boundary), I use the terms ip-boundary tone
instead of'phrasal accents' and IntP-boundary tone (or t-boundary tone) instead of
'boundary tones'. In my nomenclature, the term (intonational) boundary tone or
edge tone comprises both ip-boundary tone as well as IntP-boundary tone. If I use
the terms edge tone or boundary tone (without the preceding specification), I either
make no specific claim about the exact level of phrasing or I simply refer to both
levels at the same time (intermediate phrase and intonational phrase). The rest of
this chapter is devoted to the presentation of boundary cues for the two prosodic
levels in Catalan.
2.3 Boundary cues in Catalan
In Section 2.3, I present those boundary cues of Catalan, which are considered in
the present work and based on which I analyzed the recorded data. It is important
to note that the boundary cues are phonetic/phonological and as such they are
not part of the grammar that accounts for the prosodic phrasing. The grammar-
internal construction of the prosodic boundaries is done by the syntactic con-
straints of the syntax-phonology interface and by certain non-syntactic constraints
(cf. Chapter 3, Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2).
In 2.3.1, I present the main boundary cues of Romance languages of Frota,
D' Imperio, Elordieta, Prieto & Vigario (2007) and I start to concentrate on Cata-
lan boundary cues by giving the frequency of the cues detected in the Catalan
corpus of Frota et al. (2007). After that, I present the following cues in greater
detail: continuation rise (2.3.2), sustained pitch (2.3.3), preboundary lengthening
(2.3.4), pause (2.3.5), and complex boundary tones (2.3.6). Section 2.3.7 deals with
the organization of these boundary cues, concluding that the first three cues signal
only an ip-boundary, whereas the last two cues signal an IntP-boundary.
2.3.1 Boundary cues in Romance languages

Frota et al. (2007) is in all probability the most important work on the phonet-
ics and phonology of intonational boundaries in Central Catalan, in European
Portuguese, Italian, and Spanish. According to them, phrase boundaries in the-
ses languages show one or more of the following boundary cues (cf. Frota et al.
2007: 134):
a. Continuation rise (the preboundary stretch is realized as a rise from/on the

last stressed syllable into the boundary syllable)
b. Sustained pitch (the preboundary stretch is realized as a rise on the last stressed
syllable followed by a high plateau up to the boundary)
c. The boundary is signaled by a High tone
d. The boundary is signaled by a Low tone
e. There is a 'pitch reset' after the boundary at the beginning of the following phrase
f. The FO drops to the speaker's base le1'el at the boundary
g. There is a preboundary lengthening, and
h. A pa.use is present at the phrase boundary (a pause is defined as a stretch of
silence)
Frota et al. (2007) use a corpus of 239 Catalan SVO sentences. These sentences are
only a subset of the whole database. The authors decided to choose only uncon-
troversial cases of intonational phrasing, i.e. they did not included unclear or dif-
ficult cases, where boundaries were hard(er) to detect In their 239 sentences not
all listed boundary cues were detected. For Catalan they give the frequency of the
boundary cues as shown in Table 4 (cf Frota et al. 2007: 135).
Table4. Frequency (in%) ofboundary cues of the Catalan corpus in Frota et al. (2007)
Cont. Sustained Boundary Pitch Drop PB Pause

Rise Pitch Tone Reset Base Level Length.
H L
Catalan 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 28.0 0.0 100.0 10.5
In the Catalan corpus of Frota et al. (2007) 100% of the sentences are marked
by a High tone which is realized as a continuation rise. For this reason there is nei-
ther a sustained pitch nor a Low boundary tone to be found in Frota et al. (2007).
Both cues, though, are nevertheless possible in Catalan: Cat_ToBI states L-and L%
as normal boundary tones (cf. Aguilar et al. 2009, Prieto in press) and a sustained
pitch is found in my data (cf. Figure 9, Section 2.3.3) as well as in spontaneous
speech (Benet in prep., Benet, Lle6 & Cortes to appear). According to Frota et al.
(2007) sentence internal prosodic breaks in Romance are predominantly marked
by a High boundary tone and the preboundary stretch is predominantly realized
as a continuation rise. This general statement can also be maintained for Catalan.
In addition to these phonological and phonetic cues, preboundary lengthening
and pauses are also relevant in Catalan. The former can be seen with a frequency
rate of 100% in the corpus. The latter is shown below. I do not consider the remain-
ing two cues: pitch reset25 and the drop of the speaker's base level.
2.3.2 The continuation rise

Estebas-Vilaplana (2000: 115) gives a clear example of a continuation rise ('abrupt
rise' in her terms). In a subject with two anchor points for accents the second
accent can be compared with the first one (cf. Figure 3).
1-A../~1
Les meves amJgues gren bones nenes.
"My friends were good girls."
Figure 3. Intonation indication for prosodic boundary (taken from Estebas-Vilaplana

2000: 115; shaded grey and underlining signal stressed syllables)
25. Pitch reset is also called simply reset and interrupts the downstep effect. A downstep
lowers the FO-realization of the material following a pitch accent. In (i) the downstep can be
seen between pitch accent 1, 2, and 3 and also between accent 4 and 5. There is no downstep
between accent 3 and 4, though. It is often assumed that a prosodic boundary causes such a
cancellation of the downstep effect (Selkirk & Tateishi 1991 among others): If there is a down-
step in the realization of adjacent pitch accents, there is no prosodic break in-between them.
However, if the downstep is interrupted by a reset, a prosodic boundary is probable. Figure (i)
demonstrates a total reset since accent 4 is as high as accent l.lf accent 4 is higher than accent 3 but
lower than accent 1, one speaks of partial reset. According to Frota et al (2007), the number
of pitch resets is only nearly one third of the 239 examined Catalan sentences. Only ratios of
0. 90 or higher between the peak of the first accent of the first phrase and the peak of the first
accent of the second phrase (in my example accent 4) were considered cases of reset (Frota
et al. 2007: 135).
f\Jif&
1 2 3 4 5
Figure (i): Downstep (.!-) and pitch reset (t) (taken from Ishihara 2007b: 5)
The continuation rise can be seen on the subject noun amigues 'friends' (fern., pl)
in Figure 3. The FO contour of the first pitch accent, which is located on the pos-
sessive pronoun meves 'my: rises and reaches its peak on the accented syllable
(L+H*). After the peak the FO contour descends due to the fact that the second
accent is also L+ H*: The FO contour has to be low at the beginning of this accent.
Even though the FO contour on mi of amigues 'friends' (fern., pl.) rises from low
to high as on me of meves 'my: it does not descend after the accented syllable. The
FO contour continues to rise on the posttonic syllable gues of amigues 'friends'.
This rise into the preboundary syllable is called continuation rise and indicates
an intonational boundary (cf. also Figure 8). It can, but need not, be obligatorily
followed by a pause. Bolinger (1984: 404)- although not using the term continu-
ation rise- describes its characteristic well by saying that "[t]here is something in
the intonation itself that signals or can be used to signal incompleteness, and it is
obviously the terminal rise': Hence, something is unfinished and there has to be a
continuation. Previously, Delattre (1965: 25) spoke of continuation for describing
such incompleteness effects.26
In my work, the High boundary tone (continuation rise) is one main cue to
detecting prosodic breaks. For this reason, I shall discuss this criterion in more
detail here. In Prieto (2006b ), the alignment of the H tonal target relative to the
end of the word is examined. Rising accents (LH) are typical for Catalan (pre-
nuclear) accents. According to Estebas-Vilaplana (2003a), such rises consist of a
combination ofL*pitch accent plus a High word edge tone, i.e. that H aligns with
the right edge of a word. Prieto (2006b) shows that the H location is sensitive to
the position of the accented syllable within the given word though. She discov-
ers a consistent trend: there is no strict word anchoring effect of H, but the peaks
of word-final accented syllables (oxytonic words) are located after the end of the
word (i.e. on the following word), whereas the peaks of word-medial accented syl-
lables (in her case paroxytonic words) are located before the end of the word.
(1) a. Compraven talls.

buy.3PL.PAST pieces
'They bought pieces:
b. Compra ventalls.
buy.3sG.PAST fans
'Sihe bought fans:
26. Delattre (1965: 20) introduces the terms minor continuation and major continuation for
describing the intonational signals which serve as a due to degrees of subordination within a
given utterance (cf also Bolinger 1984: 410).
w-medial w-final
com/llflven talls corr!JlN ventalls
96ms 61ms
vr
~
< ace. syllable > < ace. syllable >

endofword > endofword>
Hgure 4. Schematic diagram of the FO peak location with respect to the end of the syllable
(and the end of the word) in paroxytontc and oxytonic words (taken from Prieto 2006b: 13)
Figure 4 is a schematic diagram of the differences in FO peak locations with

respect to the end of the syllable (and the end of the word) in the paroxytonic
(word medial condition) and oxytonic words (word final condition) of the sen-
tences in Example (1). The thick vertical line in Figure4 signals the word boundary;
the time value provides the mean distance between syllable boundary and peak
(for compraven tails) and between word boundary and peak (for compra ventalls).
Prieto (2006b) concludes that the
"data [ ... ] does not support the idea that prenuclear pitch accents in Catalan
contain an obligatory word-edge tone H that aligns with the right edge of a
word. We entertain the possibility that the alignment effects found by Estebas-
Vilaplana might have been conditioned by the presence of a phrase break H-"
(Prieto 2006b: 13)
One can conclude from this discussion that a High tone at the end of a paroxy-
tonic word is likely to signal an intonational boundary (i.e. ip or 1). The difference
between the High tone of a bitonal rising accent and the high boundary tone is of
great importance to the boundary criterion. If a high realization ofFO at the end of
a paroxytonic word is very likely to be a boundary tone, the high FO contour at the
end of a proparoxytonic word is a boundary tone in all probability.
Let me recap the idea: if lexical stress in a word is on the last syllable it is
hard to tell the difference between L+>H* and L+H* H-. The reason for this is
that (a) the rising tone has a high contour after the stressed (and accented) syl-
lable and (b) the high boundary tone H- also causes a high FO contour. If the
accented syllable is the last syllable before a boundary, it is unclear whether the
high FO contour stems from the rising contour tone or from a high boundary
tone. Boundary tones, however, are independent from stressed syllables; they
only mark the boundary. As a consequence, in order to tell if a high contour
before a boundary stems from a continuation rise, one has to tear apart the two
tones. The only tone that can be moved away from the boundary is the pitch
accent since it is directly connected with the stressed syllable and independent
from the boundary. For this reason, I chose proparoxytonic words (paraules
esdruixoles) in the target positions of my experiments. Their stress is located on
the antepenultimate syllable so that the stress is followed by two unstressed syl-
lables (ow), which separate the accent from the boundary. Based on proparoxy-
tonic words, it is expected that the peak of a bitonal L+>H* accent differs from
the high realization of the High boundary tone, so that a continuation rise or a
sustained pitch can easily be detected.
In Figure 5 an abstract proparoxytonic word is schematically modeled. The
diagonal line represents the FO contour of this word. The L+>H* accent is realized
on the stressed syllable (i.e. on the strong syllable oJ According to Prieto (2006b),
the peak of the pitch accent is neither realized on os nor does it align with the word
boundary (cf. the thick rightmost line after ow2 marked by w). It is located on the first
posttonic syllable (owl, where ow= weak syllable), which is marked in Figure 5 by the
end of the thick part of the diagonal line. The rise does not end on owl' though, but
continues until the word boundary after aw2. The high contour on ow2 is caused by
a High boundary tone. 2 7
H-
(J"w2 w
Figure 5. Schematic diagram of a continuation rise on a proparoxytonic word
If there is no High boundary tone, the FO contour has the pattern as sche-
matized in Figure 6. Due to the fact that the following word (wor~) starts with
a rising tone, FO has to descend in order to reach the Low target of the next pitch
accent. Since weak syllables are not anchor points for pitch accents, ow2 cannot
influence the contour and FO is not high at the word edge.
27. In Selkirk (1984: 288) the continuation rise is taken as a phonetic cue for an intonational
phrase. I take this rise as simply signaling an intermediate phrase break. Only if the continuation
rise is paired with a cue for IntPs (cf. below), is it located at an IntP boundary.
Chapter 2. Fundamental aspects of Catalan Intonation 49
L+H,.
as awl aw2 as aw
\. .I
y
word 1 word2
Figure 6. Schematic diagram of a proparoxytonlc word without High boundary tone
A real example for the schematic diagram in Figure 6 is given in Figure 7. The
(left-dislocated) DP I.: alfobrega d' Algeria... The basil from Algeria' that is pre-
sented in Figure 7 is cut out from the sentence I.: alfobrega d' Algeria, la Barbara, la
va posar a l'hivernacle fa un mes <Barbara put the basil from Algeria into the green
house one month ago:
Figure 7. Waveform, spectrogram, and FO trace for the utterance L' alfobrega d' Algeria... 'The
basil from Algeria' of speaker AT (sentence 02a_OO_S_AT)
Both nouns in Figure 7 are proparoxytonic words. The prenudear rising accent
L+ >H* is associated with the strong syllable fo of the first word L' al.fo.bre.ga ~e
basil' and its peak is delayed (here marked by<>'). As assumed before (d. Figure 6)
the delayed peak is not located at the end of the word, if there is no continuation
rise. The peak in Figure 7 is on the first posttonic syllable and the pitch track starts
falling due to the low leading tone of the second noun. Consequently. there is no
ip-boundary between the two prosodic words I.: alfobrega The basil' and d' Algeria
'from Algeria However, there is a continuation rise on d' Algeria 'from Algeria:,
marked by H- and the break index 3.
2.3.3 The sustained pitch

In Figure 8 a sustained pitch is compared to a continuation rise. The difference
from the continuation rise is that a sustained pitch rises up to a certain level and
then keeps the fundamental frequency until the end; in other words, a sustained
pitch creates a plateau. Such a pitch track can be labeled by L+H*!H-. The ip-
boundary tone H-is downstepped in order to signal that FO remains high but does
not continue rising as in the case of a continuation rise.
Continuation rise
Ba da L 0 na
Sustained pitch
Ba da L 0 na
Figure 8. Schematic example of a continuation rise and a sustained pitch on the word
'Badalona' (taken from Frota et al 2007: 135)
A sustained pitch as well as a continuation rise signals a prosodic boundary

because the posttonic syllables cannot influence the fundamental frequency. The
height at the end of the word is caused by a boundary tone.
According to Frota et al. (2007), the sustained pitch is frequent in Italian but
is rare in the two Romance languages of European Portuguese and Spanish and
never occurs in the Catalan corpus (Frota et al. 2007). But there are good reasons
to assume that Catalan has sustained pitch accents. First, the non-existence of a
sustained pitch in Frota et al. (2007) might well be a corpus effect because they
only chose sentences with clear instances of boundaries and it might be the case
that examples of a sustained pitch had been sorted out. Second, in my data there
are some instances of a sustained pitch, cf. Figure 9. Third, Cat_ToBI gives several
examples of such a tone (which is called 'to sostingut'). Fourth and finally, recent
work on spontaneous speech (Benet in prep., Benet, Lle6 & Cortes to appear) gives
clear evidence for this tone.
Chapter 2. Fundamental aspects of Catalan Intonation SL
g
g3SO r-r+o+~--~4-~~~~~~
J:~300 t-~~:+~==c:~~~k======4~~~~~==~~
250200
eo +----+"""""-
5 1so +----+-+-::
~loo t=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
c
&
0. 186 0. 11 0.2 12
Figure 9. Waveform. spectrogram. and FO trace for the utterance .. .que l' aguila robd el ratoli
'... that the eagle stole the mouse' of speaker GM (sentence 33_Emb_GM): Sustained pitch as-
sociated with the subject l' aguila 'the eagle'
Figure 9 shows a sustained pitch associated with the subject of the embedded
clause ... que 1'aguila roba e1 ratoli <... that the eagle stole the mouse' of speaker
GM The stressed syllable 1'a of 1'a.gui.la ~e eagle' is associated with a late rising
tone L *+H.28 The contour rises on the first posttonic syllable gui and also reaches
its peak there. The height of the pitch is sustained until the end of the second
posttonic syllable, i.e. the end of the word
2..3.4 Pre boundary lengthening

Lengthening refers to the longer duration of syllables which precede a bound-
ary. Their length can be opposed to either the duration of similar syllables, which
are not followed by a boundary. in the same utterance or to the duration of the
same syllables of the same word in a different sentence, where the word is not
before a boundary. In both cases, the target word is uttered by the same speaker.
The duration of the preboundary syllables is significantly longer and this signals a
boundary(d Estebas-Vilaplana 2000: 120, Astruc 2005: 153 for Catalan; Medina
Murillo 2005 for Spanish). Figure 10 and Figure 11 illustrate the different length
of the three preboundary syllables of the word L'alfobrega ~e basil' of speaker AT.
28. Even though the rising tone L+>H* is the typical prenudear accent in Catalan
dedaratives, there are also instances of the late rising tone L*+H to be found as prenudear
accent in dedaratives.
Figure 10 is the same as Figure 7 with the difference that the length of the relevant
syllables is added Figure 11 shows the noun in a position right before an IntP-
boundary break (marked with H% and break index 4).
0. 186 0. 144 0.092
Figure 10. Waveform, spectrogram. and FO trace for the utterance L' al.fohrega d' Algeria .. . 'The
basil from Algeria' of speaker AT (sentence 02a_OO_S_AT): Length ofnon-preboundary syllables
fa bre ga
0.171 0.183 0.169 0.168
Figure 11. Waveform, spectrogram, and FO trace for the utterance L 'alftlbrega ... 'The basil' of
speaker AT (sentence Ola_O_S_AT): Length of pre boundary syllables
Whereas the last syllable ga has a duration of only 92 milliseconds in the non-
preboundaryposition in Figure 10. it has a duration of168msin Figure 11, where it
directly precedes the boundary. This is a difference of 80 ms. The pattern is similar
for the first posttonic syllable bre: it is longer in the preboundary case. However,
in these examples the accented syllable (fo) does not show any significant differ-
ence. The longer duration of the syllables in the preboundarycase (cf. Figure 11)
has the consequence that the whole word has a longer duration. This is illustrated
in Figure 12 and Figure 13. In the former figure, the verb(al complex) va comptar
'counted' is shown in a preboundary position and is uttered with a length of 568 ms
by speaker MO. In the latter figure, it is in a non-preboundary position and is
uttered with a length of only 406 ms (by the same speaker).29 The length of the
whole verbal complex reflects the length of its syllables: va (123 ms in Figure 12 vs.
110 ms in Figure 13), comp- (287 ms vs. 180 ms) and -tar (157 ms vs. 114 ms).
0.123 0.287 0.157
va comp- -tar
0 0.5682
Time (s)
Figure 12. Length of syllables in seconds of the verb va comptar 'counted' of speaker MO in an
utterance with a long object (sentence 22_SVOO _MO)
0.110 0.180 0.114
va comp- -tar
0 0.4061
Time (s)
Figure 13. Length of syllables in seconds of verb va comptar 'counted' of speaker MO in utterance
with a short object (sentence 21_SVO_MO)
29. Ct: Chapter 3. 3.2 for the results of each single speaker.
S4 Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan
1.3.5 Pauses
Pauses are defined as a stretch of silence (Frota et aL 2007) or as a major FO break
(Estebas-Vilaplana 2000: 118). Here, I distinguish between two kinds of pauses
(Figure 14). The first kind of pause comprises stretches ofsilence which are visible in
FO due to an interruption of the pitch track The data in the appendix are marked
with \P)' for pause if the stretch is longer than 100 ms. The second kind of pause
is a so-called audible pause. In general this type of pause comprises breaks which
can be perceived audibly as a pause, but which are not visible in the pitch track In
addition. stretches of silence that are shorter than 100 ms are also considered as
audible pauses. The latter kind of pause also comprises the tonal extension men-
tioned in Astruc (2005: 153). Speakers often drawl the syllable before the boundary
until it becomes a short silent pause. In order to dedde when an extreme lengthen-
ing becomes a pause proper. she sets the cut-off point at 100 ms. She considers such
a duration enough for a period of silence to be perceived as a pause, i.e. as a major
prosodic break in this type of "'read. pre- planned. non spontaneous data":
Figure 14. Waveform, spectrogram, and FO trace for the utterance L' alfahrega, Ia Barbara, Ia
va posar (a l'hivernaclefa un mes) 'Barbara put the basil (In the green house one month ago)'
of speaker AT (sentence Ola_O_S_AT)
Figure 14 illustrates both kinds of pauses. The two IntP breaks are both
marked by H-H% and by the break index 4. The first IntP break (the one after
the left-dislocated DP I.: alfobrega lhe basil') is an example of an audible pause.
There is no visible stretch of silence, but a pause can clearly be perceived The
second IntP break (the one after the preverbal subject Ia Barbara) is an example of
a visible pause. The stretch of silence has a length of 115 ms and it is visible in the
oscillogram (the encoding of the acoustic signal) as well as in the pitch track
The notion 'major break' which is used by Estebas-Vilaplana (2000) and Astruc
(2005) signals that pauses are a very special boundary cue. I discuss this in more
detail in Section 2.3.7 by concluding that they distinguish between ips and IntPs,
exactly as a complex boundary tone.
2.3.6 Complex boundary tones

Based on Beckman & Pierrehumbert's (1986: 288) reanalysis of the phrase accent
T- as an ip-boundary tone, the ToBI transcription system (Silverman et al. 1992)
represents T-in IntP-final position together with the t-boundary tone T% as a com-
plex symbol T-T% (cf. also Ladd 1996: 98 and Gussenhoven 2004: 132). As such,
it is the standard assumption for English that a complex boundary tone signals a
boundary of an intonational phrase (IntP, t). I consequently follow this assump-
°
tion in the present work. 3 For example, the complex tone L-L% is the typical tone
at the end of declarative sentences. A sustained pitch preceding an t-boundary
is associated with (!)H-!H%. A continuation rise preceding an IntP-boundary is
associated with H-H%. In the early Cat_ToBI version from 2007 the tone H-H%
was described for questions (e.g. absolute questions (interrogatives absolutes de
tipus ascendent) and for exhortative questions; in Prieto in press it is labeled HH%
though). However, this tone is also typical for left-dislocations (cf. Chapter 5),
which surely are not questions. For this reason, I assume that H-H%'s function is
not only to signal questions, but that it can also appear clause-internally without
an interrogative function.
A very common complex boundary tone in my data is L-H%. This tone is
described in the early Cat_ToBI version as one which expresses apparentness/
obviousness in a soft and smooth manner and the tone is typical in dedaratives
expressing obviousness and in imperatives with a nuance of insistence.31 Although
L-H% appears also every now and then in all-new sentences in my data (cf. Chapter 3),
it is more common in the experiments including left-dislocations (Chapter 5
and 6) and I usually refer to L-H% when speaking of complex boundary tones in
these chapters. This can be explained with the given status of these constituents
30. However, in the experiment data there are many cases where it is doubtful that a complex
tone automatically signals an IntP-boundary. It is doubtful because the perception of these
breaks is not as strong as in the case of clear instances of an IntP break. It might thus be
the case that the ip-boundary tone is also complex, exactly as assumed in the most recent
versions of Cat_ToBI (Aguilar et al. 2009, Prieto in press). Nevertheless. this work follows the
assumption that complex boundary tones signal an IntP -boundary.
31· Aguilar et al. (2009) and Prieto (in press) say that LH- and LH% (the corresponding nota-
tions in the most recent Cat_ToBI versions) are attested in anti-expectational and incredulity
questions.
S6 Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan
(d Chapter 1) and by repeating them a certain kind of obviousness is expressed

Figure 15 is an example of L-H%. The left-dislocated DP r alfabrega lhe basil' has
an early rising pitch accent on the stressed ~liable r al. The peak is reached between
the stressed and the first posttonic syllable. After the peak. the pitch falls until the
beginning of the preboundary syllable ga and then rises until the end of the word
This fall-rise is expressed by L-H%.
L'al fa bre ga
0.113 0.229 0.152 0.270
Figure 15. Waveform, spectrogram, and FO trace for the word L' alfabrega 'the basil' of speaker
MO (sentence Ola_O_S_MO) : The IntP-boundary tone (BI 4) consists of a Low ip-boundary
tone L-and a High tone H%
2.3.7 Organization of boundary cues

Only the last two criteria. pauses and complex boundary tones, indicate a bound-
ary at the intonational phrase level. They are therefore very important for the
dedsion on which level a prosodic break is located Complex boundary tones
constitut~ for theory-internal reasons, an IntP break and pauses are mentioned
throughout the literature on Catalan intonation as one dear cue for an IntP break.
Estebas-Vilaplana (2000: 118) states that •the absence of a major FO breaiC shows
that a prosodic break can be classified as an ip-boundary (.. PhP-boundarY' in her
terminology). Astruc (2005: 154: Table 4.3) classifies pauses as signaling the ToBI
break index 4 (i.e. IntP) and in Cat_ToBI it is mentioned that the IntP defines the
position for pauses (Prieto et al. 2009: 293, Prieto in press: ch.2.2).
In general, neither in Frota et al. (2007) nor in Cat_ToBI (Prieto et al. 2009)
are the two prosodic levels intermediate phrase (ip) and intonational phrase (IntP. L)
dearly distinguished by boundary cues (beside pauses). In addition, there are no
detailed studies yet on Catalan, which try to characterize the different prosodic
levels, either by phonetic properties or by (segmental) phonological rules that
apply in the specific domain.32 One important instance for distinguishing between
the two levels mentioned is the transcriber, for it is the transcriber who assigns the
boundaries to a certain level of intonational grouping. Prieto et al. (2009) note
"'El criteri primordial per a decidir el grau de separaci6 prosodica es fonamenta
en la impressi6 auditiva del transcriptor- encara que la presencia de determinats
correlats ac1lstics tambe pot resultar util" (Prieto et al. 2009: 292; 'The essential
criterion to decide the degree of the prosodic separation is based on the auditory
impression of the transcriber - although the presence of concrete acoustic
correlates can also be useful'; translation: I.F.).
As for this study, I take the first three mentioned boundary cues (continuation rise,
sustained pitch, and preboundary lengthening) as cues for the ip-level. My assump-
tion is based on the following reasoning: due to the facts that (a) according to the
Strict Layer Hypothesis an IntP-boundary always coincides with an ip-boundary
and (b) a continuation rise occurs at the level of ip (Prieto 2005, Prieto et al. 2009),
each continuation rise preceding an IntP-boundary can be reduced to the lower ip-
boundary. This is similar to the sustained pitch and preboundary lengthening. The
two remaining boundary cues, pauses and complex boundary tones, are used as
cues for boundaries of the intonational phrase level. As described, pauses includ-
ing visible and audible pauses and complex boundary tones are consequently
taken as signaling IntP-boundaries. If one of the ip-boundary cues is combined
with either a pause or with a complex boundary tone, they automatically precede
an IntP-boundary. Table 5 gives a short summary of the relevant boundary cues.
Table 5. List of assumed prosodic levels (between prosodic word and utterance) and the
corresponding boundary cues
Prosodic constituent intermediate phrase (ip) Intonational Phrase (IntP, t)
continuation rise pause (visible stretch of
Boundary cues sustained pitch silence & audible pause)
preboundary lengthening complex boundary tones
One final important note with respect to the organization of the boundary cues
is necessary here. As mentioned, the boundary cues described in Frota et al. (2007)
account for both prosodic levels. I clearly separate them in order to distinguish
between ip and IntP. However, as my data show, it is impossible to say that a specific
syntactic/pragmatic constituent is associated with a certain kind of prosodic con-
stituent. This means that, for example, the right edge ofleft-dislocations does not
32· Prieto (2008: slide 9) dearly states that there are no arguments for prosodic constituency
based on blocking or triggering of postlexical rules.
align always with either an IntP-boundary or an ip-boundary. Left-dislocations

align with both kinds ofboundaries (cf. also Astruc 2005 for right-dislocations).
This optionality might be a reason for why in studies such as Frota et al. (2007) no
decision is made as to the correspondence between boundary cues and prosodic
constituents. Furthermore, this optionality is the reason for Prieto et al. (2009) to
assume only one type of boundary tones, while still assuming the two prosodic
levels ip and IntP. In the present work. I follow older proposals (and hence not
Prieto et al. 2009) and continue assuming two difierent boundary tones; but
the described variation is the reason for introducing the term prosodic phrase
as a hypernym for intermediate and intonational phrases (cf. Elordieta, Frota &
Vigario 2005: 116, fn.2 for an analogous reasoning for Spanish). Prosodic phrase
thus refers to both levels of intonational grouping, ip and IntP. The goal of this
work is not to establish a detailed phonetic analysis in order to see how the Pro-
sodic Hierarchy is implemented in Catalan. Rather, the aim is to decide whether a
prosodic break is present or not. Moreover, it is shown that a break is in fact pres-
ent at both levels of phrasing.
2.4 Assumptions on phonological inventory of Catalan
To conclude this chapter, I summarize the fundamentals and assumptions on

which I have based my work. The foundation of my analysis is an early version 33 of
the recent Cat_ToBI system proposed in Aguilar et al. (2009), Prieto et al. (2009),
and Prieto (in press.), which is itself based on the Autosegmental-Metrical (AM)
Model (Pierrehumbert 1980, Ladd 1996, 2008). Consequently, I assume that tones
(High, Low) are located on a different tier than prosodic constituents, but they do
associate with them (autosegmental part). The phonological constituents are orga-
nized hierarchically in the so-called Prosodic Hierarchy (metrical part). Just as in
Aguilar et al. (2009), Prieto et al. (2009), and Prieto (in press), I assume two levels
between the prosodic word (w) and the Utterance (U): Intermediate Phrase (ip)
and Intonational Phrase (IntP, 1). However, I introduce the term prosodic phrase
as a hypernym for ip and IntP, since there is often no need to distinguish between
the two levels. As usual in ToBI systems, I assume three types of accents: pitch
accents (which associate with metrical strong syllables), ip-boundary tones (which
associate with the level of the intermediate Phrase), and IntP-boundary tones
33· As mentioned before, I base myself on a Cat_ToBI version which circulated in 2007
and which is much closer to the traditional transcription system proposed in Silverman et al.
(1992) than the latest version(s).
(which associate with Intonational Phrases). I use the term edge tone or boundary
tone as a hypernym for ip-boundary tone and IntP-boundary tone. With Aguilar
et al. (2009) I assume six pitch accents: the two mono tonal accents L* ('low')
and H* ('high') and four bitonal accents: L+H*, L+>H*, L*+H, and H+L*. The
predominant choice for prenuclear accents in Catalan broad focus statements is
L+>H*. The nuclear accent is L*. As for boundary tones, I assume the tones stated
in Cat_ToBI for the intermediate phrase and the intonational phrase, namely L-,
M-, and H-as well as L%, M%, and H%. In line with standard assumptions but in
contrast to the latest Cat_ToBI versions, I assume that the combination of these
tones (like H-H%, L-L%, L-H% etc.) signals a boundary on the IntP level. I take
the three boundary cues continuation rise, sustained pitch, and preboundary
lengthening as cues for the ip-level. Pauses and complex boundary tones are used
as cues for boundaries of the intonational phrase level. Pauses include visible and
audible pauses and complex boundary tones are consequently taken as signaling
IntP-boundaries. If one of the ip-boundary cues is combined with either a pause or
with a complex boundary tone, they automatically precede an IntP-boundary.
CHAPTER3
Phrasing patterns in Catalan SVO structures
1his chapter is devoted to objects and their influence on the prosodic group-
ing of the (matrix) subject and verb in Catalan. It is hypothesized that sentential
objects - compared to DP objects increase the single group phrasing of (matrix)
SV. Catalan is described as a language where eurhythmic constraints play a role
and cause a short subject to phrase together with the verb when the object is long
(i.e. (SV)(O), Prieto 2005, D'Imperio et al. 2005). In order to compare the differ-
ent objects two experiments were conducted: the first for simple SVO structures
and the second for complex SVO structures, in which the object is sentential. The
research shows that the percentage of (SV) phrasing increases (by about 20%)
when the object is sentential. It further shows that the (SV) grouping is only a root
phenomenon. The (SV) grouping does not show up in embedded clauses. If the
embedded object clause consists of a short subject and a long object, the embed-
ded subject never phrases with the embedded verb. In addition, the embedded
clause is in three quarters of the data prosodically separated from the matrix clause
and the object clause itself is not phrased in a single constituent. The findings can
be accounted for using an optimality theoretic (OT) framework based on Prieto's
(2005) three main constraints. I depart from Prieto (2005), though, by assuming a
new constraint which accounts for the boundary preceding the embedded clause
(ALIGN-CP,L) and by assuming that there is a probabilistic constraint ranking
where the constraints are situated on a continuous ranking scale (Stochastic OT,
Boersma & Hayes 2001). In that way, I can account for the variation in the group-
ing of complex SVO structures.
The research on object clauses is especially important due to the literature
on Phrasing in Romance of the last decade not inquiring seriously into complex
structures. These studies have mainly been concerned with simple SVO struc-
tures. Furthermore, the authors, who do examine complex structures, are mostly
concerned with non-restrictive relatives, nominal appositives, parenthetical
expressions or they are concerned with the comparison of right boundaries of
root clauses (Downing 1970, Nespor & Vogel1986/2007, Selkirk 2005, Dehe 2009
among others). They are hardly concerned with clauses which are part of the verb's
argument structure. Truckenbrodt (2005), though. does inquire into subject and
object clauses but his study is based on only one speaker.
This chapter is structured as follows: In Section 3.1 background information
on the research on Romance SVO during the last decade is given. This brief intro-
duction quickly moves to a concentration on Catalan. Section 3.2 provides the
reader with the general outline of the conducted experiments in the present study.
Section 3.3 concentrates on the simple and complex SVO experiments. First, the
specific experiment design is presented; then the results of the detected boundary
cues are given. Finally. the results of the prosodic phrasing of these structures are
presented. In Section 3.4 the theoretical approach to the phrasing of SVO and of
embedded SVO is given.
3.1 Background and experiment hypothesis
In this section the general phrasing pattern of SVO in Romance is introduced fol-
lowed by a detailed description of Catalan (Section 3.1.1 ). Finally; the two hypotheses
underlying the experimental research are introduced (Section 3.1.2).
Since the introduction of the Prosodic Hierarchy (Selkirk 1984, Nespor &
Vogel1986/2007) the placement of intonational boundaries and their determin-
ing factors have been discussed. During the last decade several studies concerning
the prosodic grouping in Romance sentences have been published (for Catalan:
Prieto 1997, Prieto 2005; for European Portuguese (EP): Frota 2000; for Italian:
D'Imperio 2001, 2002; for Spanish: Prieto 2006a, Elordieta et al. 2005 (also for EP),
Feldhausen, Gabriel & Peskova 2010, Gabriel, Feldhausen & Peskova to appear; for
all four languages: D'Imperio et al. 2005, Frota et al. 2007). The most recent works,
especially, mainly concentrate on neutral declarative SVO utterances. 'Neutral'
means that the SVO sentences are taken to be all-new sentences. The sentences
count as answers to the question "What happened?" (cf Section 1.1.3 for more
detailed information on informa.tion structure and the relation between focus and
question/answer pairs). By speaking of 'neutral declarative SVO utterances' it is
implicitly assumed that preverbal subjects are not taken as topics - otherwise they
could not be 'neutral' (cf. Section 1.1.4 for arguments that preverbal subjects are
not automatically left-dislocated).
In D'Imperio et al. (2005), a crosslinguistic study of prosodic phrasing in
Catalan, Spanish, Italian, and European Portuguese is presented. They mention
three factors that can influence the phrasing pattern: syntactic branchingness,
length of constituents, and speech rate (D'Imperio et al. 2005: 60f.). In their study
they concentrate on only the first two factors and recorded two speakers of each
language. D'Imperio et al. (2005) come to the conclusion that the Romance
Chapter 3. Phrasing patterns in Catalan SVO structures 63
varieties examined display different intonational phrasing patterns. The most

common phrasing pattern in Catalan and Spanish is (S)(VO). Catalan has the
tendency to phrase utterances in prosodic constituents of similar length. For this
reason, an (SV)(O) phrasing is often produced with non-branching subjects and
long objects. In Spanish, the (SV)(O) phrasing also appears only in cases with a
long branching object (D'Imperio et al. 2005: 81, Prieto 2006a: 55): According
to the study in D'Imperio et al. (SV)(O) in Spanish is much less common than
in Catalan and statistically not significant. 1 In Italian and in Standard European
Portuguese (SEP, the variety spoken in Lisbon) the (SVO) phrasing is the usual
one (D'Imperio et al. 2005: 83). (S)(VO) phrasings are also possible, but they seem
to be limited according to the nature ofS (long/branching). The nature of the object
does not seem to play a role (cf. also Elordieta et al. 2005: 120). In contrast to SEP,
the (S)(VO) phrasing is the pervasive pattern in Northern European Portuguese
(NEP, D'Imperio et al. 2005: 83). Although in Italian the (SV)(O) phrasing might
show up sometimes, this pattern nevertheless is rarely allowed or tends to be
strongly avoided (D'Imperio et al. 2005: 76). In European Portuguese, (SV)(O) is
unattested (D'Imperio et al. 2005:83, Elordieta et al. 2005: 130). Consequently, the
(SV)( 0) pattern has the tendency to show up only in Catalan (and rarely Spanish),
even though it does not constitute the pervasive phrasing pattern in the language.
In (1) I present an overview of the phrasing patterns in the four Romance lan-
guages ('././': most common/typical phrasing; './': possible phrasing; '(./)': existing,
but seldom phrasing; '0': unattested or strongly avoided phrasing).
(1) Overview of the phrasing patterns (according to D'Imperio et al. 2005)
Catalan Spanish Italian SEP NEP
(S)(VO) ././ ././ ./ ,f ././
(SV)(O) ./ (./) 0 0 0
(SVO) (./) ./ ././ ././ ./
p.1 Detailed background of Catalan phrasing patterns

In D'Imperio et al. (2005) two speakers from Central Catalan were examined. They
read a corpus of 124 sentences three times. The factor oflength was controlled for
t. Elordieta et a1. (2005: 130) also report that (SV)(O) has no importance in Spanish. The
same conclusion is drawn in Feldhausen et a1. (2010) and Gabriel et al. (to appear) for Buenos
Aires Spanish: (SV)(O) is almost non-existent. In Prieto (2006: 55), the (SV)(O) phrasing in
Spanish appears to be a more normal case though. This goes along with Nibert (2000), who
concludes that (SV) (0) is the default type of phrasing in Spanish. According to Prieto (2006: 55)
it appears that in Spanish (S)(VO) and (SV)(O) phrasing patterns are both possible (depending
on weight conditions), and that there are individual differences among speakers.
in terms of number of syllables ( cf. Jun & Fougeron 2000), and not in terms of
number of feet or prosodic words (as in e.g. Selkirk 2000 and Prieto 2005). In
order to display the factor ofbranchingness, a PP or an AP was added to the argu-
ment noun (i.e. subject N/object N). In general. both speakers produced the sen-
tences with two prosodic phrases. The sentence-internal boundary was signaled by
a clear FO continuation rise. D'Imperio et al. (2005) is not the only study on Cata-
lan SVO structures; Prieto (2005) also deals with these structures. Whereas in the
former study Catalan is only one language among others, Prieto (2005) focuses on
only Catalan. In addition, whereas the former study is presented without any theo-
retical analysis, Prieto (2005) offers a theoretical analysis for the phrasing pattern.
Since the results are similar in both studies, I present only the broader study of
Prieto (2005) in detail To be more concise: only the outline and the results of Prieto
(2005) are presented here. The analysis of Prieto (2005) is presented in detail in
Section 3.4.2, where it is embedded in the description of the analysis proposed in
the present study.
The data in Prieto (2005) has two different sources. On the one hand, four
native speakers of Central Catalan (who were all linguists) were asked to judge the
phrasing divisions of the utterances which appeared in her article. The consultants
were asked to judge whether the phrasings would be grammatical at a normal rate
of speech and also asked to interpret the sentences as out-of-the-blue conveying
new information, i.e. to take them as broad focus sentences. On the other hand,
the data from a production experiment (published in Elordieta, Frota, Prieto &
Vigario 2003) were used. Two speakers of Central Catalan read the SVO target
sentences three times. They were told to read the sentences at a normal speech
rate as neutral declarative sentences (i.e. new information reading). Consequently,
the sentences do not include topics or (narrow) focus constituents. The study of
D'Imperio et al. (2005) is also based on this production experiment.
The general phrasing pattern in Catalan is sensitive to constituent length, and
verbal heads can be phrased together with preceding subjects when the DP objects
are long (Prieto 2005: 214). If the DP object is short, or if the subject is long, the
verb is phrased with the object. This leads to the following phrasing pattern in
unmarked Catalan declarative sentences (where p =phonological phrase):
(2) (S)p (VO)p single word subjects, short verbal projection
(SV)p (O)p single word subjects, but long objects (2w)
(S)p (VO)p long subject (>2w), short objects2
2. Prieto (2005) does not include cases of a long subject together with a long object.
As the reader might have noticed, the terms 'prosodic phrasing' and 'phonological
phrase' have been used to describe the relevant prosodic constituent These terms are
the original notations used in D'Imperio etal. (2005) and Prieto (2005) respectively.
I continue to use the term 'prosodic phrase' as a hypernym for ip and IntP.
3.1.2 The hypotheses

The main aspect for my study on SVO phrasing in Catalan originates in the inter-
esting and atypical finding of D'Imperio et al. (2005) and Prieto (2005) that the
subject can phrase together with the verb, if the DP object is long. It is common
knowledge that objects can also be sentential. Hence, the question comes up as
to how phrasing decisions are made (by Catalans) when the object is a complete
clause. I set up the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Compared to DP objects sentential objects ittcrease the single group
phrasittg of (matrix) SV.
In order to be able to compare the influence of DP objects and sentential objects,
two things are important First, the percentage value of the (SV) groupings in
D'Imperio et al. (2005) is needed. In that study the (SV)(O) grouping adds up
to 33.1% (D'Imperio et al. 2005: 68f. ).3 The hypothesis is validated, if sentential
objects increase the value of (SV) phrasing, i.e. the value has to be significantly
higher than 33.1 %. Second, it is also important to compare the utterances of
the same group of speakers. For this reason, I repeated the SVO experiment
with DP objects. In addition to this reason, there are two further arguments for
repeating the SVO experiment: number of speakers and controlled material.
The results of D'Imperio et al. (2005) and Prieto (2005) are based on only two
native speakers of Central Catalan. In order to verify the findings, I conducted
the experiment with ten speakers. Additionally, I carefully controlled for the
all-new status of the SVO structure. Instead of asking the participants to read the
sentences as all-new sentences, I introduced the target sentences in a context which
caused the SVO structure to be entirely new (for more information structural
background cf. Section 1.1.3). The same conditions were used in the experiment
with sentential objects.
The latter experiment has a further important research question: are embed-
ded object clauses prosodically separated from the matrix clause? Downing (1970)
3· The average is calculated from Table 3, 4, and 5 in D'Imperio et al. (2005: 68t:).
argues that only the edges of root clauses (clauses that are not embedded) 4 are
obligatorily aligned with larger prosodic boundaries - meaning that the left edge
of an embedded clause does not have an obligatory boundary. This position is
adopted in Nespor & Vogel (1986/2007: 189). Truckenbrodt (2005) picks up the
question if an embedded clause triggers intonational boundaries ati ts left (or right)
edges. He did not find any evidence of an intonational phrase boundary preceding
an embedded object clause. Based on these works, I set up a second hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Setttential objects are ttot obligatorily separated by prosodic means
from the precedittg matrix clause.
3.2 General outline of the experiments
The present study is based on four different production experiments. The first
one is concerned with simple SVO structures (DP objects), the second one with
complex SVO structures (sentential objects), the third one with (embedded)
clitic left- and right-dislocations, and the fourth one with preverbal subjects and
left-dislocations. Experiment 1, 2, and 4 were conducted in one session in 2008,
the experiment on clitic left- and right-dislocations was conducted in 2005 with a
slightly different design. The latter experiment is described in detail in Chapter 5,
whereas Section 3.2 provides the reader with the general outline of the 2008 exper-
iments. Even though the specific experiment design of experiments 1, 2, and 4
differs, they all have the same general outline. Thus, Section 3.2 can be seen as
a brief appended exposition giving detailed background information about the
three experiments (i.e. location, subjects, basic aspects of the used material, and
procedure). The specific experiment designs of the three parts are not presented
in this section. The specific experiment design of the simple and complex SVO
experiments is given in Section 3.3.1. The specific design of the CLLD vs. S experi-
ment is given in Section 6.2.
4· Any CP contained in another CP is called an embedded clause. A root dause is any CP

that is not contained in a higher CP (cf. also Downing 1970: 29ft:). A simple sentence such as
[Peter sleeps] is a root clause; it is not contained in a higher CP. In a complex root clause such
as [Mary supposes [that Peter sleeps]] the sentence [that Peter sleeps] is an embedded clause,
since it is contained in a higher CP. Furthermore, the term matrix clause refers to the root
clause 'minus' its embedded clause, i.e. [Mary supposes [... ]].
Throughout my work, I use the term root clause or root context in its narrow sense:
I refer to simple sentences/CPs which do not dominate another CP (i.e. which do not have
embedded clauses). The term embedded context refers to root clauses in its widest sense, i.e.
CPs that dominate complement clauses.
Table 1. Detailed information of recorded subjects
Speaker Sex Age Profession Orjgin and L1 Parents' L1
AT f 22 student Barcelona ~:Cat

(Cat.) cf: (Switzerland)
CB f 24 student Barcelona ~:Spanish
(Cat. & Spanish) d': Swedish
CP f 23 student Barcelona ~:Cat
(Cat.) cf:Cat
DS m 31 employee Barcelona ~:Cat
(retail trade) (Cat.) d': Cat
GM f 23 student Barcelona ~:Cat
(Cat.) cf:Cat
GV m 20 student Barcelona ~:Cat
(Cat. & Spanish) d': Cat
IS f 25 employee Mamesa ~:Cat
(Cat.) cf:Cat
MM f 26 self-employed Terrassa ~:Cat
(Cat.) d': Cat
MO f 39 student Barcelona ~:Cat
(Cat. & Spanish) d': Spanish
RS m 26 student Sabad ell ~:Cat.+ Spanish
(Cat. & Spanish) d': Cat. + Spanish
The location of the 2008 experiments was Berlin and Hamburg (Germany).
A hard disk recorder, Marantz CDR310, was used and the subjects were recorded
in a quiet room. Ten subjects were recorded: seven female and three male speakers,
ranging in age from 20 to 39 years old (0 ""26 years old), cf. Table 1. All speakers
are native speakers of Central Catalan. None of the subjects are linguists. All sub-
jects were totally naive as to the purpose of the experiment.
The three different parts of the 2008 experiments are listed in (3).
(3) Parts of the experiments conducted in 2008:
Experiment l: Simple SVO phrasing (12 target sentences
(3 scenarios x 4 conditions))
Experiment 2: Complex SVO phrasing (12 target sentences (3 x 4))
Experiment 4: CLLD vs. S (i.e. preverbal subjects; 36 target sentences (3 x 12))
Fillers: (24 target sentences)
Altogether I used 84 different sentences in the experiment (cf. appendix). For

each single part the sentences of the two other parts counted as filler clauses
(as well as the pure filler clauses). In experiment 1 and 2, 12 sentences (14%)
of the data presented were target sentences respectively, while the other 72 sentences
(86%) counted as filler sentences. In experiment 4, 36 sentences (43%) of the data
presented were target sentences and 48 sentences (57%) of the data were filler sen-
tences. The target sentences were presented with the filler sentences in a pseudo-
randomized order. The sentences of the different parts were mixed so that two
sentences of one part never appeared in a row. As will be explained in the relevant
sections. the three experiments consist of difterent contextual scenarios. The sce-
narios represent a "story" for the target sentences; they do not reflect the difterent
conditions (such as length of constituents). It was also controlled that two sen-
tences of the same scenario never appeared in a row (independently of the filler
sentences in-between).
Material: The material was controlled with respect to word stress (propar-
oxytonic words), with respect to the sounds in the target words, their syllables,
the number of prosodic words, and the context. The target words were con-
trolled in two further ways. First, I tried to use only sonorant sounds to guar-
antee the vocal fold vibration. Vowels are per definition sonorant. Sonorant
consonants are nasals. vibrants, approximants, and glides (Hall 2000: 22). Target
words such as numem 'number' and Agu.eda (Catalan female name) clearly show
this. Both words are completely sonorant ({g) and {d) are approximants in Catalan,
i.e. [y] and [a] respectively). The only exception among the target words is the
sound [J] (i.e. {x)) in b1·uixola 'compass'. This sound is sufficiently away from the
word's end though. The following sonorants (including the two nuclei of the post
stress syllables) allow the vocal folds to vibrate and are able to show the desired
fundamental frequency. Second, in most cases proparoxytonic words were used
where the nucleus of the unstressed syllables is separated by (voiced) consonants.
Open syllables with a voiced onset (i.e. CV-syllables) were also used. Target words
such as nu.me.ro 'number' andA.gue.da (Catalan female name) are corresponding
examples. In Catalan, diphthongs count as one syllable, but not all adjacent vow-
els are automatically a diphthong. There are vowel clusters which count as a hiatus
(separate pronunciation of two adjacent vowels) and count as two syllables (e.g. ti.a.
'aunf, Nu.ri.a 'Nuria', Al.ge.ri.a 'Algeria', a.vi.a 'grandmother').5 Many proparoxy-
tonic words in Catalan end in a hiatus. In general. I tried to avoid these words,
since they bear the risk that some speakers pronounce the hiatus as a diphthong
a.
(cf. Cabre & Prieto 2004). If so, a proparoxytonic word such as vi.a would be
uttered as a paroxytonic word tl.1'ia, with the stress on the penultimate syllable.
Nevertheless, some target positions in my data are filled by proparoxytonic word
with a hiatus which is possibly a diphthong (such as es.gle.si.a 'church' or Al.ge.ri.a
'Algeria'). These two aspects enable one to profit in the best way from the distance
between the boundary and the stressed syllable. Not only the anchor position for
5· Cabre & Prieto (2004) argue that the vowel dusters in these contexts are all diphthongs,
in contrast to the 'norJii
the pitch accent (i.e. the stressed syllable) is far away from the boundary, 6 but the
characteristics of the sounds and syllables in between allow the FO contour to be
tracked in an optimal way. This is important for detecting boundary tones.
Finally; the context was carefully controlled The context is the relevant environ-
ment which is responsible either for a certain element to be given (i.e. mentioned
in the context) or to be non-given (i.e. not mentioned in the context), or for a
certain sentence to be completely new (which is relevant for the study on SVO
and embedded SVO structures). Different scenarios can represent the same con-
text: If three different scenarios force the target sentence to be entirely new, they
represent the same context (cf. Section 3.3.1). The way the context is controlled
for each single part of the experiment as well as the types of structures studied
are explained in the sections where the specific experiment design is introduced
(or cf appendix).
Procedure: The subjects were placed in a quiet room in front of a computer
and the data were presented in a Power Point file. The context and the target sen-
tence were presented together on a single slide; consequently, there were 84 slides.
The subjects were told to read out the target sentences at a normal speech rate
only after they understood the suitable context (question). The context (question)
was presented in two different ways. First, it was visually presented on the com-
puter screen. The subjects were told to read the sentences to themselves in order
to understand them. Second, they listened to the sentences. The context was
spoken out loud at a normal speech rate by a native speaker of Central Catalan?
To summarize, after having read the context, the subjects pressed a button in order
to hear the context. They were told to read the target sentence (i.e. the answer to
the context question) directly after hearing the context (question). This procedure
has several advantages: the subjects can read and hear the context; by reading the
context, the subjects are able to understand it correctly; by hearing the context,
the subjects were put in a more conversational-like situation, despite the unnatural,
laboratory situation. In addition, speakers who did not read the context completely
at least had to hear the context completely; and finally, by recording the context
in advance, it was possible to control the way the context was uttered. Due to this,
I could be sure that the context fits not only with respect to the content, but also
with respect to the pronunciation.
6. Cf for example the schematic figures for explaining the continuation rise in Chapter 2,
Section 2.3.2.
7· I am very grateful to Ariadna Benet for lending me her voice and for recording all the
contexts not only in an excellent manner, but also within a short time period
The subjects were told to read the sentences aloud in a conversational style
without being given any specific instructions regarding the phrasing. The sub-
jects were additionally told to think carefully about the sentences, since no com-
mas were put in the data. Punctuation marks such as commas could cause the
speaker to produce a pause. In order to avoid this influence commas were left
out. Since left-dislocations in Catalan (cf. experiment 4 (CLLD vs. S)) are nor-
mally separated by a comma, the presented sentences could be difficult to
understand. A short practice session at the beginning of the experiment was
included because the procedure may have been slightly complex. During that
period the subjects had to go through five context questions and their appropri-
ate target sentences, so that subjects could become accustomed to the procedure.
After that, the real experiment began.
The sentences were recorded directly as.wav files (sample rate 22.050 Hz)
and F0 tracks were analyzed using Praa.t version 5 .0.06 (developed by Boersma &
Weenink 1992-2010, University of Amsterdam). Subsequently, a prosodic
analysis of the spoken utterances was carried out. In order to determine
the phrase boundaries the sentences were analyzed acoustically and instrumen-
tally. By using Praa.t, I obtained the pitch tracks and the corresponding spec-
trograms and I aligned the suprasegmental events with the segmental string.
The location of a phrase break, if any, was carried out by carefully listening to
the sound files repeatedly and by observing the fundamental frequency and
the spectrogram. 8
3·3 Experiments on simple and complex SVO phrasing
The goal of the simple and complex SVO experiment is to compare the influence
of the different objects on the prosodic grouping of the (matrix) subject and verb.
Additionally, the grouping of embedded clauses themselves is discussed. The
experiments are conducted to test the two hypotheses described in Section 3.1.2.
The study validates both hypotheses. It is shown that the percentage of (SV)
phrasing increases (by about 20%) when the object is sentential. Further-
8. In order to ensure that my judgments of Catalan boundary tones were adequate, two
different Catalan phonologists (Pilar Prieto and Uu'isa Astruc) were asked to determine the
boundary tones of a set of sentences. After receiving their responses, my judgments were
compared with those of the native speakers. The conclusion was reached that I was able to
continue the work.
more, even though Catalan shows a great tendency to separate the embedded
object clause from the matrix clause, sentential objects are not obligatorily
separated. 20% of the object clauses are phrased with preceding material. The
simple SVO experiment shows that (S)(VO) is the predominant grouping in
Catalan and that this grouping is less robust if the object is long and the subject
short. The results clearly support the findings of D'Imperio et al. (2005) and
Prieto (2005).
In this section, the specific experiment design of experiments 1 (simple
SVO) and 2 (complex SVO) is presented (Section 3.3.1). After that, the detected
boundaries and their frequencies are described (Section 3.3.2). In Section 3.3.3
the results of the phrasing patterns are given. The results of simple SVO structures
are presented first followed by the results of complex SVO structures. Section 3.3.4
concludes Section 3.3.
3.3.1 Specific experiment design

According to D'Imperio etal. (2005: 71) a clear effect oflength is found in Catalan
phrasing decisions and the branching effect is dearly prosodic (i.e. the number of
prosodic words; cf. Prieto 2005: ch.3.4). Based on these findings, three different
scenarios (representing the same information structural context) for testing the
phrasing ofbroad focus declarative clauses were constructed. There are two groups
of clauses: root clauses (simple SVO) and embedded clauses (complex SVO).
In (4), one complete scenario (which is called scenario A) is presented; includ-
ing the context question and the different conditions for the target sentences. The
three scenarios display all the same information structural context. They cause the
target sentences to be entirely new (as described in Section 1.1.3): no constituent
of the target sentence is given in the context question. The different conditions for
the target sentence are explained below. The two further scenarios (called scenario
B and C) are shown in (5). They are not presented as detailed as scenario A. The
parentheses in (5) indicate which constituents do not always appear, but depend
on length requirements (similar to the pattern in (4); cf. appendix A & B for a
complete overview).
(4) Swtario A: Example for target sentences of (embedded) SVO sentences
Cotttext (questiott):
No et trobes be? Em sembla que estas de mal humor.
No you feel.2sG good Me seem that be.2sG of bad mood
Que ha passat?
What have happen.PTCP
'Do you feel bad? You seem to be in a bad mood What happened?'
Target sentences:
a. Condition: short S/short 0
llguila roba el ratoli.
the.eagle steal.PsT the mouse
'The eagle stole the mouse:
b. Condition: short Sllong 0
r aguilaroba elratoli del meu germa.
c. Condition: long S/short 0
La meva gran aguila roba elratoli.
d. Condition: long Sllong 0
La meva gran aguila roba el ratoH del meu germa.
the my big eagle steal.PsT the mouse of.the my brother
'My big eagle stole my brother's mouse:
e. Condition: short S/short 0 (in the embedded clause)
La Barbara suposa que l'aguila roba el ratoH.
f. Condition: short Sllong 0 (in the embedded clause)
La Barbara suposa que !'aguila roba el ratolf del meu germa.
g. Condition: long S/short 0 (in the embedded clause)
La Barbara suposa que la meva aguila roba el ratolf.
h. Condition: long Sllong 0 (in the embedded clause)
La Barbara suposa que la meva aguila roba el ratoli del meu germa.
the B. assume that ...
'Barbara assumes that...'
(5) Two further scenarios for (simple and complex) SVO

1. Scenario B: Context (question):
E1 Pedro no es troba be? Em sembla que est a molt furi6s.
the P. not RBFL feel good Me seem that be very angry
Que ha passat?
'Does Pedro feel bad? He seems to be very angry. What happened?'
Target sentences:
(La Silvia no va mencionar que) l'(avia) Angela havia
the S. not PST mention that the.grandma A. have
comptat les errades (de les frases).
count.PTCP the mistakes of the sentences
'(Silvia did not say that) (grandma) Angela has counted the mistakes
(ofthe clauses):
2. Scenario C: Context (question):

No m.'agrada que tota la familia estigui sota arrest domiciliari.
not me.like that all the family be.SBJ under arrest home
Ames, em sembla que la mare esta especialment nerviosa.
Moreover me seem that the mother be especially nervous
Que ha passat?
'I don't like that the whole family is put under house arrest. Moreover,
the mother seems to be very nervous. What happened?'
Target sentences:
(El pare va dir que) 1a (teva tia) Amelia se n'ha anat
the father PST say that the your aunt A. RBFL CL.PST go.PTCP
a (la ciutat de) Malaga.

to the city of M.
'(Father said that) (your aunt) Amelia left for (the city of) Malaga:
(4a) consists of a short subject, a short verb, and a short object (condition short
S/short 0). (4b) contains a short subject, the (short) verb, and a long branching
object (condition short Silang 0). In (4c) the subject is long and branching, while
the object is short (condition longS/short 0). (4d) presents the case where both
the subject and the object are long and branching (condition longS/long 0). The
exact patterns are repeated in (4e-h) with the only difference that the clauses are
embedded in the matrix clause La Ba1·bara suposa. que ... 'Barbara assumes that .. :.
A short constituent consists of three or four syllables (l'a.gui.la 'eagle: la.Bar.ba.ra
'Barbara'). A long constituent consists of at least six syllables. In (4) the long subject
has seven syllables (la.me.va.gra.ruigui.la 'my big eagle') and the long object has
eight syllables (el.ra.to.U.del.meu.ger.ma 'the mouse of my brother'). The branch-
ing condition is ambiguous. Each branching constituent is syntactically and pro-
sodically branching but only the latter one plays a role in Catalan (D'Imperio et al.
2005: 71). Each branching constituent consists of at least two prosodic words.
The branching subject and object in (4) include three prosodic words each. Short
constituents are at the same time non-branching, and long constituents are at the
same time branching.9 In addition, the matrix subject in the embedded contexts is
always short and non-branching. The context (question) in (4) introduced the par-
ticipants to a context. The context ends in a question for which the target sentences
9· Cf D1mperio et a1. (2005) for an experiment which sets the two factors apart.
function as answers. The context questions 'What happened?' causes the target
sentence(s) to be understood as an all new/broad focus answer.
The aguila-scenario described above contains four examples for the root SVO
pattern (ct~ 4a-d) as well as four examples for the embedded SVO pattern (cf. 4e-h).
There are three different scenarios, thus 24 different sentences (12 simple SVO
sentences; 12 complex SVO sentences). Each single sentence was uttered by ten
speakers, so that there are 240 sentences for experiment 1 (simple SVO phrasing;
120 sentences) and experiment 2 (complex SVO; 120 sentences).
3.3.2 Results -boundary cues

In Chapter 2, several boundary cues were introduced for detecting intonational
boundaries. The following tables and figures quantify the different boundary types
and discuss some difficulties in the boundary judgment. Table 2 shows the per-
centages (and the absolute number) of the total number of ip- and IntP-boundaries
after the preverbal subject. Table 3 shows the number of the different realizations
of the two intonational boundaries. Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of ip- and
IntP-boundaries with respect to the length of the syntactic constituents. Figure 2
shows an example of an unclear boundary.
Table 2 indicates the summarized numbers for ip- and IntP-boundaries.
There are altogether 361 boundaries in the data (cf. row 4). 56.2% of them are
realized as ip-boundaries and the remaining 43.8% are realized as IntP-boundaries.
The percentage values are practically the same for the two individual experiments
(cf. row 2 and 3).
Table 2. Percentages (and absolute number) of the total number of IntP-

and ip-boundaries after the preverbal subject
IntP ip
svo 42.5% 57.5%
(106) (45) (61)
Emb.SVO 44.3% 55.7%

(255) (113) (142)
Total 43.8% 56.2%
(361) (158) (203)
The total of IntP- and ip-boundaries of Table 2 (row 4) is split up in Table 3

below in order to show how the intonational boundaries are realized in detail.
Due to this, row 1 of Table 3 gives the different possible realizations ofboundaries
at the two levels. Additionally, the factor length is given (last column of Table 3).
The factor length is not split up for the two experiments (cf. row 2 and 3); only the
total value of 86% is given (row 4). In what follows, the values of the different IntP-
and ip-boundaries are presented in detail (row 2, 3, and 4). After that, a brief note
on the factor length is given. Length, however, is discussed in detail later in this
section (cf. Figure 3).
Table 3. Percentages (and absolute number) of the type of the post-subject boundary
realizations in the simple and complex SVO experiments
IntP ip Length
Pauses (P) Complex Cont. Sust.
Boundary Rise Pitch
visible audible
H% L% H% L% (P) no (P) H- !H- L-
svo 4.7% 0% 13.2% 0% 6.6% 17.9% 46.2% 4.7% 6.6%
(106) (5) (14) (7) (19) (49) (5) (7)
Emb. 6% 0.4% 9.4% 0.4% 5.1% 23.1% 40.8% 7.5% 7.5%
svo (15) (1) (24) (1) (13) (59) (104) (19) (19)
(255)
Total 5.5% 0.3% 10.5% 0.3% 5.5% 21.6% 42.4% 6.6% 7.2% 86%
(361) (20) (1) (38) (1) (20) (78) (153) (24) (26)
The second and third row present the number of the realizations of the different
types (in percent and absolute numbers) for simple and complex SVO structures,
respectively. The last row summarizes the number of both experiments. Due to the
fact that the pattern of the experiments is similar, only the last row is explained. As
for the IntP-level the most common marking of the boundary results from com-
plex boundary tones. 10 Some of them are not followed by a pause (21.6% of all
361 boundaries). High boundary tones (H%) that are not followed by a pause also
appear (10.5%). Low boundary tones (L%) are virtually never realized sentence-in-
ternally (0.3%). As for the ip-level, the continuation rise (H-) is the most common
realization (42.4%). It is also the most common one with respect to both levels. In
addition, the total number of continuation rises increases if the high IntP-boundary
tones (H%) are also considered. They represent continuation rises at the IntP-level.
Thus, at least 58.4% (5.5 + 10.5 + 42.4) of the boundaries are realized by a continu-
ation rise. 11 This corresponds to the findings in Frota et al. (2007), who state that
10. Recall that only boundary tones that consist of dtiferent tones (such as the most common
realized tone L-H%) are considered to constitute this class (cf. Chapter 2).
n. If the High tone of the complex boundary tone L-H% is also considered as a continuation
rise, the total number of continuation rises increases further.
"prosodic breaks in Romance are predominantly marked by a High boundary tone.

