Recursion and the Definition of Universal Prosodic Categories

languages

Article Recursion and the Deﬁnition of Universal Prosodic Categories

Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng 1 and Laura J. Downing 2,*

1 Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, Leiden University, 2311 BE Leiden, The Netherlands; [email protected] 2 Department of Languages and Literatures, University of Gothenburg, 40530 Gothenburg, Sweden * Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: It is widely agreed that prosodic constituents should mirror syntactic constituents (unless high-ranking prosodic constraints interfere). Because recursion is a feature of syntactic representations, one expects recursion in prosodic representations as well. However, it is of current controversy what kinds of syntactic representation motivate prosodic recursion. In this paper, the use of Phono- logical Phrase recursion is reviewed in several case studies, chosen because prosodic recursion mostly does not reflect syntactic recursion as defined in current syntactic theory. We provide reanalyses that do not appeal to prosodic recursion (unless syntactically motivated), showing that Phonological Phrase recursion is not necessary to capture the relevant generalizations. The more restrictive use of prosodic recursion we argue for has the following conceptual advantages. It allows for more consistent cross-linguistic generalizations about the syntax–prosody mapping so that prosodic representations more closely reflect syntactic ones. It allows the fundamental syntactic distinctions between clause (and other phases) and phrase to be reflected in the prosodic representation, and

it allows cross-linguistic generalizations to be made about the prosodic domain of intonational processes, such as downstep and continuation rise.

Citation: Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, and Laura J. Downing. 2021. Recursion Keywords: Intonation Phrase; Phonological Phrase; Akan; Bàsàá; Basque; Chimwiini; Connemara and the Deﬁnition of Universal Irish; Kimatuumbi; phase-based domains Prosodic Categories. Languages 6: 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/ languages6030125 1. Introduction Academic Editors: Ingo Feldhausen, Selkirk(2011, pp. 439–40) sets forth the following principles deﬁning what Ito and Caroline Féry and Frank Kügler Mester(2013) call the Syntax–Prosody Mapping Hypothesis (SPMH):

Received: 5 January 2021 (1) a. The constituent structures of syntax and prosody correspond. The theory predicts a Accepted: 5 July 2021 strong tendency for prosodic domains to mirror syntactic constituents. Published: 26 July 2021 b. There is a strong tendency to recursivity as the result of syntactic constituency-respecting correspondences between syntax and prosody. c. In the ideal case, the grammar allows the fundamental syntactic distinctions between Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral clause, phrase, and word to be reﬂected in, and retrieved from, the phonological with regard to jurisdictional claims in representation. published maps and institutional afﬁl- d. Phonological markedness constraints on prosodic structure, if high-ranked, may iations. produce instances of non-isomorphism between syntactic constituency and prosodic domain structure.

In this paper, we take a closer look at Principle (1b), namely, how the requirement Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. that prosodic constituency should mirror syntactic constituency (Principle (1a)) straight- Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. forwardly motivates prosodic recursion. While this effect is clearly demonstrated in work This article is an open access article adopting the SPMH framework, such as Cheng and Downing(2016),F éry(2016), and distributed under the terms and Selkirk(2011), recursion still violates a well-formedness constraint on prosodic structure, conditions of the Creative Commons NORECURSION (Ito and Mester 2012; Selkirk 1995; Vigário 2010; Vogel 2009, 2012, 2019). Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// It thus bears investigating under what conditions prosodic recursion can be considered creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ well-formed. 4.0/).

Languages 2021, 6, 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6030125 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/languages Languages 2021, 6, 125 2 of 29

We assume that in the default case, prosodic recursion is only well-formed when constraints mapping prosodic structure to syntactic structure derive that result as optimal because the syntactic structures that are the target of the parse are recursive (and these mapping constraints outrank NORECURSION). However, the question arises which syntactic structures qualify as recursive in current syntactic theory. Elordieta(2015), for instance, suggests: “Since one syntactic phrase may dominate another phrase, a natural assumption in this theory is that recursion is regular in prosodic structure as well.” (p. 58) This assumes that (a) phonology does not make a distinction between different XPs, as long as they are phrases, and (b) nothing other than phrase-hood is relevant to the syntax–phonology mapping. This furthermore takes XP-domination as the basis of prosodic recursion and makes the syntactic structure as a whole a mass aggregation of recursion, a move that not only is not compatible with typical syntactic definitions of recursion (see discussion of Karlsson 2010 in Section 2.1, below) but also ignores the well-motivated distinctions between the types of syntactic constituents that match the Intonation Phrase and the types that match the Phonological Phrase as defined in work such as Ito and Mester(2012, 2013), Selkirk(2011, p. 453ff), and Truckenbrodt(1995, 1999, 2007). In this paper, we evaluate more specifically proposals that appeal to Phonological Phrase recursion, beginning with its use since Truckenbrodt(1995, 1999) as a way to parse the Larsonian VP. In some recent analyses, such as Elfner(2015) and Elordieta(2015), Phonological Phrase recursion has even been used to parse the clause, thus abandoning the principle, cited in (1c) above, which requires, as the unmarked case, that the distinction between phrase and clause should be reflected in the prosodic representation (see, e.g., Ito and Mester 2013; Nespor and Vogel 1986; Selkirk 2009, 2011; Truckenbrodt 1995, 1999, 2007). Our critique of these uses of Phonological Phrase recursion is structured as follows. In Section2, we define syntactic recursion, highlighting differences between Larsonian and modern phasal syntactic structures, and then we discuss the implications of the differences for prosodic mapping. In Section3, we discuss cases mainly from African languages, showing that Phonological Phrase recursion has often been adopted to parse syntactic domains that are best reanalyzed as corresponding to Intonational Phrases. In Section4, we reanalyze two cases from European languages where even the clause has been parsed as a Phonological Phrase. Section5 concludes.

2. Syntactic Recursion and Syntax–Prosody Mapping 2.1. Syntactic Recursion and Recursive Spell-Outs To understand the theoretical and conceptual consequences of the syntax–prosody mapping and how the mapping of recursive syntactic structures can lead to prosodic recursion, it is important to define what syntacticians understand a recursive structure to be. Karlsson(2010) makes a clear distinction between syntactic recursion due to embedding and syntactic iteration: “recursion builds structure by increasing embedding depth, whereas iteration yields flat output structures, repetitive sequences on the same depth level as the first instance” (p. 45). We illustrate this distinction with the following English sentences:

(2) a. Sydney thinks [CP1 that Robin believes [CP2 that Charlie won the competition]]. b. Robin saw the essay [CP1 that Sydney wrote for the department [CP2 which hired Charlie]].

(3) a. Charlie [[[went] VP1 quickly] VP2 by train] VP3]. b. That was [DP a [NP nice [NP1 beautiful [NP2 sunny [NP3 day]]]]]. The sentences in (2) are clear examples of recursion, where the recursive CP yields extra (self-) embedding. (2a) involves a typical embedding involving verbs that select for complement clauses. (2b) involves noun phrases with relative clauses, with the ﬁrst relative clause (CP1) containing another noun phrase with a relative clause (CP2). These are also cases of nested structures. (3a,b), on the other hand, are edge additions, which, depending on your structural assumptions, can be considered to be iterations rather than recursive structures.1 Another case of potential recursion concerns the so-called VP-shell structures Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 30

The sentences in (2) are clear examples of recursion, where the recursive CP yields extra (self-) embedding. (2a) involves a typical embedding involving verbs that select for complement clauses. (2b) involves noun phrases with relative clauses, with the first relative clause (CP1) containing another noun phrase with a relative clause (CP2). These are also cases of nested structures. (3a,b), on the other hand, are edge additions, which, de- Languages 2021, 6, 125 pending on your structural assumptions, can be considered to be iterations rather3 of 29 than recursive structures.1 Another case of potential recursion concerns the so-called VP-shell structures (Larson 1988), which have often been used to analyze double complement sentences(Larson or 1988sentences), which involving have often a PP-goal, been used such to analyze as those double in (4a,b). complement sentences or sentences involving a PP-goal, such as those in (4a,b).

(4) a. Nora gave a sweater [PP to Sydney]. (4) a. Nora gave a sweater [PP to Sydney].

b.b. Nora Nora gave gave Sydney Sydney a sweater. a sweater. The structure in (5a), below, is the Larsonian structure for dative PPs, as in (4a), and (5b)The is a structure structure thatin (5a), is often below, used is the post- LarsonianLarson(1988 structure) for double for dative object PPs, complements, as in (4a), and (5b)as inis (4b).a structure2 In both that (5a) is and often (5b), used the post-Larson higher V selects (1988) for anotherfor double VP, leadingobject complements, to a typical as inrecursive (4b).2 In structure, both (5a) one and that (5b), involves the higher “self-embedding” V selects for (see another Nevins etVP, al. leading2009). to a typical recursive structure, one that involves “self-embedding” (see Nevins et al. 2009). (5)

(5)

ItIt should should be be noted noted that eveneven works works in in the th pre-Minimaliste pre-Minimalist Program Program era doera not do considernot consider therethere to to be be recursion recursion between between the PPPP andand thethe VPs VPs or or between between the the DP DPSydney Sydneyand and the the PP PP in (5a).in (5a). In both In both cases, cases, we we have have clear-cut clear-cut domination domination of of phrase phrase markers.markers. However,However, these these in- 3 volveinvolve different different categories, categories, and and thus thus therethere is is no no recursive recursive embedding embedding involved. involved.Indeed,3 Indeed, if if syntactic domination between XPs were considered a form of recursion, then there would syntactic domination between XPs were considered a form of recursion, then there would never have been any controversy concerning whether Pirahã constitutes an exception to neverthe claim have that been syntactic any controversy recursion is concerning a deﬁning propertywhether of Pirahã human constitutes language (seean exceptionNevins to theet al.claim 2009 that). syntactic recursion is a defining property of human language (see Nevins et al. 2009).Since the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995), the Larsonian view of double object structuresSince the has Minimalist been called Program into question (Chomsky (see, e.g., 1995), Beck the and Larsonian Johnson 2004 view, as of well double as the object structuresoverview has article been by calledCitko etinto al. 2017question). More (see updated, e.g., Beck structures and Johnson are given 2004, in (6a,b). as well The as the overviewstructure article in (6a) reﬂectsby Citko the et possessive al. 2017). relationMore updated between structures the two objects, are given represented in (6a,b). by The structurea small clause-likein (6a) reflects structure the possessive (i.e., the PP relati is a smallon between clause, seethe Harleytwo objects, 2002). represented (6b) retains by a Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 30 smallroughly clause-like the idea thatstructure the two (i.e., objects the are PP in is one a XPsmall (small clause, clause), see with Harley a subject–predicate 2002). (6b) retains roughlyrelation. the idea that the two objects are in one XP (small clause), with a subject–predicate relation.(6) (6)

NoteNote that that neither neither (6a) (6a) nor nor (6b) (6b) are are recursiv recursivee structures structures (not (not even even forms forms of of “self-recur- “self- sion”),recursion”), as there as are there no aremultiple no multiple layers layers of VP. of Furthermore, VP. Furthermore, it is itimportant is important to note to note that the

nodethat that the dominates node that dominates the verb theand verb its objects, and its objects,vP, is notvP, considered is not considered to be a to lexical be a lexical projection (see Chomsky 1995 and subsequent work).4 In short, in contrast to the Larsonian representations in (5), in current syntactic theory, VP-recursion does not characterize double object cases like those represented in (6a,b). Chomsky (2001) makes it very clear that syntactic derivation is cyclic and that the phonological cycle is not an independent cycle. In formal terms, derivations proceed in phases. When the derivation reaches a phase, it is handed over (spelled-out) to the phonological component (and the semantic component).5 Chomsky (2001) considers both vP and CP to be phases (and DP is a potential phase). In other words, during a derivation of a sentence involving an embedded clause like (2a) (structure in (7a)), there is a recursive process of phasal spell-out. In the literature, the recursive process of phasal spell-out is called “multiple spell-out” (see Epstein et al. 1998, Uriagereka 1999 and Chomsky 2000). In (7a), the vP-phase of the embedded clause will first go through phasal spell-out where it is transferred to the phonological component. The next spell-out cycle is the embedded CP phase, and so on. The structure in (7b) indicates the structure of a noun phrase with a relative clause (like the sentence in (2b)), under a Kaynian analysis of relative clauses (Kayne 1994). As we can see in (7b), this yields phases embedded inside the DP (plus two additional phases are inside the DP the department which hired Charlie) and thus recursive phasal spell-out.

(7)

The structure in (8) gives the complete representation of a sentence including both a direct and an indirect object. As we have seen in (6), the verb and both objects are within the vP, belonging to the vP-phase, and the whole sentence is another phase, CP. Given the structure in (8), a sentence involving a direct object and an indirect object has two phasal spell-outs.

Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 30

(6)

Languages 2021, 6, 125 Note that neither (6a) nor (6b) are recursive structures (not even forms of “self-recur-4 of 29 sion”), as there are no multiple layers of VP. Furthermore, it is important to note that the node that dominates the verb and its objects, vP, is not considered to be a lexical projection (see Chomsky 1995 and subsequent work).4 In short, in contrast to the Larsonian repre- projection (see Chomsky 1995 and subsequent work).4 In short, in contrast to the Larsonian sentations in (5), in current syntactic theory, VP-recursion does not characterize double representations in (5), in current syntactic theory, VP-recursion does not characterize double object cases like those represented in (6a,b). object cases like those represented in (6a,b). ChomskyChomsky (2001)(2001 makes) makes it it very very clear clear thatthat syntacticsyntactic derivation derivation is cyclicis cyclic and and that that the the phonologicalphonological cycle cycle is not is not an anindependent independent cycl cycle.e. In In formal formal terms, terms, derivations derivations proceedproceed in phases.in phases. When Whenthe derivation the derivation reaches reaches a phase, a phase, it is ithanded is handed over over (spelled-out) (spelled-out) to tothe the phonologicalphonological component component (and the (and semantic the semantic component). component).5 Chomsky5 Chomsky (2001)(2001) considers considers bothboth vP and vCPP and to be CP phases to be phases (and (andDP is DP a potential is a potential phase). phase). In Inother other words, words, during during a derivation of a sentenceof a sentence involving involving an embedded an embedded clause clause like like (2a) (2a) (structure (structure inin(7a)), (7a)), there there is ais recursive a recursive processprocess of phasal of phasal spell-out. spell-out. In In the the literature, literature, the recursiverecursive process process of of phasal phasal spell-out spell-out is is calledcalled “multiple “multiple spell-out” spell-out” (see (see EpsteinEpstein etet al. al. 1998 1998,, Uriagereka Uriagereka 1999 1999 and andChomsky Chomsky 2000). 2000). In (7a), the vP-phase of the embedded clause will ﬁrst go through phasal spell-out where it In (7a), the vP-phase of the embedded clause will first go through phasal spell-out where is transferred to the phonological component. The next spell-out cycle is the embedded it is CPtransferred phase, and to sothe on. phonological The structure compon in (7b) indicatesent. The thenext structure spell-out of cycle a noun is phrasethe embedded with CP phase,a relative and clause so on. (like The the structure sentence in in (7b) (2b)), in underdicates a the Kaynian structure analysis of a of noun relative phrase clauses with a relative(Kayne clause 1994 ).(like As wethe can sentence see in (7b), in this(2b)), yields under phases a Kaynian embedded analysis inside theof DPrelative (plus clauses two (Kayneadditional 1994). phasesAs we arecaninside see in the (7b), DP thisthe departmentyields phases which embedded hired Charlie inside) and the thus DP recursive (plus two additionalphasal spell-out.phases are inside the DP the department which hired Charlie) and thus recursive phasal(7) spell-out.

(7)

TheThe structure structure in in(8) (8) gives gives the the complete complete representation of of a a sentence sentence including including both both a a directdirect and and an anindirect indirect object. object. As As we we have have seen seen in (6), thethe verb verb and and both both objects objects are are within within the vtheP, belongingvP, belonging to tothe the vP-phase,vP-phase, and and the the whole whole sentence is is another another phase, phase, CP. CP. Given Given the the structurestructure in (8), in (8), a sentence a sentence involving involving a a direct direct object andand an an indirect indirect object object has has two two phasal phasal spell-outs.spell-outs.

LanguagesLanguages 20212021,, 66,, 125x FOR PEER REVIEW 55 of 2932

(8)

Kratzer and Selkirk(2007) were among the first to adopt a phasal spell-out approach to syntax–prosodyKratzer and Selkirk mapping (2007) within were among the SPMH the first framework to adopt (see a phasal also Ishihara spell-out(2007 approach)). If phasesto syntax–prosody indeed play amapping role in syntax–prosody within the SPMH mapping, framework we need (see to consider also Ishihara the implications (2007)). If phasalphases syntaxindeed has play for a prosodicrole in syntax–proso recursion. Wedy havemapping, seen thatwe need in narrow to consider syntax, the we implica- have a processtions phasal of phasal syntax spell-out, has for prosodic which is byrecursio definitionn. We recursive. have seen In that other in narrow words, withinsyntax, thewe minimalisthave a process framework, of phasal thespell-out, phonological which is component by definition is recursive. built up cyclically In other words, based onwithin the phasalthe minimalist spell-outs. framework, It thus follows the phonological that recursive component prosodic structure is built up building cyclically is motivated based on the by recursivephasal spell-outs. phasal spell-outs It thus follows in an interface that recursive theory prosodic like SPMH structure (1), where building prosodic is motivated structure mirrorsby recursive syntactic phasal structure. spell-outs We in demonstrate an interface thistheory formally like SPMH in the (1), next where section. prosodic structure mirrors syntactic structure. We demonstrate this formally in the next section. 2.2. Mapping Prosodic Structure with Syntactic Structure 2.2. MappingWe follow Prosodic work suchStructu as Bennettre with Syntactic and Elfner Structure(2019),F éry(2016), Hamlaoui and Szendroï (2015), Ito and Mester(2012, 2013), Nespor and Vogel(1986), Selkirk(2009, 2011), and We follow work such as Bennett and Elfner (2019), Féry (2016), Hamlaoui and Truckenbrodt(1995, 1999, 2007) in assuming the following universal syntax–prosody Szendroï (2015), Ito and Mester (2012, 2013), Nespor and Vogel (1986), Selkirk (2009, 2011), correspondences: and Truckenbrodt (1995, 1999, 2007) in assuming the following universal syntax–prosody correspondences:(9) Syntactic category Prosodic category Clause (CP) Intonation Phrase (ι) lexical XP Phonological Phrase (ϕ) (9) Syntactic category Prosodic category As Ito Clause and Mester(CP) (2012, 2013) and Intonation Selkirk (Phrase2011)make (ι) especially clear, it is of cen- tral theoretical lexical importance XP to explicitly Phonological define the Phrase syntactic (φ) constituents that correspond to each prosodic category, as otherwise meaningful cross-linguistic comparisons of the phonologicalAs Ito and and Mester phonetic (2012, properties 2013) and of Selkirk the Phonological (2011) make Phrase especially and clear, Intonation it is of Phrasecentral aretheoretical not possible. importance We refine to explicitly the definitions define the of thesyntactic relevant constituents syntactic categoriesthat correspond in (9) into twoeach ways.prosodic First, category, we adopt as otherwiseCheng and meaningf Downingul’s cross-linguistic (2007, 2009, 2016 comparisons) proposal thatof the phase- pho- basednological domains—e.g., and phonetic not properties only CP but of the also PhonologicalvP—correspond Phrase to the and prosodic Intonation category Phrase of theare Intonationnot possible. Phrase We refine (ι). This the proposal definitions finds of motivation the relevant in syntacticChomsky categories’s (2004, p. in 124) (9) sugges-in two tionways. that, First, semantically, we adopt Cheng it is natural and Downing’s to think that (2007, both 2009,vP and2016) CP proposal are phases that because phase-based they aredomains—e.g., both “propositional not only constructions.”CP but also vP—correspond Propositional to constructions the prosodic category are the constituents of the Into- thatnation most Phrase naturally (ι). This correspond proposal finds to the motivation Intonation in Phrase. Chomsky’s As we (2004, saw p. in 124) the suggestion preceding section,that, semantically, CP-internal it phases is natural stand to in think a syntactic that both embedding vP and CP and are recursion phases relationshipbecause they with are CP,both and “propositional this provides constructions.” an additional Propositio motivationnal for constructions mapping them are to the the constituents same prosodic that constituentmost naturally as CP.correspond In addition, to the we Intonation adoptF é ryPh’srase. (Fé ryAs 2011 we saw, p. in 1909) the preceding proposal thatsection, the PhonologicalCP-internal phases Phrase stand maps in XP a arguments.syntactic emb Weedding assume and that recursion the distinction relationship between with lexical CP, XPsand vs.this functional provides an XPs additional defines a crucialmotivation distinction for mapping between them the to types the same of constituents prosodic con- that thestituent Phonological as CP. In addition, Phrase vs. we Intonation adopt Féry’s Phrase (2011, can p. correspond1909) proposal to, followingthat the Phonological work such asPhrase Truckenbrodt maps XP( arguments.2007) and Selkirk We assume(2011, that p. 453). the distinction Since vP is between a not a lexicallexical category,XPs vs. func- this providestional XPs yet defines another a crucial motivation distinction for not between mapping the itto types the Phonologicalof constituents Phrase, that the but Phono- rather tological the Intonation Phrase vs. Phrase. Intonation Finally, Phrase like most can of thecorrespond work cited to, in thisfollowing paper, wework assume such that as theTruckenbrodt syntax–prosodic (2007) correspondence and Selkirk (2011, in (9) p. is 453). formally Since expressed vP is a not using a lexical mutual category,ALIGNL/R this

Languages 2021, 6, 125 6 of 29 Languages 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 31

