A Morphological Approach to Discourse in Spanish:
A Theoretical and Experimental Review
BY
JOSE SEQUEROS-VALLE M.A. DePaul University (2015) B.A. Universidad Complutense de Madrid (2008)
THESIS
Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Hispanic Studies in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Chicago, 2020
Chicago, Illinois
Defense Committee: Luis López, Chair and Advisor Kara Morgan-Short Kimberly Potowski Bradley Hoot, DePaul University Xavier Villalba, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Ingo Feldhausen, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main
A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE ii
A los que observan el mundo.
To those who observe the world.
A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are many people without whom this dissertation would never have been completed, who I will list in order from closest to furthest direct involvement in the project.
First and foremost, let me thank Luis López for his help and patience with the theoretical aspects of this dissertation and his work as Chair, as well as for his support in the hardest times of my Ph.D. Second, I truly appreciate the help that I have received and keep receiving from the members of the dissertation committee: Kara Morgan-Short for her help on the experimental and statistical aspects of the dissertation, Kim Potowski for bringing in language-external aspects into the discussion, Ingo Feldhausen for his feedback on theoretical and experimental work on phonology, and Xavier Villalba for his help on theory at the discourse-syntax interface. Lastly, I would like to emphasize a special thanks to Bradley Hoot, for both his role in my dissertation committee, as well as for our work together since I started my Master’s Degree back in 2014.
Next, I would like to thank the current and former members of Kay González-Vilbazo’s and Luis López‘s Bilingualism Research Laboratory: Lucía Badiola-Maguregui, Adam
Cleveland, Rodrigo Delgado, Shane Ebert, Mayra Fajardo, Sahian López, Aletia Rebollar, Ariane
Sande, Cecilia Solís-Barroso, Sara Stefanich, and Daniel Vergara. Their feedback, especially during our lab meetings, has been crucial in giving direction to this project. Further, our teamwork in the good times and our commiseration in the bad times has been extremely important for the completion of this degree.
A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (continued)
I would also like to thank a few colleagues who have not been directly involved in this dissertation, but with whom I have worked at a certain point during my Master´s and Doctoral degrees: David Abugaber, Elizabeth Aguilar, Angela Betancourt-Ciprian, Carolina Barrera-
Tobón, Glen Carman, Nobuko Chikamatsu, John Escalante, Claudia Fernández, Irene Finestrat-
Martínez, Tatjana Gajic, David Akbar Gilliam, Michael Gismodi, Mark Johnston, Jackeline Lazú,
José Ángel Navejas, Bernardo Navia, María Luisa Ortega Hernandez, Carrie Pican, Inma
Taboada, Lourdes Torres, Anna Torres-Mallma, Liliana Sanchez, Margarita Saona, Maha Sweis-
Dababneh, and many more that I am sure I am forgetting. Graduate school involves many different aspects such as teaching, being-taught, research, as well as the support from many different people; I am truly honored and thankful to have worked with all of you during these seven years.
Lastly, I would like to make a special mention to those people outside academia without whom I would not be who I am, which is a pre-requisite for a Ph.D. if one thinks about it: My parents Pepe and Ana, my brothers Rafa and Pablo, my extended family Rafa, Bárbara, Marta,
File, Abuela Ana, etc., and my family in the United States (Carlos, Estefania, Lisa, Lynn, Pao,
Priscila, etc.). Thank you all for being there, some of you for a few years and some of you for my/your entire life.
A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1. Scope of the dissertation ...... 1 1.2. The test case: The Spanish left periphery ...... 4 1.3. The empirical goal: Experimental confirmation ...... 7 1.4. The theoretical goal: A morphological approach to discourse ...... 9 1.5. Outline of the dissertation ...... 14
2. BACKGROUND: MINIMALISM, SYNTAX, AND INTONATION ...... 16 2.0. Introduction ...... 16 2.1. The Minimalist model of language ...... 16 2.2. Language computation ...... 20 2.2.1. Merge, agree, and move ...... 20 2.2.2. Functional phrases ...... 22 2.2.3. Bare Phrase Structure vs. Antisymmetric Syntax ...... 23 2.3. Intonational Theory ...... 28 2.3.1. The Autosegmental-Metrical Model ...... 29 2.3.2. The Tones and Breaks system (Sp_ToBI) ...... 31 2.3.3. Psycho-acoustics ...... 33 2.3.4. Coding procedure ...... 34 2.4. Key concepts ...... 41
3. PREVIOUS ACCOUNTS AT THE DISCOURSE - GRAMMAR INTERFACE ...... 42 3.0 Introduction ...... 42 3.1. The cartographic approach ...... 42 3.1.1. Assumptions ...... 43 3.1.2. Description ...... 44 3.1.3. Issues ...... 48 3.2. The derivational approach ...... 60 3.2.1. Assumptions ...... 60 3.2.2. Description ...... 63 3.2.3. Issues ...... 67 3.3. The discourse-free approach ...... 72 3.3.1. Assumptions ...... 73 3.3.2. Description ...... 73 3.3.3. Issues ...... 76 3.4. Interim summary ...... 78 3.5. Research questions ...... 81
4. STUDY 1: A CORPUS ANALYSIS ...... 84 4.0 Introduction ...... 84 4.1 The NOCANDO corpus ...... 85 4.1.1. Description of the corpus ...... 86
A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE vi
TABLE ON CONTENTS (continuted)
4.1.2. Review of CLLDs and FFs ...... 87 4.2. The discourse-syntax interface ...... 89 4.2.1. Quantitative analysis of CLLD ...... 89 4.2.2. Qualitative comparison between CLLD and canonical constructions ...... 94 4.3. The discourse-phonology interface ...... 101 4.3.1. Coding procedure ...... 101 4.3.2. Results ...... 102 4.4. Discussion ...... 103
5. STUDY 2: AN ACCEPTABILITY JUDGMENT TASK ...... 106 5.0. Introduction ...... 106 5.1. Methodology ...... 110 5.1.1. Participants ...... 110 5.1.2. Materials and procedures ...... 111 5.1.3. Variables ...... 114 5.1.4. Statistical Analysis ...... 115 5.2. Results ...... 117 5.2.1. Group results ...... 117 5.2.2. Individual variation ...... 119 5.3. Discussion ...... 121
6. STUDY 3: A SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK ...... 125 6.0. Introduction ...... 125 6.1. Methodology ...... 127 6.1.1. Participants ...... 127 6.1.2. Materials ...... 128 6.1.3. Procedures ...... 130 6.1.4. Variables ...... 131 6.1.5. Coding procedure ...... 134 6.1.6. Statistical analysis ...... 134 6.2. Results for Session 1 – CLLD and FF ...... 136 6.2.1. Inter-rater reliability ...... 136 6.2.2. Results for pitch-accent ...... 137 6.2.3. Results for boundary-tone ...... 139 6.2.4. Results for range ...... 141 6.2.5. Interim discussion I ...... 143 6.3. Results for Session 2 – Canonical constructions ...... 147 6.3.1. Inter-rater reliability ...... 147 6.3.2. Results for pitch-accent ...... 148 6.3.3. Results for boundary-tone ...... 150 6.3.4. Results for range ...... 152 6.3.5. Interim discussion II ...... 154 6.4. General discussion ...... 156
A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
7. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE...... 158 7.0. Introduction ...... 158 7.1. Comparison across Studies 1-3 ...... 159 7.2. Implications for linguistic theory ...... 161 7.3. An alternative: A morphological approach to discourse ...... 163 7.3.1. Assumptions (and non-assumptions) ...... 164 7.3.2. Discourse features ...... 167 7.3.3. Morphosyntactic derivation ...... 175 7.3.4. Spell-out ...... 180 7.3.5. Antisymmetry and Phase Theory ...... 185 7.3.6. A new interpretation of the dissertation results ...... 187 7.4. Limitations and further research ...... 189 7.5. Conclusion ...... 191
REFERENCES ...... 193
APPENDICES ...... 205 Appendix 1 - Study 1: Syntactic labeling ...... 205 Appendix 2 – Study 1: Discourse coding procedure (from Götze et al., 2007) ...... 207 Appendix 3 – Study 1: CLLD in context ...... 211 Appendix 4 – Study 1: Discourse data-set ...... 216 Appendix 5 – Study 1: Intonation data-set ...... 217 Appendix 6 - Study 2: Participants ...... 218 Appendix 7 - Study 2: Instructions and practice items ...... 221 Appendix 8 - Study 2: Stimuli ...... 224 Appendix 9 – Study 2: Data set ...... 236 Appendix 10 - Study 2: R output ...... 254 Appendix 11 – Study 2: Effect size calculations ...... 257 Appendix 12 - Study 2: Individual variation ...... 258 Appendix 13 - Study 3: Background questionnaire ...... 263 Appendix 14 - Study 3: Participants ...... 267 Appendix 15 - Study 3: Stimuli ...... 268 Appendix 16 - Study 3: Data set ...... 272 Appendix 17 - Study 3: R output ...... 279 Appendix 18 - Study 3: Odds ratio and effect size calculations ...... 288 Appendix 19 – Study 3: Individual variation ...... 290 Appendix 20 – Study 3: Post-hoc reanalyses ...... 297 Appendix 21 – Study 3: License from Syntax ...... 303
VITA ...... 310
A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE viii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE I: FIRST VERSION OF THE TEST CASE...... 7
TABLE II: APPROXIMATE EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN DISCOURSE FEATURES AND DESCRIPTIVE DISCOURSE PHENOMENA...... 13
TABLE III: PITCH ACCENTS, AS PROPOSED BY HUALDE AND PRIETO (2015)...... 32
TABLE IV: BOUNDARY TONES, AS PROPOSED BY ESTEBAS-VILAPLANA & PRIETO (2010, P. 20-21)...... 33
TABLE V: SUMMARY OF BIANCHI AND FRASCARELLI'S (2010) MODEL...... 48
TABLE VI: SECOND VERSION OF THE TEST CASE...... 59
TABLE VII: SUMMARY OF LOPEZ'S (2009a) MODEL...... 66
TABLE VIII: THIRD VERSION OF THE TEST CASE...... 72
TABLE IX: FINAL VERSION OF THE TEST CASE...... 79
TABLE X:NOCAN´S (NON-CANONICAL CONSTRUCTIONS) LABELS FOR THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES IN THE NOCANDO CORPUS (BRUNETTI ET AL., 2011). .... 87
TABLE XI: TRANSFORMATION TABLE - INFORMATION STATUS (GÖTZE ET AL., 2007) INTO TOPIC/FOCUS TYPES (BIANCHI & FRASCARELLI, 2010)...... 91
TABLE XII: TRANSFORMATION TABLE - INFORMATION STATUS (GÖTZE ET AL., 2007) INTO FEATURES (LÓPEZ, 2009a)...... 92
TABLE XIII: CLLD BY INFORMATION STATUS (GÖTZE ET AL., 2007) IN THE SPANISH SECTION OF THE NOCANDO CORPUS (ORIGINAL CODING)...... 92
TABLE XIV: CLLD BY TOPIC/FOCI TYPE (BIANCHI & FRASCARELLI, 2010) IN THE SPANISH SECTION OF THE NOCANDO CORPUS (TRANSFORMATION FROM GÖTZE ET AL.'S, 2007 CODING, AS IN PREVIOUS TABLE).: ...... 93
TABLE XV: CLLD BY FEATURE-TYPE (LÓPEZ, 2009a) IN THE SPANISH SECTION OF THE NOCANDO CORPUS...... 93
TABLE XVI: PITCH ACCENTS BY CLLD-TYPE IN THE NOCANDO CORPUS...... 102
A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE ix
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
TABLE XVII: BOUNDARY TONE BY CLLD-TYPE IN THE NOCANDO CORPUS...... 103
TABLE XVIII: DESCRIPTION OF THE 25 PARTICIPANTS IN THE ACCEPTABILITY JUDGMENT TASK...... 111
TABLE XIX: LATIN-SQUARE DESIGN OF THE ACCEPTABILITY JUDGMENT TASK...... 111
TABLE XX: ESTIMATED GROUP RESULTS FROM THE ACCEPTABILITY JUDGMENT TASK...... 118
TABLE XXI: FIXED EFFECTS FROM THE LINEAR MIXED MODEL (ACCEPTABILITY JUDGMENT TASK)...... 119
TABLE XXII: TUKEY HSD POST-HOC PAIRWAISE COMPARISONS FROM THE LINEAR MIXED MODEL (ACCEPTABILITY JUDGMENT TASK)...... 120
TABLE XXIII: PATTERNS IN THE INDIVIDUAL RESULTS OF THE ACCEPTABILITY JUDGMENT TASK...... 120
TABLE XXIV: DESCRIPTION OF THE 22 PARTICIPANTS IN THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK...... 128
TABLE XXV: LATIN-SQUARE DESIGN OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK. ... 128
TABLE XXVI: FIXED EFFECTS FOR PITCH-ACCENT IN SESSION 1 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK...... 138
TABLE XXVII: PAIRWISE COMPARISONS FOR PITCH-ACCENT IN SESSION 1 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK...... 138
TABLE XXVIII: ODDS RATIO FOR PITCH-ACCENT IN SESSION 1 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK...... 138
TABLE XXIX: INDIVIDUAL VARIATION FOR PITCH-ACCENT IN SESSION 1 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK...... 139
TABLE XXX: FIXED EFFECTS FOR BOUNDARY-TONE IN SESSION 1 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK...... 140
A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE x
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
TABLE XXXI: PAIRWISE COMPARISON FOR BOUNDARY-TONE IN SESSION 1 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK...... 140
TABLE XXXII: ODDS RATIO FOR BOUNDARY-TONE IN SESSION 1 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK...... 141
TABLE XXXIII: INDIVIDUAL VARIATION FOR BOUNDARY-TONE IN SESSION 1 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK...... 141
TABLE XXXIV: RANGE GROUP RESULTS IN SESSION 1 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK...... 142
TABLE XXXV: FIXED EFFECTS FOR RANGE IN SESSION 1 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK...... 143
TABLE XXXVI: PAIRWISE COMPARISONS AND EFFECT SIZES FOR RANGE IN SESSION 1 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK...... 143
TABLE XXXVII: FIXED EFFECTS FOR PITCH-ACCENTS IN SESSION 2 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTIONS TASK...... 149
TABLE XXXVIII: PAIRWISE COMPARISONS FOR PITCH-ACCENT IN SESSION 2 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK...... 149
TABLE XXXIX: ODDS RATIO FOR PITCH-ACCENT IN SESSION 2 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK...... 149
TABLE XL: INDIVIDUAL VARIATION FOR PITCH-ACCENT IN SESSION 2 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK...... 150
TABLE XLI: FIXED EFFECTS FOR BOUNDARY-TONE IN SESSION 2 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK...... 151
TABLE XLII: PAIRWISE COMPARISONS FOR BOUNDARY-TONE IN SESSION 2 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK...... 151
TABLE XLIII: ODDS RATIO FOR BOUNDARY-TONE IN SESSION 2 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK...... 151
TABLE XLIV: INDIVIDUAL VARIATION FOR BOUNDARY-TONE IN SESSION 2 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK...... 152
A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE xi
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
TABLE XLV: RANGE GROUP RESULTS IN SESSION 2 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK...... 153
TABLE XLVI: FIXED EFFECTS FOR RANGE IN SESSION 2 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK...... 153
TABLE XLVII: PAIRWISE COMPARISONS AND EFFECT SIZES FOR RANGE IN SESSION 2 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK...... 153
TABLE XLVIII: APPROXIMATE EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN DISCOURSE FEATURES AND DESCRIPTIVE DISCOURSE PHENOMENA...... 175
A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Place of Universal Grammar in relation to other extralinguistic domains. Based on Wenger (2008), Figure 1...... 18
Figure 2: Minimalist model of language. Based on Wenger (2008), Figure 2...... 19
Figure 3: Intonational movement between low and high tones (based on Estebas-Vilaplana & Prieto, 2008, Figure 3)...... 30
Figure 4: Representation of the L+H* pitch accent...... 36