The preboundary stretch tends to be realized as a continuation rise" (p. 135).
The factor length (last column of Table 3) has to be considered separately from
the different types of realizations. Whereas the latter are distributed complemen-
tarily (e.g. either the tone is realized as a sustained pitch or as a continuation rise),
length overlaps all realizations (i.e. the sustained pitch as well as the continua-
tion rise can additionally be marked by a long preboundary syllable). As Table 3
indicates, 86% of the boundaries are marked by longer syllables. I return to the
results of the length measurement of preboundary and non-preboundary syllables
(cf. Figure 3) later.
Until now, nothing has been said concerning the distribution of the boundaries.
For this reason, the relation between constituent length and the type of bound-
ary (IntP vs. ip) is considered in the following paragraphs. I concentrate on the
post-subject position of simple SVO structures (i.e. the position directly after the
subject and before the verb). Experiment 1 (simple SVO) has four different condi-
tions (shortS/short 0; short Silang 0; longS/short 0; and longS/long 0) with
thirty sentences each. The conditions are given in the x-axis of Figure 1. They-axis
shows the number ofboundary realizations (in absolute numbers). The four differ-
ent lines in the diagram represent IntP-boundaries, ip-boundaries, unclear cases,
and cases where no boundary appeared.
Subject boundary
25
!il
20
15
• ......
.. ______.
"11·--·--~
.......... ------~
.&.
E
~ 10
5 __
........-___........../
. -- ·--......~-
---~----..::--
0
shortS I short 0 shortS /long 0 longS I shortO longS Tlong 0
-+-lntP 5 6 15 18
---··ip 21 13 11 13
·-*····unclear 3 7 3 0
··•··no boundary 1 4 1 0
Figure 1. Relation between length of constituents and intonational boundary at the

post-subject position (the position between Sand V)
Figure 1 clearly shows the tendency for the increasing number ofintP-boundaries
when the subject is long. In the short subject conditions the boundary after the
subject is realized only 5 + 6 (11) times as an IntP-boundary (i.e. 18%). In the
long subject conditions, though, the boundary is in 15 + 18 (33) cases of this
type (i.e. 55%). This is an increase of 300%. The number of ip-boundaries is very
high in the shortS/short 0 condition (21 realizations; i.e. 70%), and decreases
in the three further conditions, but still remains relatively high (13, 11, and 12
realizations, i.e. around 43% on average). As for the two remaining cases (unclear
and no boundary), they reach an interesting number only in the short Silang 0
condition. In around 37% (4 + 7 (11)) of the cases there are either no or unclear
boundary tones, whereas the highest percentage in the other conditions comes
to only around 13% (1 + 3 (4)). By looking at this aspect from the reverse side, it
can be said that the clear separation of the subject from the following verb comes
to only 63% (i.e. 6 + 13 realizations) in that condition, whereas the average num-
ber of the three other conditions comes to 91%. Short S/long 0 is the condition
where Catalan shows a tendency for the (SV)(O) grouping and the post-subject
boundary realizations are reduced due to balance efiects of the length of prosodic
constituents (D'Imperio et al. 2005, Prieto 2005, Frota et al. 2007). The interesting
percent value of that condition in Figure 1 thus reflects the tendency of Catalan to
not place a boundary after the subject if the object is long.
Figure 1 (but also Table 2 and Table 3) shows a further important aspect: there
is variation with respect to the nature of the boundaries. In some instances, the
breaks dividing the subject from the predicate are straightforward intonational
phrases, but in some cases they are clear instances of intermediate phrases. In the
long subject conditions, there is a slight preference for IntPs (55%), while Table 2
indicates a slight preference for ips (56%). Nevertheless, the number ofintPs and
ips seems to be distributed equally at a percent value of 50%. This result represents
empirical evidence for the notion prosodic phrase as a hypernym for intonational
phrase and intermediate phrase (cf. Chapter 2).
Although most of the junctures could clearly be classified as being an intona-
tional boundary or not, some instances were difficult to judge. Unclear cases arise
due to the fact that an ambiguity between delayed peak and continuation rise is
possible. Even though the schematic diagrams of a continuation rise and a delayed
peak in Chapter 2 (cf. Figure 9 & Figure 10) are clear, the actual situation in uttered
sentences is not always so clear. Prieto (2006b: 8) shows that the peak delay is larger
in words with antepenultimate stress than in words with stress closer to the end
of the word. In Figure 2 the ambiguity between a continuation rise and a delayed
peak is illustrated by'?' in the tonal tier. The H peak is located 0.1569 seconds after
the end of the accented syllable, whereas it is located only 0.0594 seconds before
the end of the word. The proximity to the word edge can lead one to the conclu-
sion that there is a phrase break H- present On the other hand, since the H peak is
not totally located at the word edge, it is possible to conclude that it is the delayed
peak of the rising tone and not a phrase break (i.e. L+>H*). Hence, an ambiguity
arises. This ambiguity is marked by '?' in the data in the appendix. Unclear cases
are judged as presenting no boundary. This decision has an influence on the (SVO)
phrasing in particular and is discussed in Section 3.3.3.2.
s v 0
Figure 2. Ambiguity between delayed peak and continuation rise in the FO contour of
L' Angela va comptar les errades :Angela counted the mistakes' of speaker GM
(sentence 2l_SVO_GM). The ambiguity is marked with '?' in the tonal tier
In addition, in a few cases it was difficult to judge if the detected break should
have been categorized as an ip- or an lntP-boundary. This difficulty arose when it
was unclear if a continuation rise was followed by an audible pause or not Due
to the fact that there is an intonational boundary in either case, such cases were
judged as being an ip-boundary. In the appendix. the corresponding instances of
H- are marked by the preceding tag'( 4?)' (representing a possible break index 4).
Finally, I return to syllable length. The bar diagrams (Figure 3 and Figure 4)
illustrate the different length of preboundary and non-preboundary syllables of
both experiments (1 and 2). The first diagram considers length in milliseconds
(Figure 3), while the second diagram gives the corresponding percent values
(Figure 4). The height of the bar represents the magnitude of the corresponding
variable. For the measurement, only syllables consisting of two pronounced seg-
ments were considered- irrespective of being stressed or not, (6). 12
12. In the case of infiniives the word-final/r/ is not uttered sud:t that tar (of comptar'count')
is pronounced as [ta], nar (of mencionar'mentioli) as [na] and d.ir'say' as [dt]. The infinitives
as well as the past tense form robd 'stoteha~ word-final stress. Not considered were the dosed
syllable nat of se nha anat'did go and the word-final materiallia of Amelia and via of Silvia.
(6) Syllables considered for length measurement [consonant+ vowel (CV)]:

[1~1 (la) (Angela, aguila 'eagle')
[ta] (tar) (comptar 'count')
[ba] (ba) (roM 'stole')
[na] (nar) (mencionar 'mention')
[~] (ra) (Barbara)
[s~] (sa) (suposa 'supposes')
[~] (re) (pare 'father')
[d1] (dir) (dir 'say')
The two diagrams (Figure 3 and Figure 4) show an important finding: there is a
clear difference between preboundary and non-preboundary syllables. Pre boundary
syllables have an average length of208 ms (100%), while non-preboundary sylla-
bles have a length of 119 ms (57%). Thus, they are 89 ms shorter than syllables that
are followed by a break. This corresponds to a percent value of 43%. The average
for all ten speakers is given in the last column, indicated by (0).
Syllable length (ms)

300
250
~ 200
c;
..
8
"'
:..=
150
~ 100
so
Figure 3. Length in milliseconds of preboundary and non-preboundary CV-syllables
The latter two have the described possibility of not uttering the hiat between the two vowels.
If the hiat is not uttered - what is the typical case according to Cabre & Prieto (2004) - the
word-final syllable consists of three segments or, if the hiat is uttered, the ultimate syllable has
just one segment. No case fulfils the criteria of two phonetically realized segments.
So Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan
Syllable Length (%)

120 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
100 f--------.----------.---.----------.------------.----
80 ~-------11---------l------f-------
60
40
20
Figure 4. Length in percentages of prebound.ary and non-preboundary CV-syllables
Additionally, the average length of preboundary and non-preboundary syl-

lables for each speaker (black and grey bar respectively) is given in Figure 3 and
Figure 4. By looking at single speakers, two extremes can be seen. On the one hand,
for four speakers (CP, DS, GV, and MO) the difference comes to 50% or more.
Their preboundary syllables are more than 100 ms longer than non-preboundary
syllables. On the other hand, one speaker (MM) shows only a very small difference.
The difference comes to 20% and non-preboundary syllables are 31 ms shorter.
No other speaker has such a small difference between the syllable types. CB, for
example, has a difference of 61 ms.
As mentioned before (cf. last column of Table 3), the boundary cue length
of the pre boundary syllable appears additionally to the boundary tones. The clear
difference between preboundary and non-preboundary syllables can be seen by all
ten speakers- irrespective of the actual realization (such asH-, H% or L-H%) of
the produced boundary tones.
3·3·3 Results - phrasing patterns
In this section the results of the intonational grouping of simple and complex
SVO structures are presented. First, the results of the simple SVO experiment are
described and then the results of the complex SVO experiment. Both sections are
followed by a discussion.
3·3·3·1 The simple SVO experiment

Figure 5 illustrates the total result of experiment 1 (3 scenarios x 4 sentences x 10
speakers= 120 sentences). The parentheses'( )'represent the prosodic grouping. In
Catalan, there are four possible groupings (S)(VO), (SVO), (S)(V)(O), and (SV)(O)
although speakers clearly prefer to place a phrase break after the subject. A mean
of around 80% of the cases in normal speech rate are instances of (S)(VO). The
(SV0) 13 grouping comes to 15%, (S)(V)(O) to 3.33% and (SV)(O) to only 0.83%.
SVO phrasing (0)
(SV)(O)
(S)(V)(O)
(SVO)
•
(S)(VO)
I I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
(S)(VO) (SVO) (S)(V)(O) (SV)(O)

80,33 15 3,33 0,83
Figwe 5. Prosodic grouping of simple SVO structures In Catalan
In the following figures, examples of the FO contour of each grouping are given.
Figure 6 illustrates the (S)(VO) grouping. The post-subject boundary is marked by
a continuation rise. It can clearly be seen on /aguila 'eagle. The rise starts in the
proparoxytonic syllable Ia and rises steadily until the end of the subject, where the
ip-boundary tone H- is located. V and 0 are not separated by a boundary.
g 250
t;- 210
;
g. 170
.1: 130
] 90
; 50
~
3
""'
s v 0
Figwe 6. Catalan (S)(VO) phrasing- Waveform, spectrogram, and FO trace for the utterance
r: aguila roba el ratoli'The eagle stole the mouse' of speaker GV (sentence 29_SVO_GV)
13. For comments on the relatively high percentage of (SVO) groupings, ct: discussion below.
Figure 7 illustrates the (SVO) phrasing. There is no break either after the subject
or after the verb. The peak of the subjects pitch accent is delayed and located on the
first posttonic syllable. At the word boundary. there is no special tonal movement
~
~ 3SO r-~~,_P-,_~~~~~~~~~r-~~~r-~
s= 300 r----+--r-~~+-,_--~H-~~--r-------r-~
J:~2SO r---o+~~~~~rl---~H--.r---r-~~~r-~
~ 200 r----¥~~~~+-1-~~~~~,-r-------~~
E 150 ~---+~~~rwJ-~---m~~~-=~~~--~~
1l~ 100 F~==~~~~~~~~~~~~==~~
&!
L'Angela errades
s v 0
Figure 7. Catalan (SVO) phrasing- Waveform, spectrogram, and FO trace for the
utterance L'Angela va comptarles errades :Angela counted the mlsta kes' of speaker MO
(sentence 2l_SVO_MO)
The (S)(V)( 0) phrasing is shown in Figure 8. The break after the long subject
is indicated by sustained pitch (!H-). The peak of the preboundary pitch accent is
delayed and reaches its highest point at the end of the first posttonic syUable. On
the second posttonic syllable, the pitch does not rise any further but sustains at the
.....
~it~!
<iUuol~o
se- 200
.1'1"'1'
I"!" 15 ~ 2.5 3
~=170 I
J: I• ....
~
s
140
~ 1•· v rr .... / ..... II"
.___
~ 80
110
..;.
.
:
v
1l
&! so
L r, * L H T - L+H.'r -H % L-L%
I L: teva tia Amelia se n'ha anat a Malaga
s v 0
Figure 8. Catalan (S)(V)(O) phrasing- Waveform, spectrogram, and FO trace for the
utterance La teva tia Amelia se n'ha anat a Malaga 'Your aunt Amelia went to Malaga' of
speaker RS (sentence 39_SSVO_RS)
same level. The break after the verb, separating the verb and the object, is marked
by an audible pause (H%).
The last of the four groupings, (SV)(O ), is presented in Figure 9. The subject is
not separated from the verb by any tonal movement or a pause. The only break in the
structure is located after the verb and is marked by a continuation rise (H-). Further-
more, there is a pitch reset on the high part of the bitonal accent L+>H"'located on
~
'6 350
_
errades ('mistakes), which signals the boundary between the verb and the object
......
~ 1 lr -,. 'llf"i" I""
"'"""' 2.5
I I.
5::s
300
g' 250 h I li ·
J::
c.;; 200 v .rv1-'""' """ ~ ['\
, ftl ! I
s 150
J l: ...JI ,._ ·;,
'-- f.-'
.. ,_,_ " '\.
~ 100 l~· , ~ · .:•_
-g
&: L* H - L H* L-
L'Ange la 1va comptar les j erra des les frases
s v (0 (PP))
Figure 9. Catalan (SV)(O) phrasing- Waveform, spectrogram, and FO trace for the utterance
L' Angela va comptar les errades de les frases ~ngela counted the mistakes of the sentences' of
speaker MO (sentence 22_SVOO_MO)
Whereas Figure 5 gives the total results of all sentences irrespective of the
different conditions, Figure 10 gives the percentages of the realizations of the dif-
ferent groupings for each condition (shortS/short 0; short S!longO; longS/short 0;
and long S!long 0 ).
SVO phrasing
120
100
••• .... __ ~--·--·~--·····
~
c
80
... ...- .--·--·-
.,~
0..
60
40 ___ ..... ___
20
0
..- -~
short S Tshort 0 short S /long 0 long S Tshort 0 longsnongO
·+· (S)(VO) 87 57 83 97
-(SVO) 13 33 13 0
_.__ (S)(V)(O) 0 7 4 3
-(SV)(O) 0 3 0 0
Figure 10. Percentages of simple SVO phrasing patterns in the four different conditions
As can be seen, (S)(VO) is the predominant phrasing across all conditions. with
a value of mostly above 80%. The most robust (S)(VO) realizations arise in the long
Silang 0 condition; nearly all examples are realized with a break after the subject
(97%). Interestingly, only in the short Silang 0 condition is its value comparatively
low. It comes to only 57%. In general, this condition deviates in many aspects from
the other three conditions: besides the high number of non-(S)(VO) groupings, it is
the only condition where the (SV)(O) grouping shows up and where all four group-
ings are realized. Besides the (S)(VO) grouping, all other groupings come to their
highest number of realizations ((SVO): 33%; (S)(V)(O): 7%; and (SV)(O): 3%).
Thus one can conclude that the condition where the subject is short and the
object is long is the only condition that influences the phrasing decisions the most.
It weakens the predominance of the (S)(VO) grouping.
3·3·3·2 Discussion
The goal of the simple SVO experiment was to set the basis for the complex SVO
experiment and to repeat the study of D'Imperio et al. (2005) with more speakers
and a clear information structural context. The two hypotheses in Section 3.1.2
concern only sentential objects and as such they are not discussed here.
The phrasing pattern found in experiment 1 is in line with the findings of
D'Imperio et al. (2005) and Prieto (2005): The most common phrasing in Catalan
is (S)(VO), and (SV)(O) arises when the object is long. As for the first finding,
D'Imperio et al. (2005: 71) ascribe the exclusive trigger of the (S)(VO) pattern to a
long subject (i.e. branching S). This conclusion cannot be exclusively drawn here, but
the data do not present counterevidence either. On the one hand, (S)(VO) comes to
more than 80% in the longS conditions. However, in the shortS/short 0 condition
the subject is also phrased separately in more than 80% of the cases. Thus, a long
subject cannot have such an influence because a short subject is also mostly phrased
separately. On the other hand, the object seems to play an important role; this is the
case in both long 0 conditions. Across the longS conditions, a long object increases
the number of (S)(VO) groupings. Whereas in longS/short 0 (S)(VO) comes to
83%, it comes to 97% in the long Silang 0 condition. If the subject is short, though,
a long object decreases the number of (S)(VO) groupings (57%).
As for the second finding, (SV)(O) shows up only in the shortS/long 0 con-
dition. This is in line with D'Imperio et al. (2005: 70) and Prieto (2005: 214).
D'Imperio et al. (2005: 71) say that the tendency for S to phrase with the fol-
lowing Vis a clear effect of length. In their data, the (SV)(O) phrasing comes to
33.1% (D'Imperio et al. 2005: 68f.). However, according to my data, (SV)(O) is
realized only very rarely and does not come to such a high percentage although
it also shows up only in the short Silang 0 condition. The difference might appear
because the sentences were uttered only at a normal speech rate in the simple
SVO experiment, while D'Imperio et al. (2005) examined different rates of speech.
They show that (SV) ( 0) appears more often at a fast speech rate. The aforementioned
length effect, nevertheless, has an important influence in the present data. Although
it does not significantly increase the SV grouping, it weakens the otherwise robust
(S)(VO) phrasing and renders possible (higher numbers of) different phrasings.
One interesting aspect concerns the high percentage of the (SVO) grouping
in the shortS/long 0 condition. The (SVO) grouping is very atypical for Catalan
(D'Imperio et al 2005, Prieto 2005). They found only some sporadic (SVO) group-
ings by one single speaker (D'Imperio et al. 2005: 68). The question arises as to why
(SVO) can come to 33% in general and why it comes to that number in the short
S/long 0 condition in particular. The cause can be explained easily; nearly all instances
of (SVO) arise due to an unclear post-subject boundary. It was not possible to judge
if there was a boundary after the subject or not. Unclear boundaries are judged as if
there were no boundary. In my data, only two instances of (SVO) out of 18 are clear
instances of (SVO). Nearly 90% of the cases are unclear. If the data are reinspected
closely and detailed, it might turn out that some unclear boundaries are boundaries,
while some unclear boundaries are not boundaries. Consequently, the percentage of
15% for (SVO) might be smaller. As for the second part of the question, (SVO) arises
in the short S/long 0 condition in particular, because of the length effect. The long
object causes the need for a post-subject boundary to be not as strong as normal. If
the boundary is not as strong anymore, it can either disappear completely or it can
simply become less clear. Due to the fact that unclear cases were dealt with as if there
is no boundary, the phrasing (S- unclear- VO) turns out to be (SVO). Thus the num-
ber of unclear cases increases, especially in the short S/long 0 condition.
3·3·3·3 The complex SVO experiment

Figure 11 shows the results of experiment 2 (3 scenarios x 4 sentences x 10
speakers= 120 sentences). The bar diagram illustrates the percentages given in
Complex-SVO phrasing (0)
(S)(VqS)(VO) ~~
(SVqS)(VO) ~~
(S)(V)(qS)(VO) ~-..--. . .
(SV)(qS)(VO) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
(SV)(qS)(VO) (S)(V)(qS)(VO) (SVqS)(VO) (S)(VqS)(VO) misc.
I• misc.induded 46,67 20 8,33 8,33 16,66
I• misc.exduded 56 24 10 10 0
Figure II. Prosodic grouping of complex SVO structures in Catalan (given in percentages)
the table below the diagram. The first line of the table indicates the four main
groupings as well as the general number of miscellaneous groupings ('mise~).
The general order is SVqSVO. S stands for subject, V for verb, and 0 for object,
cf. (7a). The object, however, is sentential and also consists of a subject, verb, and
object, cf. (7b,c). A new symbol has been added: 'q stands for que 'thaf, representing
the complementizer. Consequently, SV preceding q represents the matrix subject
and the matrix verb. SVO following q represents the embedded clause. This is
illustrated in (7c).
(7) Notation of complex SVO structures

a. [S V O]
~
b. [S V [O]]
~
c. [S V [qSVO]]
The abbreviation SVqSVO simply reflects the word order, independently of the
length and branchingness of their constituents. As before, the parentheses '( )'
represent the prosodic grouping. Due to the fact that in these complex clauses at
least one clear boundary has been found, there are no complete sentences judged
as unclear (i.e. the matrix clause and the embedded clause are never grouped into
one single prosodic phrase). However, there are examples where some boundaries
remained unclear. Again, these cases have been treated as if the unclear boundaries
were not boundaries at all. They are marked with '?' in the tables in the appendix,
which show the phrasing decisions of each single speaker.
The four different main phrasing possibilities are (SV)(qS)(VO), (S)(V)
(qS)(VO), (S)(V)(qSVO), and (S)(VqS)(VO). They are not the only possibilities
though. The last column in the table ('mise:) includes all other prosodic group-
ings which were uttered. They are briefly mentioned here. There are eight realized
phrasings subsumed under the term 'miscellaneous': (S)(V)(qSVO) [five times],
(SV)(qS)(V)(O) [five times], (SV)(qSVO) [four times], (SVqS)(V)(O) [two times],
(S)(VqSVO) [one time], (SV)(qSV)(O) [one time], (S)(VqS)(V)(O) [one time], and
(S)(V)(qSV)(O) [one time]. As the number of appearances in the square brackets
indicates, these phrasings are not very common. For this reason, I have left them
aside. However, the reader should note that the possible phrasings in contexts with
embedded object clauses can be very large. Including the previously listed eight
phrasings, there are 12 different prosodic groupings altogether. Thus, compared to
the root context, the number of possible phrasings is considerably larger. The light
grey bars indicate the number of the four main groupings and they include the
number of the miscellaneous groupings. As can be seen, the four main groupings
come to more than 83% of the data, while the other eight groupings come to less
than 17% together. For this reason, I concentrate on only the four main groupings
from now on. The dark grey bars represent the corresponding percentage value
without the miscellaneous groupings.
The percentage values in Figure 11 reveal that the most common phrasing
pattern is (SV)(qS)(VO), where the matrix subject and the matrix verb are phrased
together, followed by the group complementizer + embedded subject, followed by
the group embedded verb +embedded object. This group comes to 46.67% (i.e. 56%
without misc.) of the 120 sentences. The corresponding FO contour is shown in
Figure 12. The second favored phrasing is (S)(V)(qS)(VO), which comes to 20%
(i.e. 24%). This phrasing pattern differs from the former in that the matrix sub-
ject and matrix verb are phrased separately (cf. Figure 13). These two groupings
are followed by (SVqS)(VO), which comes to 8.33% (i.e. 10%). Here, the matrix
clause is phrased together with the complementizer and the embedded subject.
The embedded verb and the embedded object create another prosodic group
(cf. Figure 14). 14 The next grouping is (S)(VqS)(VO), which also comes to 8.33%
(i.e. 10%). It is characterized by phrasing the matrix verb, the complementizer and
the embedded subject together (cf. Figure 15).
Figure 12 shows the pitch track of the most common phrasing pattern (SV)( qS)
(VO ). There is no boundary after the matrix subject The pitch does not rise after the
peak of the pitch accent. In the following figures for the pitch tracks, the break index
1, which signals a word boundary, illustrates that there is no prosodic break in the
ip- or IntP-level (break index 3 and 4 respectively). There is a break, though, after the
verb. This break is signaled mainly by an audible pause and the high tone is down-
stepped (!H%). The next break is located after the long subject. There is a complex
boundary tone (L-H%) followed by a visible pause. The embedded verb and object
are not separated by a break.
Figure 13 shows the pitch trackofthe second most common grouping, (S)(V)
(qS)(VO). Here, thematrixsubjectandmatrixverb are separated bya break. This
can be clearly seen by the complex boundary tone L-H% and its very high
rise. There are two further breaks: one after the matrix verb (an audible pause,
!H%) and one after the embedded subject (the complex boundary tone L-H%).
Again, the embedded verb and the embedded object are not separated by an
intonational boundary.
14· Most of the (SVqS)(VO) groupings evolve from the fact that some boundaries have been
classified as unclear (cf appendix: corresponding examples in 25 (speaker MM), 26 (speaker RS),
36 (speaker MM),etc.)
............
~ ~.-
~
~ r 2jr' ...
1'~ I' 3. 5
fj- 350
c
~ 300 i k
<:r
~ 250 a."'\. I;
... I
~ 200
c
\. io-h
,.. ~
1... r
I"'" I"~ ....
., 150
~
' "-J
. r\.
1!
If
100 '"' H+ % * lrL%
Lal Silvia nf1 m encio nar ~!' ·I Angel a 1avifcomptat errad es
s v C< ~p s v 0
Figure 12. Catalan (SV)(qS)(VO) phrasing- Waveform, spectrogram, and FO trace for
the sentence La Silvia no va mencionar que lavia Angela havia comptat les errades
'Silvia did not say that grandmother Angela has counted the mistakes' of speaker MO
(sentence 27_Emb_MO)
g ~~~~&
l's ,.....2. . .
............ 110
~~ .... ~ '1'3 5 4.5

.."
~ 350
c
300 ~ I
~
t
I... I r
' '"
250 I r
a..~ 200 \.' JI .... h
\~ V'
J
v
I '\. I
~,
..., .,
t
..,c ISO '-' r---\. ~
If 100 ilo ... ... .. I . -

L+H* L·H % H+L*'.H·H %L+H* L·H % H+L* H* L* L·L%
0 4 00 40 4 0 I 0 I0 0 4
Silvia r#nencio nar e !'Angela avi co mptat les errade le fra ses
s v cc v!P s v (0 (PP ))
Figure 13. Catalan (S)M(qS)(VO) phrasing- Waveform, spectrogram, and FO trace

for the sentence La Silvia no va mencionar que rAngela havia comptat les errades de les frases
'Silvia did not say that Angela has counted the mistakes of the sentences' of speaker MO
(sentence 26_Emb_MO)
The next grouping is (SVqS)(VO) and its pitch track is given in Figure 14.
There is just one break after the embedded subject It is marked by the complex
boundary tone lrH%. There is no boundary after the matrix subject The delayed
peak is located on the following word There is no break between the matrix
Chapter 3. Phrasing patterns In Catalan SVO structures 89
verb and the complementizer either. The interruption of the pitch track and its
high starting point on the complementizer is caused by a consonantal effect on FO
(d Gussenhoven 2004: 7). The raised FO is a result of a <pitch perturbation' of [k].
~
~JU. J..,._ .jl .. ...J ..
g
.,a~
g.
350
300
~ IJ
,.
1;,"-
~"'b ... l.s 3
...
.1::1
e
250
1......
,~ ~
,' v v - I I•·•·
'
, \' I
"\
.,a~
200
ISO
.
l.;l
I•
~
I• It -
100
If
H* % L* *
IEl pare v+!ir [ce !'Amelia se ln'ha a nat ciutat Malaga
s VCI p s v (0 (PP))
Figure 14. Catalan (SVqS)(VO) phrasing- Waveform, spectrogram, and FO trace for the
sentence El pare va dir que lil.melia se n'ha anat a la ciutat de Malaga The father said that
Amelia went to the city of Malaga' of speaker CP (sentence 42_Emb_CP)
The fourth grouping, (S)(VqS)(VO), is illustrated in Figure 15. There are two
sentence-internal main breaks marked by the complex boundary tone L-H%:
one after the matrix subject; the other one after the embedded subject One pho-
netic characteristic should be noted here. Interestingly. if the end of the word is
marked by a complex boundary tone, the peak of the pitch accent is not delayed
but aligns with the right side of the strong syllable. By inspecting the three pre-
ceding pitch tracks, it can be seen that they show the same pattern. On the other
hand, if the pitch accent is not followed by a complex boundary tone, a delayed
peak is possible. 15
There is no break between the matrix verb and the complementizer. There is a
transition between the verb's pitch accent and the low leading tone of the embedded
subject There is no special tonal movement around the complementizer. There is
also no break between the embedded verb and object
15- This is not a generalization: it is a description of the data Further research has to be done
in order to generalize this statement.
Jlii.J ll!~
... ~~~ . !!'-
I j~JI ... ...... all~ .11.. Ill..
"' ""
g 200 lr"T
1.5 2 ' '! 5 'llr 3 3.5
~ 170
6- 140
, !~
Jl
ftl 110 ~ ~ ,
1 1...... f! ~ - ~ "V ...,'-· ~
i
80
so 111'1 .na; I . ~ ~ ~-~
;~ r .. ••
~
•-
~
If L+H* L-H%L+> H* L+H * L-H %L+> H* L+H * L* L* L-L%
0 4 10 4 1 0 1 0 1 4
La Barbara sup osa u !'aguila rob a el ratoli del lm+ germa
s v c p s v (0 (PP))
Figure 15. Catalan (S)(VqS)(VO) phrasing- Wavefo rm, spectrogram, and FO trace for the
sentence La Barbara suposa que l'dguila robd el ratol! del meu germd 'Barbara supposes that the
eagle stole my brother's mouse' of speaker DS (34_Emb_DS)
After the description of the general results of the complex SVO experiment.
the results for each condition are given. Figure 16 presents the four conditions
with the corresponding percentage values in the table. The line diagram illustrates
the values. If the values for each condition are added the total is not 100%. This is
due to the fact that the difference represents the percentage of the miscellaneous
groupings. Nevertheless, they are not listed in the figure.
As shown in Figure 16, while the general order of the four groupings with
respect to the frequency (d Figure 11) is by and large reflected in three conditions,
SVOphrulng
70
60
..-
.
~
50
40 ·~ . ..·
-
c ~~
.. ,•
..
~
~ 30
---....
20
........~~
0..
10
..... .....
0
;..--
hort SI short 0 shortS /long 0 long SI short 0 long S/long 0
-+· (SV)(qS)(VO) 46,67 20 60 60
- (S)(V)(qS)(VO) 23,33 30 16,67 10
_..,._ (SVqS)(VO) 3,33 13,33 3,33 13,33
- (S)(VqS)(VO) 10 13,33 6,67 3,33
Figure 16. Percentages of complex SVO phrasing patterns in the fou r different conditions
it is perturbed in the short S/long 0 condition. The predominant grouping (SV)

(qS)(VO) is the most common grouping in the three conditions shortS/short 0
(~47%), longS/short 0 (60%), and longS/long 0 (60%). However, it is not the
most common in the condition short Silang 0 (only 20%). It is (S)(V)(qS)(VO)
that is realized most often (30%). In addition, the two groupings (SVqS)(VO) and
(S)(VqS)(VO) have both the same relatively high percentage, while they never
have the same frequency in the other three conditions. Thus, as in the simple SVO
pattern, the condition short S!long 0 changes the general phrasing pattern.
One note with respect to the miscellaneous groupings should be mentioned
here. While the main groupings never separate the embedded verb and object
with a prosodic break (i.e. (VO)), there are some miscellaneous groupings that do
(i.e. (V)(O)). Interestingly. they only do in the two conditions with a long object.
There are five realizations in the shortS/long 0 condition and four realizations in
the long S/long 0 condition. Still the number of these groupings is very low and
is not considered anymore.
In what follows, four important characteristics of the prosodic grouping of
complex SVO structures are more closely described (leaving the miscellaneous
phrasings aside and thus referring to the values of the dark grey bars of Figure 11
(unless mentioned otherwise)): (a) Separation of the object clause, (b) Phrasing
of matrix subject and verb, (c) Phrasing of embedded subject, and (d) Phrasing of
embedded verb and object.
a. Separation of object clause: The two most common groupings place a bound-
ary between the matrix verb and the object clause. Thus, the total number of
separated object clauses comes to 80% (56%+ 24%). Even in the short S!long
0 condition, the object clause is prosodically separated from matrix mate-
rial at least 50% of the time (cf. Figure 16), although the number is smaller.
Among these breaks 60% are realized as an ip-boundary and 40% as an IntP-
boundary. This is shown in Table 4. In both groupings ((SV)(qS)(VO) and
(S)(V)(qS)(VO)), the boundary is most often realized on the ip-level. The
number of IntP-boundaries in the (S)(V)(qS)(VO) grouping comes to only
30%, while it comes to 45% in the other grouping.
Table 4. Percentages of boundary types immediately preceding the embedded clause

(all ten speakers, all three scenarios)
(SV)(q... (S)(V)(q... Total

ip 31 (55%) 17 (70%) 48 (60%)
IntP 25 (45%) 7 (30%) 32 (40%)
The variation with respect to the realized boundary tone seems to be

typical for Catalan. Experiment 1 (simple SVO) shows the same pattern.
Furthermore, Astruc (2005) also shows that sentential adverbs are separated
by (low) ip-boundary tones (32.7%) nearly as often as by (low) t-boundary
tones (33.2%; cf. Astruc 2005: 154: Table 4.3).
What do previous studies say about boundaries separating the embedded
clause from the matrix clause? Downing (1970) exclusivelydevoteshisattention
to obligatory boundary insertion (his OBI convention). He argues that oblig-
atory boundaries are inserted at the leftmost and rightmost edge of root
sentences (Downing 1970: 31) but not of embedded sentences since they
are not root clauses. The difference between (Sa) and (Sb) is that in the for-
mer the complement is a direct quotation, whereas in the latter example the
complement expresses reported speech.
(8) (Examples taken from Downing 1970: 89)
a. Ann said,il1l make you some sandwiches."
b. Ann said (that) she would make us some sandwiches.
Downing argues that complements of certain "quotative" verbs (such as say,

remark, tell (someone), ... ) are identical to root clauses and thus are realized
with obligatory boundaries, i.e. set off by pauses (Downing 1970: 89). The
complement in (Sb) is simply an "ordinary complement" and is not obligato-
rily set off by a pause (Downing 1970: 90). However, it can be optionally set off
by a pause (Downing 1970: 113ff.).
Nespor & Vogel (1986/2007: 189) follow the idea by Downing (1970) that
root sentences delimit an intonational phrase, "while those sentences that are
not root sentences do not". By restructuring the intonational phrase, though,
it is possible to place an intonational phrase boundary after the matrix verb.
One factor for restructuring is length. N&V (1986/2007: 194f.) illustrate the
tendency for intonational phrases to be grouped in constituents of "a more
or less uniform, 'average' length" by giving examples (9), where (9a) can be
grouped as (9b ).
(9) (Examples 13a and 13d from N&V 1986/2007: 194f.) 16
a. [1[Jennifer] rp [discovered] rp [that her attic] rp [had been invaded] rp
[last winter](P [by a family](P [of squirrelsl9'lr
b. [1[Jennifer]rp [discovered]rpJr lrlthat her attic]rp [had been invaded]rp
[last winter]rpJr [1[by a family]rp [of squirrels]rpJr
16. In Example (9) of N&V (1986/2007), there is always a prosodic boundary between the
matrix clause and the embedded clause. However, this prosodic break is a phonological phrase,
constructed by a syntactic algorithm (N&V 1986/2007: 168).
In his work on subject and object clauses (inter alia), Truckenbrodt (2005)
achieves different results. Subject clauses (in the Vorfeld) are systematically
separated from the matrix clause and object clauses (in the Nachfeld) are not
separated from the matrix clause. Due to the fact that the subject clause is
located in the Vorfeld, the relevant boundary is on its right.
All three cited studies agree on the non-existence ofo bligatoryintP -boundaries
preceding obj ectclauses. Myresults match insofar their findings, because only 80%
ofthe clauses are separated and among them there are only40% IntP-boundaries.
However, ip-boundaries have to be considered, too. Thus, even though 80%
does not reflect obligatoriness, Catalan clearly tends to separate object
clauses from preceding material.
b. Phrasing of matrix subject and verb: As Figure 11 and Figure 16 show; there
are two groupings in which the matrix subject is phrased with the matrix verb:
(SV)(qS)(VO) and (SVqS)(VO). Thus the total number ofS and V together in
a group comes to 66% (56%+ 10%). In the other two groupings the matrix
subject is phrased alone. The total number of separated matrix subjects comes
to 34% (24% + 10%).
c. Phrasing of embedded subject: The embedded subject is phrased separately
from the matrix material and from the embedded verb and object in 80% of
the groupings (i.e. only in the two main groupings; 56%+ 24%). The embed-
ded subject is not phrased alone, though, because the complementizer is part
of that prosodic group. The complementizer is unstressed and consequently
counts as a clitic. In the remaining 20%, the embedded subject phrases with
matrix material (cf (SVqS)(VO) and (S)(VqS)(VO)). It never groups with fol-
lowing material. Thus in all groupings (i.e. 100%), the embedded subject is
followed by a boundary. Consequently, the tendency for (SV) does not exist in
embedded clauses.
d. Phrasing ofembedded verb and object: In all four main groupings, the embed-
ded verb phrases together with the embedded object (i.e. 100%). There is
never a boundary in-between them, nor does the verb phrase with the pre-
ceding subject.
3·3·3·4 Discussion
In Section 3.1.2 two hypotheses were formulated. The first one said that sentential
objects increase the number of the single group phrasing of matrix SV. The second
one said that sentential objects are not obligatorily separated by prosodic means
from the preceding clause.
As for the first hypothesis, it has been dearly fulfilled. On the one hand, the
number of (SV) phrasing in simple SVO structures (cf. experiment 1) is very low.
On the other hand, the matrix (SV) phrasing in complex structures comes to 56%.
Hypothesis 1 is also validated when comparing the value of 56% to the percentage
value of 33.1% in D'Imperio et al. (2005). The (SV) grouping increases by 20%.
Consequently, the length of the object (i.e. its characteristic to be sentential) has
a precise efiect on the phrasing of the (matrix) subject and verb. The tendency of
these two constituents to phrase together increases considerably; this clearly sup-
ports the findings for Catalan in Prieto (2005) and D'Imperio et al. (2005). The
length of the internal constituents of the object clause plays insofar a role that in
the short Silang 0 condition the number of matrix (SV) decreases. Otherwise, the
most common grouping persistently is the (SV)(qS)(VO) grouping. Nevertheless,
the two most common groupings are further on (SV)(qS)(VO) and (S)(V)(qS)(VO).
For this reason, the effect of the object clause internal object is not considered in
the analysis (Section 3.4). The analysis of complex SVO phrasing deals only with
the four main groupings.
As for the second hypothesis, it can also be taken as fulfilled. The results con-
cerning the separation of object clauses show that the boundary preceding the
embedded clause is not obligatory, since 20% of the object clauses are not preceded
by a boundary. Nevertheless, Catalan has a significant tendency to place a boundary
before the embedded object clause. Thus any approach should consider that there
rather is a boundary. The results further show that there is a great variability for
prosodic constituents to have an ip- or t-boundary tone. By using the hypernym
'prosodic phrase' all boundary tones can be considered though. This variation of
boundary tones, which seems to be normal in Catalan, might be the reason why
the Catalan boundary cues described in Frota et al. (2007) - and presented in
Chapter 2 - are not specific as to the exact level of the prosodic hierarchy.
3·3·4 Conclusion
I conducted two experiments on phrasing of SVO. In general, my findings support
the view put forward in D'Imperio et al. (2005) and Prieto (2005) that the subject
tends to be phrased with the verb if the object is long. In the first experiment (sim-
pie SVO), the sentence is a root clause in its narrow sense; the object is a DP. The
subject and the object were modified forlength (i.e. long/branching vs. short/non-
branching). In the second experiment (complexSVO), the object is sentential. The
assumption was that a sentential object counts as a long object with respect to the
phrasing behavior of (matrix) SV.
In the first experiment, around 80% of the clauses were instances of (S)(VO).
In addition, although (SV)(O) phrasing was detected under the long object condi-
tion, this pattern was realized rather seldomly by the ten speakers(~ 1%). This con-
trasts with the average percentage of33.1% in D'Imperio et al. (2005: 68). However,
experiment 2 showed that a sentential object leads to a (SV) phrasing in 56% of the
cases, thus supporting hypothesis 1. I modified the length of the embedded subject
and the embedded object This modification does not play a role in the phrasing
of complex SVO- it is rather the fact that a sentential object itself is long. In 80%
of the examples, the embedded clause is prosodically separated from the matrix
clause. By that, hypothesis 2 can be taken as validated. Nevertheless, Catalan shows
a great tendency to separate the embedded object clause from the matrix clause.
The results of experiment 2 (complex SVO) show that there are some main
characteristics concerning phrasing. They are listed here:
i. the embedded object is phrased with the embedded verb

ii. the embedded subject is phrased separately from the embedded verb and object
iii. in most cases the embedded subject is phrased alone
iv. the embedded clause is normally separated from the matrix clause
v. the matrix subject has the tendency to phrase with the matrix verb
Any approach on the phrasing of complex SVO structures in Catalan has to account
for these characteristics. In Section 3.4, a corresponding approach is given.
3·4 An analysis for SVO and embedded SVO phrasing
This section offers an analysis of the prosodic phrasing of simple and complex
Catalan SVO structures. The analysis is grounded in a variant of Optimality Theory
(Prince & Smolensky 1993/2004) called Stochastic OT (Boersma & Hayes 2001).
The approach is based on Prieto's (2005) account for simple SVO and includes
her three constraints MAx-BIN-END>> MIN-N-PHRASES >> ALIGN-XP,R. A new
constraint- ALIGN-CP, L-is assumed which is ranked below MAx-BIN-END but
higher than MIN-N-PHRASES and ALIGN-XP,R, as shown in (10). The constraint
ALIGN-CP,L aligns the left edge of a CP with the left edge of a prosodic phrase and
thus accounts for the pattern that the embedded clause is in general prosodically
separated from the matrix clause.
(10) MAx-BIN-END» AuoN-CP,L » MIN-N-PHRASBS » AuoNs-XP,R
By using the stochastic OT framework (Boersma & Hayes 2001), in which the con-
straints are ranked on a continuous ranking scale, the model can account for the
variation expressed by the four most common groupings of the data (which grasp
80% of the data). I argue that ALIGN-CP,L, MIN-N-PHRASEs, and ALIGN-XP,R
overlap and the actual ranking of the constraints will sometimes be the reverse of
their 'normal' ranking. The different rankings derived from the underlying form
in (10) account for the data.
Section 3.4 is structured in the following way. The theoretical background

for boundary placement is presented in Section 3.4.1, in which the fundamental
syntactic and phonological constraints (such as the alignment and wrapping con-
straints as well as two eurhythmic constraints reflecting constituent weight and
speech rate) are introduced in detail. Readers familiar with the syntax-phonology
interface may skip this section and continue reading Section 3.4.2. In Section 3.4.2
the theoretical approach for the phrasing of simple SVO structures is presented.
Since I adopt in great part (with some modifications) the approach of Prieto (2005),
it is introduced in detail. Her approach constitutes the basis for accounting for
more complex structures. In Section 3.4.3, the analysis of complex SVO structures
is offered. First, the necessary constraint rankings for the four groupings are given.
Second, optionality in OT and the stochastic OT model are introduced. Finally, it
is shown how the necessary rankings can be modeled in stochastic OT.
3.4.1 Optimality-theoretic constraints of the Syntax-Prosody interface

There has been evidence in the linguistic literature that syntactic and phonologi-
cal factors determine the boundary placement. This section introduces in detail
the theoretical background of the four constraints relevant for my approach
and used in Prieto (2005): ALIGN-XP,R, WRAP-XP, MAx-BIN, and *P-PHRASE
(i.e. MIN-N-PHRASEs).
One main aspect of syntactic factors is the relation of certain XPs to prosodic
structure (Selkirk's 1986, 1995b, 2000 End-Based Theory, Truckenbrodt's 1995,
1999, 2005 Wrap constraints; cf. below)P A further factor mentioned in the litera-
ture is syntactic heaviness (N&V 1986/2007, Kanerva 1990, Frascarelli 2000), in the
sense that a constituent that is syntactically complex/syntactically branching has a
greater tendency to be phrased independently. Another factor is certain syntactic
constituents, i.e. certain type of constructions which form prosodic domains on
their own, for example in the case of parenthetical expressions, nonrestrictive rela-
tive clauses, and vocatives (cf. Selkirk 2005, N&V 1986/2007, Astruc 2005 among
others). Here I introduce the alignment constraints of the end-based (sometimes
also edge-based) theory and the wrapping constraint.
The influential proposal of the end-based theory by Selkirk (1986, 1995b,
2000) specifies a set of parameters for mapping between syntactic structure and
prosodic structure. It predicts 'anchor points' where both structures coincide. The
interface constraints require that the edge of a maximal projection in the surface
17. Selkilk (2009a,b) proposes a new theory, called Match Theory, for the relation between
syntactic constituency and prosodic constituency. Recently, the relation of phases (CP, vP) to
prosodic structure has also been highlighted (Ishihara 2004, 2007a, Kratzer & Selkirk 2007).
syntactic structure (i.e. XP or Xmax) coincide with (i.e. aligns with) the edge of a
prosodic constituent. The edges can either be on the right side or on the left side
of both types of constituents. This is shown in (lla) and (llb) respectively. An
example ofthe prosodic structure derived byrightalignmentis shown in (12). A
right prosodic boundary is introduced at the right edge of XP 1 and of XP 2•
(11) Selkirk's (1986: 389) 'End parameter settings' for phonological phrases
a. 1xmax
b. Xmax[
(12) Derived prosodic structure by right alignment

Prosodic structure:
Syntactic structure:
Languages are characterized as having either right- or left-alignment (examples

for right edges: Kisseberth & Abasheikh 1974 and Selkirk 1986 for Chi Mwi:ni;
left edges: Selkirk & Shen 1990 for Chinese, Selkirk & Tateishi 1991 for Japanese).
In general, it is assumed that it is the phonological phrase that coincides with XP.
Gussenhoven (2004: 167) and Truckenbrodt (2005) broaden this idea and estab-
lish a relation between a sentence/CP and the intonational phrase.
In the 1990s, Selkirk's (1986: 389) original approach was generalized to the
format of Generalized Alignment (McCarthy & Prince 1993) in Optimality Theory
(OT, Prince &Smolensky 1993/2004). 18 This is shown in (13).
(13) Alignment Constraints
a. AuoN-XP.R: ALIGN (XP, R; q>, R)
"Align the right edge of a syntactic XP to the right edge of rp'"
b. AuoN-XP,L: AuoN (XP, L; q>, L)
"Align the left edge of a syntactic XP to the left edge of rp.'"
The constraints in (13) are taken as ranked and violable constraints (Selkirk 1995b).
In addition, they are universal in this theory. This becomes important for the
new constraint ALIGN-CP,L (Section 3.4.3.1). De Lacy (2003) explores the notion
of universality by concluding that in all grammars all constraints are present. He
states that a grammar cannot chose between, for example, ALIGN (XP,Left; cp,Left)
and ALIGN (XP,Right; <p,Right), but that both constraints are present in every
grammar (de Lacy 2003: 60). He gives evidence from the Polynesian language
Maori that there is both right and left alignment in one single language. However,
18. The reader should already have knowledge of how Optimality Theory (OT) wolks. Other-
wise, I refer to the original work by Prince & Smolensky (1993/2004) or to introductory books
such as Archangeli & Langendoen (1997), Kager (1999 ), or McCarthy (2002, 2008 ).
it is possible that a constraint in a given language is rendered inactive (de Lacy

2003: 70ff.) by higher ranked constraints, so that the language behaves as if there
were only either left-alignment or right-alignment.
In addition to the alignment constraints, there is a second class of constraints
on the syntax-prosody interface: the Wrapping constraints (Truckenbrodt 1995,
1999, 2005). The function of such constraints is to suppress the effect of align-
ment constraints. Departing from a proposal by Hale & Selkirk (1987), Truck-
enbrodt (1999) argues that alignment constraints are not enough to describe the
relation between syntax and phonology. He shows for the Native-American lan-
guage Tohono O'odham (formerly known as Papago) that lexical XPs dominated
from VP are not separated by phonological phrase boundaries, i.e. no p-boundaries
are inserted internal to VP (Truckenbrodt 1999: 234): Tohono O'odham displays the
phrasing shown in (15b) and not the phrasing (15a), which is derived by ALIGN-XP,R.
He argues for a constraint WRAP-XP (14) that demands that for each lexical XP 19
there must be a p-phrase that contains the XP (Truckenbrodt 2007: 439). This
constraint suppresses the right boundary after XP2 in (15a,b ).
(14) The Wrapping constraint (Truck.enbrodt 1999: 228)
WRAP-XP
·Each XP is cotttained itt a phonological phrase."
WRAP-XP is violated if a syntactic constituent XP is separated into distinct pro-
sodic constituents. WRAP-XP and ALIGN-XP are thus inherently in conflict with
each other. This is illustrated in (15).
(15) Reaction ofWRAP-XP to structures derived by AuGN-XP,R
(Truck.enbrodt 1999: 229)
a. * ( ) <p ( )<p b. ./ )<p
[XP2 Xl]XPl [XP2 Xl]XPl
c. ./ ( )<p d. ( )<p ( )<p
[Xl XP 2lXP1 [Xl XP2 XP 3]XP1
Structures (15a,b) are left-branching. The former violates WRAP-XP because there
is a prosodic boundary to the right ofXP 2 (favored by ALIGN-XP,R). XP 1 is thus
not contained in a single phonological phrase. The latter structure does not violate
WRAP-XP, but it violates ALIGN-XP,R because the favored right boundary is sup-
pressed. The right-branching structure in (15c) does not lead to a conflict between
19. Truck.enbrodt (1999: 226) formulates the Lexical Category Condition (LCC): "Constraints
relating syntactic and prosodic categories apply to lexical syntactic elements and their projec-
tions, but not to functional elements and their projections, or to empty syntactic elements and
their projections."
WRAP-XP and ALIGN-XP,R because no constraint is violated: XP2 and XP 1 are

right-aligned and both maximal projections are contained in a single phonologi-
cal phrase. Right-branching structures only lead to a violation of WRAP-XP when
the head has multiple complements, as is the case in (15d). ALIGN-XP,R demands
a boundary after XP2 and for this reason XP 1 is no longer contained in a single
phonological phrase.
Today the most widely accepted theory of the syntax-phonology interface is
based on the two concepts expressed by the constraints ALIGN-XP,R/ALIGN-XP,L
and WRAP-XP. However, recent work has shown that phonological factors, such
as constituent weight and speech rate, also play a major role in sentence phonology.
This is also important in the present study. Constituent weight reflects the heavi-
ness factor on the phonological side. A heavy prosodic constituent has a greater
tendency to be phrased independently (N&V 1986/2007, Zec & Inkelas 1990,
Ghini 1993 among others). Length can be measured in terms of number of sylla-
bles of a constituent along the level of syllable structure (Jun 2003, D'Imperio et al.
2005, Elordieta et al. 2005), or in terms of prosodic words of a constituent along
the level of prosodic words (Prieto 2005, Prieto 2006a). Thus, constituent weight
means prosodic branchingness and it concerns the question of whether a prosodic
constituent of a certain level contains more than one prosodic constituent of the
immediately lower level (Elordieta et al. 2005). As for IntPs, this would mean that
it contains two or more intermediate phrases.
Ghini (1993) was the first to establish constraints which consider balance
and weight of constituents. He reanalyzed N&V's (1986) syntactic branching con-
ditions in terms of average weight and balance of prosodic constituents. N&V
(1986/2007: 172f.) argued for the phonological phrase that a syntactic head can
restructure with (i.e. build a cp together with) an adjacent complement if this com-
plement is non-branching (16a,b). If it is branching, the head and its first comple-
ment on the recursive side have to remain in separate phonological phrases. This
is marked by'//' in (16c).20
(16) Restructuring of phonological phrase (adapted from N&V 1986/2007: 172&173)
a. (Se prenden\)cp (qualcosa)cp (prendera)cp (tordi)cp
'If he catches something, he will catch thrushes:
b. (Se prendera qualcosa)cp (prendera tordi)cp
c. (Portera)cp II (due tigri)cp (fuori dalla gabbia)cp
'He will take two tigers out of the cage:
10. Nespor & Vogel also give examples for restructuring of intonational phrases (N&V
1986/2007: 194).
Ghini (1993: 51) argues that there is an isomorphism between syntax and pro-
sodic phrasing. It is not the first non -branching complement but the head of the
complement which can phrase together with the preceding V head. N&V (1986)
cannot account for the example in (17) because the complement is branching.
Ghini (1993), though, is able to account for the phrasing in (17b) because he
considers eurhythmic principles such as uniformity (a string is parsed into units
of same length) and average weight (the ideal length of a p-phrase at a normal
speech rate comprises two pro so die words). By referring to pro so die words, Ghini
(1993: 52) moves away from syntactic branchingness and clearly concentrates on
prosodic factors.
(17) Restructuring ofbranching objects (adapted from Ghini 1993: 51)
a. (Comprera)rp (mappe)rp (di dtta)rp (moho antiche)rp
'He will buy maps of very old towns:
b. (Comprera mappe)rp (di citta molto antiche)rp
'He will buy maps of very old towns:
A version of Ghini's (1993) constraints was adopted in Selkirk (2000: 244) and
Sandalo & Truckenbrodt (2002: 295), who introduced size constraints for prosodic
constituents for English and Brazilian Portuguese (BP) respectively. In BP. for
example, a verb is phrased together with a single-word object as in (18a), but it
is phrased separately if the object contains two lexical words (i.e. two prosodic
words; N =noun, A= adjective), as in (18b). The constraint ALIGN-XP,R does not
help because it cannot derive the internal boundary in the latter example: V is not
a maximal projection.
(18) Phrasing ofV and 0 in Brazilian Portuguese (Sandalo & Truckenbrodt 2002: 293)
a. ( V N )
Vendeu livros
sold books
'He sold books:
b. ( V )( N A )
Vendeu livros novos
sold books new
'He sold new books:
Based on Ghini's (1993) eurhythmic principles, Sandalo & Truckenbrodt (2002:

295) formulate the constraint MAx-BIN (19), which is a ranked and violable
constraint in OT. MAx-BIN together with WRAP-XP accounts for the (V)(NA)
phrasing in (18b). MAx-BIN inserts the boundary after V. Other groupings such as
(VN)(A) and (V)(N)(A) are ruled out by WRAP-XP.
(19) Prosodic Binarity constraint of Sandalo & Truckenbrodt (2002: 295)

MAx-BIN
"P-Phmses consist of maximally two prosodic words."
The next non-syntactic factor influencing phrasing decisions concerns the rate
of speech (N&V 1986/2007, Frascarelli 2000, Tun 2003, among others). The faster
a sentence is uttered, the longer the IntPs of this utterance are, i.e. the utterance
is less likely to be broken down into several IntPs (N&V 1986/2007: 195). Let us
consider example (20). According to N&V (1986/2007), (20a) is uttered at a fairly
rapid tempo. The sentence contains just one single IntP. However, if the speech
rate is reduced it is more likely that (20b) or (20c) is uttered, where the sentence
contains two or three IntPs respectively.
(20) Influence of rate of speech on phrasing (adapted from N&V 1986/2007: 194)
a. (1 My friend's baby hamster always looks for food in the corners of its cage)1
b. (1 My friend's baby hamster)L (1 always looks for food in the comers
of its cage)1
c. (1 My friend's baby hamster)L (1 always looks for food)1 (1 in the comers
of its cage)1
The examples in (20) show that there is more structure (i.e. there are more IntPs) in
the slower versions of the sentence, whereas there is less structure in (20a). Prince
& Smolensky (1993: 25, fn.13) set up a family of constraints called *STRuc that
ensures that structure is constructed minimally. The phenomenon in (20) can be
caught by a constraint *P-PHRASE, (21a), which is part of the family of*STRuc and
that seeks to avoid phonological phrases altogether (cf. Truckenbrodt 1999: 228,
2002: 274). Fery (2007) has a corresponding version for a ban on intonational
phrases: *I-PHRASE (21b).
(21) Constraints punishing P-PHRASBS and IntPs (taken from Fery 2007)
a. *P-PHRASE:
"No phonological phrase."
b. *I-PHRASE:
"No intonational phrase.~
These constraints have in general the effect of punishing additional structure.