162 for not mapping it to Phonological Phrase, but rather to Intonation Phrase. Finally, like most of the 163 workor M citedATCH inconstraints, this paper, which we assume evaluate that the the mapping syntax-prosodic between specificcorrespondence prosodic in constituents (9) are formally 164 expressedand specific using syntactic mutual ones ALIGN and,L/R by or default, MATCH are constraints high-ranked. which evaluate the mapping between 165 specificSyntax prosodic is not constituents the only factorand specific defining syntactic the parse ones into and, prosodic by default, constituents. are high ranked. From the 166 earliestSyntax literature is not the on the only phonology–syntax factor defining the interface parse into (e.g., prosodic Nespor con andstituents. Vogel 1986 From, Selkirk the earliest 167 literature1986), it on has the been phonology demonstrated-syntax interface that the ( mappinge.g., Nespor of and prosodic Vogel structure1986, Selkirk with 1986) syntactic, it has been 168 demonstratedstructure is not that perfect, the mapping i.e., there of prosodic are mismatches structure and with adjustments, syntactic structure motivated is not by perfect, prosodic i.e., there 169 areprinciples, mismatches which and are adjustments, characterized motivated by some by (e.g.,prosodic Hulst principles, 2010, p. 304)which to are involve characterized “flattening” by some 170 (e.g.,of the van structure. der Hulst 2010 Based: 304 on) to an involv analysise “flattening” of prosodic of the phrasing structure in. Based Zulu on (Bantu an analysis S.42, Southof prosodic 171 phrasingAfrica), we in Zulu examine (Bantu next S.42, what South type ofAfrica) recursive, we examineprosodic next structures what typewe expect of recursive if we have prosodic 172 structuresrelatively we close expect mapping if we between have relatively phasal spell-outsclose mapping and prosodic between constituents, phasal spell- alsooutsdrawing and prosodic 173 constituentattention tos, also mismatches. drawing attention to mismatches. 174 WeWe begin begin with with examples examples from from Zulu Zulu that that illustrate illustrate a partial a partial mapping mapping between between phases phases and ι. The ι ι 175 consistentand . The prosodic consistent correlate prosodic of ι correlatein Zulu is of phrasein Zulu penultimate is phrase vowel penultimate lengthening. vowel As length- Cheng and 176 Downingening. As (2007, Cheng 2009, and 2016) Downing show, (only2007 the, 2009 right, 2016 edge) show,of the onlyphase the defines right a edge right ofι boundary the phase, as this defines a right ι boundary, as this is the locus of phonological cues to prosodic structure. 177 is the locus of phonological cues to prosodic structure. This is shown in (10a,b), where curly brackets This is shown in (10a,b), where curly brackets indicate ι boundaries and an acute accent 178 indicate ι boundaries and acute accent indicates High tone. In (10a,b), we have not indicated the vP- indicates a High tone. In (10a,b), we have not indicated the vP-phase boundary, as it 179 phase boundary, as it coincides with the CP-phase boundary at the right edge: coincides with the CP-phase boundary at the right edge: 180

(10) a. { [úm-fúndísi ú-fúndel-ê: ábá-zal’ ín-cwa:di]CP }ι 1-teacher 1-read.to-PERF 2-parent 9-letter ‘The teacher read to the parents a letter.’

b. { [ú-Síph’ ú-fún’ [ úkúth’ ú-Thándi á-théng’ í-bhayiséki:li]CP] }ι ]CP }ι 1-Sipho 1-want that 1-Thandi 1-buy 5-bicycle ‘Sipho wants Thandi to buy a bicycle.’ 181 The prosodic phrasing in (10b) and (11), which parses the entire sentence into a single 182 Tιhe, further prosodic shows phrasing that thein (10 left-edgeb) and (11 of), each which syntactic parses the phase entire does sentence not correlate into a single with a ι, prosodic further shows 183 thatboundary the left- inedge Zulu. of each A separate syntactic constraint—and phase does not ancorrelate assumption with a of prosodic exhaustive boundary parsing—is in Zulu. A 184 separateresponsible constraint for the – and left-edge an assumption alignment of ofexhaustiveι only with parsing the outermost – is responsible CP (i.e., for rootleft-edge clause alignment or 185 ofillocutionary ι only with clausethe outermost in Selkirk CP’s ((i.e.,2005 root, 2011 clause) terminology), or illocutionary leading clause to a mismatch in Selkirk’s between (2005, 2011) 186 terminologysyntactic phases), leading and to prosodic a mismatch constituents. between syntactic This is shown phases schematically and prosodic constituents.in (11), which This is 187 shownincludes schematically the vP-phase in ( boundaries.11), which includes the vP-phase boundaries. 188 (11) { [CP subject [vP verb [CP that subject [vP verb object ]} ]} ]} ]} (11) { [CP subject [vP verb [CP that subject [vP verb object ]} ]} ]} ]} 189 190 That is,That even is, though even though each vP each andv eachP and CP each are CPsyntactic are syntactic phases, phases,only the only right the edge right of edgeeach of these 191 phaseseach of is thesecorrelated phases with is correlatedthe prosodic with cues the which prosodic condition cues, an which ι boundary condition in this an analysis.ι boundary (See in Cheng 192 andthis Downing analysis (see2016 Cheng and Bonet and et Downing al. 2019 2016for detailed and Bonet discussion et al. 2019 of thisfor detailedkind of edge discussion asymmetry of in 193 Zuluthis and kind other of edge Bantu asymmetry languages in.) Zulu and other Bantu languages). 194 TheThe syntax syntax–prosody-prosody mapping mapping algorithm algorithm that that we weare aremotivating motivating here here builds builds upon upon the notion the of 195 phasalnotion spell of phasal-outs. Regardless spell-outs. of Regardless whether the of whether mapping the is done mapping cyclically is done, with cyclically, the prosodic with cycle 196 embeddedthe prosodic in the cycle syntactic embedded cycle, init is the clear syntactic from the cycle, Zulu it data is clear that fromthe phase the Zulu is the data constituent that the which 197 isphase mapped is the to ι constituent’s. Since phasal that spell is mapped-out is a to recursiveι’s. Since process, phasal as spell-out explained is a in recursive the preceding process, section, 198 theas explained prosodic structure in the preceding building section, necessarily the prosodicleads to recursive structure buildingι’s if the necessarily prosody-syntax leads mapping to 6 199 constraintsrecursive ιoutrank’s if the prosody–syntaxNORECURSION.6 What mapping is further constraints evident outrank from (10)NO RisECURSION that the mapping. What ishas an 200 edgefurther bias evident, which is from further (10) supported is that the by mapping sentences has with an edge a relat bias,ive whichclause isin furtherthe subject supported noun phrase 201 likeby ( sentences12a), where with the aphrasing relative contrast clause ins with the subject that of nounsentences phrase with like a relative (12a), where clause the in the phrasing object noun contrasts with that of sentences with a relative clause in the object noun phrase like (12b). Note that penult vowel lengthening is found at the right edge of each phase while there 6 continueSee Féry (2016 to be) and no Selkirk prosodic (2011 cues) for to detailed the left discussion edge of of each how phase. recursive This syntactic is particularly embedding evident as defined in (2), above, motivates recursive prosodic structure. Iterative recursion created by certain conjoined syntactic in the case of object relative clauses, as in (12b). That is, these data show that the recursive constructions also can lead to prosodic recursion; see Féry (2016), Ladd (1986, 1996/2008) and Wagner (2005) for ι‘s that parse the phases (CP and vP) can have recursive prosody at the right edge but not discussion. at the left: Languages 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 31

202 phrase like (12b). Note that penult vowel lengthening is found at the right edge of each phase, while Languages 2021, 6, 125 203 there continue to be no prosodic cues to the left edge of each phase. This is particularly evident7 ofin 29the 204 case of object relative clauses, as in (12b). That is, this data shows that the recursive ι‘s that parse the 205 phases (CP and vP) can have recursive prosody at the right edge but not at the left: 206

(12) a. {[úm-fúndísi [ó-thól-ê: ín-dánda:tho]CP }ι ú-zo-thóla úm-klóme:lo] CP }ι 1-teacher REL.1-find-PERF 9-ring 1-FUT-get 3-rewards ‘The teacher who found the ring will get a reward.’

b. {[si-phul’ [ím-baz’ é-théngw-é námhlâ:nje] CP ) }ι CP }ι we-break 9-axe REL.9-be.bought-PERF today ‘We broke the axe that has been bought today.’ 207 Assuming the raising analysis of relative clauses (e.g., Kayne 1994), Cheng and Down- 208 Assuming the raising analysis of relative clauses (e.g., Kayne 1994), Cheng and Downing (2007) show ing(2007) show that (a) the head-noun of a relative clause phrases prosodically with the 209 that (a) the head-noun of a relative clause phrases prosodically with the relative clause; (b) only the relative clause; (b) only the right-edge of the CP phase conditions an ι boundary, and (c) in 210 right-edge of the CP phase conditions an ι boundary, and (c) in Zulu (as in many other languages), Zulu (as in many other languages), the DP does not have a phasal status.7 This is conﬁrmed 211 the DP does not have a phasal status.7 This is confirmed by the lack of any prosodic cues motivating ι 212 aby corresponding the lack of anyι boundary prosodic associated cues motivating with DPs (also a corresponding in (10a,b)). Noteboundary again that the associated relative clauses with 213 andDPs the (also matrix in (10a,b)). clauses in Note (12a,b) again have that recursive the relative ι boundaries clauses (mirroring and the matrix recursive clauses CP-phas in (12a,b)al spell- ι 214 outshave asrecursive well as recursiveboundaries vP-phas (mirroringal spell-outs recursive.) CP-phasal spell-outs as well as recursive 215 vP-phasalThe constraints spell-outs). and tableau below, adapted from Cheng and Downing (2016), formalize the 216 analysis.The The constraints relevant and syntactic tableau category below, to adapted capture from the Cheng generalizations and Downing for Zulu(2016 is), the formal- phase. 217 Followingize the analysis. the universal The relevantsyntax-prosody syntactic correspondence category to captureprinciples the discussed generalizations for (9), the for phase Zulu maps is 218 tothe the phase. Intonation Following Phrase. theThe universal edge asymmetry syntax–prosody is captured correspondenceby asymmetric alignment principles constraints: discussed the 219 rightfor (9),edge the of every phase phase maps map tos the to an Intonation ι, to satisfy Phrase. (13a, b), Thewhile edge only asymmetrythe left edge isof capturedthe root clause by 220 mapsasymmetric to ι, to satisfy alignment (13c, d) constraints:.8 the right edge of every phase maps to an ι, to satisfy 221 (13a,b), while only the left edge of the root clause maps to ι, to satisfy (13c,d).8 (13) a. ALIGNR[PHASE, INTPH] (ALIGNR-PHASE): Align the right edge of every phase (nP/CP) (13) a. ALIGNR[PHASE,INTPH](ALIGNR-PHASE): Align the right edge of every phase with the right edge of an Intonation Phrase (IntPh). (vP/CP) with the right edge of an Intonation Phrase (IntPh). LIGN NT H HASE LIGN NT H b.b. AALIGNR[IR[INTP P, PH,PHASE] (A](ALIGNR-I R-IP NT): PAlignH): Align the right the right edge edge of every of every Intonation Intonation PhrasePhrase (IntPh) (IntPh) with with the the right right edge edge of of a aphase phase (v (vP/CP).P/CP). c.c. A ALIGNLIGNL[IL[INTNTPHP, HR,ROOTOOT CP]CP](A (ALIGNLIGNL- IL-INTPNTH):P HAlign): Align the the left left edge edge of of every every Intonation PhraseIntonation with Phrasethe left withedge theof a left Root edge CP. of a Root CP. d.d. A ALIGNLIGNL[CPL[CP,, INT INTPHP] (AH](ALIGNLIGNL-ROOTL-R OOTCP): CP):Align Align the left the edge left edgeof every of every root CP root with CP the with left edgethe leftof an edge Intonation of an Intonation Phrase. Phrase. 222 The tableau in (14) exempliﬁes the analysis of a sentence like (12a); only crucial 223 The tableau in (14) exemplifies the analysis of a sentence like (12a); only crucial constraints are constraints are included for clarity of exposition. Note that the syntax–prosody mapping 224 included for clarity of exposition. Note that the syntax-prosody mapping constraints are, by default, constraints are, by default, equally high-ranked: 225 equallyLanguages high 2020-, ranked5, x FOR :PEER REVIEW 8 of 31 226 (14) [úm-fúndísi [ó-thól-ê: ín-dánda:tho]CP ú-zo-thóla úm-klóme:lo] CP ALIGNL- ALIGNR- ALIGNR- NO INTPH PHASE INTPH RECUR- SION

Fa. [úm-fúndísi [ó-thól-ê: ín-dánda:tho]CP ú-zo-thóla úm-klóme:lo] CP * { } }

b. [úm-fúndísi [ó-thól-ê: ín-dánda:tho] CP ú-zo-thóla úm-klóme:lo] CP *! 7 We are {ignoring v P - phase here as it coincides with the CP - phase in these} examples. It should also be noted that we do c. not[úm claim-fúndísi that [DPó-thól can-ê: never ín-dánda:tho] be a phaseCP ú in-zo any-thóla language. úm-klóme:lo] Nonetheless, CP *! evidence from Zulu suggests that DPs do not{ have phasal status, and thus do } { not trigger phasal spell - outs } in Zulu. 227 8 See Selkirk (2011:452ff) for detailed discussion of the distinction between the syntactic clause (CP) and the illocutionary clause or root clause, defined as the “highest syntactic projection of the sentence” (p. 452). (See, too, 228 CandidateCandidate (14a) is (14a) optimal, is optimal, as it only as violates it only low violates-ranked low-ranked NORECURSIONN, OtheR ECURSIONconstraint penalizing, the con- 229 Selkirkstraintrecursive 2005.) penalizing prosodic Root CP structure recursiveis specified (Selkirk prosodicin (13c,d) 1995 to structure, Truckenbrodt capture the (Selkirk generalization 1995, 1995 1999;) .Truckenbrodt Asthat we the can complements see in1995 this, candidate,1999of verbs). As and restrictive relative clauses, which also are CP phases, typically phrase with their heads, as illustrated by Zulu 230 ranking ALIGNR above NORECURSION optimizes recursive prosodic structure to mirror recursive exampleswe can in see this in section. this candidate, That is, a right ranking edge asymmetryALIGNR holdsabove exceptNO forRECURSION the outermostoptimizes recursion of recursive CP, i.e., the 231 syntactic structure. While candidates (14b, c) satisfy NORECURSION, candidate (14b) is non-optimal, illocutionaryprosodic structure clause. to mirror recursive syntactic structure. While Candidates (14b, c) satisfy 232 NasO theRECURSION right phase, edge Candidate following (14b) the relative is non-optimal, clause does as not the map right to the phase right edge edge followingof ι. Candidate the 233 relative(14c) is non clause-optimal, does as not it contains map to a the left right ι constituent edge of edgeι. Candidate that does not (14c) map is non-optimal,to the left edge asof ita 234 containsroot/illocutionary a left ι constituent CP. Cheng edgeand thatDowning does (2016)not map show to the that left this edge approach of a root/illocutionary straightforwardly 235 CP.accounts Cheng for andprosodic Downing phrasing(2016 of )relative show thatclauses, this in approach particular, straightforwardly not only in Zulu but accounts also in other for 236 languages, leading to analyses where prosodic recursion is justified by syntactic recursion as defined prosodic phrasing of relative clauses, in particular, not only in Zulu but also in other 237 in section 2.1.9 languages, leading to analyses where prosodic recursion is justiﬁed by syntactic recursion 238 All of the examples from Zulu that illustrate nested, embedded recursion in the syntax lead to 9 239 asrecursive deﬁned prosodic in Section structure 2.1. at the level of the Intonation Phrase (ι). We turn now to analyses 240 appealing to recursion in prosodic units smaller than ι, namely, Phonological Phrase (φ). A striking 241 case which appears to motivate recursive φ structure is the assignment of final High tone in 242 Chimwiini (Bantu G.412, Somalia), as demonstrated in Kisseberth (2005, 2010a,b, 2017). Consider first 243 the examples in (15a,b) from Kisseberth (2010a: 225-227), where we see that by default all 244 Phonological Phrases in Chimwiini, defined as in (9), are realized with a High tone on the phrase 245 penult syllable.10 246 (15) a. (mw-aalímu)φ (wa-somelele w-áana) φ (chúwo) φ 1-teacher 2OM-read to 2-children 7.book ‘The teacher read a book to the children.’

b. (m-pholeze (cháayi) φ (ka chi-jámu) φ s/he-cooled.down 7.tea with 7-saucer ‘S/he cooled down the tea with a saucer.’ 247 248 Sentences in (16a-d), below, from Kisseberth (2005: 142-143) illustrate cases with first and second 249 person subject prefixes on the verb, rather than third person subject prefixes, as in the above 250 examples. As we can see, these subject prefixes trigger final High tone rather than penult High tone: 251 compare the sentences in (16a,b). These examples also show that the High tone motivated by the 252 morphology of the verb is realized on the final word of the Phonological Phrase containing the verb, 253 not on the verb itself. Note in (16a) that a verb with a third person subject prefix triggers default 254 penult High tone realization in the Phonological Phrase, just as the default cases we see in (15a,b). 255 Strikingly, in both (16c) and (16d), we see that each verbal complement is realized with a final High

9 Syntactic recursion does not lead to prosodic recursion in all languages. For example, Beltzung et al. (2010) show that there is no motivation for a right edge of ι following relative clauses in Embosi. That is, in Embosi, the phrasing in (14b) is the correct output. This phrasing would be made optimal by ranking NORECURSION above ALIGNRPHASE. As Selkirk (2011) points out, it is this kind of cross-linguistic variation in the prosodic parse of the same syntactic structures that provides one of the strongest arguments for prosodic constraints on prosodic constituency mapping like NORECURSION. 10 This also accounts for the High tone on the subject DP in (16b). Languages 2021, 6, 125 8 of 29

All of the examples from Zulu that illustrate nested, embedded recursion in the syntax lead to recursive prosodic structure at the level of the Intonation Phrase (ι). We turn now to analyses appealing to recursion in prosodic units smaller than ι, namely, the Phonological Phrase (ϕ). A striking case that appears to motivate recursive ϕ structure is the assignment of final High tone in Chimwiini (Bantu G.412, Somalia), as demonstrated in Kisseberth (2005, 2010a, 2010b, 2017). Consider first the examples in (15a,b) from Kisseberth(2010a, pp. 225–27), where we see that by default all Phonological Phrases in Chimwiini, defined as in (9), are realized with a High tone on the phrase penult syllable.10

(15) a. (mw-aalímu)ϕ (wa-somelele w-áana) ϕ (chúwo) ϕ 1-teacher 2OM-read to 2-children 7.book ‘The teacher read a book to the children.’

b. (m-pholeze (cháayi) ϕ (ka chi-jámu) ϕ s/he-cooled.down 7.tea with 7-saucer ‘S/he cooled down the tea with a saucer.’ Sentences in (16a-d), below, from Kisseberth(2005, pp. 142–43) illustrate cases with first and second person subject prefixes on the verb, rather than third person subject prefixes, as in the above examples. As we can see, these subject prefixes trigger a final High tone rather than a penult High tone: compare the sentences in (16a,b). These examples also show that the High tone motivated by the morphology of the verb is realized on the final word of the Phonological Phrase containing the verb, not on the verb itself. Note in (16a) that a verb with a third-person subject prefix triggers the default penult High tone realization in the Phonological Phrase, just as the default cases we see in (15a,b). Strikingly, in both (16c) and (16d), we see that each verbal complement is realized with a final High tone. Kisseberth accounts for this, as shown in (16c), by proposing that the indirect object and the direct object are recursively parsed into a ϕ that includes the triggering verb, and in (16d), the instrumental phrase is also recursively parsed into a ϕ that includes preceding verbal complements as well as the triggering verb:

11 (16) a. (n-jilee namá)ϕ Cf. (wa-jilee náma)ϕ I-ate meat they-ate meat ‘I ate meat.’ ‘they ate meat’

b. sí)ϕ (chi-lele ma-sku ma-zimá)ϕ we we-slept night whole ‘We slept the whole night.’

c. ((ni-m-lisile mweenziwá)ϕ deení)ϕ I-1OBJ-pay.to 1.friend debt ‘I paid my friend the debt.’

d. (((ni-m-tindilile mwaaná)ϕ namá)ϕ kaa chi-sú)ϕ I-1OBJ-cut.for 1.child meat with knife ‘I cut for the child meat with a knife.’ In Kisseberth(2005, 2010a, 2010b, 2017) analysis, the domain of final High tone assignment in Chimwiini is the recursive ϕ that contains the triggering verb. Kisseberth accounts for the repeated assignment of the final High tone as follows. As shown in (16), recursive ϕ structure allows the triggering verb to be contained in all of the ϕ’s that realize the final High tone. Repeated occurrences of the final High tone are accounted for by assigning a High tone to the final syllable of every recursion of the ϕ that contains the triggering verb. This might be considered a form of High tone agreement. An alternative analysis, which does not rely on prosodic recursion of ϕ, is provided if we consider the simplified syntactic structure of (16d) in (17). We assume that verbs in Chimwiini, such as verbs in other Bantu languages, raise to a position higher than vP, but Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 32

(16)11 a. (n-jilee namá)φ Cf. (wa-jilee náma)φ I-ate meat they-ate meat ‘I ate meat.’ ‘they ate meat’

b. sí)φ (chi-lele ma-sku ma-zimá)φ we we-slept night whole ‘We slept the whole night.’

c. ((ni-m-lisile mweenziwá)φ deení)φ I-1OBJ-pay.to 1.friend debt ‘I paid my friend the debt.’

d. (((ni-m-tindilile mwaaná)φ namá)φ kaa chi-sú)φ I-1OBJ-cut.for 1.child meat with knife ‘I cut for the child meat with a knife.’

