Word, Phrase, and Clitic Prosody in Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 2-2009 Word, Phrase, And Clitic Prosody In Bosnian, Serbian, And Croatian Adam Werle University of Massachusetts - Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1 Part of the Linguistics Commons, and the Modern Languages Commons Recommended Citation Werle, Adam, "Word, Phrase, And Clitic Prosody In Bosnian, Serbian, And Croatian" (2009). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 68. https://doi.org/10.7275/5648756 https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/68 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WORD, PHRASE, AND CLITIC PROSODY IN BOSNIAN, SERBIAN, AND CROATIAN A Dissertation Presented by ADAM WERLE Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY February 2009 Linguistics © Copyright by Adam Werle 2009 All Rights Reserved WORD, PHRASE, AND CLITIC PROSODY IN BOSNIAN, SERBIAN, AND CROATIAN A Dissertation Presented by ADAM WERLE Approved as to style and content by: ____________________________________ Elisabeth Selkirk, Chair ____________________________________ John J. McCarthy, Member ____________________________________ Robert A. Rothstein, Member ____________________________________ Margaret Speas, Member ____________________________________ Ellen Woolford, Member ____________________________________ Elisabeth Selkirk, Department Head Department of Linguistics ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I finished this dissertation by the help and friendship of many people. I am grateful first to my committee for their wisdom and guidance: Lisa Selkirk, John McCarthy, Bob Rothstein, Peggy Speas, and Ellen Woolford. I offer particular thanks to Bob, who has helped to bring my dissertation to a finish while struggling with cancer. For helpful comments and discussion, I thank Loren Billings, Ewa Czaykowska- Higgins, Steven Franks, Janet Leonard, Ljiljana Progovac, Draga Zec, and participants in Ewa’s seminar on the syntax-phonology interface. Naturally, any errors here are mine. My warmest gratitude for their support of my work goes to my chair and advisor Lisa, to my family Kent, Elspeth, Jane, Alexandra, and Piper Werle, and to my dear friends Kristen Delano, Maria Gouskova, and Robert Wagner. My thinking and my passion for linguistics have been fostered by friends and colleagues from many places. From Seattle, I thank Ben Barrett, Matt Davidson, Brian Jansson, Amanda Moore, and Poppy Morris-Campbell, and my teachers Sharon Hargus and Joe Voyles, who perhaps don’t know how fundamentally they’ve inspired this work. In Amherst, I was welcomed by many whom I can’t adequately acknowledge, though I would name especially my classmates Ana Arregui, Andries Coetzee, Mako Hirotani, and Ji-Yung Kim, and also Kathy Adamczyk, Emmon Bach, Leah Bateman, Michael Becker, Boo the cat, Angela Carpenter, Shai Cohen, Paul de Lacy, Kathryn Flack, Tanja Heizmann, Roger Higgins, Liane Jeschull, Allison Keeler, Ed Keer, John Kingston, Klarge the cat, Angelika Kratzer, Ania Łubowicz, Lisa Matthewson, Paula iv Menéndez-Benito, Steve Parker, Barbara Partee, Joe Pater, Virginia Savova, Helen Stickney, Sarah Vega-Liros, Anna Verbuk, and Youri Zabbal. In Victoria, where I finished my writing, I have been fortunate to know Leora Bar-el, Randy Bouchard, Ewa Czaykowska-Higgins, Henry Davis, Carrie Gillon, Dorothy Kennedy, Sunghwa Lee, Janet Leonard, Marianne Nicolson, Rachel Wojdak, Florence Woo, and not least Su Urbanczyk and Martin Courchaine. For their generous help with my research on Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian, I’m grateful above all to Tanja Heizmann and Jadranka Heizmann. Of those others who have shared their language with me, I wish especially to thank Aladin Baljak, Darinka ðor ñevi ć, Senad Imamovi ć, Sr ñan Nikoli ć, Davor Tomasi ć, Oleg Topi ć, Goran Vladisavljevi ć, and an anonymous consultant for their contributions to this work. I would also like to acknowledge those who provide software and fonts to support the study and preservation of our languages. For this study I’ve used Praat (www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat ), by Paul Boersma and David Weenink, to analyze audio recordings, and the fonts Aboriginal Serif by Chris Harvey of languagegeek.com , and Charis SIL and Doulos SIL by the Summer Institute of Linguistics. Thank you all, and best wishes. Seattle, 2009 v ABSTRACT WORD, PHRASE, AND CLITIC PROSODY IN BOSNIAN, SERBIAN, AND CROATIAN FEBRUARY 2009 ADAM WERLE, B.A., UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON Ph.D., UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST Directed by: Professor Elisabeth Selkirk I investigate the phonology of prosodic clitics—independent syntactic words not parsed as independent prosodic words—in Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian. I ask, first, how clitics are organized into prosodic structures, and second, how this is determined by the grammar. Following Zec (1997, 2005), I look at several clitic categories, including negation, prepositions, complementizers, conjunctions, and second-position clitics. Based on a reanalysis of word accent (Browne and McCawley 1965, Inkelas and Zec 1988, Zec 1999), I argue that in some cases where a preposition, complementizer, or conjunction fails to realize accent determined by a following word, it is not a proclitic— that is, prosodified with the following word—but rather a free clitic parsed directly by a phonological phrase. Conversely, the second-position clitics are not always enclitic—that is, prosodified with a preceding word—but are sometimes free. Their second-position word order results not from enclisis, but from the avoidance of free clitics at phrase edges, where they would interfere with the alignment of phonological phrases to prosodic words. vi Regarding the determination of clisis by the grammar, I argue for an interface constraint approach (Selkirk 1995, Truckenbrodt 1995), whereby prosodic structures are built according to general constraints on their well-formedness, and on their interface to syntactic structures. I contrast this with the subcategorization approach , which sees clisis as specified for each clitic (Klavans 1982, Radanovi ć-Koci ć 1988, Zec and Inkelas 1990). The comparison across clitic categories provides key support for the interface constraint approach, showing that their prosody depends on their syntactic configurations and phonological shapes, rather than on arbitrary subcategorizations. Prosodic differences across categories are a derivative effect of their configuration in the clause, and of the division of the clause into phonological phrases. The relevance of phonological phrases consists in how their edges discourage some kinds of clisis, blocking, for example, proclisis of complementizers and conjunctions to their complements. Free clisis is disfavored at phrase edges, producing the second-position effect. Thus, the interface constraint approach leads to a unified account of word, phrase, and clitic prosody. vii CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iv ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................ xiv CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 1.1 Some puzzles in prosodic clisis...................................................................1 1.2 The Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian language.............................................5 1.2.1 Introduction......................................................................................5 1.2.2 Segments, alphabets, and orthography.............................................5 1.2.3 Syntax and morphology...................................................................7 1.2.4 Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian, and Montenegrin.................................8 1.2.5 Dialects and standards....................................................................10 1.2.6 Summary........................................................................................12 1.3 The theoretical framework.........................................................................13 1.3.1 Introduction....................................................................................13 1.3.2 A definition of clitic .......................................................................13 1.3.3 Prosodic Phonology.......................................................................15 1.3.4 Prosodic Clitic Theory...................................................................19 1.3.5 Constraints on prosodic structures.................................................23 1.3.6 A typology of function word parses...............................................25 1.3.7 Summary........................................................................................28 1.4 Data sources...............................................................................................28 1.4.1 Introduction....................................................................................28 1.4.2 Native