Furthermore, as Truckenbrodt (1999: 228) notes, alignment constraints that are
ranked below *P-PHRASE are rendered inactive because a boundary favored by
ALIGN is punished by *P-PHRASE. Thus the universality argued for in de Lacy
(2003) does not exclude languages where, for example, ALIGN-XP,L never shows
up. In these languages ALIGN-XP,L is simply ranked below *P-PHRASE.
At this point, I end the introduction to the theoretical background. For more
information, cf. Truck.enbrodt (2007) and references cited there. The next section
is devoted to the relevant constraints for phrasing in Catalan.
3.4.2 Accounting for simple SVO structures in Catalan

This section presents the analysis of the phrasing pattern of simple SVO structures
in Catalan. I argue that Prieto's (2005) constraint MIN-N-PHRASBS (a version of
*P-PHRASE) can be violated cumulatively, that it is ranked below MAx-BIN-END
(a version of MAx-BIN) and finally, that it is also active at normal speech rate.
The results of the simple SVO experiment and of Prieto (2005) are similar. For
this reason, the approach established in Prieto (2005) is adopted for my results.
Furthermore, Prieto's (2005) approach underlies the approaches of the other three
experiments (phrasing of embedded object clauses, phrasing of clitic left- and
right-dislocation, and phrasing of preverbal subjects). Due to the important role
that Prieto's (2005) analysis possesses in the present study, it is presented in detail
here: first, the necessary constraints are introduced (Section 3.4.2.1) followed by
a motivation for the constraint hierarchy (Section 3.4.2.2). After that, some OT
tables of Prieto (2005) are presented to illustrate her account (Section 3.4.2.3).
Finally, the modifications I propose for Prieto's (2005) account are introduced
(Section 3.4.2.4).
3·4·2.1 The 1·elevant constmints

Prieto's (2005) OT account is based on the four previously introduced constraints:
the two syntactic constraints ALIGN-XP,R and WRAP-XP and modified versions
of the two non-syntactic constraints MAx-BIN and *P-PHRASB. 21 The syntactic
constraints have the same function as described before. As for *P-PHRASB, Prieto's
version of it is called MIN-N-PHRASBS and its goal is to minimize the number
of phonological phrases (<p or p) in an utterance in rapid speech ((22), cf. Prieto
2005: 216). When presenting data on SVO phrasing, the effect of this constraint
is illustrated.
11. Prieto (2005) hasfurtherconstraints. First,thereis MIN- UTTthat demands that an utterance
consisting of only two prosodic words is parsed into one single phonological phrase (Prieto
2005: 213). Due to the fact that all the examples used in this study are longer than two prosodic
words, MIN- UTT does not have any influence and is thus not considered here. Second, there is
No-CLASH that prohibits two immediately adjacent stressed syllables (Prieto 2005: 219, 2008).
I do not consider this constraint either because the target words of my data are proparoxy-
tonic words. Consequently there is no dash with following material.
(22) Prieto's (2005) constraint for avoiding p-phrases

MIN-N-PHRASBS (RAPID SPBBCH)
"Minimize the number ofphrases (rapid speech)."
As for MAx-BIN, it is explained in detail here. Prieto (2005: 205) argues that Cata-
lan plays a stronger version of this constraint. The prosodic binarity is restricted
to the end of sentences because in Catalan there are longer p-phrases in non-final
positions than in final positions. For this reason, the single prosodic grouping of
long subject constituents is possible, (23), and, in null subject clauses, the verb and
following material of the complement that is not sentence final can form a long
phonological phrase (24). In (23) the subject consists of three prosodic words (w)
and is not split up. Even if the subject consisted of four or five prosodic words, it
would constitute one single prosodic phrase (Prieto 2005: 216). The resulting pro-
sodic structure is given in (23b).
(23) Phrasing of subjects with more than two prosodic words (Prieto 2005: 217)
w w w w
a. (Els ve'ins catalans de l'Ebre)cp (s~nfaden)cp
The neighbors catalan of the.Ebre (river) RBFL-get.angry.3PL
'The Catalan neighbors from the Ebre river get angrf.
b. Resulting prosodic structure
(S)cp (V)cp
Example (24) is a null subject clause. The verb comprava 'bought' is followed by
the object mapes de Barcelona. 'maps of Barcelona, which consists of two prosodic
words (w). The object is followed by the adjunct PP per a li\nna. 'for Anna The
difference between (24a) and (24b) is that in the latter example the verb is phrased
together with the object. In this case, the prosodic phrase consists of three prosodic
words. However, this long phrase is not sentence final and thus is fully acceptable
in Catalan. The syntactic structure and its prosodic grouping are given in (24c).
(24) Complement with 2 wand additional adjunct PP (adapted from Prieto 2005: 204)
w w w w
a. (Comprava)cp (mapes de Barcelona)cp (per a rAnna)cp
buy.PsT.l/3so map.PL of B. for to the.Anna
'I/{s)he used to buy Barcelona maps for Anna:
w w w w
b. (Comprava mapes de Barcelona)cp (per a l"Anna)cp
c. Syntactic structure and resulting prosodic structure
[[V [NP [PP]pp]NP [PP]pp]yp)rp1cp ~ (V NP)cp (PP)cp
In order to account for the pattern that non-final phonological phrases can con-
tain more than two prosodic words, Prieto (2005) has invented the constraint
MAx-BIN-END (25).
(25) Restricted prosodic binarity in Catalan (Prieto 2005: 205)

MAX-BIN-END
"P-Phmses containing the main stress of the utterance consist of maximally two
prosodic 'WOrds."
Since the main stress of all- new utterances is on the last stressed syllable, MAx-BIN-END
concentrates on the sentence final phonological phrase. The constraint sets up
only a maximal limit of prosodic words. If the sentence final phrase consists of
only one prosodic word (as is the case in (23) and (24)), it is not violated.
In summary, the four constraints that are relevant to the phrasing of SVO in
Prieto (2005) are ALIGN-XRR (as defined in (13)), WRAP-XP (as defined in (14)),
MIN-N-PHRASES (as defined in (22)), and MAx-BIN-END (as defined in (25)).
These four constraints are ranked in the following way (26):
(26) hierarchy of constraints (Prieto 2005):

MIN-N-PHRASBS >>MAX-BIN-END>> AUGN-XP,R >> WRAP-XP
3·4·2.2 Motivation for the constraint hierarchy

In the next paragraphs the motivation given in Prieto (2005) for this ranking
is presented. In Section 3.4.2.4, however, the order of the constraints in (26) is
changed and MAx-BIN-END is argued to be the highest ranked constraint.
ALIGN-XP,R is ranked higher than WRAP-XP because of data such as that
given in (24). The adjunct PP is phrased separately in (24a) and (24c). According
to the syntactic structure given in (24c), the VP (which contains the object and
the adjunct PP) is split up. The right boundary after the object NP is introduced
by ALIGN-XP,R and it is not suppressed by WRAP-XP. If WRAP-XP were ranked
higher, there would be no boundary after the object. The same pattern also arises
in double object constructions (27).
(27) Prosodic grouping of double object constructions in Catalan (Prieto 2005: 204)
(Va donar el llibre)<p (a la Maria)<p
PST give.INF the book to the M.
'(S)he gave the book to Mary:
The dative argument is prosodically separated from the accusative argument. The
right boundary after the accusative argument is introduced by ALIGN-XP,R and
it is not suppressed by WRAP-XP. These examples are reminiscent of the abstract

pattern given in (15d), where the effect of WRAP-XP on structures derived by
AuoN-XP,R is shown. Due to the fact that the boundary after the accusative argu-
ment (i.e. after XP2 in (15d)) results in an acceptable structure, one can conclude
that ALIGN-XP,R is more dominant than WRAP-XP, cf. Table 5. If the ranking were
the reverse, there would be no boundary between the accusative and the dative
argument- contrary to the facts (cf. Table 6).
Table 5. Catalan double object constructions - Right candidate is chosen when

ALIGN-XP,R » WRAP-XP
[V [NP] [PP]] ALIGN-XP,R WRAP-XP
.,.... (Va donar elllibre)p (ala Maria)p *
(Va donar elllibre ala Maria)p *!
Table 6. Ranking W RAP-XP >> AuoN-XP,R- wrong result for Catalan

double object constructions
[V [NP] [PP]] WRAP-XP ALIGN-XP,R
(Va donar elllibre)p (ala Maria)p *!
.,.... (Va donar elllibre ala Maria)p *
A high ranked alignment constraint, though, prevents the wrapping constraint

from having an effect, because boundaries can never be suppressed. Despite this,
WRAP-XP is kept in the hierarchy, because there are cases where a low ranked
wrapping constraint is able to select the optimal candidate. An example follows
immediately, while presenting Prieto's (2005) data for motivating MAx-BIN-END
to be ranked higher than AuoN-XP,R and WRAP-XP.
Example (28) shows the phrasing pattern of a null subject clause with an object
consisting of three prosodic words. The example is reminiscent of Ghini's (1993)
findings (cf. (17)) because the head noun of the object phrases together with the
preceding verb.
(28) Complement with 3 w (Prieto 2005: 203)

w w w w
a. (Comprava mapes)cp (de Ia Barcelona antiga)cp
buy.PsT.l/3so map.PL of the B. old
'1/(s)he used to buy maps of old Barcelona:
Due to the (VN) phrasing, the sentence final prosodic phrase consists of only two
prosodic words- in accordance with MAx-BIN-END. The constraint ALIGN-XP,R
is not able to account for this boundary since there is no edge of a maximal pro-
jection at the right of the head noun mapes 'maps'. Prieto (2005: 206) says that by
considering MAx-BIN-END as higher ranked than WRAP-XP, the correct grouping
can be derived. This is shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Dominant role of MAX-BIN-END (Prieto 2005: 207)

[V [N [PP [AP]]]] MAX-BIN-END ALIGN-XP,R WRAP-XP
(Comprava mapes de Ia Ben antlga)p *!
(Comprava)p (mapes de la Ben antlga)p *! *
(Comprava mapes de la Bcn)p (antlga)p ***!
.,.... (Comprava mapes )p (de la Ben antlga)p **
(Comprava)p (mapes de la Bcn)p (antlga)p ***!
Table 7 shows several things. Firstly, the high ranked constraint MAx-BIN-END
is violated by the first two candidates (wwww)<p and (w)<p (www)<p. If WRAP-XP
were ranked higher than MAx-BIN-END, the first candidate would wrongly win.
Secondly, due to the fact that ALIGN-XP,R is not violated by any candidate, the
decision is passed down to the subordinate constraint WRAP-XP. Consequently,
the wrapping constraint is important in the evaluation process of the optimal
candidate. The third candidate, (www)<p (w)cp, as well as the fifth candidate, (w)<p
(ww)<p (w)<p, violates WRAP-XP three times: thePP, the NP, and the VP are not con-
tained in a <p-phrase. The fourth candidate, (ww)<p (ww)<p, violates WRAP-XP only
twice: only the NP and the VP are not wrapped, whereas the PP is wrapped. For this
reason, the candidate that groups the object head noun with the verb is the winning
candidate. Thirdly, there is no clear evidence for MAx-BIN-END to be ranked higher
than ALIGN-XP,R. If AuGN-XP,R were ranked higher than MAx-BIN-END, the
same result would be obtained: Candidate 4 would still win. This interchangeability
exists in almost all tables in Prieto (2005) and one could conclude that the two con-
straints are not ordered. However, there is one table that motivates the dominant
role of MAx-BIN-END. Due to the fact that the data stem from SVO constructions,
I postpone giving the evidence until the relevant table is considered during the pre-
sentation of the SVO analysis (cf. Section 3.4.2.4 and Table 17).
Finally, evidence is needed for MIN-N-PHRASES to be ranked higher than
MAx-BIN-END. Unfortunately, there is no evidence given in Prieto (2005). There is
only one table in which MIN-N-PHRASES is used and in this table both constraints
are interchangeable. The data of this table also stem from SVO constructions and
I postpone presenting the table until later (cf. Table 12).
3·4·2·3 Prieto's (2005) OT tables for S VO phrasing

In (2) I presented the results of Prieto (2005) that have to be explained. For the
sake of convenience, I repeat them here as (29).
(29) Catalan SVO phrasing pattern- Results of Prieto (2005)

a. (S)2w), short objects
The ranking in (26) accounts for the groupings in (29). This is illustrated by the
original tables from Prieto (2005: 19f.: ex.36, 38). The (S)(VO) -phrasing of (29a)
is shown in Table 8 for sentence (30). The three lowest constraints of (26) explain
the pattern. Candidate c. is the winner since it does not violate any constraint.
MAx-BIN-END is respected because the VP consists of two prosodic words,
ALIGN-XP,R is respected because there is a boundary after the subject and after
the VP, and finally WRAP-XP is respected because no lexical XP is split. MIN-N-
PHRASES is not of relevance here, since all candidates have the same number of
prosodic phrases.
w w w
(30) La nena demana els regals
the girl want.3sG the presents
'The little girl wants the presents:
Table 8. Catalan (S)(VO) phrasing ofthe sentence La ttetm demana els regals 'The little
girl wants the presents~ taken from Prieto (2005: 215)
[[Lanena]NP [demana [elsregals] NP]VPhPtCP MAX-BIN-END ALIGN-XP,R WRAP-XP

a. ( )<p *! *
b. ( )<p ( )<p *! NP
c. ( )<p ( )<p
~
Table 9 illustrates the (SV)(O)-phrasing of (29b) for sentence (31). The (SV)
phrasing in Catalan shows up in normal and fast speech rate (Prieto 2005: 214)
in the long branching object condition. Due to the speech rate, the constraint
MIN-N -PHRASES is active and, according to Prieto (2005: 216), it penalizes output
forms with more than two prosodic words (cf. Section 3.4.2.4 for a comment on
the minimal restriction to two prosodic words).
w w w w
(31) La nena demana els regals de Reis
the girl want.3sG the presents of (three) kings
'The little girl wants the Christmas presents:
Table 9. Catalan (SV)(O) phrasing of the sentence La nena dematJa els regals de Reis
'The little girl wants the Christmas presentS, taken from Prieto (2005: 216: 38).22
[[La nena]NP [demana [els regals] [de Reis] pp]NPlvPhPICP MJN-N- MAX- ALIGN- WRAP-
PHRASES BIN-END XP,R XP
a. ( ~!
)<p *
b. ( )<p ( )<p ~!
c. ( )<p ( )<p * VPNP

d.~ ( )<p ( )<p * VP
e. ( )<p ( )<p ( )<p *! VPNP
f. ( )<p ( ).:p ( )<p *! VP
The optimal candidate d wins because it does not violate MIN-N-PHRASES or

MAx-BIN-END and it violates WRAP-XP less often than candidate c. All of the other
candidates violate higher ranked constraints. Table 9 shows that MIN-N-PHRASES
has to be ranked higher than ALIGN-XP,R in order to allow for the suppression of
the boundary after the subject. If it were ranked below ALIGN-XRR, there would
be no chance for the (SV) phrasing. WRAP-XP cannot be used for the suppres-
sion, because independent evidence has shown that it is to be ranked lower than
ALIGN-XP,R. Furthermore, as in Table 7, the subordinate constraint WRAP-XP
is responsible for the decision of the best candidate. Candidate c and d are only
different with respect to the amount ofWRAP-XP violations. In addition, the data
constitute evidence for MAx-BIN-END, because longer p-phrases appear in non-
final position. It prevents the verb from being phrased together with the object
(cf. candidate a and b).
If MIN-N-PHRASES did not exist in Table 9, candidate f would win, which rep-
resents an (S)(V)(O)-phrasing. And in fact, candidate fwins, if the speaker speaks
slowly (Prieto 2005: 214f.). In situations of slow speech rate, MIN-N-PHRASES is
not active and the subject and the verb are phrased separately. Candidate f wins
21. In the original table, candidate f had two violations of WRAP-XP: VP and NP. However,
the NP does not violate WRAP-XP; this is why I have changed it here.
over candidate d, because it does not violate ALIGN-XP,R. This is illustrated in

Table 10 for sentence (31).
Table 10. Catalan (S)(V)(O) phrasing ofthe sentence La tterui demana els regals de Reis
'The little girl wants the Christmas presents: taken from Prieto (2005: 216: 37)
[[La nena]NP [demana [els regals] [de Reis]pp]NPJVPhP/CP MAX-BIN- ALIGN- WRAP-
END XP,R XP
a. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )q> ( )<p VP
The last of the three groupings in (29) can also be derived by Prieto's (2005)
basic hierarchy of constraints. This is pictured in Table 11 for sentence (23a),
repeated here for the sake of convenience.
(23a) w w w w
(Els ve'ins catalans de l'Ebre)cp (senfaden)cp
The neighbors catalan of the.Ebre (river) RBFL-get.angry.3PL
'The Catalan neighbors from the Ebre river get angry?
Table 11. Catalan (S)(VO) phrasing of constructions with long subjects, shown for the
sentence Els vei"tJS catalans de l'Ebre stmfadett 'The Catalan neighbors of the Ebre river
get angrY, taken from Prieto (2005: 217)
[[Eisveins [catalans [de l'Ebrepp]AP]NP] [s'enfad.en]yp] 1p1cp MAX-BIN- ALIGN- WRAP-
END XP,R XP
a. ( )q> *! NP
b. ( )q> ( )q> *! NP NP,VP
c. ( )q> ( )q> NP! NP,VP
d.... ( )q> ( )q>
e. ( )q> ( )q> ( )q> NP,VP
The winning candidate dis the only one that prevents the subject from being
split up and satisfies all constraints. It is again WRAP-XP that makes the decision
for the optimal candidate. Candidate e, which also satisfies MAx-BIN-END and
ALIGN-XP,R violates WRAP-XP twice. To conclude, Prieto's (2005) approach for
Catalan SVO-phrasing is able to explain the pattern in (29). Nevertheless, there are
some aspects that are worth to be discussed. This happens in the next section.
uo Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan
3.4.2.4 Modifications ofPrieto's approach to SVO phrasing

In this section, some modifications of Prieto's (2005) approach are presented due to a
closer inspection of the constraint MIN-N-PHRASES. I propose that the constraint
can be violated cumulatively, that it is ranked below MAX-BIN-END and finally,
that it is also active at a normal speech rate. After that, the impossible (S)(VO)
phrasing in Table 9 is discussed.
First, there is no evidence for MIN-N-PHRASES to be ranked higher than MAx-
BIN-END. The reverse order is also possible, as shown in Table 12. The results of Table
9 are not changed; candidate d still wins. Moreover, Table 9 is the only table in Prieto
( 2005) where MIN-N-PHRASES is active. Thus nothing speaks against a re-ranking of
the constraints like in (32). From now on, therefore, I assume the ranking in (32).
Table 12. Catalan (SV)(O) phrasing according tore-ranked constraints (cf. (32))
La nena demana els regals de Reis MAX-BIN- MIN-N- ALIGN- WRAP-
(J) (J) (J) (J)

END PHRASES XP,R XP
a. ( )> MIN-N-PHRASBS >> AllGN-XP,R >> WRAP-XP
Alternatively, one can conclude that MIN-N-PHRASES and MAX-BIN-END are not
ordered because no data justify any of the two rankings. However, there are two
arguments for ranking MAx-BIN-END higher than MIN-N-PHRASES. (a) The first
argument stems from data of sentential objects and is presented in the analysis
of embedded SVO (cf. Table 17). (b) There is some vagueness with respect to the
application of the constraint MIN-N-PHRASES. The restriction of MIN-N-PHRASES
to penalize only output forms with more than two phonological phrases shall be
reconsidered here. It is unclear why only single violations are allowed and not mul-
tiple (cumulative) violations. In Table 9 candidates e and f violate the constraint
because they consist of three phonological phrases. But the violation is marked by
only one single star. Candidates that consist of one or two phrases do not violate
the constraint (candidates a-e). It is unclear why the critical value is two (and not
just one or even three or four), i.e. it is unclear why MIN-N-PHRASES should not
be violated by output forms with one or two phonological phrases. If cumulative
violations of this type of constraint were allowed in Prieto (2005) (as they are in
Truckenbrodt 1999, Elordieta et al. 2005 or Fery 2007), though, candidate a would
wrongly win. It would evoke only a single violation because it consists of one phrase,
whereas the other candidates would evoke a double or a triple violation. However, if
MAx-BIN-END is ranked higher than MIN-N-PHRASEs, the latter constraint could
be violated cumulatively. Table 13 is the same as Table 12 with the difference that
MIN-N-PHRASES is cumulative. As can be seen, candidate a is not the winning can-
didate because it violates the higher ranked constraint MAx-BIN-END. Candidate b
is sorted out for the same reason. Candidate d wins for the same reasons as before,
with the difference that it violates MIN-N-PHRASES twice -but so does candidate c.
Table 13. Catalan (SV)(O) phrasing with are-ranked cumulative constraint

MIN-N-PHRASBS
La nena demana els regals de Reis MAX-BIN- MIN-N- ALIGN- WRAP-
(I) (I) (I) (I) END PHRASES XP,R XP
a. ( )<I' *! 1 ..
b. ( )<I' ( )<I' *! 2
c. ( )<I' ( )<I' 2 . VP,NP!
<a-d ( )<I' ( )<I' 2 * VP
e. ( )<I' ( )<I' ( )<I' J! VP,NP
f. ( )<I' ( )<I' ( )<I' J! VP
From now on, itis assumed that MIN-N-PHRASES is ranked below MAx-BIN-END
and that it can be violated cumulatively. Before proceeding with the (S)(VO)
phrasing oflong objects, one final note with respect to MIN-N-PHRASES is neces-
sary. The definition in (22) says that the number of (phonological) phrases shall be
Ininimized in rapid speech (cf. Prieto 2005: 216). However, the (SV)(O) phrasing
is also possible at a normal speech rate (cf. Prieto 2005: 214). Hence, the limitation
of (22) to fast speech rate would give an incorrect picture. For this reason, I take
MIN-N-PHRASES to be active in normal and fast speech rate.
Second, Prieto (2005) cannot account for the (S)(VO) phrasing with long
objects. Due to the strict ranking of the constraints, candidate b can never win (cf.
Table 9, Table 12 and Table 10). Either (SV)(O) or (S)(V)(O) wins. But my data
and the data of D'Imperio et al. (2005) show that (S)(VO) phrasing is possible
in the Catalan long object condition. In my data (S)(VO) comes to 57% and in
D'lmperio et al. (2005: 68: Table 4) to approximately 38%. Prieto (2005) does not
claim that this phrasing is not possible, but it is not considered in the approach.
In which way can the rankings in (26) or (32) account for the most common
grouping? In short, they cannot The strict ranking of the constraints impedes the
corresponding candidate from winning (cf. Table 9 to Table 10) and the variation
is left unaccounted for. For the (S)(VO) candidate to win, the order has to be
ALIGN-XP,R >> MIN-N-PHRASES >>MAx-BIN-END >> WRAP-XP, as illustrated
in Table 14. The importance of a high ranked alignment constraint is also shown in
112. Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan
Elordieta etal. (2005: 137) for Spanish (S)(VO) phrasing in the long object condition.
In Section 3.4.3.3, the framework of stochastic OT for modeling variation is intro-
duced. At that time, I address the current problem.
Table 14. Catalan (S)(VO) phrasing in the long object condition

La nena d.emana els regals de Reis ALIGN- MIN-N- MAX-BIN- WRAP-
(J) (J) (J) (J) XP,R PHRASES END XP
a. ( )<p *! 1 *
<a- b. ( )<p ( )<p 2 *!
c. ( )<p ( )<p *! 2 VP,NP
d ( )<p ( )<p *! 2 VP
e. ( )<p ( )<p ( )<p 3! VP,NP
f. ( )<p ( )<p ( )<p 3! VP
The results of the simple SVO experiment by and large reflect the findings of
Prieto (2005) and D'Imperio et al. (2005). (S)(VO) is the most common phrasing
pattern in Catalan. For this reason, I simply adopt Prieto's (2005) analysis for my
data. The only change proposed is the re-ranking of her two highest constraints,
MIN-N-PHRASBS and MAx-BIN-END, as presented in (32). Furthermore, the pro-
sodic constituent of ALIGN-XP,R is taken to be the prosodic phrase and not the
phonological phrase as originally done in Prieto (2005).
3·4·3 Accounting for complex SVO structures in Catalan

The results of the complex SVO experiment show that there is certain option-
ality. Often there are several variants possible for grouping complex sentences,
but one of them is clearly preferred. The analysis of complex sentences concen-
trates on the four main groupings that represent 80% of the data. As a first step,
the necessary constraints are introduced and it is shown that each grouping has
a different constraint ranking (Section 3.4.3.1). Next, it is proposed that the four
different rankings are generated from a single underlying form. This is modeled
in the framework of stochastic OT (Boersma 1998, Boersma & Hayes 2001). The
general topic of optionality in OTis approached in Section 3.4.3.2, while the spe-
cific model of stochastic OT is introduced in detail in Section 3.4.3.3. In the fol-
lowing Section (3.4.3.4) it is argued that the new constraint ALIGN-CP,L, as well
as the two constraints MIN-N-PHRASBS and ALIGN-XRR overlap. Due to this, the
actual ranking of the constraints will sometimes be the reverse of their 'normal'
ranking and the different rankings can therefore be derived from the underlying
ranking MAx-BIN-END>> ALIGN-CRL >> MIN-N-PHRASBS >> ALIGN-XP,R. It is
shown that the frequencies of the four main groupings are adequately modeled in
stochastic OT. Section 3.4.3.5 concludes Section 3.4.3.
3·4·3·1 1he relevant constraints and their rankings

The approach to the prosodic phrasing of SVO structures with a sentential
object includes the three highest constraints of (32). 23 Thus the foundation of
my approach is based on the proposal by Prieto (2005). However, I depart from
Prieto (2005) in two respects. Firstly, I assume a new constraint, called ALIGN-CP,L.
This constraint aligns the left edge of a CP with the left edge of a prosodic phrase.
Secondly, I claim that the three constraints ALIGN-CP,L, MIN-N-PHRASES,
and ALIGN-XP,R. are overlapping constraints (in stochastic OT terms) and
consequently show free variation.
Based on the proposal by Downing (1970), who argues that intonational
phrases obligatorily align with root sentences (including object clauses but exclud-
ing adverbial and different preposed, postposed, and interposed constituents),
Gussenhoven (2004: 167) introduces the OT constraint ALIGN(s,t), which aligns
the right edge of every S(entence) with the right edge of IntP. This constraint
reflects the influence of the morpho-syntactic structure on prosodic structure. It
is shown in the preceding sections that there is often a prosodic break between
the matrix clause and the embedded complement clause (80%). Hence, at least
in Catalan, object clauses can be excluded from the root sentence (in the sense of
Downing 1970), thus arguing that the cases without a prosodic break are caused
by a higher ranked constraint. I propose the constraint ALIGN-CP,L (33), which
accounts for the prosodic break preceding the embedded clause.
(33) ALIGN-CP,L:
ALIGN( CP,Left;PrP,Left), or align the left edge of a CP to the left edge of
a prosodic phrase (PrP).
The possibility of having both alignment of the right edge and alignment of the
left edge of a prosodic constituent in one and the same language, argued for in
de Lacy (2003), is also applied in Gussenhoven (2004). He introduces for French
two constraints that are responsible for the pitch accent distribution either at the
beginning or at the end of a phonological phrase (<p), (Gussenhoven 2004: 255):
AuGN(rp, W,Rt): Align the right edge of every 'f with a pitch accent.
ALIGN(rp, W, Left): Aligtt the left edge of every rp with a pitch accent.
In addition, he introduces for English the left-hand counterpart ALIGN(XP,Left;<p,
Left) to the usual ALIGN(XP,Right;<p,Right), (Gussenhoven 2004: 285):
AuGN(XP. rp, Left): Align the left edge of e~·ery XP with the left edge of rp.
AuGN(XP. rp, Right): Align the right edge of every XP with the right edge of rp.
23. In contrast to its role in the approach to SVO phrasing, the constraint WRAP-XP does not
have any effect in the phrasing of complex clauses and is thus ignored here.
Based on the empirical evidence in the Catalan data and due to the theoretic
claims of de Lacy (2003) and the work by Gussenhoven (2004), it is plausible to
have a constraint AuGN-CP,L and I conclude for the present work that it is active
in Catalan.
I propose the following four different rankings to account for the four differ-
ent groupings (34). The small letters below the constraints shall help to identify the
change in order. In addition, they signal the 'selection point' in the stochastic OT
approach to be developed (cf. Section 3.4.3.3).
(34) Four different constraint orders for the main groupings
a. Ranking for (SV)(qSl<VOl [56%1
MAX-BIN-END>> ALIGN-CP,L >> MIN-N-PHRASBS >> ALIGN-XP,R
a b c d
b. Ranking for (S)(V)(qSl<VOl [24%1
MAX-BIN-END>> ALIGN-CP,L >> ALIGN-XP,R >> MIN-N-PHRASBS
a b d c
c. Ranking for CSVqSl<VOl ll0%1
MAX-BIN-END>> MIN-N-PHRASBS >> ALIGN-XP,R >> ALIGN-CP,L
a c d b
d. Ranking for (S)(VqS)(VO) ll0%1
MAX-BIN-END>> ALIGN-XP,R >> MIN-N-PHRASBS >> ALIGN-CP,L
a d c b
Ranking (34a), illustrated in Table 15, accounts for the most common phrasing
pattern of embedded SVO structures: (SV)(qS)(VO). The ranking is similar to the
one for simple SVO structures in (32).
Table 15. Actual ranking for the most common phrasing pattern (SV)(qS)(VO)
a b c d
~
~!a
....:l r:::l:i
~ ~ ~
I
u
iS z tj ~ ~
~~
r:Q
~ § ~
::?J < ::?J ~

.,..a 56% (SV)(qS)(VO) 3 Sm
b. 24% (S)(V)(qS)(VO) 4!
c. 10% (SVqS)(VO) *! 2 Sm
d. 10% (S)(VqS)(VO) *! 3
e. (SVqSVO) *! * 1 Sm.Se
f (SVqSV)(O) *! 2 Sm.Se
Table 15 shows the competition between the four main groupings (candidate
a-d) and two hypothetical phrasings (e and f). As for the highest ranked constraint,
MAx-BIN-END,24 it is violated only by candidate e and thus the evaluation is passed
onto the next constraint ALIGN-CP,L. This constraint is violated by candidates c, d,
e, and f, because these candidates do not have a boundary in -between matrix V and
the complementizer 'q'. But there are still two possible winners, a and b. The next
constraint, MIN-N-PHRASES, is able to decide between them. Candidate a wins,
because it violates the constraint less severely than candidate b. The lowest con-
straint, ALIGN-XP,R, is not of importance here, since the decision has already been
made ('Sm' stands for matrix subject; 'Se' stands for embedded subject).
The ranking in (34b) accounts for the second most frequent phrasing pattern
(S)(V)(qS)(VO) and is pictured in Table 16.
Table 16. Actual ranking for the phrasing pattern (S)(V)(qS)(VO)
a b d c
Q
*~
,_.;j ~
&l ~
~ u ~ ~ ;J
z I
z
=:1
~
~
< <
~ Sl
~ ~
..~ =
~
a 56% (SV)(qS)(VO) Sm! 3

... b. 24% (S)(V)(qS)(VO) 4
c. 10% (SVqS)(VO) *! Sm 2
d. 10% (S)(VqS)(VO) *! 3
e. (SVqSVO) *! * Sm,.Se 1
f (SVqSV)(O) *! Sm,.Se 2
The difference between Table 15 and Table 16 is the order ofMIN-N-PHRASES

and ALIGN-XP,R. Since the latter is ranked higher in Table 16, it is the constraint
which decides between candidates a and b. Candidate b wins, because it does not
violate ALIGN-XP,R whereas candidate a violates this constraint because the matrix
subject does not right-align with a prosodic boundary.
The ranking in (34c) leads to the winning candidate c, representing the third most
common prosodic grouping, Table 17. The difference between Table 15 and Table
17 is made up of the position of ALIGN -CP,L. It is ranked behind MIN-N-PHRASES
24· The careful reader might object that MAX-BIN-END is violated when the object is long.
Please cf Section 3.4.3.1.1 below for a discussion.
and ALIGN-XP,R. After the evaluation process has passed onto MIN-N-PHRASES,
two candidates remain: c and f. Thus ALIGN-XP,R has the possibility of selecting
a candidate - and does so. Candidate c wins since candidate f violates ALIGN-
XP,R once more. Not only does the matrix subject not right-align with a prosodic
phrase, but neither does the embedded subject.
Table 17. Actual ranking for the phrasing pattern (SVqS)(VO)

a c d b
~ zdl
I
l=l:i ....:l
~
~
~
Kl u
~ t:l"'
:lil i:i z I
z
~
~
I
8~ Sl §
<
~ ~ ~ <
a 56% (SV)(qS)(VO) 3! Sm
b. 24% (S)(V)(qS)(VO) 4!
.,._c. 10% (SVqS)(VO) 2 Sm *
d. 10% (S)(VqS)(VO) 3! *
e. (SVqSVO) *! 1 Sm,.Se *
f (SVqSV)(O) 2 Sm,Se! *
Table 17 additionally shows the importance of MAx-BIN-END being ranked

higher than MIN-N-PHRASES. If it were lower than MIN-N-PHRASES, candidate
e would wrongly win. However, in complex sentences the single phrasing of the
whole clause is never attested in my data. Thus such a phrasing is very unlikely,
if not impossible. In order to account for this, MAx-BIN-END has to be ranked
higher than MIN-N-PHRASES.
Finally, the fourth most frequent grouping pattern is represented by the win-
ning candidate of the ranking in (34d), Table 18. Due to the fact thatALIGN-CP,L is
the lowest ranked constraint and MIN-N-PHRASES is ranked lower than ALIGN-XP,R,
two candidates, b and d, survive the evaluation until MIN-N-PHRASES. Since
candidate b violates the constraint once more than candidate d, the latter wins.
The four tables show that a different order among the three constraints
ALIGN-CP,L, MIN-N-PHRASES, and ALIGN-XP,R is responsible for the change of
the winning candidate. However, it would be inappropriate to assume that there
are four different grammars in Central Catalan for the different groupings. It is
rather the case that the situation is one where one phonological input has sev-
eral outputs. Such a situation is normally described by the terms 'variation' or
'optionality'. I take (34a), here repeated as (35), as the underlying form for the
different groupings.
Table 18. Actual ranking for the phrasing pattern (S)(VqS)(VO)
a d c b
Cl
~!a
r:ll:i ....:l
&l ~
I
i!l ~ ~
u
~
tj z
~~
~
~ :::3
s
~ < ~ ~
a 56% (SV)(qS)(VO) Sm! 3
b. 24% (S)(V)(qS)(VO) 4!
c. 10% (SVqS)(VO) Sm! 2 *
... d. 10% (S)(VqS)(VO) 3 *
e. (SVqSVO) *! Sm.Se 1 *
f (SVqSV)(O) Sm,Se! 2 *
(35) Underlying constraint hierarchy for embedded SVO phrasing

MAX-BIN-END>> AllGN-CP,L >> MIN-N-PHRASBS >> ALIGN-XP,R
a b c d
Two aspects speak in favor of (35). First, this ranking has exactly the same order
of constraints established for simple SVO structures in (32)- besides the enlarge-
ment by placing ALIGN -CRL after MAx-BIN-END. Thus the analysis is an extension
of the approach by Prieto (2005) and, in addition, it reflects the close relationship
between the two constructions. Second, the ranking accounts for the most com-
mon phrasing pattern and it is common practice to take that form as underlying
which has the greater distribution (e.g. cf. Halfs 2000: 64 argumentation for k;f as
the phoneme of the two allophones[~] and [x] in German).
Before proceeding with presentating the stochastic OT approach, which
accounts for the detected variation, a brief appended exposition of the long 0/
MAx-BIN-END topic is necessary.
3·4·3·1.1 Reconciling long objects and MAx-BIN-END - a tentative approach25 The

careful reader might object that MAx-BIN-END is violated in the long 0 conditions
of the complex SVO experiment in Table 15 (and in the following three tables):
If the embedded object is long and phrases with the preceding verb, the sentence
final prosodic phrase would consist of more than two prosodic words. In order to
capture the sentences of the long 0 conditions, I propose the following modification
25. I would like to thank H. Truckenbrodt for fundamental proposals leading to this section.
of the grammar. One further constraint, namely lDENT-vP (36), is added to the
basic hierarchy, as shown in (37). Please note that the modification complicate
the proposed theory and cannot be more than a tentative approach at this point
in time.
(36) IDENT-VP
Identify the right and the left edge of vP to the right and the left edge
of a prosodic phrase.
(37) Extended Constraint Hierarchy

lDBNT-vP >>MAx-BIN-END>> ALIGN-CP,L >> MIN-N-PHRAsBs >> ALIGN-XP,R
a b c d
The constraint lDENT-vP is a strongly restricted version of WRAP-XP. While

WRAP-XP is satisfied when the maximal projection is contained in a prosodic
phrase, lDENT-vP calls for a prosodic boundary precisely at both edges of the max-
imal projection vR as in (38).
(38) Phrasing derived by lDBNT-vP

( ) Prosodic Structure
[ 1,p ] Syntactic Structure
lDENT-vP directly accounts for the (VO) grouping in the embedded clauses: there
is a boundary preceding V, and a boundary following 0, and no boundary sepa-
rates the verb and the object. Most importantly, the constraint is not sensitive to
the number of prosodic words in the sentence final prosodic phrase, in contrast to
MAx-BIN-END.
lDENT-vR however, demands the minimally and exhaustive phrasing of any
vR i.e. the embedded as well as the matrix vP. The structure shown in (39a) would
therefore be a result of this constraint.
(39) Recursive phrasing of vP (incorrect)

a. )) Prosodic Structure
b. [1•Pl (vP2 ] ] Syntactic Structure
Grouping (39a) indicates a recursive prosodic structure. Recursivity, however, vio-

lates the Strict Layer Hypothesis (SLH, N&V 1986/2007: 7). The structure shown
in (39a) can easily be circumvented by assuming it is important to keep the derived
prosodic structure. The application ofiDENT-vP is cyclic. Each vP (i.e. phase) con-
stitutes a cycle. The embedded 1'P (i.e. 1'P2) is merged before the matrix vP (i.e.
vP J Only the first phase (i.e. the embedded vP) shows an effect, due to the fact
that previously derived structure cannot be deleted. The matrix v P would demand
the deletion of the embedded v P boundaries in order to respect the SLH. But this
is not an option because structure cannot be deleted.
The effect of the newly added constraint is illustrated in Table 19 for the most
common grouping, i.e. (SV)(qS)(VO).It is assumed that the object of the embedded
clause consists of two prosodic words. For this reason MAx-BIN-END is violated
by all four main groupings.
Table 19. Actual ranking for (SV)(qS)(VO) when the object consists oftwo prosodic
words. The basic hierarchy is modified by the higher ranked constraint IDBNT-vP
SVqSVO IDBNT-VP MAX- ALIGN- MIN-N- ALIGN-
BIN-END CP,L PHRASES XP,R
..- (SV)(qS)(VO) * *** *
(S)(V)(qS)(VO) * ****!
(SVqS)(VO) * *! ** *
(S)(VqS)(VO) * *! ***
(SVqSVO) *! * *! * **
(SVqSV)(O) *! *! ** **
(SV)(qS)(V)(O) *! **** *
Table 19 clearly shows the effect ofiDENT-vP. The constraint eliminates all the
candidates that do not phrase the embedded verb and object in one single group.
The last three candidates fatally violate IDENT-vP. The four main groupings do not
violate IDENT-vP. Similarly to Table 15 above, the decision for the best candidate is
made among the four main groupings. There is only one difference to Table 15: all
four groupings violate MAx-BIN-END, while none of them violates MAx-BIN-END
in Table 15. Due to the collective violation the evaluation is passed onto the lower
ranked constraints. The evaluation process now equals the process in Table 15 and
the most common grouping is the winning candidate in Table 19, cf. candidate a.
The last candidate in Table 19 is similar to the first candidate. It differs, though,
from the winning candidate in having a boundary that separates embedded V and 0.
This in turn causes a fatal violation of IDENT-vP, even though MAx-BIN-END is
not violated.
In conclusion, the introduction of a further constraint helps to resolve the
problem of the long object pattern. Nevertheless, this constraint might cause prob-
lems when analyzing simple SVO structures. In these structures, verb and object
are, in fact, sometimes phrased separately (cf. Section 3.3.3.1 and D'Imperio et al.
2005). I leave this question open for further research.
3·4·3·2 Optionality in Optimality Theory

In this section, several proposals to capture variation are introduced. The stochas-
tic OT model (Boersma & Hayes 2001), which underlies my approach, is presented
in Section 3.4.3.3.
The question arises as to how to capture such gradient but robust facts in a
generative model. This situation is exactly the one that forced Anttila (1997) to
reconcile variation with Generative Phonology and to propose a model for deriv-
ing variation from principles of Universal Grammar. 26 The need for reconciliation
is clearly described in Pierrehumbert (2001). Whereas work on sound structure
outside of generative linguistics has used probabilistic models for capturing gradi-
ent optionality for many decades, classical generative models are non-probabilistic
and for this reason any given sequence is either grammatical or completely impos-
sible (Pierrehumbert 2001: 195). The non-generative work has shown that the cog-
nitive representation of sound structure is probabilistic and that frequencies play a
crucial role in several areas: in the acquisition of phonological and phonetic com-
petence, in speech production and in speech perception, and also in long-term
mental representations (Pierrehumbert 2001: 195).
At the present time, there are several models for capturing variation in Gener-
ative Phonology. In what follows, several further models are briefly introducedP
A first attempt to model variation comes from Reynolds & Nagy (1994). They
assume a variable ranking with a floating constraint. A floating constraint can
intervene between ranked constraints in a given domain. A second model comes
from Anttila (1997). He proposes a pa.rtial orderedgmmmar (or stratifiedgmmma.r
Anttila 2002: 230), where two tied constraints, A and B, are freely ranked.28 Then,
in some productions A outranks B, whereas in other productions B outranks A.
If the tied constraints are ranked high enough in the constraint hierarchy; varia-
tion is observed. The different rankings of the tied constraints translate the partial
ordered grammar into several totally ranked grammars (Anttila 2007: 527). The
relative frequency is derived by a quantitative interpretation of these grammars:
"If a candidate wins by n [totally ranked, I.E] grammars and tis the total num-
ber of grammars, then the candidate's probability of occurrence is nit" (Anttila
2007: 524). The underlying cause of variation, as Pierrehumbert (2001: 201) points
out, is attributed to the mind of the individual speaker and is an intrinsic part of
16. Anttila (1997) is concerned with variation in Finnish genitive plurals (Le. the variable
inflectional behavior of polysyllabic Finnish nouns) and not with the prosodic phrasing of
Catalan clauses, though.
27. Cf Anttila (2002, 2007) and Gabriel (2007: 247) for a detailed overview.
18. The term 'free ranking' was introduced by It6 & Mester (1997).
linguistic competence. A further approach has been developed by Truckenbrodt

(2002) for accounting for variation in p-phrasing in Bengali. He argues that varia-
tion in complex forms of p-phrasing may be inherited from simpler forms via a
process called output-to-output faithfulness (DO-faithfulness).
An additional approach is presented by the stochastic OT model proposed in
Boersma (1998) and Boersma & Hayes (2001), and this is the one I assume in the
present study. They refine and extend Anttila's (1997) approach by providing each
constraint with a probability distribution on a continuous ranking scale. In what
follows, the main features of this approach are sketched.
3·4·3·3 Stochastic Optimality Theory

Boersma's (1998) Functional Phonology and Boersma & Hayes' (2001) Gradual
Learning Algorithm (GLA) can easily capture frequency-dependent variation.
Their approaches are variants of OT and are subsumed under the term stochastic
OT. Due to the fact that experiment 2 (complex SVO) provided data quantified
for the number of realizations of each pattern, the stochastic OT approach is the
appropriate framework. Two notions are important for this model: the continuous
ranking scale and the stochastic candidate evaluation.
In classic OT, a ranking C 1 >> C2 >> C3 is interpreted non-probabilistic,
meaning that a constraint cl dominates a constraint c2 that dominates a con-
straint c3. It is not intended that constraint c2 and c3 have a shorter distance
between each other than cl and c2. This idea, though, plays a central role in sto-
chastic OT. Instead of assuming a strict ranking scale, a continuous ranking scale
is assumed. Constraints have a certain ranking value and higher values correspond
to higher-ranked constraints and lower values to lower-ranked constraints (40).
The example numbers added for the ranking values reflect the relation between
the constraints. Here it is merely important that a shorter distance between two
constraints implies that the relative ranking of the constraints is less fixed. The less
fixed order is the crucial aspect in accounting for variation. Boersma (1998) and
Boersma & Hayes (2001: 47) suggest that constraints are not single points, but that
they act as if they are associated with ra.nges of va.lues (42). This happens due to a
temporarily perturbation of the position of each constraint by a random positive
or negative value at evaluation time (i.e. the time when the candidates in an OT
table have to be evaluated in order to determine a winner). This is illustrated in
(41). The concrete value that is used for a single constraint is called the selection
point. This point is given by the black line in (42); the line is marked with 'b' at the
end, meaning that this is the selection point for constraint b. The selection point
can differ from the ranking value (dotted line). The latter is the center of the range,
i.e. the value more permanently associated with the constraint (e.g. example value
'100' in (41) and (42)).
1:12 Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan
(40) Constraints with a given ranking value on a continuous ranking scale

a MBE b AL-CP,L c M-N-P d AL-XP,R
120 100 85 80
(high ranked) (low ranked)
(41) Perturbation of constraint by a random positive or negative value
bAL-CP,L
fl~ .
100
(42) Range of value and selection point
bAL-CP,L
[I I I I
100 (Ranking value)

b
selection point
A selection point near the center (i.e. the ranking value) is more probable than
a selection point far away from the center. This is so because constraint ranges
are interpreted as probability distributions. By that they can account for noisy
events that are described with a normal(= Gaussian) distribution (cf. Boersma &
Hayes 2001: 48). A normal distribution has a single peak in the center and declines
towards zero on each side. For this reason values become less probable the farther
away they are from the center. The grey box around the center in (42) describes the
standard deviation, in which most of the values drawn from a normal distribution
are located. In stochastic OT, every constraint has the same standard deviation.
The less fixed order of given constraints becomes important when their dis-
tance is relatively short If the distance is short enough, two (or more) constraints
overlap, i.e. their ranges covered by the selection points overlap. This is pictured in
(43) for MIN-N-PHRASES (M-N-P) and ALIGN-XP,R (AL-XP,R). Due to the fact
that at evaluation time it is possible to choose the selection points from anywhere
within the two given constraints, the ranking of the constraints most often results
in the 'normal' ranking order (43a), but sometimes it will be the reverse of the
'normal' order (43b ). In the former case, the selection point is taken from the upper
partofMIN-N-PHRASES and from the lower part of ALIGN-XP,R. In the latter case,
the selection point is taken from the lowest part of MIN-N-PHRASES and from the
upper part of ALIGN-XP,R.
(43) Overlapping constraints

a. 'Normal' ranking
b. Reverse of'norrnal' ranking
aMBE bAL-CP,L c M-N-P dAL-XP R
I
a
l I I I LJII' I'
b de
Free variation arises due to overlapping constraints because they can generate
multiple output forms from a single underlying form. The more the constraints
overlap, the more probable a reverse ranking is. This means that in a certain per-
centage of the evaluations (depending on the amount of overlap) ALIGN-XP,R will
outrankMIN-N-PHRASES in (43), although the latter constraint has a higher rank-
ing value. When this happens, the second best candidate wins. Constraint ranges
are hence interpreted as probability distributions.
(44) Strict ranking of constraints
The strictness of classical OT rankings is a special case included in continuous

ranking scales. It is illustrated in (44). As can be seen, it appears when the con-
straints do not overlap (i.e. when the distance between the constraints is very large
so that the probability of deviant ranking becomes very low; cf. Boersma & Hayes
2001: 50).
In order to know what ranking value the necessary constraints have, Boersma &
Hayes (2001) developed the Gradual Learning Algorithm (GLA), an algorithm
for learning optimality-theoretic constraint ranking. The GLA requires two kinds
of inputs: OT constraints and the frequencies of distribution. The second input
1:2.4 Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan
enables the model to include the results stemming from empirical data. Now the
process of learning an appropriate constraint ranking consists merely of finding
a workable set of ranking values on a continuous scale. The GLA calculates the
location of the constraints relative to each other.29•30
3·4·3·4 Applying stochastic Optimality Theory to the phrasing

of complex sentences
The data examined in the complex SVO experiment can be accounted for by a
stochastic model. This is shown here. As a first step, the constraints that overlap
are illustrated. Second, the application of the Gradual Learning Algorithm gives
the ranking values for deriving the frequency effects.
The underlying constraint hierarchy has been given in (35). The four differ-
ent orders of these constraints have been given in (34). As can be seen, whereas
MAx-BIN-END is always the highest ranked constraint, the remaining three con-
straints vary their positions. I claim now that the relative order of the lower three
constraints never changes (thus giving (35)), but that the distance between them is
so short that their ranges overlap. The corresponding Catalan grammar is pictured
in (45).
(45) Constraint Hierarchy for Catalan clauses with sentential objects
b.AI.-CP,L
~-'---"-'=--::..::....c=----.,'l ' M-N-P
aMBE 1 dAL-XP,R
The differences of the height and the length of the constraint ranges in (45) have
no meaning, but are used only for the sake of clarity. The constraints have still the
same standard deviation. The area of overlap of the three constraints induces that
any order between the ALIGN-CP,L, MIN-N-PHRASES, and ALIGN-XP,R can be
generated. This is exactly what is needed for deriving the four different rankings
of (34). 31 As an example, the order of the selection for the fourth most grouping
29. For a complete description of the GLA process of learning cf. Boersma & Hayes
(2001: 51ff.).
30. In Boersma & Hayes (2001), the empirical application of the GLA is illustrated with
examples of free variation of glottal stop and glides in Ilokano (an Austronesian language of
the northern Philippines), of output frequency in the Finnish genitive plural, and of gradient
well-formedness judgments of English light and dark /11.
31· There are six possible permutations, although only four are needed to account for the
variation. As the reader might easily control, the two remaining permutations (a» c » b » d
and a » d » b » c) generate existing groupings and they therefore do not pose a problem
for my approach.
(S)(VqS)(VO) is illustrated in (46). For the sake of convenience, the corresponding

constraint ranking (34d) is repeated below.
(46) Order of selection points for the phrasing (S)(VqS)(VO)
[
aMBE
l I II r , d~-XP
b AL-CP,L c M-N-P
••
(34d) MAX-BIN-END>> ALIGN-XP,R >> MIN-N-PHRASES >> ALIGN-CP,L

a d c b
Now, the application of the GLA endows the hierarchy with concrete ranking val-
ues for the constraints (cf. Boersma 1999: ch.S for a detailed explanation of the
GLA application). Possible values are given in (47), and the frequency prediction
(compared to the empirical data) is given in (48). Due to the fact that the ranking
values and the frequency predictions differ with each run, they cannot be more
than possible values.
(47) Ranking values proposed by GLA

a. MAX-BIN-END 117.843
b. ALIGN-CP,L ll3.223
c. MIN-N-PHRASES ll0.853
d. ALIGN-XP,R 109.601
(48) G LA frequency prediction

frequency prediction empirical results
(SV)(qS)(VO) 55.98% (559876.0) 56% a>> b >> c » d
(S)(V)(qS)(VO) 24.02% (240211.0) 24% a>> b >> d » c
(SVqS)(VO) 10.03% (100319.0) 10% a>> c >> d >> b
(S)(VqS)(VO) 09.95% (099594.0) 10% a >>d>> c>> b
The application of the learning algorithm shows that the proposed approach is
realizable and that the clear tendencies of the empirical frequency values can be
captured. However, the shorter distance between the three lowest constraints is
rather more important than the exact ranking values proposed by the GLA.
Finally, I return to the (S)(VO) phrasing in the long branching object condi-
tion of simple SVO structures. Prieto's (2005) approach as well as the suggested
reranking in (32) cannot account for this grouping. As the data of the simple SVO
experiment and the results of D'Imperio et al. (2005) show, there is variation with
respect to the groupings. The data practically call for a stochastic account of
simple SVO structures. Table 14 shows that the ranking of the constraints should
be ALIGN-XP,R » MIN-N-PHRASES » MAx-BIN-END » WRAP-XP. In the
12.6 Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan
approach to complexSVO structures, it was suggested that all constraints except for
MAx-BIN-END overlap. In order to account for (S)(VO), the constraint MAx-BIN-
END must have a closer distance to the other constraints so that it overlaps with
them. Then its selection point can appear in certain cases below the selection points
of ALIGN-XP,R and MIN-N-PHRASES and the (S)(VO) candidate wins. 32 A closer
distance of MAx-BIN-END is also proposed for the analysis of left-dislocations in
Catalan (Chapter 5).
3·4·3·5 Conclusion
With respect to the analysis of the prosodic phrasing pattern of simple SVO struc-
tures in Catalan, I adopt by and large the proposal of Prieto (2005) -even though I
hardly found (SV)(O) realizations. I deviate from Prieto (2005) by re-ranking her
two highest constraints MIN-N-PHRASES and MAx-BIN-END in the reverse order
(cf. (32)). Her two further constraints, ALIGN-XP,R and WRAP-XP. have been left
unchanged. There-ranking enables the welcoming possibility of maintaining the
same constraint order for the most common phrasing pattern of complex SVO
structures with a sentential object: (SV)(qS)(VO). However, a further constraint
has to be added after MAx-BIN-END: ALIGN-CP,L. This constraint accounts for the
pattern that the embedded clause is in general prosodically separated from the
matrix clause (in 80% of the data in the complex SVO experiment). The results of
the complex SVO experiment have further shown that there is variation in terms
of the prosodic groupings of structures with embedded complement clauses.
Although the variation is broadly diversified (12 different groupings), the four
most common groupings already represent more than 80% of the data. The varia-
tion is modeled in the stochastic OT framework (Boersma & Hayes 2001) and
ALIGN-CP,L, MIN-N-PHRASES, and ALIGN-XP,R are taken to overlap on the con-
tinuous ranking scale. The general constraint hierarchy I propose is as follows:
MAx-BIN-END>> ALIGN-CP,L >> MIN-N-PHRASBS >> ALIGN-XP,R
Exactly as in the account of Prieto (2005), the (SV) phrasing of the matrix clause
is not derived from a specific constraint reflecting the length of the object. It is
derived from the interaction of several constraints. In Prieto (2005), it is the inter-
action of MAx-BIN-END and MIN-N-PHRASES, which outrank ALIGN-XP,R. In
my approach, it depends on the actual position of ALIGN-XP,R and on the higher
ranked constraints.
32. However, I will not deepen this suggestion here, but leave it for further research.
CHAPTER4
Syntactic aspects of Catalan clitic

left- and ditic right-dislocation
In the present chapter, a clause-internal analysis of Catalan clitic right-dislocations

(CLRD) (i.e. a position below TP and above vP) is argued. These arguments sup-
port Villalba's (2000) syntactic approach, which underlies my optimality theo-
retic approach to prosodic phrasing of clitic left-dislocations (CLLD) and CLRD
(Chapter 5). The approach by Villalba (2000) is shortly introduced (as well as two
further approaches to the syntax of dislocations): CLLD is taken to host TopPin
the C-domain, while CLRD is taken to host an internal TopP projection below
TP. Subjects are taken to host the specifier of TP. While this chapter concentrates
only on syntactic aspects of CLLD and CLRD, their prosodic characteristics are
presented in Chapter 5. The introduced difference between preverbal subjects and
CLLD (cf. Chapter 1) is revisited from an intonational side in Chapter 6.
4-1 Syntactic aspects of clitic left-dislocations (CLLD)

and clitic right-dislocations (CLRD)
In 4.1.1, the most common syntactic approaches to CLLD and CLRD are briefly
introduced. In 4.1.2, I argue for a clause-internal analysis of Catalan CLRD based
on CLLD/CLRD asymmetries. These asymmetries were highlighted in Villalba
(1996, 1999a,b, 2000) and Cecchetto (1999), but refuted by Samek-Lodovici (2006)
amongst others. I show that Catalan data still speak in favor of Villalba's and
Cecchetto's assumption. Section 4.1.3 concludes this chapter.
4-1.1 Three syntactic approaches to CLLD and CLRD

For clitic left-dislocation, it is common to assume that the dislocated constituent is
placed in the C-domain, i.e. the (complex of) functional projection(s) above TP. 1
1. I use TP (tense phrase) as a cover term for inflectional phrase (IP), Le. TP is a syntactical
functional projection accommodating tense and agreement features of the sentence
12.8 Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan
The functional category C is part of the core functional complex ( CFC), made up
ofC-T-v-V (cf. Chomsky 1986: 169, Giorgi 1987). Chomsky (2008: 143) says that
"C is shorthand for the region that Rizzi (1997) calls the 'left periphery"'. Rizzi
(1997) splits the CP up into four functional projections: ForceP-Foc(us)P-Top(ic)
P-Fin(ite)P. The C-domain is labeled in Rizzi (1997) as the complementizer layer,
where clause-type properties (i.e. Force) and information structural aspects
(topic-focus) are expressed.2
In earlier days, CLRD was assumed to mirror CLLD: whereas a CLLD XP is
left-adjoined to a certain node, a CLRD XP is simply right-adjoined to the same
node ((1); cf. Vallduvi 1993: 104). The 'mirror hypothesis' (Cecchetto's 1999 term)
assumes that the characteristics and properties of CLLD structures can be simply
transferred to CLRD structures.
( 1) Mirror hypothesis by Vallduvi (1993: 104; structure slightly modified by I.F.): 3
left-detachments right-detachments
a. b.
TP TP
~ ~
CLLD TP TP CLLD
~ ~
-cl-t- -cl-t-
As (1) shows, Vallduvi (1993) assumes an adjunction-to-TP(IIP) analysis, which

was quite common to assume for topicalization around the 1980's (cf. Baltin 1982: 18,
Lasnik & Saito 1992: 77f., and Rochemont 1978, 1989). Nevertheless, there had
already been approaches assuming a position in the CP (Authier 1992: 330,
Watanabe 1993: 529). The two latter accounts propose a CP-iteration for topic
structures, which can be seen as predecessors for Rizzi's (1997) Split-CP analysis.
Villalba (1996, 1999b, 2000), Cecchetto (1999), and L6pez (2003, 2009a), how-
ever, show that there are asymmetries between CLLD and CLRD which cannot be
(cf. Chomsky 1995: 377). One important reason for doing so is the fact that the abbreviation
'IP' is used in both syntactic work (as just mentioned) and phono-prosodical work. where it
stands for Intonational Phrase. In order to avoid confusion, I use TP for the former and IIrtP
for the latter. When quoting other authors who use the functional projection IP, I also use TP
and explain in a footnote their original notation.
::r.. In addition, Rizzi (1997) assumes two further layers: the inflectional layer (i.e. IP), which
is mainly concerned with the licensing of morphological features; and the lexical layer (i.e. vP I
VP), which is mainly concerned with theta-assignment.
3· Vallduvf (1993) originally uses the notion 'IP~
Chapter 4. Syntactic aspects of Catalan clitic left- and clitic right -dislocation 129
explained by the 'mirror hypothesis'. As a consequence, they assume the CLRD

constituent to be below T 0 : Spec of a "VP peripheral Topic Phrase" in Cecchetto
(1999: 59), Spec of the "Internal Topic Phrase" in Villalba (2000), and Spec of vP
in L6pez (2003, 2009a).4 In addition, these authors assume that dislocations are
derived by movement (in line with Cinque 1977, Rizzi 1997, Grohmann 2003, and
Belletti 2005). The constituent moves from its base position (e.g. from the argu-
ment position of the verb if the dislocation is an object or the subject) to the topic
position below TP. All three authors take this topic position as an intermediate
position for CLLD (cf. also Postal1991: 15). Consequently, if the topic constituent
constitutes a right-dislocation, it remains in the internal topic position. If the topic
constituent constitutes a left-dislocation, it moves further up from the internal
topic position to a position in the C-domain.
I demonstrate the medial topic position with Villalba (1996, 1999a, 2000),
as in (2). The internal Topic Phrase (lntTopP) is located above vP and below TR 5
NegR and an internal Focus Phrase. The latter functional projection hosts the con-
stituent which bears main prominence (for suggesting an internal FocP cf. Belletti &
Shlonsky 1995, Ambar 1999). CLLD, in contrast, occupies the specifier position of
an external Topic Phrase (ExtTopP), which is located in the C-domain.
(2) C-domain ofVillalba (2000: 218) TP-domain ofVillalba (2000: 221&233)
(slightly modified by I.F.)
CP TP
~ ~
ExtTopP NegP
~ ~
CLLD ExtTop Neg IntFocP
~ ~
ExtTop TP Focus IntTopP
~
CLRD vP
The correct word order of the CLRD elementis derived in both Villalba (1996, 1999a,
2000: 232f.) and Cecchetto (1999: 57f.) by movement of the material following the
CLRD into the internal Focus Phrase.6
4· Cf. Cardinaletti (2002) and Samek-Lodovici (2005, 2006) for a critique of such a medial
position for CLRD; and ct: Section 4.1.2 below.
5· Villalba (1996, 1999a, 2000) originally uses the notion 'IP~
6. Ct: L6pez (2009a: ch.3.2.4, 2009b) for a PF-analysis of how the CLRD constituent moves
to the right.
However, not all authors assuming movement also assume an internal

position for CLRD. Kayne (1994), Zubizarreta (1998: 121), and more recently
Samek-Lodovici (2004, 2006), for example, assume a clause-external position for
right -dislocations. They are derived from left-dislocations via remnant movement of
the following TP (i.e. IP): in the Italian sentence Eho vista, Gianni 'I saw John' in (3),
the dislocated element (Gianni) has been moved leftward to [Spec,Top]. After that-
in order to derive a right-dislocation (from the momentary left-dislocation)- the IP
(i.e. the remnant) moves into the specifier of a higher maximal projection (XP).
(3) Clause-external CLRD and remnant movement (Samek-Lodovici 2006: 840)
XP
[pro l'ho visto tJk 0x TopP
In addition, not all authors assuming remnant movement assume movement

of the dislocated element. Frascarelli (2000, 2004), for example, assumes that
right-dislocations are base-generated in a Topic projection of the C-domain
(cf. Frascarelli 2000: 139,159ff.; hence 'right-dislocations' in her analysis are
right-hand topics). Her base-generation account for dislocations is in line with
Cinque 1990, Anagnostopoulou 1997, Sufier 2006, Alexiadou 2006, and De Cat
2002, 2007. 7
As can be seen in the different syntactic approaches to CLLD and CLRD,
these constituents host almost always a functional projection TopP. This projection
is inevitably connected to the information structural notion topic (as presented
in Chapter 1).
7. The question as to whether topics are base-generated in their surface position or if they
are dislocations, Le. moved from an TP-internal position, has become an important topic
(cf. De Cat 2002: 991f.,Frascarelli 2000: 137,1591f., L6pez 2009a: ch.6, Villalba 2000: 2331f.) and
researchers have to take a stand. Interestingly, early accounts, such as Lasnik & Saito (1992)
assume both base-generation and movement of topics. Lasnik & Saito (1992: 771f.) analyze
(English) embedded and matrix topicalization as movement into an adjoined IP, whereas
English left -dislocation is only possible in matrix clauses and base-generated in a Topic Phrase.
As for the comparison with Romance CLLD, Rochemont (1989: 1541f.) notes that CLLD
behaves exactly like topicalization in English in its syntactic effects. However, English topi-
calization does not allow for resumptive pronouns. Cecchetto (1999: 57: fn.22), for example,
assumes movement for dislocated arguments, whereas base-generation for dislocated PPs.
In what follows, I provide evidence for an asymmetry between CLLD and

CLRD. As previously shown, there is an ongoing discussion of the right analysis
for CLRD. The presented evidence supports the clause-internal analysis for
Catalan CLRD. This result is important for the analysis of the prosodic patterns of
dislocation structures in Chapter 5.
41.2 CLLD and CLRD asymmetries

As for asymmetry. several tests can be found in Cecchetto (1999) and Villalba
(2000).8 Some of these tests can also be found in Samek-Lodovici (2006), 9 but
he argues against asymmetry. In what follows, I discuss only three tests. Two of
them are found in SL (2006): licensing ofN-words (such as nega.tive pola.rity items,
NPI) and binding properties (Cecchetto's 1999 'antireconstruction effects'). These
two tests are discussed, because they seem to be controversial in the literature on
Italian and Catalan: According to SL, the tests show that dislocated elements in
Italian are not c-commanded by T 0 or any other material within TP 10 (such as a
licenser for NPis) and thus support his view that right-dislocated constituents have
to be external to the clause main TP. I show that the Catalan counterparts behave
8. Cecchetto (1999) provides four tests showing asymmetries between CLLD and CLRD
and thus argues for a clause-internal analysis and against the mirror hypothesis (and partly
against Kayne's double topicalization analysis presented in Cecchetto 1999). The tests rely
on antireconstruction effects (Cecchetto 1999: 42), exploiting an argument-adjunct asym-
metry of constituents following a noun; on ECP effects (Cecchetto 1999: 44), exploiting a
subject-object asymmetry arising when a CLLD constituent appears between a wh-word and
the following clause; on the Right Roof Constraint (Cecchetto 1999: 46), exploiting the idea
of dause-boundedness of CLRD constituents; and finally on Aux-to-COMP constructions
(C ecchetto 1999: 47), exploiting the idea of intervening dislocations after gerundival adverbials
inCOMP.
V!llalba (2000) provides several tests, also arguing against the mirror hypothesis and
Kayne's (1994) analysis. Among the tests are the criteria of boundedness (Villalba 2000: 186;
Cecchetto's Right Roof Constraint test bases on VIllalba's idea); island effects (V!llalba
2000: 188), exploiting the idea that CLRD does not show island effects; licensing of NPis
(Villalba 2000: 189; equals the test of SL 2006); Principle C effects/antireconstruction effect
(Villalba 2000: 190), exploiting the idea that a principle C violation can be compensated
by left-dislocating the constituent with the R-expression; Quantifier binding of pronouns
(Villalba 2000: 191 ), exploiting the idea null pronouns receive a bound variable interpretation;
dislocation out of dislocations (Villalba 2000: 192 ), exploiting the idea that a constituent from
within a right -dislocate can be left -dislocated whereas the reverse is not true (ct: Chapter 5 for
examples of this construction).
9· Henceforth SL (2006).
10. SL (2006) originally uses the notion 'IP:
contrariwise: Catalan CLRD is c-commanded by T 0 and this can only be modeled

by a clause-internal analysis. The third test is a completely new test. This test is
based on obviation effects. Left-dislocations lead to a disappearance of obviation
effects in subjunctive complement clauses (Costantini 2005b). Right-dislocations,
as is shown, keep obviation effects. The pattern is explained by assuming a
clause-internal analysis of CLRD.
4.1.2.1 Licensing of negative words

Negative words (n-words) such as ningU. 'nobody/anybody' or negative polarity
items (NPI) such as mai 'ever' and res 'anything' are only licensed when they are
in the scope of negation. For this reason they have to be overtly licensed by an ele-
ment which c-commands the negative element The licenser (mostly the sentential
neg-marker no 'no') can be within or higher than T 0 •
The examples presented in this section rely strongly on the examples used by
Samek-Lodovici (SL). I present his original Italian examples immediately followed
by their corresponding Catalan translations. Due to the fact that the Italian and
the Catalan examples are so similar, only one translation is given, which is valid for
both languages. Concerning the basic pattern of n-words, there are no differences
between Italian and Catalan. As (4) shows, the negative marker (the licenser) is
obligatory and cannot be left out. In addition, n-words cannot be right-dislocated
alone, as in (5), but they may easily appear in longer dislocations, where the
neg-marker is also present, as in (6) and (7).
(4) Neg-marker cannot be left out
a. Gianni *(non) ha mai visto nessuno. [ITAL]
Jolm not has ever seen anybody
'John has never seen anybody: (taken from SL 2006:844: 15)
b. El Joan *(no) ha vist mai ningu. [CAT]
the Jolm not has see.PTCP2 ever anybody
(5) Right-dislocated n-word
a. "Non l'ha invitato GIANNI, nessuno [ITAL]
not him/it has invited John anybody
'John didn't invite anybodY. (taken from SL 2006:844: 16)
b. *No l'ha convidat el Joan, aningU. [CAT]
not cL.have invite.PTCP2 the John to anybody
(6) Right-dislocated neg-marker and n-word
a. Lo sappiamo GIA. che noo. avete incontrato nessuno. [ITAL]
(we) it know already, that (you) not have met anybody
We already knew that you haven't met anybodY. (taken from SL 2006: 844: 18a)
b. Ja ho sabfem, que no havies trobat ni.ogU. [CAT]
already cl know.lPL.PST that not have.2SG.PST fi.nd.PTCP anybody
Chapter 4. Syntactic aspects of Catalan ditic left- and clitic right -dislocation 133
(7) Right-dislocated neg-marker and n-word

a. Lo e sembrato CARLO, non lavorare mai. [ITAL]
it is seemed Carl, not to-work ever
'It was Carl who seemed to never work: (taken from SL 2006:844: 18b)
b. ??Ho sembla en Carlo, de no treballar mai. [CAT]
It seem.3so the C. of not work.INP ever
'Carl seems to never work:
The Catalan example in (7) is odd. This judgement, however, has nothing to do
with the NPI but stems from dislocating the infinitive.
As shown in (4), if there is no neg-marker licensing then-word (or NPI), the
sentence is ungrammatical. As SL (2006: 844) states, this is also the case if the
n-word is right-dislocated (5), where the n-word is outside the c-commanding
domain of its licenser (as proposed by the clause-external analysis).n Based on the
argumentation for (4) to (6), examples (8) and (9) are ungrammatical due to the lack
of a neg-marker. In (8) and (9) then-word is part of a sentential right-dislocation,
but the only available licenser has been omitted. Thus, the ungrammaticality can
only be caused by the failure oflicensing (SL 2006: 845).
(8) Right-dislocated n-word without licenser
a. *Lo sappiamo GlA, che avete incontrato nessuno. [ITAL]
(we) it know already, that (you) have met anybody
'We already know that you haven't met anybody:
(taken from SL 2004 (cf. SL 2006: 845))
b. ..Ja ho sabiem, que havies trobat ningU. [CAT]
already it know.lPL.PST that have.2so.Psr findPTCP anybody
'We already know that you haven't met anybody:
(9) Right-dislocated n-word without licenser
a. ..Lo e sembrato CARLO, lavorare mai. [ITAL]
it is seemed CarL to-work ever
'It was Carl who seemed to never work: (taken from SL 2006:845: 19b)
b. *Ho sembla en Carlo, de treballar mai. [CAT]
d seem.3so the C. of work.INP ever
'It was Carl who seemed to never work:
n. However, it is objected that the ungrammaticality of a right-dislocated n-word can be

simply due to the fact that n-words cannot act as topics. If this is the case, (5) says nothing
about the relation between licenser and n-word.
Furthermore, if the neg-marker is located in the matrix clause, and no dislocation

occurs, the neg-marker can easily license into the embedded clause as shown in
(10) and (11).
( 10) Neg-marker licenses into an embedded clause
a. Non ho voglia di vedere NESSUNO. [ITAL]
(I) not have wish to see anybody
'I have no wish to see ANYBODY (taken from SL 2006: 846: 23)
b. No volia veure NINGU. [CAT]
not want.l sG.PST see.INF anybody
'I have no wish to see ANYBODY:
(11) Neg-marker licenses into an embedded clause

a. Non desidero mangiare NULLA. [ITAL]
(I) not wish to-eat anything
'I do not wish to eat ANYTHING: (taken from SL 2006: 846: 24)
b. No vull menjar RES. [CAT]
not wish.1 sG eat.INF anything
'I do not wish to eat ANYTHING:
Up until now, there are no differences in the pattern of the licensing of n-words
between Italian and Catalan. Examples (4) to (11) demonstrate the basic properties
of n-words and the conclusion is that they are the same for both languages.
SL ( 2006: 845) now intra duces the crucial test. It has been seen that the n-word
must be c-commanded by its licenser, be it (the licenser) in the same clause or
in a matrix clause. Examples (12) and (13) present the Italian examples from SL
(2006: 845). The (a) sentences in both examples involve ann-word licensed by a
neg-marker within the dislocated clause. These sentences are grammatical (cf. also
(6) and (7)). The (b) sentences are identical to the (a) sentence but difter in one
respect: the neg-marker is located in the non-dislocated part of the sentences. As
for the crucial test, if the RD constituent is low in the hierarchy (i.e. clause-internal
analysis) the neg-marker should be able to c-command then-word, and the (b)
sentences should be grammatical. If, on the other hand, the RD constituent is high
(i.e. clause-external analysis) the licensing should fail, because the RD constituent
is higher than Negtr0 •
( 12) Italian data for the test: Different position of the neg-marker
(taken from SL 2006: 845: 20)
a. Ne ho davvero VOGLIA, di non vedere nessuno
(I) of-it have definitely wish of not to-see anybody
per qualche giomo.
for.a.few days
'I definitely DO wish not to see anybody for a few days:
b. "Non ne ho VOGLIA, di vedere nessuno per qualche giorno.