In Kisseberth’s (2005, 2010a, 2010b, 2017) analysis, the domain of final High tone assignment in Chimwiini is the recursive φ that contains the triggering verb. Kisseberth accounts for the repeated assignment of the final High tone as follows. As shown in (16), recursive φ structure allows the triggering verb to be contained in all of the φ’s that realize the final High tone. Repeated occurrences of the final High tone are accounted for by assigning a High tone to the final syllable of every recursion of the φ that contains the triggering verb. This might be considered a form of High tone agreement. Languages 2021, 6, 125 An alternative analysis, which does not rely on prosodic recursion of φ, is provided9 of 29 if we consider the simplified syntactic structure of (16d) in (17). We assume that verbs in Chimwiini, such as verbs in other Bantu languages, raise to a position higher than vP, but lower than TP (see Julien 2002 among others). In (17), the verb has moved via v0 and the 0 headlower of thanthe Applicative TP (see Julien Phrase 2002 (Applamong0) others).to a higher In (17),head the below verb T has0, indicated moved via as γv0, andwhich the 0 0 γ0 hostshead the of thefinal Applicative vowel, expressing Phrase (Applaspectual) to aor higher mood headinformation. below T , indicated as , which hosts the ﬁnal vowel, expressing aspectual or mood information. (17)

AsAs indicated indicated in in (17), (17), each each DP DP argument argument maps maps to to a aφϕ. The. The apparently apparently recursive recursive nature nature ofof final final High High tone tone assignment assignment in inthis this analysis analysis continues continues to tofollow follow from from requiring requiring each each φ withinϕ within the thedomain domain of the of the triggering triggering verb verb to tobe berealized realized with with a aHigh High tone tone on on the the final final syllable.syllable. However, However, inin this this alternative alternative analysis, analysis, the domainthe domain of the finalof the High final tone High assignment tone does not follow from syntactic or prosodic recursion, as each DP argument is parsed in an independent prosodic domain. Our alternative analysis is based on the observation that, in structures like in (17), the verb has moved up to γ0 via the phasal head v0, and the domain 0 of the vP-phase is therefore extended. More specifically, the phrasal projection of γ , i.e., γP, can be considered to be the extended phase (see Dikken 2007, Gallego 2010 among others, or more flexible phasal definition in Bošković 2014).12 In other words, in (17), the γP is the phase that is the relevant syntactic domain for High tone “agreement” with the verb. Following Cheng and Downing’s (2016) approach in which phases are prosodically mapped to ι, the Chimwiini pattern can be accounted for by aligning a High tone to the right edge of every ϕ within the domain of the ι that maps to the phasal γP. This is comparable to the recent proposal by Sande et al.(2020) that long-distance morphologically conditioned phonological effects are typically bound by phases. The ι that corresponds to the phasal γP is defined formally by adapting Cheng and Downing’s (2009, 2016) analysis of prosodic domains in Zulu, sketched above. As shown in (14), above, each phasal domain is right-aligned with ι. The CP that defines the root clause is left- and right-aligned with ι. To account for the fact that the phasal γP alone defines a domain for the final High tone assignment, we need a motivation for also left-aligning an ι boundary with that phasal domain. We observe that Chimwiini shares another property with Zulu, namely, that subjects and other preverbal DPs are phrased separately from what follows. In Zulu, this phrasing is optional for subjects; however, in Chimwiini, it is obligatory, as Kisseberth’s (2017) detailed study shows. Note that most Bantu languages are pro-drop languages: a subject marker is obligatorily realized on a main clause verb, but an overt co-referential subject DP is optional. As work since, at least, Bresnan and Mchombo(1987) observes, subject markers therefore ambiguously have both grammatical and anaphoric agreement properties when an overt subject DP occurs. This ambiguity paves the way for subject DPs to be analyzed either as a clause-external topic or as a clause-internal subject. In Chimwiini, we propose, following Cheng and Downing’s (2009, 2016) analysis of similar phrasing patterns in other Bantu languages, that the subject is actually a clause-external topic, adjoined to the root clause CP on a separate plane and therefore phrased separately from it, just as other left-dislocated constituents are:13,14 Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 32

assignment does not follow from syntactic or prosodic recursion, as each DP argument is parsed in an independent prosodic domain. Our alternative analysis is based on the observation that, in structures like in (17), the verb has moved up to γ0 via the phasal head v0, and the domain of the vP-phase is therefore extended. More specifically, the phrasal projection of γ0, i.e., γP, can be considered to be the extended phase (see Den Dikken 2007, Gallego 2010 among others, or more flexible phasal definition in Bošković 2014).12 In other words, in (17), the. γP is the phase that is the relevant syntactic domain for High tone “agreement” with the verb. Following Cheng and Downing’s (2016) approach in which phases are prosodically mapped to ι, the Chimwiini pattern can be accounted for by aligning a High tone to the right edge of every φ within the domain of the ι that maps to the phasal γP. This is comparable to the recent proposal by Sande et al. (2020) that long-distance morphologically conditioned phonological effects are typically bound by phases. The ι that corresponds to the phasal γP is defined formally by adapting Cheng and Downing’s (2009, 2016) analysis of prosodic domains in Zulu, sketched above. As shown in (14), above, each phasal domain is right-aligned with ι. The CP that defines the root clause is left- and right-aligned with ι. To account for the fact that the phasal γP alone defines a domain for the final High tone assignment, we need a motivation for also left-aligning an ι boundary with that phasal domain. We observe that Chimwiini shares another property with Zulu, namely, that subjects and other preverbal DPs are phrased separately from what follows. In Zulu, this phrasing is optional for subjects; however, in Chimwiini, it is obligatory, as Kisseberth’s (2017) detailed study shows. Note that most Bantu languages are pro-drop languages: a subject marker is obligatorily realized on a main clause verb, but an overt co- referential subject DP is optional. As work since, at least, Bresnan and Mchombo (1987) observes, subject markers therefore ambiguously have both grammatical and anaphoric agreement properties when an overt subject DP occurs. This ambiguity paves the way for subject DPs to be analyzed either as a clause-external topic or as a clause-internal subject. In Chimwiini, we propose, following Cheng and Downing’s (2009, 2016) analysis of similar phrasing patterns in other Bantu languages, that the subject is actually a clause- Languages 2021, 6, 125 10 of 29 externalLanguages 2020 topic,, 5, x FOR adjoined PEER REVIEW to the root clause CP on a separate plane and therefore phrased11 of 31 separately from it, just as other left-dislocated constituents are:13,14 307 separate plane and therefore phrased separately from it, just as other left-dislocated constituents 308 (18)are:13,14 309 (18)

310 Formally, this phrasing is achieved by left-aligning the phase beginning the root clause 311 Formally, this phrasing is achieved by left-aligning the phase beginning the root clause with ι. The with Formally,ι. The subject/topic this phrasing is parsed is achieved into its by own left-aligningι to satisfy the constraintphase beginningSTRONG theSTART root 312 subject/topic is parsed into its own ι to satisfy the constraint STRONGSTART (19), which penalizes clause with ι. The subject/topic is parsed into its own ι to satisfy the constraint 313 (19)unparsed, which or recursively penalizes unparsedparsed material or recursively at the left parsededge of a material prosodic at domain. the left (See edge Selkirk of a prosodic2011:470 314 domainfor a similar (see formal Selkirk analysis 2011, p.of preposed 470 for a DPs similar in XiTsonga.) formal analysis of preposed DPs in XiTsonga). 315 (19) STRONGSTART (Selkirk 2011; Figure [38]) (19) ASTRONG prosodicSTART constituent (Selkirk 2011; (π) optimally fig. [38]) begins with a leftmost daughter constituent that is not lower A prosodic in the constituent prosodic hierarchy (π) optimally than the begins constituent with a leftmost that immediately daughter constituent follows: which is *(notπn lowerπn+1 ...in the prosodic hierarchy than the constituent that immediately follows: * ( πn πn+1 .... 316 The analysis of the Chimwiini example (16b), which incorporates STRONGSTART into 317 theThe constraintanalysis of setChimwiini motivated example for Zulu, (16b), iswhich exempliﬁed incorporates in the STRONG tableauSTART in (20);into theNO constraintRECURSION set 318 ismotivated omitted for from Zulu, this is exemplified tableau as in itthe is tableau too low-ranked in (20); NOR toECURSION determine is omitted the optimalfrom this output.tableau 319 Noteas it is that too low-rankedSTRONGSTART to determinemust outrank the optimal the output. syntax–prosody Note that S correspondenceTRONGSTART must constraintsoutrank the 320 Asyntax-prosodyLIGNR(PHASE correspondence) and ALIGN R(IconstraintsNTPH) inALIGN orderR(P toHASE optimize) and ALIGN a prosodicR(INTPH) parse in order that to doesoptimize not 321 mirrora prosodic syntactic parse that constituency: does not mirror syntactic constituency: 322 (20) Parse into Intonation Phrase (ι); curly brackets indicate ι boundaries

ALIGNL STRONG ALIGNR- ALIGNR- [CP (sí)φ [CP [γP chi-lele (masku mazimá)φ ]]] (CP) START (PHASE) (INTPH) a. {[CP (sí)φ {[CP [γP chi-lele (masku mazimá)φ ]]}} *! b. {{[CP (sí)φ }{[CP [γP chi-lele (masku mazimá)φ ]]}} * c. {[CP (sí)φ [CP [γP chi-lele (masku mazimá)φ ]]}} *! 323 As shown, Candidate (20b), which parses the subject DP into both a Phonological 324 As shown, candidate (20b), which parses the subject DP into both a Phonological Phrase and an Phrase and an Intonation Phrase, is optimal because this parse satisfies STRONGSTART. 325 Intonation Phrase, is optimal because this parse satisfies STRONGSTART. In this parse, both the first In this parse, both the first prosodic constituent (within the outermost Intonation Phrase) and the one that follows are Intonation Phrases. As a result, the first prosodic constituent 13 is Seeon An the (2007), same Cheng level and of Downing the Prosodic (2016), Downing Hierarchy (2011), as Feldhausen the second (2010), one. Féry (2011), This Kula contrasts and Hamann with (2017) and references therein for discussion of the phrasing of DPs in topic position, showing that it is common (20a),for them which to be phrased violates sepaSTRONGrately fromSTART whatbecause follows. the first prosodic daughter of the sentence is a Phonological14 Treating adjuncts Phrase, as on awhich different is plane lower comes in thefromProsodic Chomsky (2004); Hierarchy see alsothan analyses the of second adjuncts prosodicusing Late daughter,Merge (Lebeaux which 1988, is Takahashi an Intonation 2006, and Phrase. Takahashi Candidate and Hulsey 2009), (20c) and satisfies other workSTRONG on adjunctsSTART such: the as initialHunter Phonological(2010). Phrase is followed by unparsed material, which is necessarily lower in the Prosodic Hierarchy. However, this parse is non-optimal as it violates higher-ranked ALIGNL(CP). To sum up, under this analysis, there is no need to appeal to recursive prosodic structure to account for the apparently iterative final High tone assignment in Chimwiini. Languages 2021, 6, 125 11 of 29

This is a welcome result since there is no recursive syntactic structure to motivate a parse into recursive ϕ.

3. Rethinking ϕ Prosodic Recursion within (Extended) vP The Chimwiini example is instructive as it provides our ﬁrst case study where the recursive Phonological Phrase (ϕ) structure proposed in previous analyses is not motivated by recursive syntactic structure in current syntactic theory. Moreover, we saw that in Chimwiini recursive ϕ, at least in the outermost recursion, maps a syntactic category that more closely matches the deﬁnition of the Intonation Phrase (ι), namely, a phasal γP (the extended verb phrase). In this section, we review other cases like this, providing alternative analyses that avoid syntactically unmotivated prosodic recursion.

3.1. Kimatuumbi Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 32 Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEWTruckenbrodt (1995, 1999) inﬂuential analysis of prosodic phrasing in Kimatuumbi12 of 32

(Bantu P.13, Tanzania) reanalyzes data discussed in detail in Odden(1987, 1990) and proposes that ϕ recursion provides the best way of deﬁning the context of two different partially overlapping domains. The process of Shortening, as its name implies, shortens syntacticallypartially overlapping conditioned domains. processes, The Shortening process of and Shortening, Phrasal Tone as its Insertion, name implies, which shortens have underlyingly long vowels in the following syntactic configurations:15 partiallyunderlyingly overlapping long vowels domains. in the The following process of syntactic Shortening, configurations: as its name15 implies, shortens underlyingly long vowels in the following syntactic conﬁgurations:15 (21) Syntactic context for Shortening (Odden 1987, p. 17; Truckenbrodt 1995, pp. 105, 106) (21)(21) Syntactic context context for for Shortening Shortening (Odden (Odden 1987 1987,, p. p. 17; 17; Truckenbrodt Truckenbrodt 1995 1995,, pp. 105,pp. 106)105, 106) NP (N+modifier) NP (N+modifier) a. kikóloombe̹ kikólombe̹ chaángu a. kikóloombe̹ kikólombe̹ chaángu ‘cleaning shell’ ‘my cleaning shell’ ‘cleaning shell’ ‘my cleaning shell’ b. mikaáte̹ mikaté̹ mikúlu̹ mikúlú̹ b. mikaáte̹ mikaté̹ mikúlu̹ mikúlú̹ ‘loaves’ ‘large loaves’ ‘loaves’ ‘large loaves’ c. lukaámba̹ lukambá̹ lwalúpuwáani̹ i̹ ké̹ c. lukaámba̹ lukambá̹ lwalúpuwáani̹ i̹ ké̹ ‘string’ ‘string which broke’ ‘string’ ‘string which broke’

VP (V+complement) VP (V+complement) d. naa-kálaangite̹ naa-kálangite̹ chóolyá d. naa-kálaangite̹ naa-kálangite̹ chóolyá ‘I fried’ ‘I fried food’ ‘I fried’ ‘I fried food’ e. naa-n-kálaangii̹ le̹ naa-n-kálangile̹ ywaápalá kálaanga e. naa-n-kálaangii̹ le̹ naa-n-kálangile̹ ywaápalá kálaanga ‘I fried for him’ ‘I fried for the one who wanted to fry’ ‘I fried for him’ ‘I fried for the one who wanted to fry’ Shortening does not apply if the words are in distinct XPs; for example, it does not Shortening does not apply if the words are in distinct XPs; for example, it does not applyShortening to a subject does followed not apply by ifthe the verb words (22a) are or in to distinct a verb XPs; followed for example, by a (focus) it does adverb not apply to a subject followed by the verb (22a) or to a verb followed by a (focus) adverb apply(22b), to and a subject it also followed does not by apply the verb to the (22a) first or tocomplement a verb followed of a byverb a (focus)when adverbfollowed (22b), by a (22b), and it also does not apply to the first complement of a verb when followed by a andsecond it also complement does not apply (22c): to the ﬁrst complement of a verb when followed by a second complementsecond complement (22c): (22c): (22) Shortening fails to apply (Truckenbrodt 1995, pp. 106, 108) (22)(22) Shortening Shortening fails fails to apply to apply (Truckenbrodt (Truckenbrodt 1995 1995,, pp. 106,pp. 108)106, 108) a. kikóloombe̹ kikóloombé̹ chaapúwaanii̹ ke̹ a. kikóloombe̹ kikóloombé̹ chaapúwaanii̹ ke̹ ‘cleaning shell’ ‘The cleaning shell is broken.’ ‘cleaning shell’ ‘The cleaning shell is broken.’ b. aakálaanga aakálaanga sáána b. aakálaanga aakálaanga sáána ‘s/he will fry’ ‘S/he will really fry.’ ‘s/he will fry’ ‘S/he will really fry.’ c. kikóloombe̹ naa-m-pei ̹ kikóloombe̹ Mambóondo c. kikóloombe̹ naa-m-pei ̹ kikóloombe̹ Mambóondo ‘cleaning shell’ ‘I gave a cleaning shell (to) Mamboondo.’ ‘cleaning shell’ ‘I gave a cleaning shell (to) Mamboondo.’ Truckenbrodt (1995, 1999) follows Cowper and Rice (1987) in proposing that the TruckenbrodtTruckenbrodt(1995 (1995,, 1999 1999)) follows follows Cowper Cowper and and Rice Rice(1987 (1987)) in proposing in proposing that thethat the domain for Shortening can be defined by right-aligning Phonological Phrase (φ) with domaindomain for for Shortening Shortening can can be deﬁnedbe defined by right-aligningby right-aligning Phonological Phonological Phrase Phrase (ϕ) ( withφ) with lexical XP, adopting Larson’s (1988) syntax (see discussion of (5) and (6), above): lexicallexical XP, XP, adopting adopting Larson Larson’s(1988 )(1988) syntax syntax (see discussion (see discussion of (5) andof (5) (6), and above): (6), above): (23) ϕ-construction (Truckenbrodt 1995, p. 107, Figure [48a]) (23) φ-construction (Truckenbrodt 1995, p. 107, Figure [48a]) (23)Each φ-construction right edge of [lexical] XP must (Truckenbrodt coincide with 1995, the rightp. 107, edge Figure of a ϕ [48a]). Each right edge of [lexical] XP must coincide with the right edge of a φ. Each right edge of [lexical] XP must coincide with the right edge of a φ. This algorithm correctly places a φ edge following every lexical XP (argument), This algorithm correctly places a φ edge following every lexical XP (argument), yielding the schematic prosodic phrasings below (adapted from Truckenbrodt 1995, 1999): yielding the schematic prosodic phrasings below (adapted from Truckenbrodt 1995, 1999):

(24) a. S]NP)φ V O]NP)φ O]NP)φ Adv]ADVP)φ (24) a. S]NP)φ V O]NP)φ O]NP)φ Adv]ADVP)φ b. N Adj]NP)φ b. N Adj]NP)φ Shortening can then be defined as a process that applies φ-internally, but not to φ- Shortening can then be defined as a process that applies φ-internally, but not to φ- final elements. final elements. The second process, Phrasal Tone Insertion (PTI), applies in a partially overlapping The second process, Phrasal Tone Insertion (PTI), applies in a partially overlapping domain. This process inserts a High tone on the final syllable of certain constituents of the domain. This process inserts a High tone on the final syllable of certain constituents of the clause, such as on the subject (22a) and (25e) or a preverbal object or focus adverb16 (25a,b), clause, such as on the subject (22a) and (25e) or a preverbal object or focus adverb16 (25a,b), between a VP and a sentential adverb (25c), and between two clauses (25d): between a VP and a sentential adverb (25c), and between two clauses (25d):