Figure 5: Representation of the L+ Figure 6: Representation of the L*+H pitch accent...... 37 Figure 7: Representation of the H+L* pitch accent...... 37 Figure 8: Representation of the H* pitch accent...... 38 Figure 9: Representation of the L* pitch accent...... 38 Figure 10: Representation of a ‘low sustained’ tone, coded as L-...... 39 Figure 11: Representation of a ‘falling’ tone, coded as L-...... 40 Figure 12: Representation of a ‘rising pitch movement from a low pitch accent,’ coded as H-. 40 Figure 13: Representation of a ‘rising pitch movement from a high pitch accent,’ coded as H-.41 Figure 14: Linguistic modules under López's (2009a, p.23) model...... 63 Figure 15: Cartographic prediction (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010) for the acceptability judgment task...... 108 Figure 16: Derivational prediction (López, 2009a) for the acceptability judgment task...... 108 Figure 17: Discourse-free prediction (Rubio Alcalá, 2014) for the acceptability judgment task...... 109 Figure 18: Informal representation of the results found in the acceptability judgment task. .... 109 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE xiii LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Figure 19: Estimated group results from the acceptability judgment task. Canonical utterances are represented in dark-blue, CLLD is represented in light blue, and the error bars represent the 95% Confidence Interval...... 118 Figure 20: Pitch-accent group results in Session 1 of the scripted production task...... 137 Figure 21: Boundary-tone group results in Session 1 of the scripted production task...... 140 Figure 22: Range group results in Session 1 of the scripted production task. The error bars represent the 95% Confidence Interval...... 142 Figure 23: Nuclear configuration for contrastive focus: Raising pitch-accent (L+H*) and a low boundary tone (L-), with a larger pitch-range...... 146 Figure 24: Nuclear configuration for both topic types (contrastive and given): Raising pitch- accent (L+H*) and a high boundary tone (H-), with a smaller pitch-range...... 147 Figure 25: Raw pitch-accent group results in Session 2 of the scripted production task...... 148 Figure 26: Boundary-tone group results in Session 2 of the scripted production task...... 150 Figure 27: Range group results in Session 2 of the scripted production task. The error bars represent the 95% Confidence Interval...... 152 Figure 28: Logical and phonological (trace) output of the [+anaphora] discourse feature...... 184 Figure 29: Logical and phonological (trace) output of the [+promotion] discourse feature. .... 185 Figure 30: Logical and phonological output of the [+contrast] discourse feature...... 185 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE xiv LIST OF ABBREAVIATIONS [ ∅ ] Lack of discourse features [+a] [+anaphora] [+c] [+contrast] [+p] [+promotion] 1st first person 2nd second person 3rd third person A-M (Model) Autosegmental-Metrical (Model) A-Topic(-P) aboutness topic (phrase) ACC accusative AJT acceptability judgment task A(P) adjectival/adverbial (phrase) APS articulatory-perceptual system C-Focus(-P) contrastive focus (phrase) C-Topic(-P) contrastive topic (phrase) CAN canonical CHL computational system of human language CIS conceptual-intentional system Cl. clitic CLLD clitic-doubled left dislocation CLRD clitic-doubled right dislocation C(P) complementizer phrase DAT dative DOM differential object marker D(P) determiner (phrase) FF focus fronting Fin(-P) finite (phrase) Foc(-P) focus (phrase) Force(-P) force (phrase) fut future G-Topic(-P) given topic (phrase) H* high pitch accent H% high boundary tone H- high intermediate boundary tone HLD hanging left dislocation Hz. hertz inf infinitive L* low pitch accent L% low boundary tone A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE xv LIST OF ABBREAVIATIONS (continued) L- low intermediate boundary tone LCA Linearization Correspondence Axiom LF logical from NOCAN non-canonical construction NOCANDO non-canonical constructions corpus NOM nominative N(P) noun (phrase) part participle OT Optimality Theory PF phonological form pl plural P(P) prepositional phrase (Sp_)ToBI (Spanish) Tones and Breaks Indices Spec specifier SPT scripted production task t( ) trace Top(-P) topic u- unvalued UG Universal Grammar V(P) verb (phrase) v(P) little verb (phrase) SVO subject – verb - object A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE xvi SUMMARY The goal of this dissertation is twofold. First, this is an empirical attempt to investigate whether certain discourse contexts determine 1) word order and 2) phonology. Second, this project provides a theoretical account for these findings. The test case is the Spanish left periphery; namely clitic-doubled left dislocations (CLLD), focus fronting (FF), and their canonical counterparts. Starting from the canonical example in (i), FF involves fronting of a constituent (as in (ii)), while CLLD involves the same fronting plus the addition of a clitic-doubling pronoun (as in (iii)). (i) María ve [a Pedro] en el parque. Maria see.3rd DOM Pedro in the park ‘Maria sees Pedro in the Park.' (ii) [FF A Pedro] ve María en el parque. (iii) [CLLD A Pedro] María [clitic-doubling lo] ve en el parque. In general terms, FF contrasts some information given in previous sentences (It is Pedro that Maria sees, not Pablo), while CLLD links the constituent to a previous referent (Where do I see my friends? I see Pedro here and Pablo there). Further, FF marks its contrastivity with the addition of an emphatic phonology, which does not happen in CLLD. Despite the general claim presented above, previous accounts on the interpretation of CLLD and FF disagree on the details. First, Bianchi and Frascarelli (2010) argue that CLLD can fulfill multiple discourse contexts: Introduction of new information (What happened? I saw Pedro in the park), contrastive link (Where do I see my friends? I see Pedro here and Pablo there), and one-to-one link (Where do I see my friends? I see my friends in the park). Further, these discourse A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE xvii SUMMARY (continued) functions cannot be fulfilled by canonical utterances, and each interpretation corresponds to a unique intonation. However, previous experimental attempts to find such interpretation- intonation correlations found no significant results (Gupton, forthcoming; Stavropoulou & Spiliotopoulos, 2011; Pešková, 2015, 2018). In fact, discourse-phonology correlation seems to take a different form in the Spanish left-periphery, with contrastive-focus (see FF in example (ii)) being expressed via contrastive-stress (Hualde & Prieto, 2015; Ladd, 2008; Pešková, 2015, 2018). In a second approach to the problematic Spanish left periphery, López (2009a) argues for a unique interpretation of FF (as in (ii)) and CLLD (as in (iii)), which can also be fulfilled by canonical utterances. Third, Rubio Alcalá (2014) argues for a complete interpretational freedom of all canonical and non-canonical utterances. However, neither Bianchi and Frascarelli, López, nor Rubio Alcalá provide experimental evidence either. Despite the theoretical claims discussed in Chapter 3, it is the mismatches in empirical predictions and the lack of experimental evidence that opens up many avenues for experimental research. In order to fill-in some of the gaps presented in the previous paragraph, this dissertation presents three studies. Study 1 (Chapter 4) analyzes the Spanish section of the NOCANDO corpus (Brunetti, Bott, Costa, & Vallduví, 2011) as a first tentative approach to the issue. Given some limitations in Study 1, I propose two additional experimental studies with native speakers of Spanish from Madrid, Spain. In Study 2 (Chapter 5), participants provide their judgments on A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE xviii SUMMARY (continued) different word orders (CLLD vs. canonicals) in a series of discourse contexts. In Study 3 (Chapter 6), participants’ scripted production is analyzed in order to learn about the phonology of different word orders (CLLD vs. FF vs. canonicals). Results show that speakers produce (Study 1) and accept (Study 3) both CLLD and its canonical counterpart in multiple discourse contexts (contrary to López, 2009a and Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010). However, CLLD does not work as an answer to a wh-word (contra Rubio Alcalá, 2014) Further, no specific intonation pattern is found for each discourse context (Studies 1 and 3; contra Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010; aligning with Gupton, forthcoming; Stavropoulou & Spiliotopoulos, 2011; Pešková, 2015, 2018). Instead, there is a pattern for contrastive focus (FF and its canonical counterpart) that includes contrastive stress, but is different from topics (CLLD and its canonical counterpart) that do not include any sort of emphasis (aligning with Hualde & Prieto, 2015; Ladd, 2008; Pešková, 2015, 2018). In sum, the results of these three experiments do not fully confirm any of the previous models. My theoretical claim to explain such variability in word order and phonology can be summarized as follows: Discourse features are morphemes from numeration merged as functional heads into the derivation. Under this morphological approach to discourse, discourse features such as [anaphora] or [contrast] are merged to the relevant constituent (e.g. [anaphoric-XP [anaphora] [XP]], similar to a prepositional phrase). Further, an optional movement to the left periphery in CLLD is caused by an unvalued feature in C-head (e.g. [CP [[anaphoric-XP] A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE xix SUMMARY (continued) [[unvalued-anaphora] [... [t(anaphoric-XP) ]]]]], similar to wh-movement). For example, a feature such as [anaphora] explains the linked interpretation as well as the clitic-doubling present in CLLD, while [contrast] explains the contrastive interpretation and the emphatic phonology present in FF. This model simplifies discourse by the addition of only a small number of morphemes to the basic architecture of human language (Chomsky, 1995; contra Bianchi & Frascarelli 2010, and López, 2009). A complete description of this model is provided in Chapter 7. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROCH TO DISCOURSE 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Scope of the dissertation Much generative research in recent years has focused on the interaction of different linguistic subdomains, and how this interaction can help us develop a holistic model of the architecture of human language. Overarching theoretical questions include: Does phonology have its own interpretation system (e.g. Prince & Smolensky, 1993) or does it depend directly on morphology (e.g. Newell, 2015)? Are semantics and discourse two different domains (e.g. Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010; López, 2009a) or two aspects of the same domain (e.g. Chomsky 1976, 1981)? Is discourse pre- (e.g. Cruschina, 2009) or post- (e.g. Rochemont, 1986) syntactic? One subdomain extensively studied is discourse, at its interface with syntax and phonology. The interface among these three domains is worth investigating because it has implications for the larger questions presented above, and for language at large. Let’s take a closer look at the discourse-syntax-phonology interface. The term ‘discourse’ refers to the functions that constituents take within a context beyond the sentence level (e.g. information can be new or old, it can be the main theme of the conversation or new information about that main theme, etc.). Interestingly, the discourse domain very strongly affects other domains. For example, the link of a constituent to previous discourse may force its move to the left periphery and its clitic-doubling, as in (1.1): (1.1) a. Veo a Pedro en el parque. (Canonical VO) see.1st DOM Pedro in the park ‘I see Pedro in the park.’ A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 2 b. - 'Where do you see [ANTECEDENT your friends]?' - Pues [a Pedro] [lo] veo en el parque, y a María en casa.(Non-canonical) Well DOM Pedro Cl see.1st in the park and DOM Maria at home 'Well, I see Pedro in the park, and Maria at home.' Also, the contrast of a constituent to a previously given referent may force the presence of an emphatic phonology, represented in capital letters, as in (1.2): (1.2) - ‘You see your friends quite a lot, right?' - ¡No! ¡[FF A MIS PRIMOS] veo! No DOM my cousins.ACC see.1st ‘No! I see my cousins (not my friends)!' The reader can see that discourse shapes other domains, minimally syntax and phonology. Previous theoretical explanations on how these interactions among domains take place typically align with either of the following three approaches: First, the cartographic approach (e.g. Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010) argues for the existence of discourse-specific syntactic positions that also align with certain phonological characteristics. Second, the derivational approach (López, 2009a) proposes that the syntactic derivation of certain constructions is what receives a certain discursive interpretation. Third, the discourse-free approach (Rubio Alcalá, 2014) argues that syntax is free from any discourse restrictions based on the extreme flexibility of word order languages such as Spanish. In addition to a series of theoretical problems presented in Chapter 3, each of the three models presented above is also subject to counterexamples. For example, the cartographic approach (e.g. Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010) is not able to explain the freedom in word order in examples such as (1.3): (1.3) a. ¿Cuándo le darás [ANTECEDENT el dinero] [ANTECEDENT a tus padres]? When Cl.DAT give.2nd.fut the money to your parents A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 3 ‘When will you give the money to your parents? b. [A mi madre] [el dinero] se lo daré to my mother.DAT the money.ACC Cl.DAT Cl.ACC give.1st.fut mañana y [a mi padre] la semana que viene. tomorrow and to my father.DAT the week that comes ‘I'll give the money to my mother tomorrow, and to my father next week.' c. [El dinero] [a mi madre] se lo daré the money.ACC to my mother.DAT Cl.DAT Cl.ACC give.1st.fut mañana y [a mi padre] la semana que viene tomorrow and to my father.DAT the week that comes ‘I'll give the money to my mother tomorrow, and to my father next week.' If there are specific positions for each type of relationship to previous discourse, the word order should be consistent or the two orders should correlate with two different interpretations, but we see that this is not the case. The derivational approach (López, 2009a) overcomes this limitation, as the correlation is one-way: One syntactic process receives one interpretation, but the same interpretation may accidentally take with a different syntactic structure. However, this second approach cannot account for the all answers to the question in (1.4): (1.4) a. ‘You see [your friends] quite a lot, right?' b. ¡No! ¡[A MIS PRIMOS] veo! No DOM my cousins.ACC see.1st ‘No! I see my cousins (not my friends)!' c. ¡No! ¡Veo [A MIS PRIMOS]! No see.1st DOM my cousins.ACC ‘No! I see my cousins (not my friends)!' López (2009a) argues that the fronting of A MIS PRIMOS ‘my cousins’ to the left in (1.4b) is what makes the constituent receive a contrastive interpretation (‘cousins’ vs. ‘friends’). Further, its emphatic phonology is the result of its contrastivity (see also De Hoop, 2004). However, López’s model would argue that there is not an involvement ‘contrastivity’ per se in (1.4c); there is no movement to the left, which is what is interpreted as contrastive, and therefore any sort of A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 4 discursive relation is accidental. However, the emphatic phonology of A MIS PRIMOS ‘my cousins’ in (1.4c) is evidence of contrastivity, even in its canonical position. Lastly, the discourse- free approach (Rubio Alcalá, 2014) has no problem explaining examples such as (1.3), as discourse posits no limitation for syntax. However, the problem for this model is that it is unable to explain why any phonological marker of discourse (e.g. emphatic contrastivity) even exists. If there is no discursive domain per se, the author predicts that movement and contrastive stress should appear randomly. This could result in overproduction of this contrastive stress beyond contrastive foci, but this is not the case. These models and their counterexamples, along with multiple theoretical issues, are discussed in full detail in Chapter 3. Taking into account what we have seen thus far, this dissertation has two goals. On the one hand, it provides an experimental testing of counterexamples such as those proposed above. On the other hand, and after concluding that none of the previous models can capture all the evidence and counterevidence, I theorize a new theoretical view on the discourse-grammar interface. Before looking at the empirical (Section 1.3.) and theoretical (Section 1.4.) aspects of this project in further detail, let us look into the test case of this dissertation in full detail. 