(I) not of-it have wish of to-see anybody for a-few days
'I definitely do NOT wish to see anybody fora few days:
(13) Italian data for the test: Different position of the neg-marker
(taken from SL 2006: 846: 21)
a. (Non lo desidero,) lo PRETENDO, di non mangiare nulla
(I) not it wish, (I) it demand, of not to-eat anything
per qualche giorno.
for a-few days
'I do not wish, I DEMAND not to eat anything for a few days:
b. *Non lo DESIDERO, di mangiare nulla per qualche giorno
(I) not it wish, of to-eat anything for a-few days
Oo PRETENDO).
((I) it demand)
'I do not WISH to eat anything for a few days, (I DEMAND it):
As can be seen, the (b) examples of (12) and (13) are ungrammatical: The licens-
ing of then-words fails. Thus, the RD constituent should be higher than Neg/T 0,
supporting the clause-external analysis.
In (14) and (15), the corresponding Catalan examples are given. The Catalan
sentences show that the pattern which holds in Italian does not hold in Catalan -
thus showing a clear contrast between these two languages. In (14) and (15) the
b.-examples might be somehow marked, but they are certainly not ungrammatical.
(14) Catalan data for the test: Different position of the neg-marker
a. Certament ho VULL, de no veure ningU. /res
certainly cL want.l so of not see.INF nobody /nothing
(durant uns dies).
during a day.PL
'I definitely WISH not to see anybody/anything (for a few days):
b. Certament no ho VO LIA, de veure ningU. /res
certainly not cL want.l so.PsT of see.INF nobody /nothing
(durant uns dies).
during a day.PL
'I definitely did not WISH to see anybody for a few days:
(15) Catalan data for the test: Different position of the neg-marker
a. (No ho desitjo,) ho PRETENC, de no menjar res
not cL wish .I so cL want.l so of not eat.INF nothing
(durant uns dies).
during a day.PL
'(I do not wish it,) I WANT not to eat anything (for a few days):
b. No ho VULL, de menjar res durant uns dies

not cL want.lso of eat.INF nothing during a. day.PL
(ho PRETENC).
CL want.lsG
'I do not WISH to eat anything for a few days (I demand it):
(16) Further Catalan data: Neg-marker licenses into RD

No ho necessito, de tenir cap cotxe, pero m'agradaria.
not cL need1 sG of have.INF no car but me1ike.3sG.COND
'I don't NEED to have a car, but I would like it:
(17) Further Catalan data: Neg-rn.alker licenses into RD (taken from Villalba 2000: 189)
a. La Maria no es responsable de res.
the M. not be responsible of anything
'Maria is not responsible for anything:
b. La Maria no ho es, responsable de res.
the M. not cL be responsible of anything
c. *Responsable de res, la Maria no ho es.
responsible of anything the M. not cL be
Example (16) is a further Catalan example showing that having the neg-marker in
the non-dislocated part is completely fine. These data lead to the conclusion that
the neg-marker can license an RD constituent. Villalba (2000: 189) also noticed
this asymmetry between CLLD and CLRD in Catalan, cf. (17) and uses it as one
argument against the 'mirror hypothesis'. Hence, the assumption of SL (2006) that
CLLD and CLRD are in the same structural position above TP cannot be main-
tained - at least for Catalan - since NPis in the CLRD constituent are licensed. The
pattern of Catalan NPI-licensing is problematic for any analysis which assumes
the RD constituent to be hierarchically higher than TP.
4.1.2.2 Binding
With respect to LF-reconstruction, Freidin (1986) points out that the following
two examples behave quite differently. Whereas in (18a) reconstruction takes place
and the pronoun he cannot take John as an antecedent, reconstruction in (18b) is
not obligatory. John can act as the antecedent for the pronoun.
(18) Complement/adjunct- asymmetry

a. Which claim [that John1was asleep] was he.111 willing to discuss
b. Which claim [that John1 made] washe111 willing to discuss
Lebeaux (1988) traces the different behavior to a difference between complement

and adjunct. In (18a) the constituent that John ·was asleep is a complement of claim
and must appear at the level of D-structure. At this level a principle C violation
arises since the r-expression John is c-commanded by the pronoun he. In (18b)
the CP that John made is a relative clause and has adjunct status. Due to the fact
that it is an adjunct, it does not appear at D-structure and can be adjoined after
reconstruction occurs. He never c-commands John and can thus be coreferent
with the r-expression. Chomsky (1995: 204f.) carries Lebeaux's analysis over to a
minimalist framework. keeping the difference between complement and adjunct.
Cecchetto (1999: 42) develops a test for the position ofRD in Italian based on
the asymmetry between complements and adjuncts. He comes to the conclusion
that whereas CLLD displays an argument-adjunct asymmetry, CLRD does not.
He explains this by the clause-internal analysis of CLRD. Samek-Lodovici (2006)
repeats this test and comes to a contrary result: both complement and adjunct
clauses in CLLD and CLRD display the argument-adjunct asymmetry. For this
reason, he assumes a clause-external analysis of CLRD, as shown in (3). SL (2006)
constructs sentences in which the matrix clause involves the null subject pro and
in which the dislocated object noun is followed by a CP containing a definite sub-
ject, as in (21) and (22) below. Before presenting the data, though, the idea of the
test is introduced here.
The CP following the dislocated object is either a complement or an adjunct
(i.e. a relative clause). The clause-external analysis predicts that in the case of the
complement CP, coreference between pro and the definite subject is not possible.
The complement CP reconstructs and the null subject pro thus c-commands the
subject's copy left behind, as shown in (19a; adopted from SL 2006: 841: 9). The
arrow illustrates c-commanding.
(19) Reconstruction of complement CP vs.late insertion of adjunct
a. Complement: [TP pro clitic aux V (det N 6 that Subj ...H)
b. Adjunct: [TP pro clitic aux V {det-N-}]
In the case of the relative clause, the CP is an adjunct and can be inserted late in the
derivation, i.e. after the dislocation of the object (Chomsky 1995: 204f.). Since the
late inserted relative clause does not reconstruct, pro never c-commands the sub-
ject of that CP. The corresponding configuration is (19b ), where no copy of the CP
is found after object N. The pattern with CLLD is comparable with the asymmetry
shown in (19) because only the complement CP reconstructs into a position below
the matrix subject, whereas the adjunct CP remains high (cf. Villalba 2000: 190 for
further antireconstruction effects with respect to CLLD).
The clause -internal analysis predicts that there is no asymmetry between com-
plement CPs and adjunct CPs. The right-dislocation is below TP and the matrix
subject always c-commands the r-expression, independent of being reconstructed

or not (20).
(20) Predictions ofthe clause-internal analysis

a. Complement:
[TP p~ clitic aux [det N [cp that Subf ...]] V ~]
b. Adjunct:
[TP pro clitic aux [det N [cp that Subj ...]] V -(det-N-f]
For Italian, Samek-Lodovici (2006) shows that asymmetry exists and a clause-external
analysis is to be preferred. Right-dislocated nominal complements are not possible
(21), whereas right-dislocated nominal adjuncts are possible (22).
(21) Italian data: Nominal complements (taken from SL 2006:841: lOb & llb)
a. *pro1 non le mantiene quasi MAl, le promesse che
(he) not them keeps almost ever, the promises that
Berlusconi1 sara onesto.
B. will-be honest
'Berlusconi almost NEVER keeps the promises that he will be honest:
b. *pro1 non le rivela certo ai GIORNALI, le prove
(he) not them reveals certainly to-the newspapers, the evidence
che il procuratore-capo di Palermo1 viola la legge.
that the chief public prosecutor of Palermo breaks the law
'Palermo's chief public prosecutor does not reveal the evidence that he
breaks the law to the NEWSPAPERS:
(22) Italian data: Nominal adjuncts (taken from SL 2006: 841: 1Oa & 11 a)
a. pro1 non le mantiene quasi MAl, le promesse che
(he) not them keeps almost ever, the promises that
Berlusco~ fa in campagna elettorale.
Berlusconi makes in campaign electoral
'Berlusconi almost NEVER keeps the promises that he makes during the
electoral campaign:
b. pro1 non le rivela certo ai GIORNALI, le prove
(he) not them reveals certainly to-the newspapers, the evidence
che il procuratore-capo di Palermo1 trova durante un'inchiesta.
that the chief public prosecutor of Palermo finds during an.investigation
'Palermo's chief public prosecutor does not reveal to the NEWSPAPERS the
evidence that he collects during an investigation:
•
This findings contrast with Cecchetto (1999). SL (2006: 843: fn.2) states that the
odd status of Cecchetto's original example does not come from binding effects but
might be caused by the quantificational nature of the indefinite subject, i.e. Cecchetto
used an incorrect example.
I now turn to the Catalan pattern. The following examples show that Catalan
contrasts with Italian: both right-dislocated nominal complements and adjuncts
are ungrammatical, (23) and (24) respectively. The judgments were based on one-
on -one interviews with six native speakers. All speakers reported having very dear
intuitions about the ungrammaticality of the sentences.
(23) Catalan data: Nominal complements
a. *proJ no les mante gairebe MAl, les promeses que
(he) not cL keep almost ever, the promise.PL that
el president! sera honest.
the president be.FUT honest
'The president almost never keeps the promises that he will be honest:
b. *proJ no les revela pas als DIARlS, les proves
(he) not cL reveal certainly to.the newspaper.PL the evidence.PL
que el president1 viola la llei.
that the president break the law
'The president does not reveal the evidence that he breaks the law to the
newspapers:
(24) Catalan data: Nominal adjuncts
a. ""prol no les mante gairebe MAl, les promeses que el
(he) not cL keep almost ever, the promise.PL that the
president 1 fa en campanya electoral
president make in campaign electoral
'The president almost never keeps the promises that he makes during the
electoral campaign:
b. ?*proJ no les revela pas als DIARlS, les proves
(he) not cL reveal certainly to.the newspaper.PL the evidence.PL
que el president1 troba durant una instrucci6.
that the president find during an investigation
'The president does not reveal the evidence that he collects during an
investigation to the newspapers:
The data sharply contrasts with the Italian examples presented in SL (2006). The
ungrammaticality of the Catalan data in (23) and (24) speaks in favor of a clause-
internal analysis of CLRD, along the lines presented in (20). Villalba (1999b: 244)
has already shown that there is no complement-adjunct asymmetry in CLRD con-
stituents. One conclusion can be drawn at once: Catalan CLRD is clause-internal.
The second conclusion concerns the Italian results and can be stated for my
purposes as follows: Italian and Catalan have to be distinguished with respect to
the position of CLRD. However, Villalba (1999b) argues that LF-reconstruction is
neither necessary nor adequate and that the Split-Topic Hypothesis (Villalba 2000)
is able to account for the (Catalan) data. He argues that counterexamples derive
from independent factors as discourse context and modality and that by assuming
an independently motivated level, such as Zubizarreta's (1998) Assertion Structure,
binding facts receive a proper treatment. If the Italian binding facts in examples
(21) and (22) can be accounted for in terms of an independently motivated level, it
might be possible to maintain the clause-internal analysis for Italian as Cecchetto
(1999) proposed. I am not able to deal with this topic in the current study and will
leave it open for further research.
4.1.2.3 Obviation effects

A completely new test for the structural position of CLLD and CLRD is based on
obviation effects in subjunctive complement clauses. This test also argues for a
clause-internal analysis of CLRD. Complement subjunctive clauses in Romance
languages such as the example in (25) are subject to an obligatorydisjointreference
holding between the subjunctive subject and the matrix subject.
(25) Subjunctive disjoint reference

a. Jo 1 vull que proJ vagi a veure aquesta pel.Hcula. [CAT]
I want.lso that pro go.3sG.SBJ to see.INF this movie
'I want him to go and see this movie:
b. "Jo1 vu1l que jo/pro1 vagi a veure aquesta pellicula.[CAT]
want.lso that Ilpro go.lso.SBJ to see.INF this movie
'I want to go and see this movie:
c. Jo 1 vull PR0 1 anar a veure aquesta pellicula. [CAT]
I want.lso PRO go.INF to see.INF this movie
'I want to go and see this movie:
(25a) shows that the sentence is grammatical when the embedded subject (here:
pro,) is not coreferent with the matrix subjectjo1 'f. (25b), in contrast, is ungram-
matical. The embedded subject jo/pro1 cannot be coreferent with the matrix clause
subject jo1 'I: The infinitive's subject in (25c), however, must pick its reference from
the matrix argument. The effect in (25a) is called "Subjunctive Disjoint Reference"
(Kempchinsky 1987, 2009) or "Obviation" (Farkas 1992, Lujan 1999, Costantini
2005a, 2009).
Now, it is possible for a left-dislocation to appear between the matrix clause
and the embedded clause, i.e. embedded left-dislocation (cf Baltin 1982: 19, Authier
1992:329, Lasnik & Saito 1992:76, L6pez 2009a). Costantini detects an interaction
between obviation and CLLD, which has not been considered so far in linguistic
research. He mentions, in his thorough overview of approaches to obviation, that
embedded left-dislocations may affect obviation in some cases (Costantini 2005b:
129; cf. also Costantini 2009: 58). His examples are presented in (26) and (27).12
(26) Obviation and CLLD in Italian (taken from Costantini 2005b: 129: 64)
a. Gianni1 spera che pro?l/J abbia fatto pochi errori
G. hopes that has(subj) made few mistakes
allesame di linguistica.
at-the exam of linguistics
'Gianni hopes that he has made few mistakes on the linguistics exam:
b. Gianni1 spera che, [allesame di linguistica], pro 111 abbia
Gianni hopes that at-the exam of linguistics has(subj)
fatto pochi errori.
made few mistakes
(27) Obviation and CLLD in Catalan (taken from Costantini 2005b: 130: fn.l9)
a. En Joan no es pensa que pro.111 hagi fet molts
the Joan not it(cl) thinks that has(subj) made many
errors a l'examen.
mistakes at the.exam
'John doesn't think he has made many mistakes on the exam:
b. En Joan no es pensa que [a l'examen de lingilistica
The J. not it(cl) thinks that at the.exam of linguistics
computacional] pro 111 hi hagi fet molts errors.
computational CL has (subj) made many mistakes
'John doesn't think he has made many mistakes on the computational
linguistics exam:
The normal word order of verbs taking a subjunctive complement clause is shown
in the (a) examples of(26) for Italian and of(27) for Catalan. The typical obviation
effect is visible: the embedded (null) subject is disjoint in reference from the matrix
subject (or it tends to be disjoint as marked by'?' in the Italian example). In exam-
ples (b) the adjunct all'esame/a l'examen (... )'on the exam' is locally left-dislocated
(i.e. preceding the embedded clause). Since clitics in Italian are obligatory only for
left-dislocated direct objects (SL 2006: 847), there is no elitic of the left-dislocation
u. Ct: Costantini (2005a: ch. 3. 2.1, 2009: 60) for examples where the clause with the embedded
subject is itself dislocated
in the embedded clause in (26b). Now; if embedded CLLD applies, the coreferen-
tial properties change. Obviation is affected by CLLD and disappears: coreference
between the embedded null subject and the matrix subject is acceptable.
In order to combine obviation and embedded CLLD, one has to pay attention to
two restrictions on the matrix verb: (a) for obviation to appear the matrix verb has to
be a volitional/desiderative verb (Kempchinsk:y 1987, Farkas 1992); (b) the matrix verb
has to be a bridge verb in order to allow for extraction (Erteschick-Shir 1973, Authier
1992, Miiller 1995). The following examples are constructed along these lines.B
13. (a) Semantic Class of the Matrix Verb:

KempchinfKy (1987) and Farkas (1992) observe that obviation is restricted to a subclass of
predicates taking subjunctive complements. namely desiderative/manipulative or volitional verbs.
Verbs of doubt and denial (i) and factive -emotive verbs (ii), for e:aunple, do not trigger obviation.
(i) Ana; duda que proili sea la persona mas apta para el puesto
A. doubt.3sg that be.3sg.subj the person best suited for the job
~a doubts that s/he is the best suited person for the job'
(Kempchinsky 1987: 126)
(li) Anai lamenta que proilj tenga tanto trabajo
A. regret.3sg that have.3sg.subj so- much work
~a regrets that s/he has so much work' (Kempchinsky 1987: 126f.)
(b) Bridge Contexts and embedded CLID:

Embedded topicalization is possible if it is confined to bridge contexts (Mill.ler 1995: 351,
Authier 1992: 333£). This means that the matrix verb has to be a bridge verb, since only these
verbs easily allow for extraction from their sentential complements into the left periphery of
the embedded complement or the matrb: clause. Verbs such as think, believe, say, condude, ask,
tell, report, announce, know, hope fall under the class of bridge verbs, whereas verbs such as doubt,
shout, worry, want, understand are non-bridge verbs. Since Erteschlk-Shir's (1973) introduction
of the term 11rldge verb, the discussion about this class of verbs is by and large concerned with
the question of whether a verb will join it or not. For Erteschick-Shir it is the notion of semantic
dominance on which the condition on extraction is based (Erteschick-Shir 1973: 8). "A clause
or a phrase is semantically dominant if it is not presupposed and does not have contextual
reference." (Erteschik-Shir 1977: 9), i.e. the speaker wants to draw attention to the semantic
content of this constituent. "Extraction can occur only out of clauses or phrases which can be
considered dominant [ ... ].A matrix which is subordinate (i.e. where the embedded clause
is dominant and allows extraction) will be called a bridge. Extraction out of an island is
therefore possible only across a bridge." (Erteschik-Shir 1977: 50). Hence, the semantic weight
(Featherston 2004) is of relevance and bridge verbs are then assumed to be semantically light.
The relevance of semantic weight is also detectable in Kiparsky & Kiparsky (1970), Cattell
(1978), and Erteschick-Shir & Lappin (1979) (d Featherston 2004: 183). In his work on the
relation between bridge verbs and (Germanic) V2-verbs, Featherston (2004: 205) comes to the
conclusion that the "'[b]ridge feature is a continuum and not a categorical distinction: there is
no absolute group of bridge verbs, only better and worse ones':
I present a new set of data including CLRD now. The reason for taldng CLRD
into account is the question as to whether CLRD has the same consequences for
obviation as CLLD. The idea is that if CLRD constituents are structurally in the
same position as CLLD constituents, as assumed by the clause-external hypoth-
esis, obviation should likewise disappear. If CLRD does not affect obviation, it is
possible to conclude that they are not in the same position (an analysis for the data
is presented below). In (28) and (29) the corresponding CLRD structures to (26)
and (27) are represented, respectively.
(28) Obviation and CLRD in Italian

Gianni1 spera che pro?IIJ abbia fatto pochi errori,
Gianni hope that have.SBJ make.PTCP few mistake.PL
[all~same di lingui.stica].
at.the.exam of linguistics
(29) Obviation and CLRD in Catalan

En Joan1 no es pensa que pro*?IIJ hi1 hagi fet molts
the J. not cL think that cL have.SBJ make.PTCP many
errors, [a lhamen de lingii.istica computacional]l.
mistake.PL at the.exam of linguistics computational
'John doesn't think he has made many mistakes on the computational linguistics
,
exam.
The configurations in (28) and (29) show that right-dislocations do not affect
obviation as CLLD does. The obviation is as clear as in the examples without
dislocations, (26a) and (27b). Two further examples (one for Italian, (30), and
one for Catalan, (31)) are given. They also show that CLRD does not influence
obviation. 14
14· I would like to thank Francesco Costantini and Gemma Rigau for helping me with
the data. Both mentioned independently that the data and the binding relations are rather
subtle and that it is sometimes hard to make a decision. This assessment was confirmed by
the grammaticality judgments of six Catalan native speakers. While for three of them the dis-
joint reference in (31a,b) was obvious, the remaining three were able to establish coreference
between the embedded pro and the matrix subject Joan. The judgments on the Catalan data,
in addition. seem to be dependent on social factors such as age and regional factors such as
dialect Nevertheless, I conclude that - generally speaking - it seems that the coreference is
easier to get if there is a constituent in the left periphery.
(30) Obviation and CLLD/CLRD 15

a. Gianni1 pensa che pro%?1/J sia andato nel 1991 ad Amburgo [ITAL]
G. think that have go.PTCP in 1991 to Hamburg
(ma non si ricorda l'anno esatto).
(but not REFLremember the.year precise)
'John thinks that he went to Hamburg in 1991 (but he doesn't remember
the precise year):
b. CLLD:
Gian~ pensa che [ad Amburgo],pro 111 ci sia andato nel 1991
G. think that to Hamburg, CL have go.PTCP in 1991
(rna non si ricorda l'anno esatto).
(but not REFL remember the.year precise
c. CLRD:
Gianni1 pensa che pro%WJ ci sia andato nel 1991,
G. think that CL have go.PTCP in 1991
[ad Amburgo],
to Hamburg,
(ma non si ricorda l'anno esatto).
(but not RBFL remember the.year precise
(31) Obviation and CLLD/CLRD

a. En Joan1 esperava que pro 1•111 no digues res mal dit [CAT]
the J. hope.Psr that not say.sBJ nothing bad say.PrcP
al congres de la societat sociologica.
at.the congress of the society sociologic
'John hoped that he has said nothing bad at the congress of the society of
sociology:
b. CLLD:
En Joan1 esperava que [al congres dela societat
the J. hope.Psr that at.the congress of the society
sociological 1 proi!J no hi1 digues res mal dit.
sociologic not CL say.sBJ nothing bad say.PTCP
c. CLRD:
En Joa~ esperava que pro?.ll) no hi1 digues res mal dit,
the J. hope.PST that not CL say.SBJ nothing bad say.PTCP
[al congres de la societat sociologica] 1•
at.the congress of the society sociologic
15. I owe the examples to F. Costantini (p.c.); they are published in Costantini (2009: 59);
"%?" stands for "odd readillj(.
As before, the data in (30) and (31) show that there is no obviation eftect in the
(b) examples, the one with an embedded CLLD, while coreference is marginally
accepted or even not possible in the examples without any dislocation and with
right-dislocation. I thus conclude that it seems that coreterence is easier to achieve
if there is a constituent in the left periphery. Since CLRD does not affect obvia-
tion, it is likely that CLRD constituents are not located in the left periphery. As the
examples additionally show, the pattern is similar in Catalan and Italian. Thus, the
data do not support a clause-external analysis for Italian.
Now it is time to implement the findings into a theoretical approach. By
doing this, I show that a clause-internal analysis can easily account for the obvia-
tion data. Up until now, there is neither an approach for the CLLD pattern of
Costantini (2005b) nor one which accounts for the CLRD data. For this reason,
I present an analysis below. The analysis is based on Lujan's (1999) approach on
obviation in general.
41.2.3-1 A theoretical approach to the influence of CLLD on ob11iation Lujan

(1999) proposes a binding-theoretical approach to obviation. Binding-theoretical
approaches assume that the binding domain of the null subject in the embed-
ded subjunctive clause is extended to the whole sentence. Then, according to
Principle B, pro cannot be bound by the matrix subject since the latter is part
of the binding domain of pm. Binding-theoretical approaches differ in the claim
of which properties are responsible for the extension of the binding domain (cf.
Costantini 2005b: 99). Lujan (1999) assumes that (a) pronouns universally un-
dergo LF-movement in order to define their reference, and (b) clausal comple-
ments are marked with Case and the Spanish complementizer que 'that' bears that
abstract Case feature (Lujan 1999: 106). Obviative clausal complements are as-
sumed to be included in a simple CP structure, cf. (32), whereas non-obviative
clausal complements have a double CP structure. 16 The complementizer que 'that'
saturates the matrix verb's Case feature (accusative in (32)). At LF the null pro-
noun has to head-move to that complementizer due to interpretational properties
(cf. Hestvik 1992). By LF-adjoining to que the pronoun absorbs the Case feature.
The consequence of adopting the Case feature of the matrix verb is that the
16. Luj~n's (1999) approach is founded on the observation that ECM structures and
Obviation of the subject pronoun in a subjunctive complement have the same range of
restrictions. Therefore, she assumes the same syntactic structure for obviative subjunc-
tives such as ECM structures, namely a "'double-strata CP": lcp lcp···· whereas non-ECM
structures are only provided with a simple CP structure. Furthermore, ECM structures
involve movement.
pronoun has to be interpreted in the domain of the main clause (Extension of the
binding domain).
(32) Binding Domain Extension
ACC ~ding domain extension
Juan quiere b que+(el.)k &P tk venga]]

]. want.3sG that (he) come.3sG.SUBJ
'Juan wants that he comes.'
The extension in (32) takes place only because the sentential complement involves a
simple CP structure. Non-obviative clausal complements, in contrast, are assumed
to be included in a double CP structure, cf. (33). The complement's subject pro-
noun has, as before, to LF-adjoin to the closest C head. In double CP structures
this C head is empty and it is bound by the overt operator-like complementizer
que which is located in the higher CP (Lujan 1999: 111). The matrix verb's Case
feature is located in the higher CP. The LF-adjoined pro cannot absorb the Case
feature since it is unavailable in the lower CP and, thus, pro does not extend the
domain of interpretation. Consequently, the matrix subject is not part of pro's
binding domain and, according to Principle B, the main clause subject can act as
its antecedent.
(33) No Extension of the Binding Domain

Case No binding domain extension
~
b que b 0c+(pro;1)k &P tk sea la persona mas apta para e1 puesto]]]
Ana duda
A. doubt.3sG that be.3sG.SUBJ the person best suited for the job
~na doubts that s!he is the best suited person for the job.'
This approach to obviation can be modified for the CLLD and CLRD pattern.
If Lujan (1999) is correct and obviation is induced by the combination of Case
requirements of the matrix verb and LF-adjunction of pronouns, then CLLD is
supposed to interrupt the binding domain extension exemplified in (32). I assume
that this happens in the following way. CLLD, as normally assumed, is located in
the C-domain of the clause. I assume with Rizzi (1997) that the CP is split into the
two functional projections ForceP and FinP. Thez complementizer is generated in
FinP and then moves up to ForceP. At LF the null subject of the embedded sub-
junctive has to move to the C-domain and adjoins to the closest head inC, namely
Fin°. Since Fin° and Force0 together represent C0, the pronoun moves further up
to the complementizer que. This allows for the binding domain extension in (32).
I now assume that if a further functional projection appears between Fin° and
Force0, pro cannot reach que in Force 0• Such a functional projection is TopP, which
appears only when it is needed. In the case of left-dislocated constituents, TopP is
needed and this intervention impedes the extension of the binding domain: The
only option for pro is to stay at the empty head Fin°. Similar to the non-obviation
pattern in (33), the LF-adjoined pro cannot absorb the Case feature, which is
located in Force0, and thus pro does not extend the domain of interpretation. Con-
sequently, the matrix subject is not part of pro's binding domain and, according to
Principle B, the main clause subject can act as its antecedent (34).
(34) Case No binding domain extension
~
Giann~ spera lForceP che hopP all'esame dilinguistica lFinP 0+(pro;1j)k &P tk abbia fatto
pochi errori]]]].
Gianni hopes that at-the exam of linguistics has(subj) made few mistakes
'Gianni hopes that he has made few mistakes on the linguistics exam.'
As for CLRD, if a CLRD constituent were structurally in the same position as

a CLLD constituent it should also hinder pro from reaching the case assigned
complementizer in ForceP. The data on the interaction of obviation and CLRD
has shown that this is not the case. In contrast, if one assumes a clause-internal
analysis of CLRD, the right-dislocation does not impede the LF-movement of the
pronoun from Fin° to Force 0 and as such does not hinder the extension of the
binding domain.
41.3 Conclusion
In Section 4.1.2, the different syntactic approaches to clitic left-dislocation
(CLLD) and clitic right -dislocation ( CLRD) are introduced: the mirror hypo the sis
(Vallduvf 1993), the Split-Topic Hypothesis (Villalba 1996, 1999, 2000; but also
Cecchetto 1999, and L6pez 2003, 2009a), and a version of the mirror hypoth-
esis which assumes remnant movement in the case of CLRD (Samek-Lodovici
2006; but also Kayne 1994 and Zubizarreta 1998). Section 4.1.2 concentrated
on three tests dealing with the CLLD/CLRD. The two tests by Samek-Lodovici
(2006; licensing of n-words and binding effects) showed that Catalan behaves
differently from Italian and does not support a clause-external analysis. The
third test has not been considered so far in linguistic research and is based on
the interaction of obviation and CLLD. I showed that whereas CLLD causes
obviation to disappear, CLRD does not do so. By assuming that the position for
CLRD is clause-internal, it could account for the difference. Based on the three
tests, I conclude that a clause-internal analysis for Catalan is the best choice,
exactly as argued by Villalba (1996, 1999a,b, 2000) and L6pez (2003, 2009a).
It is not discussed if CLLD and CLRD constituents are derived by movement
or by base-generation in their surface position. Due to the fact that there is no
base-generation approach that assumes a clause-internal position for CLRD, I
adopt the analysis as presented by Villalba (2000). As a result, I also assume a
movement approach to CLLD and CLRD.
CHAPTER5
Prosodic phrasing of Catalan elitic

left- and clitic right-dislocation
1his chapter deals with the prosodic phrasing of CLW and CLRD in Catalan. 1 The
results of the experiment show that embedded clitic left-dislocations are typically
not preceded by a prosodic phrase boundary, while clitic left-dislocations in gen-
eral are obliga.torily followed by a prosodic boundary. Clitic right-dislocations are
obligatorily separated from the preceding main clause by a boundary. The appear-
ance of CLLD in embedded contexts is a topic that has not yet been addressed
by intonational research in general. I present experimental data that cannot be
explained by Frascarelli (2000) and Prieto (2005). The relevant data concern
complex CLLD structures presented in Villalba (2000) and L6pez (2003, 2009a):
left-dislocation out of clitic left-dislocations and embedded left-dislocations. The
hypotheses for the experiment are based on Frascarelli (2000). Her work constitutes
a logical point of departure, because she presents the only approach including CLLD
and CLRD but does not consider embedded clauses. I show that the formulation
of the Topic Prosodic Domain (Frascarelli 2000: 63) is too restricted for the Catalan
data. The stochastic OT analysis I present is based on the modified version of Prieto's
(2005) analysis (cf. Chapter 3). In order to account for dislocations the constraint
ALIGN-ToP,R, is also introduced, which accounts for the obligatory right bound-
ary. 1his constraint does not demand a boundary to the left and thus enables a
prosodic grouping with preceding material.
By considering branching and non-branching dislocations in the experimen-
tal data, I am able to show that the restructuring of non-branching topics does
not occur in Catalan. Non-branching topics are immediately followed by pro-
sodic phrase boundary even at a fast speech rate although a weakening of the
boundaries takes place.
The chapter is structured in the following way. In Section 5.1 background
information on dislocations in several Romance languages is given. The hypotheses
1. This chapter circulated previously as Feldhausen (2006a), an early manuscript presenting

first results. The conclusions drawn in Feldhausen (2006a, b) and here do not dtifer, although
the analysis is slightly dtiferent.
are presented in Section 5.2. The experiment design is described in Section 5.3.
In Section 5.4 the results of the experiment are illustrated and described. The
theoretical approach to dislocations is given in Section 5.5. Section 5.6 concludes
this chapter.
5.1 Background
Previous studies on Catalan (Bonet 1984, Recasens 1993, Prieto 2002a, Astruc 2005)
agree with respect to the prosodic behavior of clitic left- and right-dislocations.
CLLD constituents are given completely independent contours. Generally; they
are accented and end with a continuation rise (Prieto 2002a: 411, Astruc 2005: 61).
Right-dislocations are detached from the preceding clause and have a very low
pitch without any perceivable prominence. Astruc (2005: ch.3) shows that right-
dislocations are indeed unaccented. 2 Prieto (2002a: 410f.) highlights that the main
clause of both types of dislocations has the same intonational characteristics as a
neutral declarative. A progressively falling contour begins after the last prenuclear
accent and continues until the end of the sentence. The nuclear pitch accent can be
described by means of an L* accent, because there is no relevant pitch movement
during the accented syllable. The nuclear accent is followed by a low boundary
toneL%.
Right-dislocations in Spanish, for example, are described in Zubizarreta
(1998: 154ff.) as being accented, but their pitch range is subordinate to that of the
main clause. As in Catalan, right -dislocations are detached from the main clause
and constitute a prosodic phrase of their own, which is more likely the Intonational
Phrase than the intermediate phrase.
Similar patterns are found in Lambrecht (1981) for French. He says that left-
dislocations are accented, while right-dislocations are deaccented. In contrast to
Catalan, Lambrecht (1981) states that right-dislocations are integrated into the same
prosodic unit as the main clause. Ladd (1996: 141f.) states that French right-
dislocations copy the last tone of the matrix sentence. In declaratives the right-
dislocation is low, whereas it is high in questions. 3 Thus, the intonation of
right-dislocations depends entirely on the intonation of the matrix clause.
2. Catalan right-dislocations occur not only with declarative sentences. but also with inter-
rogatives. When occurring with interrogatives they seem to be accented and possess a contour
that duplicates the contour of the Irudear accent of the main clause, but with a lower pitch
(Bonet 1984: 34, Recasens 1993: 214).
3· This pattern is reminiscent of the duplication in Catalan as described in Bonet (1984: 34)
and Recasens (1993: 214).
Chapter 5. Prosodic phrasing of Catalan clitic left- and clitic rlght -dislocation 151
Frascarelli (2000) presents a detailed prosodic and syntactic analysis of Topic

and Focus in Italian. Left- and right -dislocations in Italian are consistently separated
from the main clause on the Intonational Phrase level (Frascarelli 2000: 34&63).
Left-dislocations are accented and their pitch accent differs according to their
discourse roles (L*+H for aboutness/shifting topics; H* for contrastive topics; and L*
for familiar topics; cf. Frascarelli & HinterhOlzl 2007). Frascarelli & Trecci (2006)
note that right-dislocated familiar topics also bear the low pitch accent L* (but
they are taken by the authors as being 'destressed'). Some important aspects of
Frascarelli's (2000) analysis are presented in greater detail in the next section.
All of these studies are similarly concerned with CLLD and CLRD in simple
clauses (i.e. root clauses without embedded clauses). As far as I know, there has
been no intonational study undertaken with respect to embedded left-dislocations.
Only Frascarelli & Treed (2006) include some embedded clauses in their study.
However, they are mainly concerned with the use and position of subjects and
their tonal realization and do not investigate their phrasing pattern.4
5.2 The hypotheses
The hypotheses for the experiment are based on the work by Frascarelli (2000). For
this reason, the relevant features of this approach are outlined before the hypotheses
are presented. After that, it is explained how the hypotheses can be tested.
Two formalizations ofFrascarelli's (2000) approach are important for the pres-
ent work: the Topic Prosodic Domain and Topic Restructuring. The first formaliza-
tion deals with the prosodic domain of topics. (1). It is useful in assisting the PF
component to recognize Topic constituents and to translate them correctly into a
prosodic structure.
(1) Topic Prosodic Domain (Frascarelli 2000: 63)
A Topic is minimally and exhaustively contained in an I[ntonational Phrase, I. F.].
(2) (Topic) TP
Formalization (1) says that topics must be minimally and exhaustively contained
in an Intonational Phrase, i.e. they have an immediate left and right boundary.
In (2) an abstract schema of (1) is given. Corresponding Italian examples with
left-dislocations (left-hand topics in Frascarelli's terms) are given in (3a) and (4).
4· The majority of the subjects in the study by Frascarelli & Treed (2006) are realized with a
low tone L* (and are thus familiar topics) and they appear in any clausal type. Aboutness-shift
topic subjects, in contrast, are seldom present in embedded clauses.
It is correctly predicted by (1) that there is an intonational phrase boundary on

both sides of the topic constituent in (3a) and (4).
(3) Italian Non-Branching Topics (taken from Frascarelli 2000: 48) 5
a. [[questo libro]~ 1 [[[k]onosco]cp [l'autore]cp [che l'ha scritto]cpJr
this book know-lsG theauthor that ithave-3sGwrite-PP
'I know the author who wrote this book:
b. [[questo libro]cp [[h]onosco]cp [l'autore]cp [che l'ha scritto]cp]y
this book know-1 sG the author that it have-3sG write-PP
'I know the author who wrote this book:
(4) Italian Branching Topics (taken from Frascarelli 2000: 47)

[[gli amici]cp [di Sara]~ 1 [[[d3]ianni]cp [e partito]cp [senza
the friends of Sara Gianni be-3so leave-PP without
neanche salutarli]cp]I
even to say good-bye-to.them
'Gianni left without saying good-bye to Sara's friends:
In (3b) a restructuring effect can be seen. Frascarelli notes that non-branching

topics, in contrast to branching topics, generally restructure into adjacent into-
national phrases when the speech rate increases (Frascarelli 2000: 48). For this
reason, (3b) is possible. The right intonational phrase ("I") boundary of the topic
disappears and the topic is part of the intonational phrase of the main clause. This
process is formalized by (5).
(5) Topic Restructuring (cf. Frascarelli 2000: 63)
If non-branching, a Topic may restructure into the adjacent constituent, on
either side.
[[ .. -l'P lr [[ ... ]q> [ ••• ]'P lr => [[ ... ]q> [•• -l'P [... ]'P lr
Topic Sentence Topic Sentence
The topic restructuring process can override the minimal and exhaustive phrasing
of topics (cf. (1 )). The formalization correctly predicts for Italian that non-branching
dislocations can be incorporated in a preceding (or following) intonational phrase,
whereas branching CLLDs do not reconstruct and thus do not phrase together
with other elements.
5· Evidence for ImP-boundaries in (Toscanian) Italian comes from spirantisation (N&V

1986/2007): plosives are realized as fricatives when situated between two vowels. The [h] in (3b)
is caused by spirantisation and signals that there is no IntP-boundary preceding the word In
(3a), however, the word is preceded by such a boundary. For this reason, spirantisation cannot
apply and the underlying phoneme lkl is realized as [k]. Spirantisation is a domain span rule
(N&V 1986/2007), and the target position must not be at the edge of a prosodic constituent.
Clearly, the two formalizations work fine for CLLD and CLRD in simple
clauses. However, it is worth pointing out that the left boundary of CLLD con-
stituents comes naturally in a simple clause, due to the fact that nothing precedes
the topic constituent. This can be seen in the schema in (2): there is no material
preceding (Topic). Consequently, one important question arises: What happens
when CLLD structures are embedded?
The formulation of the Topic Prosodic Domain as given in Frascarelli (2000)
can be applied to embedded CLLD - even though it was originally developed for
simple clauses. It predicts that embedded CLLD is also minimally and exhaus-
tively contained in a prosodic phrase: according to (1), only the grouping in (6a)
is a valid phrasing. According to (5), the groupings (6b,c) are invalid, if the topic is
branching. They are valid, if the topic is non-branching. 'VO' stands for the matrix
verb, '.. : stands for additional material preceding the matrix verb.
(6) a.) ... yo (Topic) YP
b.) ( ... yo Topic) YP
c.) ... V0 (Topic YP)
Previous studies on Catalan show that, in general, left-dislocations end with a

continuation rise (Prieto 2002: 411, Astruc 2005: 61). I claim that this bound-
ary is obligatory and that dislocations do not restructure. Furthermore, based on
Frascarelli's (2000) formalizations and the role of embedded dislocations, I claim
that Catalan dislocations do not have an obligatory left boundary. Consequently,
only the groupings (6a,b) are possible. The two following hypotheses are set up:
Hypothesis 1: Left-dislocations hm•e only a right boundary and this boundary is
obligatory.
Hypothesis 2: Catalan left-dislocations do not re.structure. 6
Hypothesis 2 is derived from hypothesis 1. If the right boundary is obligatory,

restructuring is not possible. The crucial test for hypothesis 1 concerns cases where
embedded CLLD (branching and non-branching) phrases with preceding material
of the matrix clause at a normal speech rate. At a fast speech rate, branching topics
should phrase with preceding material. Thus. if there are branching dislocations in
data that phrase with preceding material at a normal and fast speech rate one can
be sure that the grouping is not a result of the restructuring process. The grouping
is rather a result of the right boundary of the dislocations. For this reason, I set up
data consisting of cases of embedded CLLD; these are mainly instances of so called
left-dislocations out of CUD (cf. below). Hypothesis 2 is based on (5). The crucial
6. The relevant notion for restructuring is the prosodic phrase. Thus, the (SV)(O) phrasing
of Prieto (2005) can be taken as a result of a restructuring process of (S)(VO).
test for hypothesis 2 concerns cases with non-branching dislocations. If they do

not restructure at a fast speech rate, the findings can be interpreted to indicate that
Catalan dislocations do not restructure. However, if they do restructure, it is of
interest if branching topics also restructure. If there are instances of restructuring
branching topics, (5) cannot be maintained for Catalan.
A further hypothesis can be constructed from the special prediction of
hypothesis 1 that left-dislocations do not behave like (preverbal) subjects. If the
right boundaryofleft-dislocations is obligatory, no dislocation should phrase with
following material. If the matrix subject is a left-dislocation, matrix (SV) should
not be possible (recall that the complex SVO experiment (Chapter 3) shows that
matrix (SV) phrasing increases when the object is sentential). The balance effects
described in Prieto (2005) do not appear. Hypothesis 3 states as follows:
Hypothesis 3: The obligatory right boundary has the effect that left-dislocations do
not ph rase with following material if the object is long (branching or
sentential).
The crucial test for hypothesis 3 concerns cases with non-localleft-dislocations (cf.
below): Ifleft-dislocations acted like preverbal subjects, there should be instances
where non-branching non-localleft-dislocations phrase with the following matrix
material. Corresponding examples for the three hypotheses are presented now.
Branching and non-branching topics are given in (7) and (8). Non-branching
topics consist of one prosodic word, such as (7). Branching topics consist of two
different groups. The topics of the first group are made up of two prosodic words
(Sa), while the topics of the second group are made up of at least three prosodic
words, (Sb).
(7) Non-branching topics
w
The tables CL.ACC PST.lSG bring to-the flat
(8) Branching topics
w w
a. Les taules1 de Barcelona, les1 vaig portar al pis.
The tables of B. CL.Acc PST.lsG bring to-the flat
'I brought the tables from Barcelona to the flat:
w w w w w
b. A1s ve"ins catalans de l'altre co stat de l'Ebre,
to.the neighbor.PL cat alan of the.other shore of the.Ebre
els volen robar l'aigua.
CL want.3PL steal.INF the.water
'They want to steal the water from the Catalan neighbors from the other
side of the Ebre river:
A left-dislocation between a matrix clause and an embedded clause is called an

embedded left-dislocation (cf. Baltin 1982: 19, Authier 1992: 329, Lasnik & Saito
1992: 76). An example is given in (9). The DP les taules 'the tables' is left-dislocated
and embedded.
(9) Embedded CLLD
[La Maria va dir [que les taules, les va portar
the M. PST.3SG say.INF that the table.PL CL.ACC PST bring.INF
al pis lcP2 lcrt·
to.the flat
'Mary said that (s)he brought the tables to the flat:
The embedded clause (CP2) is a sentential complement of the matrix verb, for
which I used the assertive predicate dir 'say' in the experiment. Dir is a weak inten-
sional predicate generally selecting the indicative mood for its argument clause
(cf. Farkas 1992, Quer 2001).
Structure (9) is not the only one that can test hypothesis 1. L6pez (2003: 196,
2009a: 148) shows that it is possible in Catalan to left-dislocate a constituent out of
an embedded CLLD constituent. 7 An example is given in (10).
(10) (CL)LD extracted from embedded CLLD (adapted from L6pez 2003: 196)
[a Del seu avi] la Maria diu que [p les histories t(a)]
of.the her grandfather the Maria say that the story.PL
la Joana les coneix totes t(~)
the Joana CL.ACC know ali.PL
'Maria says that Joana knows all of her grandfather's stories:
First, the complex DP [~ les histOries del seu avi] in (10) is left-dislocated to the
left periphery of the embedded clause. The accusative clitic les appears in front
of the embedded verb. Next, the PP constituent [a del seu avi] inside that DP is
extracted and then holds a position in the left periphery of the matrix clause. The
PP, however, is not doubled by a clitic (cf. L6pez 2009a: 148: fn.1 for details).
In both (9) and (10) there is material preceding the (embedded) left-dislocation
which represents the foundation for testing hypothesis 1. Most of the relevant
examples in the experiment for testing the hypothesis are constructed along the
lines of (10).
Before proceeding with the experiment description, two further terms have to
be introduced: local and non-local dislocation.
Local CLLD means that an element is moved to the left periphery of the same
clause. This is the case for both left-dislocations in simple clauses, such as (7) and (8),
7. This is possible in spite of claims in the literature that dislocations are opaque domains for
extraction. C£ L6pez (2009a: 148£) for further information.
and embedded left-dislocations, such as (9) and (10). Instances of multiple dislo-
cations (or iterative dislocations) as in (11) are also local. Local CLRD means that
the constituent is moved to the right of the same clause, cf. (13b) below.
(11) (Local) Iterative CLLD
Amb en Pere 1, del llibre 2, ~'h.i 1 va parlar ahir.
with the Pere of.the book cL-CL.Loc PST talk.INF yesterday
'(S)he talked with Pere about the book:
Non-loca.l CUD means that an element is moved out of an embedded clause up

to the left periphery of the matrix clause. This is the case of the PP in (10). It is
also the case of the DP les taules 'the tables' in (12). Non-local CLRD is not pos-
sible, because CLRD is clause-bounded and therefore always local (cf Villalba
2000: 266).
(12) Non -local CLLD
Les taules [el Joel va dir [que les va portar al pis.]cPllTP
the table.PL the J. PST say.INF that CL.ACC PST bring.INF to.the flat
'Maria said that Joel brought the tables from home:
5·3 The experiment
To examine the prosodic structure of CLLD and CLRD a production experiment

with 12 (9 + 3) subjects based on scripted speech was conducted. "Scripted speech
is produced on the basis of written material which is read out" (Gussenhoven
2004: 10). The first nine subjects were recorded at a normal speech rate, while the
last three subjects were recorded at a fast speech rate. The locus of the experiment
of the first nine subjects in Table 1 was the Unive1-sitat Autonoma de Barcelona.
(UAB) in Bellaterra (Spain). The subjects were recorded in a quiet room and a
DAT recorder was used. Among the nine subjects8 seven were female and two were
male, ranging in age from 22-39years old (0 ,29.3 years old). Four of the subjects
were linguists and hence not totally nai've to the purpose of the experiment. 9 1he
locus of the last three subjects in Table 1 was Berlin (Germany). All three subjects
were female, non-linguists, and ranged in age from 21-26 old (0 ~24.3 years old).
Al112 subjects were native speakers of Central Catalan.
8. Originally, 12 speakers were recorded, but three speakers (# 8, 9, and 10) had to be
eliminated due to the bad quality of the recording and to a strongly emphatic prommciation.
9· The results indicate that there is no difference between linguists and non-linguists.
Table 1. Detailed information of recorded subjects (numbered speakers recorded

in Barcelona, June 2005; remaining three speakers recorded in Berlin, January 2008)
Speaker Sex Age Profession Origin and L1 Parents' L1
l_SA f 28 employee Barcelona ~:Cat

(Cat) c3: Cat
2_PP f 39 linguist Figueres ~:Cat.
(Cat) o: Spanish
3_AV f 24 Ph.D. student Manresa ~:Cat
(Cat) c3: Cat
4_NC m 33 linguist Barcelona ~:Spanish
(Cat & Spanish) c3: Cat
S_CA f 22 student Barcelona ~:Cat.
(Cat) o: Spanish
6_CC f 22 student Barcelona ~:Cat
(Cat) c3: Cat
7_AM f 22 student Cabrtanes ~:Cat.
(Cat) c3: Cat
ll_SP f 39 linguist St. Feliu de Gufxols ~:Cat.
(Cat) c3: Cat
12_XV m 35 linguist Barcelona ~:Spanish
(Cat & Spanish) c3: Spanish
YH f 21 student Barcelona ~:Cat.
(Cat & Spanish) c3: Spanish
RP f 26 Ph.D. student Barcelona ~:Cat
(Cat) c3: Cat
MM f 26 self-employed Terrassa ~:Cat
(Cat.) c3: Cat.
Material: A total of 32 different basic sentences were used (cf. appendix).

Of these, 20 sentences included CLLD constituents; eight sentences included
CLRD constituents, and four sentences included both CLLD and CLRD. Each
sentence was uttered by all 12 speakers (cf. Table 1). Thus, the experiment
contained 384 sentences altogether. 288 of the sentences were uttered at a normal
speech rate (9 speakers x 32 sentences); 96 sentences were uttered at a fast speech
rate (3 x 32).
All recorded data was controlled with respect to information structure. Each
target sentence was introduced by a context question. The context question pur-
posely mentioned the dislocated constituent of the target clauses in order to guar-
antee that the dislocated part was given (cf. Chapter 1). An example is given in
(13). The accusative object les taules 'the tables' is explicitly mentioned in context,
and then dislocated to the left and to the right in ( 13a,b) respectively.
(13) Example for target sentences with CLLD and CLRD 10

Context (que.stion):
Que vas fer amb les taules?
what PST.2SG do.INF With the table.PL
'What did you do with the tables?'
Target sentences:
a. CLLD:
The tables CL.ACC PST.lSG bring to-the flat
b. CLRD:
Les1 vaig portar a1 pis, les taules1•
In order to test the hypotheses, the material was intermittently controlled for pro-
sodic and syntactic aspects. The prosodic and syntactic aspects may also overlap
each other. 18 basic sentences are controlled for the prosodic structure of the dis-
locations. They include branching and non-branching topics, as illustrated in (7)
and (8): four sentences include non-branching left-dislocations and eight sentences
include branching left-dislocations, whereas two sentences include non-branching
right-dislocations and four sentences include branching right-dislocations. As for
the syntactic structure of the dislocations, there are two main groups. One group
includes embedded left-dislocations, the other group includes non-embedded
dislocations. With respect to embedded left-dislocation, six basic sentences are
controlled for it (two of them are 'simple' embedded left-dislocations, as in (9);
10. In each basic sentence, a comma was placed after each CLLD constituent and before each
CLRD constituent - in contrast to the three experiments described in Chapter 3 (simple and
complex SVO, and CLLD vs. S). The normative tradition says that for Catalan Ia dislocaci6
a l~querra 'CLLD' can be orthographically separated by a comma from the rest of the sen-
tence, whereas la dislocaci6 a la dreta 'CLRD' must be orthographically separated. This rule is
unwritten but widely accepted. Yet, in texts one can find dear instances of CLRD without a
comma. It is well known that this punctuation marl<: indicates a slight pause or a break between
parts of a sentence (Cowie 1989: 229 ). An important question arises from this: whether or not
this orthographical symbol influences the subject of the experiment and causes him/her to
produce a pause. In the experiment conducted, this did not seem to be the case. To antici-
pate a finding of the CLLD vs. S experiment in Chapter 6: speakers also produce many dear
IntP breaks even when there is no punctuation mark in the stimulL Furthermore, despite the
comma in the CLLD/CLRD experiment, speakers vary between IntP- and ip-boundaries-
similar to the pattern of the experiments described in the third chapter. In addition, speakers
are in general influenced by their orthographical education and might 'read' the punctuation
marks even when they are not there.
four of them are left-dislocations out of embedded left-dislocation structures, as in

(10))_11 The other sentences do not have embedded left-dislocations. They include
either local or non-local dislocations, as in (13a,b) and (12) respectively. 12
Procedure: The subjects were recorded in a quiet room where they were sitting
down at a table in front of the recording microphone. The data was presented on
printed out paper sheets.B The subjects were told to read out each single sentence
only after they had been asked the suitable context question. In addition, they
were told to read out the sentences in a conversational style without being given
any specific instructions regarding the phrasing. The subjects in Spain were told
to read out the sentences at a normal speech rate, while the subjects in Berlin read
them at a fast speech rate. The sentences were digitized (.wav files, sample rate
22.050Hz) and F0 tracks were analyzed using PRAAT (Boersma & Weenink 2008).
Subsequently, a prosodic analysis of the spoken sentences was conducted along
the lines described in Section 3.2. The phrase boundaries were determined on the
basis of intonational evidence along the criteria set up in Chapter 2.
5·4 Results
In this section the results of the experiment are described and illustrated by vari-
ous figures and intonation contours. In 5.4.1, it is shown that embedded CLLD is
typically not preceded by a boundary tone (cf. Figure 4). Then, it is shown that left-
dislocations are almost always followed by an intonational boundary (i.e. ip and
IntP; cf Figure 10). After that, it is illustrated that right dislocations are immediately
preceded by intonational boundaries at a normal and fast speech rate (cf. Figure 11 ).
Finally, a phonetic characteristic of right-dislocations is presented: the longer the
dislocation (i.e. the more prosodic words), the more probable a high realization of
the contour with respect to the low boundary tone of the preceding main clause
is (cf. Figure 14). Section 5.4.2 summarizes the findings, while the findings are
discussed in depth in Section 5.4.3.
n. Ultimately, only one of the 'simple' embedded LD clauses was used, Le. five basic clauses
were used for the results. 0 nly the matrix clause of the excluded sentence contained a raising
verb and thus was much shorter than the matrix clause of all other examples.
12. All CLRD sentences are local (Le. eight basic sentences). Six CLLD sentences are local, six
non-local (The ill out of CLLD sentences are not included). Four sentences include multiple
dislocations, as in (11) (CLLD: two sentences; CLRD: two sentences). Four sentences include
left- and right -dislocations at the same time.
13. The target sentences were not randomi2ed and were not interspersed with fillers.
54.1 Results
Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3 illustrate that embedded CLLD is typically not
preceded by a boundary tone. The overall picture of the results for the left edge of
an embedded dislocation is presented in Figure 4. The example in Figure 1 shows
the prosodic phrasing of the sentence Sembla que delllibre, en va parlar ahir Ia
Maria •It seems that Maria talked about the book yesterday: While there occurs a
prosodic boundary of the type H- at the right edge of the left-dislocated constitu-
ent delllibre, no boundary occurs at its left side. The pitch contour on the comple-
mentizer que That' is phonologically unspecified and does not show any particular
movement It can rather be described in terms of transitions from the high peak of
the first pitch accentL+>H* (located onsem of sembla ·useems') to the low target
of the second pitch accent L+ >H* (located on lli of llibre ~ook).
Figure 1. Catalan (Matrix CLLD)(emb. clause) phrasing- Waveform, spectrogram, and FO

trace for the sentence Sembla que delllibre en va parlar ahir Ia Maria 'It seems that Maria
talked about the book yesterday' of speaker 2 (sentence bcn_pers2_8b): non-branching,
embedded CLLD
Figure 2 and Figure 3 give the pitch contour of a sentence where a dislocation is
extracted from an embedded dislocation, as in (14). Here, the embedded dislocation
is constituted by three prosodic words, i.e. it branches. Figure 2 shows the contour at
a fast speech rate, while Figure 3 shows the contour at a normal speech rate.
(14) embedded CLID with three prosodic words
(I) (I)
[De Bordeus] 1 Ia Maria diu que [fampolla de vi rosattd 2

of B. the M. say that the.bottle of wine rose
laz va comprar el Joel
the PST buy.INF the J.
'Mary said that Joel bought the bottle of red wine from Bordeaux:
Chapter 5. Prosodic phrasing of Catalan ditlc left- and clitlc right-dislocation 161
~ -h!~.,_...._""~~~
300 '-i ':'_ ,.;. ~.;-c-: +-'i-!+-~~-5-'.
-i- - ;.:'- 'i- !:- '- 'i'~~+5-+-:,~:-'-- '7-i'~~~::
-+' - · ::·.5
~250 +:!~'· ----------!:--J~¥.------- 1- -+f ___ .,f ___ ,___ ,_+--------!---!'----+-!-----,·-~---:fl,___, ___ ., __________ "'-!-!-'-- y-----!------!'---l
~200 +~J·, --------~\Jf~----·~----v·~'~~~~~~------- ~-~'~ --~~- \--C.,.. :....:.. ,.:-~-~">' -:, ...1,.... :.;-----•---I
~ :.~ -. !'-i.i:, ~ ~ :.~'. ~ '~>_.>.... _ -.i;"'-"'......., : ' '
~150 +•-------------·------~·----------·----~---·---•--•'-~ ------·----·-----·--·'--' -~~~~----·----:·----·~---· --------·-··~ ----.-~~ · - · ---1
51oo +:-------------:1 '~-----'-_,:_·_______ ~,: ~r_,:_,_, ___ ,__ ,____'_____ , ___ , _____ ,__ ,_ ,__ ____ , ____ ,____ , ____ , ____________ ,_, ___ •____ ~
___ ,-______
-,' ___
1
~c 50 ~f~-·==
·"~,._~,==~~~
·'•~,~~~~~~~~'=·!=*~~£f~~:==
· t~~~==~'~,
&: -H% 'L-L%
De Bordeus !a Maria d' q l'ampoll de vi I rosat !a co;rar el Joel
LD s vee ~P CLLD cl v
Figure 2. Catalan (LD)(SVqCLLD)(VS) phrasing at a fast speech rate- Waveform,

spectrogram, and FO trace for the sentence De Bordeus laMaria diu que l'ampoUa de vi rosat la
va comprar el Joel 'Mary said that Joel bought the bottle of red wine from Bordeus' of speaker
YH (sentence 12b_YH): branching. embedded CLLD
Figure 3. Catalan (LD)(SVqCLLD)(VS) phrasing at a normal speech rate- Waveform, spec-

trogram, and FO trace for the sentence De Bordeus laMaria diu que l'ampoUa de vi rosat lava
comprar el Joel 'Mary said that Joel bought the bottle of red wine from Bordeus' of speaker 3
(sentence bcn_pers3_12b): branching, embedded CLLD
Figure 2 and Figure 3 also show that the embedded left-dislocation is not pre-
ceded by a boundary tone, even though it consists of three prosodic words. There
is no tonal movement signaling a boundary. The small rise of FO on the comple-
mentizer que lhat' in Figure 3 is a consonantal effect and cannot be attributed to
any boundary tone. Thus. the local CILD constituent is phrased together with the
16:1 Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan
preceding verb. The matrix subject is also part of that prosodic group, because
there is no boundary following the subject. With respect to the right boundary
of dislocations, they clearly appear in both figures. The non-local dislocation De
Bordeus 'from Bordeaux' is marked by H- in Figure 2 and by H% in Figure 3. The
local CLLD l'ampolla de vi rosat 'the bottle of red wine' is marked in both figures
by the IntP-boundary tone H%.
Figure 4 summarizes the (non-) realization of boundaries at the left edge of
embedded left-dislocations by giving the number (in percent) of boundaries occur-
ring between the matrix verb and the embedded CLLD constituent (including the
complementizer). The left bar gives the percentage values for a normal speech rate,
the right bar for a fast speech rate. At a normal speech rate, in 64% of the cases no
boundaries were placed. In 20% of the cases it is unclear if there is a boundary or
not Thus, in 84% of the cases, embedded CLLD is not preceded by a clear prosodic
break. The number of clear boundaries only comes to 16% (14% ip-boundary, 2%
IntP-boundary). At a fast speech rate, the instances of no or unclear boundaries also
represents the majority (66%), while the number of clear boundaries comes to 34%.
Interestingly, the number of no or unclear boundaries is smaller than at a normal
speech rate. Nevertheless, clear boundaries are not typical at a fast speech rate either.
Boundaries preceding emb.CLID