Languages 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 31

356 (22) Shortening fails to apply (Truckenbrodt 1995: [106, 108]) Languagesa. 2020 , 5ki, x kóloombe̹ FOR PEER REVIEW kikóloombé̹ chaapúwaanii̹ ke̹ 13 of 31 356 ‘cleaning shell’ ‘The cleaning shell is broken.’ (22) b. Shortening aakálaanga fails to apply (Truckenbrodt aakálaanga 1995: [106, sáána 108]) a. ‘s/hekikóloombe̹ will fry’ kikóloombé̹ ‘S/he will chaapúwaani really fry.’ i̹ ke̹ c. ki ‘cleaningkóloombe̹ shell’ ‘Thenaa-m-pei cleaning ̹shellkikóloombe̹ is broken.’ Mambóondo b. ‘cleaningaakálaanga shell’ aakálaanga ‘I gave a sáána cleaning shell (to) Mamboondo.’ 357 ‘s/he will fry’ ‘S/he will really fry.’ 358 Truckenbrodtc. kikóloombe̹ (1995, 1999) followsnaa-m-pei Cowper ̹ kiandkóloombe̹ Rice (1987) Mambóondo in proposing that the domain for 359 Shortening can ‘cleaning be defined shell’ by right-aligning ‘I gave a cleaningPhonological shell (to) Phrase Mamboondo.’ (φ) with lexical XP, adopting 357 360 Larsonian (1988) syntax. (See discussion of (5) and (6), above): 358 Truckenbrodt (1995, 1999) follows Cowper and Rice (1987) in proposing that the domain for 361 Languages 2021, 6, 125 359 Shortening can be defined by right-aligning Phonological Phrase (φ) with lexical XP, adopting 12 of 29 360 (23)Larsonian φ-construction (1988) syntax. (See (Truckenbrodt discussion of 1995:(5) and 107, (6), fig.above): [48a]) 361 Each right edge of [lexical] XP must coincide with the right edge of a φ. 362 (23) φ-construction (Truckenbrodt 1995: 107, fig. [48a]) 363 This algorithmThis Eachalgorithm right correctly edge of [lexical] correctlyplaces XPa φmust places edge coincide following a ϕ withedge the every right following edgelexical of aXP everyφ. (argument), lexical XPyielding (argument), the 364362 schematicyielding prosodic the schematic phrasings prosodic below (ada phrasingspted from below Truckenbrodt (adapted 1995, from 1999): Truckenbrodt 1995, 1999): 365363 This algorithm correctly places a φ edge following every lexical XP (argument), yielding the 364 schematic prosodic phrasings below (adapted from Truckenbrodt 1995, 1999): (24) a. S]NP)φ V O]NP )φ O]NP)φ Adv]ADVP)φ 365 b. N Adj]NP)φ (24) a. S]NP)φ V O]NP )φ O]NP)φ Adv]ADVP)φ 366 Shorteningb. N Adj]NP can)φ then be defined as a process that applies ϕ-internally, but not to ϕ-final 367366 Shortening can then be defined as a process which applies φ-internally, but not to φ-final elements. elements. 368367 ShorteningThe second can then process, be defined Phrasal as aTone process Insertion which applies(PTI), applies φ-internally, in a partially but not to overlapping φ-final elements. domain. This 369368 processTheThe inserts second second a process,High process, tone Phrasal on PhrasaltheTone final Insertion syllable Tone (PTI), Insertion of applies certain in (PTI),constituents a partially applies overlapping of the in aclause, partiallydomain. such This overlappingas on the 370369 subjectdomain.process (22a) inserts This and a process(25e),High toneor a inserts onpreverbal the final a High objectsyllable toneor of focus certain on adverb the constituents final16 (25a, syllable of b), the between clause, of certain sucha VP as constituentsand on athe sentential of the 371370 adverbclause,subject (25c), (22a) such and as (25e),between onthe or a subjectpreverbaltwo clauses (22a) object (25d): andor focus (25e) adverb or16 a preverbal(25a, b), between object a VP or and focus a sentential adverb 16 (25a,b), 372371 betweenadverb (25c), a VPand andbetween a sentential two clauses adverb(25d): (25c), and between two clauses (25d): 372 (25) Contexts for PTI (Truckenbrodt 1995: 111, Odden 1987: 22); right parentheses highlight (25)(25) Contexts for for PTI ((TruckenbrodtTruckenbrodt 19951995:, p.111, 111; Odden Odden 1987: 1987 22);, p. righ 22);t rightparentheses parentheses highlight highlight occurrences of PTI occurrences of of PTI PTI ̹ a.a. MamboondoMamboondo Mamboondó) Mamboondó) naa-m-wéninaa-m-wéni̹ ‘Mamboondo ‘Mamboondo (name)’ (name)’ ‘Mamboondo, ‘Mamboondo, I saw him.’ I saw him.’ b.b. iií̹ í̹ju̹ ju̹ ma̹ ma̹ ií̹ ju̹ má)̹ ií̹ ju̹ má)̹ Mamboondó) Mamboondó) aawí i̹ le̹ aawíi̹ le̹ ‘Friday’‘Friday’ ‘On ‘OnFriday, Friday, Mamboondo Mamboondo died.’ died.’ c.c. ninii̹ i̹-m-péndi̹ -m-péndi̹ ̹ ki ̹ kitúumbilí)̹ túumbilí)̹ píta píta ‘I like ‘I likethe monkey, the monkey, really.’ really.’ d. maná naa-n-tumbilé̹ Mamboondó) nduLanguageswae̹ ku2021u̹ -n-nwáaya̹ , 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 30 d. maná naa-n-tumbilé̹ Mamboondó) nduwae̹ kuu̹ -n-nwáaya̹ IIff I-him-fell.on I-him-fell.on Mamboondo Mamboondo I.would I.would to-him-nurse to-him-nurse ‘If ‘If II hadhad fallenfallen on on Mamboon Mamboondo,do, I would I would have have nursed nursed him.’ him.’ e. mundu̹ ̹ ywa-náa-m-peíi̹ ̹ mpu̦u̦ngá) aabúui̹ e. mundu̹ ̹ ywa-náa-m-peíi̹ ̹ mpu̦u̦ngá) aabúui̹ person REL-I-him/her-gave.to rice s/he.left However, as shown in (26), PTI does not apply between verbal complements, as would be person REL-I-him/her-gave.to rice s/he.left ‘The person I gave rice to left.’ predicted if PTI had the same domain as Shortening; notice, too, that PTI never applies to 373 ‘The person I gave rice to left.’ 373 a sentence-final syllable: 374 All ofAll these of phrase these breaks phrase would breaks also be would predicted also by the be φ predicted-alignment algorithm by the ϕ in-alignment (23), since they algorithm in 374375 Allfall of at these the right phrase edges breaks of XPs, wo asuld Truckenbrodt also be predicted (1995, 1999) by definesthe φ-alignment them. However, algorithm as shown in (23), in (26), since they (23), since they fall at the right edges of XPs, as Truckenbrodt(1995, 1999) defines them. 375376 fallPTI at does the rightnot apply edges between of XPs, verbal as Truckenbrodt complements, (as1995, would 1999) be predicted defines them. if PTI hadHowever, the same as domain (26)shown No in (26),PTI between complements of the verb (Truckenbrodt 1995, p. 112) 376377 PTIHowever,as doesShortening; not asapply notice, shown between too, in that (26), verbal PTI PTIneve complements,r does applies not to a apply sentence-finalas would between be predictedsyllable: verbal if complements,PTI had the same as domain would be *… Mamboondó) Languagespredicted 2020 if, 5 PTI, x FOR had PEER the REVIEW same domain as Shortening; notice, too, that PTI never naa-m-péi applies14 toof ̹ a31 lí̹ Mamboondo kiwikilyo̹ ií̹ ju̹ ma̹ 377 as Shortening; notice, too, that PTI never applies to a sentence-final syllable: kiwikilyó)̹ iíjumá) sentence-final syllable: 378 I-him-gave NEG Mamboondo cover Friday 16 A reviewer questions whether the adverb píta ‘really’ has a preceding ι-boundary. Note that the interpretation of(26) (26) this adverb No PTI appears between to be emphatic. complements We hypothesize of the th verbat it is a focus (Truckenbrodt adverb which (Truckenbrodt takes 1995: the whole[112]) 1995 sentence , p. ‘I 112) didn’t give Mamboondo a cover on Friday.’ 16 as A thereviewer focus.naa-m-péi Inquestions other ̹ words, líwhether̹ thisMamboondo adve the rbadverb is not onlypíta ki ‘really’awikilyo̹ high adverb, has ai í̹ preceding ̹jitu isma̹ a sentential ι-boundary.*….Mamboondó) adverb taking Note scopethat the over ki interpretationwikilyó)̹ the iíjumá) of wholethis adverb sentence.I-him-gave appears Unfortunately, toNEG be emphatic. Mamboondoa syntactic We analysis hypothesize cover does not th existat Fridayit for is alla focus th e Kimatuumbi adverb which data takesin Odden’s the whole work, What sentence is required is a mechanism for grouping the verb and its complements into a making it impossible for us to develop a prosodic analysis of a wider range of data than what is presented here. as the focus. ‘I didn’t In other give words, Mamboondo this adverb isa covernot only on a highFriday.’ adverb, it is a sentential adverb taking scope over the whole sentence. Unfortunately, a syntactic analysis does not exist for all the Kimatuumbi data insingle Odden’s prosodic work, constituent so that the complements are not all targets of PTI, even though 379 making it impossible for us to develop a prosodic analysis of a wider range of data than what is theypresented are here. targets of Shortening. The same algorithm should also account for the other 380 What Whatis required is required is a mechanism is a mechanism for grouping for groupingthe verb and the its verb complements and its complements intocontexts a single for prosodic into PTI a illustrated in (22) and (25). Truckenbrodt (1995, 1999) proposes that XPs 381 constituent, so that the complements are not all targets of PTI, even though they are targets of single prosodic constituent so that the complements are not all targets of PTI,within even the though verb phrase are parsed into recursive φ’s in Kimatuumbi,17 and that the context 382 Shortening. The same algorithm should also account for the other contexts for PTI illustrated in (22) they are targets of Shortening. The same algorithm should also accountfor PTI for theis the other left edge of φ: 383 andcontexts (25). forTruckenbrodt PTI illustrated (1995, in1999) (22) proposes and (25). thatTruckenbrodt XPs within( 1995the ,verb 1999 phrase) proposes are parsed that XPs into 384 recursive φ’s in Kimatuumbi,17 and that the context for PTI is the left edge of φ: within the verb phrase are parsed into recursive ϕ’s in Kimatuumbi,17 and(27) that Phrasalthe context Tone Insertion (final version; Truckenbrodt 1995, p. 117, Figure [63]) 385 for PTI is the left edge of ϕ: (27) Phrasal Tone Insertion (final version; Truckenbrodt 1995: 117, fig. [63]) Align the left edge of every φ with the right edge of a High tone. (27) Phrasal Align the Tone left Insertionedge of every (final φ with version; the right Truckenbrodt edge of a High1995, p.tone. 117, Figure [63]) 386 Align the left edge of every ϕ with the right edge of a High tone. As we can see in the schematized sentence in (28), this correctly accounts for the 387 As we can see in the schematized sentence in (28), this correctly accounts for thecontext context of of PTI, PTI, if if verbal complements are recursively phrased with the verb. PTI correctly 388 verbalAs complements we can see are in recursively the schematized phrased sentencewith the verb. in (28), PTI thiscorrectly correctly only appliesonly accounts applies between for between the the the subject and the verb since that is the only locus of a left edge of 389 subjectcontext and of PTI,the verb if verbal since that complements is the only locus are recursively of a left edge phrased of φ: with the verb.φ: PTI correctly 390 only applies between the subject and the verb since that is the only locus of a left edge of ϕ: (28) (S)φ (((V O)φ O)φ Adv)φ (28) (S)φ (((V O)φ O)φ Adv)φ (28) (S) (((V O) O) Adv) 391 ϕ ϕ ϕ ϕ 392 Although appealing to recursive φ provides a technique that allows the Althoughverb and appealingits to recursive φ provides a technique that allows the verb and its 393 complementsAlthough to be appealing parsed into to recursivea single prosodicϕ provides constituent, a technique it clearly that misses allows generalizationscomplements the verb and about itsto be parsed into a single prosodic constituent, it clearly misses 394 PTIcomplements which argue to in be favor parsed of it intobeing a singlea property prosodic of Intonation constituent, Phrase it ( clearlyɩ), rather misses thangeneralizations φ generaliza-. First, PTI isabout PTI that argue in favor of it being a property of the Intonation 395 plausiblytions about interpreted PTI that as argue a tonal in version favor of of it a beingcontin auation property rise (Cruttenden of the Intonation 1981): Phrasethe Phrase non-final (ɩ) ratherrather major than φ. First, PTI is plausibly interpreted as a tonal version of a 396 constituentsthan ϕ. First, of the PTI sentence is plausibly end in interpreted a rising pitc ash. aThis tonal is a version common of intonational a continuation phenomenoncontinuation rise (Crutten- cross- rise (Cruttenden 1981): the non-final major constituents of the sentence end 397 linguistically,den 1981): the including non-final in other major African constituents tone languages of the (see sentence papers end in Downing in a rising inand pitch.a Rialland rising This 2017),pitch. is This is a common intonational phenomenon cross-linguistically, 398 and,a common as work intonational like Nespor and phenomenon Vogel (1986) cross-linguistically, and Selkirk (2009) argue, including Intonation in other Phraseincluding African is the in propertone other African tone languages (see papers in Downing and Rialland 2017), 399 domain for such phenomena. Further, it is striking that elements outside the rootand, clause as work – such such as as Nespor and Vogel (1986) and Selkirk (2009) argues, the Intonation 400 preverbal objects and adverbs and subordinate or coordinate clauses – provide the context for PTI. Phrase is the proper domain for such phenomena. Further, it is striking that elements 401 As work like Nespor and Vogel (1986) observe (see, too, Hamlaoui and Szendroï 2015 and Selkirk outside the root clause—such as preverbal objects and adverbs and subordinate or 402 2011) these are contexts where, cross-linguistically, one expects an Intonation Phrase break. Note that, coordinate clauses—provide the context for PTI. As work such as Nespor and Vogel (1986) 403 as in Chimwiini, subjects and preverbal Topics pattern together, in this case, as contexts for PTI, as 404 well as Shortening. Finally, recall from the analysis of the Chimwiini extended verbobserves phrase (see, in (17), too, Hamlaoui and Szendroï 2015 and Selkirk 2011), these are contexts 405 above, that the constituent that contains a verb plus its complements in modern syntacticwhere, cross-linguistically,theory is a one expects an Intonation Phrase break. Note that, as in 406 phasal XP, not a lexical XP, and phasal domains correspond to ι, as argued for Chimwiini,at the beginning subjects of and preverbal Topics pattern together, in this case, as contexts for PTI, 407 section 2.2. as well as Shortening. Finally, recall from the analysis of the Chimwiini extended verb 408 Truckenbrodt (1995) argues, following Odden (1987), that the context of PTI cannotphrase be in ɩ , (17),though, above, that the constituent that contains a verb plus its complements in 409 because ɩ is the context for a process that takes a larger domain, namely, Final Fall,modern which syntactic assigns a theory is a phasal XP, not a lexical XP, and phasal domains correspond 410 Low tone to the right edge of certain clauses. We agree that Final Fall is clearlyto ι ,an as intonationalargued for at the beginning of Section 2.2. 411 process. We propose that its context is complementary to that of PTI: PTI applies to theTruckenbrodt final syllable (1995) argues, following Odden (1987), that the context of PTI cannot 412 of a non-final ɩ, while Final Fall applies to the final syllable of the final ɩ in a clause.be Following ɩ, though, Ito because and ɩ is the context for a process that takes a larger domain, namely, Final 413 Mester (2013) and subsequent work, we label the outermost ɩ, the one that parses Fall,the entire which sentence, assigns a Low tone to the right edge of certain clauses. We agree that Final Fall 414 “ɩmax”. is clearly an intonational process. We propose that its context is complementary to that of 415 As schematized in (29), the prosodic analysis of Kimatuumbi thus becomes essentiallyPTI: PTI applies identical to the final syllable of a non-final ɩ, while Final Fall applies to the final 416 to that sketched for Chimwiini, above. Each argument XP is parsed into a φ, whilesyllable the verb of theand final its ɩ in a clause. Following Ito and Mester (2013) and subsequent work, 417 complements are parsed into the ɩ which maps the extended verb phrase (γP). Since subjects and we label the outermost ɩ, the one that parses the entire sentence, “ɩmax”. 418 preverbal topicalized elements are both targets of PTI, we propose that in Kimatuumbi,As schematized as in in (29), the prosodic analysis of Kimatuumbi thus becomes 419 Chimwiini, subjects are Topics and thus outside the root clause, parsed into an ι just like the following essentially identical to that sketched for Chimwiini above. Each argument XP is parsed 420 CP/γP to satisfy high-ranked STRONGSTART. (See the tableau in (20).) This yields the following

17 Odden (1987) proposes this possibility but rejects it, among other reasons because recursion was not a well- formed property of prosodic parsing at the time he developed his analysis. Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 30

However, as shown in (26), PTI does not apply between verbal complements, as would be predicted if PTI had the same domain as Shortening; notice, too, that PTI never applies to a sentence-final syllable:

(26) No PTI between complements of the verb (Truckenbrodt 1995, p. 112) *… Mamboondó) naa-m-péi ̹ lí̹ Mamboondo kiwikilyo̹ ií̹ ju̹ ma̹ kiwikilyó)̹ iíjumá) I-him-gave NEG Mamboondo cover Friday ‘I didn’t give Mamboondo a cover on Friday.’

What is required is a mechanism for grouping the verb and its complements into a single prosodic constituent so that the complements are not all targets of PTI, even though they are targets of Shortening. The same algorithm should also account for the other contexts for PTI illustrated in (22) and (25). Truckenbrodt (1995, 1999) proposes that XPs within the verb phrase are parsed into recursive φ’s in Kimatuumbi,17 and that the context Languages 2021, 6, 125 for PTI is the left edge of φ: 13 of 29

(27) Phrasal Tone Insertion (final version; Truckenbrodt 1995, p. 117, Figure [63]) Alignlanguages the left (seeedge papers of every in φDowning with the andright Rialland edge of 2017a High), and, tone. as work such as Nespor and Vogel(1986) and Selkirk(2009) argues, the Intonation Phrase is the proper domain for such As wephenomena. can see in Further, the schematized it is striking sentence that elements in (28), outside this correctly the root clause—suchaccounts for asthe preverbal context ofobjects PTI, if and verbal adverbs complements and subordinate are recursively or coordinate phrased clauses—provide with the verb. PTI the correctly context for PTI. only appliesAs work between such the as Nesporsubject and Vogelthe verb(1986 since) observes that is the (see, only too, locusHamlaoui of a left and edge Szendroï of 2015 φ: and Selkirk 2011), these are contexts where, cross-linguistically, one expects an Intonation Phrase break. Note that, as in Chimwiini, subjects and preverbal Topics pattern together, in (28) (S)thisφ case,(((V O) asφ contexts O)φ Adv) forφ PTI, as well as Shortening. Finally, recall from the analysis of the Chimwiini extended verb phrase in (17), above, that the constituent that contains a verb Althoughplus its appealing complements to recursive in modern φ provides syntactic a theory technique is a phasal that allows XP, not the alexical verb and XP, its and phasal complementsdomains to correspondbe parsed tointoι, as argueda single for prosodic at the beginning constituent, of Section it clearly 2.2. misses generalizationsTruckenbrodt about PTI (that1995 )argue argues, in followingfavor of Oddenit being(1987 a property), that the of context the Intonation of PTI cannot be Phrase (ɩ), though,rather than because φ. First,is the PTI context is plausibly for a process interpreted that takes as aa larger tonal domain,version namely,of a Final continuationFall, rise which (Cruttenden assigns a Low 1981): tone the to non- thefinal right major edge ofconstituents certain clauses. of the We sentence agree that end Final Fall in a risingis clearly pitch. an This intonational is a common process. intonational We propose thatphenomenon its context cross-linguistically, is complementary to that of includingPTI: in other PTI applies African to tone the finallanguages syllable (see of apapers non-final in Downing, while Finaland Rialland Fall applies 2017), to the final and, as worksyllable such of as the Nespor final in and a clause. Vogel Following(1986) and Ito Selkirk and Mester (2009)(2013 argues,) and the subsequent Intonation work, we Phrase islabel the theproper outermost domain, thefor onesuch that phenomen parses thea. Further, entire sentence, it is striking “ max ”.that elements outside the rootAs schematized clause—such in (29),as preverba the prosodicl objects analysis and of adverbs Kimatuumbi and thussubordinate becomes or essentially coordinateidentical clauses—provide to that sketched the context for Chimwiini for PTI. above.As work Each such argument as Nespor XP and is parsed Vogel (1986) into a ϕ, while observesthe (see, verb too, and Hamlaoui its complements and Szendroï are parsed 2015 intoand theSelkirkthat 2011), maps these the extended are contexts verb phrase where, cross-linguistically,(γP). Since subjects andone preverbalexpects an topicalized Intonation elements Phrase are break. both targetsNote that, of PTI, as wein propose Chimwiini,that subjects in Kimatuumbi, and preverbal as in Topics Chimwiini, pattern subjects together, are Topicsin this case, and thusas contexts outside for the PTI, root clause, as well asparsed Shortening. into an Finally,ι just like recall the followingfrom the analysis CP/γP to of satisfy the Chimwiini high-ranked extendedSTRONG verbSTART (see phrase inthe (17), tableau above, in that (20)). the This constituent yields the that following contains reanalysis a verb plus of theits schematizedcomplements sentencein in modern syntactic(28), where theory curly is brackets a phasal indicate XP, not boundariesa lexical XP, and and parentheses phasal domains indicate correspondϕ boundaries—cf. to ι, as argued(20b): for at the beginning of Section 2.2. Truckenbrodt (1995) argues, following Odden (1987), that the context of PTI cannot (29) {{([S)ϕ} {[V (O)ϕ (O)ϕ (Adv)ϕ ] γP } ]CP } -max. be ɩ, though, because ɩ is the context for a process that takes a larger domain, namely, Final ϕ Fall, which assignsAs in Truckenbrodta Low tone to’s the (1995 right, 1999 edge) analysis, of certain the clauses. domain We of agree Shortening that Final is :Fall the process ϕ is clearlyapplies an intonational to words proc that areess. non-final We propose in that. The its domain context of is PTI complementary is : a High tone to (or that continuation of rise) occurs at the right edge of every non-final (that is, it is a domain juncture process). PTI: PTI applies to the final syllable of a non-final ɩ, while Final Fall applies to the final The domain of Final Fall is . Note that recursion of in (29) mirrors phasal domain syllable of the final ɩ in a clause. Followingmax Ito and Mester (2013) and subsequent work, recursion of the extended verb phrase (γP) and CP. we label the outermost ɩ, the one that parses the entire sentence, “ɩmax”. Recursion of ϕ does not play a role in the analysis, however. As a result, it avoids As schematized in (29), the prosodic analysis of Kimatuumbi thus becomes several issues raised by Truckenbrodt’s (1995, 1999) analysis. First, the outermost recursion essentially identical to that sketched for Chimwiini above. Each argument XP is parsed of ϕ in Truckenbrodt’s analysis does not parse a lexical XP in modern syntactic theory, contrary to the standard definition of this prosodic category. Rather, it maps to a phasal γP (the extended verb phrase). Furthermore, prosodic recursion in his analysis does not mirror syntactic recursion in modern syntactic theory, for the reasons discussed above for Chimwiini. Nor does it meet the definition of phonological recursion: each instance of ϕ should define the context for the same phonological processes, yet only some ϕ’s trigger PTI.18 Finally, the recursive ϕ analysis misses cross-linguistic generalizations by proposing that ϕ, not , is the domain of the intonational process of PTI (continuation rise). In spite of these issues, recursive ϕ, rather than , continues to be appealed to in the recent phonological literature to parse phasal categories. We review two recent cases in the next sections and show that they are best reanalyzed in terms of the approach developed in the discussion so far, where prosodic recursion must mirror syntactic recursion.