1.2. The test case: The Spanish left periphery In this section, I follow López (2009a, p.3-11) in his description of focus fronting (FF) and clitic- doubled left dislocations (CLLD), and I compare them with canonical utterances. I focus on these constructions, as these are the constructions considered in previous theoretical models of the left periphery (see Chapter 3). Let us start with the canonical example in (1.5): (1.5) María ve [DIRECT-OBJECT a Pedro] en el parque. Maria see.3rd DOM Pedro in the park A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 5 ‘Maria sees Pedro in the Park.' Let me highlight some points: First, Spanish is canonically a SVO language (María ve a Pedro 'Maria sees Pedro'). Second, there is a direct object a Pedro 'Pedro,' which includes a Differential Object Marker (DOM) a, marking Pedro as a human constituent with accusative case. Keeping these two characteristics in mind, let us see now examples (1.6) and (1.7): (1.6) [FF A Pedro] ve María en el parque. DOM Pedro.ACC see.3rd Maria in the park ‘Maria sees Pedro in the Park.' (1.7) [CLLD A Pedro] María lo ve en el parque. DOM Pedro.ACC Maria Cl.ACC see.3rd in the park ‘Maria sees Pedro in the Park.' These are instances of FF (in (1.6)) and CLLD (in (1.7)). The only difference from (1.5) is that the direct object a Pedro 'Pedro' appears in the left periphery. Note that the DOM a stays in both in FF and CLLD, showing that the constituent keeps its accusative case and its status as a direct object. A CLLD-ed constituent (unlike FF) is doubled with a clitic matching the dislocated constituent in person (3rd), number (singular), gender (masculine), and case (accusative). Lastly, FF requires a verb-subject inversion (ve María 'Maria sees') while CLLD allows for subject-verb canonical word order (María lo ve 'Maria (him) sees'). Let us now look into the discourse contexts that FF and CLLD can fulfill. On the one hand, CLLD is typically considered contrastive (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010; López, 2009a). In example (1.8), we see that the constituent a Pedro 'Pedro' in the answer creates a contrast, both with the antecedent a tus amigos 'your friends,' with the former referring to one-but-not-all members of the latter (López, 2009a), and between both CLLD-ed constituents A Pedro 'Pedro' and A María 'Maria' (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010; Frascarelli & Hinterhölzl, 2007). (1.8) a. ¿Dónde ves [ANTECEDENT a tus amigos]? Where see.2nd DOM your friends A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 6 ‘Where do you see your friends?' b. Pues [CLLD a Pedro] lo veo en el parque, y a María en casa. Well DOM Pedro.ACC Cl.ACC see.1st in the park and DOM Maria at home ‘Well, I see Pedro in the park, and Maria at home.' Bianchi and Frascarelli further claim that CLLD can front an element linked directly to a discourse antecedent, without contrast (as in (1.9)): (1.9) a. ¿Dónde ves [ANTECEDENT a tus amigos]? Where see.2nd DOM your friends ‘Where do you see your friends?' b. Pues [CLLD a mis amigos] los veo en el parque. Well DOM my friends.ACC Cl.ACC see.1st in the park ‘Well, I see my friends in the park.' Furthermore, Bianchi and Frascarelli also argue that CLLD can introduce an out-of-the-blue aboutness topic (as in 1.10): (1.10) ¡Oh! [CLLD A los colegas de Coslada] ya nunca los veo. Oh! DOM the friends from Coslada.ACC already never Cl.ACC see.1st ‘I don't see my friends from Coslada anymore.' Let us now turn to FF. This construction is considered contrastive, but also focal. In example (1.11), the FF-ed constituent a mis primos 'my cousins' creates a contrast with the antecedent a mis amigos 'my friends' (like CLLD), but "a previous statement is corrected with a contrastive focus" (Rizzi, 2004, p.12) (unlike CLLD). (1.11) a. Ves [ANTECEDENT a tus amigos] bastante, ¿verdad? see.2nd DOM your friends enough truth ‘You see your friends quite a lot, right?' b. ¡No! ¡[FF A mis primos] veo! No DOM my cousins.ACC see.1st ‘No! I see my cousins (not my friends)!' I present a summary of this section in Table I: A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 7 TABLE I: FIRST VERSION OF THE TEST CASE.1 Description Discourse status CLLD Fronting + DOM + clitic-doubling Aboutness, anaphoric, or anaphoric-contrastive FF Fronting + DOM Contrastive focus As a final note, there is a large degree of variation in the Spanish left periphery. For instance, left dislocations without a resumptive clitic pronoun have been noted in Basque Spanish (Gómez Seibane, 2012), as well as clitic-doubling in canonical utterances in Rioplatense Spanish (Belloro, 2008). Further, the intonational patterns of CLLD also show a large degree of variability across dialects (Feldhausen & Lausecker, 2018). In order to control for these variables, this dissertation focuses on L1 speakers of Castilian Spanish who lived in the Madrid area at the time of testing. Madrid was chosen as the testing location for three reasons: First, most people in central and Southern Spain are monolingual in Spanish, while multilingualism is more common in Northern and Eastern Spain and the Spanish-speaking Americas. Second, Madrid is the largest city in this part of the country, which makes it easier to find potential participants. Third, and most importantly, the Madrid speaking population matches previous descriptions of the left periphery (as in this section and in Chapter 3). 1.3. The empirical goal: Experimental confirmation 1 See the complete test case with an explanation at the very end of Chapter 3. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 8 After considering the counterexamples in Section 1.1. and the test case in Section 1.2., this section justifies an experimental test of 1) my intuitions together with 2) the mismatches among previous theoretical approaches. The research questions are fully justified after a detailed literature review in Chapter 3, but I present them here so that the reader has a clear picture of the goals of this dissertation: ● RQ1: Does Spanish CLLD fulfill multiple discourse contexts? ○ YES: cartographic prediction (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010) and discourse-free prediction (Rubio Alcalá, 2014). ○ NO: derivational prediction (López, 2009a) ● RQ2: Do canonical utterances fulfill the same discourse contexts as Spanish CLLD? ○ YES: derivational prediction (López, 2009a, by accidental co-reference) and discourse-free prediction (Rubio Alcalá, 2014). ○ NO: cartographic prediction (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010) ● RQ3: Are different discourse-contexts marked via specific-pitch accent in Spanish? ○ YES: cartographic prediction (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010) ○ NO: based on previous experimental evidence (Gupton, forthcoming; Stavropoulou & Spiliotopoulos, 2011; Pešková, 2015, 2018) ● RQ4: Is contrastive focus marked via contrastive-stress in Spanish? ○ YES: based on intonational phonology theory (Ladd, 2008) and previous experimental evidence (Hualde & Prieto, 2015; Pešková, 2015, 2018) In order to find answers to these questions, this dissertation implements an analysis of the NOCANDO corpus (Brunetti, Bott, Costa, & Vallduví, 2011) in Study 1 (Chapter 4). This first tentative study finds an affirmative answer to RQ1 and RQ2, and a negative answer to RQ3: CLLD fulfills multiple discourse contexts, CLLD and canonical utterances seem interchangeable, and pitch-accents do not mark any specific discourse contexts. Due to some limitations on this first study (presented in Chapter 4), two additional studies are presented: Study 2 (Chapter 5) is an acceptability judgment task, and it finds additional evidence for an affirmative answer to RQ1 and RQ2. Study 3 (Chapter 6) is a scripted production task and, as in Study 1, no evidence for an affirmative answer to RQ3 is found. Further, Study 3 also finds an affirmative answer for RQ4: A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 9 Contrastive-focus is marked via contrastive-stress – namely, an expanded intonational range and a rise-fall intonational pattern. These findings have several implications for the previous models: First, the cartographic approach (e.g. Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010) is not able to account for the interchangeability between CLLD and its canonical counterparts. The model predicts a one position - one interpretation correlation, but the findings in relation to RQ2 show otherwise. This first model cannot account for the lack of discourse-specific pitch-accents either. The one interpretation - one pitch-accent correlation was not confirmed either. Second, the derivational approach (López, 2009a) cannot account for the multiple discourse interpretations of CLLD: The derivation of CLLD should always trigger an anaphoric interpretation, but the findings in relation to RQ1 show that other interpretations are also possible. Third, the discourse-free approach (Rubio Alcalá, 2014) is not able to account for the presence of contrastive-stress: There should be no discourse- specific effects on other domains if there is no discourse intervention, but the answer to RQ4 borne out in my data shows that there is, in fact, discourse intervention. In sum, none of the previous models is able to account for the empirical landscape that the results from this dissertation present. 1.4. The theoretical goal: A morphological approach to discourse Beyond the empirical goals and findings presented in Section 1.3., the second goal of this project is to solve some theoretical issues from previous models and to theorize a model able to account for all the data. On the one hand, the three models presented above run into theoretical problems such as the violation of the principle of Inclusiveness (contra Chomsky, 1995), the inclusion of A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 10 [topic] and [focus] as real linguistic features (contra López, 2009a), and the explanation of in-situ topics as simply accidental co-reference (my critique). All these elements are explained in full detail in Chapter 3. On the other hand, as the reader saw above, none of the three models are able to accommodate all the experimental findings from this dissertation. In order to resolve the issues presented thus far, I present an alternative theoretical approach to discourse in Chapter 7. In a nutshell, I propose that discourse features are morphemes from numeration merged during morphosyntactic derivation as functional heads (based on Cruschina, 2009; Aboh, 2016; Rizzi, 1997; Rizzi & Cinque, 2016). The fact that discourse features are just morphemes is more evident in languages in which those morphemes are overtly externalized (e.g. wa in Japanese, num and ka in Korean [Lee & Shimojo, 2016], and na, (n)so, mpo, nko, and ara in the Akan language [Amfo, 2010], and mi, qa, taq, and ri among others in Quechua [Sánchez, 2010]). In the case of Spanish, contrastive-stress would be the externalization of a [contrast] feature, and clitic-doubling would be the externalization of features2 that provide links to given antecedents ( [anaphora] ) and new referents ( [promotion] ). Let us see a concrete example. Under my model, a discourse-feature (e.g. [+contrast] ) merges to the target constituent: (1.12) 2 In fact, I claim that clitic-doubling is the externalization of a trace, not the feature itself. This point is explained in full detail in Chapter 7. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 11 Both [+x] (a discourse feature) and the elements within XP (let us say a Pedro ‘Pedro’) are morphemes from a numeration. [+x] would be the head of a [+x]phrase, taking XP as its complement. Then, [+x]XP could be inserted in its canonical position where XP could get its theta-role and case, without any further assumptions. Note that the theory does not need any discourse-specific devices; this sort of functional phrase is not different from a prepositional or determiner phrase. When fronting does take place, there is an additional step: (1.13) In (1.13), [+x]XP moves to the left periphery due to the presence of an unvalued u-x feature in C- head (along the lines of [u훿] in C-head in Lochbihler & Mathieu, 2016 and Miyagawa, 2010). My proposal here is similar to wh-movement (Cheng, 1997; Chomsky, 1977): If movement happens, it is due to an unvalued feature in a C-head. However, this unvalued feature may not be appear (following Bošković,1997 analysis of in-situ wh), not leading to fronting (optional wh-movement in French: Cheng & Rooryck, 2000; and Spanish: Etxepare & Uribe Etxebarria, 2005). This way, whatever discourse-feature makes the fronted constituents in (1.1b) and (1.4b) have clitic- doubling and contrastive-stress, is the same one that provokes the same co-occurring phenomena in non-fronted constituents (e.g. examples (1.4c)). Once again, note that this second step is not discourse-specific either; this is the same as wh-movement. I emphasize the lack of discourse- specific devices in my model because previous models have relied on extensive modifications of the basic Minimalist inverted-Y (see Chapter 2) to explain utterances such as CLLD or FF, despite A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 12 their low frequency: By focusing exclusively on non-canonical constructions, authors have complicated the general model of language, in my opinion, unnecessarily. The concrete pragmatic features that I propose are the following: (1.14) a. [+a] : Anaphora. Link to a discourse-local referent (López, 2009a; Vallduví, 1992; Villalba, 2000). b. [+p] : Promotion. Introduction of a discourse-new referent, which becomes salient (based on Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010; López, 2016). c. [+c] : Contrast. Evoking of alternatives (López, 2009a; Vallduví & Vilkuna, 1998; Villalba, 2000). d. [ ∅ ] : Comment, by default. This is not a feature, but a lack of features. (López, 2009a) Further, the phonological spell-out for each feature would be the following: (1.15) a. [+a] → Clitic-doubling3 b. [+p] → Clitic-doubling c. [+c] → Contrastive-stress Keep in mind that these are simple conditionals: For example, [+a] is the cause of clitic-doubling, and not the other way around. In other words, clitic-doubling and contrastive-stress in Spanish are the equivalent to the morphemes wa in Japanese, num and ka in Korean (Lee & Shimojo, 2016), and na, (n)so, mpo, nko, and ara in the Akan language (Amfo, 2010) or mi, qa, taq, and ri among others, in Quechua (Sánchez, 2010): The phonological overt expression of a discourse feature. On top of being able to account for both fronted and non-fronted constituents, the second benefit of this analysis is that discourse is explained by the addition of only three morphemes to Linguistic theory, with no syntactic nor post-syntactic discourse-specific device. In order to get an intuition of what these discourse features and their combination looks like, Table II presents the approximate equivalences between discursive features and descriptive discourse phenomena from previous research: 3 Namely, I claim that clitic-doubling is the externalization of a t[+a] and t[+p] after the relevant constituent moves, and only if it does move. This point is explained in full detail in Chapter 7. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 13 TABLE II: APPROXIMATE EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN DISCOURSE FEATURES AND DESCRIPTIVE DISCOURSE PHENOMENA. Feature(s) Phenomenon Characteristics Example [+a] Given topic Link to a local antecedent. - Where is [[A]Pedro]? - [[+a]He] is in Madrid. [+p] New topic Introduction of a new element, - I love [[+p]those flowers]! which becomes salient. [+c] Contrastive Evoking of alternatives. - You love [[A]María]. focus - I love [[+c]Sara], not Maria. [+a,+c] Contrastive Link to local antecedent, - Where are [[A]they]? topic evoking alternatives. - [[+a,+c]He] is in Madrid, and [[+a,+c]she] is in Barcelona. [+p,+c] Shift topic Introduction of a new element, - I love [the blue flowers]. evoking alternatives. - I prefer [[+p,+c]the red ones]. [+a,+p] n/a A constituent is either new or n/a given, but not both. [ ∅ ] Comment None of the above. - [[A]Where] is Pedro? - He is [[∅]in Madrid]. Let us discuss the examples provided in the table. The feature [+a] creates a link between ‘He’ and its antecedent ‘Paul’ in the example given in the table, which makes it a given topic. Similarly, the feature [+p] introduces the constituent ‘those flowers’ deictically into the explicit linguistic context while it becomes the ‘theme,’ behaving as a new (aboutness) topic. The [+c] feature opens a quantificational domain that resolves ‘Sara’ as an alternative for ‘Maria’: In other words, a contrastive focus. Further, two feature combinations are possible. The [+a,+c] combination opens a quantificational domain within the antecedents included in ‘they,’ which is the typical behavior of a contrastive topic. Lastly, the [+p,+c] opens a quantificational domain of referents that are new, but the constituent behaves as a ‘theme,’ which makes it a shift (aboutness) topic. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 14 The notions of focus and topic (with all their subtypes) can be a useful descriptive tool. However, the goal of generative linguistics is to go beyond the description of external phenomena, by theorizing what factors in speakers’ mental grammars lead to the evidence we see. Along these lines, if we assume that the human language system must be theorized to be as simple as possible (Chomsky, 1992), I believe a hypothesis that explains discourse assuming only three units of functional lexicon is superior to the complex systems proposed in previous research (e.g. Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010 or López, 2009a). Additionally, the morphological discourse hypothesis solves the theoretical problems from previous models (e.g. violation of Inclusiveness, topic-focus, accidental co-reference, etc.), as shown in Chapter 3. 1.5. Outline of the dissertation The rest of the dissertation is outlined as follows: Chapter 2 provides the theoretical toolbox needed to contextualize this dissertation. In Chapter 3, I review the Cartographic Approach to syntax, discourse, and intonation (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010; Frascarelli & Hinterhölzl, 2007; Rizzi, 1997; Rizzi & Cinque, 2016), the derivational approach to information structure by López (2009a), and the discourse-free approach (Rubio Alcalá, 2014). Namely, each model is reviewed on the basis of the theoretical assumptions they make, the concrete models that they posit for the left periphery, and the theoretical and empirical problems they run into. Based on those issues, I propose the research questions and motivate the experiments to find some answers. Chapters 4-6 report the design and results of three studies with the goal of testing the empirical predictions laid out in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 presents Study 1 (a corpus analysis), Chapter 5 presents Study 2 (an acceptability judgment task), and Chapter 6 presents Study 3 (a scripted production task). Finally, A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 15 after justifying that none of the previous models areable to account for all of the data, Chapter 7 proposes a morphological approach to discourse in full detail. Lastly Chapter 7 also closes the dissertation, presenting limitations and new avenues for further inquiry, along with a general conclusion. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 16 2. BACKGROUND: MINIMALISM, SYNTAX, AND INTONATION 2.0. Introduction As stated in Chapter 1, the goal of this dissertation is to study the interface of discourse, syntax, and phonology. The goal of this second chapter is to provide the reader with a basic introduction to the theoretical elements that are assumed and not discussed throughout the rest of this dissertation (any expert reader may skip this chapter). This chapter is outlined as follows: The Minimalist model of language is reviewed (Section 2.1.), as well as the morphosyntactic model of linguistic computation under the Minimalist Program (Section 2.2.), including the distinction between bare phrase structure and antisymmetric syntax (Section 2.2.3.). Further, for intonational theory, the Autosegmental-Metrical Model (Section 2.3.1.), Sp_ToBI (Section 2.3.2.), an introduction to psycho-acoustics (Section 2.3.3.), and the proposed coding procedure for intonation for the rest of the dissertation (Section 2.3.4.) are also presented. This chapter also includes a final summary (Section 2.4.) of the key concepts to understand before moving to Chapter 3. 2.1. The Minimalist model of language All the different linguistic models presented in this dissertation fall within the Minimalist Program. Therefore, a brief introduction to this framework is worth presenting. This is not a summary of the Minimalist Program; I only include the information needed for this dissertation. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 17 The first assumption made by the Minimalist Program is that language is an innate capacity of human beings (Chomsky, 1959). That is, humans acquire language in a similar vein to children learning to walk on two legs- without needing to be taught. However, this innate ability to learn language or walk on two legs is different than, for example, driving a car: Nobody naturally knows how to drive, thus, driving requires explicit learning. Further evidence of language innatism comes from deaf communities (e.g. Senghas, Kita, & Özyürek . 2004) and pidgin and creole languages (e.g. Bickerton, 2016). Further, previous literature (Boeckx & Grohmann, 2007; Chomsky, 1957,1965; Jenkins, 2000) posits that, if the human capacity for language is innate, then it must be available biologically. Something in our genes make us able to understand and speak / sign language. This approach is called Biolinguistics. Taking this idea even further, language could be the result of biological evolution: Language capacity appeared, provided a benefit for the individual, and stayed in the human species. A second assumption of the Minimalist Program comes from Chomsky (1992): Language must be assumed to be simple. In other words, if there are two explanations for the same piece of linguistic data, then it is assumed that the simpler explanation is superior. In the line of Ockham's razor, a simple explanation is preferable as it restricts the number of assumptions made to describe the same natural phenomenon. This second assumption becomes relevant in the development of a morphological approach to discourse, as shown in Chapters 3 and 7. The innate, simple, and uniquely human capacity to acquire and speak language is called Universal Grammar (UG, Chomsky, 1965). According to Chomsky, UG is domain specific; an independent subset of mental processes, uniquely in charge of language. Therefore, UG should not be confused with thought, nor with speech. What makes UG unique is the system that allows speakers to combine symbols (merge), create relationships among those symbols (dependencies), A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 18 and re-introduce those symbols into larger units (recursivity). See Section 2.2. for an explanation on these three characteristics of the human language faculty. Informally, one can think of UG as the subset of processes in between thought and speech, giving shape to thoughts in a linguistic form (merge, dependencies, and recursivity), and providing a connection from these thoughts to speech. Figure 1 is a representation of the relationship among these three mind domains. Figure 1: Place of Universal Grammar in relation to other extralinguistic domains. Based on Wenger (2008), Figure 1. Based on the idea represented in Figure 1, let us discuss the complete model of language in Figure 2. Let us look at the figure top-down. Chomsky (1995) argues that the most basic linguistic units are grammatical features, which may form bundles (aka, morphemes, words, lexical units). There are, at least, three types of grammatical features: morphosyntactic, semantic, and phonological. For example, the morpheme ‘fast’ is a bundle of features, making it an adjective with certain characteristics (morphosyntactic features), giving it its meaning (semantic features), and giving it its sound-representation as /fæst/ (phonological features). Additional feature-types − namely, discourse features − are presented in Chapters 3 and 7. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 19 Figure 2: Minimalist model of language. Based on Wenger (2008), Figure 2. In order to form an utterance, some bundles of features (morphemes) are selected (numeration), as a sort of ‘list of items for an utterance.’ The types of processes that the items from numeration are subject to in the CHL (Computation of Human Language; aka, morphosyntax) are explained in detail in the next subsection. For now, let us just say that morphosyntax puts together the items from the ‘numeration list’ into utterances, given the concrete features each morpheme brings. In the next step (Spell-out), the resulting syntactic construction is sent to the semantic and phonological modules. The semantic and phonological features are checked at this point, providing the Logical Form (LF) and the Phonological Form (PF) respectively. It is important not to confuse LF and PF with the meaning and the sound/sign of a morpheme or utterance. LF and PF are still linguistic structures, which are sent to the conceptual-intentional system (CIS) and the articulatory-perceptual system (APS) in a later stage. It is at this later stage, in these two extra-linguistic domain general systems, when the meaning and sound/sign of language becomes explicit. Under the approach that I am taking in this dissertation, language is just a group of implicit, non-conscious processes involving only bundles of linguistic features. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 20 2.2. Language computation Even though the main goal of this dissertation is of pragmatic / discursive nature, morphosyntax is very much present in the theoretical models reviewed in Chapter 3, and in the morphological approach to discourse presented in Chapter 7. Up to this point, we have discussed that the CHL domain takes lexical items (bundles of features) from numeration (list of items for a sentence), and provides syntactic constructions as an output. Let us take the discussion from this point. 2.2.1. Merge, agree, and move Features and feature-dependent derivation are the two central concepts in the Minimalist Program (Chomsky, 1995). At its most basic level, two constituents become syntactic sisters (merge) due to feature checking (agree) requirements (Adger, 2003)4. This is exemplified in (2.1). Let us say Y and Z are two lexical items from numeration. Z includes a feature [F] while Y includes an unvalued feature [uF]; Y needs to validate its [uF] feature via merge with a constituent that has an [F] feature. For example, the morpheme tranquil- includes an unvalued feature [u-gender], which can be valued with the morpheme -o because it has a feature [gender=masculine], resulting in tranquilo ’quiet [masculine]’. This type of feature checking is called in-situ. In addition, X may merge to a constituent A, forming B, and B may merge to a constituent C, forming D. This is called ‘recursivity,’ and it allows for structures such as the inclusion of a noun phrase within another noun phrase (e.g. [NP the man on [NP the hill]] ). 4 Some authors (e.g. Chomsky, 2008) argue that merge does not require feature checking. For the sake of this introductory chapter, however, let us say that feature checking is a requirement. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 21 (2.1) In addition to the in-situ feature-checking presented above, feature-checking can also take place at a distance ((2.2)). (2.2) Let us look at (2.2) without getting too technical. In (2.2), we have the verb compra ‘he/she buys,’ the subject María ‘Maria,’ and the direct object un carro ‘a car.’ The inflected verb compra ‘he / she buys’ has a feature [case=nominative]. Further, María ‘Maria’ has an unvalued feature [u- case]. Therefore, the probe compra ‘he / she buys’ looks down the structure for a noun phrase that can receive case (goal). The probe finds the goal María ‘Maria,’ and gives it nominative case. A related phenomenon (called EPP) is that the probe-goal interaction makes María ‘Maria’ raise to a higher position (from t), resulting in the tree in (2.3). As the reader will see in Chapter 7, this sort of long distance dependency becomes extremely important in the definition of a morphological approach to discourse. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 22 (2.3) 2.2.2. Functional phrases The basic morphosyntactic phenomena presented in the previous section (merge, agree, and move) results in the so-called syntactic phrases. For example, the phenomena around a noun is a noun phrase, or the phenomena around a verb is a verb phrase. There are, however, other phrase- types that are less evident: the functional phrases. Instead of revolving around a lexical category (noun, verb, etc.), they do so around a functional category. Let us exemplify this type of structure with the little-vP (little-v Chomsky 1995; González-Vilbazo & López, 2012; Larson, 1988), as in (2.4): (2.4) A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 23 In this example, little-v takes the big-VP comprar un carro ‘to buy a car’ as its complement, forming an intermediate v’ phrase. Later, v’ takes the noun phrase Maria ‘Maria’ as its specifier (Spec-v) (see previous tree in (2.3)). Note that little-v is not a “word”’ in the traditional sense. Instead, it gives the big-VP comprar un carro ‘to have a car’ the meaning of action, and the need for a subject who does that action. Functional phrases are relevant for this dissertation, as previous authors have argued for discourse-features to form their own functional phrases (e.g. topic phrases; see Chapter 3), and they are key to the development of a morphological approach to discourse (see Chapter 7). 2.2.3. Bare Phrase Structure vs. Antisymmetric Syntax Thus far, I have only explained aspects that are common to all approaches within the Minimalist Program. At this point, I believe it is important to describe a division within this common framework: bare phrase structure (Chomsky, 1995 and subsequent work) versus antisymmetric syntax (Kayne, 1994 and subsequent work). As the reader will see, this distinction becomes important in Chapters 3 and 7. 