100%
90% - -
80% - -
70% - -
=
~
60%
50%
-
-
-
-
~ 40% - -
30% - -
20% - -
10% -
0%
normal speech rate fast speech rate
o no boundary 64 33
lflundear 20 33
oip 14 27
• IntP 2 7
Figure 4. Percentages ofboundary types preceding embedded CLLD constituents
In sum, Catalan shows a clear tendency not to place a boundary before embed-
ded left-dislocations. The language does so, irrespective of any branchingness. The
figures further indicate that Catalan has boundaries marking the end of a left-
dislocation. This aspect is presented in greater detail now.
My study confirms the results by Prieto (2002: 411) and Astruc (2005: 61) that
left-dislocations are accented and (typically) end with a continuation rise. Exam-
Chapter 5. Prosodic phrasing of Catalan ditlc left- and clitlc right-dislocation 163
pies for local non-branching left-dislocations are given in Figure 5 and Figure 6,
in which the boundary is realized asH- and as H-H% respectively. The accentua-
tion of the fronted constituent can be very well seen in Figure 7, which illustrates a
local branching left-dislocation. The first pitch accent. located on the syllable tau
of taules lables: is realized by L+>H*. The second pitch accent is realized by a low
pitch accent L* followed by an H-H% boundary tone.
~
~250 ~4-~~~--~4-~~~,r--~r+~~~--~4-~
5210 t······,········l•········j.-'---·-----·~j---------~:·········· ~f········ ~· ·· ~·--j--·----------··,----·-~·--·--··,--·------l
:::J
~1~ +------'--··----l~---+--'<----,~~,-----·t+'·----·---- i·' --------··--·'·--'--·----------··'----··,~···"··'--·------l
""
~130 t-----+T·w~f'-----~~-----~~~-~~~ :--.-~-: - ' - ,, ., -- ,~w--·--------HI'+--·•~~~~,>--·------I
5 90 t-----+~"'-·-·-------~=~'------~----+------=----;--~,~ ·: · :~ - ~:,;; ----·f'-~' 1 ------- m-~-------------+--·------l
-g~ so i=~====~==~==~======~==~====~~
&::
Les taules les vaig portar al pis
CLLD cl v pp
Figure 5. Catalan (CLLD)(main clause) phrasing- Waveform, spectrogram, and FO trace for
the sentence Les taules les vaig portar al pis 'I brought the tables to the flat' of speaker 4
(sentence bcn_pers4_1a): local, non-branching CLLD, BI3
~
e 500
e-
.,c
:::J
410
0"'
320
~
'3c 230
., 140
~
-a
c
so
:::J
IL
Les taules les vaig portar al pis
CL!D cl v pp
the sentence Les taules les vaigportar al pis 'I brought the tables to the flat' of speaker 6
(sentence bcn_pers6_1a): local, non-branching CLLD, BI4
L+ >H* L* H-H% H* L* L-L%
4 0 4
Les taules de Barcelona les vaig portar al pis
CLLD cl v pp
the sentence Les taules de Barcelona les vatgportar al pts 'I brought the tables from Barcelona to
the flat' of speaker 12 (sentence bcn_persl2_2c): local, branching CLLD, B14
The need for a right boundary of left-dislocated constituents becomes even

clearer in sentences with multiple left-dislocations. Each dislocation ends with a
high boundary tone. Figure 8 shows an example in which both edge tones are real-
ized as H- H%, while Figure 9 illustrates an instance in which the first edge tone is
realized asH- andthesecondedge tonebyH-H%.
~ ett-i~ .~-~
""l."' ' l.s ·~ ~~ ·
-r""" s
!:'; 400
.,c 340
... -
::s I
.,<:7' 280
. """ .
~
.t:l
220 .. 1 .. ~~ it:. / -· ~I
2! 1iii
.,c 160 t: ,:· 7j 'X
~ 100
I. I -~ 1.- ..a ill. ~~
""ILc::s L+ H % * H % L+ * .%
Amb en Pere delllibre p'h va parlar ahir
CLLD 1 CLLD 2 lc~~ v Adv
Figure 8. Catalan (CLLD)(CLLD)(main clause) phrasing- Waveform, spectrogram, and FO

trace for the sentence Amb en Pere dellltbre n'ht va parlar ahtr '(S)he talked with Pere about the
book' of speaker 6 (sentence bcn_pers6_7a): iterative CLLD, Bl4 + Bl4
Chapter 5. Prosodic phrasing of Catalan ditic left- and clitic right-dislocation 165
La cervesa a Barcelona molt cara
v A
Figure 9. Catalan (CLLD)(CLLD)(maln clause) phrasing- Waveform, spectrogram, and FO

trace for the sentence La cervesa a Barcelona Ia hi venen molt cara 'They sell beer very
expensive at Barcelona' of speaker 5 (sentence bcn_pers5_7b ): Iterative CLLD. Bl3 + Bl4
Figure 10 shows that left-dislocations are almost always followed by an

intonational boundary (i.e. ip and IntP) at a normal and fast speech rate (left
and right bar respectively). The figure gives the value in %. The figure com-
bines branching and non-branching CLLD constituents, because their values
do not differ significantly.'" For the same reason. the figure does not distin-
guish between local and non-local dislocations either. 15 The number of lntP-
boundaries decreases significantly at a fast speech rate. while the number of
ip-boundaries increases. At a normal speech rate 65,5% of the boundaries directly
after the CLLD constituent are realized on the lntP-level. while 33,5% are real-
ized on the ip-level Therefore almost all left-dislocations, irrespective of their
being branching or not. are followed by a dear prosodic break (i.e. 99%
14- Percentage values of branching and non-branching topics at a normal speech rate (data
of muhiple CLLD excluded): Branching (IntP: 63%; ~: 37%); Non-Branching (IntP: 72%;
ip: 28%).
15- At a normal speech rate. local non-branching dislocations ha~ 67% IntP-boundaries
and 33% ip-boundaries. Non-local non-branching dislocations have 78% IntP- boundaries
and 22% ip-boundaries. At a fast speech rate. the number of ip-boundaries of non-local non-
branching dislocations sums up to 100%.
(65,5% + 33,5%)). At a fast speech rate only 10% of the breaks are IntP-boundaries,
while 69% of them are ip-boundaries. In contrast to a normal speech rate, the
number of no or unclear boundaries rise. They come to about one fifth (21 %)
of the cases. Nevertheless, nearly 80% of the left-dislocations at a fast speech
rate are marked by a clear right boundary. Non-local non-branching left-
dislocations (cf. hypothesis 3) are always (100%) followed by ip-boundaries
(at a fast speech rate).
CLLD boundaries
100% '==r====1====r=======1===
90% 1-f---------l
80% f------1
70% f------1
60% f------
50% f------
40% f------
30% 1----
20% 1-----
10% f------
0% f - - - -
Figure 10. Percentage values of boundary types immediately following branching and
non-branching CLLD constituents (local and non-local)
Figure 2 and Figure 3, above, also illustrate the obligatory right boundary.
Although Figure 10 does not include embedded CLLD, the obligatoriness of
the right boundary is valid for any left-dislocation. The two figures show that
there is a clear boundary after both dislocations. An ip- and IntP-boundary
after De Bordeus 'from Bordeaux' and an IntP-boundary after l'ampolla de vi
rosat 'the bottle of red wine'.
Figure 11 indicates that right dislocations are immediately preceded by intona-
tional boundaries at a normal and fast speech rate (left and right bar respectively).16
16. The criterion for the CLRD-preceding boundary must be briefly explained. The boundary
is located directly after the constituent bearing sentence accent and thus marks the end of
the main clause. The boundary is main clause-final (but recall that the boundary cannot
be located at the end of TP, since CLRD in Catalan is clause-internal (ct: Chapter 4)). The
main clause-final boundary is categorized as an ip-boundary, when the sentence without the
Chapter 5. Prosodic phrasing of Catalan clitic left- and clitic right -dislocation 167
The figure indicates the value as a percentage. While the percentage of IntP- and
ip-boundaries is more or less balanced at a normal speech rate (53% vs. 47%
respectively), the number of ip-boundaries increases significantly at a fast speech
rate (88%). There are even some unclear instances (8%). The figure combines, as
before, branching and non-branching CLRD constituents. However, there is a dif-
ference between branching and non-branching constituents. While the boundar-
ies preceding branching right-dislocations are mostly realized on the IntP-level
(64%), the boundaries preceding non-branching right-dislocations are mostly ip-
boundaries (67%).
Boundaries perceding CLRD

100% , - - -- , - - - - - - - - - -, - - - - - - - - -r - - - - - - - - - , .- - - -
90% r-------1
80% f-----1
70% f-------1
60% f-------1
50% r-------
40% r-------
30% r-------
20% r-------
10% r-------
0% r-----
normal speech rate fast speech rate
Figure 11. Percentage values of boundary types immediately preceding branching and
non-branching CLRD constituents
Figure 12 and Figure 13 present the intonation contour of corresponding

examples. Both figures show that the contour of the main clause ends in a low
boundary tone. While there is only an ip-boundary tone in Figure 12, there is an
IntP-boundary tone preceding the branching dislocation in Figure 13.
RD-constituent would be perceived as having an abbreviated or chopped-otf ending. It is

categorized as an IntP-boundary when the sentence without RD is perceived as not being
chopped otf (i.e. having a 'normal' end). It is also categorized as an IntP-boundary when there
is a pause intervening between the main clause and the right -dislocation.
'N'
e3oo +-~+-~~--~~1-~-T
i:)-
s::s 250 +-+---+---------+1----
~200 t-r-t-----~~~~~~
J::
<;I 150 +-t---ho<!!illt"'~---,-----t--+---r'~
S lOO t-t:~~~r.J~~~~j}--~~;;-.~~~~~~~:t--j
~ 50 td~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
&:
vam comprar a Barcelona elllibre
v pp CLRD
Figure 12. Catalan (main clause)( CLRD) phrasing- Waveform, spectrogram, and FO trace for
the sentence El vam comprar a Barcelona, elllibre We bought the book in Barcelona' of speaker
12 (sentence bcn_pers12_14e): CLRD with one prosodic word, Bl3
3.5
als ve'ins catalans de l'altre cos tat de l'Ebre
DO CLRD
Figure 13. Catalan (main clause)( CLRD) phrasing- Waveform, spectrogram, and FO trace
for the sentence Els volen robar laigua, als vei"ns catalans de laltre cos tat de l'Ebre They want to
steal the water from the neighbors of the other side of the river Ebre' of speaker 1
(sentence bcn_persl_l6a): CLRD with five prosodic words, Bl4
Before proceeding with the conclusions of the results, one intonational aspect
concerning right-dislocations must be mentioned The flat and unaccented con-
tour of the right-dislocated constituent can be lowe~; higher, or it can be as high
as the low boundary tone of the preceding main clause. The longer the dislocation
(i.e. the more prosodic words), the more probable a high realization of the contour
is. The pattern can also be seen in Figure 12 and Figure 13. While the contour of
the short CLRD constituent in the former figure is a bit lower than the low ip-
boundary tone L-, the contour of the long CLRD constituent in the latter figure is
higher than the low IntP-boundary tone L-L% after l'aigua 'the water'. Figure 14
illustrates these findings.
As shown in Figure 14, in short right-dislocations the number of contours
that are realized higher than the preceding low boundary tone adds up to only
11%, while the number increases to 61% in very long dislocations. Exactly the
reverse pattern occurs with respect to a lower realization. While in short disloca-
tions the number oflow realized contours adds up to 61%, the number consistently
decreases to only 11% in very long dislocations.
Height of CLRD contour

70
..
,.....
~
60
50
----- ~ /
/
•
1:!
cu
~
cu
IJ...
40
30
20
1/Jr""" -·· -··-
/
~--.
~
-..
~
..¥
10
0
1 pros. word 2 pros. words 4 & 5 pros. words
-+-higher 11 17 61
_._lower 61 44 11
··-&···equal 28 39 28
Figure 14. Correlation between the length of CLRD constituents (in prosodic words, w)
and the height of their pitch contour with respect to the low boundary tone of the preceding
main clause
5.4.2 Summary
To summarize the results, I illustrate the typical contour and phrasing pattern
of Catalan sentences with dislocations, (Figure 15 and Table 2). The example in
Figure 15 is pieced together from a non-local CLLD constituent, the matrix-clause,
an embedded CLLD constituent (i.e. local CLLD), the embedded/subordinated
clause, and finally a CLRD constituent (from the left to the right). These syntactic
entities are pictured by normal and fat straight lines. The waveforms above the
straight lines reflect the corresponding intonation contours.
/VJ~
f
(CL)LD matrix clause
If
CLLD embedded clause CLRD
l Contour and breaks
Syntactic entities
Figure 15. General contour and structure pattern in Catalan dislocation structures
Each single prosodic phrase displays a clear down step. There is typically a con-
tinuation rise after each CLLD. These abrupt rises also display a downstep: the sec-
ond abrupt rise is downstepped with respect to the previous abrupt rise. The second
prosodic phrase in this figure is created by the matrix clause and the embedded
CLLD constituent, which are not separated by a prosodic break. The third (i.e. the
penultimate) prosodic phrase comprises the subordinated clause, typically ending
with a Low boundary tone. The ultimate prosodic phrase comprises the CLRD,
which is unaccented and has a flat contour.
Table 2 illustrates the prosodic grouping of dislocation structures in greater
detail. The first five examples show the grouping for structures including clitic left-
dislocations. The three last examples show the grouping for structures including
CLRD.
Table 2. Dislocation structures and their prosodic phrasing
1. local CLLD ( CLLD ) ( main clause )

2. non-local CLLD ( CLLD ) ( Matrix) ( emb. clause )
3. embedded CLLD (Matrix CLLD ) ( emb. clause )
4. (CL)LD out ofCLLD ( LD ) (Matrix CLLD) ( emb. clause )
5. iterative CLLD ( CLLD ) ( CLLD ) ( main clause )
6. local CLRD ( main clause ) ( CLRD )

7. iterative CLRD ( main clause ) ( CLRD ) ( CLRD )
CLLD & CLRD17
8. (CL)LD out ofCLRD ( LD ) ( Matrix emh clause ) (CLRD)
Whereas left-dislocations are almost always marked by a clear boundary

to their right (99% at a normal speech rate, cf. Figure 10), they show a strong
17. Further structures with CLLD and CLRD are considered in the experiment, but not
mentioned in the table. Their grouping is shortly given here:
(a) CLLD and CLRD: (CLLD) (Matrix+ emh clause) (CLRD)
(b) LD out ofCLRD: (Matrix LD) ( emb. clause) (CLRD)
tendency not to be preceded by a left boundary in embedded contexts (84% at a

normal speech rate, cf. Figure 4). This is shown in Examples 1 to 5. All dislocations
have a right boundary: the embedded dislocations in Example 3 and 4 are not
preceded by a boundary and phrase with the matrix clause. In case of multiple dis-
locations, as in Example 5, the preceding boundary of the inner CLLD constituent
results from the right boundary of the first dislocation.
In respect to a fast speech rate, the number of left boundaries of embedded
CLLD increases from 16% (at a normal speech rate) to 34% (Figure 4). This is
not pictured in Table 2. The criterion of branching does not play an important
role. Consequently; Table 2 does not distinguish between branching and non-
branching left-dislocations. They show the same pattern: boundary tones are
weakened at a fast speech rate yet are still apparent. Branching and non-branching
right-dislocations differ. Boundaries of non-branching constituents are mostly
realized as ip-boundaries.
Right-dislocations are almost always separated from the preceding main
clause by a boundary tone (100% at a normal speech rate), cf. Example 6 and 7. A
fast speech rate has the effect that the boundary tones are 'weakened'. The number
of ip-boundarytones increases at a fast speech rate (Figure 10 and Figure 11). Nev-
ertheless, both types of dislocations are still separated from the main clause.
Finally; it is possible that left-dislocations and right-dislocations appear in the
same clause. Example 8 in Table 2 shows the grouping of a non-localleft-dislocation,
which is extracted from an embedded right-dislocation (for an example cf. (22) in
Section 5.5.2). This configuration combines the typical patterns for left- and right
dislocations: the left-dislocation is separated from the following clause by a prosodic
break. while the right dislocation is preceded by a prosodic break.
5·4·3 Discussion
All three hypotheses are fulfilled. As for hypothesis 1, it is shown that embed-
ded CLLD (branching and non -branching) phrases with preceding material of the
matrix clause at a normal speech rate and that branching topics phrase with pre-
ceding material at a fast speech rate. Hence, phrasing (6b), repeated here for con-
venience sake, is typical for Catalan. Frascarelli's (2000) Topic Prosodic Domain
cannot be maintained for Catalan embedded left-dislocations.
(6) b.( ... V0 Topic) TP
Nevertheless, there are some cases where embedded dislocations are preceded by
a clear boundary. The Topic Prosodic Domain could be a possible explanation for
these. However, it is claimed in Chapter 3 that ALIGN-CP.L is responsible for the
separation of the embedded CP from the matrix clause by a prosodic break. Thus,
nothing hinges on a left boundary induced by the topic prosodic domain. The pre-
ceding boundary can also be explained by the independently motivated constraint
ALIGN-CP,L. By comparing the object clauses without embedded left-dislocations

(Chapter 3) and object clauses with left-dislocations, one clear difference appears.
While the clauses without left-dislocations are precededbya boundary in 80% of the
cases, the clauses with embedded CLLD show exactly the reverse. 84% of them are
not preceded by a clear boundary. I take this as a sign that dislocations do not only
have a right boundary, but also impede the occurrence of a preceding boundary.
This behavior is definitely not predicted by the Topic Prosodic Domain.
As for hypothesis 2, it is fulfilled with respect to the notion of prosodic phrase.
Nearly 80% of the dislocations are followed by a clear prosodic break at a fast speech
rate (cf. Figure 10). Despite this clear result, the remarkable difference between a
normal and fast speech rate has to be considered. I interpret the strong increase of
ip-boundaries to be a weakening of the prosodic phrase break and not an indica-
tion of restructuring. This interpretation is based on the findings of Chapter 3:
there is a strong variation concerning the nature of the prosodic break. Subjects
are just as frequently separated by IntP-boundary tones as by ip-boundary tones
(cf. Section 3.3.2). No clear criteria can be established for predicting when an ip-
or an IntP-boundary appears. For this reason, it is more appropriate to speak of
a weakening of the prosodic ph1·ase to capture the downgrading of the boundar-
ies. With respect to the different nature of the boundaries, Astruc (2005: 154) has
similar findings for sentential adverbs. No clear criteria can be mentioned for the
appearance of one type ofboundary or the other which further supports the view
taken here.
Frascarelli (2000) shows that Italian topics restructure with respect to the into-
national phrase level. In her account, there is also still a boundary of the immediate
lower level (i.e. the phonological phrase in her terms), cf. (3). With respect to IntP
and ip, Catalan shows the same behavior as Italian. Nevertheless, there is a funda-
mental difference between the grounding of the prosodic levels. Frascarelli (2000)
assumes N&V's (1986/2007) relation-based mapping (cf. Chapter 2) for phono-
logical phrases. Thus, they are directly derived from the syntactic structure and are
clearly distinguished from IntP-boundaries. As for Catalan, although I also intro-
duce boundaries by syntactically grounded constraints (edge-based mapping), the
constraints do not differ between IntP and ip (even though I assume both levels).
This is a consequence of the variation of the nature of the boundaries. 18
18. Even when it is argued that the increase of ip-boundaries at a fast speech rate is due to
a restructuring process, Frascarelli's (2000) formalization cannot be maintained for Catalan.
Both non-branching as well as branching dislocations are followed by ip-boundaries. This
means that a restructuring process is not limited to non-branching topics as predicted by
Frascarelli's Topic Restructuring.
Although I refer mainly to the term prosodic phrase, the weakening of the
prosodic phrase boundary constitutes an argument for assuming both prosodic
levels in Catalan: ip and IntP.
As for hypothesis 3, the data of non-local non-branching dislocations indi-
cate that they do not restructure with following matrix material (cf. Figure 10
and discussion of hypothesis 2). The obligatory right prosodic boundary of
left-dislocations distinguishes them from preverbal subjects. Preverbal dislo-
cated subjects are supposed to never phrase with following material. Thus,
hypothesis 3 is also validated. It is noteworthy, however, that the absolute
number of instances of non-branching, non-local dislocations is very small
in the experiment, totaling only 18 sentences (cf. appendix sentences 9a and
9e). In order to have more data comparing left-dislocations and preverbal sub-
jects, the CLLD vs. S experiment (experiment 4) was conducted (Chapter 6).
To anticipate one result of this experiment: it is shown that preverbal non-
dislocated subjects phrase significantly more often with following material
than dislocated subjects.
Right -dislocations have not yet been discussed. The data on right-dislocations
show that they are nearly always separated from the preceding main clause. In
contrast to left-dislocations, branching plays a role in the strength of the prosodic
phrase boundary. Branching right-dislocations generally have a stronger bound-
ary than non-branching CLRD: there are more IntP-boundaries with branch-
ing right-dislocations than with non-branching right-dislocations. The latter are
mostly preceded by ip-boundaries (67%).
Furthermore, research on right-dislocations with different length leads to
a new indicator which is useful in determining which prosodic level the phrase
should be located on. In the literature, a flat contour of right-dislocations is inter-
preted as signaling a different prosodic phrase (e.g.Zubizarreta 1998: 154ff., Astruc
2005: ch.3). I adopt thisviewhere. However, there is more to say with respect to the
flat contour, due to two interesting correlations. The different height of the contour
with respect to the preceding low boundary tone (cf. Figure 14) correlates with the
length of the dislocation. In addition, the length of the dislocation correlates with
the boundary types. As a consequence, I interpret a high flat contour as signaling
an intonational phrase. A lower or equally high flat contour signals an intermedi-
ate phrase (that can be promoted to an IntP if it is preceded by a pause). I conclude
that the reason for this high contour is a result of its length. The speaker requires
more air to utter the constituent and must therefore begin speaking at a higher
pitch in order to do so (This looks like an instance of preplanning). This, however,
is a question for further research and cannot be addressed here.
These findings are the main contribution of this work concerning right-
dislocations. Further characteristics mentioned in Astruc (2005) are taken for
granted: right-dislocations have a very low pitch without any perceivable promi-
nence, i.e. they are unaccented.
5·5 A theoretical approach to Catalan dislocation structures
In this section the theoretical account for the intonational phrasing of Catalan
CLLD and CLRD structures is presented 1his analysis is based on the stochastic OT
approach proposed in Section 3.4. Two further constraints are added: ALIGN-ToP,R
and ALIGN-vP,R. The first one is a constraint which accounts for the obligatory right
boundary of dislocations (i.e. topics). The second one is a constraint that accounts
for the obligatory boundary preceding the right-dislocation. It is based on the clause-
internal analysis of CLRD (cf. Chapter 4). The goal of this section is to account for the
groupings indicated in Table 2. 19 However, not all eight configurations are presented
in detail. I mainly concentrate on two configurations: embedded left-dislocation and
LD out of CLRD.
This section is structured in the following way. In Section 5.5.1 the two new
constraints are motivated. In Section 5.5.2 the constraint hierarchy is presented.
The hierarchy is illustrated by OT tables for several dislocation structures.
5·5·1 Two further constraints: ALIGN-ToP,R and ALIGN-vP,R
The first new constraint is defined in (15). It is motivated by the results of the
intonational experiment. It accounts for the obligatory right boundary of disloca-
tions. In addition, it says nothing about a boundary to the left and thus enables a
grouping with preceding material: grouping (6a) and (6b) correspond to (15), but
(6c) violates the constraint.
(15) ALIGN-TOP,R
Align the right edge of a topic constituent to the right edge of a prosodic phrase.
(6) a.... Y 0 (Topic) YP
b.( ... VO Topic) YP
c.... Y 0 (Topic YP)
(16) Possible phrasing of a non-dislocated preverbal subject (non-branching):
(S Y) ...
The already existing constraint ALIGN-XP,R cannot account for these patterns. The
experiment shows that preverbal non-dislocated subjects are able to phrase with
19. Certain constructions of Table 2 show variation. Stochastic OT is developed for

accounting for variation and frequency effects. However, in order to avoid a complex analysis,
I do not account for possible variation among single constructions, but merely present OT
tables for the most relevant structures of Table 2.
following material, as in (16), while preverbal non-branching dislocations never do,

as in (6a,b). Thus, the right boundary derived by ALIGN-XP,R is not as important as
the right boundary derived by ALIGN-ToP,R, because (16) is possible, but not (6c).
Due to the fact that ALIGN-ToP,R does not introduce a prosodic boundary on
the left of a CLRD constituent, the question arises of how the boundary between
the focus domain (i.e. the main clause) and the right-dislocation is accounted for.
(17) Boundary separating the main clause from a CLRD constituent:
... main clause) (CLRD)
I postulate that the boundary must emerge from the focus domain. This idea is
not new. Vallduvi (1993: 119, 2002: 1253) and Frascarelli (2000: 34), for example,
say that the linguistic material which is not part of the focus domain is not part
of the core clause. Based on this, Frascarelli (2000: 62) establishes a clear relation
between the focus domain (consisting of the syntactic FP node) 20 and prosodic
phrasing: a broad focus sentence is exhaustively contained in an IntP (Broad Focus
Prosodic Domain generalization). My Catalan data generally support this view,
because a left-dislocated topic has a right boundary and a right-dislocated element
is also prosodically separated from the preceding focus domain in simple clauses,
as in (17). However, Frascarelli's (2000: 62) Broad Focus Prosodic Domain, i.e. the
'phonological translation' of the syntactic FP node into an intonational phrase,
cannot be applied to Catalan: the CLRD element is located within the TP-domain
(Chapter4): [ [CLRD IntTopP] 1P] (cf. (19a,b)).
In the approach assumed here, the boundary between the focus domain and
the right-dislocation is derived otherwise: I propose that vP is right-aligned with
a right boundary of a prosodic phrase. This proposal is based on work by Ishihara
(2004, 2007a) and Kratzer & Selkirk (2007). The authors assume that phases
(Chomsky 2000: 106, 2001, and subsequent work) present the syntactic entity for
deriving prosodic categories. Whereas Kratzer & Selkirk (2007) take only the very
left position of the Spell-Out domain as the domain relevant for prosodic con-
stituency (their spellout edge), Ishihara (2004, 2007a) takes the whole Spell-Out
domain as a prosodic constituent. I propose that- in accordance with the property
of Catalan being a right-alignment language (Prieto 2005) - only the right edge
of the vP phase is relevant for the "syntactic grounding of prosodic categories"
(Selkirk 2005: 31). The following OT-constraint summarizes this idea, (18).
(18) ALIGN-vP,R
Align the right edge of vP to the right edge of a prosodic phrase.
20. FP stands for Focus phrase. It constitutes the XP immediately above TP. Furthermore,
instead ofTP Frascarelli (2000) originally uses the notion "AgrSP (i.e. the highest node derived
from the splitting of the original IP node)" (Frascarelli 2000: 86).
Due to the movement of vP into the internal FocP, as in (19a), the right boundary
of the prosodic phrase precedes the right-dislocated element, as in (19c) -even
though the element is part of the TP-domain, cf. (19b).
(19) a. TP
~
NegP
~
Neg FocP
~
vP; IntTopP
~
CLRD i'P-1
b. vP] CLRD] TP] Syntactic Structure
c. ( )p (CLRD)p Prosodic Phrasing
Let us assume that in a phase-approach the right edge of the prosodic boundary
originates simultaneously with the vP phase. At this moment, the vP is still in its base
position, i.e. in the complement position of CLRD. When internal FocP is merged
in a CLRD configuration, vP internally merges (i.e. 'moves') into the specifier of
FocP. The copy of vP in [Spec,FocP] includes the prosodic boundary, which was
formed with the vP phase before. In this position the prosodic boundary induces
the prosodic separation of the right-dislocated constituent. The lower copy of vP
(the one in the base position) will be deleted at the next higher phase (CP). The
higher phase contains two occurrences of vP (the one in FocP and the lower one).
The PF operation that deletes non-initial copies in a chain (Chomsky 1995: 252f.,
Hornstein, Nunes & Grohmann 2005: 242f., Legate 2003: 512) causes the lower vP
copy to be deleted. The idea that prosodic properties assigned in a phase can move
with constituents has been already discussed in Legate (2003). Legate (2003) ren-
ders Bresnan's (1972) theory into a phase account that the nuclear stress rule (NSR)
applies cyclically. Legate (2003: 512) shows that an object, which receives primary
stress in its base position, takes along stress when moving away.
In an OT-approach, which I execute here, ALIGN-vP,R may simply apply to
the moved vP, entailing the right boundary of the core clause, which separates the
CLRD constituent. Based on the results of the experiment, ALIGN -vP,R has to be
ranked high. The boundary is obligatory.
5.5.2 The constraint hierarchy
In order to account for the data, the constraint hierarchy (20) is proposed. The
hierarchy shows that the two new constraints are the highest ranked constraints.
Although it is indicated that ALIGN-ToP,R is ranked higher than ALIGN-vP,R,

I remain agnostic to the exact ranking of these two constraints. The two con-
straints do not interact at all and therefore it is also possible that ALIGN-vP is
ranked higher than or as high as ALIGN-ToP,R. It is merely important that they are
ranked higher than the four further constraints.
(20) Constraint hierarchy for Catalan (including dislocations)
aMBE b AL-CP,L
\
[ ~
e AL-TOP )C M-N-P
~j AL-VP ~ d AL - XP ,R
. ) ~ I l •
Hierarchy (20) is based on the ranking proposed for Catalan clauses with senten-
tial objects (MAx-BIN-END >> ALIGN-CP,L » MIN-N-PHRASES >> ALIGN-XP,R;
cf. Chapter 3). There is one slight difference. While the constraint demanding that
a sentence final prosodic phrase consist of maximally two phonological words
(MAx-BIN-END) does not overlap the two lower ranked constraints in the gram-
mar proposed in Section 3.4, it does so in the present case. The grey box, i.e. the
standard deviation (cf. Chapter 3, Section 3.4.3.3), overlaps with ALIGN-CP,L and
MIN-N-PHRASES. Thus, it is possible that the selection point of MAx-BIN-END is
sometimes located after the selection points of ALIGN-CP,L and MIN-N-PHRASES.
This is necessary to account for the complex structures where a left-dislocation is
extracted from a local CLLD, cf. (10), or where a left-dislocation is extracted from an
embedded CLRD constituent. Otherwise, MAx-BIN-END is typically ranked higher.
In what follows, it is shown how the hierarchy accounts for different disloca-
tion structures. I concentrate on two complex structures (LD out of CLLD and LD
out of CLRD; cf. Example 4 and 8 of Table 2) and on two simple structures (local
CLLD and CLRD; cf. Example 1 and 6 of Table 2). I begin with an analysis of the
two left-dislocation structures.
Embedded left-dislocations constitute the crucial data for ALIGN-ToP,R. For
this reason, the more complex CLLD construction is considered first Example
(10) is repeated here for convenience sake. As indicated in Table 2 the prosodic
grouping of (10) is (21). Table 3 gives the corresponding OT table.
(10) (CL)LD extracted from embedded CLLD (adapted from L6pez 2003: 196)
[ LD s v [q CLLD
[a Del seu avi] la Maria diu que [~ 1es histories t(a)]
of.the her grandfather the Maria say that the story.PL
s v Q ]]
la Joana les coneix totes t(/3)
the Joana CL.Acc know all.PL
'Maria says that Joana knows all of her grandfather's stories:
(21) Prosodic grouping of(lO) according to Table 2

(LD)(SVqCLLD)(SVQ)
Table 3. Catalan (LD)(Matrix CLLD)(embedded) phrasing

e c a b d
[LDS V [q CLLDS VQ]] ALIGN- MIN-N- MAX-BIN- ALIGN-CP,L ALIGN-XP,R
ToP,R PHRASES END
(LD S V q CLLD S V Q) *!* * * * ***
~ (LD)(S V q CLLD) *** * * **
(S VQ)
(LD)(S)(V q CLLD) ****! * * *
(S VQ)
(LD)(S)(V q CLLD) ****!* *
(S)(VQ)
(LD)(S V q CLLD) ****! * *
(S)(VQ)
(LD)(S V)(q CLLD) ****! * **
(S VQ)
The winning candidate in Table 3 is (21). It does not violate the highest ranked
constraint ALIGN-ToP,R. Due to the possibility of different selection points in sto-
chastic OT, it is possible that MIN-N-PHRASES turns out to be the second highest
constraint. The decision for the optimal candidate is made by MIN-N-PHRASES. ( 21)
violates the cumulative constraint the least. Every other candidate (fatally) violates
MIN-N-PHRASES (at least) four times- besides the first candidate, which already
violates ALIGN-ToP,R. This shows that the topic constraint is necessary. It guaran-
tees that topics have a right boundary and correctly disfavors the first candidate.21
The table further shows that MAx-BIN-END must occasionally be ranked higher
than MAx-BIN-END and ALIGN-CP,L in order to account for the right candidate.22
2.1. If ALIGN-XP,R were responsible for the right boundary of dislocations (as already dis-
proved), it would have to be the highest ranked constraint in order to delete the effect of
MIN-N-PHRASES. But if this were the case, the fourth candidate having a boundary after the
dislocations and after each subject would incorrectly win.
2.2.. Stochastic OT implies that different rankings among the overlapping constraints are also
possible - reflecting frequency effects among the candidates (cf Chapter 3). Variation also
occurs among complex CLLD structures. For example, if ALIGN -CP,L were ranked higher than
MAx-BIN-END and MIN-N-PHRASES (Le. ALIGN-TOP,R » ALIGN-CP,L »MAx-BIN-END»
MIN-N-PHRASES » ALIGN -XP,R), the last candidate of Table 3 would win. This constraint order
reflects the cases of Figure 1 that have a boundary preceding the embedded left-dislocation.
Chapter 5. Prosodic phrasing of Catalan clltic left- and clltic right -dislocation 179
Before proceeding with an example for the second new constraint ALIGN -v P,R,
I want to give an example of a less complex CLLD sentence: a local non-branching
left-dislocation as in (7), repeated here for convenience sake.
(7) Non -branching topics

CLLD v pp
The tables CL.ACC PAST.lSG bring to-the flat
Table4. Catalan (CLLD)(V PP) phrasing

e a c d
CLLDVPP AUGN-TOP,R MAX-BIN-END MIN-N-PHRASES AUGN-XP,R
(CLLDVPP) *! * * *
..- (CLLD)(V PP) **
(CLLD)(V)(PP) ***!
(CLLD V)(PP) *! ** *
The second candidate is the winning candidate in Table 4. It does not violate
the highest ranked constraint ALIGN-ToP,R nor does it violate MAx-BIN-END, yet
violates MIN-N-PHRASES only twice. Although the third candidate does not violate
the two highest constraints either, it violates MIN-N -PHRASES more often than the
winning candidateP
The constraint ALIGN-vP,R is only necessary in constructions with right-
dislocations, otherwise its effect is not detectable. This constraint plays an impor-
tant role in very complex CLRD structures. In (22) a constituent is extracted from
a right-dislocation and hosts a position in the non-local C-domain. This construc-
tion is similar to the one in (10), besides the difference that the first step of the clitic
dislocated element does not go to the local C-dornain but to the CLRD position.
The similarity consists of the movement of a part of the dislocation into the
non-local position. The grouping of this sentence is given in (23), while the
corresponding OT table is given in Table 5.
Instead of illustrating and discussing variation in complex CLLD structures, however, I

concentrate on illustrating the groupings indicated in Table 2.
23· Table 4 further indicates that AuGN-ToP,R is not absolutely necessary here. Candidate 2
also wins without the topic constraint. One can conclude from Table 3 that AuGN-ToP,R
becomes important in more complex structures. Furthermore, candidate 2 also always wins in
any possible order of the overlapping constraints.
18o Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan
(22) (CL)LD extracted from embedded CLRD

LD S V [q v s
De Bordeus, la Maria diu que la va comprar el Joel
of Bordeaux the M. say that CL.ACC PST buy.INP the J.
CLRD ]]
l'ampolla de vi rosat.
the.bottle of wine rose
'Mary said that Joel bought the bottle of red wine from BordeaUX:
(23) Prosodic grouping of (22) according to Table 224
(LD)(SVqVS) (CLRD)
Table 5. Catalan (LD)(Matrix + emb. clause)(CLRD) phrasing.2s

e f c a b d
[LD S V [q VS CLRD]] AuGN- ALIGN- MIN-N- MAX- AUGN- AUGN-
ToP,R vP,R PHRASES BIN-END CP,L XP,R
(LD S V q VS CLRD) * * * * * ***
..-(LD)(SV q VS) *** * * *
(CLRD)
(LD)(S V)(q V S)(CLRD) ****! *
(LD)(S)(V)(q V S) ****!* **
(CLRD)
(LD)(S V q V S CLRD) * ** * * **
The winning candidate in Table 5 is (23). It does not violate ALIGN-ToP,R nor
ALIGN-vP,R. The decision is made by MIN-N-PHRASBS, which is ranked higher
than MAx-BIN-END and ALIGN-CP,L. The winning candidate has the fewest viola-
tions of MIN-N-PHRASES among the candidates that are not eliminated by the two
highest ranked constraints. There are two candidates that violate the higher-ranked
constraints: the first and the last candidate.
The crucial candidate for motivating ALIGN-vP,R is the last one: (LD)(SVqSV
CLRD). It does not violate ALIGN-ToP,R because there is a right boundary after
the left-dislocation. In addition, it violates MIN-N-PHRASBS only twice, because it
does not have a boundary preceding the right-dislocation. The winning candidate
violates MIN-N-PHRASBS three times because it has a boundary preceding the
24· The grouping of (22) is given in the footnote of Table 2.

25. The table shows that AuoN-ToP,R and AuoN-VP,R are equally ranked As previously
said with respect to the hierarchy in (20), the exact ranking of these two constraints is of no
importance.
Chapter 5. Prosodic phrasing of Catalan clltic left- and clltic right -dislocation 181
right-dislocation. However, the high ranked constraint ALIGN-vP,R guarantees the

boundary at the end of the main clause. And the candidate (LD)(SVqSV CLRD)
fatally violates this constraint. If it were not there, the last candidate would
wrongly win.
The ranking in Table 5 deviates from the normal order of the constraints in
(20). As in Table 3, the constraint MIN-N-PHRASES is ranked relatively high. This
is possible because its standard deviation overlaps with constraints that normally
have a higher ranking value.26
Finally, the OT table for a simple CLRD structure is given. As indicated in
Table 2 sentence (13b), repeated here, has the grouping (V PP)(CLRD). How the
constraint ranking accounts for this grouping is presented in Table 6.
(13) b. non-branching CLRD

v pp CLRD
CL.ACC PAST.lSG bring to-the flat the tables
Table 6. Catalan 01 PP)(CLRD) phrasing

e f a c d
VPPCLRD AuGN-TOP,R AI.IGN-VP,R MAX-BIN-END MIN-N-PHRASES AUGN-XP,R
(VPPCLRD) * * * *
..- (V PP)(CLRD) **
(V)(PP)(CLRD) ***!
(V)(PP CLRD) * * ** *
The second candidate of Table 6 wins. It does not violate the highest ranked
constraints ALIGN-ToP,R and ALIGN-vP,R nor does it violate MAx-BIN-END. It
violates MIN-N-PHRASES twice, but less often than the third candidate. Although
the third candidate does not violate the three highest constraints either, it violates
MIN-N-PHRASES three times. Similar to the pattern of ALIGN-ToP,R in Table 4,
the new constraint ALIGN-vP,R is not absolutely necessary in Table 6. The two new
constraints introduced are only necessary in more complex structures.
26. Exactly as in Table 3, variation in the grouping of the complex structure is possible.
For example, if AuGN-CP,L were ranked higher than MAX-BIN-END and MIN-N-PHRAsEs
(Le. AuGN-ToP,R >> AuGN-vP,R >> AuGN-CP,L >> MAx-BIN-END>> MIN-N-PHRASES >>
AuGN-XP,R) the third candidate, namely (LD)(SV)(qVS)(CLRD), would win.
5.6 Conclusion
This chapter shows that the two new constraints ALIGN-ToP,R and ALIGN-vP.R
combined with the modification of Prieto's (2005) approach to simple SVO struc-
tures can account for the prosodic patterns of dislocations in Catalan. Empirical
data indicate that dislocations are not minimally and exhaustively contained in
a prosodic phrase. Dislocations do not have an obligatory left boundary, while
they have an obligatory right boundary. This pattern is characterized in the high
ranked constraint ALIGN-ToP,R. This constraint guarantees the right boundary.
The low ranked constraint ALIGN-XP,R cannot perform this task. The separation
of right-dislocations from the preceding clause is guaranteed by the second new
constraint ALIGN-vP,R. Both constraints represent the fundamental differences to
the approach ofFrascarelli (2000). First, ALIGN-ToP,R substitutes the Topic Pro-
sodic Domain (Frascarelli 2000: 63) and can account for the embedded CLLD
pattern. In further research it would be interesting to see if embedded dislocations
in Italian phrase similarly to embedded dislocations in Catalan or if they 'obey'
the prediction of the Topic Prosodic Domain. Second, ALIGN-vP.R is necessary
in my approach, while it is not in Frascarelli (2000). In Frascarelli (cf. Frascarelli
2000: ch.4) the right-dislocation (i.e. her right-hand topic) is extra sentential and
not dominated by TP (or by F(ocus)P(hrase)). As broadly shown in Chapter 4,
Catalan right-dislocations are sentence internal and dominated by TP.
CHAPTER 6
Left-dislocations and preverbal subjects
Chapter 6 is dedicated to the prosodic difference between CLLD and preverbal

subjects. It is shown that non-dislocated preverbal subjects are less often separated
by a prosodic phrase from following material than left-dislocations. The finding
supports the constraint ALIGN- ToP (Chapter 5), which calls for an obligatory right
boundary after dislocations in the grammar independent of branchingness and
constituent length.
Section 6.1 introduces the hypotheses. Section 6.2 describes the specific exper-
iment design (please recall the general outline of the experiment is described in
Chapter 3, Section 3.2). The results of the experiment are given in Section 6.3.
A discussion of the results follows in Section 6.4. The discussion begins with
the proof of the hypotheses. A brief comparison follows, with the findings of
the study on subjects of Frascarelli & Treed (2006) presented. I conclude that
Catalan preverbal subjects differ from Italian preverbal subjects. Following this,
a question is posed: can the CLLD vs. S experiment count as a crucial test for the
existence of non-dislocated preverbal subjects? I conclude that the experiment
clearly supports the hypothesis and that non-left-dislocated preverbal subjects
do, indeed, exist. The experiment cannot, however, constitute a test for the status
of a preverbal subject, because the phrasing pattern is not obligatory. In clos-
ing, it is shown that the theoretical approach introduced in Chapter 3 and 5 can
easily account for the results of the experiment without modifications of the
established theory.
6.1 The hypotheses
In the present study, the prosodic patterns of both non-dislocated preverbal

subjects (Chapter 3) and clitic left-dislocations (Chapter 5) are shown. The two
areas are now combined. Based on Chapter 3 and 5 a conclusion can be made
that there is a difference between preverbal subjects which are part of the focus
domain and left dislocated elements. Non-dislocated non-branching preverbal
subjects should have the tendency to phrase with following material if the object is
long (Chapter 3, cf. also Prieto 2005, D'Imperio et al. 2005). By contrast, dislocated
non -branching preverbal subjects should not show this tendency; due to an
obligatory right boundary after a left-dislocation (Chapter 5). Consequently; the
following hypotheses are set forth:
Hypothesis 1: Non-branching preverbal subjects that are part of the focus domain
show a clear tendency to phrase with following material, while those
subjects not part of the focus domain are delimited from following
material by an intonational boundary.
Hypothesis 2: Givenness overrides branchingness and constituent length.
Hypothesis 1 summarizes the first paragraph of this section. Hypothesis 2

is a consequence of the tlrst hypothesis. If being in the focus domain is the
relevant factor, the status of givenness determines the call for a boundary
(cf. ALIGN-ToP,R, Chapter 5). This factor is in fact stronger than the pro-
sodic and syntactic length of the constituents. The hypotheses can be tested
by employing exactly these factors. The hypotheses are validated when the
number of non-dislocated non-branching preverbal subjects which phrase
with following material in long object conditions is significantly higher than
the number of dislocated non-branching preverbal subjects which phrase with
following material.
The idea that givenness plays a crucial role for dislocated subjects stems
from the findings in the preceding chapters. As seen in the section on the
syntactic arguments for non-dislocated preverbal subjects (Chapter 1), infor-
mation packaging is one cue to tlguring out the status of the preverbal sub-
ject: a thematic subject is dislocated, whereas a rhematic subject is not (L6pez
2009a: 132). Vallduvf (2002: 1253) states that in Catalan thematic elements
must appear either as CLLD or CLRD. This information structure based argu-
ment receives further support by the statement from Frascarelli & Treed
(2006) that the intonation of subjects shows a strict connection with discourse
grammar and depends neither on their semantic features, i.e. specifity and
definiteness, nor on voice, modality or the verb's argument structure. 1 Already
Bolinger (1984: 406) claims that intonation is autonomous from such syntac-
tic aspects and that a theme-rheme distinction might come closer to the basic
function of intonation.
1. Frascarelli & Treed (2006) are more concerned with phonological tones of different kinds
of subjects and less with intonational phrasing patterns.
Chapter 6. Left-dislocations and preverbal subjects 185
6.2 The experiment
In this section the specific experiment design of the CLLD vs. S experiment
is described (the general outline of the experiment is introduced in Chapter 3
(Section 3.2)). In the experiment a total of360 sentences are used. In the following
section I describe the process of creating those sentences and I describe the specific
experiment design.
In order to test the hypotheses, three binary factors and two different word
orders are considered for the target sentences, cf. (1) and (2) respectively.
(1) Three factors for target sentences
i. Subject: Branching vs. Non-Branching
ii. Subject: Given vs. New
iii. Object: Branchingvs. Non-Branching
(2) Word order for target sentences
a. CLLD +SV.. .
b. S +CLLDV.. .
Factors (li) and (liii) are necessary in order to determine whether or not branching-
ness (i.e. length of the constituents) plays a role. Factor (lii) is crucial because the
hypotheses depend on the decisive difference between given and non -given subjects.
The two different word orders are also of great importance. The word order in (2a),
i.e. CLLD+S. is the critical word order for testing the hypotheses. (2a) allows for
an ambiguity of the preverbal subject It can either have no left-dislocation (and
therefore be part of the focus domain), as in (3), or it can be a left-dislocation (and
therefore not be part of the focus domain), as in (4). The focus domain is marked by
'[p ... ]p' in (3) and (4). Thus, preverbal subjects are either maximally salient or they
are part of the focus domain; their status depends on the context.
(3) Preverbal Subject that is not part of the focus domain
Cotttext (questiott):
La teva avia A.gueda ahir ens va donar el numero de telefon de l~sglesia. Ara
em vindria de gust trucar al seu germa, el sacerdot. Tu saps que ha fet I' Agueda
amb el nllmero?
'Your aunt Agueda gave us the telephone number of the church yesterday. Now
I would like to call her brother, the priest. Do you know what Agueda did with
the number?'
Target Sentence:
[p ]p
F1 n:Umeropf Agueda,el1 va posar a l'armari del rebedor.
the nwnber the.A. CL.ACC PST pui:.INF to the.cupboard of.the entrancehall
?..gueda put the number on the cupboard of the entrance hall:
(4) Preverbal Subject that is part of the focus domain

Context (question):
Ahir vaig rebre el nUrn.ero de telefon de lesgl.esia. Ara em vindria de gust trucar
al sacerdot, pero no trobo el nUrn.ero. Tu saps que ha passat amb el nUrn.ero?
'I got the telephone number of the church yesterday. Now I would like to call
the priest, but I cannot find the number. Do you know what happened to the
number?'
Target Sentence:
[p ]p
E1 m1mero 1, I' Agueda el 1 va posar a l'armari del rebedor.
the number the.A. CL.ACC PST put.INF to the.cupboard of.the entrancehall
~gueda put the number on the cupboard of the entrance hall:
All target sentences in the experiment are constructed along the lines indicated
in (3) and (4). The ditransitive verbs posar 'put' or deixar 'leave, leave behind'
are used. Their accusative object is left-dislocated, while the PP argument
remains in the clause.2 Due to the left-dislocated object each target sentence
consists of at least one left-dislocation. Only when the subject is not part of
the focus domain, as in (3), does the sentence consist of two left-dislocations
(i.e. multiple dislocation).
Word order (2b ), i.e. S+CLLD, is of importance for comparing different
subjects. The unambiguously left-dislocated subjects in (2b) are compared with
the subjects in an ambiguous position in (2a). The subject in (2b) must be a
real left-dislocation and cannot show any ambiguity, since a focus constituent
may never precede a CLLD constituent in Catalan (Villalba 2000: 229, L6pez
2003: 210). According to hypothesis 1 the subject in (2a) should show the same
phrasing patterns as the subject in (2b) when the former (i.e. the subject in (2a))
2. Interestingly, the grammatical correctness of a preverbal subject in ditransitive structures

differs. While the preverbal realization of the subject is acceptable for verbs like posar 'put' and
deixar 'leave, leave behind: it is less acceptable in constructions with verbs like regalar 'give
(as a present): as in (i). All sentences must have a preverbal subject. For this reason, the verbs
posar 'put' and deixar 'leave, leave behind' were used.
(i) a. ?I;'alfab~,la Melanie la 1 va regalar al seu amic del
the.basil the M. CLACC PST give.INF to. the her friend of the
noni d'Espanya.
north o£Spain
'Melanie gave the basil to her friend from the north of Spain (as a present):
b. I.:altabregal' la1 va regalar Ia Melanie al seu amic del noni d'Espanya.
is contextually triggered to be a left-dislocation. Furthermore, word order (2b)

allows also for a comparison between unambiguously left-dislocated subjects
and left-dislocated objects. It becomes apparent that the number of right bound-
aries after the left-dislocated elements is equal. Because of this, one can conclude
that there is no difierence - with respect to phrasing - between dislocations
with different grammatical functions; a dislocated object phrases exactly as a
dislocated subject.
Based on (1) and (2) 12 combinations of word order and factors arise. They
are given in (5); (where CLLD = OLD).
(5) 12 Conditions for the CLLD vs. S experiment

l. CLLD+S, with S new, S non-branching, Om non-branching
2. CLLD+S, with S new, S non-branching, Om branching
3. CLLD+S, with S new, S branching, Ow non-branching
4. CLLD+S, with S new, S branching, OLD branching
5. CLLD+S, with S given, S non-branching, OLD non-branching
6. CLLD+S, with S given, S non-branching, OLD branching
7. CLLD+S, with S given, S branching, OLD non-branching
8. CLLD+S, with S given, S branching, Ow branching
9. S+CLLD, with S given, S non-branching, OLD non-branching

10. S+CLLD, with S given, S non-branching, OLD branching
11. S+CLLD, with S given, S branching, Om non -branching
12. S+CLLD, with S given, S branching, Om branching
For each condition I constructed three different (target) sentences with a corre-
sponding context (along the lines shown in (3) or (4)). This becomes a total of
36 basic sentences (12 conditions x 3 target sentences). I recorded ten speakers,
making a total of 360 sentences spoken (10 speakers x 36 basic sentences).
6.3 Results
In this section, the results of the CLLD vs. S experiment are presented. At first the
right boundaries of non-branching and branching constituents in general are pre-
sented and compared (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Then non-branching and branching
subjects are compared (Figure 3). In order to clearly indicate the effect of given-
ness, Figure 4 presents the phrasing pattern of only non-branching subjects.
Figure 1 indicates that new non-branching subjects (column S(new)) are
followed less often by a boundary than given constituents (column S(given)
and LD(given)). The graph can be described by the metaphor of a "belt" that is
tightened around the lines exactly where the values for the new non-branching
subject are given (column S(new)). This "belt" indicates a reduction in the
number of IntP- and ip-boundaries and an increase in the number of unclear
boundaries and no boundaries. There are a total of 52 (25 + 27; i.e. 87%) clear
boundaries of given subjects, only 40 (18 + 22; i.e. 67%) new subjects, 55 (23 +
32; i.e. 92%) left-dislocated objects. There are 8 (4 + 4; i.e. 13%) unclear or no
boundaries of given subjects, 20 (10 + 10; i.e. 33%) new subjects, and 5 (3 + 2;
i.e. 8%) left-dislocated objects. 3
_
Boundaries of non-branching constituents
t
35
30 .___ ____... ....
_.
,c
§
=
25
20 --..::::::----......-
.......
1~
15
10
5
••
__ ...... .... ----~~.
... ..
--~:-a
0
S (given) S (new) LD (given)
_._IntP 25 18 23
- ...·ip 27 22 32
....,.•• unclear 4 10 3
··•··no boundary 4 10 2
Figure 1. Boundaries of non-branching constituents immediately preceding the main

clause. The four lines represent the boundary types. The constituent types are given in the
columns
In comparison, there is no such "belt" around the values of the new subjects
in Figure 2. The new subject is also situated in the middle of the figure, yet has
the quality of branching. While the given branching constituents (S(given) and
LD(given)) display the same or similar total number of prosodic boundaries as
their non-branching counterparts, new branching subjects do not display the
same pattern as their non-branching counterparts. There is a total of 54 (31 + 23;
3· The total in each column is 60 (= 100%). In the data there are 2 x 30 non-branching given
subjects (ct: (5),condit:ion 5 & (6); 2 x 30 non-branching new subjects (cf. (S),condition 1 & (2),
and 2 x 30 non-branching object dislocations (cf. (5),condition 9 & 11) immediately preceding
the main clause.
i.e. 92%) clear boundaries and only 5 (1 + 4; i.e. 8%) unclear or no boundaries. 4
This displays the pattern of given constituents.
Although the total number of clear boundaries is equal between the given
branching and non-branching constituents, the branching constituents have
a higher number of IntP-boundaries. The given branching subjects have 29
IntP-boundaries (i.e. 48%), while given non-branching subjects have 25 IntP-
boundaries (i.e. 42%). Given branching left-dislocated objects have 34 of those
boundaries (i.e. 57%), while their non-branching counterparts only have 23
(i.e. 38%). 5
Boundaries of branching constituents

40
35
30
lil
,c
25
~
·--··-·-·-··---··----.. ---
..........
--
~
20
15
_...
10
5 ....
··--·--:~~~~::~::;~~~==-~----·
0
S(given) S (new) LD (given)
-+-lntP 29 31 34
-•-ip 23 23 19
---...---unclear 6 1 6
--•·-no boundary 2 4 1
Figure 2. Boundaries of branching constituents immediately preceding the main clause. The
four lines represent the boundary types. The constituent types are given In the columns
Figure 3 summarizes the results of non-branching and branching subjects

(Figure 1 and Figure 2) in one diagram. The columns and the rows of the table are
exchanged in Figure 3 (and also in Figure 4): the lines in the graph now represent
the different type of subjects and not as in Figure 1 and Figure 2 the different types
of boundaries.
4 There are only 59 and not 60 examples of new branching subjects, as one recorded
sentence could not be used due to quality problems.
5· The total In each column adds up to 60 (= 100%). In the data there are 2 x 30 branching
given subjects (ct: (5), condition 7 & (8); 30 + 29 branching new subjects (cf. (5), condition
3 & (4), and 2 x 30 branching object dislocations (ct: (5), condition 10 & 12) immediately
preceding the main clause.
Figure 3 indicates that that givenness and branchingness lead to a higher

number of clear boundaries, while the properties ofbeing new and non-branching
reduce this number. By comparing given subjects, branching (thick dashed line)
and non-branching (line with two dots), and new branching subjects (thin dashed
line) to the new non-branching subject (solid line), it is evident that the solid line
is lower in the IntP- and ip-columns, while it is the highest in the unclear and
no boundary columns. New non-branching subjects behave differently than the
other three types of subjects. In addition, column IntP further indicates that the
number of IntP-boundaries is higher when the subject constituents are branching
(indicated by the thin and thick dashed lines).
Subject boundaries
35
30 ....
25 ---~-.....
t
.c 20
..-- ~'~
~ 15
10
5
0
IntP ip
'"""
'~- ~:--~~
unclear
.........- .. -
no boundary
-+- S (new;non-br.) 18 22 10 10
-•·· S (given;non-branch.) 25 27 4 4
·-'*···· S (new;branch.) 31 23 1 4
- -•-- S (given;branch.) 29 23 6 2
Figure 3. Boundaries of preverbal subjects - The four lines represent the different conditions
for the subjects that immediately precede the main clause. The values are given in absolute
numbers. The boundary types are given in the columns
Figure 4 indicates that there is no difference between the given non-

branching subjects immediately preceding the main clause (solid line) and the given
non-branching subjects immediately preceding another left-dislocation (thick
dashed line): both have by and large the same number oflntP- and ip-boundaries
(each 52 altogether). Consequently, they do not phrase with preceding mate-
rial. The new subject preceding the main clause (thin dashed line) is given for
comparison. While the number of prosodic breaks adds up to 40 realizations,
the two given subjects come to 52 realizations. The range of 52-54 realizations
seems to be normal for dislocated constituents (cf. Figure 2). Thus, the per-
centage of clear boundaries comes to approximately 88% for left-dislocated
elements. Branchingness and constituent length do not play a role.
Effect of gi.venness
30
_..
25 ·---- -
t 20
.-- --~"
'
,c
~
15
10 ~
5
~a-
--
0 -- -- ..
IntP ip unclear no boundary
-+- given S + main 25 27 4 4
• -•-- given S + CLLD 27 25 7 1
••• ,..... newS +main 18 22 10 10
Figure 4. Effect of Givenness on non-branching subjects. The three lines represent the
different subjects. The subjects either precede the main clause (" +mailf) or they precede a
left -dislocation (" +CLLD"). The boundary types are given in the columns
6.4 Discussion and conclusion
Hypotheses 1 and 2 are fulfilled The "belt" in Figure 1 is evidence for hypothesis 1:
new non-branching preverbal subjects (i.e. subjects that are part of the focus
domain) are more likely to phrase with following material than given constitu-
ents (67% vs. 87-92%). Consequently, non-branching given elements (subjects or
objects) are more often followed by a prosodic break than non-branching new
subjects (87 -92% vs. 67%).
As for hypothesis 2, givenness overrides the tendency for (SV) of non-branching
subjects. Thus, branchingness and constituent length does not play a role, when
the element is dislocated: the percentage of clear boundaries equals 88% (c£ Figure 4).
However, branchingness plays an important role when the subject is part of the
focus domain (i.e. not left-dislocated). If the new subject is branching, it automati-
cally has a prosodic boundary to its right. Branchingness even increases the prob-
ability of an IntP-boundary (Chapter 3, Figure 1). Figure 1 and Figure 2 show that
the status of being given and the property ofbeing branching have the same effect:
they both introduce boundaries.
The validity of hypotheses 1 and 2 clearly supports the introduction of the
OT constraint ALIGN-ToP,R,. A less strict version as ALIGN-XP,R is not able to
account for the effect of givenness (cf. Chapter 5).
The finding that non-dislocated preverbal subjects can phrase with follow-
ing material contradicts the findings of Frascarelli & Treed (2006) for Italian.
They show that Italian preverbal overt subjects always satisfy some specific
discourse requirement, i.e. they are either topic or (narrow) focus constituents. In
my data, the subjects are neither topics nor narrowly focused. Frascarelli & Trecci
( 2006) further maintain that the introduction of a preverbal subject is mostly con-
nected with topic continuity, which connected with (narrow) focus information
only to a lesser extent. These assumptions contradict the findings of the CLLD
vs. S experiment. In Catalan, non -branching preverbal subjects that are not given
have the tendency to phrase with following material. As for phrasing, Frascarelli
& Trecci (2006) show that the intonational phrase of the broad focus sentence
(i.e. the FP in Frascarelli 2000; or the TP as described in Chapter 4) includes the
subject only when it is postverbal. They assume that overt subjects do not host the
canonical Spec,TP position but a position in the C-domain.6 In my data, prever-
bal subjects can also be part of the prosodic phrase of the broad focus sentence
(when the necessary length conditions are met). I conclude that there are two dif-
ferent structural positions for preverbal subjects: one in TP, the other one in the
C-domain. The brief comparison with the findings of Frascarelli & Treed (2006)
shows that Italian and Catalan differ. In Chapter 4, further differences between
Italian and Catalan are described. Thus, it appears as if there are great structural
and prosodic differences between these two closely related Romance languages.
Based on the findings of this experiment, it does not seem possible to con-
struct a test for the status of preverbal subjects. This statement is founded on the
fact that there are still too many prosodic boundaries after non-branching prever-
bal subjects that are part of the focus domain. The non -existence of that bound-
ary seems to be optional (recall that the typical grouping in Catalan is (S)(VO),
Chapter 3, D' Imperio et al. 2005). Figure 1 indicates the tendencies of the different
subjects. In order to judge if a preverbal subject is dislocated or not, the boundary
results have to be much clearer than indicated in the figure. This conclusion is in
line with Sheehan (2006) - although she refers to pauses as the only relevant into-
national criterion (and not additionally to ip-boundaries as I do). Sheehan (2006)
concludes her brief look into the field of intonation by concluding that pauses are
not a useful heuristic for the assessment of the status of preverbal subjects, since
the pause is optional rather than obligatory (Sheehan 2006: 47). 7
6. Frascarelli & Treed (2006) use the term 'I P' instead of TP.
7· While discussing possible diagnostics, Sheehan (2006: 47) briefly mentions prosodic
aspects of CLLD and preverbal subjects. Her basic assumption is that if preverbal subjects in
Null Subject Languages (NSLs) are always left-dislocated in an A'-posit:ion, then they should
display the same properties as other CLLD elements. On the one hand she cites Raposo, who
says that the element doubled by a dit:ic and appearing at the left of the clause forms "a dearly
Although Sheehan (2006) and I arrive at the same conclusion, I think that an
analysis based purely on pauses simply cannot tell the whole story. Speaking from
an intonational point of view, one has to acknowledge that 'pauses' are definitely
not the only cue for intonational breaks. Whereas pauses typically signal IntP-
boundaries, they do not signal ip-boundaries. Chapter 5, however, has shown that
Catalan CLLD does align with both kinds of intonational boundary tones. Conse-
quently; it does not seem to be a big surprise that left-dislocated elements are not
always separated by a pause. Hence, in her approach the following question remains
unanswered: are there prosodic cues which distinguish non-left-dislocated prever-
bal subjects from left-dislocated subjects (and other left-dislocated elements)? The
experiment in this chapter shows that there are no such cues- at least no obliga-
tory cues. However, the tendency that non-left-dislocated subjects have fewer
boundaries is clearly apparent.
Finally, I want to illustrate the manner in which the OT approach introduced
in the preceding chapters can account for the results of the CLLD vs. S experiment.
The data I presented in this chapter are not new for the present work, as preverbal
subjects and dislocations have previously been discussed. Based on this. the theo-
retical approach established in Chapter 3 and 5 can account for the findings of the
CLLD vs. S experiment. In what follows, three OT tables show how the approach
can capture the data. The tables refer to sentence (6). The preverbal subject in (6c)
is ambiguous. It can either be part of the focus domain, as in (6a), or it can be
left-dislocated, as in (6b ).
(6) Sentence with preverbal subject (given and new)
a. [p
~ ~
c. E1 nfunero 1, l~gueda el 1 va posar a l'armari
the number theA. CL.ACC PST put.INF to the.cupboard
~gueda put the number on the cupboard:
Table 1 corresponds to (6b). Candidate 2, which has a right boundary after the
left-dislocated object and the given/left-dislocated subject, proves to be the best
distinct melodic phrase, set off from the rest of the clause by a pause (represented by the
comma)" (Raposo 1996: 1). Thls signifies that preverbal subjects should be separated by a
pause, if they are left -dislocated. 0 n the other hand, she cites Sola who claims that "any clitic
left-dislocated element can be pronounced without any special pause or phonological clue
possibly differentiating it from what would be a 'true' non-dislocated subject" (Sola 1992: 268).
From these two statements, Sheehan (2006: 47) concludes that "this pause is optional rather
than obligatory, and therefore not a useful heuristic for the assessment of the status of
preverbal subjects':
answer, i.e. it wins. In it AuoN-ToP,R and MAx-BIN-END are not violated and
MIN-N-PHRASBS is violated only three times. The third candidate fatally violates
MIN-N-PHRASBS one time more often than the winning candidate. Furthermore,
even when the overlapping constraints in stochastic OT lead to a reverse ranking,
candidate 2 remains optimal. In any order of MAx-BIN-END, MIN-N-PHRASBS,
and AuoN-XP,Rcandidate 3 fatally violates MIN-N-PHRASBS more often than the
winning candidate.
Table 1. OT-table for a sentence with a given subject (normal ranking)

(Sg =given subject= left-dislocated subject)
e a c d
CLLDSgVPP AUGN-TOP,R MAX-BIN-END MIN-N-PHRASES AuGN-XP,R
(CLLD Sg V PP) *!* * * **
~(CLLD)(Sg)(V PP) ***
(CLLD)(Sg)(V)(PP) ****!
(CLLD)(Sg V PP) *! *** *
(CLLD)(Sg V)(PP) *! *** *
Table 2 and Table 3 correspond to (6a). The results show that two rankings
are probable: (CLLD)(Sn)(V PP) and (CLLD)(Sn V PP). The proposed stochastic
OT approach can easily account for the findings. While the most common group-
ing (CLLD)(Sn)(V PP) is realized by means of the 'normal' constraint ranking,
the second most common grouping (CLLD)(Sn V PP) is realized by means of a
reverse ranking (Table 3). In both tables the decision for the optimal candidate is
passed down to MIN-N-PHRASES. Depending on the ranking either candidate 2 or
candidate 4 is shown to be optimal- in accordance with the Catalan data.
Table 2: OT-table for a sentence with a new subject (normal ranking)