3.2. Bàsàá Hamlaoui and Makasso(2019) discuss three different prosodic processes in B àsàá (Bantu A.43a, Cameroon) and propose that they apply in three different prosodic domains, ϕmin, ϕmax, and . We brieﬂy present each of the three processes and argue that ϕmax— Languages 2021, 6, 125 14 of 29

which defines a verb plus its complements as a prosodic domain—is better reanalyzed as ι. We begin with the process of High Tone Spread (HTS), which turns input H–L and H–ø tonal sequences into H–HL and H–H sequences, respectively. As Hamlaoui et al. (2014) argue, HTS takes ϕ as its domain. Indeed, it applies in the same contexts as defined for the final High tone assignment in Chimwiini or for Shortening in Kimatuumbi: between a verb and a following complement, but not between two verbal complements and not between the subject and verb:

(30) S]NP )ϕ V O]NP)ϕ XP]NP )ϕ That is, this domain is straightforwardly defined by right-aligning ϕ to DP/NP (XP arguments). Certain nominal modifiers introduce complications that we do not discuss here, for ease of cross-linguistic comparison. The process of Final Tone Simplification (FTS) turns input HL-H tonal sequences into H-!H, where !H indicates a downstepped High tone. Hamlaoui and Szendroï(2015) argue that the domain for FTS is ι, as it applies between all of the lexical XPs that are contained within the same (root) clause. For example, it applies between the subject and verb, or between a verb and a following adjunct, or between verbal complements. However, it does not apply between a left-dislocated constituent (i.e., a Topic) and the remainder of the sentence. The definition of ι, like the definition of ϕ, is thus consistent with the usual syntactic definitions of these prosodic constituents (see (9), above): ι correlates with root CP or a phase and ϕ correlates with an XP argument. Hamlaoui and Makasso(2019) present a third tonal process, Downstep, which turns input H-H tonal sequences into H-!H. This process applies only between two complements of a verb or between a verbal complement and a verbal modifier. That is, it applies within a domain intermediate in size between ϕ and ι, and the question arises of how to define this domain syntactically and which prosodic category it correlates with. Hamlaoui and Makasso (H&M) follow Truckenbrodt’s (1995, 1999) analysis of Kimatuumbi, adopting Larson’s (1988) VP structure and parsing the verb and its complements into a single prosodic constituent using recursive ϕ (but distinguishing ϕ from ϕmax):

(31) ((V XP)ϕ XP)ϕ-max However, as we have argued above, this parse is problematic. The outermost ϕ (i.e., ϕmax) does not parse a lexical XP in current syntactic theory (but rather a phasal vP), contrary to the standard definition of this prosodic constituent. We adapt H&M’s analysis of double object sentences, with the higher VP changed to vP. Further, we follow H&M in assuming that the verb moves to the higher verb (i.e., little v),19 and the vP projection is a phase; it is best mapped to the prosodic phrase ι. It should be noted that under H&M analysis, prosodic recursion does not mirror syntactic recursion in current syntactic theory, for the reasons discussed above when analyzing Chimwiini. Nor does it meet the definition of phonological recursion: each instance of ϕ should be the context for the same phonological processes, yet H&M show that only the ϕmax that maps to the phasal vP domain provides the domain for Downstep, and Downstep only occurs at the juncture between two verbal complements. In short, prosodic recursion is used in their analysis as a technical device to parse the verb and its complements into a prosodic constituent in a way that is not consistent either with current syntactic theory or the usual linguistic definition of recursion. We propose that ϕmax is best reanalyzed as ι, while H&M’s ι is best reanalyzed as ιmax. For one thing, this use of prosodic recursion is justified by the syntax. Recall from Section 2.1 that vP and CP define phasal recursions that are expected to be mirrored by prosodic recursion. The distinction between ι and ιmax is justified by the generalization that there is often a distinction between the prosody found in the ιmax that maps a root clause and the prosody found in an ι that is mapped to a root clause-internal phasal domain. For example, in Kimatuumbi, recall that PTI applies to the final syllable of ι, that is, to CP-internal ι, whereas Final Fall applies to the ιmax that parses the entire sentence (see (29), Languages 2021, 6, 125 15 of 29

above). This analysis motivates the following prosodic parse of the domains for FTS and Downstep:

(32) {{ [Topic } {[ (S)ϕ {[ V (O)ϕ (O)ϕ]vP }ι ]CP}ι ] CP} ι-max We leave the formal analysis to the reader, as it so closely follows the analyses provided Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 30 above for Chimwiini and Kimatuumbi.

3.3. Akan A final case that we willHowever, discuss where as shown recursive in (26),ϕ isPTI used does as not a device apply to between parse a verbal verb complements, as would be plus its complements into a singlepredicted prosodic if PTI constituent had the same is Kügler domain’s (as2015 Shortening;, 2017) analysis notice, of too, that PTI never applies to prosodic domains in Akan (Kwa,a sentence-final Ghana). As syllable: Kügler shows, a process of Regressive Vowel Harmony (RVH) applies not only within words, but also across certain word boundaries. It applies between a verb and a(26) following No PTI object between and complements also between anof the object verb and a following (Truckenbrodt 1995, p. 112) second object or adverb, but not between the subject and a following verb. However, it *… Mamboondó) naa-m-péi ̹ lí̹ Mamboondo kiwikilyo̹ ií̹ ju̹ ma̹ does apply between words within NP. kiwikilyó)̹ iíjumá) These contexts should by nowI-him-gave be familiar NEG from theMamboondo languages discussed cover up to this Friday point, and Kügler gives them the ‘I familiardidn’t give analysis Mamboondoà la Truckenbrodt a cover on( Friday.’1995, 1999 ). ϕ is mapped to lexical XPs, and complements of a verb are mapped to a recursive ϕ that includes the verb: What is required is a mechanism for grouping the verb and its complements into a single prosodic constituent so that the complements are not all targets of PTI, even though (33) (S]NP )ϕ-max (((V O]NP)ϕ O]NP )ϕ Adv]ADVP )ϕ-max they are targets of Shortening. The same algorithm should also account for the other contexts for PTI illustrated in (22) and (25). Truckenbrodt (1995, 1999) proposes that XPs RVH can thus be defined as applying within words and across word boundaries within the verb phrase are parsed into recursive φ’s in Kimatuumbi,17 and that the context within ϕ . max for PTI is the left edge of φ: The usual critique for parsing the verb and its complements into recursive ϕ continues to apply to this example. The outermost recursion of ϕ does not parse a lexical XP, contrary (27) Phrasal Tone Insertion (final version; Truckenbrodt 1995, p. 117, Figure [63]) to the standard definition of this prosodic constituent. Rather, it maps to a phasal XP Align the left edge of every φ with the right edge of a High tone. (e.g., vP or CP) domain in modern syntactic theory.20 Furthermore, prosodic recursion in this analysis does not mirror syntactic recursion in a minimalist analysis, for the reasons As we can see in the schematized sentence in (28), this correctly accounts for the discussed above. Finally, it is not clear why a subject NP should be parsed into ϕ , while context of PTI, if verbal complements are recursivelymax phrased with the verb. PTI correctly verbal complement NPs are parsed as ϕ. All NPs should, all things being equal, be given only applies between the subject and the verb since that is the only locus of a left edge of the same prosodic parse. φ: In contrast, as we have shown, parsing the verb and its complements—a phasal vP in modern syntactic theory—into an ι avoids these conceptual problems. The alternative (28) (S)φ (((V O)φ O)φ Adv)φ parse provided by our approach, given in (34) below, cf. (32), allows the context for RVH to be restated simply as applying regressively within and across ϕ boundaries but not across Although appealing to recursive φ provides a technique that allows the verb and its ι, as expected, since ι is a strong prosodic boundary. The prosodic phrasing for Akan, given complements to be parsed into a single prosodic constituent, it clearly misses below, is essentially identical to that proposed for Bàsàá in (32) above: generalizations about PTI that argue in favor of it being a property of the Intonation (34) {[(S)ϕ {[V (O)ϕ (O)ϕ (Adv)Phraseϕ ]vP (}ɩ)] CPrather} -max than φ. First, PTI is plausibly interpreted as a tonal version of a To sum up this section,continuation we have shown rise that (Cruttenden the syntactic 1981): constituent the non-final that containsmajor constituents a of the sentence end verb and two complements isinphasal a risingvP. Phasalpitch. vThisP is parsedis a common into ι, as thisintonational is the prosodic phenomenon cross-linguistically, constituent which, by definition,including corresponds in other to African a phasal tone syntactic languages domain (see (see papers discussion in Downing and Rialland 2017), of (9), above). This proposaland, allows as uswork to provide such as aNespor similar and prosodic Vogel parse (1986) for and similar Selkirk syn- (2009) argues, the Intonation tactic structures in Akan, Chimwiini,Phrase is Kimatuumbi, the proper domain and Bàs àáfor21 ,such and itphenomen allows thea. prosodic Further, it is striking that elements structure to more closely mirroroutside syntactic the structure,root clause—such since prosodic as preverba recursionl objects is only foundand adverbs and subordinate or when motivated by syntacticcoordinate recursion, clauses—provide to satisfy syntax–prosody the context mapping for PTI. constraints. As work such It as Nespor and Vogel (1986) thus better satisfies the principlesobserves of the(see, Syntax–Prosody too, Hamlaoui Mappingand Szendroï Hypothesis 2015 and (SPMH) Selkirk 2011), these are contexts in (1), above, which require allwhere, prosodic cross-linguistically, categories to be groundedone expects in syntactican Intonation categories, Phrase break. Note that, as in with the default universal prosody–syntaxChimwiini, subjects correspondences and preverbal defined Topics in pattern (9) and together, discussion in this case, as contexts for PTI, following (9). By strictly followingas well theas principlesShortening. of Finally, the SPMH, recall the from proposal the analysis satisfies of the the Chimwiini extended verb requirement that specific syntacticphrase in domains (17), above, will map,that the cross-linguistically, constituent that contains to the same a verb plus its complements in prosodic domains, unless prosodicmodern well-formedness syntactic theory principles is a phasal interfere XP, not witha lexical this XP, default and phasal domains correspond mapping. to ι, as argued for at the beginning of Section 2.2. Truckenbrodt (1995) argues, following Odden (1987), that the context of PTI cannot be ɩ, though, because ɩ is the context for a process that takes a larger domain, namely, Final Fall, which assigns a Low tone to the right edge of certain clauses. We agree that Final Fall is clearly an intonational process. We propose that its context is complementary to that of PTI: PTI applies to the final syllable of a non-final ɩ, while Final Fall applies to the final syllable of the final ɩ in a clause. Following Ito and Mester (2013) and subsequent work, we label the outermost ɩ, the one that parses the entire sentence, “ɩmax”. As schematized in (29), the prosodic analysis of Kimatuumbi thus becomes essentially identical to that sketched for Chimwiini above. Each argument XP is parsed

Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 32

of (9), above). This proposal allows us to provide a similar prosodic parse for similar syntactic structures in Akan, Chimwiini, Kimatuumbi, and Bàsàá21, and it allows the prosodic structureof (9), above). to more This closely proposal mirror allows syntactic us to provide structure, a similar since prosodic parserecursion for similar is only syn- found whentactic structuresmotivated in by Akan, syntactic Chimwiini, recursion, Kimatuumbi, to satisfy syntax–prosodyand Bàsàá21, and itmapping allows the constraints. prosodic It thusstructure better to satisfiesmore closely the principles mirror syntactic of the Systructntax–Prosodyure, since prosodic Mapping recursion Hypothesis is only (SPMH) found in (1),when above, motivated which by require syntactic all recursion, prosodic tocategories satisfy syntax–prosody to be grounded mapping in syntactic constraints. categories, It withthus betterthe default satisfies universal the principles prosody–syntax of the Syntax–Prosody correspondences Mapping defined Hypothesis in (9) and (SPMH) discussion in following(1), above, (9).which By strictlyrequire followingall prosodic the categories principles to of be the grounded SPMH, thein syntactic proposal categories, satisfies the requirementwith the default that universal specific syntacticprosody–syntax domains co willrrespondences map, cross-linguistically, defined in (9) and to thediscussion same pro- Languages 2021, 6, 125 16 of 29 sodicfollowing domains, (9). By unlessstrictly prosodicfollowing well-formedness the principles of theprinciples SPMH, theinterfere proposal with satisfies this default the mapping.requirement that specific syntactic domains will map, cross-linguistically, to the same prosodic domains, unless prosodic well-formedness principles interfere with this default mapping. 4.4. Rethinking Rethinking ϕφ ProsodicProsodic Recursion at at the the Clause Clause Level Level So far, we have discussed cases where the use of recursive φ to parse a verb and its 4. RethinkingSo far, we φ have Prosodic discussed Recursion cases at the where Clause the Level use of recursive ϕ to parse a verb and itscomplements complements was was motivated motivated by the by Larsonian the Larsonian (Larson (Larson 1988) 1988 VP shell,) VP shell,which, which, as we asar- we gued,So must far, webe rethoughthave discussed in the cases light where of deve thelopments use of recursive since 1995 φ toin parse syntactic a verb theory. and its Sur- argued,complements must was be rethought motivated inby thethe lightLarsonian of developments (Larson 1988) sinceVP shell, 1995 which, in syntactic as we ar- theory. prisingly, in some recent analyses, such as Elfner (2015) and Elordieta (2015), recursive φ Surprisingly,gued, must be in rethought some recent in the analyses, light of deve suchlopments as Elfner since(2015 1995) and in Elordieta syntactic( theory.2015), recursiveSur- has even been used to parse an entire root clausal domain, thus abandoning a traditional ϕprisingly,has even in been some used recent to parseanalyses, an entiresuch as root Elfner clausal (2015) domain, and Elordieta thus abandoning (2015), recursive a traditional φ distinction between the types of syntactic constituents that the Phonological Phrase vs. the distinctionhas even been between used to the parse types an entire of syntactic root clausal constituents domain, thus that abandoning the Phonological a traditional Phrase vs. Intonation Phrase correspond to (see (9), above). In so doing, they also abandon funda- thedistinction Intonation between Phrase the types correspond of syntactic to (see consti (9),tuents above). that the In Phonological so doing, they Phrase also vs. abandonthe mental principles of the SPMH (1), namely, that “the principles governing the syntax– fundamentalIntonation Phrase principles correspond of the SPMHto (see (9), (1), above). namely, In that so “thedoing, principles they also governingabandon funda- the syntax– prosody mapping are universal in nature” (Bennett and Elfner 2019, p. 158) and that “the prosodymental principles mapping of are the universal SPMH (1), in nature”namely, (thatBennett “the andprinciples Elfner governing 2019, p. 158) the andsyntax– that “the fundamental syntactic distinctions between clause, phrase and word should be reflected fundamentalprosody mapping syntactic are universal distinctions in nature” between (Be clause,nnett and phrase Elfner and 2019, word p. 158) should and bethat reﬂected “the in, in, and retrieved from, the phonological representation” (Selkirk 2011, p. 440; see (1b)). In andfundamental retrieved from,syntactic the di phonologicalstinctions between representation” clause, phrase (Selkirk and 2011word, p.should 440; seebe reflected (1b)). In more morein, and formal retrieved terms, from, these the phonologicalanalyses violate represen the universaltation” (Selkirk constraints 2011, (seep. 440; (9), see above) (1b)). Inopti- formalmizing terms, a match these (or mutual analyses alignment) violate the between universal the constraintsIntonation Phrase (see (9), and above) Clause/phase, optimizing amore match formal (or mutual terms, these alignment) analyses between violate thethe universal Intonation constraints Phrase and (see Clause/phase, (9), above) opti- unless unlessmizing higher-rankeda match (or mutual prosodic alignment) constraints between motivate the Intonation misalignment. Phrase In and this Clause/phase, section, we cri- higher-ranked prosodic constraints motivate misalignment. In this section, we critique this tiqueunless this higher-ranked use of recursive prosodic φ in constraintsElfner’s (2015) motivate analysis misalignment. of Connemara In this Irish section, and Elordieta’s we cri- use of recursive ϕ in Elfner’s (2015) analysis of Connemara Elordieta’s (2015) analysis of (2015)tique this analysis use of of recursive Basque. φ in Elfner’s (2015) analysis of Connemara Irish and Elordieta’s Basque.(2015) analysis of Basque. 4.1. Recursive φ in Connemara Irish 4.1. Recursive ϕ in Connemara Irish 4.1. RecursiveElfner (2015) φ in Connemaraprovides a Irish detailed discussion of the distribution of two phrase accents in ConnemaraElfnerElfner( 2015(2015) Irish,) providesprovides LH and a a detailed detailedHL. The discussion distribution discussion of of theof theLH distribution distributionand HL isof illustrated two of twophrase phrase in accents the accentsVSO insentencein Connemara Connemara in (36), Irish, below, LH LH whereand and HL. HL. the The Thesubject distribution distribution and object of LH ofDPs LHand consist and HL HLis of illustrated a is noun illustrated followed in the in VSO theby an VSO sentenceadjective.sentence inin As (36), we below, below,can see, where where HL theis thefound subject subject at and theand object right object DPsedge consist DPs of every consist of a DP. noun of LH afollowed nounis found followed by at an the by anbeginningadjective. adjective. As of wethe As can weclause see, can ( ΣHL see,P in is HL thefound issyntactic found at the atanalysisright the edge right that of edge Elfnerevery of DP.adopts) every LH isand DP. found LHat the isat begin- foundthe at theningbeginning beginning of TP ofin the a ofVSO clause the sentence clause (ΣP in ( likeΣtheP syntactic inthe the one syntactic in analysis (35), represented analysisthat Elfner that inadopts) (36a,b): Elfner and adopts) at the begin- and at the beginningning of TP ofin TPa VSO in a sentence VSO sentence like the likeone thein (35), one represented in (35), represented in (36a,b): in (36a,b): (35) díolfaidh leabharlannaí dathúil blathanna áille (35) díolfaidhsell.FUT leabharlannaílibrarian dathúil handsome blathannaflowers áillebeautiful. PL sell. ‘A handsomeFUT librarianlibrarian will sell beautiful handsome flowers.’ flowers beautiful.PL ‘A handsome librarian will sell beautiful flowers.’

(36)(36) Recursive Recursive ϕφ mappingmapping in in Connemara Connemara Irish Irish (VSO (VSO sentences) sentences)(Elfner (Elfner 2015, p.2015, 1178) p. 1178) (36) Recursivea. φ mapping in Connemara Irishb. (VSO sentences) (Elfner 2015, p. 1178) a. b.

The corresponding prosodic category defining the domain of HL realization is straightforwardly ϕ, the same domain, defined in a similar way, as was relevant for the final High

tone assignment in Chimwiini, Shortening in Kimatuumbi, and HTS in Bàsàá. Applying the principles of the SPMH, ι appears to be a good candidate for the category deﬁning the domain of LH. It is anchored to a larger syntactic domain than an XP argument and the prosodic domain contains ϕ in the sense that every ϕ ends with an HL melody, but not every ϕ begins with an LH melody. As we can see in (36b), though, Elfner(2015) proposes that ΣP and TP are parsed into recursive ϕ’s. To better understand her motivation for the parse, we need to look at additional data. As Elfner shows, all of the prosodic phrases that are initiated with LH must satisfy a binary minimality requirement. To illustrate, even though the subject and object are prosodiﬁed together in a V S O sentence like the one in (36), they are not phrased together Languages 2021, 6, 125 17 of 29

Languages 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 32

579 in a V S DO IO sentence, as shown in (37). Note the LH at the beginning of the prosodic 580 domain containing both objects: (37)(37) RecursiveRecursive phrasingphrasing inin aa VV SS DODO IOIO sentencesentence ((ElfnerElfner 2015:2015, [1184]) p. 1184) a. díolfaidh rúnaí dathúil blathanna áille le daoine anamúla sell.FUT secretary handsome flowers beautiful.PL with people animated.PL ‘A handsome secretary will sell beautiful flowers to animated people.’ b. c.

Languages 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 31

b. c.

581 582 ComparingComparing (36) and (36) (37), and we (37), can wesee canthat seeif there that were if there an LH were between an LH the between S and O thein (36), S and then O LH in 583 (36),would then occur LH at would the left occur edge at of the a constituent left edge ofparsed a constituent into a single parsed φ, the into one a singleparsingϕ ,O. the This one is 579584 apparently non-optimal. Notice that in (36) and (37), each LH domain dominates at least two φ’s. 580 parsing O. This is apparently non-optimal. Notice that in (36) and (37), each LH domain 585 ComparingParsing S and (36) O and together (37), weinto can a larg seeer that prosodic if there constituent, were an LH as between in (36), theallows S and the O prosodic in (36), thenconstituent LH 581 dominateswould occur at at least the twoleft edgeϕ’s. of Parsing a constituent S and Oparsed together into a into single a larger φ, the prosodic one parsing constituent, O. This is as 586 which defines the domain for LH to contain two φ’s, a common type of binary minimality 582 inapparently (36), allows non-optimal. the prosodic Notice constituent that in (36) thatand (37), defines each theLH domaindomain dominates for LH to at contain least two two φ’s.ϕ ’s, 587 requirement (Ghini 1993, Inkelas and Zec 1995, Prieto 2005, Selkirk 2011). 583 aParsing common S and type O together of binary into minimality a larger prosodic requirement constituent, (Ghini as in (36),1993 allows; Inkelas the prosodic and Zec constituent 1995; Prieto 588 The importance of binary minimality in defining the optimal parse of prosodic domains in 584 2005which; Selkirk defines 2011 the ).domain for LH to contain two φ’s, a common type of binary minimality 589 Connemara Irish is confirmed by an additional example. Even though the V is prosodified outside 585 requirement (Ghini 1993, Inkelas and Zec 1995, Prieto 2005, Selkirk 2011). 590 the prosodicThe importance domain of of the binary subject minimality in a V S O sentence in defining like the the one optimal in (36), parseit is prosodified of prosodic with do- the 586 The importance of binary minimality in defining the optimal parse of prosodic domains in 591 mainssubject in inConnemara a V S O sentence Irish where is confirmed the subject bydoes an not additional branch (because example. the subject Even noun though phrase the is V not is 587 Connemara Irish is confirmed by an additional example. Even though the V is prosodified outside 592 prosodifiedmodified by outsidean adjective), the prosodic as shown domainin (39b). As of Elfn theer subject (2015) inobserves, a V S Othe sentence prosodic likeanalysis the onein (39b) in 588 the prosodic domain of the subject in a V S O sentence like the one in (36), it is prosodified with the 593 (36),suggests it is prosodifiedthat φ is subject with to thea binary subject minimality in a V S condition, O sentence formalized where the in (38): subject does not branch 589 subject in a V S O sentence where the subject does not branch (because the subject noun phrase is not 594 (because the subject noun phrase is not modified by an adjective), as shown in (39b). As 590 modified by an adjective), as shown in (39b). As Elfner (2015) observes, the prosodic analysis in (39b) ϕ 591 Elfnersuggests(38) (2015B thatINARY) φ observes, is-M subjectINIMUM theto( φa): prosodicbinary a φ minimalityconstituent analysis condition,in in the (39b) prosodic formalized suggests representation in that (38): is subject must dominate to a binary a 592 minimality minimum condition, of two formalized PWords. in (38): 595 (38)(38) BBINARYINARY-MINIMUMINIMUM(φ(ϕ): ):a aφϕ constituentconstituent in in the prosodicprosodic representationrepresentation mustmust dominatedominate aa 596 This constraint favors a parse where V and S (each consisting of a single PWord) are contained in the minimumminimum ofof two PWords PWords.. 593597 same φ. As noted above, the domain for LH must contain at least two φ, a requirement that is also 594598 satisfied in (39b): This Thisconstraint constraint favors a favors parse where a parse V and where S (each V andconsisting S (each of a consisting single PWord) of aare single contained PWord) in the are 595599 same φ. As noted above, the domain for LH must contain at least two φ, a requirement that is also contained in the same ϕ. As noted above, the domain for LH must contain at least two ϕ, 596 satisfied in (39b): 597 a requirement that is also satisfied in (39b): (39)(39) Recursive phrasing phrasing in in a a V V S S O O sentence sentence with with non-branching non-branching S S (Elfner (Elfner 2015 2015:, pp. [1198, 1198, 1199]) 1199) a. ΣP[ Cheannaigh TP[ DP[ múinteoirí] VP[ DP[ máláí bána]]]] bought teachers bags white.PL ‘Teachers bought white bags.’ b. Proposed prosodic representation for VSO with non-branching subject (= Elfner’s [42])