2.2.3.1. Defining c-command The main difference between the two approaches at hand relies on a difference in the definition of c-command, and many other phenomena that follow from it. C-command defines a particular relationship among syntactic constituents. (2.5) A c-commands B if 1) A does not dominate B, and 2) every X that dominates A dominates B (Chosmsky, 1986, p.8). A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 24 Let us exemplify this definition of c-command in (2.6): (2.6) Under Chomsky’s definition, AP c-commands BP2 because both conditions are filled: 1) AP does not dominate BP2, and 2) BP1 dominates both AP and BP2. Note that the reverse is also true: BP2 c-commands AP because 1) BP2 does not dominate AP,and 2) BP1 dominates both BP2 and AP. In sum, AP c-commands BP2 and BP2 c-commands AP. Further, in this example, AP c- commands B, but not the other way around due to the second condition: 2) not all X that dominate B dominate AP (aka, BP2). In sum, AP c-commands her sisters (BP2) and nieces (B), and BP2 also c-command her sisters (AP) and nieces (A); symmetric c-command is possible. Let us now turn to Kayne’s (1994) definition of asymmetric c-command: (2.7) A asymmetrically c-commands B iff 1) A and B are categories, 2) A excludes B5, and 3) every category that dominates A dominates B (Kayne, 1994, p.9). The definition in (2.7) relies on categories (not heads, not intermediate projections, not terminals) and the exclusion among them. In our example in (2.6), AP asymmetrically c-commands BP2 because 1) AP and BP (the whole BP category, not only BP2) are categories, 2) AP excludes BP at large, and 3) every category that dominates AP (aka, BP1) also dominates BP2. However, note 5 A excludes B if B is NOT part of A’s structure. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 25 that the opposite is not the case: BP does not c-command AP. It is true that 1) BP and AP are categories, BUT 2) BP does not exclude AP (AP is in fact part of BP). The most important conclusion that follows from the different definitions of c-command presented above is that, while Chomsky (1986) allows for symmetric c-command, Kayne (1994) only allows for asymmetric c-commands (syntax, in his view, is ANTI-symmetric). Let us define what those two subtypes of c-command mean for phrase structure and the order of constituents. 2.2.3.2. Phrase structure Due to the differences in the definition of c-command reviewed in the previous section, the process of syntactic derivation is quite different under each approach. Under bare phrase structure, the explanation provided in Section 2.2. remains valid. In a nutshell, all you need are bundles of features (lexicon) that merge under sisterhood (as in (2.1)), create dependencies via probe-goal feature checking (as in (2.3)), and elements may move (compare examples (2.2) and (2.3)). These assumptions are enough to derive syntactic structures. Constituents A and B merge to form a new constituent XP, as in (2.8): (2.8) Let us now turn to antisymmetric syntax. To begin, the structure in (2.8) is problematic for this approach. Under Kayne’s (1994) definition, 1) c-command relations take place among categories, which is not the case for A and B as defined in (2.8) (they are intermediate A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 26 projections). Due to this lack of c-command relationships in the structure, it should collapse. However, let us redefine the same structure as in (2.9): (2.9) In this case, AP asymmetrically c-commands BP, and the structure does not collapse. 2.2.3.3. Linearization After defining c-command and the phrase structure that derives from it, let us now look at the relationship between these two and constituent order (aka, linearization). Kayne (1994) systematizes the relation between (antisymmetric) phrase structure and word order in his Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA). (2.10) Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA): If AP asymmetrically c-commands BP, the terminal ‘a’ precedes the terminal ‘b.’ If we return to (2.9), one can conclude that the terminal ‘a’ precedes the terminal ‘b’ because AP c-commands BP, while BP does not c-command AP. We have seen that all c-command is asymmetrical under Kayne’s model, so the LCA is enough to explain linearization. That is, , if we see a certain word order, we can assume left-to-right c-command relationships with word order taken as evidence for syntactic structure under this approach. As the reader will see in Chapter 3 with the cartographic approach to information structure, word order is the main evidence to theorize the underlying syntactic structure of an utterance. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 27 Let us now return to Chomskyan bare phrase structure. López (2009b) proposes an alternative analysis, in which other phonological constraints act before the LCA. In other words, some constituents may actually c-command other constituents to their left (unlike predicted by the LCA). In order to avoid getting too, let us see this technical approach with an example. Let us start with the sentences in (2.11; based on López, 2009a, example (3.2)): (2.11) Le entregué su libro a cada autor. Cl.DAT give.1st.past its books to each author ‘I gave each book to its-respective author.’ Note that (2.11) can only receive a reading in which each book goes to each respective author (many books, many authors). However, let us compare this sentence to the sentence in (2.12): (2.12) Le entregué cada libro a su autor. Cl.DAT give.1st.past each book to its author ‘I gave each book to its respective author.’ -or- ‘I gave each-and-every book to their unique author.’ Note (2.12) may receive the same meaning as (2.11), where each book goes to each respective author (many books, many authors). However, it may also receive a reading in which all books go to one person who authored all of the books (many books, a unique author). The generalization is that, when cada c-commands the possessive adjective su (left-to-right in 2.12, unlike in 2.11), a new reading appears with multiple books and only one author. Up to this point, this explanation is still compatible with Kayne’s (1994) LCA: The additional meaning appears due to different word order originated from different syntactic structures, but everything still works left-to-right. However, let us see what happens in example (2.13) (López, 2009a, example (3.4.)): (2.13) Se lo entregué a su autor, cada libro. Cl.DAT Cl.ACC give.1st.past to its author each book ‘I gave one book to its respective author.’ -or- ‘I gave each-and-every book to their author.’ A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 28 Note that in this case su appears to the left of cada. Therefore, this sentence should behave like (2.11) and only have a reading in which each book goes to each respective author (many books, many authors). However, the second reading is in fact possible (many books, a unique author). At this point, we have diverged from the LCA: Cada libro c-commands su autor, even though the former appear to the right of the latter. Based on this contradiction, López (2009b) argues that, in an example such (2.13), the constituent cada libro moves to the right due to reasons beyond the scope of this dissertation. The main point to understand, however, is that Chomskyan bare phrase structure may be compatible with Kayne’s (1994) LCA, but other phonological forces may act upon sentences as well. The reason for this presentation is the discussion in Chapter 3, in which both bare-phrase and antisymmetric approaches to syntax become relevant. Further, I present a morphological approach to discourse (Chapter 7) via bare phrase structure. However, it is not my goal to make any claims for or against either of the approaches. The reader will see how my approach is in fact perfectly compatible with antisymmetric syntax as well. 2.3. Intonational Theory Even though the main goal of this dissertation is pragmatic in nature, intonation is very much present in some of the previous models reviewed in Chapter 3, and in my morphological approach to discourse in Chapter 7. As a parallel to the description of syntax in Section 2.2., the present section is an introduction to intonation. Namely, the Autosegmental-Metrical Model for intonation (Ladd, 2008; Pierrehumbert, 1980) is discussed in Section 2.3.1., the Sp_ToBI system for intonational transcription (Estebas-Vilaplana & Prieto, 2008, Hualde & Prieto, 2015) is A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 29 reviewed in Section 2.3.2., an introduction to psycho-acoustics (Álvarez López, 2019; Nolan, 2003) is presented in Section 2.3.3., and a coding procedure for the rest of the dissertation is developed in Section 2.3.4. Note that the following subsections introduce these three theoretical / analytical approaches focusing only on the elements that are relevant for this dissertation; I refer the reader to the cited books and articles for a complete review of these approaches. 2.3.1. The Autosegmental-Metrical Model Before introducing the Autosegmental-Metrical Model (A-M Model; Ladd, 2008; Pierrehumbert, 1980), a definition of ‘intonation’ is needed. In informal terms, intonation refers to the rising and falling melodies we hear in speech. This phenomenon is due to differences in F0 (fundamental frequency), the frequency obtained by changes in the vocal cords. One important assumption made in intonational phonology is that intonation has phonological organization (Ladd, 2008, p.3). In other words, the intonational patterns we see in speech are the result of linguistic, mental representations. For example, the same way the phones [-b,-t,-∅] are the result of the mental representation /-b/, the high peaks and low valleys in intonation are also the result of a specific mental representation. After arguing for the phonological nature of intonation, Ladd (2008) introduces the three most important assumptions within the A-M Model for our purposes here (I leave out a fourth element that is irrelevant for our purposes here; see Ladd, 2008, p.44): (2.14) a. Sequential tonal structure b. Level tones c. Distinction between pitch accent and stress A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 30 Let us walk through those three points. An intonational string consists of ‘events,’ normally associated with prominent syllables (pitch accents) or prosodic boundaries (boundary tones), and the ‘transitions’ among them. Namely, these ‘events’ consist of the primitive tones ‘high’ (H) and ‘low’ (L). Let us exemplify these two points before turning to the third one. Let us take the Spanish question ¿Bebe una limonada? ‘Does he/she drink a lemonade?’, as in Figure 3 (based on Figure 3 from Estebas-Vilaplana & Prieto, 2008)6: Figure 3: Intonational movement between low and high tones (based on Estebas-Vilaplana & Prieto, 2008, Figure 3). As the reader can see, the entire utterance moves back and forth between low and high points of the intonational contour, which are the primitive tones the A-M Model assumes. On the one hand, 6 The original figures are not reproduced in this dissertation due to copyright restrictions. However, I encourage the reader to find the original figures in the cited publications. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 31 there is a low pitch accent anchored to the strong syllable Be-, which then rises. All the way to the right, at the end of the prosodic phrase, a high boundary tone is anchored to the prosodic boundary after da?. Section 2.3.2. provides a more detailed descriptions of the different pitch accents and boundary tones in Spanish; at this point, the reader should just understand that pitch moves between low and high tones, and certain events tend to take place at strong syllables (pitch accents) and prosodic boundaries (boundary tones). Let us now turn to the third main assumption of the A-M Model. Ladd (2008) clarifies that those events and transitions are different from stress and / or emphasis. The author claims that stress is realized by an expanded intonational range between L and H intonational events. In other words, if the utterance in Figure 3 were to be stressed / emphasized, the L tones would be lower and / or the H tones would be higher. More details on stress and its relation to contrastivity are provided in Chapters 3 and 7. 2.3.2. The Tones and Breaks system (Sp_ToBI) The present section presents an intonational transcription system based on the A-M Model; the ToBI system (Tones and Breaks Indices). ToBI was originally designed for the transcription of English intonation (Beckman & Ayers, 1994; Beckman & Hirschberg, 1994; Silverman et al., 1992). The system was then adapted to multiple languages, Spanish being one of them (Beckman et al., 2002; Estebas-Vilaplana & Prieto, 2008; Hualde & Prieto, 2015; O’Rourke, 2012; Prieto & Roseano, 2010); the Sp_ToBI. The latest upgrade of the Sp_ToBI was carried out by Prieto and Roseano (2010), with a few new changes introduced by Hualde and Prieto (2015). A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 32 First, let us take a look at pitch accents, which are the intonational phenomena associated with strong syllables. Pitch accents are relevant for this dissertation, as the empirical studies in Chapter 4 and Chapter 6 test whether there is a pitch accent associated to the discourse function of a constituent. The summary of pitch accents as proposed by Hualde and Prieto (2015) is presented in Table III: TABLE III: PITCH ACCENTS, AS PROPOSED BY HUALDE AND PRIETO (2015). Accent Characteristics L* “not […] any pitch excursion, […] smooth falling [...] end of utterance” (p. 364) H* “high peak associated with the [...] tonic syllable” (p. 375) H+L* “clear H target on the pretonic” (p. 365) L*+H “low tone [...] and the rise [...] confined to the following syllable” (p. 363) L+H* “peak [...] on the stressed syllable” (p. 364) L+ Let us briefly turn to boundary tones, which are the intonational events typically anchored to prosodic breaks. Boundary tones are important for this dissertation as there is an intermediate boundary tone between the clitic-doubled left dislocated (CLLD; e.g. Feldhausen, 2016) and contrastive foci (e.g. Face, 2002) constituents, on the one hand, and the rest of the utterance, on the other hand. To my knowledge, the most updated description of Sp_ToBI boundary tones comes from Estebas-Vilaplana and Prieto (2010). This description is presented in Table IV: A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 33 TABLE IV: BOUNDARY TONES, AS PROPOSED BY ESTEBAS-VILAPLANA & PRIETO (2010, P. 20-21). Tone Characteristics L% “low sustained or falling tone” H% “rising pitch movement coming from a low or high pitch accent” LH% “F0 valley followed by a rise” HL% “F0 peak followed by a fall” 2.3.3. Psycho-acoustics As we have seen thus far, authors (e.g. Ladd, 2008) propose a phonological analysis based on the contrast between high peaks and low valleys. However, the performance of any utterance includes many small peaks and valleys from one extreme point (e.g. low) to the next one (e.g. high). Thus the question is how we can distinguish which peak or valley has a phonological value from those that are simply the result of performance? The answer lies in the perception of human speech. Nolan (2003) argues that human perception of pitch is logarithmic, and not linear. For example, a rise in pitch from 100Hz to 102Hz in a male voice is perceived as ‘the same melody’ as a rise from 1,000Hz to 1,020Hz in a child’s voice. The reader can see that a difference of 2Hz in the lower part of the scale is perceived as the same as a 20Hz difference in the higher part of the scale. Therefore, the objective difference in Hertz is irrelevant for speech perception; instead, we need a logarithmic, psycho-acoustic scale. Among the most common psycho-acoustic scales, Nolan shows that the semitone scale is the one closest to human perception and production of language (instead of the ‘Bark’ or ‘ERB rate’ scales). For that reason, semitone is the unit of pitch A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 34 that I use in this dissertation. This sort of measure can easily be set up in Praat (Boersma & Weenink, 2019) in the following manner: Pitch > Pitch setting > Unit > semitones re 1Hz. The option ‘semitones re 1Hz’ measures semitones from the lowest Hz range. However, where the scale starts is irrelevant, as semitone measures refer to differences between a peak and a valley, with the individual measurement being irrelevant. For example, let us take the first peak and the valley in Figure 3. Whether the semitone measurements are 80 and 90 or 120 and 130, the relevant information is that they are 10 semitones apart from each other. The usage of the semitone scale will become relevant in Study 3 (Chapter 6) for the measurement of pitch-range within the relevant tonic syllable. 