(Sn =new subject= not left-dislocated subject)
e a c d
CLLDSnVPP AuGN-TOP,R MAX-BIN-END MIN-N-PHRASES AUGN-XP,R
(CLLD Sn V PP) *! * * *
~(CLLD)(Sn)(V PP) ***
(CLLD)(Sn)(V)(PP) ****!
(CLLD)(Sn V PP) *! ** *
(CLLD)(Sn V)(PP) *** *!
Table 3. OT-table for a sentence with a new subject (reverse ranking)

(Sn = new subject = not left -dislocated subject)
e c a d
CLLDSnVPP AuGN-TOP,R MIN-N-PHRASES MAX-BIN-END AuGN-XP,R
(CLLD Sn V PP) *! * * *
(CLLD)(Sn)(V PP) ***!
(CLLD)(Sn)(V)(PP) ***!*
~ (CLLD)(Sn V PP) ** * *
(CLLD)(Sn V)(PP) ***! *
The order of the constraints in Table 2 corresponds to the 'normal' ranking

(cf. Section 5.5.2). The constraint ALIGN-CP,L (marked by the letter b) is not nec-
essary, since there are no embedded clauses. In Table 2 the second candidate wins.
It does not violate the two highest ranked constraints ALIGN-ToP,R and MAx-
BIN-END Gust like candidate 3 and 5). Candidate 1 and 4 fatally violate some of
the two constraints. However, the decision for candidate 2 is not determined at
MIN-N-PHRASBS, because there is a further candidate, which violates MIN-N-
PHRASBS as often as the winning one: candidate 5 (while candidate 3 fatally vio-
lates MIN-N-PHRASBs). Thus, the decision is passed down to the lowest ranked
constraint ALIGN-XP,R. Candidate 5 fatally violates the alignment constraint,
while candidate 2 does not violate the constraint at all.
In Table 3 the constraint MIN-N-PHRASES is ranked higher than MAx-BIN-END
(this is possible due to overlapping standard deviations). Candidate 4 is evaluated
as the winning output. While it does not violate ALIGN-ToP,R (exactly as candi-
date 2, 3, and 5), it violates the second constraint, namely MIN-N-PHRASBS, less
often than candidate 2, 3, and 5. Candidate 1 already fatally violates ALIGN-ToP,R
and does not play a role anymore in the evaluation process.
In conclusion, the experiment in the chapter shows that there is a significant
difference between new non-branching subjects and given subjects. This finding
clearly supports the constraint ALIGN-ToP,R, which is introduced in Chapter 5 for
left- and right-dislocations. This constraint calls for an obligatory boundary at the
right edge of a dislocated constituent. The experiment further shows that the effect
of ALIGN-ToP,R is independent ofbranchingness/ constituent length. Branching
and non-branching topics have a clear right boundary. Finally, the analysis set up
in Chapter 3 and 5 can easily account for the results of the CLLD vs. S experiment.
For this reason, no modifications of the theory are necessary.
CHAPTER]
Conclusion and outlook
The goal of this monograph is to inquire into the intonational phrasing of difterent
sentence forms and into the theoretical grounding of the Prosodic Phrase
(i.e. intermediate phrase and Intonational Phrase) of phonological representa-
tion. The contributions of the present work concern three main areas: Prosody,
Syntax, and the Prosody-Syntax interface. In addition to these areas the present
work demonstrates the productivity of the stochastic OT model since the detected
variation in intonational grouping can be easily accounted for in this model.
Prosody: The intonational research of the present work offers a closer and detailed
look at complex structures of a certain type: object clauses. Furthermore, it com-
pares the intonational grouping ofleft -dislocations and preverbal subjects. Entirely
new empirical data is offered - based on four production experiments with a min-
imum of ten speakers per experiment. Five clearly defined and illustrated cues
for intonational boundaries (Chapter 2) allow for a systematically investigation
of intonational boundaries in the recorded data. The work is based on the ToBI
transcription system for Catalan (Cat_ToBI). Thus, Cat_ToBI is applied to Catalan
data which has not, until now, been considered.
The research on object clauses is especially important due to the fact that
literature on phrasing in Romance of the last decade has not inquired seri-
ously into complex structures. These studies have mainly been concerned with
simple SVO structures. Furthermore, the authors who do examine complex
structures are mostly concerned with non -restrictive relatives, nominal apposi-
tives, parenthetical expressions, or they are concerned with the comparison of
right boundaries of root clauses (Downing 1970, Nespor & Vogel1986/2007,
Selkirk 2005, Dehe 2009 among others). They are hardly concerned with
clauses which are part of the verb's argument structure. Truckenbrodt (2005),
though, does inquire into subject and object clauses but his study is based on
only one speaker.
In the present work the intonational grouping of object clauses is approached
from two angles. First, the influence of sentential objects on the phrasing of the
matrix subject and object is scrutinized. Second, the grouping of embedded clauses
themselves is discussed.
Catalan is described as a language where eurhythmic constraints play a role

and cause a short subject to phrase together with the verb when the object is long
(i.e. (SV)(O), Prieto 2005). The present study on object clauses shows that the
percentage of (SV) phrasing increases (by about 20%) when the object is sentential
(Chapter 3). It further shows that the (SV) grouping is only a root phenomenon.
The (SV) grouping does not show up in embedded clauses. If the embedded object
clause consists of a short subject and a long object, the embedded subject never
phrases with the embedded verb.
It is shown (in Chapter 3) that object clauses are mostly separated by an into-
national break from the preceding matrix clause. Statistically this is true approxi-
mately 80% of the time. However, if the embedded clause has a left-dislocation
in its C-domain, the separation of the object clause decreases drastically and
shows the reverse image: 80% of the object clauses are not separated by an into-
national break between the matrix verb and the complementizer. Embedded left-
dislocations phrase with preceding matrix material (Chapter 5). This data offer
empirical evidence that Frascarelli's (2000: 63) Topic Prosodic Domain cannot be
applied to Catalan.
Syntax: The present work also has a pure syntactic contribution. It gives clear
evidence for a clause-internal analysis of Catalan clitic right-dislocation by pre-
senting three tests (Chapter 4). These tests concentrate on syntactic asymmetries
between CLLD and CLRD. One test is entirely new in the linguistic literature. This
test is based on obviation effects in subjunctive complement clauses. While left-
dislocations lead to a disappearance of obviation effects, right-dislocations keep
obviation effects. By assuming a clause-internal analysis of CLRD this pattern can
be accounted for. The two further tests deal with licensing of negative words (like
NPis) and binding properties. It is shown that Catalan behaves differently from
Italian and gives evidence against a clause-external analysis of CLRD constituents
as in Samek-Lodovici (2006) and Frascarelli (2000).
Syntax-Prosody Interface: The present work shows that constraints of the alignment
family have great importance in Catalan. The constraints indicate that the language
has a close relation between syntactic constituent types and prosodic constituent
types. Thus, the theoretical account for the phrasing pattern strongly fits in the
theory of the syntactic grounding of prosodic categories (Selkirk 2005: 31). In the
present work, three new syntax-phonology constraints are established for Catalan.
They are given in (lb,c,d). The three constraints exist next to Selkirk's (1995b)
classical constraint (la). All four syntax-phonology interface constraints call for
the edge-alignment of a designated constituent type in syntax to a corresponding
designated constituent type in prosodic structure.
Chapter 7. Conclusion and outlook 199
(1) Interface alignment constraints for Catalan

a. AuGN-XP,R (Section 3.4.1)
Align the right edge of a syntactic XP to the right edge of a prosodic phrase
b. ALIGN-CP,L (Section 3.4.3.1)
Align the left edge of a CP to the left edge of a prosodic phrase
c. ALIGN-vP,R (Section 5.5.1)
Align the right edge of vP to the right edge of a prosodic phrase
d. ALIGN-ToP,R (Section 5.5.1)
Align the right edge of a topic constituent to the right edge of a prosodic phrase
The relevant prosodic constituent of all constraints is the prosodic phrase. Strictly
speaking, the prosodic phrase is not a constituent of its own, but a hypernym for
the actual prosodic constituents: the intermediate phrase (ip) and the Intonational
Phrase (IntP). Theprosodicdata show, however, that a strong variation in the nature
of the prosodic break is present. The consequence of this is that no dear criteria
can be established for predicting when an ip- or an IntP-boundary appears. 1 This
is the reasoning behind the term prosodic phrase being introduced as a hypernym
for the two constituents.
The constraints in (1) differ with respect to the relevant syntactic constit-
uent types. In the first constraint, the classical end-based theory constraint of
Selkirk (1986, 1995b), the prosodic phrase corresponds to a maximal projection
of lexical category. In (1b) the corresponding syntactic constituent is the func-
tional projection CP, while it is the functional projection vP in (1c). Although
(1d) is listed among the syntax-phonology interface constraints, the correspond-
ing constituent is mainly an information structural entity: the (syntactic) con-
stituent that counts as the topic.2 (1) dearly indicates that the prosodic phrase is
not limited to a single corresponding syntactic constituent. The obligatoriness of
certain boundaries calls for different corresponding syntactic XPs.
Theoretical Model: The present work shows that variation exists in the intona-
tional grouping of complex structures. The data are quantified by the number of
realizations in each pattern. In order to capture the quantified results a stochastic
approach to variation represents the appropriate theoretical framework. For this
1. For example, subjects aie almost as often separated by IntP-boundary tones as by

ip-boundary tones, independently of conditions such as branchingness (cf. Section 3.3.2).
2. It is conceivable that the topic status of a constituent is indicated by a syntactic feature [+T].
The feature can already be part of the constituent before it enters the derivation or it can get part
of the constituent during the derivation (c£ L6pez 2003, 2009a). It is only important that the
constituent is indicated as being the topic before the phonological representation is established
reason the findings are modeled in the stochastic Optimality Theory approach as
proposed by Boersma & Hayes (2001). The analysis of the data nicely shows the
productivity of stochastic OT.
The alignment constraints in (1) are argued to have different ranking values.
In the theoretical approach to complex SVO structures (i.e. sentences with object
clauses) ALIGN-XP,R is the lowest ranked constraint, while ALIGN-CP,L is ranked
higher (cf. Section 3.4. 3.4). Both constraints overlap with each other and with MIN-
N-PHRASES. Consequently the ranking order can be the reverse ofthe 'normal' order.
There are four main groupings for complex SVO structures. The possible permuta-
tions caused by the overlap account for all four groupings (cf. Section 3.4.3.1 and
3.4.3.4). The two further alignment constraints, ALIGN-vP,R and ALIGN-ToP,R,
are necessary for structures including dislocations. In the proposed grammar they
constitute the highest ranked constraints. They do not overlap with the other con-
straints (cf. Section 5.5.2). This characterizes the obligatoriness of the boundaries
they evoke: the right boundary of dislocations is obligatory as well as the boundary
separating the right-dislocation from the preceding clause. Furthermore, the dis-
appearance of the boundary preceding an embedded clause (induced by ALIGN-
CP,L) is accounted for by means of a low ranked ALIGN-CP,L. Strictly speaking it is
not ALIGN-CP,L, which is ranked low, but rather the selection point at the time of
evaluation is at the lower end of the constraint's standard deviation.
The present work offers several directions for further research. The work is lim-
ited to object clauses. This limitation constitutes the first direction. It would be inter-
esting to see in which way subject clauses influence the phrasing. Subject clauses can
be integrated in the research in two ways. First, sentences that have only one sentential
argument (namely the subject) can be analyzed. Truckenbrodt's (2005) results show
that subject clauses (in the prefield) are systematically separated from the following
matrix clause by an intonational phrase boundary. How sentential subjects behave in
Catalan (and other Romance languages) could also be studied. It is important that
these experiments be based on several speakers. Second, sentences with two sentential
arguments (the subject and object) should be studied The (SV) grouping in Catalan
is possible only when the subject is short. Consequently, sentential subjects should
not phrase with the following verb. when the object is long/sentential This idea is
currently only a prediction and has yet to be confinned by any systematic study.
Furthermore, it would be interesting to inquire more into the object itself. Is
it the syntactic status as a sentence that has the described effect on matrix (SV)
or is the effect simply induced by the factor of length (1 vs. 3 or more prosodic
words)? A next research step might include DP objects of similar length as the
sentential objects in the present study and also sentential objects consisting of only
one prosodic word.
Additionally the studies should include utterances at different rates of speech.
The complex SVO experiment concentrated on a normal speech rate. As Prieto
Chapter 7. Conclusion and outlook 101
(2005) pointed out the (SV) grouping is more probable at a fast speech rate. Thus,
the number of (SV) groupings should increase the faster the speech rate is.
A second direction concerns the prosodic levels and the corresponding
boundary tones. First, in the present study the term prosodic phrase is used as a
hypernym for intermediate phrase and intonational phrase. The reason for this is
the fact that no clear criteria can be established for predicting when an ip- or an
IntP-boundary appears. Further inquiry into this topic is necessary. Future studies
will hopefully show if the alignment constraints established in this work can be
maintained as such, or if they should refer to either ip or IntP.
Second, by attempting to establish criteria to predict the boundaries, possible
solutions may arise to account for the weakening effect of boundaries at a rapid
rate of speech. In the present work, the pattern is simply covered by the term
prosodic phrase.
Third, in Chapter 1 clear criteria for ip- and IntP-boundaries are established.
Furthermore, two different boundary tones, namely T- and T%, are assumed.
Prieto et al. (2009) still assume that there are two prosodic levels, but only one
type of boundary tone. However, if there is only one tone how can one tell the dif-
ference between the two prosodic levels? Thus, future studies on the nature of the
prosodic levels and the nature of the boundary tones are necessary.
A third direction concerns the two constraints ALIGN-vP,R and ALIGN-CP,L.
They have a clear correspondence with exactly those functional projections taken
as phases in the minimalist framework. It would be interesting to do further
research into establishing these constraints based on the notion of phase. This is
particularly interesting at the present time, as current research has discovered the
relevance of syntactic phases for prosodic phonology. It would also be interesting
to see how the effect of these alignment constraints could be modeled in the Match
Theory (Selkirk 2009a).
A fourth direction concerns the consequences of the obviation test for Italian.
The test is based on obviation effects in subjunctive complement clauses (Chapter 4).
The test constituted one argument for assuming a clause-internal analysis of
CLRD for Catalan. However, the Italian data and the Catalan data do not differ with
respect to this test If this test proves correct, the Italian pattern cannot be explained
by a clause-external analysis as assumed in Samek-Lodovici (2006). Despite this, the
two other tests show that a clause-external analysis is an appropriate proposal for
Italian. This contradicting evidence should be investigated further.
In conclusion, the present work provides some answers with respect to
the intonational phrasing of certain complex structures, and contributes to the
understanding of the interplay between syntax and prosody. I hope this work
opens up new research questions and leads to further research on the phrasing of
complex structures.
References
Aguilar, Lourdes, d.e-la-Mota, Carme & Prieto, Pilar (eds). 2009. Cat_ToBI Training Materials.
<http://prosod.ia.upfedu/cat_tobi/> (26 May 2010).
Alexiadou. Artemis. 2006. Left dislocation (including CLLD ). In The Blackwell Companion to
Syntax- Vols. I-v; Marti Everaert, Henk van Riemsdijk, Rob Goedemans & Bart Hollebrandse
(eds), 668-699. Oxford: Blackwell
Alexiadou. Artemis & Anagnostopoulou. Elena. 1998. Parametrizing AGR: Word order,
V-movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16:491-539.
Ambar, Manuela 1999. Aspects ofthe syntax offocus in Portuguese. In The Grammar of Focus
[Linguistik.Aktuell/Linguistics Today24], Georges Rebuschi & Laurice Thller (eds), 23-53.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Anagnostopoulou. Elena. 1997. Clitic left dislocation and contrastive left dislocation. In Materi-
als on Left Dislocation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 14], Elena Anagnostopoulou,
Henk van Riemdijk & Frans Zwarts (eds ), 151-192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Anderson, Stephen R 2000. Towards an optimal account of second-position phenomena. In
optimality Theory: Syntax, Phonology and Acquisition, Joost Dekkers, Prank van der Leeuw
& Jeroen van de Weijer (eds), 302-333. Oxford: OUP.
Anttila, Arto. 1997. Deriving variation from grammar: A study of finnish genitives. In Variation,
Change and Phonological Theory [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 146], Frans Hinskens,
Roeland van Hout & Leo Wetzels (eds), 35-68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Anttila, Arto. 2002. Variation in phonological theory. In The Handbook of Language Variation
and Change, Jack K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill & Nathalie Schilling-Estes (eds), 206-243.
Oxford: BlackwelL
Anttila, Arto. 2007. Variation and optionality. In The Cambridge Handbook ofPhonology, Paul de
Lacy (ed), 519-536. Cambridge: CUP.
Archangeli, Diana & Langendoen, Terence D. 1997. Optimality 1hoory: An Oven•iew. Oxford:
Blackwell
Arvanitl. Amalia, Ladd. D. Robert & Mennen, Ineke. 2000. What is a starred tone? Evidence
from Greek. In Papers in Laboratory Phonology, V: Acquisition and the Lexicon, Michael B.
Broe & Janet B. Pierrehumbert (eds ), 119-131. Cambridge: CUP.
Astruc, Ilu'isa. 2005. The Intonation ofExtra-Sentential Elements in Catalan and English. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Cambridge.
Authier, Jean-Marc. 1992. Iterated CPs and embedded topicalization. Linguistic Inquiry 23:
329-336.
Baltin, Mark R 1982. A landing site theory of movement rules. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 1-38.
Barbosa, Pllar. 1995. Null Subjects. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Beckman, Mary. 2006. Tone inventories and tune-text alignments. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Society for Pidgin and Creole Linguistics, 6-7 January 2006, <http://www.
ling.ohio-state.edul-mbeckmanlpublications/SPCL2006/BeckmanSPCL2006handhout.
pdf> ( 26 May 2010).
Beckman, Mary & Pierrehumbert, Janet 1986. Intonational structure in Japanese and English.
Phonology Yearbook 3: 255-309.
Beckman. Mary, Diaz-Campos, Manuel, McGory, Julia & Morgan. TerrelL 2002. Intonation
across Spanish, in the tone and break indices framework. Probus 14: 9-36.
Beckman. Mary, Hirschberg, Julia & Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanle. 2005. The original ToBI
system and the evolution of the ToBI framework. In Prosodic Tjpology. Ihe Phonology of
Intonation and Phrasing, Sun-AhJun (ed.), 9-54. Oxford: OUP.
Belletti, Adriana. 1990. Generalized Verb Movement: Aspects of Verb Synta."t. Torino: Rosenberg
&Sellier.
Bellett!, Adriana. 2005. Extended doubling and the VP periphery. Probus 17: 1-35.
Bellett!, Adriana & Shlonsky, Ur. 1995. The order of verbal complements: A comparative study.
Natural Language and LinguisNc Theory 13: 489-526.
Benet, Ari.adna. In preparation. E1 fraseig prosodic en la parla espontania del catala i del castella.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hamburg.
Benet, Ariadna, Lle6, Conxita & Cortes, Susana. To appear. Phrase boundary distribution
in Catalan: Applying the prosodic hierarchy to spontaneous speech. In Intonational
Phrasing in Romance and Germanic: Cross-Linguistic and Bilingual Studies [Hamburg
Studies on Multilingualism 10], Conxita Lle6 & Christoph Gabriel (eds). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Boersma, Paul. 1998. Functional Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Boersma, Paul. 1999. Optimality-Theoretic learning in the Praat program. IFA Proceedings 23:
17-35 (=Rutgers Optimality Archive 380).
Boersma, Paul & Weenink. David 1992-2010. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version
5.0.06) (Computer program), <http:/ /www.praat.org/> (10 January 2008).
Boersma, Paul & Hayes, Bruce. 2001. Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic
Inquiry 32: 45-86.
Bolinger,Dwight.1984. Intonational signals of subordination. In Proceedings ofthe ThnthAnnual
Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Febr. 17-20, 1984), Claudia Brugman & Monica
Macaulay (eds), 401-413. BerkeleyCA: BLS, University of California.
Bonet, Eulalia. 1984. Aproximaci6 a l'ntonaci6 del Catala central. MA thesis, Universitat
Autonoma de Barcelona.
Bonet, Eulalia. 1991. Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance. Ph.D. dissertation,
MIT. <http:l/dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/13534> (06 June 2010).
Bonet, Eulalia. 2002. Clitlcitzaci6. In Gramatica del Catala contemporanl, Joan Sola, Maria-Rosa
Iloret, Joan Mascaro & Mamtel Perez Saldanya (eds), 933-989. Barcelona: Editorial Empurtes.
Brentar!, Diane & Bosch, Anna. 1990. The mora: Autosegment or syllable constituent. In Papers
from the 26th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Vol 2: The Parasession on
the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology [CLS 26], Michael Ziolkowski, Manuela Noske &
Karen Deaton (eds), 1-16. Chicago IL: CLS.
Bresnan, Joan. 1972. On Sentence stress and syntactic transformations. In Contributions to
Generative Phonology, Michael Brame (ed), 73-107. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.
Bruce, GOsta. 1977. Swedish Word Accents In Sentence Perspective. Lund: Gleerup.
Brumme, Jenny. 1997. Praktische Grammatik der katalanischen Sprache. Wilhelmsfeld.: Gottfried
Egert Verlag.
Cabre, Teresa. 1993. Estructura grammatical i lexico: El mot minim en Catala Ph.D. dissertation,
Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona.
Cabre, Teresa & Prieto, Pilar. 2004. Prosodic and analogtc effects in lexical glide formation in
Catalan. Probus 16: 113-1 SO.
Cardinalett!, Anna. 1997. Subjects and clause structure. In The New Comparative Syntax, Liliane
Haegeman (ed), 33-63. London: Longman.
References 205
Cardinaletti. Anna 2002. Against optional and null dttics. Right dislocation vs. marginalization.
Studia IJnguistlca 56: 29-57.
Casielles-Swirez. Eugenia. 2003. Left-Dislocated Structures in Spanish. Hlspania 86(2): 326-338.
Cattell. Ray. 1978. On the source of interrogative adverbs. Language 54: 61-77.
Cechetto, Carlo. 1999. A comparative analysis ofleft and right dislocation in Romance. Studia
Lingulstica 53:40-67.
Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Giveruress, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of
view. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed), 27-55. New York NY: Academic Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1971. Deep structure, surface structure and semantic interpretation. In
Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology, Danny D.
Steinberg & LeonA. Jakubovits (eds), 183-216. Cambridge: CUP.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge ofLanguage: It's Nature, Origin and Use. New York NY: Praeger.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step: Essays on
Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan
Uriagereka (eds), 89-155. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In .Ken Hale. A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz
(ed), 1-52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundatlonalissue.s in Linguistlc Theory, Robert Freidin,
Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds ), 133-166. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The Sound Pattern ofEngliSh. New York NY: Harper & Row.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1977. The Movement nature ofleft dislocation. Linguistlc Inquiry 8: 397-411.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. 'IJpes ofA· -Dependencies. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Contreras, Heles. 1991. On the position of subjects. In Perspective.s on Phrase Structure: Heads
and Licensing [Syntax and Semantics 25], Susan D. Rothstein (ed), 63-79. San Diego CA:
Academic Press.
Costa, Joao. 1998. Word Order Variation. A Constraint-based Approach. Ph.D. dissertation,
HIL/Leiden University.
Costa, Jo!o. 2001. Marked versus unmarked inversion and optimality theory. In Subject Inversion
and the Theory of Universal Grammar, Aalke C. Hulk & Jean- Yves Pollock (eds), 91-106.
Oxford: OUP.
Costa, Joao. 2004. Subject Positions and Interfaces: The Case of European Portuguese. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter.
Costantini. Francesco. 2005a. Subjunctive Obviation: An Interface Perspective. Ph.D.
dissertation, Universita Ca' Foscari Venezia. <http:l/lear.unive.it/bitstream/10278/967/11
Costantini.pdf> (26 May 2010).
Costantini. Francesco. 2005b. On obviation in subjunctive clauses: The state ofthe art. In Annali
Di Ca'Foscari XLIV, 97-132. Universita di Venezia.
Costantini. Francesco. 2009. Interface Perspectives on Clausal Complementation. The Case of
Subjunctive Obviation. Venice: Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina.
Cowie, Anthony. 1989. Oxford Advanced Learners Dictlonnary. Oxford: OUP.
Danes, Frantisek. 1970. 0 ne instance of the Prague School methodology: Functional analysis of
utterance and text. In Method and Theory in Linguistics, Paul Garvin (ed), 132-146. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter.
De Cat, Cecile. 2002. French Dislocation. Ph.D. dissertation. University of York, UK. (Published
in 2007 as French Dislocation. Interpretation, Syntax, Acquisition. Oxford: OUP).
De Cat, Cecile. 2007. French dislocation without movement Natural Language & Linguistic
Theory 25(3): 485-534.
Dehe, Nicole. 2009. Clausal parentheticals, intonational phrasing, and prosodic theory. Journal
ofLinguistics 45(3): 569-615.
de Lacy, Paul. 2003. Constraint universality and prosodic phrasing in Maori. In Papers In
optimality Theory II [UMO P 26], Angela Carpenter, Andries Coetzee & Paul de Lacy (eds ),
59-79. Amherst MA: GLSA.
Delattre, Pierre. 1965. Comparing the Phonetic Features ofEngliSh, French, German and spanish.
Heidelberg: Julius Groos.
D'Imperio, Marlapaola. 2001. Focus and tonal structure in Neapolitan Italian. Speech
Communication 33(4): 339-356.
D'Imperio, Mariapaola. 2002. Italian intonation: An overview and some questions. Probus 14( 1):
37-69.
D'Imperio, Marlapaola, Elordieta, Gorka, Frota, S6nia, Prieto, Pilar & Vlg8rio, Marina 2005.
Intonational phrasing in Romance: The role of syntactic and prosodic structure. In
Prosodie.s: With special Reference to Iberian Language.s, S6nla Frota, Marina Vlg8rio &
Marla Jo!l.o Freitas (eds), 59-97. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Downing, Bruce. 1970. Syntactic Structure and Phonological Phrasing in English. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
Elordieta, Gorka, Frota, S6nia, Prieto, Pilar & Vig<\rio, Marina 2003. Effects of constituent
weight and syntactic branching on intonational phrasing in Ibero-Romance. In Proceedings
ofthe 15th International Congress ofPlwnetlc Sciences, Maria-Josep Sole, Daniel Recasens &
Joaquin Romero (eds), 487-490. Barcelona
Elordieta, Gorka, Frota, S6nla & Vig<l.rio, Marina. 2005. Subjects, objects and intonational
phrasing in Spanish and Portuguese. Studia Linguistlca 59(2-3): 110-143.
Engdahl, Elisabet & Vallduvf, Enric. 1996. Information Packing in HPSG. Edinburgh Working
Papers in Cognitive Science 12: 1-31.
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1973. On the Nature of Island Constraints. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
<h.ttp://dspace.mit.edu!h.andle/1721.1/12991> (6 June 2010).
Erteschik-Shir, Noml. 1977. On the Nature of Island Constraints. Bloomington IN: Indiana
University Linguistics Club.
Erteschick-Shir, Nomi & Lappin, Shalom. 1979. Dominance and the functional explanation of
island phenomena. Theoretical Linguistics 6: 41-86.
Estebas-Vllaplana, Eva 2000. The Use and Realisation of Accentual Focus in Central Catalan
with a Comparison to English. Ph.D. dissertation, University College London. [Published
in 2009, Mtinchen: Lincom Europe]
Estebas-Vllaplana, Eva 2003a. Catalan pre-nuclear accents: Evidence for word edge tones. In
Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Science, Marla Josep Sole, Daniel
Recasens & Joaquin Romero (eds), 1779-1782. Barcelona: Causal Productions.
Estebas-Vllaplana, Eva 2003b. Phonetic and phonological properties of the final pitch accent in
Catalan declaratives. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Prosodic Interfaces,
Amina Mettouchi & Gaiille Ferre (eds), 35-40. Nantes: Universite de Nantes.
Face, Timothy. 2001. Intonational Marking of Contrastive Focus in Madrid Spanish. Ph.D.
dissertation, Ohio State University.
Face, Timothy. 2002. Intonational Marking of Contrastive Focus in Madrid SpaniSh. Munich:
Line om.
Farkas, Donka F. 1992. 0 n obviation. In Lexical Matters, Ivan A. Sag & Anna Szabolcsi, 85-109.
Stanford CA: CSLI.
Featherston, Samuel 2004. Bridge verbs and V2 verbs. Zeitschrift for Sprachwissenschaft 23(2):
181-209.
References 207
Feldhausen, Ingo. 2006a Prosodic phrasing in Catalan dislocation structures. Ms, University
of Potsdam.
Feldhausen, Ingo. 2006b. Prosodic phrasing in Catalan dislocation structures. Talk given at
Going Romance XX, Dec. 7-8, 2006, Amsterdam. <http://roarutgers.edu/files/927-0907
/927-FELDHAUSEN-0-0.PDF> (6 June 2010).
Feldhaus en, Ingo. Gabriel, Christoph& Pe8k0Vl\ Andrea 2010. Prosodtcphrasing in Argentinean
Spanish: Buenos Aires and NeuqueiL Speech Prosody 2010, Chicago, IL, 11-14 May 2010,
<http://speecbprosody2010.lllinois.edu/papers/100111.pdf> (29 May 2010).
Fermindez Soriano, Olga 1993. Los pronombres atonos en la teorfa gramatical Repaso y
balance. In Los pronombres atonos, Olga Ferml.ndez Soriano (ed), 13-62. Madrid: Taurus
Universitaria.
Fery, Caroline. 1993. German Intonational Patterns. Thbingen: Niemeyer.
Fery, Caroline. 2004. Phonologie des Deutschen - Eine optimalitiitstheoretische Einfiihrung
[Linguistics in Potsdam 7]. <bttp://opus.kobv.de/ubp/volltexte/2006/1091/> (6 June 2010).
Fery, Caroline. 2007. The prosody oftopicalizatioiL In On Information Structure, Meaning and
Form [Linguistlk Aktuell/Linguistics Today 100] Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler
(eds), 69-86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fery, Caroline. 2010. Recursion in prosodic structure. Ms, J. W. Goethe-Universitiit, Frankfurt.
<http://web.uni-frankfurtde/fb 10/fery/publications/recursion%20in_prosodic_structure.
pdf> (6 June 2010).
Frascarell!, Mara 2000. The Syntax-Phonology Interface in Focus and Topic Constructions in
Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Frascarelli, Mara. 2004. Dislocation, ditic resumption and minimality: A comparative analy-
sis of left and right topic constructions in Italim In Romance Languages and Linguis-
tic Theory 2002 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 256], Reineke Bok-Bennema, Bart
Hollebrandse, Brigitte Kampers-Manhe & Petra Sleeman (eds), 99-118. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Frascarelli, Mara & Trecci, Alessandra 2006. Subjects in a pro-drop language. Syntactic roles,
discourse categories and the interpretation of pro. In La comunicazione parlata. Atti del
convegno internazionale (23-25 febbraio 2006), Massimo Pettorino, Antonella Giannini,
Marianna Vallone & Renata Savy (eds). Napoli, Liguori Editore (CD-Rom).
Frascarelli, Mara & Hinterh0111, Roland. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italim In On
Information Structure, Meaning and Form [Linguistlk Aktuell!Linguistics Today 100],
Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds), 87-116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Freidin, Robert 1986. Fundamental issues in the theory of binding. In Studies In the Acquisition
ofAnaphora, Barbara Lust (ed.), 151-181. Dordrecht: ReideL
Frey, Werner. 2004. A medial topic position for Germm Linguistische Berichte 198: 153-190.
Frota, S6nia 2000. Prosody and Focus in European Portuguese. New York NY: Garland.
Frota, S6nia, D'Imperto. Mariapaola, Elordieta, Gorka, Prieto, Pilar & Vlgarto, Marina 2007.
The phonetics and phonology of intonational phrasing in Romance. In Segmental and
Prosodic Issues in Romance Phonology, Pilar Prieto, Joan Mascar6 & Maria-Josep Sole (eds ),
131-153. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gabriel, Christoph. 2007. Fokus im Spannungsfeld von Phonologie und Syntax. Frankfurt:
Vervuert.
Gabriel, Christoph, Feldhausen, Ingo & Pesk.ova, Andrea To appear. Prosodic phrasing in
portefio Spanish. In Intonational Phrasing in Romance and Germanic: Cross-Linguistic and
Bilingual Studies [Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 10], Conxita Lle6 & Christoph
Gabriel (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ghini, Mlrco. 1993. q>- Formation in Italian: A new proposal. Thronto Working Papers in Linguistics
12: 41-79.
Giorgi, Alessandra. 1987. The notion of complete functional complex: Some evidence from
Italian Linguistic Inquiry 18: 511-518.
Goodall, Grant 2001. The EPP in Spanish. In Objects and Other Subjects, William Davies &
Sranley Dubinsky (eds ), 193-223. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Goldsmith, John A. 1976. Autosegmental Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. (Published
in 1979: New York NY: Garland Press). <http://hum.uchicago.edu/-jagoldsm/Papers/
dissertation.pdf> (6 June 2010).
Grice, Martine, Ladd, Robert D. & Arvaniti, Amalia 2000. On the place of phrase accents in
intonational phonology. Phonology 17: 143-185.
Grice, Martine, Baumann Stefan & Benzmi.iller, Ralf 2005. German intonation in autosegmental-
metrical phonology. In Prosodic 'I}pology. The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing,
Sun-Ah Jun (ed), 55-83. Oxford: OUP.
Grice, Martine & Baumann, Stefim. 2007. An introduction to intonation- Functions and models.
In Non-Native Prosody. Phonetic Description and Teaching Practice [Trends in Linguistics.
Studies and Monographs 186], Jiirgen Trouvain & Ulrike Gut (eds), 25-52. Berlin: Walter
deGruyter.
Grohmann, Kleanthes. 2003. Prolific Domains: On the Anti-Locality of MDving Dependencies
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 66]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1983. Stress shift and the nucleus. Linguistics 21: 303-339.
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1992. Intonational phrasing and the prosodic hierarchy. In Phonologica
1988. Proceedings of the 6th International Phonology Meeting, Wolfgang U. Dressler, Hans
C. Luschiitzky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer & John R. Rennison (eds), 89-100. Cambridge: CUP.
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: CUP.
Guti.errez-Bravo, Rodrigo. 2007. Prominence scales and unmarked word order in Spanish.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25(2): 235-271.
Gutierrez- Bravo, Rodrigo. 2008. Topicalizationand preverbal subjects in Spanish wh-interrogatives.
In Selected Proceedings of the lOth Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, Joyce Bruhn de
Garavito & Elena Valenzuela (eds), 225-236. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings
Project
Hale, Kenneth & Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1987. Government and tonal phrasing in Papago. Phonology
Yearbook 4: 151-183.
Hall, Tracey Alan 2000. Phonologle. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Hayes, Bruce & Lahirl. Aditi. 1991. Bengali Intonational Phonology. Natural Language & Linguistic
Theory9: 47-96.
Hern.anz. M. Lllllsa. 2002. Lbraci6. In Gramatica del Catala contemporani, Joan Sola, Maria-
Rosa Lloret, Joan Mascar6 & Manuel Perez Saldanya (eds), 993-1073. Barcelona: Editorial
EmpUries.
Hestvlk, Arild 1992. LF-Movement of pronouns and antisubject orientation Linguistic Inquiry
23:617-624.
Hornstein, Norbert, Nunes, Jairo & Grohmann, Kleanthes. 2005. Understanding Minimalism.
Cambridge: CUP.
Hocket, Christopher F. 1958. A Course in MDdern Linguistics. New York NY: Macmillan
Horn, Laurence. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
Hualde, Jose Ignacio. 2002. Intonation in Spanish and the other Ibero-Romance languages:
Overview and status Quaestionis. In Romance Phonology and Variation. Selected Papers
References 209
from the 30th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Caroline Wiltshire & Joaqutm
Campos (eds), 101-116. Amsterdam: John Benjamlns.
Hualde, Jose Ignacio. 2003. E1 modelo metrico y autosegmental. In Teorfas de Ia entonacl6n,
Pilar Prieto (ed.), 155-184. Barcelona: Ariel Lingilistica.
Hulk, Aafke C. & Pollock, Jean- Yves. 2001. Subject positions in Romance and the theory of
universal grammar. In Subject Inversion In Romance and the Theory ofUntversal Grammar,
Aa1ke C. Hulk&Jean Yves Pollock (eds), 3-19. Oxford: OUP.
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2004. Prosody by phase. In Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Struc-
ture, 1: Working Papers of SFB632, Shinichiro Ishihara, Manuela Schmitz & Anne Schwarz
(eds), 77-119. Potsdam: UniversitiitsverlagPotsdam.
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2007a. Major phrase, focus intonation, multiple spell-out (MaP, FI, MSO).
The Linguistic Review24: 137-167.
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2007b. Japanese downstep revisited. Ms, Universitiit Potsdam.
It6, Junko & Mester, Armin. 1997. Correspondence and compositionality: The Ga-Gyo variation
in Japanese phonology. In Derivations and Constraints in Phonology, Iggy Roca (ed),
419-462. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
It6, Junko & Mester, Armin. To appear. Recursive prosodic phrasing in Japanese. In Prosody
Matters: Essays in Honor of Elisabeth Selkirk, Toni Borowsky, Shigeto Kawahara, Takahito
Shinya & Mariko Sugahara (eds ). London: Equinox.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge MA: The
MIT Press.
Jun. Sun-Ah. 1993. The Phonetics and Phonology of Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State
University.
Jun. Sun-Ah. 2000. K-ToBI (Korean ToBI) labeling conventions. Version 3.1. Ms, Department
of Linguistics, UCLA <http://www.linguistics. ucla.ed.u/people/jun/ktobi/K-tobihtml>
(6 June 2010).
Jun. Sun-Ah. 2003. The effect of phrase length and speech rate on prosodic phrasing. In Pro-
ceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Science, Maria Josep Sole, Daniel
Recasens & Joaquin Romero (eds ), 483-486. Barcelona: Causal Productions. <http://www.
humnet.udaedu/humnet/linguistics/people/jun/ICPHS_2003.pdf> (6 June 2010).
Jun. Sun-Ah. 2005. Prosodic Typology. The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford: OUP.
Jun. Sun-Ah. in press. Prosodic TJplogy II. The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford:
OUP.
Jun. Sun-Ah & Fougeron, Cecile. 2000. A phonological model of French intonation In Intonation:
Ana(Ysis, Modeling and Technology, Antonis Botinis (ed.), 209-242. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kager, Rene. 1999. Optimality Theory: A Textbook. Oxford: OUP.
Kanerva, Jonni 1990. Focusing on phonological phrases in ChicMwa. In The Phonology-Syntax
Connection, Sharon Inkelas & Draga Zec (eds), 145-161. Chicago IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Kato, Mary & Raposo. Eduardo. 2006. Topicalization in European and Brazilian Portuguese. In
Romance Linguistics 2006. Selected papers from the 36th Linguistic Symposium on Romance
Languages (LSRL)[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 287], NeY.' Brunswick, March-April
2006, Jose Camacho, Nydia Flores-Ferrin, Liliana Sanchez, Vivlane Deprez & Marfa Jose
Cabrera (eds), 205-219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry ofSyntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Kempchlnsky, Paula. 1987. The subjunctive disjoint reference effect In Studies in Romance
Languages, Carol Neidle & Rafue1 A Nufiez Cedefio (eds ), 123-140. Dordrecht: Foris.
:no Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan
Kempchinsky, Paula. 2009. What can the subjunctive disjoint reference effect tell us about the
subjunctiveflnLingua 119(12): 1788-1810.
Kiparsky, Paul & Kiparsky, Carll970. Fact. In Progress in Linguistics, Manfred Bierwisch & Karl
Heidolph (eds), 143-173. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Kisseberth, Charles W. & Abasheikh, Mohammad Imam. 1974. Vowel length in Chi- Mwi:nt- A
case study of the role of grammar in phonology. In CLS 10: Parasesslon on Natural Phonol-
ogy, Michael LaGaly, Anthony Bruck & Robert Fox (eds), 193-209. Chicago IL: Chicago
Linguistk Sodety.
Kratzer, Angellka & Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2007. Phase theory and prosodic spellout: The case of
verbs. The Linguistic Review 24: 93-135.
Krtlka, Manfred. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In 1he Notions of Information
Structure [Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure, Vol 6. Working Papers of
the SFB 632], Caroline Fery, Gisbert Fanselow & Manfred Krtlka (eds), 13-55. Potsdam:
Universitiitsverlag Potsdam.
Kuchenbrandt, Imme, Kupisch, Tanja & Rinke, Esther. 2005. Pronominal objects in Romance:
Comparing French, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian and Spanish. Arbeiten zur Mehr-
spracbigkeitNr. 67, Untversitiit Hamburg.
Kiigler, Frank. 2007. 1he Intonational Phonology of Swabian and Upper Saxon. Thbingen:
Niemeyer.
Ladd, Robert D. 1996. Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: CUP.
Ladd, Robert D. 2008. Intonational Phonology, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1981. Thpic, Antitopic, and Verb Agreement in Non-Standard French [Pragmatics &
Beyond II: 6]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental
Repre.sentatlon of Discourse Referents [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 71]. Cambridge:
CUP.
Lasnik, Howard & Saito, Mamoru. 1992. Move a. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Lebeaux, David. 1988. Language Acquisition and the Form of the Grammar. Ph. D. dissertation,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst (Published in 2000 as Language Acquisition and the
Form of the Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins).
Leben, William Ronald. 1973. Suprasegmental Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. <http://
dspace.mitedulhandle/1721.1/16364> (6 June 2010).
Leben, William Ronald. 197 5. The tones in English intonation. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 69-107.
Legate, Julie Anne. 2003. Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34(3):
506-516.
Liberman, Mark. & Prince, Alan. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8:
249-336.
L6pez, Luis. 2002. Toward a grammar without ThpP or FocP. Georgetown Working Papers in
Linguistics 2: 181-209.
L6pez, Luis. 2003. Steps for a well-adjusted dislocation. Studia Linguistica 57(3): 193-231.
L6pez, Luis. 2007. Locality and the Architecture of Syntactic Dependencies. London: Palgrave-
MacMillan.
L6pez, Luis. 2009a. A Deri1'atlonal Syntax for Information Structure. Oxford: OUP.
L6pez, Luis. 2009b. Ranking the linear correspondence axiom. Linguistic Inquiry 40(2): 239-176.
Lujan, Marta. 1999. A unified approach to control and obviation. In Grammatical Ana(Yses in
Basque and Romance Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 187], Jon Franco,
Alazne Landa & Juan Martin (eds ), 105-130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
References 111
Mayol, Laia 2006. On pronouns in Catalan and game theory. In Ambiguity In Anaphora Workshap
Proceedings, ESSLLI 2006, Malaga, Spain, 7-11 August 2006, Ron Artstein & Massimo Poesto
(eds), 73-82. <http://cswww.essex.ac.uk!anaphorafaaQ6proc.pdf> (6 June 2010).
McCarthy, John. 2002. A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: CUP.
McCarthy, John. 2008. Doing optimality Theory. Applying Theory to Data. Oxford: Blackwell
McCarthy, John & Prince, Alan. 1993. Generalized alignment. In Yearbook ofMmphology 1993,
Geert Booij & Jaap van Marie (eds ), 79-153. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Medina Murillo, Ana A. 2005. Alargamiento final en el Espa.tlol Signos LingiUsticos 1: 43-59.
<http:l/148.206.53.230/revistasuam/signoslinguisticos/indude/getdoc.php?id=&article=
3&mode=pdf> (19 June 2010).
Melchor, Vicent de & Branchadell, Albert 2002. El Catalan. Una lengua de Europa para
compartir. Bellaterra: Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Servei de Publicacions.
Mendoza-Denton, Norma. 1999. Minutes of first Spanish tones and break and indices work-
shop (Sp-ToBI). <http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/-tobi/sp-tobi/minutes_formatted..html>
(6 June 2010).
Miiller, Gereon. 1995. A-bar Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Miiller, Gereon & Sternefeld. Wolfgang. 1993. Improper movement and unambiguous binding.
Linguisticlnquiry 24(3): 461-507.
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene. 1986/2007. Prosodic Plwnology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
(1986: Dordrecht: Foris).
Nibert, Holly. 2000. Phonetic and Phonological Evidence for Intermediate Phrasing in Spanish
Intonation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Ordo.tlez, Francisco. 1997. Word Order and Clause Structure in Spanish and other Romance
Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, CUNY.
Ordo.tlez, Francisco & Trevi.fl.o, Esthela. 1999. Left dislocated subjects and the pro-drop
parameter: A case study of Spanish. Lingua 107 (1-2): 39-68.
van Oosten, Jeanne. 1986. The Nature of Subjects, Topics, and Agents. Bloomington IN: Indiana
University Linguistics Club.
Paul, Hermann. 1880. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Leipzig.
Plerrehumbert, Janet 1980. The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT. <http:l/dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/16065> (6 June 2010).
Plerrehumbert, Janet 2001. Stochastic phonology. Glot International 5(6): 195-207.
Plerrehumbert, Janet & Beckman, Mary. 1988. Japanese Tone Structure. Cambridge MA: The
MIT Press.
Pires, Acrisio. 2007. The subject, it is here! The varying structural positions of preverbal subjects.
DELTA: DocumentafltO de Estudos em Lingiifstica Te6rica e Aplicada [online], vol23,
113-146. <http://www.scielo.br/sdelo.php?pid=SO 102-44502007000300008&scrl:pt=sd_
abstract> (12 June 2010).
Postal, Paul. 1991. An apparent French extraction anomaly. Ms, IBM Research Center.
Prieto, Pilar. 1995. Aproximad6 als contorns tonals del catala central. Caplletra 19: 161-186.
Prieto, Pilar. 1997. Prosodic manifestation of syntactic structure in Catalan. In Issues in the Plw-
nology and MDrphology of the Ma}or Iberian Languages, Fernando Martinez-Gil & Alfonso
Morales-Front (eds), 179-199. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Prieto, Pilar. 1999. Patrons dl\ssodaci6 de l'Estructura Tonal en Catala. Catalan Working Papers
in Linguistics 7:207-218.
Prieto, Pilar. 2002a. Entonad6. In Gramatica del Catala Contemporani,J oanSola, Maria-Rosa Lloret,
Joan Mascaro & Manuel Perez Sald.anya (eds), 393-462 Barcelona: Editorial EmpUries.
Prieto, Pilar. 2002b. Text-tune association patterns in Catalan: An argument for a hierarchical
structure oftunes. Probus 14: 173-204.
Prieto, Pilar (ed). 2003. Teorfas de la entonaci6n. Barcelona: Ariel Lingi.ifstica.
Prieto, Pilar. 2005. Syntactic and eurhythmic constraints on phrasing decisions in Catalan.
Studia IJnguistlca 59(2-3): 194-222.
Prieto, Pilar. 2006a. Phonological phrasing in Spanish. In Optimality-Theoretic Advances In
Spanish Phonology [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 99], Sonia Colina & Fernando
Martinez-Gil (eds ), 39-60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Prieto, Pilar. 2006b. Word edge tones in Catalan. Italian Journal of Linguistics/Ri'Vista di
IJnguistica 18.1: 39-71. (Special issue: Tonal Alignment).
Prieto, Pilar. 2008. Prosodic effects on phrasing: Clash avoidance in Catalan. Talk given at
Workshop on the Prosody-Syntax Interface 2, ZAS Berlin, 13-14 June 2008.
Prieto, Pilar. In press. The intonational phonology of Catalan. In Prosodic Iypology II. Sun-Ah
Jun (ed). Oxford: OUP.
Prieto, Pilar, D'Imperio, Mariapaola & Gili Fivela, Barbara. 2005. Pitch accent alignment in
Romance: Primary and secondary associations with metrical structure. Language and
Speech 48.4: 359-397. (Special Issue: Intonation in Language Varieties).
Prieto, Pilar, Aguilar, Lourdes, Mascar6, Ignasi, Torres-Tam.arit, Francese & Vanrell, Maria del
Mar. 2009. I: etiquetatge prosOdic Cat_ToBI. Estudios de Fonetica Experimental XVIII:
287-309.
Prieto, Pilar & Roseano, Paolo. 2010. Transcription of Intonation of the Spanish Language.
Munich: Lincom.
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul. 1993/2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Gen-
erative Grammar [Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science Thchnical Report 2].
<http://roa.rutgers.edu/view.php3?roa=537> (12 June 2010). (Published in 2004: Oxford:
mackwell).
Quer, Josep. 2001. Interpreting mood Probus 13: 81-111.
Raposo, Eduardo. 1986. On the null object in European Portuguese. In Studies in Romance
Linguistics, Oswaldo Jaeggli & Carmen Silva-Corvalan (eds), 373-390. Dordrecht: Forts.
Raposo, Eduardo. 1996. Towards a unification of topic constructions. Ms, University of
California at Santa Barbara.
Recasens, DanieL 1993. Fonetica I Fonologia. Barcelona: Encidopedia Catalana.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica
27:53-94.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1995. Interface strategies [OTS Working Papers]. Utrecht: Utrecht University.
Reyelt, Matthias, Grice, Martine, Benzmiiller, Ralf, Mayer, Jorg & Batliner, Anton. 1996.
Prosodische Etikettierung des Deutschen mit ToBI. In Natural Language and Speech
Technology. Results of the third KONVENS conference, Bielefeld, November 1996, Dafydd
Gibbon (ed), 144-155. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. <http://www.gbv.de/dms/ilmenau/
toc/214929949glbbo.PDF> (12 June 2010).
Reynolds, William & Nagy, Naomi 1994. Phonological variation in Faetar: An optimality
account Chicago Linguistic Society (Variation and Linguistic Theory) 30(2): 277-292.
Rigau, Gemma & Mascar6, Joan. 2002. The grammar of ditics. Catalan Journal of Linguistics
1:9-15.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar. Handbook of
Generative Syntax, Liliane M. Haegeman (ed), 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Roca, Iggy (ed). 1997. Derivations and Constraints in Phonology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rochemont, Michael. 1978. A Theory of Stylistic Rules in English. New York NY: Garland
References 213
Rochemont, Michael. 1989. Topic island and the subjacency parameter. Canadian Journal of
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75-116.
Rossell6, Joana 2000. A minimalist approach to the null subject parameter. Catalan Working
Papers in Linguistics 8: 97-128.
Rusk.o, Milan, Sabo, R6bert & Drur, Martin. 2007. Sk-ToBI scheme for phonological prosody
annotation in Slovak. In Text, speech and Dialogue [Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence Vol. 4629], Vadav MatollSek & Pavel Mautner (eels),
334-341. Berlin: Springer.
Sandalo, Filomena & Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2002. Some notes on phonological phrasing in
Brazilian Portuguese. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 42: 285-310.
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2004. When right dislocation meets the left-periphery. A unified analysis
ofltalian non-final focus. Ms, University College London. (Published as Samek-Lodovici
2006).
Samek-Lodovici, Vier!. 2005. Prosody-syntax interaction in the expression of focus. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 687-755.
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2006. When right dislocation meets the left-periphery. A unified analysis
ofltalian non-final focus. Lingua 116: 836-873.
Schlosser, Rainer. 2005. Die romanischen Sprachen. Miinchen: C.H. Beck.
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. Givenness, avoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent.
Natural LanguageSemantics7(2): 141-177.
Selkirk. Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and Syntax. The Relation between Sound and Structure.
Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Selkirk. Elisabeth. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology 3: 371-405.
Selkirk. Elisabeth. 1995a. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In The Handbook
ofPhonological1heory, John Goldsmith (ed), 550-569. Cambridge MA: Blackwell.
Selkirk. Elisabeth. 1995b. The prosodic structure of function words. In Signal to Syntax:
Bootstrapping from Speech to Grammar in Early Acquisition, James L. Morgan & Katherine
Demuth (eels), 187-214. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Selkirk. Elisabeth. 2000. The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing. In Prosody: Theory
and Experiment, Merle Horne (ed), 231-261. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Selkirk. Elisabeth. 2005. Comments on intonational phrasing. In Prosodies: With Special
Reference to Iberian Languages, S6nia Frota, Marina Vig!l.rio & Maria Jo!l.o Freitas (eels),
11-58. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Selkirk. Elisabeth. 2009a. The syntax-phonology interface. Ms, University of Massachusetts
Amherst. (To appear in The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 2nd edn, John Goldsmith,
Jason Riggle & Alan Yu (eels). Oxford: IDackwell).
Selkirk. Elisabeth. 2009b. On clause and intonational phrase in Japanese: The syntactic grounding
of prosodic constituent structure. Gengo Kenkyu 136: 35-74.
Selkirk. Elisabeth & Shen, Thng. 1990. Prosodic domains in Shanghai Chinese. In The Phonology-
Syntax Connection, Sharon Inkelas & Draga Zec (eels), 313-337. Chicago IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Selkirk. Elisabeth & Tateishi, Koich!. 1991. Syntax and downstep in Japanese. In Interdisciplinary
Approaches to Language: Essays in Honor of S.- Y. Kuroda, Carol Georgopolous & Roberta
Ishihara (eels), 519-543. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Sheehan, Michelle. 2006. The EPP and Null Subjects in Romance. Ph.D. dissertation,
Cambridge, UK. <http://people.pw£cam.ac.uk/mtb23/NSP/Sheehan%20dissertation.
htmb (6 June 2010).
Silverman, Kim, Beckman. Mary, Pitrelli, John, Ostendorf; Mart, Wightman, Colin, Price, Patti,
Pierrehwnbert, Janet & Hirschberg, Julia 1992. ToBI: A standard for labeling English
prosody. In Proceedings of the 1992 International Conference on spoken Language Processing,
867-870. Bani( Canada <http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/-tobi/ame_tobl!Silverman_
etal1992.pdf> (6 June 2010).
Sola, Jaume. 1992. Agreement and Subjects. Ph.D. dissertation, Universitat Autonoma de
Barcelona
Sosa, Juan Manuel. 2003. La Notaci6n Tonal del Espa.tlol en el Modelo SP-ToBI. In Teor{as de la
entonaci6n, Pilar Prieto (ed..), 185-208. Barcelona: Ariel Lingillstica.
Stalnaker, Robert 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. In Semantics and Philosophy, Milton K.
Munitz & Peter K. Unger, 197-214. New York NY: New York University Press.
Su.tler, Margarita. 2002. The lexical preverbal subject in a Romance null subject language: Where
art thou? In A Romance Perspective on language Knowledge and Use, Luis L6pez, Rafael
Nu.tlez-Cede.tlo & Richard Cameron (eds), 341-359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Su.tler, Margarita. 2006. Left dislocations with ditics and epithets. Probus 18: 127-158.
Truckenbrodt, Hubert 1995. Phonological Phrases: Their Relation to Syntax, Focus, and
Prominence. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Truckenbrodt, Hubert 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological
phrases. Linguisticlnquiry 30: 219-255.
Truckenbrodt, Hubert 2002. Variation in P-phrasing in Bengali. In Linguistic Variation Yearbook
2, Pierre Pica (ed..), 259-303. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2005. A short report on intonation phrase boundaries in German.
Linguistische Berichte 203: 273-296.
Truckenbrodt, Hubert 2007. The syntax-phonology interface. In The Cambridge Handbook of
Phonology, Paul de Lacy (ed..), 435-456. Cambridge: CUP.
Vallduvi, Enric. 1993. The Informational Component. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Pennsylvania. <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=1 0.1.1.45.6688> (6 June
2010).
Vallduvi, Enric. 2002. r Oraci6 com a unitat informativa In Gramatica del Catala contemporani,
Joan Sola, Maria-Rosa Lloret, Joan Mascaro & Manuel Perez Saldanya (eds), 1221-1279.
Barcelona: Editorial Empuries.
Venditti, Jennifer J. 2005. The J_ToBI model of Japanese intonation In Prosodic Typology. 1he
Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing, Sun-Ah Jun (ed), 172-200. Oxford: 0 UP.
Venditti, Jennifer J., Maekawa, Kikuo & Beckman. Mary E. 2008. Prominence marking in the
Japanese intonation system. In The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, Shigeru
Miyagawa & Mamoru Saito (eds), 456-512. Oxford: OUP.
Vig.1.rio, Marina. 2003. 1he Prosodic Word in European Portuguese. Berlin: Walter de Gruyte.t:
Villalba, Xavier. 1996. Sobre la dislocaci6 a la dreta. Uengua & Literatura 7: 209-234.
Villalba, Xavier. 1999a. Symmetry and antisymmetry in Syntax. Syntaxis 2: 1-25.
Villalba, Xavier. 1999b. Nihil est in LF quod prius non fuerit in SS. Catalan Working Papers In
Villalba, Xavier. 2000. The Syntax of Sentence Periphery. Ph.D. dissertation, Universitat Autonoma
de Barcelona. <http://webs2002.uab.es/dt/publicacions/tesis/index.html> (6 June 20 10).
[Published in 2009 as: 1he Syntax and Semantics of Dislocations In Catalan: A Story on
Asymmetric Syntax at the Peripheries of Sentence. Koln: Lambert Academic Publishing.].
Villalba, Xavie.t: 2004. Expressing information in syntax: Catalan dislocation structures. Talk
given at the University of Potsdam, December 2004.
References 215
Watanabe, A. 1993. Larsonian CP recW'Sion. factive complements, and selection. Proceedings of

the North East Linguistic Society 23: 523-537.
Wheeler, Max W. 2004. Catalan stress is iambic. Paper delivered at the 12th Manchester
Phonology Meeting, May 20-22, 2004.
Wheeler, Max W. 2005. The Phonology of Catalan. Oxford: 0 UP.
Wheeler, Max W., Yates, Alan & Dols, Nicolau. 1999. Catalan: A Comprehensive Grammar.
London: Routledge.
Zec, Draga & lnkelas, Sharon. 1990. Prosodically constrained syntax. In The Plwnology-Syntax
Connection, Sharon Inkelas & Draga Zec (eds), 365- 378. Chkago IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1998. Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1977. On ditks. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
<http://www.stanford.edu/-zwicky/on_ditics.pdf> (6 June 2010).
Appendices
Each experiment has one appendix:
A: Simple SVO experiment

B: Complex SVO experiment
C: CLLD & CLRD experiment
D: CLLD vs. S experiment
The four appendices (A, B, C, and D) are all structured as follows:
1. Data
2. Results
The numbers of the target sentences in the data sections refer to the number of the
original recordings. The numbers for this reason are not from the normal order
beginning from 1, 2, 3, ... ton.
The results are presented in a table which presents the sentence as well as the
result of each speaker. The duration is given in seconds. The duration refers to
the length of the whole word of the column (even though I used the length of the
preboundary syllable in Chapter 3). The following notations for boundary tones
are used:
H-3 (continuation rise, break index 3)

L- 3 Oow boundary tone, BI 3)
!H-3 (sustained pitch, BI 3)
H%4 (continuation rise plus audible pause, BI 4)
H% (P)4 (continuation rise plus visible pause, BI 4)
LH%4 (complex boundary tone, BI 4)
L!H%4 (heigth of high boundary tone is lower than preceding pitch
accent, BI 4)
LH% (P)4 (complex boundary tone plus audible pause, BI 4)
? (unclear if there is a boundary or not)
Appendix A- Simple SVO Experiment (i.e. experiment 1)
A-1. Data (12 Sentences)
Context 1:
El Pedro noes troba be? Em sembla que esta molt furi6s. Que ha passat?
Ta.rget Sentences:
21. I: Angela va comptar les errades.
22. r Angela va comptar les errades de les frases.
23. ravia Angela va comptar les errades.
24. ravia Angela va comptar les errades de les frases.
Context2:
No et trobes be? Em sembla que estas de mal humor. Que ha passat?
Ta.rget Sentences:
29. r Aguila roba el ratoli.
30. r Aguila roba el ratoli del meu germa.
31. La meva gran aguila robe\ el ratoH.
3 2. La meva gran aguila robe\ el ratolf del meu germa.
Context 3:
No m'agrada que tota la familia estigui sota arrest domiciliari. Ames, em sembla
que la mare esta especialment nerviosa. Que ha passat?
Target Sentences:
37. I: Amelia se n'ha anat a Malaga.
38. I: Amelia se n'ha anat ala ciutat de Malaga.
39. La teva tia Amelia se n'ha anat a Malaga.
40. La teva tia Amelia se n'ha anat a la ciutat de Malaga.
Appendices 219
A-2. Results
Condition: shortS I short 0
~
s v 0
r I.: .Angela vacomptar les errades
I I I
AT 0.4689 I ? 0.4968 I 0.7383 I
I I I
CB 04852 I L- 3 0.4505 I 0.8337 I
I I I
CP 05452 I !H- 3 0.4954 I 0.8320 I
I I I
DS 06271 I LH%4 0.5063 I 0.7850 I
I I I
GM 04443 I ? 0.5199 I 0.8751 I
I I I
GV 05552 I H-3 0.4943 I 0.8238 I
I I I
IS 04150 I ? 0.4422 I 0.7272 I
I I I
MM 04563 I L- 3 0.3874 I 0.7605 I
I I I
MO 04396 I 0.4061 I 0.7243 I
I I I
RS 0,4723 I
I
!H- 3 0.5161 I
I 0.8463 I
I
~
s v 0
eaker I.:ilgu!la roba el ratoli
AT 0.4579
I
I H-3 0.2666 '
I 0.5348
I
I
I I I
CB 0.4094 I H-3 0.2257 I 0.6316 I
I I I
CP 0.5843 I H%4 0.3502 I 0.5386 I
I I I
DS 0.4754 I H-3 0.2736 I 0.5539 I
I I I
GM 0.4574 I H-3 0.3135 ' 0.5996 I
I I I
GV 0.5055 I H-3 0.2903 I 0.5705 I
I I I
IS 0.4978 I L- 3 0.2602 I 0.4961 I
I I I
MM 0.3930 I H-3 0.2429 I
0.5196 I
I I I
MO 0.4045 I H-3 0.2173 I
0.6288 I
I I I
RS 0.5313 I
I
H-3 0.3358 I
I
0.5985 I
I
~
s v 0
r I.: Amelia se n'haanat a Malaga
I I I
AT 0.4680 I H- 3 0.4680 I 0.4941 I
I I I
CB 0.5276 I LH%4 0.4897 I 0.5313 I
I I I
CP 0.6638 I H%4 0.6068 I 0.5477 I
I I I
DS 0.4278 I H- 3 0.4573 I 0.5554 I
I I I
GM 0.5412 I L!H%4 0.5215 I 0.5669 I
I I I
GV 0.4922 I H- 3 0.4922 I 0.6282 I
I I I
IS 0.3930 I H- 3 0.4482 I 0.4827 I
I I I
MM 0.4303 I H- 3 0.4473 I 0.5256 I
I I
MO 0.5122 : (4?) H- 3 0.4487 I 0.4840 I
I I I
RS 0.5856 I
I
H- 3 0.7081 I
I 0.6012 I
I
Condition: shortS /long 0
~
s v 0
er I: Angela vacomptar les errades de les frases
I I I
AT 0.3882 I ? 0.5289 I ? 0.5964 I 0.8383
I I I
CB 0.3920 I ? 0.4016 I 0.5202 I 0.8178
I I I
CP 0.5425 I H-3 0.4978 I 0.6081 I 0.9568
I I
DS 0.5917 : LH% (P)4 0.5810 I 0.5871 I 0.8335
I I I
GM 0.4922 I H-3 0.5226 I 0.6028 I 0.9070
I I I
GV 0.4519 I ? 0.5350 I ? 0.7488 I 0.8261
I I I
IS 0.3769 I 0.4622 I ? 0.5428 I 0.7419
I I I
MM 0.3827 I 0.4514 I ? 0.4846 I 0.8058
I I I
MO 0.4593 I 0.5682 I H-3 0.5652 I 0.8802
I I I
RS 0.6042 I
I
? 0.5729 I
I
? 0.6418 I
I 0.8797
~
s v 0
eakei I: aguila robit elratolf del meu germ~
I I I
AT 0.4030 I 0.2862 I ? 0.4740 I 0.7281
I I I
CB 0.4108 I H-3 0.2825 I 0.4319 I 0.7213
I I I
CP 0.5206 I H-3 0.2591 I 0.4459 I 0.8194
I I I
DS 0.3980 I ? 0.2892 I 0.4004 I 0.6851
I I I
GM 0.4109 I H-3 0.2895 I 0.4902 I 0.7563
I I
GV 0.4286 I
L!H%4 0.2873 I 0.5982H- 3 : 0.7748
I I I
IS 0.4053 I !H-3 0.2456 I 0.4375 I 0.6639
I I I
MM 0.3998 I L!H%4 0.2282 I 0.3810 I 0.7034
I I I
MO 0.4710 I ? 0.3109 I 0.4616 I 0.7466
I I I
RS 0.5358 I
I
H-3 0.3082 I
I
0.4410 I
I
0.7871
~
s v 0
er I:AmeJ.ia se Ifhaanat ala ciutat de Malaga
AT 0.4498
I
I H- 3 0.5276
I
I
I
H- 3 0.6100 'I
.I
I
0.5064
CB 0.5126 : LH% (P) 4 0.6049 I 0.5101 I 0.5485
I I I
CP 0.4802 I H- 3 0.5355 I ? 0.5707 I 0.6184
I I I
DS 0.5181 I H- 3 0.4593 I
0.4922 I
0.4734
I I I
GM 0.4836 I H- 3 0.5005 I 0.5895 I 0.5197
I I I
GV 0.4797 I !H- 3 0.5588 I H- 3 0.5358 I 0.6327
I I I
IS 0.4075 I ? 0.4631 I ? 0.5388 I 0.4743
I I I
MM 0.4627 I L!H%4 0.3905 I 0.4604 I 0.5485
I I I
MO 0.6390 I L!H%4 0.4890 I 0.4986 I 0.5349
I I I
RS 0.5628 I
I H- 3 0.7454 I
I ? 0.6316 I
I 0.6047
Appendices 221
Condition: long S I short 0
~
s v 0
r I:aviaAngela vacomptar les errades
I I I
AT 0.7967 I H%4 0.5936 I 0.6455 I
I I I
CB 0.6643 I LH%4 0.4078 I 0.9274 I
I I I
CP 0.8754 I H%4 0.6114 I 0.8323 I
I I I
DS 0.7018 I ? 0.4333 I 0.7937 I
I I I
GM 0.8170 I H-3 0.5019 I 0.7823 I
I I I
GV 0.6762 I H- 3 0.4538 I 0.7540 I
I I I
IS 0.6400 I 0.4590 I 0.6895 I
I I I
MM 0.7188 I L- 3 0.4072 I 0.8390 I
I I
MO 0.9736 : H% (P) 4 0.4667 I 0.8074 I
I I I
RS 0.8848 I
I
H-3 0.5069 I
I
0.8398 I
I
~
s v 0
r La meva gran aguila roba el ratoli
I I I
AT 1.0410 I H-3 0.2937 I 0.4887 I
I I I
CB 0.9760 I H-3 0.2435 I 0.5681 I
I I I
CP 1.3183 I H% (P) 4 0.3590 I 0.6094 I
I I
DS 1.2055 : LH%(P)4 0.3497 I 0.5643 I
I I I
GM 1.0388 I H%4 0.3385 I 0.6116 I
I I I
GV 1.0315 I L!H%4 0.3603 I 0.6147 I
I I I
IS 0.8598 I H%4 0.2805 I 0.5323 I
I I I
MM 0.7930 I H-3 0.2409 I 0.5312 I
.
I I
MO 0.6977 + 0. 5667: H%4 0.2846 I 0.5692 I
I I
RS 1.1797 I
I
L- 3 0.2684 I
I
0.6483 I
I
~
s v 0
er La teva tia Amelia se rfha anat a Malaga
I I I
AT 1.0352 I H- 3 0.5289 I 0.5037 I
I I I
CB 0.9370 I H- 3 0.5827 I 0.5776 I
CP 1.3225
I
I LH%4 0.5172
I
I 0.5926 '
I
DS 1.0590 : L!H%(P)4 0.4350