598 The generalization that emerges from the data is that LH only occurs at the left edge 599 ofThe a domaingeneralization that containsthat emerges minimally from the data two isϕ that’s. LH only occurs at the left edge of a domain that 600 contains minimally two φ’s. 601 To account for this generalization, Elfner (2015: [1170]) proposes that the LH accent “appears 602 only in the presence of recursive prosodic structure.” This is the structure shown in the Languages 2021, 6, 125 18 of 29

To account for this generalization, Elfner(2015, p. 1170) proposes that the LH accent

Languages“appears 2020 only, 5, x FOR in the PEER presence REVIEW of recursive prosodic structure”. This is the structure shown20 of 31 in the representations above. However, there are reasons to be skeptical of this use of 603 representationsprosodic recursion. above. First, However, binarity there minimality are reasons requirements to be skeptical usually of this evaluateuse of prosodic two different recursion. 604 First,levelsLanguages binarity of 2020 the, 5 , prosodicxminimality FOR PEER hierarchy.REVIEW requirements For example, usually aevaluate PWord two binary different minimality levels orof maximality the20 ofprosodic 31 605 hierarchy.requirement For example, is satisfied a PWord (or not) binary depending minimality on or how maximality many syllables requirement or morasis satisfied it parses (or not) 606603 depending(representationsMcCarthy on and how above. Prince many However, 1986syllables). Binary there or moras are minimality reasons it parses to orbe(McCarthy maximalityskeptical ofand this forPrince useϕ isof 1986). satisfiedprosodic Binary recursion. depending minimality 607604 oronFirst, maximality how binarity many for minimality PWords φ is satisfied it parsesrequirements depending (Elfner usually 2015 on how; Ghinievaluate many 1993 PWortwo; Inkelas dsdifferent it parses and levels Zec (Elfner 1995of the2015,; Prieto prosodic Ghini 2005 1993, ; 608605 InkelasSelkirkhierarchy. and 2000 For Zec, 2011example, 1995,). Thus,Prieto a PWord if2005, LH binary Selkirk initiates minimality 2000, a prosodic 2011). or maximalityThus, structure if LH requirement that initiates must a includeprosodicis satisfied at structure least(or not) two that 609606 mustϕdepending’s, include the appropriate on at how least many two prosodic syllablesφ’s, the or categoryappropriate moras it parsingparses prosodic (McCarthy the category domain and parsingPrince is the 1986). onethe domain thatBinary dominates minimality is the one ϕ that, 607 or maximality for φ is satisfied depending on how many PWords it parses (Elfner 2015, Ghini 1993, 610 dominatesnamely, ι .φ, namely, ι. 608 Inkelas and Zec 1995, Prieto 2005, Selkirk 2000, 2011). Thus, if LH initiates a prosodic structure that 611 Second,Second, one one also also finds finds the the problems problems identified identified in the inthe preceding preceding discussions discussions with with the use the of 609 must include at least two φ’s, the appropriate prosodic category parsing the domain is the one that 612 prosodicuse of prosodic φ recursionϕ recursion in Elfner’s inanalysis. Elfner’s The analysis. outermost The recursion outermost is anchored recursion to a is root anchored clause, not to a 610 dominates φ, namely, ι. 613 lexicala root XP. clause, This notparse a lexicalalso means XP. Thisthat Connemara parse also meansIrish does that not Connemara have both φ Irish and doesι, thus not violating have a 611 Second, one also finds the problems identified in the preceding discussions with the use of ϕ ι 614612 centralbothprosodic principleand φ recursion, thus of the violatingin SPMH Elfner’s (1). aanalysis. centralIn addition, The principle outermost there ofis clear therecursion SPMHevidence is anchored (1). that In the addition, to XP a root argument-anchored clause, there isnot clear a 615613 prosodicevidencelexical XP. domains thatThis theparse are XP also associated argument-anchored means that with Connemara different prosodic Irish prosodic does domains not correlates have are both than associated φ and the ι , domainsthus with violating different that aparse 616614 phasalprosodiccentral structures. principle correlates of Eachthe thanSPMH XP the argument-anchored(1). domainsIn addition, that ther parsee isφ clear domain phasal evidence is structures. followed that the XP by Eachargument-anchored HL, XPwhile argument- the larger 617615 domains,anchoredprosodic whichdomainsϕ domain must are contain associated is followed at least with bytwo different HL, φ’s,while are pr associatedosodic the largercorrelates with domains, initial than theLH. whichdomains As a result, must that recursive containparse φ 618616 domainsatphasal least structures. twoare notϕ’s, associated areEach associated XP argument-anchoredwith the with same initial prosod LH.φ domainy, As which a result,is manyfollowed recursive consider by HL, ϕproblematic, whiledomains the larger are as notnoted 619617 above.associateddomains, which with must the contain same prosody, at least two which φ’s, are many associated consider with problematic, initial LH. As a as result, noted recursive above. φ 620618 domainsWeWe propose, propose,are not associatedthen, then, that that withφnon-minϕ thenon-min insame Elfner’sin prosod Elfner’s analysisy, which analysis be many reanalyzed be consider reanalyzed as problematic, ι. Following as ι. Following as Cheng noted and 621619 DowningChengabove. and (2016), Downing the left( edge2016 ),of thea phase, left edge CP or of vP a maps phase, asymmetrically CP or vP maps to ι.asymmetrically However, as we tohave 622620 seen,ι. However, ιWe, like propose, φ, is as subject wethen, have that to aφ seen, binarynon-min ιin, minimality like Elfner’sϕ, isanalysis subjectconstraint be to reanalyzed in a binaryConnemara as minimality ι. Following Irish, formalized constraint Cheng and in in(40), 621 623 leadingConnemaraDowning to mismatches(2016), Irish, the formalizedleft between edge of prosodica in phase, (40), CP categories leading or vP maps to and mismatches asymmetrically the syntactic between ones to ι. theyHowever, prosodic are anchored as categorieswe have to. 622 seen, ι, like φ, is subject to a binary minimality constraint in Connemara Irish, formalized in (40), 624 and the syntactic ones they are anchored to. 623 leading to mismatches between prosodic categories and the syntactic ones they are anchored to. (40) BINARY-MINIMUM(ι): an ι constituent in the prosodic representation must dominate a 624 (40) BINARY-MINIMUM(ι): an ι constituent in the prosodic representation must dominate a minimum of two φ’s. (40) minimumBINARY-MINIMUM of two (ϕι):’s. an ι constituent in the prosodic representation must dominate a 625 minimum of two φ’s. 626 The interaction of syntactically-anchored prosodic alignment and prosodic constraints yields the 625 The interaction of syntactically anchored prosodic alignment and prosodic constraints 627 following parses of the structures in (36), (37) and (39), adopting the definitions of ι and φ discussed 626 yieldsThe the interaction following of syntactically-anchored parses of the structures prosodic in (36), alignment (37), and and (39),prosodic adopting constraints the definitionsyields the 628 for (9), above: 627 offollowingι and ϕ parsesdiscussed of the structures for (9) above: in (36), (37) and (39), adopting the definitions of ι and φ discussed 629628 for (9), above: 629 (41) a. V S O, branching subject and object – cf. (36) (41) a. { [ VΣP S O, V branching { ( [ N subject A] and )φ object ( [vP [ N – A]cf. (36))φ ] }ι ] }ι { [ΣP LH V { ( [ NLH A]HL )φ ( [vP [ N A]HL )φ ] }ι ] }ι b. V S O,LH non-branching LH subjecHL t, branching HLobject – cf. (39) b. { V[Σ SP O, V non-branching [ N ] ) φ ( subjec[vP [ t, Nbranching A] ) φ object] }ι ] }ι – cf. (39) { [ΣP LH V HL [ N ] ) φ ( [vP [ N A]HL ) φ ] } ι ] }ι c. V S DO LH IO HL – cf. (37) HL c. V S DO IO – cf. (37) { [ΣP V { ([ N A] ) φ { [vP ([ N A] ) φ ([N A] ) φ ] }ι ] }ι { [ΣP V { ([ N A] ) φ { [vP ([ N A] ) φ ([N A] ) φ ] }ι ] }ι LH LH HL LH HL HL LH LH HL LH HL HL 630 630 Note that, in the majority of the cases in (41), ι is left-aligned with ϕ. However, as we 631 631 NoteseeNote inthat, that, (41a) in in the andthe majoritymajority (41c), it of is thethe often cases cases optimal in in (41), (41), ι in isι is left-aligned Connemara left-aligned with Irishwith φ. However,φ for. However, the V as to we beas seewe parsed in see (41a) in outside (41a) and and 632 (41c), it is often optimal in Connemara Irish for the V to be parsed outside of the initial φ, in violation 632 of(41c), the it initial is oftenϕ optimal, in violation in Connemara of STRONG Irish forSTART the V(19), to be sinceparsed V outside is only of parsed the initial with φ, in a violation following 633 TRONG TART 633 ofDPof S S toTRONG satisfySSTARTϕ (19),(19),minimality since VV isis(see onlyonly (41b)).parsed parsed with with a followinga following DP DP to satisfyto satisfy φ minimality φ minimality (see (41b)).(see (41b)). 634634 TheThe formal formal formal analysisanalysis analysis of eacheach of each of of these these of thesesentence sentence sentence type types iss typesexemplifiedis exemplified is exemplified in the in thetableaux tableaux in the in (42) tableaux in –(42) (44). – in(44). 635 635 We(42)–(44).We begin begin with with We the beginthe analysisanalysis with ofof the sentencesentence analysis type type of (41a): sentence(41a): type (41a): 636636 (42)(42) V V S S O, O, branching branching subject and and object object – cf. – cf. (36) (36)

[Σ[PΣ PV V [ [ N N A]A] [[vvP [ N A]A] ]] ]] BINBINMINM(INΙ) (Ι) BINBMININM(ΦIN) (Φ)S TRONGSTRONG A LIGNALLIGN LA LIGNALLIGN L STARTSTART (P HASE(PHASE, Ι) , Ι()Φ ,XP)( Φ,XP) a. { [ΣP V { ( [ N A] )φ ( [vP [ N A] )φ ]}ι ]}ι * * a. { [ΣP V { ( [ N A] )φ ( [vP [ N A] )φ ]}ι ]}ι * * b. { [ΣP V ( [ N A] )φ { [vP ([ N A] )φ ]}ι ]}ι *! ** b. { [ΣP V ( [ N A] )φ { [vP ([ N A] )φ ]}ι ]}ι *! ** c. ([ΣP V ([ N A])φ ([vP ([ N A] ])φ ])φ ])φ * **! ** c. ([ΣP V ([ N A])φ ([vP ([ N A] ])φ ])φ ])φ * **! ** 637 637 Languages 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 32

(41) a. V S O, branching subject and object – cf. (36) { [ΣP V { ( [ N A] )φ ( [vP [ N A] )φ ] }ι ] }ι LH LH HL HL b. V S O, non-branching subject, branching object – cf. (39) { [ΣP V [ N ] ) φ ( [vP [ N A] ) φ ] }ι ] }ι LH HL HL c. V S DO IO – cf. (37) { [ΣP V { ([ N A] ) φ { [vP ([ N A] ) φ ([N A] ) φ ] }ι ] }ι LH LH HL LH HL HL 632 633 Note that, in the majority of the cases in (41), ι is left-aligned with φ. However, as we see in (41a) and 634 (41c), it is often optimal in Connemara Irish for the V to be parsed outside of the initial φ, in violation 635 of STRONGSTART (19), since V is only parsed with a following DP to satisfy φ minimality (see (41b)). 636 The formal analysis of each of these sentence types is exemplified in the tableaux in (42) – (44). 637 We begin with the analysis of sentence type (41a): 638 (42) V S O, branching subject and object – cf. (36)

[ΣP V [ N A] [vP [ N A] ] ] BINMIN(Ι) BINMIN(Φ) STRONG ALIGNL ALIGNL START (PHASE, Ι) (Φ,XP)

a. { [ΣP V { ( [ N A] )φ ( [vP [ N A] )φ ]}ι ]}ι * * { [ΣP V ( [ N A] )φ { [vP ([ N A] )φ ]}ι ]}ι ** *! Languages 2021, 6, 125 b. 19 of 29 c. ([ΣP V ([ N A])φ ([vP ([ N A] ])φ ])φ ])φ * **! ** 639 640 In (42), the purely syntactically-motivated prosodic parse in (42b) is non-optimal, as it would violate 641 Languagesthe binaryIn (42),2020 minimality, 5 the, x FOR purely PEER requirement REVIEW syntactically for the motivated inner ι, the one prosodic left-aligned parse with in (42b)vP in this is non-optimal, parse. Candidate21 of as31 642 it(42a) would is optimal, violate as the it satisfies binary both minimality high-ranked requirement prosodic minimality for the inner constraints,ι, the one while left-aligned violating a 638643 withInlower-ranked (42),vP the in purely this syntactic parse. syntactically-motivated alignment Candidate co (42a)nstraint. prosodic is optimal,Candidate parse as (42c), in it (42b) satisfies the is parse non-optimal, both proposed high-ranked as in it Elfner would prosodic (2015) violate – 639644 minimalitythecf. (36),binary above minimality constraints – is non-optimal, requirement while as violatingfor neither the inner of a theι lower-ranked, the phasal one left-aligned constituents syntactic with is vparsedP alignment in this into parse. an constraint. CandidateIntonation 640645 Candidate(42a)Phrase, is optimal,even (42c), though as the it satisfiesno parse higherproposed both ranked high-ranked inconstraint Elfner prosodic(2015 motivates)—cf. minimality this (36), mismatch. above—isconstraints, Instead, non-optimal, while violatingthe phasal as a 641646 neitherlower-rankedconstituents of the are syntactic phasalparsed alignmentinto constituents Phonological constraint. is parsedPhrases Candidate intoin (36), an(42c), violating Intonation the parse ALIGN Phrase,proposedL(Φ,XP). even inAll Elfner candidates though (2015) no in – 642 647 higher-rankedcf.this (36), tableau above violate – constraintis Snon-optimal,TRONGSTART motivates ,as since neither in this all of candidates mismatch.the phasal the constituents Instead, outermost the Intonationis phasalparsed into constituentsPhrase an Intonationstarts with are 643 Phrase, even though no higher ranked constraint motivates this mismatch. Instead, the phasal 648 parsedmaterial into – the Phonological verb – which Phrasesis unparsed in (36), into violatinga prosodicA constituent.LIGNL(ϕ,XP). UnparsedAll candidatesstarting material in this is 644 constituents are parsed into Phonological Phrases in (36), violating ALIGNL(Φ,XP). All candidates in 649 tableaunecessarily violate lower SrankedTRONG inS theTART Prosodicsince Hierarchy in all candidates, than a following the outermost Phonological Intonation Phrase (42b, Phrase c) or 645 this tableau violate STRONGSTART, since in all candidates the outermost Intonation Phrase starts with 650 startsIntonation with Phrase material—the (42a). verb—which is unparsed into a prosodic constituent. Unparsed 646651 material – the verb – which is unparsed into a prosodic constituent. Unparsed starting material is starting The materialanalysis of is sentence necessarily type (41b) lower is exemplified ranked inthe in (43): Prosodic Hierarchy than a following 647652 necessarily lower ranked in the Prosodic Hierarchy than a following Phonological Phrase (42b, c) or Phonological Phrase (42b, c) or Intonation Phrase (42a). 648653 Intonation Phrase (42a). The analysis of sentence type (41b) is exemplified in (43): 649654 The analysis of sentence type (41b) is exemplified in (43): 650 (43) V S O, non-branching subject, branching object – cf. (39) (43) V S O, non-branching subject, branching object – cf. (39) [ΣP V [ N ] [vP [ N A] ] ] BINMIN(Ι) BINMIN(Φ) STRONG ALIGNL [ΣP V [ N ] [vP [ N A] ] ] BINMIN(Ι) BINMIN(Φ) SSTRONGTART (PAHASELIGNL, Ι ) START (PHASE, Ι) a. { [ΣP ( V [ N ] ) φ ( [vP [ N A] ) φ ] ] }ι *  ΣP φ vP φ ι b.a. { [ΣP ( V V ( [ N ] ) φ ( [ { ( [ vNP [ A]N A]) ]) ]φ }] }ι ] }ι *! * * * b. { [ΣP V ( [ N ] ) φ { ( [vP [ N A] ) φ ] }ι ] }ι *! * * c. { [ΣP (V [ N ] ) φ { ( [vP [ N A] ) φ ] }ι ] }ι *! * c. { [ΣP (V [ N ] ) φ { ( [vP [ N A] ) φ ] }ι ] }ι *! * d. (([ΣP V [ N ])φ ([vP [ N A])φ ] ])φ **! 655 d. (([ΣP V [ N ])φ ([vP [ N A])φ ] ])φ **! The role of binarity at the level of both ϕ and ι is illustrated in (43). The subject 651656 The role of binarity at the level of both φ and ι is illustrated in (43). The subject and verb are not and verb are not separated by either a ϕ boundary or an ι boundary in this case, even 652657 Theseparated role of by binarity either aat φ the boundary level of or both an ιφ boundary and ι is illustrated in this case, in even(43). thoughThe subject this wouldand verb satisfy are notthe though this would satisfy the syntactically motivated alignment constraints. Rather they 653658 separatedsyntactically-motivated by either a φ boundaryalignment or constraints. an ι boundary Rather in this they case, are evenparsed though into thisa single would φ satisfyto satisfy the are parsed into a single ϕ to satisfy BINMIN(ϕ). This has the added advantage of satisfying 654659 syntactically-motivatedBINMIN(Φ). This has the alignmentadded advantage constraints. of satisfying Rather minimalitythey are parsed at the intoι level a (BsingleINM INφ( Ι)),to assatisfy well minimality at the ι level (BINMIN(ι)), as well as STRONGSTART (all of the material parsed 655660 BasIN SMTRONGIN(Φ).S ThisTART has. (All the of added the material advantage parsed of satisfying by the oute minimalityrmost Intonation at the ι level Phrase (BIN Mis INexhaustively(Ι)), as well 656 byas theSTRONG outermostSTART. (All Intonation of the material Phrase parsed is exhaustively by the oute parsedrmost Intonation into successive Phrase is Phonological exhaustively 657 Phrases,parsed into which successive are equal Phonological in the Prosodic Phrases, which Hierarchy). are equal Candidate in the Prosodic (43d), Hierarchy.) the parse proposedCandidate 658 in(43d), Elfner the( parse2015)—cf. proposed (39), in above—is Elfner (2015) non-optimal, – cf. (39), above as neither– is non-optimal, of the phasal as neither constituents of the phasal is 659 parsedconstituents into anis parsed Intonation into Phrase,an Intonation even thoughPhrase, BevenINM thoughIN(ι) only BINM motivatesIN(Ι) only onemotivates mismatch. one 660 Inmismatch. addition, In theaddition, phasal the constituents phasal constituents are parsed are pa intorsed Phonologicalinto Phonological Phrases Phrases in in (39), (39), violating violating 661 AALIGNL(L(Φϕ,XP).,XP). 662 The analysis analysis ofof sentence sentence type type (41c) (41c) is exemplified is exemplified in (44):in (44): 663 (44) V S DO IO – cf. (37); only crucial constraints included for ease of exposition

[ΣP V [ N A] [vP ([ N A] [N A] ] ] BIN BIN STRONG ALIGNL ALIGNL MIN(Ι) MIN(Φ) START (PHASE, Ι) (I,PHASE)

a. { [ΣP V {([ N A] ) φ { [vP ([ N A] ) φ ([N A])φ ]}ι ]}ι * *

b. { [ΣP V ([ N A])φ { [vP ([ N A])φ ([N A])φ ]}ι ]}ι **!

c. ( [ΣP V ([ N A])φ ([vP ([ N A])φ ([N A])φ ]) φ ])φ * *!* 664 The tableau in (44) shows how the constraint STRONGSTART can play a role in deciding 665 The tableau in (44) shows how the constraint STRONGSTART can play a role in deciding the winning the winning candidate. The optimal candidate in (44a) has one more ι than expected based 666 candidate. The optimal candidate in (44a) has one more ι than expected based in a purely ι ι 667 onsyntactically-motivated a purely syntactically Phase- motivatedι mapping:Phase- the pre-subjectmapping: ι boundary the pre-subject is not motivatedboundary by the syntactic is not 668 motivatedstructure, as by the the subject syntactic is not preceded structure, by as a phase the subject edge. As is notshown, preceded STRONG bySTART a phase (19) can edge. account As 669 shown,for this mismatch.STRONGS TheTART non-optimal(19) can account parse in for (44b) this vi mismatch.olates this constraint The non-optimal twice, as the parse outermost in (44b) ι 670 violatesbegins with this an constraint unparsed V twice, followed as the by outermosta φ followedι bybegins an ι. That with is, an each unparsed of the first V followedtwo daughters by a 671 ϕof followedthe outermost by anι areι .lower That in is, the each Prosodic of the Hierarchy ﬁrst two than daughters the constituent of the that outermost follows it. ιTheare optimal lower 672 inparse the in Prosodic (44a) better Hierarchy satisfies S thanTRONG theSTART constituent by reducing that the follows number it.of prosodically The optimal weak parse elements in (44a) at 673 betterthe start satisﬁes of the outermostSTRONG ιS, TARTwhile byalso reducing improving the the numberleft alignment of prosodically between the weakφ containing elements the 674 atsubject the startand an of ι. the Candidate outermost (44c),ι thewhile parse also proposed improving in Elfner the (2015) left alignment– cf. (37), above between – incurs the theϕ 675 containingsame number the of S subjectTRONGS andTART anviolationsι. Candidate as (44a). (44c), However, the parseit is non-optimal, proposed as in neither Elfner of(2015 the phasal)—cf. (37), above—incurs the same number of STRONGSTART violations as (44a). However, it is non-optimal, as neither of the phasal constituents is parsed into an Intonation Phrase, even though no higher-ranked constraint motivates this mismatch.22 Languages 2021, 6, 125 20 of 29

To sum up, an analysis in which recursions of ϕ that map to phasal domains are instead mapped to ι yields a prosodic parse that better satisﬁes the core principles of the SPMH in (1). Prosodic categories are mapped to the canonical corresponding syntactic categories deﬁned in (9) unless well-motivated prosodic principles such as binary minimality and STRONGSTART interfere with the syntactically anchored mapping.23 As a result, prosodic recursion mirrors syntactic recursion in this re-analysis, and the core distinction between phrase and clause is represented in the output of the prosodic grammar.