2.3.4. Coding procedure Based on the theoretical approaches presented in Sections 2.3.1.-2.3.3., I present the coding procedure that I will follow for the rest of the dissertation (see Chapters 4 and 6). In order to reduce the human factor and make results comparable to other papers, it is necessary to be extremely transparent on the coding procedure. The entire coding process is done in Praat (Boersma & Weenink, 2019). Within each target constituent the following phenomena were manually segmented: Last strong syllable, as well as the pre- and post- tonic syllables (for pitch accent), and the right boundary of the constituent (around where a boundary tone may appear). First, for pitch accent, I follow the descriptions from Hualde and Prieto (2015). L+H* and L+ A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 35 to observe the difference to which I am referring. The reader may have noticed that one of my statements above is problematic: ‘Any kind of deviation from the overall raising line was interpreted as a high peak, and the pitch accent coded as L+H*.’ Shouldn’t it be only a deviation over three semitones as I posited in the previous section? At a phonological level, it should be. However, note that there is only one syllable between the pseudo-peak and a possible high boundary tone afterwards. Therefore, a /L+H* H-/ phonological representation may be externalized with a smaller valley between the L+H* pitch accent and the H- boundary tone (instead of a full 3 semitones valley) due to that small distance between the two. Considering this phonetic prediction, again, any small intermediate valley is taken as evidence of L+H* instead of L+ Beyond these two very similar pitch accents, others appear in the data sets from the studies of this dissertation that involve intonation. A pitch accent was coded as L*+H if the intonational contour was flat in the tonic syllable and raised in the post-tonic syllable (see Figure 6). A pitch accent was considered H+L* if the intonational contour lowered throughout the tonic syllable after a peak in the pre-tonic syllable (see Figure 7). A pitch accent was coded as H* if the intonational contour was flat, and higher than in the pre- and post- tonic syllables (see Figure 8). Finally, a pitch accent was coded as L* if the intonational contour was flat, lower than the pre- tonic syllable, and there was a post-tonic smooth fall to the end of the utterance (see Figure 9). A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 36 BOUNDARY 1 BOUNDARY 2 Figure 4: Representation of the L+H* pitch accent. BOUNDARY 1 BOUNDARY 2 Figure 5: Representation of the L+ A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 37 BOUNDARY 1 BOUNDARY 2 Figure 6: Representation of the L*+H pitch accent. BOUNDARY 1 BOUNDARY 2 Figure 7: Representation of the H+L* pitch accent. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 38 BOUNDARY 1 BOUNDARY 2 Figure 8: Representation of the H* pitch accent. BOUNDARY 1 BOUNDARY 2 end Figure 9: Representation of the L* pitch accent. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 39 Second, for the intermediate boundary tone between the target constituent and the rest of the utterance, the data set shows L- and H- contours. In general, I follow the description from Estebas-Vilaplana and Prieto (2010). Any “low sustained or falling tone” (p.20-21) was coded as L-, and any “raising pitch movement coming from a low or high pitch accent” (p.20-21) was coded as H-. These are represented in Figures 5.7.-5.10. Lastly, pitch range was measured in Praat (reference) via the Pitch > Pitch setting > Unit> semitones re 1Hz option. Therefore, no specific coding procedures are to be developed, as the relevant values are provided via the Pitch > Get pitch or the Pitch > Pitch listing options. BOUNDARY TONE Figure 10: Representation of a ‘low sustained’ tone, coded as L-. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 40 BOUNDARY TONE Figure 11: Representation of a ‘falling’ tone, coded as L-. PITCH ACCENT BOUNDARY TONE Figure 12: Representation of a ‘rising pitch movement from a low pitch accent,’ coded as H-. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 41 PITCH ACCENT BOUNDARY TONE Figure 13: Representation of a ‘rising pitch movement from a high pitch accent,’ coded as H-. 2.4. Key concepts The goal of this chapter was to provide the reader with a toolbox for the interpretation of the rest of the dissertation. Let us summarize the main points to take into account going forward. The Minimalist model of language (Section 2.1.) is assumed throughout the entire dissertation. Within Minimalist morphosyntax, the notion of functional phrases (Section 2.2.2.) will become especially relevant later on. Further, the distinction between bare phrase structure and antisymmetric syntax (Section 2.2.3.) is one of the main differences among approaches in Chapter 3. For intonation, the introductions to the Autosegmental-Metrical Model, Sp_ToBI, and psycho- acoustics presented throughout Section 2.3 will become relevant in Chapter 4 and Chapter 6, as well as in the discussion in Chapter 7. As the reader can see, the content reviewed in this chapter is useful (and necessary) for the rest of the dissertation. Let us now turn to a literature review of previous accounts on the discourse-grammar interfaces in Chapter 3. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 42 3. PREVIOUS ACCOUNTS AT THE DISCOURSE - GRAMMAR INTERFACE 3.0 Introduction As briefly reviewed in Chapter 1, the goal of this dissertation is to study the interface of discourse, syntax, and phonology. Given the focus on the linguistic interface in this discussion, I limit the scope to approaches that provide both (1) a description of how non-canonical constructions behave in discourse and (2) a theoretical explanation of why those constructions behave the way they do. On the one hand, the lack of discursive description leaves out approaches such as Ott’s (2011, 2012, 2014, 2015). On the other hand, the lack of a theoretical explanation leaves out other approaches such as Rochemont’s (2016) or Büring’s (2016). With this in mind, the rest of the chapter is outlined as follows: Section 3.1. presents the cartographic approach (e.g. Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010), Section 3.2. summarizes the derivational approach (López, 2009), and Section 3.3. presents the discourse-free approach (Rubio Alcalá, 2014). Each of the three views is summarized based on the assumptions they make, a general description of the system, and a list of issues into which they run. Further, an interim summary is provided in Section 3.4. and Section 3.5 closes out the chapter by presenting the research questions. 3.1. The cartographic approach The first approach to the discourse-syntax-phonology interface relevant for the purposes of this dissertation is the cartographic approach. This approach proposes very detailed syntactic A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 43 skeletons (like maps, hence the term ‘cartography’) with specific discourse characteristics associated to specific syntactic positions. Section 3.2.1 presents the assumptions made by the approach, Section 3.2.2 summarizes a description of the specific models that have been derived from this approach, and Section 3.2.3 presents some theoretical and empirical issues to the cartographic approach at large. 3.1.1. Assumptions Cartography makes two interrelated assumptions: Strict word order and antisymmetric syntax (see Chapter 2). The idea that there is a strict word order among different types of constituents is assumed for all sorts of constituents, such as adverbs (e.g. Cinque, 1999), or discourse-types in the left periphery (e.g. Rizzi, 1997). For example, the adverb ‘already' is claimed to always (and cross-linguistically) precede the adverb 'no longer' (Cinque, 1999), or a 'contrastive topic' is claimed to always (and cross-linguistically) precede a 'contrastive focus' constituent (Frascarelli & Hinterhölzl, 2007). The cartographic approach explains strict word order relationships via antisymmetric syntax (Kayne, 1994). The proposed antisymmetric phrase structure is fully consistent across the board: specifier, head, complementizer. Cartography applies this idea to the left periphery (among other phenomena) in the following way: the specifier contains a lexical item, the head is a discourse-specific functional category, and the complement is simply the c-commanded structure. For example, (3.1) illustrates the structure of a topic phrase. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 44 (3.1) Note that the topicalized-XP c-commands every category in YP, whatever that might be. Further, via the Linearization Correspondence Axiom (LCA), the topicalized-XP will precede YP in word order. In order to simplify the notation, this is generally represented as follows: (3.2) [TopicP [YP ] ] In order to explain strict word order across the board, cartographers claim a consistent syntactic hierarchy of phrases (Cinque, 1999; Rizzi, 1997). In other words, if we always find an ‘abc’ word order, then there is a consistent (and cross-linguistic) structure of the following kind: (3.3) [aP [bP [cP ] ] ] The reader will see that the claims of what this consistent structure looks like differ among different authors. However, it should be kept in mind that the underlying syntactic reasoning is always the one discussed in this paragraphs. Within cartography, authors align with two theoretical accounts to explain the syntactic hierarchy: either the hierarchy is part of Universal Grammar (UG) (e.g. Rizzi, 1997), or it is the result of discourse-related features (e.g. Cruschina, 2009). Which (if any) idea is correct does not make a difference for the following section, in which I describe the concrete models of the left periphery. However, I return to this issue in Section 3.2.3.2. 3.1.2. Description A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 45 3.1.2.1. Word order Word order is the main point of disagreement among different cartographic models of the left periphery. For example, Benincà and Poletto (2001) argue for a consistent word order among construction types: (3.4) [Hanging-topic-P [Left-dislocation-P [Focus-P ] ] ] These categories would coincide with the HLD, CLLD, and FF constructions discussed in Chapter 1. However, other cartographic literature (e.g. Haegeman, 2004) has found this approach to be problematic. For example, let us take the Italian construction in (3.5) (from Rizzi, 1997, p. 296, example 37f): (3.5) Credo que [FF QUESTO] [CLLD a Gianni] gli dovremmo dire. Believe.1st that this to Gianni.DAT Cl.DAT should.1st.pl. say.inf ‘I think we should say this to Gianni.' In this example, the FF constituent QUESTO 'this' precedes the CLLD constituent a Gianni 'to Gianni.' However, this word order is not predicted by Benincà and Poletto's model in (3.4). A second approachis that what determines word order in the left periphery is the discourse function a fronted constituent fulfills. Let us take Rizzi's (1997) model as an example: (3.6) [Topic-P [Focus-P [Topic-P ] ] ] Rizzi (1997) defines topic as "a preposed element characteristically set off from the rest of the clause by 'comma intonation,' and normally expressing old information, somehow available and salient in previous discourse" (p. 285), and focus as a "preposed element, bearing focal stress, introdu(cing) new information" (p. 285). Note that this model in (3.6) is able to account for the A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 46 focus-then-topic word order in example in (3.5). Additionally, Rizzi's model can also account for the topic-then-focus example in (3.7). (3.7) Credo que [CLLD a Gianni] [FF QUESTO] gli dovremmo dire. Believe.1st that to Gianni.DAT this Cl.DAT should.1st.pl. say.inf ‘I think we should say this to Gianni.' In sum, topics can precede foci and foci can precede topics under Rizzi's (1997) model. In fact, Focus-P is claimed to be unique, while Topic-Ps can be recursive. One issue, however, is that it is fairly difficult to explain why a topic (or multiple recursive topics) would appear on a pre-focus or post-focus position. In addition, Rizzi's model does not allow for experimental testing, as the model allows for both topic-focus and focus-topic word order. The problem of the free recursion of topics is resolved by an update of Rizzi's (1997) model proposed by Frascarelli and Hinterhölzl (2007). Their model includes some changes in nomenclature in its last update by Bianchi and Frascarelli (2010), which is the way I present it here. The model can be summarized as follows: (3.8) [A-topic-P [C-topic-P [C-focus-P [G-topic-P ] ] ] ] Let us look into this model in deep detail, as it provides excellent conditions for experimental testing. First, an A(boutness)-topic is used "to newly propose or reintroduce a topic in the discourse" (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010, p.54), which coincides with Reinhart’s aboutness topic: "what the sentence is about" (Reinhart, 1981 in Frascarelli Hinterhölzl, 2007, p.87). However, the A-topic definition also assumes a "shifting" (Frascarelli & Hinterhölzl, 2007, p.88) in the conversational topic. A-topics, therefore, can be subdivided between New-A-topics (my label), that have their differential characteristics, and Shift-A-topics (my label), which take the position and characteristics of G-topics (presented below). For New-A-topics, these constituents are theorized as more disconnected from the main clause than other functional heads, as an A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 47 "independent speech act" (Krifka, 2001; in Bianchi Frascarelli, 2010, p.43). Second, a C(ontrastive)-topic "creates oppositional pairs" (Frascarelli & Hinterhölzl, 2007, p.87), "along the lines of Büring['s] (2003)" (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010, p.56) contrastive topic. Third, Bianchi and Frascarelli also refer to "contrastive focus" (Frascarelli & Hinterhölzl, 2007, p.99), but they do not provide a formal definition of the term. In order to complete the framework, and considering that Bianchi and Frascarelli's is a continuation of Rizzi's work, I assume Rizzi's (2004) definition of contrastive focus for this model: "a previous statement is corrected with a contrastive focus" (Rizzi, 2004, p.12). Fourth, a G(iven)-topic is "given" (Frascarelli Hinterhölzl, 2007, p.87), "used for topic continuity [along the lines of] Givón (1983)" (Bianchi Frascarelli, 2010, p.57). Further, Bianchi and Frascarelli (2010) make the explicit prediction that all A-, C-, and G-topics are CLLDs, which will become relevant later on the dissertation. As the reader can see, this model provides very exact word order predictions that can be tested. In addition, this model also makes predictions about phonology, which are reviewed in the following section. 