I
I 0.5519 '
I
I I I
GM 1.2610 I H%4 0.5033 I 0.5973 '
I I I
GV 1.2595 I H%(P)4 0.5700 I 0.5894 I
I I I
IS 0.8666 I ? 0.4774 I 0.5113 I
I I I
MM 0.8873 I ? 0.4059 I 0.5764 I
I I I
MO 1.0771 I H%4 0.5138 I 0.5166 I
I I I
RS 1.1066 I
I
H-3 0.9001 I
I
H%4 0.7413 I
I
Condition: long S /long_Q
~
s v 0
er I.:avia Angela vacomptar les errades de les frases
AT 0.7349 ''
I
!H- 3 0.4704 'I 0.6057 0.8732
CB 0.7882 ' L- 3 0.4057 '' 0.5390 0.9678
'I LH%4
CP 0.9549 0.5546 '' 0.6186 0.8390
DS 0.8775 :L!H%(P)4 0.3904 '' 0.6239 0.8541
I
GM 0.9240 :L!H%(P)4 0.4585 I 0.6413 0.8343
I I
GV 0.7162 I LH%4 0.4725 I 0.7072 ? 0.8607
I
IS 0.7981 : (4?) H-3 0.5065 I 0.6155 0.7333
MM 0.7584 'I L- 3 0.4394 'I 0.5507 0.8336
I I
MO 0.9878 'I LH%4 0.5299 'I 0.5692 0.7490
RS 0.8838 'I H-3 0.5226 'I 0.6571 0.8416
~
s v 0
k La meva gran aguila roba el ratolf delmeu
germA
I I
AT 1.0823 I H%4 0.2634 ' 0.4634 0.6549
I I
CB 0.9918 I H-3 0.2493 I 0.5155 0.6808
CP 0.9623 '
I H- 3 0.2572 I' 0.4093 0.7826
I I
DS 1.1408 I LH%4 0.2525 I 0.4259 0.6936
I
GM 1.0998 : H% (P)4 0.2750 I 0.4874 0.7186
I I
GV 1.0854 I H%4 0.2890 I 0.4397 0.7348
I
IS 0.6237 + 0.4396 : H%4 0.3511 I 0.4640 0.7082
I
MM 1.0794 : H% (P)4 0.1929 I 0.3828 0.7254
MO 0.6109 + 0.5116 : L!H%4 0.2919 '' 0.5477 0.7523
I'
RS 1.1533 H-3 0.3293 I' 0.4757 0.7851
' '
~
s v 0
r La teva Amelia se n1laanat ala ciutat de Malaga
AT 1.0525 'I H-3 0.4898
I
I ? 0.6480 '
I 0.4989
I I
CB 0.9389 :L!H% (p) 4 0.5436 0.4973 0.5899
' I
CP 0.9945 I' H-3 0.4942 '

I 0.5251 'I 0.6208
DS 1.0502 ' ' LH%4 0.4820 '' 0.5088 '' 0.5147
I I
GM 0.6861 +0.6551: LH%4 0.5378 ' 0.5896 ' 0.5585
GV 1.1524
I
I LH%4 0.5715 '
I H-3 0.5527
I
I 0.5935
I I I
IS 1.0830 I H%4 0.4797 ' 0.5732 I 0.5279
MM 1.1334
I
I L!H%4 0.4121 '
I 0.4916
I
I 0.5652
I
MO 1.1870 I H-3 0.5252 '
I 0.5158 '' 0.5221
I I I
RS 1.2722 I'
H-3 0.7020 ' 0.6128 0.6516
' ''
Appendices 123
Appendix B - Complex SVO Experiment (i.e. experiment 2)
B-1. Data ( 12 Sentences)
Context 1:
El Pedro noes troba be? Em sembla que esta molt furi6s. Que ha passat?
Ta.rget Sentences:
25. La Silvia no va mencionar que 1' Angela havia comptat les errades.
26. La Silvia nova mencionar que 1' Angela havia comptat les errades de les frases.
27. La Silvia nova mencionar que 1' avia Angela havia comptat les errades.
28. La Silvia no va mencionar que 1' avia Angela havia comptat les errades de les
frases.
Context2:
No et trobes be? Em sembla que estas de mal humor. Que ha passat?
Target Sentences:
33. La Barbara suposa que 1' aguila robe\ el ratoH.
34. La Barbara suposa que 1' aguila robe\ el ratoH del meu germa.
35. La Barbara suposa que la meva aguila robe\ el ratolf.
36. La Barbara suposa que la meva aguila robe\ el ratoli del meu germa.
Context 3:
No m'agrada que tota la familia estigui sota arrest domiciliari. A mes, em sembla
que la mare esta especialment nerviosa. Que ha passat?
Target Sentences:
41. El pare va dir que 1' Amelia se n'ha anat a Malaga.
42. El pare va dir que 1' Amelia s se n'ha anat ala ciutat de Malaga.
43. El pare va dir que la teva tia Amelia se n'ha anat a Malaga.
44. El pare va dir que la teva tia Amelia se n'ha anat ala ciutat de Malaga.
B-2. Results
Condition: shortS I short 0 (in the embedded clause)
s v s v
"'
COMP 0
LaSfivla nova mendonar que I' Angela havia comptat les errades
0.5702 0.8649 0.0880 0.5004 0.5779 0.7501
AT LH%4 H-3 H%4
0.6689 0.7720 0.0895 0.4572 0.5524 0.8597
CB
L!H%4 ?
0.6453 0.8689 0.0810 0.6240 0.7650 0.8205
CP
L!H%4 H%4 L!H%4
0.5656 0.8506 0.0950 0.7297 0.7815 0.8161
DS
H%4 LH%(P)4
0.5989 0.9003 0.0861 0.4580 0.5441 0.8651
GM
L- 3 L%(P)4
0.4542 0.8217 0.0901 0.4646 0.4993 0.8517
GV
L-3 ?
0.4342 0.7782 0.0701 0.0668 0.4576 0.5277
IS
H%4 L- 3
0.5843 0.7171 0.0987 0.5236 0.5919 0.8424
MM
L!H%4 L!H%4
0.7527 0.7951 0.0697 0.6058 0.6182 0.7343
MO
LH%4 H- 3 LH%4
0.5485 1.0021 0.0849 0.4874 0.6807 0.8446
RS
H%4
s v COMP s v 0
""'
AT
CB
CP
La Barbara
0.5123
H-3
0.4823
H-3
0.4589
suposa
0.4882
H-3
0.4799
H-3
0.7283
que
0.0667
0.0679
0.0682
I' aguila
0.4725
H-3
0.3757
?
0.3657
roba
0.2816
0.2373
0.2238
e1 ratolf
0.5713
0.5190
0.6387
LH%4 !H- 3
0.4140 0.7016 0.0746 0.3201 0.3076 0.6743
DS
H% (P) 4 ?
0.5698 0.6789 0.0887 0.5015 0.2961 0.6046
GM
L!H%4 L!H% (P) 4 (4?) !H- 3
0.5033 0.6668 0.0962 0.4584 0.2853 0.6027
GV
? LH%4 H-3
0.4717 0.5176 0.0892 0.3876 0.2451 0.4918
IS
? H- 3 H-3
0.4501 0.4972 0.0856 0.3697 0.2286 0.5957
MM
? H-3 H-3
0.5342 0.7009 0.0968 0.3870 0.2163 0.5862
MO
H-3 H%4 H-3
0.5499 0.5437 0.0844 0.4780 0.2593 0.5999
RS
H-3 H-3 !H- 3
Appendices 115
s v s v
"'
COMP 0
El pare vadir que l' Amelia se n'ha anat a Malaga
0.3899 0.3742 0.0759 0.4684 0.4318 0.4632
AT H%4 H-3
CB
0.3963 0.3409 0.0641 0.4633 0.5776 0.5996
L!H%(P)4 H- 3
0.3740 0.3269 0.0618 0.6538 0.5507 0.6008
CP
!H- 3 LH%4
0.3476 0.3702 0.0680 0.4911 0.4282 0.4911
DS
L-3 L!H%4
GM
0.3706 0.3907 0.0833 0.5229 0.4970 0.5602
!H-L%4 LH%4
0.3706 0.3544 0.0760 0.4417 0.5345 0.5682
GV
L-3 L!H%4 ?
0.3544 0.2800 0.0669 0.4064 0.4411 0.5526
IS
H- 3
MM
0.3132 0.3456 0.0870 0.4052 0.4152 0.5743
L- 3 H- 3
0.3742 0.3245 0.0785 0.6491 0.5095 0.4750
MO
H- 3 H%4
RS
0.4870 0.3419 0.1129 0.4935 0.6096 0.6354
!H- 3 H- 3
Condition: shortS /long 0 (in the embedded clause)
s v COMP s v 0
r Angela
""
La Sfl.via nova que havia les de
mencionar comptat errades les frases
0.7607 0.9259 0.0901 0.5305 0.6756 0.6356 0.8208
AT H%(P)4 ? LH%4
0.6839 0.8029 0.0532 0.5365 0.6740 0.5947 0.9119
CB
L!H%(P)4 !H- 3
0.6728 0.8885 0.0822 0.6111 0.8268 0.5803 0.9193
CP
H-3 H- 3 LH%4
0.7344 0.8186 0.0842 0.5239 0.5309 0.6478 0.8841
DS
L-3 L- 3 L- 3
0.5579 0.8981 0.0787 0.4614 0.7550 0.6554 0.8704
GM
L-3 H% (P) 4 H-3
0.5462 0.8577 0.0858 0.5376 0.5954 0.6997 0.8616
GV
? H%4 LH%4
0.4265 0.7499 0.0860 0.4467 0.6873 0.5125 0.7490
IS
? H% (P) 4 L-3
0.5140 0.6824 0.0788 0.4568 0.4749 0.5148 0.8460
MM
L-3 ? H-3
0.7348 0.7772 0.0699 0.6696 0.7415 0.5323 0.7536
MO
LH%4 !H- 3 H%4
0.5874 0.8589 0.0672 0.5531 0.7544 0.6270 0.8714
RS
? ? (Agueda) H- 3
s v COMP s v 0
"
La Barbara suposa que ragu!la roba el ratoli delmeu
germa
0.5388 0.5236 0.0759 0.5113 0.2830 0.4968 0.7917
AT H- 3 ? H%4
0.5971 0.5732 0.0648 0.3787 0.2593 0.4537 0.7180
CB
L!H%4 H- 3 H-3
0.5736 0.5783 0.0829 0.5722 0.2764 0.4592 0.8608
CP
LH%4 H- 3 H%4
0.5757 0.5248 0.0901 0.5797 0.3721 0.4896 0.8342
DS
LH%4 LH%4 ?
0.4818 0.6163 0.0672 0.3847 0.2643 0.5462 0.7657
GM
H- 3 H% (P) 4 H-3
0.5071 0.5782 0.0728 0.4126 0.2583 0.5111 0.8356
GV
H- 3 L- 3 LH%4
0.4815 0.5084 0.0875 0.4848 0.3232 0.4175 0.6835
IS
? (4?) H- 3
0.5527 0.4585 0.0704 0.3378 0.2057 0.3878 0.7662
MM
L!H%4 ? ?
0.4960 0.6153 0.0932 0.5332 0.3567 0.4783 0.7999
MO
? H- 3 L!H%4
0.5752 0.5591 0.0885 0.5309 0.2816 0.4753 0.7957
RS
? H- 3 H-3
s v s v
"'
COMP 0
Elpare vadir que I Amelia se n'haanat alactutat de Malaga
0.3883 0.4045 0.0913 0.5305 0.5270 0.6034 0.4840
AT H%4 H-3 H%4
0.3384 0.3104 0.0683 0.4502 0.5526 0.5495 0.5340
CB
L-3 H-3
0.3379 0.2578 0.0697 0.6305 0.5957 0.5643 0.5783
CP
LH%4 ?
0.6111 0.3386 0.0701 0.6345 0.4418 0.5777 0.5313
DS
LH% (P)4 !H- 3 LH%4
0.3809 0.4897 0.0780 0.4969 0.5365 0.6076 0.5731
GM
H% (P) 4 H- 3 ?
0.3464 0.4362 0.0776 0.4750 0.5415 0.6650 0.6228
GV
!H%4 H-3 H-3
0.3830 0.2656 0.0679 0.4633 0.5204 0.5279 0.4602
IS
H-3 (4?) !H- 3
0.3130 0.2498 0.0878 0.4755 0.4130 0.4950 0.5733
MM
? H-3
0.3297 0.3847 0.0926 0.5914 0.6320 0.5816 0.5535
MO
H- 3 LH%4 H% (P) 4
0.4733 0.3090 0.0894 0.4970 0.5996 0.6627 0.6360
RS
H-3 H-3
Appendices 227
Condition: longS I short 0 (in the embedded clause)
s v COMP s v 0
"'
La Sflvl.a nova que favia havl.a les
mencionar Angela comptat errades
0.5349 0.9051 0.0770 0.7449 0.6600 0.6312
AT H- 3 H-3 H-3
0.5899 0.7973 0.0529 0.6431 0.4960 0.7973
CB
L!H%4 H-3
0.4854 0.9023 0.0827 0.9688 0.7247 0.8421
CP
? H%(P)4 LH% (P) 4
0.5932 0.9811 0.0813 0.8039 0.6864 0.8259
DS
? L!H%4 LH%4
0.5564 0.9441 0.0775 0.8242 0.6496 0.8665
GM
? LH% (P) 4 H%(P)4
0.4750 0.7988 0.0820 0.7717 0.5786 0.8592
GV LH% (p) 4
!H- 3
0.4132 0.7972 0.0603 0.7536 0.5323 0.7655
IS
? H-3 ?
0.5307 0.8150 0.0950 0.7006 0.5383 0.9024
MM
L-3 L!H%4 ?
0.5108 0.8021 0.0718 0.8435 0.5886 0.6385
MO
L!H%4 LH% (P) 4
0.6452 0.9036 0.0788 0.8096 0.7757 0.7980
RS
H-3 !H- 3 H- 3
s v s v
"'
COMP 0
La Barbara suposa que la meva aguila roba e1 ratolf
0.5527 0.5056 0.0597 0.7207 0.3203 0.4993
AT H-3 H% (P) 4
0.4667 0.5592 0.0736 0.6932 0.2364 0.5728
CB
L!H%4 H-3
0.4259 0.5878 0.0704 0.8623 0.4083 0.5455
CP
!H%4 H% (P) 4
0.4571 0.6006 0.0534 0.7674 0.3537 0.5272
DS
!H- 3 LH%4
0.4989 0.5980 0.0578 0.7385 0.2742 0.6046
GM
? H% (P) 4 H-3
0.5489 0.5521 0.0619 0.8532 0.2269 0.5999
GV
LH%4 ? H!H%4
0.4706 0.5042 0.0672 0.6107 0.2465 0.5210
IS
? H-3 H-3
0.4910 0.4506 0.0963 0.7209 0.2362 0.5966
MM
H-3 H-3 H-3
0.7282 0.6653 0.0887 0.9425 0.2403 0.5729
MO
LH%4 LH%4 H-3
0.5387 0.5623 0.0819 0.7571 0.2720 0.6452
RS
H-3 H-3 H-3
s v s v
"'
COMP 0
Elpare vadir que la teva tia Amelia se n'haanat a Malaga
0.4265 0.3467 0.0641 1.1061 0.4990 0.5738
AT H-3 H%4
0.3445 0.3111 0.0803 0.9767 0.6704 0.5051
CB
L%4 H- 3 ?
0.3685 0.3685 0.0751 1.0918 0.5083 0.5049
CP
H-3 LH%4
0.3255 0.3072 0.0730 0.9917 0.4411 0.4381
DS
!H- 3 LH%4
0.3666 0.4321 0.1332 1.2258 0.5003 0.5634
GM
!H% (P) 4 LH%4
0.3435 0.3812 0.0687 1.0716 0.5564 0.5907
GV
!H-3 LH%4
0.4066 0.3260 0.0769 0.6447 + Q.6008 0.6227 0.5458
IS
!H- 3 L-1/H-3 H- 3
0.3244 0.2760 0.0640 0.8950 0.4039 0.5407
MM
L- 3 H- 3
0.3929 0.3251 0.0788 1.2358 0.5019 0.5435
MO
? LH%4
0.4484 0.2999 0.0830 1.0567 0.7289 0.5610
RS
!H- 3 H- 3
Condition: longS /long 0 (in the embedded clause)
s
~
v COMP s v 0
La Silvia nova que l'avia havla les de
mencionar Angela comptat errades les frases
0.5105 0.8514 0.0945 0.7309 0.5318 0.5571 0.7525
AT H-3 H-3 H%4
0.3894 0.8270 0.0664 0.6905 0.5706 0.5013 0.8357
CB
? H-!H%4 H- 3 (hacomptat
0.9117
0.5676 0.0677 0.9634 0.7030 0.6509 0.8280
CP !H-H%
? LH%4
(P) 4
0.5030 0.8183 0.0797 0.8377 0.7072 0.7372 0.7907
DS
(4?) L- 3 LH%4
0.5317 0.9524 0.1540 0.7646 0.7009 0.6228 0.7929
GM
H- 3 L!H% (P) 4 L!H%4
0.4790 0.8917 0.0806 0.7446 0.5856 0.6286 0.7589
GV
!HL%4 L!H%4
0.4356 0.7624 0.0603 0.7714 0.6426 0.5038 0.6944
IS
? (4?) H- 3 H- 3
0.3978 0.7871 0.0963 0.6783 0.5667 0.4731 0.8108
MM
!H-3 H- 3
0.4121 0.7377 0.0962 0.8377 0.6320 0.5358 0.7235
MO
? H%4 LH% (P) 4
0.5419 0.8697 0.0915 0.8612 0.6121 0.5961 0.8435
RS
? H-3 H- 3
Appendices 229
s v s v
""-
COMP 0
La Barbara suposa que lameva roba. el ratolf delmeu
aguila germa
0.4478 0.6123 0.0631 0.6602 0.4439 0.4960 0.6959
AT H%4 ? H%4
0.5252 0.5286 0.0582 0.6478 0.2456 0.4536 0.6241
CB
H-3 H-3 H-3
0.5229 0.5913 0.0603 0.8286 0.3741 0.4505 0.8407
CP
? H-3 (4?)H- 3
0.5979 0.4610 0.0822 0.8900 0.4519 0.5614 0.7485
DS LH% (P)4
L!H%4 H- 3
0.5200 0.5747 0.1414 0.8027 0.3101 0.5428 0.7480
GM
! H-3 (4?) H- 3
0.5356 0.6029 0.0431 0.7564 0.2985 0.4988 0.7074
GV
? L-3 H-3 ?
0.4607 0.5013 0.0711 0.6802 0.2081 0.4267 0.6435
IS L-3 H% (P) 4
0.4400 0.4810 0.0671 0.8912 0.2055 0.3949 0.7197
MM
? !H%4
0.4422 0.5510 0.0656 0.8760 0.5060 0.6051 0.7897
MO
H-3 H-3 H- 3
0.6066 0.6066 0.1131 0.8511 0.4844 0.4889 0.7650
RS
H- 3 H-3 ? H- 3
s v COMP s v 0
"
Elpare vadir que la teva tia se n'ha ala de
Amelia anat ciutat Malaga
0.4174 0.3567 0.0835 1.0283 0.4895 0.5654 0.4569
AT H-3 LH%4 ?
0.5497 0.3590 0.0645 0.9400 0.4881 0.5406 0.5648
CB
LH%4 H-3
0.3449 0.3896 0.0649 1.0511 0.5392 0.5646 0.6168
CP
H-3 LH%4
0.4172 0.4318 0.0918 0.9759 0.4504 0.5026 0.4860
DS
H%4 L!H%4
0.4266 0.4162 0.0929 1.1569 0.4877 0.5596 0.5430
GM
L!H% (P)4 L!H%4
0.3557 0.3721 0.0777 1.1898 0.5520 0.5315 0.6011
GV
!H- 3 L!H%4
0.3663 0.3114 0.0513 1.0184 0.4296 0.5521 0.5238
IS
! H-3
0.3622 0.2957 0.0628 1.0756 0.4546 0.4932 0.5788
MM
L!H%4
0.3822 0.3219 0.0980 1.2338 0.5271 0.4707 0.5029
MO
H-3 L!H%4
0.4129 0.3461 0.0917 1.0426 0.6506 0.6093 0.5375
RS
? H-3 ?
Appendix C- CLLD & CLRD Experiment (i.e. experiment 3)
C-1. Data
1. local CLLD with one w
a. Que vas fer amb les taules?
(What did you do with the tables? (cf. L6pez 2002: 8))
Les taules, les vaig portar al pis. (based on L6pez 2003: 195)
the tables CL.ACC PAST.lSG bring to-the flat
'The tables, I brought to the flat'
d. On van comprar elllibre?

(Where did you buy the book?)
E1 llibre, el vam comprar a Barcelona. (Villalba 2004: 3)
the book him PAST-lPL buy in Barcelona
'The book, we bought in Barcelona:
2. local CLLD with two w
Que va passar ambles taules que vaig comprar a Barcelona?
(What happened to the tables I bought in Barcelona?)
Les taules de Barcelona, les vaig portar al pis.
The tables from Barcelona CL.Acc PAST.lso bring to-the flat
'The tables from Barcelona, I brought to the flat'
d. On vas comprar elllibre de Chomsky?

(Where did you buy Chomsky's book?)
E1 llibre de Chomsky, el vam comprar
The book of Chomsky him PAST-2PL buy
a Barcelona. (based on Villalba 2004: 3)
in Barcelona
'The book by Chomsky, we bought in Barcelona:
3. local CLLD with more than two w

a. Que va passar amb els ve'ins Catalans de r altre co stat de r Ebre?
(What happened to the Catalan neighbours from the other side of the Ebre?)
Als ve'ins catalans de f altre costat de f Ebre, els volen
To-the neighbours catalan ofthe other side of the Ebre, cL-DAT want-they
robar 1' aigua. (based on Prieto 2005: 20)
steal the-water
'They want to steal the water from the Catalan neighbours from the other side of
(the river) Ebre:
c. A qui li vas donar 1' ampolla de vi rosat de Fran~j:a?

(Whom did you give the bottle of rose wine from France?)
Appendices 231
Campolla de vi rosat de Fran'Yll, 1' hi vaig

The bottle of rose wine from France, cL.Acc-cL.DAT PAST.lSG
donar a la Maria. (based on Prieto 2005: 14)
give to the Maria
'I gave the bottle of rose wine from France to Maria:
7. iterative CLLD
a. Quan va parlar delllibre amb el Pere?
(When did (s)he talk about the book with Pere?)
Amb en Perep del llibre2, ~'hi 1 va parlar ahir. (Villalba 2004: 3)
with the Pere of-the book of.it+Loc PAST-3 talk yesterday
b. Es barata la cervesa a Barcelona?

(Is beer cheap in Barcelona?)
La cervesal' a Barcelon~, la1 ~ venen molt cara. (Villalba 2004: 4).
the beer at Barcelona the Loc sell-3PL very e:xpensive-PEM.SG
'They sell beer very expensive at Barcelona:
8. CLLD in embedded contexts

a. On va portar les taules?
(Where did (s)he bring the tables?)
La Maria va dir que les taules les va portar al pis.
The Maria PAST.3SG say that the tables CL.ACC PAST.lSG bring to-the flat
'Mary said that the tables, (s)he brought to the flat'
b. Qui va parlar ahir delllibre?

(Who talked about the book yesterday?)
Sembla que, del llibre, en va parlar ahir la Maria.
seems that of-the book of.it PAST-3 talk yesterday the Maria
(Villalba 2004: 4)
'It seems that the book, Maria talked about yesterday:
9. non-local CLLD with one w

a. Dbn han sortit les taules?
(Where do the tables here come from?)
Les taules ~ Maria va dir ~ el Joel les va
The tables the Maria PAST.3SG say that the Joel CL.ACC PAST.3SG
portar de casa.
bring from home
'The tables, Maria said that Joel brought from home'
e. On va comprar elllibre?
(Where did (s)he buy the book?)
Fl llibre, .!.!\ nena va dir ~ el va cornprar a Barcelona.
the book the girl PAST3SG say that CL.ACC PAST-3SG buy in Barcelona
(based on Villalba 2004: 3)
'The girl said that the book (s)he bought in Barcelona:
10. non-local CLLD with two w
c. Que va passar amb les taules que vaig comprar a Barcelona?
Les taules de Barcelona, en fud. va dir ~ les va
The tables from Barcelona the Joel PAST.3sG say that CL.ACC PAST.3SG
portar al pis.
bring to-the flat
'Joel said that the tables from Barcelona, (s)he brought to the flat'
d. On va comprar elllibre de Chomsky?
(Where did (s)he buy Chomsky's book?)
El llibre de Chomsky, en fu.d va dir ~
the book of Chomsky the Joel PAST.3sG say that
elva comprar a Barcelona (based on Villalba 2004: 3)
CL.Acc PAST.3sG buy in Barcelona.
'Joel said that the book by Chomsky, (s)he bought in Barcelona:
11. non-local CLLD with more than 2 w
a. Que va passar amb els vems catalans de I' altre co stat de I' Ebre?
A1s ve'ins catalans de 1' altre costat de 1' Ebre, Be a va m
To-the neighbours catalan ofthe other side ofthe Fhre the Bea PAST.3sG
dir ~ els volen robar 1' aigua. (based on Prieto 2005: 20)
say that cL-DAT want-they steal the-water
'Bea said that they want to steal the water from the Catalan neighbours from the
other side of (the river) Ebre:
A qui li vas donar I' ampolla de vi rosat de Fran~a?

(Whom did he give the bottle of rose wine from France?)
L' ampolla de vi rosat de Fran~, en Enric va dir ~
The bottle of rose wine from Francia the Enric PAsr.3sG say that
1' hi va donar a la Maria.
CL.ACC-CL.DAT PAST.3sG give to the Maria
'Enric said that the bottle of rose wine from France he gave to Maria:
(based on Prieto 2005: 14)
Appendices 233
12. ( CL)LD out of CLLD

a. Sap la Joana alguna historia del seu avi?
(Does Joana know any story from her grandfather?)
[a Del seu avi] h. Maria diu ~ [~ les histories t(a)] la Joana
of-the her grandfather Maria say.3so that the stories the Joana
les coneix totes t(~).
CL.ACC know.3SG all
'Maria says that Joana knows all ofher grandfather's stories'
(based on L6pez 2003: 196: 6)
b. Qui va comprar 1' ampolla de vi rosat de Borde us?
(Who did buy the bottle of rose wine from Bordeaux?)
[a De Bordeus] la Maria diu que [~ l'ampolla de vi rosatt(a)]la
From Bordeaux the Maria say.3so that the bottle of rose wine
va comprar el Joel.
CL.ACC PAST.3SG buy the Joel
'Mary says that the bottle of rose wine from Bordeaux Joel bought:
c. Qui va comprar elllibre de Chomsky?
(Who bought the book by Chomsky?)
[a De Chomsky] la Maria diu que [~ elllibre t(a)] el Joel
of Chomsky the Mary PAST .3so say that the book the Joel
el va comprar.
CL.ACC PAST .3SG buy
'Mary said that the book by Chomsky, Joel bought:
d. On va veure la nena elllibre de la Maria?
(Where did the girl see the book by Mary?)
[a De la Maria] la nena va dir que [p elllibre t(a)]
ofthe Mary the girl PAST.3so say that the book
l'ha vist a la biblioteca.
CL.ACC PAST.3SG seen in the library
'The girl said that the book by Mary, (s)he has seen in the library:
13. (CL)LD out of CLRD
a. Coneix la Joana alguna histOria del seu avi?
(Does Joana know any story from her grandfather?)
La Maria diu ~ [o. del seu avi] la Joana
The Maria say.3so that of-the her grandfather the Joana
les coneix totes t(~), [~ les histories t(a)].
CL.Acc know.3so all, the stories
'Maria says that Joana knows all ofher grandfather's stories'
(based on L6pez 2003: 196: 6)
b. Qui va comprar 1' ampolla de vi rosat de Bordeus?

(Who did buy the bottle of rose wine from Bordeaux?)
[o.De Bordeus] @. Maria diu .qy&. la va comprar
From Bordeaux the Maria say.3so that CL.Acc PAST.3so buy
el Joel, [~ rampolla de vi rosatt(a)].
the Joel, the bottle of rose wine
'Mary says that the bottle of rose wine from Bordeaux Joel bought:
14. local CLRD with one w

a. Que vas fer ambles taules?
(What did you do with the tables? (cf. L6pez 2002: 8))
Les vaig portar a1 pis, les taules. (based on L6pez 2003: 195)
CL.ACC PAST.lSG bring to-the flat, the tables
'The tables, I brought to the flat'
e. On vas comprar elllibre?
(Where did you buy the book?)
El vam comprar a Barcelona, el llibre. (Villalba 2004)
him PAST-2PL buy in Barcelona the book
We bought it in Barcelona, the book:
15. local CLRD with two w (same sentences as for local CLLD)
c. Que va passar amb les taules que vaig comprar a Barcelona?
Les vaig portar a1 pis, les taules de Barcelona.
CL.ACC PAST.l SG bring to-the flat, the tables from Barcelona
'The tables from Barcelona, I brought to the flat'
d. On vas comprar elllibre de Chomsky?
(Where did you buy Chomsky's book?)
El vam comprar a Barcelona, el llibre de Cllomsk.y.
CL.ACC PAST.2PL buy in Barcelona, the book of Cllomsky.
(based on Villalba 2004: 3)
'The book by Cllomsky, we bought in Barcelona:
16. local CLRD with more than two w

a. Que va passar amb els vems catalans de r altre co stat de 1' Ebre?
Els volen robar 1' aigua, als ve'ins catalans de
cL-DAT want-they steal the-water, to-the neighbours catalan of
Appendices 235
1' altre co stat de l'Ebre. (based on Prieto 2005: 20)

the other side of the Ebre
'They want to steal the water from the Catalan neighbours from the other side of
(the river) Ebre:
c. A qui li vas donar 1' ampolla de vi rosat de Fran'i=a?

(Whom did you give the bottle of rose wine from France?)
Chi vaig donar a la Maria, l'ampolla de vi
CL.ACC-CL.DAT PAST.lSG give to the Maria, the bottle of
rosat de Francia. (based on Prieto 2005: 14)
rose wine from Francia
'I gave the bottle of rose wine from France to Maria:
20. iterative CLRD (Villalba 2004: 17).

a. Quan va parlar delllibre amb el Pere?
N 2'hi1 va parlar ahir, amb el Perel' delllibre2 (based on Villalba 2004: 3)
of.it-wc PAST-3 talk yesterday with the Pere of-the book
b. Es la cervesa cara a Barcelona?

(Is beer cheep in Barcelona?)
La1 ~ venen molt cara, la cervesal' a
them Loc sell-3PL very e:xpensive-FEM.PL the beers at
Barcelona2 • (based on Villalba 2004: 3)
Barcelona
'They sell beers very expensive at Barcelona:
22. CLLD and CLRD at the same time

b. Quan va parlar delllibre amb en Pere?
Amb en Perel' ~'hi 1 va parl.ar ahir, delllib~. (based on Villalba 2004: 3)
with the Pere of.it+Loc PAST-3 talk yesterday of-the book
c. Es la cervesa cara a Barcelona?

(Is beer cheep in Barcelona?)
La cervesal' la 1 h~ venen molt cara,
the beers them we sell-3PL very expensive-FEM.PL
a Barcelona2• (based on Villalba 2004: 3)
at Barcelona
'They sell beers very expensive at Barcelona:
C-2. Results
~
CLLD cl v pp
r Les taules les vaigportar alpis
0.6732 0.1689 O.S134 0.5427
lsi
LH%4
0.6S92 0.14S7 0.4SS7 0.4799
2pi
LH%4
3an
0.7378 0.1789 o.sooo 0.4633
H% (P) 4
O.S167 0.1801 0.4443 0.4737
4ne
H-3
O.S608 0.1S17 O.S126 0.427S
Sea
H%4
0.7S4S 0.1846 0.6716 0.6234
6cl
H% (P) 4
0.7619 0.1709 0.4909 0.566S
7an
LH% <P) 4
O.S779 0.1183 0.4926 0.5333
llsi
H-3
0.4963 0.1624 0.42S9 0.5143
12xa
!H- 3
0.3663 0.1088 0.3S83 0.4287
MM ??
0.4721 0.1301 O.S042 0.4614
RPJ
H-3
0.4179 0.1S87 0.4426 0.4197
YH
??
~
CLLD cl v pp
r Elllibre el vamcomprar a Barcelona
0.4670 0.0628 O.S199 O.S94S
lsi
H-3 (a la Rambla)
0.4647 0.0829 0.4734 0.6698
2pi
H-3
0.5717 0.1143 O.S488 0.6708
3an
H%(P)4
O.S388 0.0476 O.S614 0.6417
4ne
H-3
0.4762 0.0797 O.S128 0.5840
Sea
H%(P)4
O.SS86 0.1902 0.61S1 0.7917
6cl
H%(P)4 ?
Appendices 137
~
CLLD d v pp
r Elllibre el vamcomprar a Barcelona
0.5166 0.1180 0.4743 0.6524
7an
LH% (P) 4
0.4991 0.1448 0.6432 0.6981
llsi
H-3
0.5245 0.0961 0.4727 0.5764
12xa
LH% (P) 4
0.2633 0.0383 0.3916 0.6215
MM ??
0.3415 0.0437 0.4138 0.6762
RPJ ?
0.3251 0.0470 0.4695 0.6212
YH
H-3
~
CL LD d v pp
Les taules de Barcelona les vaigportar alpis
0.4897 0.6792 0.1807 0.5801 0.5830

lsi
!H- 3
0.4078 0.5641 0.1612 0.4616 0.4738
2pi
H- 3
0.4254 0.8622 0.1542 0.4854 0.4568
3an
H%4
0.4612 0.6339 0.1340 0.4458 0.5076
4ne
H- 3
0.4447 0.6874 0.1817 0.4989 0.4202
Sea
H% (P) 4
0.5083 0.8338 0.1661 0.6212 0.6577
6cl
H% (P) 4 ?
0.4945 0.6923 0.1774 0.5004 0.5788
7an
H% (P) 4
0.4415 0.7443 0.1060 0.4920 0.4466
llsi
L!H- 3 aa)
0.4380 0.6290 0.1509 0.4720 0.4793
12xa
H% !P) 4
0.3885 0.5347 0.1531 0.4091 0.4913
MM H- 3
0.4148 0.5707 0.1383 0.4802 0.4802
RPJ H- 3
0.4181 0.6219 0.1359 0.4495 0.4547
YH
H-3
v pp
""'
CL LD d
Elllibre de Chomsky el vamcomprar a Barcelona
0.3888 O.S438 0.1194 0.490S O.S972
lsi
H- 3
0.3670 O.S832 0.0779 0.4173 0.7190
2pi
H- 3
0.3097 0.7138 0.1003 O.S604 0.7167
3an
H%4
0.3643 0.6493 0.0871 0.4883 0.6441
4ne
H- 3
0.3826 O.S983 0.0924 0.4904 0.6239
Sea
H% (P) 4
0.3674 0.7949 0.1269 0.6262 0.7899
6cl
H% (P) 4
0.3643 0.6717 0.102S 0.4810 0.6688
7an
H% (P) 4
0.3774 0.6298 0.0612 0.4717 0.6604
!lsi
L- 3
0.3874 0.6220 0.10S9 0.3922 0.5774
12xa
H% (P) 4
0.3434 0.4180 0.0533 0.3668 0.6463
MM (H?) 3
0.3419 O.S781 0.0861 0.4723 0.7724
RPJ
H-3
0.3066 O.S141 0.0920 O.S094 0.6344
YH
H- 3
~
CLLD cl v DO
r Als veins catalans de 1' altre els volenrobar l'aigua
costat de l'Ebre
lsi !H%(P)4 0.4602

2pi H- 3
3an H% (P) 4 O.S344
4ne LH% (P) 4 0.4SS7
Sea H% (P) 4 0.4S30
6cl LH% (P) 4 O.S627
7an H% (P) 4 0.4909
llsi ?
12xa H% (P) 4 0.3788
MM
RPJ H- 3
YH (4?) H- 3
Appendices 239
~
CL LD c1 v pp
I:ampolla de Fran~ 1' hi vaig donar ala Maria
devirosat
lsi H-3
-
2pi !H- 3
3an (4?) H- 3
4ne (file missing)
Sea H-3
6d H% (P) 4
7an H% (P) 4
llsi L-3
12xa H% (P) 4
MM H-3
RPJ H-3
YH H-3
~
CLLD CLLD d v Adv
AmbelPere delllibre, n,'hi vaparlar ahir
lsi H-3 H% (P) 4
2pi ? H-3
0.2941
3an H% (P) 4 H%4
4ne H-3 (d lemrthenl.nQ:)

0.278S
Sea H% (P) 4 H% (P) 4
0.4893 0.3311
6d H% (P) 4 H% <P) 4
0.4162 0.3121
7an LH%(P) 4 LH%(P)4
llsi H-3 H-3

0.3526 0.2S1S
12xa H% (P) 4 H% (P) 4
MM H-3
RPJ H%4 ?
YH H-3
~ Lacervesa.
CLLD CLLD d cl v Adv
a Barcelona, la hi, venen molt cara
lsi H% (P) 4
?
i.'hi" 0.1104
2pi H% (P) 4
?
3an H% (P) 4 H% (P) 4
4ne
H-3 H- 3
5ca H% (P) 4
H-3
6cl H% (P) 4 H% (P) 4
7an H% (P) 4 H% (P) 4
llsi (3?) LH%4

L- 3
12xa H% (P) 4 H-3
MM
H%4
RPJ H-3
YH (sust. pi) H- 3
s v v pp
"'
COMP CLLD d
La Marla vadir que les taules 1 les 1 vaportar alpis
lsi ? H- 3
2pi H- 3 ? H- 3
3an ? H- 3
4ne ? H- 3
0.4712
5ca H- 3 H% (P) 4 H- 3
6cl LH% (P) 4 LH%4
7an LH% (P) 4 H- 3
llsi ?
12xa
LH%4 H- 3
MM
H- 3
RPJ ~ ?
YH ? H-3 ?
Appendices 241
~
v COMP CLLD cl v Adv s
Sembla que delllibre 1 en1 vaparlar ahir laMaria
lsi
H- 3
2pi
H-3
3an
(lg) L% (P) 4 (4?) H- 3
4ne
(length)L-3 LH%4
5ca
H% (P) 4
6cl 0.6023
LH% (P) 4
7an 0.1974 0.5698
(lg) L% (P) 4 LH% (P) 4
llsi
(length)L-3 !H- 3
12xa 0.4575
LH% (P) 4
MM
H- 3
RPJ
H- 3
YH 0.1574
(length)L- 3 !H- 3
~
CLLD s v COMP s cl v pp
Les taules 1 Ia Maria vadir que el]oel les 1 va decasa
portar
lsi
LH%4 H- 3
2pi
H-3 H- 3
3an
LH%4 H- 3
4ne
LH%4 H- 3
5ca H-3 (4?) H- 3 H- 3

0.6200
6cl LH% (P) 4 H-3 H-3 H- 3
7an LH% (P) 4 ? H- 3

CLLD s v COMP s d v pp
Les taules 1 laMaria vadir que elJoel les 1 va decasa
"'llsi
12xa
L!H%4
LH% (P) 4
!H- 3 H- 3
(4?) H- 3
portar
0.5037
MM
H-3 ?
RPJ
H-3 i'
YH H-3 ?
CLLD s v COMP d v pp
Elllibre 1 lanena vadir que ell va a Barcelona
"'lsi
2pi
H% (P) 4
H- 3
3 aelllrth+ +lelllrth)
comprar
3an
H% (P) 4 H% (4) P
4ne
H- 3
5ca
H% (P) 4 ?
6d LH% (P) 4 ?
7an
LH% (P) 4
llsi
H- 3 L-3
12xa
LH% (P) 4 H%(P)4
MM
H- 3
RPJ
H- 3
YH
H- 3
Appendices 243
~
CLLD s v COMP d v pp
Les taules de el Joel vadlr que les 1 va al pis
Barcelona1 portar
lsi LH% (P) 4 H- 3

2pi
H- 3 H-3
3an H% (P) 4 H% (P) 4
4ne
H- 3 ?
Sea H% (P) 4 H-3
6d LH% (P) 4 H-3
7an H% (P) 4 H-3
llsi
(JW:h) !H- 3 ?
0.4618
12xa H% (P) 4 H% (P) 4
MM
?
RPJ H- 3
YH !H- 3 H- 3
CLLD s v COMP c1 v pp
Elllibre de el Joel vadir que el1 va a
"'
lsi
2pi
3an
Chomsky1
H% (P) 4
H- 3
H-3
H-3
comprar Barcelona
H% (P) 4
4ne
H- 3
Sea H% (P) 4 H-3
6d LH%4 H-3
s v v
":.::
CLLD COMP c1 pp
Elllibre de el]oel vadir que el 1 va a
Chomsky1 comprar Barcelona
7an H% (P) 4 H-3

llsi
H- 3 ?
12xa H% (P) 4 H% (P) 4
MM
H- 3
RPJ H-3
YH
H- 3 ?
CLLD s v COMP c1 v DO
"
A1s veins cat. de laBea vadir que els.1 volenrobar falgua
f altre c. de f Ebre 1
lsi
H% (P) 4 H- 3
2pi
H- 3
3an H% (P) 4
H- 3 H- 3
4ne
H- 3 H- 3
5ca H% (P) 4 LH% (P) 4
6cl
H% (P) 4 ? H- 3
7an
H% (P) 4 ? ?
llsi
H- 3 H- 3
12xa H% (P) 4 !H-3
MM H% (P) 4
RPJ H- 3
YH
H- 3 ? H- 3
Appendices 145
CLLD s v COMP cl v pp
ramp. de vi l'Enric vadir que 1'1 hiva ala Maria
"'
lsi
2pi
3an
rosat de Fr.,
H- 3
H- 3
?
!
donar
H- 3 ?
4ne
H- 3 H-3
5ca
H- 3
6cl
LH% (P) 4 H-3
7an H% (P) 4 H-3
llsi
L- 3 L- 3
12xa
H% (P) 4 H-3 H-3
MM
H- 3
RPJ H- 3
YH
H- 3 H-3
CLLD s v COMP CLLD s cl v Q
"'
Del seu laMaria diu que les histories 1 laJoana les 1 coneix totes
avi[ 1,
lsi
H- 3 H- 3
2pi
H-3 H- 3
?!
3an
H%(P) 4 H% <P)4
4ne
L-3 LH%4 H-3
Sea
H- 3 H- 3
Q.6011
6cl
H%(P)4 L- 3 H% (P) 4
0.5834
7an
H%(P)4 L- 3 H% (P)4
CLLD s v COMP CLLD s cl v Q

Delseu laMaria diu que les histories 1 la.Joana les 1 coneix totes
"'llsi
12xa
MM
avi[ll
L- 3
H-3
?
?
L- 3
H- 3
? H- 3
RPJ
? ? H- 3
0.4942
YH
H- 3 H% (P)4
~
CLLD s v COMP CLLD cl v s
De laMaria diu que fampolla la 1 va elJoel
Bordeus devirosat1 comprar
lsi
H-3 H-3
2pi
H% (P) 4 H% (P) 4
3an
H% (P) 4 H% (P) 4
4ne
H-3 ? H-3
5ca
H-3 H-3 H-3
6cl
H% (P) 4 L- 3 H% (P) 4
7an
H% (P) 4 L- 3 H% (P) 4
llsi
LH%4 LH%4
12xa
missinQ:
MM
L- 3
RPJ H-3 H-3 ?
YH
H-3 !H% (P) 4
Appendices 247
s v s v
"
COMP CLLD d Q CLLD
La Maria diu que dels. a la]oana les 1 coneix totes les hist. 1
lsi
H% (P)4 L%4
2pi
? H% (P)4 L- 3
3an
H% (P)4 H% (P)4 H-3 L- 3
4ne
L- 3 H-3 L- 3
5ca
! H-3 ?
6cl
H% (P)4 L%4
7an
H% (P)4 L%4
!lsi
H-3 L%4
12xa
H% (P)4 H% (P)4 L%4
MM
? ? L- 3
RPJ !H- 3 H-3 ?

YH
H% (P)4 L%4
~
CLLD s v COMP c1 v s CLLD
DeB. 1 laMarta diu que la1 vacompr. e1 Joel l'a de vi
.t:,
lsi
H% (P)4 H%(P)4 L%4
2pi
H% (P)4 H-3 L%4
3an
H% (P)4 ? L% (P) 4
4ne
H- 3 L%4
Sea
? L- 3
1.3725
6cl LH%
L% (P) 4
(P) 4
1.1884
7an
H% (P)4 L% (P) 4
CLLD s v COMP d v s CLLD

DeB. 1 laMaria diu que la 1 vacompr. elJoel l'a de vi
""llsi
12xa
MM
LH%4
H% (P)4
HL%4
L% (p) 4
r..1
L%4
RPJ H-3 L%4
YH
H- 3 ? L%4
CLRD
~
cl v pp CLRD
r Les vaigportar al pis les taules
lsi
L- 3
2pi L- 3
3an L%(P)4
4ne (4!) L- 3
Sea
L- 3
6cl L%(P)4
7an L%(P)4
llsi L- 3
12xa L%4
MM L- 3
RPJ L%(P) 4
YH L- 3
Appendices 249
~
c1 v pp CLRD
r El vamcomprar a Barcelona elllibre
lsi
L-3
2pi
L- 3
3an
L- 3
4ne
L-3
Sea
L- 3
6cl
H% {P) 4 L% {P) 4
7an L% (P) 4
llsi
L-3
12xa
(4?) L- 3
MM L-3
RPJ L-3
YH
L- 3
~
cl v pp CL RD
Les vaigportar alpis les taules de Barcelona
lsi
L- 3
2pi
L%4
3an L% (P) 4
4ne
HL%4
Sea
L- 3
6cl
L% (P) 4
~
cl v pp CL RD
Les vaigportar alpis les taules de Barcelona
7an
L% (P) 4
llsi
L%4
12xa
HL% (P) 4
MM ?
RPJ
L- 3
YH
L- 3
~
cl v pp CL RD
El vamcomprar a Barcelona elllibre de Chomsky
lsi
L- 3
2pi
(4?) L- 3
3an
L% (P) 4
4ne
L- 3
5ca
L- 3
6cl
L% (P) 4
7an
L%!P)4
llsi L-3
12xa
L%4
MM L- 3
RPJ
?
YH
L- 3
Appendices 251
~
c1 v DO CLRD
r Els volen l'aigua als veins catalans
robar de l' altre costat de
l'Ebre
lsi L%(P) 4
2pi
L%4
3an
L%(P) 4
4ne
HL%4
Sea
L- 3
6cl
L%(P) 4
7an
L%(P) 4
llsi
L- 3
12xa
L% (P) 4
MM
L- 3
RPJ L- 3
YH (4?) L- 3
~
d CL RD
r: v pp
l'ampolla de Fran~
hi vaig donar ala Maria
de vi rosat
lsi
L- 3
2pi
HL% (P) 4
3an L!H% (P)4
4ne (4?) L- 3
Sea
L- 3
6d L% (P) 4
~
c1 CL RD
r: v pp
l'ampolla de Fran~
hi vaig donar ala Maria
devirosat
7an
L% (P) 4
llsi
L- 3
12xa
L%4
MM
L- 3
RPJ
L- 3
YH L- 3
~
cl v Adv CLRD CLRD
N2'hil vaparlar ahir ambe1Pere 1 delllibre2
lsi
L- 3
2pi
L%4
3an
L% (P) 4
4ne
L- 3
5ca
i'
6cl
L% (P) 4 L% (P)4
7an
L% (P) 4 L% (P)4
llsi
L- 3 i'
12xa
L%4
MM
L- 3
RPJ L- 3
YH L- 3
Appendices 253
~
cl+cl v Adv CLRD CLRD
La1 hi2 venen molt cara 1a cervesa1 a Barcelona2
lsi
L- 3
2pi
L-3
3an L% (P) 4
4ne
L-3
Sea
L- 3
6cl L% (P) 4
L%4
0.6642
7an L% (P) 4 L% (P) 4
llsi
L-3
12xa
L%4
MM L- 3
RPJ L- 3
YH
L- 3
~
CLLD c1 v Adv CLRD
AmbelPere, n1'h~ vaparlar ahir delllibre,
lsi
H- 3 L- 3
2pi
H- 3 L- 3
3an H% (P) 4 L- 3
4ne
H- 3 L- 3
Sea H% (P) 4 L- 3
6cl H% (P) 4 L% (P) 4
0.3244 0.5647
7an H% (P) 4 H% (P) 4 L% (P) 4
~
CLLD d v Adv CLRD
AmbelPere. n;hl,_ vaparlar ahir delll!bre2
llsi
LH%4
'
12xa H- 3 L% (P) 4
MM ? L- 3
RPJ H- 3 L- 3
YH
H- 3 L- 3
v
~
CLLD d+d Adv CLRD
Lacervesal lal~ venen molt cara a Barcelo~
lsi
L- 3 L- 3
2pi
H- 3 L- 3
3an H% (P) 4 L- 3
4ne
L- 3
'
5ca H% (P) 4 L- 3
6cl (4?) L- 3
LH% (P) 4
0.6534
7an LH% (P) 4 L% (P) 4
llsi
?
'
12xa
LH%4 L- 3
MM L- 3
'
RPJ H- 3 L- 3
YH
?
Appendices 255
Appendix D - CLLD vs. S Experiment (i.e. experiment 4)
D-1. Data
01. CLLD + S, with S given, S non-branching, 0 non-branching
a. Context:
Ja fa un temps que no trobo algunes de les meves herbes aromatiques que hi ha
normalment al rebost de I' amiga de la Barbara. Saps per casualitat que ha passat
amb la meva almbrega?
Target Sentence:
r almbrega, la Barbara, lava posar a I' hivernacle fa un mes.
b. Context:
La teva avia Agueda ahir ens va donar el mimero de telHon de I' esglesia. Ara em
vindria de gust trucar al seu germa, el sacerdot. Tu saps que ha fet I' Agueda amb
elnumero?
Target Sentence:
El ntimero, 1' Agueda, elva posar a I' armari del rebedor.
c. Context:
Es estrany. No se on s6n els meus aparells de mesura. Ara estic buscant la meva
millor brUixola, la que vaig posar a I' armari de la teva tia Angela. Tu saps que ha
passat amb la brUixola?
Target Sentence:
La brllixola, 1' Angela se lava deixar a la barca.
02. CLLD + S, with S given, S non-branching, 0 branching
a. Context:
Ja ta un temps que no trobo algunes de les meves herbes aromatiques de I' Africa
que hi ha normalment al rebost de I' amiga de la Barbara. Saps per casualitat que
ha passat amb la meva alfabrega d.' Algeria?
Ta.rget Sentence:
r almbrega d' Algeria, la Barbara, lava posar a 1' hivernacle faun mes.
b. Context:
La teva avia Agueda ahir ens va donar el ntimero de telHon de I' esglesia. Ara em
vindria de gust trucar al seu germa, el sacerdot. Tu saps que ha tet I' Agueda amb
el numero?
Target Sentence:
El ntimero de I' esglesia, I' Agueda, elva posar a I' armari del rebedor.
c. Context:
millor brUi.xola, la que vaig posar a 1' armari de la teva tia Angela. Tu saps que ha
passat amb la brUi.xola?
Target Sentence:
La mill or bruixola, 1' Angela, se lava deixar ala barca.
03. CLLD + S, with S given, S branching, 0 non-branching
a. Context:
normalment al rebost de 1' amiga de la Barbara. Saps per casualitat que ha passat
amb la meva altabrega?
Target Sentence:
r almbrega, 1' amiga de la Barbara, lava posar a 1' hivernacle faun mes.
b. Context:
La teva avia Agueda ahir ens va donar el numero de telefon de 1' esglesia. Ara em
vindria de gust trucar al seu germa, el sacerdot. Tu saps que ha fet 1' Agueda amb
el numero?
Target Sentence:
El numero, 1' avia A.gueda, elva posar a 1' armari del rebedor.
c. Context:
millor brUi.xola, la que vaig posar a 1' armari de la teva tia Angela. Tu saps que ha
passat amb la brUi.xola?
Target Sentence:
La brUi.xola, la teva tia Angela, se lava deixar a la barca.
04. CLLD + S, with S given, S branching, 0 branching
a. Context:
Ja faun temps que no trobo algunes de les meves herbes aromatiques de f Africa
que hi ha normalment al rebost de 1' amiga de la Barbara. Saps per casualitat que
ha passat amb la meva altabrega d.' Algeria?
Appendices 257
Target Sentence:
[ almbrega d' Algeria, I.: amiga de la Barbara, lava posar a 1' hivernacle faun mes.
b. Context:
vindria de gust trucar al seu germa, el sacerdot. Tu saps que ha tet r Agueda amb
el numero?
Target Sentence:
El n\lmero de f esglesia, f avia Agueda, elva posar a f armari del rebedor.
c. Context:
millor brUixola, la que vaig posar a 1' armari de la teva tia Angela. Tu saps que ha
passat amb la brUixola?
Ta.rget Sentence:
La miTior bruixola, la teva tia Angela, se la va deixar a la barca.
05. CLLD + S, with S new, S non-branching, 0 non-branching
a. Context:
normalment al rebost. Saps per casualitat que ha passat amb la meva alfabrega?
Ta.rget Sentence:
[ altabrega, la Barbara lava posar a 1' hivernade fa un mes.
b. Context:
Ahir vaig rebre el numero de telHon de r esglesia. Ara em vindria de gust trucar al
sacerdot, pero no trobo el numero. Tu saps que ha passat amb el numero?
Target Sentence:
El n\lmero, 1' Agueda elva posar a 1' armari del rebedor.
c. Context:
Es estrany. No se on s6n els meus aparells de mesura. Ara no trobo la meva millor
bruixola, encara que ningU. ha endre~at els meus armaris. Tu saps que ha passat
amb la bruixola?
Target Sentence:
La brwxola, 1' Angela se lava deixar a la barca.
06. CLLD + S, with S new, S non-branching, 0 branching
a. Context:
Ja faun temps que no trobo algunes de les meves herbes aromatiques de f Africa
que hi ha normalment al rebost. Saps per casualitat que ha passat amb la meva
altabrega d' Algeria?
Target Sentence:
I: altabrega d' Algeria, la Barbara lava posar a fhivernacle faun mes.
b. Context:
Ahir vaig rebre el numero de telHon de f esglesia. Ara em vindria de gust trucar al
Target Sentence:
El numero de f esglesia, f Agueda elva posar a 1' armari del rebedor.
c. Context:
bruixola, encara que ningU. ha endre\=at els meus armaris. Tu saps que ha passat
amb la bruixola?
Target Sentence:
La millor bruixola, 1' Angela se la va deixar a la barca.
07. CLLD + S, with S new, S branching, 0 non-branching

a. Context:
normalment al rebost. Saps per casualitat que ha passat amb la meva altabrega?
Target Sentence:
I: almbrega, 1' amiga de la Barbara lava posar a l'hivernacle faun mes.
b. Context:
Target Sentence:
El nu.mero, 1' avia Agueda elva posar a 1' armari del rebedor.
c. Context:
bruixola, encara que ningU. ha endre\=at els meus armaris. Tu saps que ha passat
amb la bruixola?
Target Sentence:
La brUixola, la teva tia Angela se lava deixar a la barca.
Appendices 159
08. CLLD + S, with S new, S branching, 0 branching
a. Context:
ta
Ja un temps que no trobo algunes de les meves herbes aromatiques de f Africa
que hi ha normalment al rebost. Saps per casualitat que ha passat amb la meva
altabrega d' Algeria?
Target Sentence:
r altabrega d' Algeria, f amiga de la Barbara lava posar a 1' hivernacle faun mes.
b. Context:
Target Sentence:
El nlJ.mero de f esglesia, f avia Agueda elva posar a 1' armari del rebedor.
c. Context:
bruixola, encara que ningO. ha endre~at els meus armaris. Tu saps que ha passat
amb la bruixola?
Target Sentence:
La millor bruixola, la teva tia Angela se lava deixar a la barca.
09. S + CLLD, with S given, S non-branching, 0 non-branching

a. Context:
amb la meva altabrega?
Target Sentence:
La Barbara, 1' alfabrega, lava posar a 1' hivernacle fa un mes.
b. Context:
vindria de gust trucar al seu germa, el sacerdot. Tu saps que ha fet f Agueda amb
el numero?
Target Sentence:
r A.gueda, el numero, elva posar a 1' armari del rebedor.
c. Context:
bruixola, la que vaig posar a 1' armari de la teva tia Angela. Tu saps que ha passat
amb la brllixola?
Target Sentence:
L' Angela, la bniixola, se lava deixar a la barca.
10. S + CLID, with S given, S non-branching, Obranching

a. Context:
Ja ta un temps que no trobo algunes de les meves herbes aromatiques de r Africa
que hi ha normalment al rebost de f amiga de la Barbara. Saps per casualitat que
ha passat amb la meva alfabrega d.' Algeria?
Target Sentence:
La Barbara, 1' alfabrega d' Algeria, lava posar a 1' hivernacle fa un mes.
b. Context:
La teva avia Agueda ahir ens va donar el nu.mero de telefon de 1' esglesia. Ara em
el numero?
Target Sentence:
r: Agueda, el numero de 1' esglesia, elva posar a 1' armari del rebedor.
c. Context:
amb la bniixola?
Target Sentence:
L' Angela, la millor bruixola, se lava deixar a la barca.
11. S + CLID, with S given, S branching, 0 non-branching
a. Context:
amb la meva almbrega?
Target Sentence:
r: amiga de la Barbara, 1' alfabrega, lava posar a 1' hivernacle faun mes.
b. Context:
La teva avia A.gueda ahir ens va donar el nUmero de telefon de 1' esglesia. Ara em
vindria de gust trucar al seu germa, el sacerdot. Tu saps que ha tet f Agueda amb
el numero?
Appendices 261
Target Sentence:
:L avia Agueda, el numero, elva posar a f armari del rebedor.
c. Context:
amb la brUixola?
Target Sentence:
La teva tia Angela, la bruixola, se lava deixar ala barca.
12. S + CLID, with S given, S branching, 0 branching
a. Context:
Ja faun temps que no trobo algunes de les meves herbes aromatiques de r Africa
que hi ha normalment al rebost de f amiga de la Barbara. Saps per casualitat que
ha passat amb la meva alfabrega d' Algeria?
Target Sentence:
r amiga de la Barbara, 1' alfabrega d' Algeria, lava posar a f hivernacle fa un mes.
b. Context:
La teva avia Agueda ahir ens va donar el ntimero de telefon de 1' esglesia. Ara em
el numero?
Target Sentence:
ravia Algueda, el numero de 1' esglesia, elva posar a 1' armari del rebedor.
c. Context:
amb la brUixola?
Target Sentence:
La teva tia Angela, la millor brUixola, se la va deixar a la seva barca.
D-2. Results
~
CLLD SG c1 v pp Adv
:r alfabrega1 !a Barbara la1 vaposar a fa unmes
r l'hivernade
AT H%4 H%4 H%4 H-3
CB
L!H% (P) 4 H-3 LL%4
CP ?
LH%4 LH%4
fel=0.049
DS
H%4
GM
L!H% (P) 4 H%4 H-3
GV
H-3 H-3 H%4
IS ~ ?
fno l~t syll'
H-3
[e] 0.059
MM L!H%4
H-3 ?
(contrast?)
MO LH% (P)4
L!H%4
[.ra]=0.084
RS
LH%4 H-3
~
CLLD SG c1 v pp pp
eakEi Elnumero 1 1' A.gueda e11 vaposar afarmari delrebedor
AT (4?) H- 3 H- 3
H- 3
[.ri = 0.113]
CB
LH% (P) 4 H-3
?
[.ri = 0.081]
CP ~
LH% (P) 4 H-3
[.ri = 0.078]
DS
LH%4 H%4 L!H%4
Appendices 263
~
CLLD SG cl v pp pp
p Elnt1mero 1 l'Agtieda el1 vaposar afarmari delrebedor
GM LH%4 H-3 H%4
GV LH%4 L%4
IS ?
H-3 H% (P)4
.sar= 0.166
MM LH%4
H- 3
r.ro=0.160]
MO LH% (P) 4 LH%4
RS
(4?) H- 3 H-3
~
CLLD SG se +d v pp
e La brtllxol~ r.Angela sel~ vadeixar ala barca
AT H-3 H-3
CB
L!H%(P)4 H-3
CP
LH%4 H% (P) 4
DS
LH%4 LH%4
GM !H% (P) 4 H-3
GV LH%4 LH%4
IS ?
L% (P) 4
r.Ia = 0.0941
MM LH%4 H-3
MO LH% (P) 4 H-3
RS
H-3 H-3
v pp
"
CL LD SG d Adv
1' alfilbrega d i\lgeria1 la Barbara la1 vaposar a l'htvernacle faunmes
AT
'
I
'
I H- 3 H-3 H%4 H% {P) 4
CB ..
'
I
I
L- 3 LH%4
CP '
..
lLH%(P)4 LH%4
DS . LH%(P)4 H%4
I ' ?
GM
GV I
I
.
:LH% (p) 4 H%4 {.de =·0.167)
3
LH%4 L- 3 (.de = 0.239)
IS
I
I
..' H-3
MM
I '
MO
.
lLH% (P) 4
ltH%(P)4 L!H%4 H% {P) 4