4.2. Recursive ϕ in Basque Elordieta(2015) develops an analysis of the distribution of downstep and upstep/partial reset within vP in Northern Biscayan Basque, a tonal accent language spoken in Spain. LanguagesThe 2020 four, 5, x patterns FOR PEER toREVIEW be accounted for are illustrated in (45), where a downward arrow23 of 32 (↓) represents downstep and an upward arrow (↑) represents upstep/partial reset: 694 (45) (45) BasqueBasque patterns patterns to be to beaccounted accounted for for (Elordieta (Elordieta 2015: 2015 ,[53]) p. 53) a. Type A: [[[[N ↓N] [↓N]]DP [↓V]VP]vP]TP [[[[ Mirénen ↓ lagúnen] [↓ liburúak]]DP [↓ gustaten dxáraz]VP]vP]TP Miren-GEN.SG friend-GEN.PL v book-ABS.PL like AUX ‘I like Miren’s friends’ books.’ 695 b. Type B: [[[[N ↓N] [↑N ↓A]]DP [↓V]VP]vP]TP [[[[Mirénen ↓lagúnen] [↑libúru ↓lodídxak]]DP [↓gustaten dxáraz]VP]vP]TP Miren-GEN.SG friend-GEN.PL book thick-ABS.PL like AUX ‘I like Miren’s friends’ thick books.’ 696 c. Type C: [[N ↓N]DP [[↑N]DP [↓V]VP]vP]TP [[[Mirénen ↓amúmari]DP [↑liburúak]DP [↓emon dótzez]VP]vP]TP Miren-GEN.SG grandmother-DAT.SG book-ABS.PL give AUX ‘They have given the books to Miren’s grandmother.’ 697 d. Type D: [[N ↓N]DP [[↑↑N ↓A]DP [↓V]VP]vP]TP [[[Mirénen ↓amúmari]DP [↑↑libúru ↓lodídxak]DP [↓emon dótzez]VP]vP]TP Miren-GEN.SG grandmother-DAT.SG book thick-ABS.PL give AUX ‘They have given the thick books to Miren’s grandmother.’ 698 699 Elordieta (2015:Elordieta 53, (fig.2015 [3]), p. observes 53, Figure that [3]) the observes data in (45) that illustrates the data inthe (45) following illustrate generalizations the following 700 concerningLanguagesgeneralizations the2020 distribution, 5, x FOR concerning PEER ofREVIEW downstepthe distribution and upstep/partial of downstep reset: and upstep/partial reset:23 of 31 701 (46)(46) a. a. Within Within a DP, a DP, downstep downstep applies applies to anyto any accented accented word word following following another another accented accented word, word, exceptexcept in the in thecases cases described described in (b).in (b). b. b. When When the thehead head noun noun is followed is followed by bya modi a modifier,fier, it showsit shows pitch pitch reset, reset, not not downstep downstep (cf. (cf. typetype B). B). c. c. Pitch Pitch reset reset is also is also observed observed at theat the left left edge edge of ofa verbal a verbal projection projection when when it itcontains contains a aDP DP precedingpreceding the theV (cf. V (cf. types types C, D).C, D). d. d. Types Types B and B and C present C present a similar a similar degree degree of pitchof pitch reset. reset. However, However, a highera higher degree degree of of pitch pitch resetreset is observed is observed in typein type D, D,that that is, is,at theat the left left edge edge of ofa two-worda two-word DP DP which which is is at at the the left left edgeedge of a of verbal a verbal projection. projection. 698 702 The principles of the SPMH in (1) and (9) suggest the following prosodic algorithm 699 The principles of the SPMH in (1) and (9) suggest the following prosodic algorithm to account 703 The principles of the SPMH in (1) and (9) suggest the following prosodic algorithmϕ 24 to account 700 forto these account generalizations. for these generalizations. Each XP argument Eachis mapped XP argument to φ.24 The isdomain mapped for downstep to . The and domainpartial 704 for these generalizations. Each XP argument is mappedι to φ.24 The domain for downstep and partial 701 resetfor downstepwould be ι. This and is partial not only reset the prosodic would becategory. This that is notis mapped only the to phasal prosodic domains, category like vP that and is 705 reset would be ι. This is not only the prosodic category that is mapped to phasal domains, like vP and 702 CP,mapped but it is to also phasal the most domains, plausible such prosodic as vP domain and CP, for but intonati it isonal also phenomena the most plausible like downstep prosodic and 706 CP, but it is also the most plausible prosodic domain for intonational phenomena like downstep and 703 partialdomain reset for (see intonational also discussion phenomena in section such 3 on asKimatuumbi downstep and and Bàsàá). partial We reset follow (see Elordieta also discussion (2015: 707 partial reset (see also discussion in section 3 on Kimatuumbi and Bàsàá). We follow Elordieta (2015: 704 61)in Sectionand the 3work on Kimatuumbicited therein in and assuming B àsàá ).that: We (i) follow the verb Elordieta in Basque(2015 remains, p. 61) in-situ, and the and work the 708 61) and the work cited therein in assuming that: (i) the verb in Basque remains in-situ, and the 705 auxiliarycited therein merges in with assuming the verb thatpost-syntactically (i) the verb inas a Basque prosodic remains clitic, parsed in situ, as a and PWord the with auxiliary the 709 auxiliary merges with the verb post-syntactically as a prosodic clitic, parsed as a PWord with the 706 verb;merges and with(ii) determiners the verb post-syntacticallyand case makers in Basque as a prosodic are morphologically clitic, parsed and as prosodically a PWord with affixes the 710 verb; and (ii) determiners and case makers in Basque are morphologically and prosodically affixes 707 onverb; the word and (ii)that determiners precedes them and within case the makers DP. In in other Basque words, are the morphologically terminal D node andwould prosodically be empty 711 on the word that precedes them within the DP. In other words, the terminal D node would be empty 708 in prosodic structure, and therefore, in the case of Mirén-en in (47b), it cannot be mapped as an 712 in prosodic structure, and therefore, in the case of Mirén-en in (47b), it cannot be mapped as an 709 independent φ. (See Elordieta 2015:61 for more discussion.) Our analysis yields the prosodic parses 713710 independentin (47) – (50), φ. (See where Elordieta parentheses 2015:61 indicate for more φ and discussion.) curly brackets Our indicateanalysis ιyields (with the morpho-prosodicprosodic parses 714711 in (47)affixes – (50), indicated where byparentheses dotted lines): indicate φ and curly brackets indicate ι (with the morpho-prosodic 715712 affixes indicated by dotted lines): 716 (47) Type A: [[[[N ↓N] [↓N]]DP [↓V]VP]vP]TP a. { ( [[[ Mirénen] ↓ lagúnen] ) ↓ liburúak] )DP ↓ [gustaten dxáraz]VP]vP}]TP } 24 As in the otherMiren- languagesGEN .discussedSG friend- in this GENpaper,.PL verbsbook- (includingABS.PL the [verb+aux] like VP complexAUX in Basque) are not necessarily parsed ‘I like into Miren’s a prosodic friends’ domain, books.’ rather only argument XPs are. We follow Féry (2011) in assuming the priority ofb. argument XPs for prosodic parsing.

713 714 As we can see in (47), there are four PWords (ω) in the sentence, each containing an accent. All four 715 words are parsed into the ι(max) which parses the CP/vP, and there is a downstep between each 716 accented PWord. Although it has no prosodic consequences, the head noun, when unmodified, is

24 As in the other languages discussed in this paper, verbs (including the [verb+aux]VP complex in Basque) are not necessarily parsed into a prosodic domain, rather only argument XPs are. We follow Féry (2011) in assuming the priority of argument XPs for prosodic parsing. Languages 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 31

(46) a. Within a DP, downstep applies to any accented word following another accented word, except in the cases described in (b). b. When the head noun is followed by a modifier, it shows pitch reset, not downstep (cf. type B). c. Pitch reset is also observed at the left edge of a verbal projection when it contains a DP preceding the V (cf. types C, D). d. Types B and C present a similar degree of pitch reset. However, a higher degree of pitch reset is observed in type D, that is, at the left edge of a two-word DP which is at the left edge of a verbal projection. 698 699 The principles of the SPMH in (1) and (9) suggest the following prosodic algorithm to account 700 for these generalizations. Each XP argument is mapped to φ.24 The domain for downstep and partial 701 reset would be ι. This is not only the prosodic category that is mapped to phasal domains, like vP and 702 CP, but it is also the most plausible prosodic domain for intonational phenomena like downstep and Languages 2021, 6, 125 703 partial reset (see also discussion in section 3 on Kimatuumbi and Bàsàá). We follow Elordieta (2015:21 of 29 704 61) and the work cited therein in assuming that: (i) the verb in Basque remains in-situ, and the 705 auxiliary merges with the verb post-syntactically as a prosodic clitic, parsed as a PWord with the 706 verb; and (ii) determiners and case makers in Basque are morphologically and prosodically affixes 707 onafﬁxes the word on thethat wordprecedes that them precedes within themthe DP. within In other the words, DP. In the other terminal words, D node the terminalwould be empty D node 708 inwould prosodic be structure, empty in and prosodic therefore, structure, in the case and of therefore, Mirén-en in in (47b), the case it cannot of Mir beé n-enmappedin (47b), as an it 709 independentcannot be mapped φ. (See Elordieta as an independent 2015:61 for moreϕ (see discussion.) Elordieta Our 2015 analysis, p. 61 foryields more the discussion).prosodic parses Our 710 inanalysis (47) – (50), yields where the parentheses prosodic indicate parses φ in and (47)–(50), curly brackets where indicate parentheses ι (with indicatethe morpho-prosodicϕ and curly 711 affixesbrackets indicated indicate by dottedι (with lines): the morpho-prosodic afﬁxes indicated by dotted lines): 712 (47) Type A: [[[[N ↓N] [↓N]]DP [↓V]VP]vP]TP a. { ( [[[ Mirénen] ↓ lagúnen] ) ↓ liburúak] )DP ↓ [gustaten dxáraz]VP]vP}]TP } Miren-GEN.SG friend-GEN.PL book-ABS.PL like AUX ‘I like Miren’s friends’ books.’ b.

713 ω 714 As we Ascan wesee canin (47), see there in (47), are four there PWords are four (ω) PWords in the sentence, ( ) in theeach sentence, containing each an accent. containing All four an ι 715 wordsaccent. are All parsed four into words the areι(max parsed) which intoparses the the( maxCP/),vP, which and there parses is a the downstep CP/vP, between and there each is a 716 accenteddownstep PWord. between Although each it accented has no prosodic PWord. co Althoughnsequences, it the has head no prosodic noun, when consequences, unmodified, theis head noun, when unmodified, is parsed into a recursive ϕ with its sister DP. Note that we assume that not only the syntactically recursive argument XP but also the DPs/FPs it dominates are recursively parsed into ϕ. 24 As inIn the Type other languages B sentences, discussed the in head this paper, noun verbs is followed(including the by [verb+aux] an adjectivalVP complex modifier. in Basque) Thisare notleads necessarily to a different parsed into prosodic a prosodic parse,domain, disrupting rather only argument the pattern XPs are. of We downstep—and follow Féry (2011) ofin assuming prosodic the priority of argument XPs for prosodic parsing. parsing. We assume, following Elordieta(2015, p. 63), that modified DPs disrupt the syntactically motivated mappings because they have a more complex syntactic structure than unmodified nouns.25 Note that the modified head noun is contained in an XP, which, moreover, consists of two PWords, thus satisfying the binary minimality condition on ϕ (see (38)), just like the preceding DP, which also contains two PWords. Parsing each XP contained in the argument XP into a ϕ thus yields a eurhythmic prosodic representation. The proposed prosodic parse is illustrated in (48): Languages 2021, 6, 125 22 of 29

Languages 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 32

(48) Type B: [[[[N ↓N] [↑N ↓A]]DP [↓V]VP]vP]TP a. {([( [[Mirénen] ↓lagúnen]DP ) ([↑libúru ↓lodídxak]FP ) ]DP ) ↓[gustaten dxáraz]VP]vP}]TP } Miren-GEN.SG friend-GEN.PL book thick-ABS.PL like AUX ‘I like Miren’s friends’ thick books.’ b.

732 733 In the Insentence the sentence in (48), inthere (48), are there five arePWords, ﬁve PWords but only but three only downsteps. three downsteps. Instead of Insteadthe expected of the 734 downstepexpected preceding downstep the preceding head noun the(liburú head), there noun is (anlibur upstep/partialú), there is reset. an upstep/partial We propose that reset. the left We 735 edgepropose of an that ιmax internal the left edgeprosodic of andomain,ιmax internal in this case prosodic φ, provides domain, the intriggering this case, contextϕ, provides for partial the 736 reset.triggering Reset overrides context for the partial usual downstep reset. Reset that overrides occurs between the usual all accented downstep PWords that occurswithin ι betweenmax (the 26 737 prosodicall accented domain PWords that correlates within withιmax the(the outermost prosodic phasal domain domain). that correlates with the outermost 738 phasalIn Type domain). C sentences,26 the third nominal is a second complement of the verb. As Elordieta (2015) 739 observes,In Typeit is thus C sentences,in a different the syntactic third relati nominalonship is with a second the preceding complement nouns than of thein the verb. Type AsA 740 andElordieta B sentences:(2015 ) observes, it is thus in a different syntactic relationship with the preceding 741 Languagesnouns 2020 than, 5, inx FOR the PEER Type REVIEW A and B sentences: 25 of 31

(49) Type C: [[N ↓N]DP [[↑N]DP [↓V]VP]vP]TP a. { ( [[ Mirénen) ↓amúmari]DP ) {[([↑liburúak]DP ) ↓ [emon dótzez]VP]vP}]TP } Miren-GEN.SG grandmother-DAT.SG book-ABS.PL give AUX ‘They have given the books to Miren’s grandmother.’ b.

26 Our proposal partially echoes that of Jun and Elordieta (1997) and Selkirk (2011), which discuss a similar set of Basque data. 738 Mapping vP to ι places a left ι boundary before the third noun, and, as expected, this 739 Mappingleft prosodic vP to boundaryι places a left triggers ι boundary upstep/partial before the third reset. noun27 Downsteps and, as expected, are found this left between prosodic the 740 boundary triggers upstep/partial reset.27 Downsteps are found between the other PWords parsed other PWords parsed into ιmax: 741 into ιmaxFinally,: in Type D sentences, the third noun is a verbal complement and also modiﬁed 742 by anFinally, adjective. in Type The D sentences, analysis isthe essentially third noun theis a sameverbal as complement for (49). Mapping and also modifiedvP to ι places by an a 743 adjective. The analysis is essentially the same as for (49). Mapping vP to ι places a left ι boundary 744 before the third noun and, as expected, this left prosodic boundary triggers upstep/partial reset.28 745 Downsteps are found between the other accented PWords parsed into ιmax: 746

27 In Basque the verb stays in situ (see Elordieta 2015, among others) and the vP remains as the phase; ApplP would therefore not constitute an extended phase. (This contrasts with Chimwiini and other Bantu languages discussed above.) 28 The double partial reset in (50a,b) is not accounted for in our analysis. We consider it a phonetic effect, induced by the extra length that results from adding another word following a partial reset at an ιmax internal ι boundary. (See Laniran and Clements 2003 for discussion of the effect of length on partial reset.) We are skeptical of Elordieta’s (2015) claim that depth of prosodic embedding accounts for the degree of partial reset, as it seems unlikely that a single additional prosodic embedding should lead to five times greater amount of partial reset. Languages 2021, 6, 125 23 of 29

left ι boundary before the third noun and, as expected, this left prosodic boundary triggers upstep/partial reset.28 Downsteps are found between the other accented PWords parsed Languages 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 26 of 31 into ιmax:

(50) Type D: [[N ↓N]DP [[↑↑N ↓A]DP [↓V]VP]vP]TP a. {([[ Mirénen ↓amúmari]DP) {[([↑↑libúru ↓lodídxak]FP ) ↓ [emon dótzez]VP]vP }]TP } Miren-GEN.SG grandmother-DAT.SG book thick-ABS.PL give AUX ‘They have given the thick books to Miren’s grandmother.’ b.

747 While this seems to be the most straightforward analysis of the generalizations in 748 (46)While based this on seems the principles to be the most of the straightforward SPMH in (1) analysis and (9), of Elordieta the generalizations(2015), like in Elfner(46) based(2015 on), 749 theadopts principles an analysis of the SPMH that doesin (1) notanddistinguish (9), Elordieta between (2015), likeϕ andElfnerι. (2015), Rather, adopts every an XP, analysis even ifthat it is 750 doesa phasal not distinguish domain orbetween even a φ root and clause,ι. Rather, is every recursively XP, even parsed if it is intoa phasal a ϕ .domain This is or illustrated even a root by 751 clause, is recursively parsed into a φ. This is illustrated by the prosodic parses Elordieta proposes for the prosodic parses Elordieta proposes for (48) and (49): 752 (48) and (49): It is unclear what analytical or conceptual advantages this alternative parse provides 753 compared to the disadvantages. Prosodic recursion does not mirror syntactic recursion (51) Elordieta’s (2015) prosodic parse of (48) (except in the case of genitive DP/NPs). Recall from the discussion in Section2 that XP

domination is not necessarily the equivalent of syntactic recursion, and so it does not provide a syntactic motivation for prosodic recursion. Furthermore, an entire clause is mapped to a recursive ϕ, in violation of core principles of the SPMH (1). CP is expected to map to ι (see discussion of (9)), and the syntactic distinction between phrase and clause should be reﬂected in the prosodic structure. As noted in discussing Irish, an analysis in which recursions of ϕ that map to phasal domains are instead mapped to ι yields a prosodic parse that better satisﬁes all of the principles of the SPMH in (1). It also allows for more consistent cross-linguistic generalizations about syntax–prosody correspondences and about the prosodic domain of intonational phenomena such as register reset. 754 (52) Elordieta’s (2015) prosodic parse of (49)

755 Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 30

Languages 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 30

Finally, in Type D sentences, the third noun is a verbal complement and also modified by an adjective. The analysis is essentially the same as for (49). Mapping vP to ι Finally, in Type D sentences, the third noun is a verbal complement and also places a left ι boundary before the third noun and, as expected, this left prosodic boundary modified by an adjective. The analysis is essentially the same as for (49). Mapping vP to ι triggers upstep/partial reset.28 Downsteps are found between the other accented PWords places a left ι boundary before the third noun and, as expected, this left prosodic boundary parsed into ιmax: triggers upstep/partial reset.28 Downsteps are found between the other accented PWords parsed into ιmax: (50) Type D: [[N ↓N]DP [[↑↑N ↓A]DP [↓V]VP]vP]TP a. {([[ Mirénen ↓amúmari]DP) {[([↑↑libúru ↓lodidxak]́ FP ) ↓ [emon dótzez]VP]vP }]TP } ↓ DP ↑↑ ↓ DP ↓ VP vP TP (50) Miren-Type GEND: .SG [[Ngrandmother- N] [[ N A] [ V]book] ] thick-ABS.PL give AUX ↓ DP ↑↑ ↓ FP ↓ VP vP TP a. {([[ MirénenDAT .SGamu ́mari] ) {[([ libúru lodidxak]́ ) [emon dótzez] ] }] } ‘They Miren- have givenGEN.SG the grandmother-thick books to Miren’s b grandmother.’ook thick-ABS .PL give AUX b. DAT.SG ‘They have given the thick books to Miren’s grandmother.’ b.