3.1.2.2. The discourse-phonology interface Bianchi and Frascarelli (2010) claim that each discourse-category (New-A-topic, C-topic/focus, and Shift-A/G-topic) is produced with a different intonational pitch accent (see Chapter 2). Interestingly, Frascarelli and Hinterhölzl state that, "the tonal event characterizing contrastive topics is exactly the same as the one for (contrastive) foci in Italian (cf. Frascarelli, 2004) and other languages (Frota, 2000, D'Imperio, 2002)" (Frascarelli & Hinterhölzl, 2007, p.99). In other words, ,the topic-focus distinction does not make a difference for intonation. Instead, it is a matter of (new)-aboutness, versus contrastivity, versus givenness/shift. This claim is argued to be cross- A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 48 linguistic. A language like Croatian may be produced with a-b-c pitch accents, while another language like German may be produced with x-y-z pitch accents. Whatever the pitch accents in a given language, the claim is that they are linked to the three mentioned constituent-types respectively, and uniquely. The model proposed by Bianchi and Frascarelli (2010) and Frascarelli and Hinterhölzl (2007) is summarized in Table V. TABLE V: SUMMARY OF BIANCHI AND FRASCARELLI'S (2010) MODEL. Phenomenon Description Construction Word order Pitch accent New-A-topic “newly propose(s) a topic" CLLD 1st x C-topic “creates oppositional pairs" CLLD 2nd y C-focus “a previous statement is corrected" FF 3rd y G-topic “used for topic continuity" CLLD 4th z Shift-A-topic “reintroduce(s) a topic" CLLD 4th z 3.1.3. Issues After reviewing the assumptions (Section 3.2.1) and a description (Section 3.2.2) of the cartographic approach, let us now turn to some empirical and theoretical issues with this model. Section 3.2.3.1 describes empirical challenges in terms of word order, Section 3.2.3.2 presents theoretical issues related to the strict syntactic hierarchy, Section 3.2.3.3 reviews previous literature on the problems that derive from the notions of topic and focus as language primitives, A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 49 and Section 3.2.3.4 presents experimental counterevidence on the correlation between pitch accent and discourse phenomena from previous studies. 3.1.3.1. (Empirical) Issue #1: Word order at the left periphery As reviewed thus far, cartography theorizes a quite complex syntactic structure based on observed strict word order among different constituents. However, I would like to show that word order is not always strict, at least at the left periphery. Let us take the example in (3.9) (based on Rubio Alcalá, 2014, p.33, example 35). (3.9) a. ¿Qué ha pasado? What has happened ‘What happened? b. A María el bolso se lo robaron en el metro. to Maria.DAT the purse.ACC Cl.DAT Cl.ACC steal.3rd.pl.past in the subway ‘Maria got her purse stolen in the subway.' c. El bolso a María se lo robaron en el metro. the purse.ACC to Maria.DAT Cl.DAT Cl.ACC steal.3rd.pl.past in the subway ‘Maria got her purse stolen in the subway.' d. A María le robaron el bolso en el metro. to Maria.DAT Cl.DAT steal.3rd.pl.past the purse.ACC in the subway ‘Maria got her purse stolen in the subway.' e. El bolso se lo robaron a María en el metro. the purse.ACC Cl.DAT Cl.ACC steal.3rd.pl.past to Maria.DAT in the subway ‘Maria got her purse stolen in the subway.' f. Le robaron a María el bolso en el metro. Cl.DAT steal.3rd.pl.past to Maria.DAT the purse.ACC in the subway ‘Maria got her purse stolen in the subway.' A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 50 g. Le robaron el bolso a María en el metro. Cl.DAT steal.3rd.pl.past the purse.ACC to Maria.DAT in the subway ‘Maria got her purse stolen in the subway.' Native speakers may find those six responses strange given the presence of very marked double dislocations. However, the flexibility in word order of the constituents a María 'Maria' and el bolso 'the purse' illustrates the point that I am trying to make; that different word orders do not have a correlation to information structure. Further, the lack of a correlation between word order and information structure in (3.9) is not the result of having an open context such as ¿Qué ha pasado? 'What happened' in (3.9a). Example (3.10) shows why this is not the case. (3.10) a. ¿Cuándo le darás [ANTECEDENT el dinero] [ANTECEDENT a tus padres]? When Cl.DAT give.2nd.fut the money to your parents ‘When will you give the money to your parents? b. [C-TOPIC A mi madre] [G-TOPIC el dinero] se lo daré to my mother.DAT the money.ACC Cl.DAT Cl.ACC give.1st.fut mañana y [C-TOPIC a mi padre] la semana que viene. tomorrow and to my father.DAT the week that comes ‘I'll give the money to my mother tomorrow, and to my father next week.' c. [G-TOPIC El dinero] [C-TOPIC a mi madre] se lo daré the money.ACC to my mother.DAT Cl.DAT Cl.ACC give.1st.fut mañana y [C-TOPIC a mi padre] la semana que viene tomorrow and to my father.DAT the week that comes ‘I'll give the money to my mother tomorrow, and to my father next week.' In (3.10), the constituents a mi madre 'to my mother' and a mi padre 'to my father' in (3.10b) and (3.10c) are contrastive topics within the set a tus padres 'to your parents' presented as an antecedent in (3.10a). Further, el dinero ‘the money’ in (3.10b) and (3.10c) is a given topic taken directly from (3.10a). I argue that the constituent order in both (3.10b) and (3.10c) are grammatical, and that they do not differ in their pragmatic interpretation. The contrastive-then- given constituent order in (3.10b) follows from Bianchi and Frascarelli's (2010) model. However, A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 51 this model is not able to account for the given-then-contrastive constituent order in (3.10c). This counterexample is problematic for the theoretical accounts borne out of the assumption that there is a strict word order among different discourse phenomena. The default response from the cartographic approach to counterexamples such as (3.9)- (3.10) might be the theorizing of multiple topical and focal positions up and down the syntactic hierarchy. However, there are at least two new questions that arise from this: 1) How does an X- type-topic end up in one of the multiple X-type-topic syntactic positions, and not in another one? 2) Further, if evidence shows that word order is extremely flexible, why should we stick to an entire model of syntax based on the idea that word order is not flexible? I propose a solution to these open issues in Chapter 7. At this point, I present constituent order flexibility as counterevidence challenging Bianchi and Frascarelli's model based only on my own judgments; however, I leave its experimental testing for future inquiry (see Chapter 7). 3.1.3.2. (Theoretical) Issue #2: Strict syntactic hierarchy We have seen that counterexamples such as (3.9) and (3.10) are problematic for a syntactic model based on strict word order. Additionally, a strict syntactic hierarchy is problematic at a deeper, theoretical level. Cartographers seem to align with two theoretical accounts to explain syntactic hierarchies: Either the hierarchy is part of Universal Grammar (UG) (e.g. Rizzi, 1997), or it is the result of discourse-related features (Cruschina, 2009). For completeness, I include a non- cartographic view (e.g. Rochemont, 1986), which argues that discourse is represented post- syntactically. As we are about to see, the three positions run into problems. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 52 First, some authors (e.g. Rizzi, 1997) open up the possibility of head government at the UG level. In plain words, the strict syntactic hierarchy simply happens to be the case. If that is the case, this complex apparatus must be pre-wired in the human mind via UG. This idea runs into (at least) two issues. First, the theory of UG becomes extremely complex under this perspective, unlike Chomsky's (1992) argument that linguistic theory must be theorized in the simplest possible way (see Chapter 2). Second, this approach would explain a pre-established syntactic scaffold, but not how constituents reach those syntactic positions. The second position in this review does not come from the Cartographic Approach (e.g. Rochemont, 1986), but I would like to consider it at this time for a more rounded discussion. This second view claims that information structure is represented and/or interpreted post-syntactically (LF representation/interpretation, by Rochemont, 1986; LF representation, by Huang, 1984; discourse-specific domain, by Vallduví, 1992). By ‘post-syntactic’ I mean to say that the relevant representation 1) takes place at a point when interaction with the phonological domain is no longer possible (as argued by Cruschina, 2009), and 2) it targets complete syntactic structures. Going back to our CLLD example, this approach argues that there is no involvement of pragmatics until there is complete syntactic object to act upon. A post-syntactic discourse domain may simplify UG theory in comparison to Rizzi’s (1997) view from the previous paragraph. However, it runs into a different problem, namely, a violation of the principle of Inclusiveness (Chomsky, 1995). Under this principle, any element involved in a computation must come from numeration (see Chapter 2). Note that I do not take Inclusiveness as fact, but rather as a guideline for theorizing: if a theory needs to include features in a derivation at multiple stages, it means that there is probably a more optimal way to think about the issue. Going back to our CLLD example once again, if there is no involvement of pragmatics until the construction is complete, any pragmatic A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 53 feature to be added at this point cannot come from numeration (as the numeration list was completed before CHL acted) but from ‘somewhere else,’ therefore violating Inclusiveness. As a response to the violation of the principle of Inclusiveness, other authors within the cartographic approach (Aboh, 2016; Cruschina, 2009; Rizzi & Cinque, 2016) have found a third way: discourse phenomena are the result of discourse features. This approach gets rid of the complex pre-established syntactic scaffold and the violation of Inclusiveness. In sum, discourse features work like any other linguistic feature. A morpheme is selected into numeration (e.g. the topic feature) where it becomes part of the morphosyntactic computation (e.g. the topic feature merges to an XP), and it has an effect on LF (e.g. the topicalized XP' gets its modified meaning) and PF (e.g. the topicalized XP is produced via a specific pitch accent). I believe it is by far the simplest approach to discourse (and therefore superior under Chomsky, 1992) proposed by the cartographic approach. However, I believe it is still unclear how discourse features create strict word orders. Despite this issue, I come back to the idea of a ‘morphological-discourse’ in Chapter 7. 3.1.3.3. (Theoretical) Issue #3: The notions of [topic] and [focus] López (2009a, Section 2.2, pp.26-38) argues that the notions topic/focus do not make predictions and therefore should not be used in a theory of grammar. The author argues that these pragmatic functions may appear in multiple syntactic positions. In order to develop this idea in more detail, this section presents a brief summary of López's critique of the notions of aboutness topic,'old- information topic, and contrastive focus. Lastly, I include a final note in which I distance myself from López's critique slightly. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 54 Let us start by discussing the concept of aboutness topic (Reinhart, 1981), defined as 'what the sentence is about.' López (2009a) critiques Reinhart's tests to determine if a constituent is an aboutness topic. First, an aboutness topic can be introduced by the expressions 'as for' and 'she said about'. However, López provides the following counterexample (López, 2009a, ex.2.7, p.27). (3.11) a. El diari va dir que el Joan es volia divorciar the newspaper PAST.3rd say.inf that the Joan be.3rd want.inf divorce.inf de la Jennifer of the Jennifer ‘The newspaper says that Joan wants to divorce Jennifer.' b. (En quant a la Jennifer) el diari va dir que el Joan As for of the Jennifer the newspaper PAST.3rd say.inf that the Joan es volia divorciar (d'ella). be.3rd want.inf divorce.inf of-her ‘(As for Jennifer), the newspaper says that Joan wants to divorce (her).' In (3.11), la Jennifer ‘Jennifer’ qualifies as an aboutness topic, as shown in (3.11b). However, the constituent is not dislocated. López argues that the notion of aboutness topic does not help us predict the syntactic behavior of the target constituent. In addition to López’s argument, I claim that ‘aboutness’ is a quality that different types of topics may have. Let us see the following examples: (3.12) a. Have you seen [ANTECEDENT your friends] recently? b. Pues [a Pedro] lo he visto ayer. c. Pues he visto [a Pedro] ayer. d. Out of the blue: e. Ah, pues [a Pedro] lo he visto ayer. f. Ah, pues he visto [a Pedro] ayer. Well DOM Pedro Cl. have.1st see.part yesterday. ‘I’ve seen Pedro yesterday.’ OR ‘As for Pedro, I’ve seen him yesterday.’ The sentences in (3.12) show that 1) both dislocate (3.12a and 3.12e) and constituents in canonical word orders (3.12c and 3.12f) fulfill the ‘as for’ test for aboutness topics. Similarly, both constituents linked to previous discourse (3.12b and 3.12c) and non-linked to previous discourse (3.12e and 3.12f) fulfill the ‘as for’ test for aboutness topics. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 55 Second, an aboutness topic must be referential according to Reinhart (1981). Again, López provides a counterexample (López, 2009a, ex.2.8, p.28). (3.13) a. ‘Did you buy furniture?' b. De cadires, no en vaig comprar, pero de taules sí. Of chairs NEG Cl PAST.1st buy.inf but of tables yes ‘I did not buy chairs, but I bought tables.' The constituent de cadires ‘of chairs’ is non-specific, and therefore non-referential, contrary to what Reinhart proposes. Third, an aboutness topic carries existential presuppositions. To test this assertion, López provides the following counterexample (López, 2009a, ex.2.16, p.30): (3.14) Jo no en vaig trovar cap, d'unicorn. I NEG Cl. PAST.1st find.inf no of-unicorn ‘I didn't find any unicorns.' This existential example shows that d'unicorn is right dislocated, but it carries no existential presuppositions (quite the opposite, in fact). Let us now turn to old-information topics (Erteschik-Shir, 2006; among others) with the following example (López, 2009a, ex.2.16, p.30, first half of the example): (3.15) Ahir vaig conèixer el Joan i la Maria yesterday PAST.1st meet.1st the Joan and the Maria ‘I meet Joan and Maria yesterday.' At this point in the conversation, el Joan 'Joan' and la Maria 'Maria' become old information. Let us look at the rest of the conversation (López, 2009a, ex.2.16, p.30, second half of the example). (3.16) La Maria crec que ès la nòvia del Joan. the Maria believe.1st that be.3rd the girlfriend of-the Joan ‘I think Maria is Joan's girlfriend.' According to López, this second half of the example shows that the old-information la Maria 'Maria' dislocates, while the old-information el Joan 'Joan' stays in situ. The concept of old- A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 56 information topic, López concludes, does not provide an explanation for these differences in syntactic behavior. Finally, let us look at the concept of contrastive focus in more detail. López (2009a) looks into Jackendoff's (1972) definition of focus as the resolution of an open variable. López exemplifies this definition with the following example (López, 2009a, ex.2.31, p.34): (3.17) a. ‘[OPEN-VARIABLE What] did John bring?' b. ‘John brought [RESOLUTION the wine].' Further, he argues that FF opens and closes its own variable, as in the following example: (3.18) a. ‘You gave him [the spoons]?' b. ‘[OPEN-VARIABLE / RESOLUTION ELS GAVINETS] li vaig donar.' the knife.ACC Cl.ACC PAST.1st give.inf ‘I gave him the knives (not the spoons).' Now, the main argument provided by López against the idea of contrastive focus is a change in what defines it. Previous literature has claimed that contrastive focus defines the speakers' intentions of correcting a previous statement. Instead, López re-defines the concept based on I- language, and how a constituent is integrated within a discourse context. Putting all these points together, López (2009a) suggests that the notions of aboutness topic, old-information topic, and contrastive focus should be discarded because of their lack of a syntactic correlate. As the reader will see in Section 3.2., the derivational approach provides this alternative conceptualization. I agree with the author that there is a lack of a syntactic correlate to these notions; López’s argument is on the right track by considering that cartographers theorize that these topics and foci have that syntactic correlate. However, I would like to say that these pieces of evidence are not counterevidence for the existence of these notions descriptively. A contrastive topic may appear in different positions, but it remains a contrastive topic from a purely A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 57 semantic/pragmatic point of view. I further build up on this idea in Chapter 7, in which I argue that Bianchi and Frascarelli’s (2010) descriptive typology is on the right track. 