I
' ?
RS I
H-3 I
I H-3 H-3 (.de= 0.182)
CL LD d v pp pp
"'
SG
Elnumero de 1' esglesia1 r .A.gueda ell vaposar al'armari delrebedor
?
AT
H%4 r.da = 0.1141
CB
LH%(P) 4 H%4
CP
LH%4 LH%4
DS
L-3 LH%4
GM LH% (P) 4 H- 3
GV LH% (P) 4 LH%4

?
[.ri = 0.135]
IS
LH%4
?
MM r.ro=0.092l LH%4 r.da = 0.0781
MO (4?) H- 3 H- 3
RS
H- 3 H- 3
Appendices 265
~
CLLD SG se + c1 v pp
S] La mlllor bruixola 1 1' Angela sela 1 vadeixar ala barca
3
AT H%4 [.la = 0.135]
CB
LH% (P) 4 r.Ia = 0.1091
CP
LH%4 LH%4
DS L%4 LH% CP) 4
GM
H%4 H-3
GV
LH% (P) 4 LH%4 (4?) H- 3
IS
H%4 H- 3
MM H-3 H-3
MO LH%4 LH%4
RS
H-3 H- 3
~
CLLD SG c1 v pp Adv
r al:tabregal 1' amiga de la la la1 va a l'hivernacle faunmes
r Barbara posar
LH% (P) 4
AT [.R;a = 0.166] [.ra = 0.105]
LH% (P) 4 ~
CB r.ra = ·0.1221
r.~~:a = 0.1821 L%4
CP
LH%4 LH%4
DS
LH%4 LH% (P) 4 H%4
GM LH% (P) 4 H%4 H-3
GV
LH%4 LH%4 H%4
IS
H%4 H- 3
MM LH%4 L-3 H- 3
MO LH% (P) 4 LH%4

?
H- 3 H- 3
RS [.sar =
[.ga = 0.234] [.ra = 0.129]
0.212]
~
CLLD SG c1 v pp pp
er Elnumero1 1' Avia .Agued.a ell vaposar al'armari delrebedor
AT H%4 H-3
CB LH% (P) 4
'
.ro = 0.158] [.da = ·0.137]
CP LH%4 LH% (P) 4
DS LH% (P) 4 LH% (P) 4
GM LH% (P) 4 H-3
GV LH% (P) 4 LH% (P) 4
IS H%(P)4 H-3
MM LH% (P) 4 H-3
MO LH% (P) 4 L-3
RS
L!H%4 H-3
~
CLLD SG se + c1 v pp
er La bru!xola1 la teva tla Angela se la1 va delxar alabarca
AT H-3 H-3
CB L- 3 H-3
CP
LH%4 LH%4
DS
L- 3 L- 3
GM LH% (P) 4 H%4
GV LH%4 LH%4
IS . H- 3
[la= 0.103]
MM LH%4 LH% (P) 4
MO LH%4 H% (P)4
RS
H%(P)4 H-3
Appendices 267
~
CL LD SG d v pp Adv
L' alfilbrega cfAJ.geria1 l'amigade la1 vaposar a l' hivernacle fa unmes
laBarbara
i'
AT LH%4 l.ra = 0.130]
i' H- 3
CB
L!H% (P) 4 [.ra = 0.137] [.de = 0.235]
CP
LH%4 LH%4
DS L-3 LH% (P)4

i'
GM LH% (P)4 H% (P) 4 r.de = 0.2121
GV
L!H%4 L!H%4 H- 3
?
IS H-3 H-3 [.de= 0.1511
MM LH% (P)4 H- 3
MO LH%4 LH%4
?
RS LH%4 [.ra = 0.100] H- 3
CL LD S~ v pp pp
"'
d
El nllrn.ero de l' esglesia1 l' avia Agueda ell vaposar al'armari delrebedor
AT H-3 H% (P) 4
CB
LH%4 !H- 3
CP LH% (P) 4
LH%4
DS L!H% (P) 4 LH% (P) 4
GM H% (P) 4 H%4
GV LH% (P) 4 LH% (P) 4
IS H%4 H%4
i'
MM LH%4 [.da = 0.083]
MO
L- 3 LH% (P) 4
RS H-3 H- 3
~
CLLD SG se +d v pp
r La millor brUixola1 la teva tia Angela sela1 vadeixar ala barca
AT
H%4 H-3
CB
H%4 H-3
CP
LH%4 LH% (P)4
DS
L-3 LH%4 H%4
GM H% (P)4
(H%?)4
f.la = 0.2361
GV LH%4 LH%4
IS
H%4 H-3
MM L!H%4 H-3
MO LH%4 LH% (P)4
RS
(4?) H- 3 H-3
SNEW
~
CLLD ~r d v pp Adv
eakei 'alfabrega laBarbara la1 vaposar a fhivernade fu unmes
?
AT
H-3 H-3 f.de = 0.1631
CB
LH%4 H-3
CP
LH% (P) 4 LH%4
DS
LH%4 H%4
? H-3
GM LH% (P) 4 I [.ra = 0.088] [.de= 0.210]
?
GV H%4 I r.ra = o.o991 H-3
?
IS
H%4 I r.ra = o.1131
MM LH% (P) 4 H%4
MO LH%4 LH%4
RS
H%4 H- 3
Appendices 269
~
CLLD ~ d v pp pp
Elnumero 1 r Agueda el 1 vaposar al'armari delrebedor
AT H%(P) 4 H% (P) 4
CB
LH%4 H- 3
CP
LH%4 H- 3
DS
L% (P) 4 L- 3
GM
H%(P) 4 H- 3
GV
L- 3 LH%(P) 4
IS
H-3 H% (P) 4
?
MM H%(P) 4 r.da = 0.0991
MO LH% (P) 4 H%4

?
RS
H%4 [.da = 0.143]
~
se + d v pp
f~ela
CLLD
r La br1lixola1 se la1 vadeixar ala barca
AT L!H% (P) 4 H-3 (4?) H- 3
CB
L!H%4 H- 3
CP
LH%4 LH%4
DS
LH%(P)4 LH%4
GM
H% (P) 4 H-3
GV
LH%(P)4 H-3
IS H%4
[1a= 0.096]
[.la = 0.1971
LH%(P)4
MM [.la = 0.173] [la= 0.095]
MO LH%(P)4 LH%4
[.la = 0.242] [la = 0.118]
RS
LH%4 LH%4
v pp
"'
CL LD ~ c1 Adv
r al:tabrega d.' Algeria, Ia Barbara la1 vaposar a fhivernacle faunmes
H% (P)4
AT H%(P)4 [.ra = 0.104] [.sar = 0.246]
< <
CB r.cle =·0.1761
:r.ria=0.140 LH%4
<
CP
I £.1(cl=0.1271 H%4 [.ra = 0.099]
DS LH%(P)4
L-3
H- 3 ?
GM LH% (P) 4 [.ra = 0.155] [.de= 0179]
? ? ?
GV
:r.ria=0.198 r.ra = 0.1321 f.cle = 0.1881
?
IS [.ra = 0.088] [.de= 0.183]
H%4
MM L!H%4
MO H-3 H- 3 H% (P)4
RS
H-3 H- 3
v pp pp
l'~eda
CL LD d
"'
AT
CB
CP
Elrn1mero
LH%4
de l' esglesta,
H- 3
L-3
H-3
r.da = o.o921
el1 vaposar afarmari delrebedor
H-3
LH% (P) 4 [.da = 0.096]

DS H% (P) 4
L-3 H%4
GM H%(P)4
?
r.da = o.1261
GV
LH% (P) 4 LH%4
IS L% (P) 4 L-3
MM LH%4 [.da = 0.071]
MO H-3 H-3
RS
H-3
[.da = 0.097]
Appendices 271
~
CLLD ~ se + d v pp
r La millor brUixola1 !'Angela sela1 vadeixar ala barca
AT
H% (P)4 H-3
CB
LH% (P) 4 H-3
CP
LH% (P) 4 LH%4
DS L-3 H-3
H%4 H-3
GM [.la = 0.167] [.la = 0.105]
GV LH%4 LH%4
IS H%4 H-3
f.la = 0.1441 f.la = 0.1121
LH%4 ?
MM [.la = 0.154] [.la = 0.090]
MO LH%4 H-3
RS H-3 LH%4
~
CLLD ~ d v pp Adv
r: alfabrega1 1' amiga de la la la. va a faunmes
r Barbara " posar l'hivernacle
AT
H-3 H-3 H-3
CB
LH% (P) 4 f.ra= 0.123] H-3
CP
LH% (P) 4 LH% (P)4
LH% (P) 4 H%4
DS r.Qa = o.2621 r.ra = 0.1121 r.cle = 0.2141
?
GM H% (P)4 H-3 [.de = 0.196]
GV LH% (P) 4 LH%4 H-3
IS H% (P)4 H-3
?
MM LH%4 r.ra = 0.0901
MO LH% (P) 4 LH% (P)4

?
RS
LH%4 H%(P) [.de = 0.197]
~
CLLD d v pp pp
r El n11mero 1 1' av:la ~eda el 1 vaposar al'armari delrebedor
AT H- 3 H% (P) 4
CB H-3
LH%4
[.da = 0.131]
CP LH% (P)4
LH%4
DS
L- 3 L-3
GM LH% (P) 4 (4?) H- 3
GV
LH%4 LH%4 H% (P) 4
IS H% (P) 4 H- 3
MM LH%4 (4?) H- 3
MO LH%4 LH% (P)4
RS
H- 3 H-3
~
CLLD SN se+ d v pp
ake La brllixola1 la teva tia Angela sela1 vadelxar alabarca
AT H-3 H- 3
CB H-3
L- 3 H%4
f.la = 0.1281
CP
LH%4 LH%4
DS LH% (P)4 LH%(P) 4
GM H% (P) 4 H-3
GV
!H%4 LH%(P) 4 (4?) H- 3
IS
L-3 H-3
MM LH%4 LH%4
MO LH%4 LH%4 H-3
RS
LH%4 H-3
Appendices 173
CL LD ~ d v pp •.<\dv
r a.lfabrega
"'
d'Algeria 1 l' amiga de la la1 vaposar al'hivernacle fa unmes
Barbara
AT LH%4 LH%4 H%4 H-3
CB (4?) H- 3
L- 3 LH%4 H-3
CP LH% (P)4 H% (P) 4
LH%4
DS (4?) H- 3
L- 3 LH%4
GM
LH% (P)4 LH% (P)4 H-3
GV
LH%4 LH%4 H-3
IS
H%4 H%4
MM LH%4 H-3 H-3
MO LH% (P)4 LH% (P)4
RS
LH% (P)4 H-3 H-3
~
CL LD SN d v pp pp
El mlmero de r esglesial l' avia A.gueda ell vaposar al'armari del rebedor
AT LH%4 LH% (P) 4
CB LH% (P) 4
CP LH% (P) 4 LH% (P) 4
DS LH% (P) 4
LH%4
GM
LH% (P) 4 H-3
GV
H% (P)4 H% (P) 4
IS
LH% (P) 4 LH%4
MM L!H%(P)4 H%4
MO H-3 LH% (P) 4
RS
H% (P)4 H-3
~
CLLD ~ se+d v pp
eakei La mlllor brulxola1 la teva tia Angela sela1 vadelxar alabarca
AT H% (P) 4 H-3
CB H-3
H- 3
r.ta = 0.1291
CP
LH%4 LH%4
(wrongly uttered)
DS
GM H% {P) 4 H%4
GV
H- 3 LH%4
IS
H- 3 H- 3
MM H- 3 H-3
MO LH%4 LH% (P) 4

RS
H- 3 H-3
Reverse Order: S + CLLD
~
SG CLLD d v pp Adv
a.ke La Barbara l' alfilbrega1 la1 vaposar al'hivernacle faunmes
AT H-3 H- 3 H- 3
CB
L!H% (P) 4 H-3 L% (P) 4
CP
LH%4 H-3
DS
L- 3 LH% {P) 4
GM
H% (P) 4 H-3 H-3
GV
LH%4 LH% (P) 4 H-3
IS
H-3 H-3 H-3
MM LH%(P)4 H-3
MO LH%4 LH% (P) 4

RS
LH%(P)4 H-3
Appendices 275
~
SG CLLD c1 v pp pp
r l'Agtieda el nu.mero 1 el1 vaposar al'armari del rebedor
AT LH%(P)4 H%4
CB
LH%(P)4 H- 3
CP
H- 3 H- 3
DS
LH%(P)4 LH%4
GM H% (P) 4 H% (P) 4
GV LH%(P)4 H-3
.da = 0.140 [.ro= 0.102 [.ri = 0.132]
IS
H-3 H-3
MM LH%(P)4
?
r.ro= 0.093
MO LH%(P)4
RS
LH%(P)4 H-3
~
SG CLLD se + c1 v pp
eake! I' Angela la brulxola 1 sela1 vadelxar ala barca
AT H%4 H- 3
CB
LH%4 H-3
CP
LH%4 LH%4
DS
LH%4 LH%4
GM
H%4 H- 3
GV
LH%4 LH%(P)4
IS
H%4
MM LH%4 H-3
MO LH% (P) 4 LH%4
RS
LH%4 H- 3
v pp
"'
SG CL LD d Adv
La Barbara l'altabrega d.' Algerta1 la1 vaposar a l'hi.vernacle faunmes
?
AT H% (P) 4 H-3 [.de= 0.202]
CB LH% (P) 4 LH%(P)4 L%4
CP
LH% (P) 4 L!H% (P) 4
DS LH%(P)4
LH%4 H-3
GM LH% (P) 4 LH%4 H-3
?
GV LH% <P) 4 Lria = 0.2131 (4?) H- 3 r.cle = 0.1941
IS H% (P) 4 !H% (P) 4
H-3
MM LH% (P) 4 H-3
MO LH% (P) 4 LH%4
?
RS
LH% (P) 4 [.ria= 0.193] [.de= 0.188]
CL LD d v pp pp
"'
SG
rAgueda elnu.mero de 1' esglesia, ell vaposar al'armari delrebedor
?
AT H-3 : [.sia= 0175] H- 3
CB L!H%(P)4 H%4
CP H%(P)4 LH%(P) 4
DS
LH%4 LH%4
GM H%(P)4
H%4 [.sar = 0.218]
r.da = o.2o21
GV LH%4 LH%(P) 4
IS
H-3 H-3
MM L!H%4 L!H%4
?
MO L!H%(P)4 : r.si.a = 0.1821
H-3 ?
RS
[.da 0.209] , [.sia = 0.207]
Appendices 277
~
SG CLLD se+ d v pp
r I: Angela la millor bruixola1 sela1 vadeixar ala barca
AT H%(P)4 H-3
CB
L!H%(P)4 H- 3
CP
LH%4 LH% (P) 4
DS
H-3 H- 3
H%4
GM
H%4 [.la = 0.173]
GV
LH%4 LH%4
IS
H%4
MM LH%4 H- 3
MO L!H%4 LH%4
RS
LH%4 H-3
~
SG CLLD c1 v pp Adv
r: amiga de la 1' altabreg~ la1 vaposar a fa unmes
r laBarbara l'hivernade
?
AT H-3 H- 3 il.de = 0.190]
CB
L!H% (P) 4 H- 3
CP
LH% (P) 4 LH%4
DS L% (P)4
L- 3
GM L!H%4 H- 3 H-3
GV
LH%4 LH%4 H-3
H%(P)4 H- 3
IS
r.ra= 0.1241 .~~:a= 0.118
MM L!H%4 H- 3
H-3
MO LH% (P) 4 LH%4 i f.de = 01751
RS
H-3 H- 3
~
SG CLLD d v pp pp
r ravia .Agueda el n11mero 1 el1 vaposar afarmari delrebedor
AT H% (P) 4 H- 3
CB
L!H%4 H- 3
CP
LH% (P)4 LH% (P) 4
DS
L- 3 L!H%4
GM H% (P) 4 H- 3
GV LH% (P)4 L- 3
IS
H%4 H- 3
MM L- 3
?
[.ro = 0.110]
MO H% (P) 4 H- 3
RS
LH%4
~
SG CLLD se + c1 v pp
r La teva tia Angela la brllixola1 sela1 va delxar alabarca
AT H-3 H- 3
CB
LH%(P)4 LH%4
CP
LH%4 LH%4
DS
LH%4 LH% (P) 4
GM H%4 H- 3
GV
LH%4 LH%4
IS
H%4 H- 3
MM LH%4 LH%4
MO LH%(P)4 LH%4
RS
H-3 H-3
Appendices 279
SG CL LD d v pp Adv
ramlgadela 1' al:tabrega d' Algeri.a1 la1 vaposar a l'hivernacle faun mes
"
AT
CB
CP
Barbara
H% (P) 4
L!H% (P) 4
H- 3
H%4
H% (P) 4
H%4
LH%(P)4 LH%4 f.de = 0.2541
DS LH%4 LH%4
H- 3
GM H% (P) 4 H%4 r.de = 0.2611
GV
LH%(P)4 LH% (P) 4
IS H%4 L-3
MM L!H%4 H-3
MO LH%4 LH%4
RS H-3 H-3
SG CL LD c1 v pp pp
"
AT
CB
CP
r avta Agueda elnumero
H% (P) 4
L!H%4
de f esglesia1
H-3
LH% (P) 4
el1 vaposar ~l'armarl delrebedor
H% (P) 4 H-3
DS LH%4 LH% (P) 4
GM H% (P) 4 H% (P)4
GV
H% (P) 4 LH% (P) 4
IS H%4 H-3 H%4
MM H- 3 [.r0=0.135} L!H%4
MO LH% (P) 4 L!H%4
RS H% (P) 4 H-3
~
SG CLLD se+ cl v pp
r La teva tia Angela la millor bruixola1 se la1 vadeix:ar ala barca
AT H% (P) 4 H-3
CB LH% (P) 4 LH% (P) 4
CP LH%4 LH% {P) 4
DS L!H% (P) 4 L!H%4
GM H% (P) 4 H%4 H- 3
GV LH% (P) 4 LH%4 H% (P) 4

?
IS H% (P) 4 [la= 0.106]
MM L- 3 H-3
MO LH% !P) 4 LH%4
RS H-3 H- 3 H% (P) 4
Index
*I-PHRASE 101 ALIGN-CP,L 3, 23, 95, Boersma, Paul 21, 23, 95, 112,
*P-PHRASE 101-102 97> 112-119, 124-126, 120, 121, 123, 124
"STRUC 101 171-172, 177-178, Bonet, Eulilia 7, 8,
180-181, 199-201 39. 40,150
A ALrGN-ToP(Ic),R 3, 25, boundary 2-3, 35, 43, 64> 66,
accent 149> 174-175> 177-182, 183 68, 74-78, 81, 83, 85, 87,
bitonal 37-39, 47-48, 184> 191, 194-195. 91, 93-94> 115, 160, 162,
59,83 199-200 169-17), 174-176, 184>
early rising 38, 39, 56 ALIGN-vP,R 3, 25, 174-176,177, 199-201. See also tone:
falling 39 179-182, 199-201 boundary
high39 ALIGN-XP,L 97, 99, 101 cue cH. 2.3> 58-59, So, 94
late rising 38, 39 ALIGN-XP,R 22-23, intermediate phrase 36, 42,
low 39 95-100, 102, 104-ll9, 57> 59. 74-78, 91, 159. 162,
monotonal 39 122-126, 174-175, 188-191, 199
nuclear 38, 39, 40 n.22, 43, 177-182, 191, 194-195. intonational phrase 36,
59> 150 199-200 57> 59> 74-78, 91,
phrase/phrasal 29, 40, all-new. See focus 92, 152, 159. 162,
43> 55 antireconstruction effect 24> 188-191, 199
pitch 27, 28-29, 31· 32, 33> 131,137 obligatory, insertion
35, 37, CH. 2.2.1, 41, association 28, 31, 35, 38 (OBI) 92
43> ¢, 47> 48. 58-59> Astruc, Llui'sa 37, 40, 42, 51, (obligatory) left, of
69, 78, 82, 83, 87, 89, 54> 56, 58, 92, 96, 150, 153, CLLD 153, 17J., 182
150-151, 160, 163 162, 1]2, 173 (obligatory) right, of
prenuclear 38, 39, 40, asymmetry CLLD 25, 149, 151,
46-48, 51 n.28, between CLI.D and 153-154> 164-166, 1]1, 174>
59> 150 CLRD CH. 41.2 178, 180, 184> 193, 195. 200.
rising, with delayed complement-adjunct See also ALIGN-ToP(Ic).R
peak 39. 47> 49· (argument-adjunct) 131, placement cH. 3-41,
See also delayed peak 136-139 104-106
sentence 10, 11 n.15, 24> autosegmental-metrical (AM) prosodic (phrase) 2, 25,
166 n.16 model cH. 2.1.1 45. 50, 115, us, 149> 160,
argument 175-176, 191-192
accusative 7, 104-105, B strength 36. See also
157> 186 base-generation 14> 19, 130, break index
dative 104-105 148. See also CLLD branching
adjunct 8, 103-104 Beckman, Mary 27, 29, dislocations cH. 5
See also asymmetry: 31. 32, 33, 34> 36, 40. 55 object 2, 22, 63, 73, 94>
complement -adjunct binding 21, 24> 131, 136, 99-100, 107, 125
nominal 138-139 139-140, 143 subject 6), 7J, 84, 94> CH. 6
Aguilar, Lourdes 21, 27, extension of, domain branchingness 25, 62, 64>
32, 37-38, 40-44, 55, 145-147 86, 99-100, 162, 183-185,
58-59 -theoretical approach to 190-191, 195
Ale:xiadou, Artemis 8, u-13, obviation 145. See also Brazilian Portuguese (BP) 18,
19,130 obviation 21,100
282 Index
break, prosodic/intonational local 155-156,161-164. underlying form of, -s 95,

~22,45. 46.54·56,58,76, 169-170, 177 1~ 116-117, 123-
87, 91, 92 n.16, 113, 16:t, non-local 156, 166, 169-170 See also optimality
165, 170-1~ 190, 191, 193. obviation and 141-147 theory: stoChastic
198-199 prosodic phrasing of cH. 5 context question 69, 70, 71,
break index 27, 33. 35-37, ditic right-dislocation 74> 157, 159. See also
43. 49, 52. 54> 56, 78. 87. (CLRD) CH.1.1.2, sentence: target
See also Tone and Break CH. 4> CH.5 continuation rise 21, 27, 33. 42,
Indices base-generation of 130 43. 44> CH. l.J-2., 50, 55, 57,
clause-external 130. See also 59. 64> 75-78, 81, 8J, 150,
c clause-external analysis 153. 16~ 170
case feature 145-147 clause-internal 129, 131, continuous ranking
Cat_ToBI cH. 2.2, 44> 50, 139, 147. See also scale 121-123, 126.
55-56, 58-59 clause-internal analysis See also optimality
C-domain 127-130, 146, 179, deaccented/unaccented ~ theory: stoChastic
19l. See also left periphery 150, 168, 170, 174 Costantini, Francesco 132,
Cecchetto. Carlo 24. 127-129, iterative/muhiple 159 n.~ 140-141, 144-145
130, 131, 137. 139-140 170 CP structure
clause-external analysis 130, LD extracted from double 145-146
133-135. 137-138, 143. 145. embedded CLRD (LD out simple 145-146
147, 198, 201. See also ofCLRD) 170,171,180
CLRD: clause external local 156, 170 D
clause-internal analysis 24-25, non-local 156 D'hnperio, Mariapaola 22, 28,
127, 131-1)2, 134> 137-140, complement. See also 38. 61-65, 71. 73. 77. 84-85,
145, 147, 148, 166 n.16, object clause 94· 99. 111, 112, 119, 125, 184
198,201. -adjunct asymmetry 131, dative
clitic. See also reswnptive clitic 136-139 experiencer 14
accusative 155 nominal 138-139 argwnent 104-105
locative 7 obviative clausal 145-146. de Lacy, Paul 23. 97-99, 101,
partitive 8 See also obviation 113-114
clitic left-dislocation consonant, sonorant 68 deaccentuation 1L See also
(CLLD) CH. 1.1.2, 158 n.10 constraint See *I-PHRASE; CLRD: deaccented
and preverbal subjects *P-PHRASE; delayed peak 38-39, 49,
CH. 1.1.4, CH. 6 *Smuc; ALIGN-CP,L; 77-78,82-83,88,89,160.
base-generation of 14. 19, AliGN-ToP(Ic),R; See also accent
130,148 AuGN-vP,R.; ALIGN-XPJ.; disambiguation, subjects
branching and AuGN-XP,R; MAx-BIN; present for 14, 17-18
non- branching 149, MAx-BIN-END; dislocation structures 170.
152-154· 158, 160-167,171, MIN-N-PHRASEs; See also CLLD; CLRD
1]2, 173-175, 179. 181, 183, WRAP-XP double object
187-192 alignment 35, 96-98, 101, constructions 104-105
embedded 1, 2, 25, 105, 111, 113, 175, 195. Downing, Bruce 33, 61,
140-142. 145· 153. 198-201. 65, 66 n.4 92, 113
155-156, 159. 160-16:t, overlapping, -s 113.
166, 169-1]2, 174> 123-125, 177-179. 194 E
177-178, 198 See also optimality edge-based mapping/
iterative/muhiple 156, theory: stoChastic theory 34-35, 96, 172
164-165, 17Q-171 hierarchy 23, 102, 104. 105, Elordieta, Gorka 21, 33. 43, 58,
LD extracted from 109, 117, 118, 120, 124· 126, 62-64, 99, 110, 112
embedded CLLD (LD 176-177 Ertesdbick-Shir, Nomi 142
out of CLLD) 25, 155, 170, reverse order of, -s 23. 110, Estebas-Vilaplana, Eva 39,
177-178 m-u6. See also ranking: 45-47.51.54-55.56
left boundary of, reverse; optimality European Portuguese (EP) 16,
constituents 153. 171, 182 theory: stoChastic 18, 32, 39. 44> 50, 62-63
Index 2.83
F and CllD 149, 153. 170-171, 130 n.7, 140, 147-148, 149,
Farkas, Donka 140, 142. 155 174> 177-181,194 155, 177, 184, 186, 199 n.2
fast speech. See speech rate matrix (SV) 21, 70, Lujan, Marta 140,145-146
Fery, Caroline 29, 30, 101, 110 94> 154
focus 2, 39, 41, 59, 64. 71, 74> Gussenhoven, Carlos 11 n.15, M
128-129 match theory 34 n.16,
23, 28-31. 35-36, 55.
all-new 9-10, 15-16, 22, 55, 89, 97, 113-n4 156 96D.17,201
62, 65,104 MAx-BIN 100-101,102,103
domain 2, 9-12, 14 15, 175, I MAx-BIN-END 22-23,95,102,
183-186, 191-193 information structure/ 104-112, n4-119, 124-126,
focus phrase (FocP), packaging CJL Ll.J, 15, 177-181, 194-195
internal J, 24 25, 62,71,128,157,184 MIN-N-PHRASES 22-23,
129,176 interface categories 34 95-96, 102-104> 106-108,
Frascarelli, Mara 7 n.8, 12, See also intermediate no-ns, 122-126, 177-181,
25, 42, 96, 101, 130, 149, phrase; intonational 194-195
151-151 171-172, 175, 182, phrase mirror hypothesis 128-129,
183-184> 191-192,198 intermediate phrase (lp) 21, 131 n.s, 136, 147
French 4> 7 n.5, 8 n.9, movement
27, 29-31, 32-33. 36, 40,
18, 150 A-movement 15
42-43. 48 n.27, 56-59, 77,
Frota, S6nla 21, 33. 43-45, 99,150,173,199,201 A-bar-movement 17
50, 54 56-58, 62, 64, 75, intonational phrase (IntP) 21, CLLD as a result of 14 n.21,
23, 27, 29-31. 33-37. 40. 129, 148, 179
77.94
42-44, 48 n.27, 52, 54-59, LF- 145,147
G 65, 66, 74-78, 87, 91-9J, remnant 1 24 129-130,
Ghini, Mirco 99-100, 105 97, 99 ll.20, 101, 11J, 128 147· 176
glvenness 9,11-12,25,184 n.1, 15o--152, 158 n.10, 159, tonal/pitch 38-39, 41, 82-81
187, 190-191 162, 165-167, 169, 172-173. 89, 150, 160-161
Gradual Learning Algorithm 175. 188-192, 193. 197· N
(GLA) 121, 123-125 199-201 negative words (n-words) 24
Greek 19-20 islandhood 14 16 131-135, 147
grouping, intonational/ Italian (ITAL) 4 7 n.8, 8 n.9, Nespor, Marina 30-32, 33-34.
prosodic 1-3, 30, 33-34, 18, 24> 44> 50, 62-6), 35. 42. 61, 62, 66, 92, 96,
35, 57-58, 62, CH. 3·3-3. 130-135, 137-141, 143-145, 99-100, 101, 118, 152 ll.5
100, 103-104> 1o6, 147· 151-152, 172,182,183, normal speech. See speech
CH. 3-4·3. 197-201 191-192,198, 201 rate: normal
(S)(V)(qS)(VO) 22-23.
85-88, 90-91, 94· 114-n7, K 0
n9, 125 Kempchinsky. Paula 140, 142 object clause (sentential
(S)(VO) 2, 22, 63, 71, 80-81, Krifka, Manfred 9-12, 16 object/complement) 1-2,
83-85, 94> 107, 109-112, 21-22,61-62, 65-66,
125-126,153 L 71. 84> 86, 91-91 94-95.
(S)(VqS)(VO) 22-23, Ladd, Robert D. 27-29, 102, no, 113, 124> 126'
85-87, 89-91, 93. 33 n.u, )6, JS, 40, 55, 142 D.11 146, 155, 172,
114-117, 119, 125 58,150 177, 197-198, 200
(SV)(O) 2-3.21-22, 25, 61, Lambrecht, Knud 10, 150 obviation 25, 132, 140, 198,
63, 65, 77. 80-81, 83-85, language, compressing 41 201. See also subjunctive:
94> 107-108, no-1n, Lebeaux, David 136-137 disjoint reference;
126,153 left-dislocation. See ditic binding: extension of,
(SV)(qS)(VO) 22-21 left-dislocation domain
85-88, 90-91, 93-94. left periphery 128, 142. 145 and CLLD 141-142, 144
114-n7, n9, 125-126 order in Catalan for 145-147
(SVqS)(VO) 22-23. 85, elements in the 8 and CLRD 143-144 147
87-89, 9Q-91, 93. n4-117, L6pez, Luis 7 n.6, u n.17, disappearance of, effects 25,
n9, 125 13-16, 20-21,25, 128-129, 132, 198
284 Index
optimality theory (OT) 3. 21, 106,107, 112-n3, n6, scope, wide 19-20
23, 25, 26, 61, 95-97· 100, 117-118, 149-150, 153. 170, selection point 114, 121-123.
107,174-179,193-195 172-177, 182,183, 192, 197> 125, 126, 177, 200.
optionality in 120 199,201 See also optimality
stochastic 112-113, as a hypernym 27, 58, 65, theory: stochastic
CH. J.4J.3, 124-125, 77>94 Selkirk, Elisabeth 10, 30,
126, 149> 177 weakening of 172 33-35, 45 n.25, 48 n.27, 61,
prosodic word 7 n.5, 11 n.15, 62, 64, 96-97. 98, 100,
p 21, 23, 28, 30-32, 34> 40. 175. 197. 198-199· 201
pause 33.44-45,46,56,59.70, 49. 57. 58, 6-t. 68, 71, 73. sentence
92, 158 n.10, 167 n.16, 173, 99-108, 117-119, 154> all-focus 15-16. See also
192-193 159-161, 168-169, 200 focus: all-new
audible pause 54, 57, 75, stress 11, 12, 22
78, 8J, 87 Q target 22, 64-65, 67-74.
visible pause 54> 57, 75, 87 quantifier phrase (QP) 18-19 157-158, 185-187
phase 96 n.17, us, 175-176, 201 question/answer pairs 3, 8, 9· sentential complement
phonological phrase See also focus; See object clause
(p-phrase) 30-31, 33. context question sentential object. See object
35, 64-65, 92 n.16, clause
97-112, 113, 172 R Sheehan, Michelle 13-16,
phrasing, intonational/ ranking. See also OT: 18-21, 192-193
prosodic 1, 13. 24-25, stochastic Spanish (SP) 4> 6 n.-f, 7 n.5&9,
27, 34-35. 43-44> 62-65, normal 23. 112, 122-123 15, 16, 18-20, 28, 29 D.3,
67, 95, 100, 113. 120 n.26, value 121-125,181 30, 34> J6 n.19, 38, 39,
126,127,149,160,170, reverse 23, 95, 105, 44> 50, 51, 58' 62-63, 112,
174. 175, 176, 184 See also 110, 112, 122-123, 126, 145.150
grouping, intonational/ 194-195 speech
prosodic rapid speech. See speech scripted 156
matrix (SV) 21, 94. 154 rate: fast spontaneous 44> 50
Pierrehumbert, Janet 27-29, reconstruction 24> 131, speech rate 62, 96, 99, 101,
32 n.11, 33. 34> 35, 36, 55, 1)6-137, 140 108,152
58,120 recursivity 118 fast 85, 107, 111, 149. 153-154,
pitch reset 45 n.25 relation-based mapping 156-157> 159-162, 165-167,
pre boundary lengthening 21, 34-35.172 171-172, 201
27, 41, 43, 44> 45, CH. 2.J.1, restructuring normal 64, 69, 81, 84>
57. 59. 78-80 of non-branching topics/ 100, 102, 107, ll1, 153·
preplanning 173 dislocations 152-154. 156-157· 159-162, 165-167,
Prieto, Pilar 21-23. 25-26, 172-173 170-171, 200
27-29, 32 n.11, 33. 36 n.19, of phonological phrase 99 split-topic hypothesis 140, 147.
CH. 2.2, 43, 44> 46-48, reset See pitch reset See also internal
55-59. 61, 62-65, 68, 71> 77> resumptive clitic 6-8, 18 Topic Phrase
79 n.u, 84-85, 94. 95-96, rheme 15-16, 184 See also starredness 38
99. 102-113, 117, 125,126, information structure stress 7 n.5, 31-32, 47-48, 68,
149. 150, 153. 154> 162, 175, right-dislocation. See clitic 77, 78 n.12, 10-f, 176.
182, 185, 198, 200-201 right-dislocation See also syllable
proparoxytonic word 47-49, Rizzi, Luigi 12, 128-129, 146 clash 33 n.14
68, 102n.21 root clause 33. 61, 66 n.4, 71, sentence 11-12, 22, 104
prosodic binarlty 101, 103-104 92, 94> 151 phrasal 11 n.15
See also MAx- BIN; root phenomenon 61, 198 strict layer hypothesis
MAX-BIN-END (SLH) 30-31 D.7. 57> 118
prosodic grouping. s strong pronoun 32
See grouping Samek-Lodovici, Vieri (SL) subject
prosodic phrase (PrP) 2-3, 24> 127, 129 n.4, 130, 131, branching cH.6. See also
21-23,25,58,86,95,10), 132-139. 141, 147· 198, 201 branching: subject
Index 2.85
embedded 17, 22-23. tone 'fruckenbrodt, Hubert 11,

61, 87-89, 91, 93. boundary 29, 34> 39,40-41, 30, 33. 34. 35, 66, 93· 96,
95, 115-116, 140, 43. 58, 59, 69, 77, So, 150, 97, 98, 100-102
141 n.12, 198 159-164, 17J., 193, 201 truncation, tonal 41
matrix 1, 21-23, 61, 70, complex boundary 21, 27,
73. 86-89, 91, 93. 94. 95, 55-57. 59, 75, 87, 88, 89 u
115-116, 137, 140-142, 143 edge 28-29,3h40-41,43. utterance (phonological
n.14, 145-147, 154. 162, 197 46-47> 59, 164 constituent) 30, 34. 57, 58
present for high boundary 44. 45-49,
disambiguation 14. 17-18 50, 75-76, 164 v
preverbal 1, J, 9, CH.1.1.4. 25, IntP-boundary 33. 35, 37, 40 Vallduvi, Enric 7-8, 9, 12-13.
54> 62, 66-67, 74> 102, 127, ll.24, 43. 56, 58-59> 75, 92, 15, 17, 39' 128, 147> 175> 184
154, 17), 174. CJL6, 197 94, 162, 166-167, 169, 1]2, variation in Generative
subjunctive 140 199n.1 Phonology 120
subjunctive 17-18, 25, 132, ip-boundary 29, 32> 33. verb
140-141, 142 n.1:;, 145-146 35, 37, 40 D.24, 43, 50, bridge verb 142
disjoint reference 140. 55-56, 58, 81, 92, 94> desiderative 142
See also obviation 162, 166-167, 169, non-bridge verbs 142
sustained pitch 21, 27, 171-172, 199 n.1 volitional 142
43-44> 48, 50-51, 55, 57, leadiog 28,49,89 Villalba, Xavier 8, n. 13. 24,
59> 76,82 low boundary 33. 43, 44> 25, 127-129, 130 ll.7, 131,
syllable 28-29, 30, 31, J2, 35, 75, 150, 159, 169, 1)6, 137, 139-140, 147-148,
37> 43-44> 46-49, 51-53> 170,173 149, 156' 186
54> 56, 64 68-69, 73, simple 37· See also Vogel, Irene 30, 31 n.7, 35, 61,
76-8o, 81, 99, 102 n.21, accent: monotonal 62, 66, 92, 99 ll.20
104150, 16) trailing 29, 38 vowel reduction 5, 32
metrically strong 28, 30, topic :;, 9, 12, 15 n.:n, 16,
JS, 48, 58, 89 18, 19, 21, 25, 62, 128, 130, w
posttonlc 38-39, 41, 46, 133 n.11, 149, 151-154 158, weak pronoun.
48-49, 50-51, 56, 82 165 n.14 171-172, 174-175, See resumptive clitic
tonic 38 178-179, 182, 192, 195, word order 7, 10, 13. 16, 86,
199,201 129, 141, 185-187
T Topic Phrase 41, 129-130 canonical :;, 7 n.6, 13
theme 15 n.20, 184 See also extemal129 Wrap Theory 35. See also
information structure internal 129 WRAP-XI'
theory of the syntactic topic prosodic domain WRAP-XI' 96, 98-100,102,
grounding ofprosodic (Frascarelli 2000) 151, 153, 104-112, 113, 118,125-126
categories 34> 175, 198 1]1-172, 198
Tone and Break Indices topic restructuring (Frascarelli z
(ToBI) 27-28, CJL2.1.2, 2000) 151-152,172 n.18 Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa 8
40-41, 43. 55, 58. See also topicalization 6 n.4 130 n.7, n.9, 11, 12, 20, 39, 130,
Cat_ToBI 131 n.S, 142 n.13 140, 147> 150, 173
Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today
A complete list of titles in this series can be found on the publishers' website. www.benjamins.wm
174 LOMASHVIU,Leila: Complex Predicates. The syntax-morphology interfac.e. Expected March 2011
173 SAPP, Christopher D.: The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modem Gem1an
x. 230 pp. + index. Expected February 2011
172 JUN G, Hakyung: The Syntax of the BE-Possessive. Parametric variation and surface diversities. ca. 275 pp.
Expected March 2011
171 SLEEMAN, Petra and Harry PERRIDON (eds.): The Noun Phrase in Romance and Germanic. Structure,
variation, and change. vii, 280 pp. + index. Expected February 2011
170 HUNTER, Tim: Syntactic Effects of Conjunctivist Semantics. Unifying movement and adjunction.
ca. 200 pp. Expected February 2011
169 SANCHEZ, Liliana: The Morphology and Syntax of Topic and Focus. Minimalist inquiries in the Quechua
periphery. .xiv, 239 pp. + index. Expected November2o1o
168 FELDHAUSBN, logo: Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan 2010 . .xiii, 285 pp.
167 MERCADO,Raphaei,EricPOTSDAM and Lisa deMena TRAVIS (eds.): Austronesian and Theoretical
Linguistics. vii, 374 pp. +index. Expected November 2o1o
166 BRANDT, Patrick aad Marco GARdA GARdA (eds.): Transitivity. Fol111, Meaning, Acquisition, and
Processing. 2010. vi~ 308 pp.
165 BREUL, Carsten and Edward GOBBEL (eds.): Comparative and Contrastive Studies of Information
Structure. 2010. xii, 306 pp.
164 ZWART, Jan-Wonter and Mark de VRIES (eds. ): Structure Preserved. Studies in syntax for Jan Koste&
201 o. xxiii, 395 pp.
163 KIZIAK, Tanja: Extraction Asymmetries. Experimental evidence from Gem1an. 2010. xvi, 27 3 pp.
162 BOTT,Oliver: The Processing of Events. 201o.xvii, 383 pp.
161 HAAN, Germen J. de: Studies in West Frisian Grammar. Edited by Jarich Hoekstra. Willem Visser and
Golfe Jensma. 2010. x. 384 pp.
160 MAVROGIORGOS, Marios: Clitics in Greek A mininlalist aro>unt of proclisis and enclisis. 2010.
X. 294 pp.
159 BREITBARm, Anne, Christopher LUCAS, Sheila WATTS and David WILLIS (eds.): Continuity and
Change in Grammar. 2010. viii, 359 pp.
158 DUGUINE, Mala, Susana HUIDOBRO and Nerea MADARIAGA (eds.): Argument Structure and
Syntactic Relations. A cross-linguistic perspective. 2010. vi, 348 pp.
157 FISCHER, Sasann: Word-Order Change as a Source of Grammaticalisation. 2010. ix. 200 pp.
156 DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria and Virginia HILL (eds.): Edges, Heads, and Projections. InterfiH:e properties.
2010. vii, 265 pp.
155 SATO, Yosake: Minimalist Interfaces. Evidenc.e from Indonesian and Javanese. 2010. xiii, 159 pp.
154 HORNSTEIN, Norbert and Maria POLINSKY (eds.): Movement Theory of Control. 2010. vii, 330 pp.
153 CABREDO HOFHERR,Patricia and Ora MATUSHANSKY (eds.): Adjectives. Formal analyses in syntax
and semantics. 2010. vii, 335 pp.
152 GALLEGO, Angel J.: Phase Theory. 2010. xii, 365 pp.
151 SUDHOFF, Stefan: Focus Particles in Gem1an Syntax. prosody, and infom1ation structure. 2010.
xiii, 335 pp.
150 EVERAERT, Marti a, Tom LENTZ, Hannah de MULDER, 0ystein NILSEN aad Arjen ZONDERVAN
(eds.): The Linguistics Enterprise. From knowledge of language to knowledge in linguistics. 2010. ix. 379 pp.
149 AELBRECHT,Lobb: The Syntactic Licensing of Ellipsis. 2010. xii, 2 30 pp.
148 HOGEWEG, Lotte,IW.en de HOOP and Andrej MALCIRJKOV (eds.): Cross-linguistic Semantics of
Tense, Aspect, and Modality. 2009. vii, 406 pp.
147 GHOMESHI, Jila,Deaaa PAUL and Martina WILTSCHKO (eds.): Detenniners. Universals and variation.
2009. vii, 247 pp.
146 GEIDEREN,Fllyvan (eel.): Cyclical Change. 2009. viii, 329 pp.
145 WESTERGAARD, Marit: The Acquisition ofWord Orde& Micro-cues, infom1ation structure, and
economy. 2009. xii, 245 pp.
144 PUTNAM, Michael T. (eel.): Towards a Derivational Syntax. Survive-minimalism. 2009. :x:. 269 pp.
143 ROTHMAYR,Antonia: The Structure of Stative Verbs. 2009. xv. 216 pp.
142 NUNES, Jairo (ed.): Minimalist Essays on Brazilian Portuguese Syntax. 2009. vi, 243 pp.
141 ALEXIADOU, Artemis, Jorge HANKAMER, Thomas Md1ADDEN, Justin NUGER and Florian
SCHAFER (eds.): Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax. 2009. xv, 395 pp.
140 ROEHRS, Dorian: Demonstratives and Definite Articles as Nominal Auxiliaries. 2009. xii, 196 pp.
139 lllCKS, Glyn: The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations. 2009. xi~ 309 pp.
138 SIDDIQI, Daniel.: Syntax within the Word. Economy. allomorphy. and argument selection in Distributed
Morphology. 2009. .Iii, 138 pp.
137 PFAU, Roland: Grammar as Processor. A Distributed Morphology account of spontaneous speech errors.
2009. xii~ 372 pp.
136 KANDYBOWICZ, Jason: The Grammar of Repetition. Nupe grammar at the syntax-phonology interface.
2oo8. xiii, 168 pp.
135 LEWIS, William D., Simin KARIMI,Heidi HARLEY and Scott 0. FARRAR (eds.): Tinle and Again.
Theoretical perspectives on formal linguistics. In honor of D. Terence Langendoen. 2009. xiv, 265 pp.
134 ARMON-LOTEM, Sharon, Gabi DANON aad Susaa D. ROmSTBIN (eds.): Current Issues in
Generative Hebrew Linguistics. 2008. vii, 39 3 pp.
133 MACDONALD, Jonathan E.: The Synta.."'l:ic Nature of Inner Aspect A minimalist perspective. 2008.
XV, 241 PP·
132 BIBERAUER, Theresa (ed.): The Limits of Syntactic Variation. 2008. vii, 521 pp.
131 DE CAT,C8:lleandKatherineDEMUTH (eds.): The Bantu-Romance Connection. A comparative
investigation of verbal agreement. DPs, and information structure. 2008. xi.x, 355 pp.
130 KALLUUI, Dalina and Llliane TASMOWSKI (eds.): Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages. 2008.
ix. 442 PP·
129 STURGEON, Anne: The Left Periphery. The interaction of syntax, pragmatics and prosody in C2ech. 2008.
X~ 143 pp.
128 TALEGHANI, Azl.ta JL: Modality, Aspect and Negation in Persian. 2008. ix. 183 pp.
127 DURRLEMAN-TAME, Stephanie: The Syntax of Jamaican Creole. A cartographic perspective. 2008.
xii,190 pp.
126 SCHAFER,Floriaa: The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives. External arguments in change-of-state contexts. 2008.
~ 324pp.
125 ROTHSTEIN,Bjllm: The Perfect Time Span. On the present perfect in German, Swedish and English.
2008. xi, 171 pp.
124 lliSANE, Tabea: The Layered DP. Form and meaning of French indefinites. 2008. i.x, 260 pp.
123 STOYANOVA, Marina: Unique Focus. Languages without multiple wh-questions. 2008. ~ 184 pp.
122 OOSTERHOF, Albert M.: The Semantics of Generics in Dutch and Related Languages. 2008. xviii, 286 pp.
121 TUNGSETH, Mai Ellin: Verbal Prepositions and Argument Structure. Path, place and possession in
Norwegian. 2008. ix. 187 pp.
120 ASBURY, Anna, Jakub DOTI.ACIL,Berit GEHRKE and Rick NOUWEN (eds.): Syntax and Semantics of
Spatial P. 2008. vi. 416 pp.
119 FORTUNY, Jordi: The Emergence of Order in Syntax. 2008. viii, 211 pp.
118 JAGER, Agnes: History of German Negation. 2008. ix. 350 pp.
117 HAUGEN, Jason D.: Morphology at the Interfaces. Reduplication and Noun Incorporation in Uto-A2tecan.
2008. XV, 257 pp.
116 ENDO, Yosbio: Locality and Information Structure. A cartographic approach to Japanese. 2007. x. 235 pp.
115 PUTNAM, Michael T.: Scrambling and the Survive Principle. 2007. x. 216 pp.
114 LEE-SCHOENFELD, Vera: Beyond Coherence. The syntax of opacity in German. 2007. viii, 206 pp.
113 EYTH6RSSON, 1h6mallur (ed.): Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory. The Rosendal papers. 2008.
~441 pp.
112 AXEL, Katrin: Studies on Old High German Syntax. Left sentence periphery, vetb placement and vetb-
seoond 2007. xii, 364 pp.
111 EGUREN, Luis and Olga FERNANDEZ-sORIANO (eds.): Coreference, Modalily, and Focus. Studies on
the syntax-semantics interface. 2007.xii, 239 pp.
110 ROTHSTEIN, Susan D. (ed.): Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect 2008.
viii,453 pp.
1 09 CHOCANO, Gema: Narrow Syntax and Phonological Form. Scrambling in the Germanic languages. 2007.
X. 333 pp.
1 o8 REULAND, Eric, Tanmoy BHATTACHARYA and Giorgos SPATHAS (eels.): Argument Structure. 2007.
xviii, 243 pp.
107 CORVER, Norbert and Jaim NUNES (eels.): The Copy Theory of Movement 2007. vi, 388 pp.
106 DEiffi,Nicole andYordanka KAVALOVA (eels.): Parenthetical& 2007. xii, 314 pp.
105 HAUMANN,Dagmar: Adverb Licensing and Clause Structure in English. 2007. ix, 438 pp.
104 JEONG, Youngmi: Applicatives. Structure and interpretation from a mininlalisl perspective. 2007.
vii, 144 pp.
103 WURFF, Wim van der (ed.): Imperative Clauses in Generative Grammar. Studies in honour of Frits
Beukema. 2007. viii, 352 pp.
102 BAYER, Josef, Tanmoy BHATTACHARYA and M. T. Hany BABU (eds.): Linguistic Theory and South
Asian Languages. Essays in honour of K. A. Jayaseelan. 2007. x. 282 pp.
101 KARIMI, Simla, Vida SAMIIAN a ad Wendy K. WILKINS (eds.): Phrasal and Clausal Architecture.
Synt.a.."1ic derivation and interpretation. In honor of Joseph E. Emonds. 2007. vi, 424 pp.
1 oo SCHWABE, Kentin and Susanne WINKLER (eds.): On Information Structure, Meaning and Form.
Generalizations aaoss languages. 2007. vii, 570 pp.
99 MARTiNEZ-GIL, Fernando and Sonia COUNA (eds.): Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish
Phonology. 2007. viii, 564 pp.
98 PIRES,Acrisio: The Mininlalist Syntax of Defective Domains. Gerunds and infinitives. 2006. xiv, 188 pp.
97 HARTMANN, Jutta M. and Lmlo MOLNARFI (eels.): Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax. From
Afrikaans to Zurich German. 2006. vi, 332 pp.
96 LYNGFELT,Benjamin and Thrgrim SOLSTAD (eds.): Demoting the Agenl Passive, middle and other
voice phenomena. 2006. x. 333 pp.
95 VOGELEER, Svetlaaa aad Liliane TASMOWSKI (eels.): Non-definiteness and Plurality. 2006. vi, 358 pp.
94 ARCHB, Marla J.: Individuals in Time. Tense, aspect and the individuaVstage distinction. 2006. xiv, 281 pp.
93 PROGOVAC,Ljljana,KatePAESANI,Eugenia CASIELLES andFJienBARTON (eels.): The Syntax of
Nonsententials. Multidisciplinary perspectives. 2006. x. 372 pp.
92 BOECKX, Cedric (ed.): Agreement Systems. 2006. ix, 346 pp.
91 BOECKX, Cedric (ed.): Minimalist Essays. 2006. xvi. 399 pp.
90 DALMI, GNte: The Role of Agreement in Non-Finite Predication. 2005. xvi, 222 pp.
89 VELDE, John R. te: Deriving Coordinate Symmetries. A phase-based approacl! integrating Select. Merge,
Copy and Match. 2oo6. x, 385 pp.
88 MOHR, Sabiae: Clausal Architecture and Subject Positions. Impersonal constructions in the Germanic
languages. 2005. viii, 207 pp.
87 JUUEN, Marit: Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective. 2005. xvi, 348 pp.
86 COSTA, Joio and Maria Cristina FIGUEIREDO SILVA (eels.): Studies on Agreement. 2006. vi, 285 pp.
85 MIKKELSEN, Line: CopularCiauses. Specification, predication and equation. 2005. viii, 210 pp.
84 PAFEL, Jtlrgen: Quantifier Scope in German. 2006. xvi, 312 pp.
83 SCHWEIKERT, Walter: The Order of Prepositional Phrases in the Structure of the Clause. 2005.
xii, 338 PP·
82 QUINN, Heidi: The Distribution of Pronoun Case Forms in English. 2005. xii, 409 pp.
81 FUSS, Eric: The Rise of Agreement A formal approacl! to the syntax and grammaticalization of verbal
inflection. 200 5· xii, 336 pp.
8o BURKHARDT SCHUMACHER, Petra: The Syntax-Discourse Interfac.e. Representing and interpreting
dependency. 2005. xii, 259 pp.
79 SCHMID, Tanja: Infinitival Syntax. Infinitivus Pro Participio as a repair strategy. 2005. xiv, 2 51 pp.
78 DIKKEN,Marcel den and O!ristina TORTORA (eds.): The Function of Function Words and Functional
Categories. 200 5· vii. 292 pp.
77 OZTCRK, Ballaz: Case. Referentiality and Phrase Structure. 2005. x, 268 pp.
76 STAVROU, Melita and Arbon to TERZI (eds.): Advances in Greek Generative Syntax. In honor of Dimitra
Theophanopoulou-Kontou. 2005. viii, 366 pp.
75 DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria (ed.): UG and External Systems. Language, brain and romputation. 2005.
xviii, 398 pp.
74 HEGGIE,Lorie aod Francisco ORD6fffiz (eds.): Clitic and Affix Combinations. Theoretical perspectives.
2005- viii. 390 pp.
73 CARNIE, Andrew, Heidi HARLEY and Sheila Ann DOOLEY (eds.): Verb First On the syntax of verb-
initial languages. 200 5· .xiv, 434 pp.
72 FUSS, Eric and Carola TRIPS (eds. ): Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar. 2004 viii, 228 pp.
71 GEIDEREN,EIIy van: Grammaticalization as Ec.onomy. 2004 xvi, 320 pp.
70 AUSTIN, Jennifer R., Stefan ENGELBERG and Gisa RAUH (eds.): Adverbials. The interplay between
meaning. context. and syntactic structure. 2004 x. 346 pp.
69 KISS. Katalin E. and Henk van RIEMSDIJK (eds. ): Verb Clusters. A study of Hungarian, German and
Dutch. 2004 vi, 514 pp.
68 BREUL, Carsten: Focus Structure in Generative Grammar. An integrated syntactic, semantic and
intonational approach. 2004. x. 432 pp.
67 MI~SKA TOMIC, Olga (ed.): Balkan Syntax and Semantics. 2004 xvi, 499 pp.
66 GROHMANN, Kleaothes K.: Prolific Domains. On the Anti-Locality of movement dependencies. 2003.
XV~ 372 pp.
65 MANNINEN, Satu JW.eoa: Small Phrase Layers. A study of Finnish Manner Adverbials. 2003. .xii, 275 pp.
64 BOECKX, Cedric and Kleantbes K. GROHMANN (eds.): Multiple Wb-Fronting. 200 3. x. 292 pp.
63 BOECKX, Cedric: Islands and Chains. Resumption as stranding. 2003. .xii, 224 pp.
62 CARNIE, Andrew, Heidi HARLEY and Mary Ann WILUE (eds.): Formal Approaches to Function in
Grammm:; In honor of Eloise Jelinek. 2003. xii, 378 pp.
61 SCHWABE, Kentin and Susanne WINKLER (eds.): The Interfac.es. Deriving and interpreting omitted
structures. 2003. vi, 40 3 pp.
6o TRIPS, Carola: From OV to VO in Early Middle English. 2002. .xiv, 359 pp.
59 DEiffi, Nicole: Particle Verbs in English. Syntax, information structure and intonation. 2002. xii, 305 pp.
58 DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria (eel.): Asymmetry in Grammm:; Volume 2: Morphology, phonology, w:.quisition.
2003. vi, 309 pp.
57 DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria (eel.): Asymmetry in Grammm:; Volume 1: Syntax and semantics. 2003.
vi, 405 pp.
56 COENE, Martioe and Yves DliULST (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 2: The expression of possession i
noun phrases. 2003. x. 295 pp.
55 COENE, Martioe and Yles DliULST (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 1: The syntax and semantics of noun
phrases. 2003. vi, 362 pp.
54 BAPTISTA, Madyse: The Syntax of Cape Verdean Creole. The Sotavento varieties. 2003.
xxii, 294 pp. (incl. CD-rom).
53 ZWART, Jan-Woater and Werner ABRAHAM (eds.): Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax.
Proc.eedings from the 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax ( Groningen, May 26-27, 2ooo).
2002. .xiv, 407 pp.
52 SIMON, Horst J. aod Helke WIESE (eds.): Pronouns -Grammar and Representation. 2002 . .xii, 294 pp.
51 GERLACH, Birgit Clitics between Syntax and Le.xicon. 2002. .xii, 282 pp.
5o STEINBACH, Markus: Middle Voice. A comparative study in the syntax-semantics interface of German.
2002. .xii, 340 pp.
49 ALEXIADOU, Artemis (ed.): Theoretical Approaches to Universals. 2002. viii, 319 pp.
48 ALEXIADOU, Artemis,Eleoa ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, SjefBARBIERS aod Hans-Martin GARTNER
(eds.): Dimensions of Movement From features to remnants. 2002. vi, 345 pp.
47 BARBIERS, Sjef, Frits BEUKEMA a ad Wim vao der WURFF (eds.): Modality and its Intera..i:ion with the
Verbal System. 2002. x, 290 pp.
46 PANAGIOTIDIS,E. Pboevos: Pronouns, Clitics and Empty Nouns. 'Pronominality' and licensing in synta.L
2oo2.x, 214 pp.
45 ABRAHAM, Werner and Jan-Woater ZWART (eds.): Issues in Formal German(ic) Typology. 2002.
xviii, 336 pp.
44 TAYLAN,Eser Ergavanh (ed.): The Verb in Turkish. 2002. xviii. 267 pp.
43 FEATHERSTON, Sam: Empty Categories in Sentence Processing. 2001. xvi, 279 pp.
42 ALEXIADOU,Artlemis: Functional Structure in Nominals. Nominalization and ergativity. 2001. x. 233 pp.
41 ZELLER, Jochen: Particle Verbs and Local Domains. 2001. .xii. 325 pp.

Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan (I.feldhausen)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan (I.feldhausen)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA)

Advisory Editorial Board

John Benjamins Publishing Company

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

© 2010 -John Benjamins B.V.

Conventions for glosses and translations XI

List of abbreviations XIII

4.1.2.1Licensing of negative words 132

A great number of people supported and influenced this work. I am extremely

Prieto etal (2009: 288&301) =>Page 288 and page 301

1 first person M masculine

(S)(VO), as in (la). However, (SV)(O) is possible when the object is branching, as

(2) SVO-phrasing in complex structures (i.e. sentential object)

1.1 Foundations and basic assumptions

1.1.1 Central Catalan

1. This paragraph is based mainly on Schlosser (2005: 60£).

Catalan comprises a collection of dialects which are mutually intelligible. The

1.1.2 Clitic left- and clitic right-dislocations in Catalan

3· I would like to thank Joan Borras-Comes for creating the map.

"members of a class of (typically pronominal) forms, whose placement is unusual or unique

nominative pronouns (Vallduvi 2002: 1242). 10 Adjuncts can also be dislocated

1.1.3 Information structure

of focus interpretation at work in the grammar is that focus accommodates new

b. Question: What did Anna do?

1his definition allows us to say that an expression is given to a particular degree.

hand because I am interested only in the main informational separation of the

1.1.4 Preverbal subjects are not dislocated

The syntactic literature on the status of preverbal subjects is endowed with

1.1.4.1 Preverbal subjects a¥e in an A-position

(12) a. El Joan sembla ser intelligent [CAT]

b. *El Joan em sembla ser intelligent [CAT]

1.1.4.2 All-new contexts

(16) [Context: What happened?] [CAT]

According to Sheehan (2006: 85), approaches in which the preverbal subject

1.1.4.4 Subjects present for disambiguation

(19) Qui vol gelat? Jo. [CAT]

(20) Jo compra pa tu portes mantega [CAT]

(21) M'ho va dir ella mateix [CAT]

(22) Si pro hagues arribat primer [CAT]

In the pastindicative (indicatiu imperfet), present subjunctive (subjuntiu present), past

1.1.4.5 Non-refenmtial QPs as preverbal subjects

(25) a. *Ninguem1 ele1 gosta de chorar [BP]

In contrast to (25) preverbal non-referential QPs, however, are normal in Romance

if elements which cannot be topics appear as preverbal subjects, they cannot be

1.1.4.6 Unambiguous wide scope

b. Sitihiothetise kapios fititis kathe arthro [Greek]

(28) a. AlgUn. estudiante sac6 prestado todos los libros [SP]

1.2 Outline of the empirical results and their theoretical analysis

Chapter 2 introduces fundamental aspects of Catalan intonation. The Cat_ToBI

the hypothesis is set up that sentential objects compared to DP objects increase

(31) MAX-BIN-END>> ALIGN-CP,L >> MIN-N-PHRASBS >> ALIGN-XP,R

b. vP] CLRD] TP] Syntactic Structure

c. ( )p (CLRD)p Prosodic Phrasing

The CLLD/CLRD asymmetries are highlighted in Villalba (1996, 1999a,b, 2000)

27. Henceforth SL (2006).

Fundamental aspects of Catalan intonation

2.1 Foundations of the theoretical model

2.1.1 The Autosegmental-Metrical (AM) model

1. The overview of the AM model is based mainly on Gussenhoven (2004: ch.7).

phonologically independently of their segments. Tones are autonomous segments;

Figure 1. Prosodic Hierarchy (adopted from Gussenhoven 2004: 124: 1)

6. Henceforth N&V (1986/2007).

on the grounds of being a domain where certain phonological processes apply