While this seems to be the most straightforward analysis of the generalizations in (46) based on the principles of the SPMH in (1) and (9), Elordieta (2015), like Elfner (2015), While this seems to be the most straightforward analysis of the generalizations in (46) Languages 2021, 6, 125 adopts an analysis that does not distinguish between φ and ι. Rather, every XP, even24 ofif 29it based on the principles of the SPMH in (1) and (9), Elordieta (2015), like Elfner (2015), is a phasal domain or even a root clause, is recursively parsed into a φ. This is illustrated adopts an analysis that does not distinguish between φ and ι. Rather, every XP, even if it by the prosodic parses Elordieta proposes for (48) and (49): is a phasal domain or even a root clause, is recursively parsed into a φ. This is illustrated (51)by theElordieta prosodic(2015 parses) prosodic Elordiet parsea of proposes (48) for (48) and (49): (51) Elordieta’s (2015) prosodic parse of (48) (51) Elordieta’s (2015) prosodic parse of (48)

(52) Elordieta’s (2015) prosodic parse of (49) (52) Elordieta(2015) prosodic parse of (49) (52) Elordieta’s (2015) prosodic parse of (49)

5. Conclusions It is widely agreed that prosodic constituents should mirror syntactic constituents (unless high-ranking prosodic constraints interfere). Because recursion is a feature of syntactic representations, one expects recursion in prosodic representations as well, as work such asF éry(2016) and Selkirk(2011) has argued. Indeed, as we have shown, strictly respecting the requirement that the same types of prosodic constituent should correspond to the same types of syntactic constituent, both within a particular language and cross- linguistically, automatically leads to analyses where prosodic recursion is optimal when it mirrors syntactic recursion. While there are differing views concerning what kinds of syntactic representation motivate prosodic recursion, this paper has argued in favor of the restrictive view that prosodic recursion is motivated only if it mirrors syntactically defined embedded recursion, not other forms of syntactic domination. To demonstrate the advantages of this approach, the use of Phonological Phrase recursion has been reviewed in several case studies, chosen because prosodic recursion in these studies mostly does not reflect syntactic recursion as defined in current syntactic theory. As we show, an approach that does not appeal to prosodic recursion (unless it is syntactically motivated) straightforwardly captures the relevant generalizations. One of the forces driving analyses adopting recursive prosodic phrasing appears to be the desire to reduce the number of prosodic categories (Bennett and Elfner 2019; Ito and Mester 2013; Elfner 2015). Since the SPMH is founded on the principle that prosodic constituents reflect syntactic ones, it is striking that the drive to reduce the number of prosodic categories goes against recent syntactic theoretical trends such as the cartographic approach, which in fact creates more syntactic categories (starting with Topic and Focus). It should be noted that the additional syntactic categories do not come from a concern about reducing syntactic recursion. In other words, the number of categories and the licit use of recursion should not be connected issues. A final conceptual problem with a theory that allows prosodic recursion which is not motivated by syntactic recursion is that, as Schiering et al.(2010, p. 699) argue, if an unlimited number of intermediate recursions of, for example, a Phonological Phrase, is allowed by a theory, it makes prosodic recursion “too powerful and puts too [few] restrictions on prosodic systems”, since intermediate prosodic recursions can parse groupings defined by language-particular syntactic structures Languages 2021, 6, 125 25 of 29

rather than constituents with cross-linguistic syntactic motivation. Indeed, as van der Hulst(2010, p. 326) argues, languages do not seem to appeal to more than two recursions of any prosodic constituent. In syntax, too, Karlsson(2010) shows that it is rare to find more than two or three recursions in natural language. There are, then, many reasons to be leery of theories that do not place well-defined restrictions on possible recursive structures. Finally, we propose that the more restrictive approach to prosodic recursion has the following advantages. It allows for more consistent cross-linguistic generalizations about the syntax–prosody mapping, so that prosodic representations more closely reflect syntactic ones. It allows the fundamental syntactic distinctions between clause, phase, and phrase to be reflected in the prosodic representation. It also allows cross-linguistic generalizations to be made about the prosodic domain of intonational processes such as register reset and continuation rise. The approach adopted here thus more closely respects all of the principles of the SPMH (1) and its underlying assumption that a theory that restrictively defines possible syntax–prosody correspondences is most likely to be of universal validity.

Author Contributions: Both authors have contributed equally to the analysis presented here. Both authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: Not applicable. Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the special issue editors and the reviewers for their comments and suggestions which improved the content and presentation of the proposals developed in the paper. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest.

Notes 1 The traditional adjunction analysis yields iteration, in contrast with analyses à la Cinque(2010), with adjectives and adverbs generated in a functional projection above the NP and VP/vP respectively. 2 Note that the original Larsonian structure for double object sentences involve a passive-like transformation. See Citko et al.( 2017) for discussion. 3 In both cases, there is embedding involved in the sense that the PP is embedded inside a VP, and the DP is embedded inside a PP. However, this type of embedding does not constitute recursion since VP and PP—like PP and DP—are not the same syntactic category. 4 See also articles in D’Alessandro et al.(2017) for discussions about the nature of the little v. 5 Whether or not it is the whole phase itself or the complement of a phase head being transferred at the point of spell-out is controversial. See Chomsky(2001), Bošković(2016), Cheng and Downing(2016), among others. 6 SeeF éry(2016) and Selkirk(2011) for detailed discussion of how recursive syntactic embedding as defined in (2), above, motivates recursive prosodic structure. Iterative recursion created by certain conjoined syntactic constructions also can lead to prosodic recursion; seeF éry(2016), Ladd(1986, [1996] 2008) and Wagner(2005) for discussion. 7 We are ignoring vP-phase here as it coincides with the CP-phase in these examples. It should also be noted that we do not claim that DP can never be a phase in any language. Nonetheless, evidence from Zulu suggests that DPs do not have phasal status, and thus do not trigger phasal spell-outs in Zulu. 8 See Selkirk(2011, 452ff) for detailed discussion of the distinction between the syntactic clause (CP) and the illocutionary clause or root clause, defined as the “highest syntactic projection of the sentence” (p. 452) (see, too, Selkirk 2005). Root CP is specified in (13c,d) to capture the generalization that the complements of verbs and restrictive relative clauses, which also are CP phases, typically phrase with their heads, as illustrated by Zulu examples in this section. That is, a right edge asymmetry holds except for the outermost recursion of CP, i.e., the illocutionary clause. 9 Syntactic recursion does not lead to prosodic recursion in all languages. For example, Beltzung et al.(2010) show that there is no motivation for a right edge of ι following relative clauses in Embosi. That is, in Embosi, the phrasing in (14b) is the correct output. This phrasing would be made optimal by ranking NORECURSION above ALIGNRPHASE. As Selkirk(2011) points out, it is this kind of cross-linguistic variation in the prosodic parse of the same syntactic structures that provides one of the strongest arguments for prosodic constraints on prosodic constituency mapping like NORECURSION. Languages 2021, 6, 125 26 of 29

10 This also accounts for the High tone on the subject DP in (16b). 11 Underlining of certain consonants in the Chimwiini data indicates that they have dental place of articulation. 12 In Den Dikken(2007), Φ is used to indicate an extended phase. Here, we use γ, so as to not be confused with Greek letters that can be used to indicate Phonological Phrases. In the Bantu literature (including work by Cheng and Downing), an unspecified X0 is used to indicate where the verb moves to and where the final vowel is hosted. Here, we replace this unspecified X0 with γ0 to reflect the extended phasal status of X0. 13 See An(2007); Cheng and Downing(2016); Downing(2011); Feldhausen(2010);F éry(2011); Kula and Hamann(2017) and references therein for discussion of the phrasing of DPs in topic position, showing that it is common for them to be phrased separately from what follows. 14 Treating adjuncts as on a different plane comes from Chomsky(2004); see also analyses of adjuncts using Late Merge (Lebeaux 1988, Takahashi 2006 and Takahashi and Hulsey 2009), and other work on adjuncts such as Hunter(2010). 15 The data are mostly cited from Truckenbrodt(1995). However, we adapted the glosses and spellings to be closer to Odden(1987, 1996), following the suggestion of one of the reviewers. A cedilla under a high vowel indicates it is super-closed. 16 A reviewer questions whether the adverb píta ‘really’ has a preceding ι-boundary. Note that the interpretation of this adverb appears to be emphatic. We hypothesize that it is a focus adverb which takes the whole sentence as the focus. In other words, this adverb is not only a high adverb, it is a sentential adverb taking scope over the whole sentence. Unfortunately, a syntactic analysis does not exist for all the Kimatuumbi data in Odden’s work, making it impossible for us to develop a prosodic analysis of a wider range of data than what is presented here. 17 Odden(1987) proposes this possibility but rejects it, among other reasons because recursion was not a well-formed property of prosodic parsing at the time he developed his analysis. 18 Similar points are made in work critiquing recursion at the PWord level, such as: Bickel et al.(2009); Downing and Kadenge( 2020); Frota and Vigário(2013); Guzzo(2018); Schiering et al.(2010); Vig ário(2010); and Vogel(2009, 2012, 2019). 19 In Hamlaoui and Makasso(2019), the verb moves from the lower V to the high V. In our analysis, which adapts theirs to current syntactic theory, the high V is a little v, which is a functional category and a phase head. Since Hamlaoui and Makasso(2019) do not indicate that the verb moves further than the higher V (i.e., the little v), we follow them in assuming that the end point of verb movement is at v. In other words, for Bàsàá, we do not assume an extended vP phase. 20 As in Bàsàá (see Note 19), we do not have enough syntactic information to assume that the verb moves further than the little v. We therefore make the more conservative assumption that the verb only moves to the little v. Thus, vP is the phase. 21 In Akan and Bàsàá, unlike the other languages, STRONGSTART must be relatively low-ranked, as it appears to be optimal for material preceding the left edge of an ιmax-internal ι to remain weakly parsed, into a Phonological Phrase rather than an Intonation Phrase (Cf. discussion of (20a), above). 22 We are crucially assuming that STRONGSTART is only relevant for the outermost ι, the one that parses the illocutionary clause. 23 It is worth pointing out that Elfner(2015) does not develop a complete formal analysis of the data discussed in this section. 24 As in the other languages discussed in this paper, verbs (including the [verb+aux]VP complex in Basque) are not necessarily parsed into a prosodic domain, rather only argument XPs are. We followF éry(2011) in assuming the priority of argument XPs for prosodic parsing. 25 It has been observed at least since Nespor and Vogel(1986) that modified nouns can have a different prosodic parse than unmodified nouns. We have seen one example, above, in discussing Connemara Irish. Cheng and Downing(2016), Ghini(1993), Prieto(2005) and Selkirk(2011) review other examples. As Cheng and Downing(2016) note, even though the noun-modifier effect on phrasing appears to be common cross-linguistically, it is not clear that it has the same motivation in every language. We leave this as a topic for future research. 26 Our proposal partially echoes that of Jun and Elordieta(1997) and Selkirk(2011), which discuss a similar set of Basque data. 27 In Basque the verb stays in situ (see Elordieta 2015, among others) and the vP remains as the phase; ApplP would therefore not constitute an extended phase. This contrasts with Chimwiini and other Bantu languages discussed above. 28 The double partial reset in (50a,b) is not accounted for in our analysis. We consider it a phonetic effect, induced by the extra length that results from adding another word following a partial reset at an ιmax internal ι boundary, (see Laniran and Clements 2003 for discussion of the effect of length on partial reset). We are skeptical of Elordieta(2015) claim that depth of prosodic embedding accounts for the degree of partial reset, as it seems unlikely that a single additional prosodic embedding should lead to five times greater amount of partial reset.

References An, Duk-Ho. 2007. Clauses in Noncanonical Positions at the Syntax-Phonology Interface. Syntax 10: 38–79. [CrossRef] Beck, Sigrid, and Kyle Johnson. 2004. Double Objects Again. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 97–123. [CrossRef] Languages 2021, 6, 125 27 of 29

Beltzung, Jean-Marc, Annie Rialland, and Martial Embanga Aborobongui. 2010. Les rélatives possessives enembosí (C25). In Papers from the Workshop on Bantu Relative Clauses. ZASPiL 53. Edited by Laura Downing, Annie Rialland, Jean-Marc Beltzung, Sophie Manus, Cédric Patin and Kristina Riedel. Berlin: ZAS, pp. 7–31. Bennett, Ryan, and Emily Elfner. 2019. The syntax–prosody interface. Annual Review of Linguistics 5: 151–71. [CrossRef] Bickel, Balthasar, Kristine A. Hildebrandt, and René Schiering. 2009. The distribution of phonological word domains: A probabilistic typology. In Phonological Domains: Universals and Deviations. Edited by Janet Grijzenhout and Baris Kabak. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 47–75. [CrossRef] Bonet, Eulàlia, Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng, Laura J. Downing, and Joan Mascaró. 2019. (In)direct Reference in the Phonology-Syntax Interface under Phase Theory: A Response to “Modular PIC” (D’Alessandro and Scheer 2015). Linguistic Inquiry 50: 751–77. [CrossRef] Bošković,Željko. 2014. Now I’m a phase, now I’m not a phase: On the variability of phases with extraction and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 45: 27–89. [CrossRef] Bošković,Željko. 2016. What is sent to spell-out is phases, not phasal complements. Linguistica 56: 25–66. [CrossRef] Bresnan, Joan, and Sam A. Mchombo. 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chichewa.ˆ Language 63: 741. [CrossRef] Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, and Laura J. Downing. 2007. The prosody and syntax of relative clauses in Zulu. In Bantu in Bloomsbury: Special issue on Bantu Linguistics. SOAS WPL 15. Edited by Nancy C. Kula and Lutz Marten. London: SOAS, pp. 51–63. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, and Laura J. Downing. 2009. Where is the topic in Zulu? The Linguistic Review 26: 207–38. [CrossRef] Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, and Laura J. Downing. 2016. Phasal syntax = cyclic phonology? Syntax 19: 156–91. [CrossRef] Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step. Edited by Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 89–155. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken hale: A Life in Language. Edited by Michael Kenstowicz. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, pp. 1–50. Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structure. Edited by Adriana Belletti. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 104–31. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2010. The Syntax of Adjectives: A Comparative Study. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Citko, Barbara, Joseph Embley Emonds, and Rosemarie Whitney. 2017. Double object constructions. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed. Edited by Martin Everaert and Henk C. van Riemsdijk. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 1–46. Cowper, Elizabeth A., and Keren D. Rice. 1987. Are phonosyntactic rules necessary? Phonology Yearbook 4: 185–94. [CrossRef] Cruttenden, Alan. 1981. Falls and rises: Meanings and universals. Journal of Linguistics 17: 77–91. [CrossRef] D’Alessandro, Roberta, Irene Franco, and Ángel J. Gallego, eds. 2017. The Verbal Domain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [CrossRef] Dikken, Marcel den. 2007. Phase Extension Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33: 1–41. [CrossRef] Downing, Laura J. 2011. The prosody of ‘dislocation’ in selected Bantu languages. Lingua 121: 772–86. [CrossRef] Downing, Laura J., and Annie Rialland, eds. 2017. Intonation in African Tone Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Downing, Laura J., and Maxwell Kadenge. 2020. Replacing PStem in the prosodic hierarchy. The Linguistic Review 37: 433–61. [CrossRef] Elfner, Emily. 2015. Recursion in prosodic phrasing: Evidence from Connemara Irish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33: 1169–208. [CrossRef] Elordieta, Gorka. 2015. Recursive phonological phrasing in Basque. Phonology 32: 49–78. [CrossRef] Epstein, Samuel David, Erich Groat, Ruriko Kawashima, and Hisa-tsugu Kitahara. 1998. A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations. New York: Oxford University Press. Feldhausen, Ingo. 2010. Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [CrossRef] Féry, Caroline. 2011. German sentence accents and embedded prosodic phrases. Lingua 121: 1906–22. [CrossRef] Féry, Caroline. 2016. Intonation and Prosodic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frota, Sónia, and Marina Vigário. 2013. Review of Prosody Matters: Essays in honor of Elisabeth Selkirk. Phonology 30: 165–72. [CrossRef] Gallego, Ángel J. 2010. Phase Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. [CrossRef] Ghini, Mirco. 1993. ϕ-formation in Italian: A new proposal. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 41–79. Guzzo, Natália Brambatti. 2018. The prosodic representation of composite structures in Brazilian Portuguese. Journal of Linguistics 54: 683–720. [CrossRef] Hamlaoui, Fatima, and Emmanuel-Moselly Makasso. 2019. Downstep and recursive phonological phrases in Bàsàá (Bantu A43). In Theory and Description in African Linguistics: Selected Papers from the 47th Annual Conference on African Linguistics. Edited by Emily Clem, Peter Jenks and Hannah Sande. Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 155–75. [CrossRef] Hamlaoui, Fatima, and Kriszta Szendroï. 2015. A flexible approach to the mapping of intonational phrases. Phonology 32: 79–110. [CrossRef] Hamlaoui, Fatima, Emmanuel-Moselly Makasso, and Siri M. Gjersøe. 2014. High tone spreading and phonological phrases in bàsàá. In 4th International Symposium on Tonal Aspects of Languages. Edited by C. Gussenhoven, Y. Chen and D. Dediu. Baixas: ISCA Archive, pp. 27–31. Available online: https://www.isca-speech.org/archive/tal_2014/papers/tl14_027.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2020). Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2: 31–70. [CrossRef] Languages 2021, 6, 125 28 of 29

Hunter, Timothy Andrew. 2010. Relating Movement and Adjunction in Syntax and Semantics. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA. Inkelas, Sharon, and Draga Zec. 1995. Syntax-phonology interface. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Edited by John A. Goldsmith. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 539–49. Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2007. Major phrase, focus intonation and multiple spellout (MaP, FI, MSO). The Linguistic Review 24: 137–67. [CrossRef] Ito, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2012. Recursive prosodic phrasing in Japanese. In Prosody Matters: Essays in Honor of Elisabeth Selkirk. Edited by Toni Borowsky, Sigeto Kawahara, Takahito Shinya and Mariko Sugahara. Shefﬁeld: Equinox Publishing, pp. 280–303. Ito, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2013. Prosodic subcategories in Japanese. Lingua 124: 20–40. [CrossRef] Julien, Marit. 2002. Syntactic Heads and Word Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jun, Sun-Ah, and Gorka Elordieta. 1997. Intonational structure of Lekeitio Basque. In Intonation: Theory, Models and Applications. Edited by Antonis Botinis, Georgios Kouroupetroglou and George Carayiannis. Athens: European Speech Communication Association, pp. 193–96. Karlsson, Fred. 2010. Syntactic recursion and iteration. In Recursion and Human Language. Edited by Harry van der Hulst. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 43–67. [CrossRef] Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Kisseberth, Charles W. 2005. Accent and phrasing in Chimwiini. In Proceedings of the Symposium: Cross-linguistic Studies of Tonal Phenomena. Edited by S. Kaji. Tokyo: ILCAA, pp. 129–45. Kisseberth, Charles W. 2010a. Optimality Theory and the theory of phonological phrasing: The Chimwiini evidence. In The Sound Patterns of Syntax. Edited by Nomi Erteschik-Shir and Lisa Rochman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 217–46. Kisseberth, Charles W. 2010b. Phrasing and relative clauses in Chimwiini. ZASPiL 53: 109–44. [CrossRef] Kisseberth, Charles W. 2017. Chimiini intonation. In Intonation in African Tone Languages. Edited by Laura J. Downing and Annie Rialland. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 225–84. [CrossRef] Kratzer, Angelika, and Elisabeth Selkirk. 2007. Phase theory and prosodic spellout: The case of verbs. The Linguistic Review 24: 93–135. [CrossRef] Kügler, Frank. 2015. Phonological phrasing and ATR vowel harmony in Akan. Phonology 32: 177–204. [CrossRef] Kügler, Frank. 2017. Tone and intonation in Akan. In Intonation in African Tone Languages. Edited by Laura J. Downing and Annie Rialland. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 89–130. Kula, Nancy C., and Silke Hamann. 2017. Intonation in Bemba. In Intonation in African Tone Languages. Edited by Laura J. Downing and Annie Rialland. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 321–64. [CrossRef] Ladd, D. Robert. 1986. Intonational phrasing: The case for recursive prosodic structure. Phonology Yearbook 3: 311–40. [CrossRef] Ladd, D. Robert. 2008. Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. First published 1996. Laniran, Yetunde O., and G. N. Clements. 2003. Downstep and high raising: Interacting factors in Yoruba tone production. Journal of Phonetics 31: 203–50. [CrossRef] Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–91. Lebeaux, David. 1988. Language Acquisition and the Form of the Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA. McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1986. Prosodic Morphology 1986. Linguistics Department Faculty Publication Series 13. Available online: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist_faculty_pubs/13 (accessed on 7 July 2021). Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosody Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Nevins, Andrew, David Pesetsky, and Cilene Rodrigues. 2009. Pirahã exceptionality: A reassessment. Language 85: 355–404. [CrossRef] Odden, David. 1987. Kimatuumbi phrasal phonology. Phonology Yearbook 4: 13–36. [CrossRef] Odden, David. 1990. Syntax, lexical rules, and postlexical rules in Kimatuumbi. In The Phonology-Syntax Connection. Edited by Sharon Inkelas and Draga Zec. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 259–78. Odden, David. 1996. The Phonology and Morphology of Kimatuumbi. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Prieto, Pilar. 2005. Syntactic and eurythmic constraints on phrasing decisions in Catalan. Studia Linguistica 52: 194–222. [CrossRef] Sande, Hannah, Peter Jenks, and Sharon Inkelas. 2020. Cophonologies by Ph(r)ase. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 38: 1211–61. [CrossRef] Schiering, René, Balthasar Bickel, and Kristine A. Hildebrandt. 2010. The prosodic word is not universal, but emergent. Journal of Linguistics 46: 657–709. [CrossRef] Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology 3: 371–405. [CrossRef] Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1995. The prosodic structures of function words. UMOP 18: 439–69. Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 2000. The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing. In Prosody: Theory and Experiment. Edited by Merle Horne. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 231–61. Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 2005. Comments on Intonational Phrasing in English. In Prosodies: With Special Reference to Iberian Languages. Edited by Sonia Frota, Marina Vigário and Maria João Freitas. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 11–58. Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 2009. On clause and intonational phrase in Japanese: The syntactic grounding of prosodic constituent structure. Gengo Kenkyuu 136: 35–73. Languages 2021, 6, 125 29 of 29

Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 2011. The syntax–phonology interface. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 2nd ed. Edited by John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle and Alan C. L. Yu. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 435–84. [CrossRef] Takahashi, Shoichi, and Sarah Hulsey. 2009. Wholesale late merger: Beyond the A/A¯ distinction. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 387–426. [CrossRef] Takahashi, Shoichi. 2006. Decompositionality and Identity. Doctoral dissertation, M.I.T., Cambridge, MA, USA. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus and prominence. Doctoral Dissertation, M.I.T., Cambridge, MA, USA. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 219–55. [CrossRef] Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2007. The syntax–phonology interface. In The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology. Edited by Paul de Lacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 435–56. Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple Spell-Out. In Working minimalism. Edited by Samuel David Epstein and Norbert Hornstein. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 251–82. Van der Hulst, Harry, ed. 2010. A note on recursion in phonology. In Recursion and Human Language. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 301–41. [CrossRef] Vigário, Marina. 2010. Prosodic structure between the prosodic word and the phonological phrase: Recursive nodes or an independent domain? The Linguistic Review 27: 485–530. [CrossRef] Vogel, Irene. 2009. Universals of prosodic structure. In Universals of Language Today. Edited by Sergio Scalise, Elisabetta Magni and Antonietta Bisetto. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 59–82. Vogel, Irene. 2012. Recursion in phonology? In Phonological Explorations: Empirical, Theoretical and Diachronic Issues. Edited by Bert Botma and Roland Noske. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 41–61. [CrossRef] Vogel, Irene. 2019. Life after the Strict Layer Hypothesis. In Prosodic Studies: Challenges and Prospects. Edited by Hongming Zhang. London: Routledge, pp. 9–60. Wagner, Michael. 2005. Prosody and recursion. Doctoral Dissertation, M.I.T., Cambridge, MA, USA.