3.1.3.4. (Empirical) Issue #4: Pitch accents Let us now turn to an issue related, not to word order and syntactic structure, but to phonology. As the reader has seen in Section 3.1.2., Bianchi and Frascarelli (2010) claim a three-way correlation between the discourse function of a fronted constituent, its syntactic position, and its intonational pitch accent. Bianchi and Frascarelli make their intonational claims by referring to data from Italian (Bonvino, 2003 in Frascarelli & Hinterhölzl, 2007), German (FU-Berlin corpus by Irene Forsthoffer in Frascarelli & Hinterhölzl, 2007), Somali (Frascarelli & Puglielli, 2009),Tagalog (Frascarelli, 2010), and Malagasy (Frascarelli, 2010). However, all these papers only present qualitative analyses of individual examples. To the best of my knowledge, no quantitative results from these analyses have ever been published. Given the gap in quantitative evidence presented above, other authors have already tested the pitch accents of different types of discourse phenomena, and have not been able to confirm Bianchi and Frascarelli's (2010) claims. There is plenty of evidence that focus can be produced via multiple pitch accents (Avelino & Kim, 2003; Muntendam et al., 2016). However, focusing on the topics and topic-focus comparisons, there are three experimental studies that are very relevant. First, Stavropoulou and Spiliotopoulos (2011) tested Bianchi and Frascarelli's hypothesis with speakers of Modern Greek, via a scripted production task. Namely, they tested the pitch accents of C- and G-topics (among others), finding no significant differences. In fact, the results were almost identical with 60% of L* and 40% of L+H* in both conditions. Second, A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 58 Pešková (2015, 2018) looked at the pitch accent of topical and focal pronouns in Spanish via corpus data. Similarly to Stavropoulou and Spiliotopoulos, Pešková found that one discursive phenomenon can be produced with multiple pitch accents. Lastly, Gupton (forthcoming) found similar negative results in a test of similar phenomena in Galician. In fact, the results from Pešková (2018) open up a new avenue for the discourse- phonology interface: contrastive stress (my label). Pešková's results show that while topics are mostly produced with a rising pattern (see Pešková, 2018, p.71, example 10), what the author calls foci, are produced with a low-high-low pattern (see Pešková, 2018, p.71, example 9). Based on some of the focus examples provided by the author, I would like to claim that these are not simply foci, but contrastive foci. (3.19) No terminábamos de entender cuál era la línea, no solamente NEG finish.1st.pl.past of understand.inf which be.3rd.past the line NEG only del colegio, sino la que teníamos que seguir NOSOTRAS. of-the school but-also the-one that have.1st.pl.past to follow.inf WE ‘We couldn't understand what the line was, not only del colegio, but also the one WE had to follow.' In (3.19) (Pešková, 2018, p.61, footnote 11), I believe that la que teníamos que seguir nosotras 'the (line) hat we had to follow' introduces an entity that contrasts with la línea del colegio 'the (line) of the school', giving the former a contrastive focus function. Taking examples such as (3.19) as instances of contrastive focus, and taking Pešková's low-high-low as the intonational pattern for contrastive focus, her results fall in line with Hualde and Prieto's (2015) findings. In fact, in addition to a low-high-low intonational pattern, Hualde and Prieto argue that the same contrastive foci constituent also presents an expanded pitch range (an increase in the distance between the lowest and the highest intonational points). This phenomenon has been claimed to be evidence of stress (Ladd, 2008). Putting it all together, I claim that 1) a unique pitch accent is not uniquely correlated to a unique discourse phenomenon, A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 59 and 2) it is in fact contrastive stress (low-high-low intonational contour, plus an expanded pitch range) that distinguishes contrastive foci from other discourse phenomena. These ideas are tested in Chapter 6, and a theoretical explanation is provided in Chapter 7. The theoretical issues reviewed thus far are summarized in the conclusion in Section 3.6. At this point, however, I introduce an update of the test case considering Bianchi and Frascarelli's (2010) claims and the counterexamples discussed. Note, that I leave out word order within the left periphery of the test case. This is due to two reasons. First, only one instance of double- fronting appears in the corpus analysis in Chapter 4. Second, double-fronting constructions are highly marked, and therefore difficult to test experimentally. Therefore, I put this issue aside - with the counterexamples presented in Section 3.2.2.1 - for future inquiry. TABLE VI: SECOND VERSION OF THE TEST CASE.7 Syntax Discourse Phonology CLLD New-A-topic Pitch accent x CLLD C-topic Pitch accent y Cartographic approach FF ⟷ C-focus → Pitch accent y CLLD G-topic Pitch accent z CLLD Shift-A-topic Pitch accent z CLLD or can8 New-A-topic n/a CLLD or can C-topic n/a Counterexamples FF or can ⟷ C-focus → Contrastive-stress CLLD or can G-topic n/a CLLD or can Shift-A-topic n/a 7 See the complete test case with an explanation at the very end of Chapter 3. 8 ‘can’ = Canonical utterance. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 60 3.2. The derivational approach After reviewing the cartographic model of the left periphery, let us now turn to the derivational approach (López, 2009a). This proposal solves many of the problems that cartography runs into (i.e.specific syntactic processes are associated with discourse characteristics), which simplifies the busy cartographic syntax. The goal of this section is to describe the derivational approach by its theoretical assumptions (Section 3.3.1.), the syntactic/pragmatic derivation of the left periphery (Section 3.3.2.), and some issues this approach runs into (Section 3.3.3.). 3.2.1. Assumptions López’s (2009a) derivational approach to information structure makes some assumptions that set his theory apart from others.. Namely, López assumes 1) a bare phrase structure model (see Chapter 2), 2) phase theory, and 3) a specific Pragmatics module that assigns discursive features. Since the last two points were not explained previously, this section provides an introduction to these two themes. 3.2.1.1. Phase theory A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 61 López (2009a) posits an analysis by phases (vP9 and CP10 11 phases), instead of entire utterances. The claim is that, by dividing the analysis of utterances in phases (Chomsky, 2000 and subsequent work), the computational burden is reduced. According to Chomsky, this is especially important when linguistic constructions are sent to the Articulatory-Perceptive and Conceptual-Intentional systems, because mapping operations are simplified and, therefore, optimized. In order to explain how different phases interact with each other to form utterances, Chomsky (2000) proposes the Phase Impenetrability Condition: (3.20) The Phase Impenetrability Condition: In a phase alpha with head H, the domain of H is not accessible to operations outside alpha; only H and its edge are accessible to such operations. The phases relevant for our purposes are the vP-phase and CP-phase, and concretely the extraction of constituents from the vP-phase into the CP-phase. Therefore, the relevant head H in (3.20) is the v-head. Further, the edge of H would be H-head itself, and its specifier and adjunct(s); namely, v-head, Spec-v and/or Adjunct-vP. In sum, the vP is sent to the interfaces, and then the CP with some elements in the edge of vP that remain accessible. This explanation is represented graphically in (3.21): 9 vP = Little-v Phrase. See Chapter 2. 10 CP = Complementizer Phrase. It is the highest functional phrase (see Chapter 2) of an utterance, where the complementizer (C) appears in subordinate utterances. 11 López (2009) divides the CP in two phrases: FinP and CP (also called ForceP by other authors). I assume that distinction as well, but I represent it all as only one CP for simplicity. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 62 (3.21) Some authors have argued for certain characteristics of the phase edges (Spec-v and v-head in our case). For example, López (2009a) argues for a correlation between phase-edge material and its discursive interpretation. This point becomes relevant for his theory, as the reader will see in Section 3.3.2. 3.2.1.2. The pragmatic module Secondly, López (2009a) explicitly makes an additional assumption about the architecture of language, shown in a visual manner in Figure 14. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 63 Figure 14: Linguistic modules under López's (2009a, p.23) model. López proposes that the output of morphosyntactic computation is an object X. Then, pragmatics maps features (p) to some of the constituents of the object X,with(p) being the relevant information for the integration of X into the discourse. The output of pragmatics is an object X(p), which is the information structure of X. This module assigns discourse features to certain constituents, depending on the derivational process that lead to this constituent's location in the structure. The reader will see that López discards the notions of topic and focus in his theory, given the problems presented in Section 3.2.3.3. 3.2.2. Description López (2009a) posits a movement analysis for CLLD and FF. In other words, CLLD-to-be and FF-to-be constituents generate in their original position as direct objects, indirect objects, or adjuncts, and then they move to the left periphery. I refer the reader to López (2009a), Rubio A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 64 Alcalá (2014), Fábregas (2016) for a full take on the base-generation versus movement discussion. Fábregas’s summary of the main supporting evidence for a movement analysis is summarized in Chapter 7, as my morphological approach to discourse also assumes a movement analysis. 3.2.2.1. The vP phase and the [+a] pragmatic feature As discussed above, López (2009a) assumes phase theory. Therefore, let us start with his syntactic analysis for the vP (lower phase) of CLLD and FF: (3.22) Let us describe this tree bottom-up. V-head merges with XP to form a VP. In this case, XP appears as the complement of V, which makes it a direct object (it could be an indirect object, an adverbial constituent, etc.). Then v-head and the subject merge to form the vP. At this point, XP moves to the adjunct position of vP, leaving a trace t(XP) behind. When this movement takes place, two things may happen. If v-head includes a clitic that doubles XP (annotated as [+clitic] in (3.22)), the Pragmatics module assigns a [+a(naphor)] feature to XP post-syntactically. The author defines A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 65 [+a] as the link to a local antecedent. Both CLLD-to-be and CLRD12-to-be constituents contain a [+a] feature, as both constructions pass through the Spec-v position and include clitic-doubling. If CLLD, the constituent moves syntactically to the left periphery (see Section 3.3.2.2.); if CLRD, the constituent moves to the right periphery due to phonological constraints (outside of the scope of this dissertation; see López, 2009a, 2009b). Now, what if the constituent is not doubled by a clitic pronoun (annotated as [−clitic] in (3.22))? In this case, the [+a] feature is not assigned. For clarity, López (2009a) refers to this lack of anaphoric feature as [−a]. This would be the case for a FF-to-be constituent. According to López, this difference in the derivation process (presence or absence of clitic-doubling) is behind the presence of an anaphoric relationship between CLLD and previous discourse ( [+a] ) and the lack of an anaphoric relationship between FF and previous discourse ( [−a] ). This pragmatically-charged constituent is sent to LF and PF. However, these are not complete constructions, and a discussion on the CP phase is needed at this point. 3.2.2.2. The CP phase and the [+c] pragmatic feature After discussing López's (2009a) CLLD and FF analysis for the vP phase, let us see what the CP phase looks like. According to the author, XP moves from Adjunct-vP to Spec-Fin, as in (3.23): 12 Clitic-doubled right dislocation, such as Lo veo cada día, a Pedro. See López (2009a) for a complete description of this construction. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 66 (3.23) Note that the original position t(XP) in (3.23) coincides with the final location of XP[+a/ − a] in (3.22). In other words, (3.23) is a continuation of the same derivation in (3.22). López argues that this second movement from Spec-v to Spec-Fin provides the fronted XP constituent with a [+c(ontrast)] discourse feature. López defines this feature as the opening of quantificational domains or, in my own words, the evoking of alternatives. The result is that both CLLD and FF receive this feature, which makes both of them contrastive. Putting it all together, CLLD receives the features [+a, +c], while FF receives the feature [+c] only: TABLE VII: SUMMARY OF LOPEZ'S (2009a) MODEL. Construction Description Discourse Description CLLD doubled via clitic → [+a,+c] Anaphoric-contrastive FF not doubled [+c] Contrastive A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 67 3.2.3. Issues As a parallel to the challenges that the cartographic approach does not seem to explain (see Section 3.2.3.), this section presents issues for the derivational approach. Section 3.3.3.1. presents counterexamples and Section 3.3.3.2. points out theoretical issues. 3.2.3.1. Some counterexamples There are some counterexamples for López’s (2009a) approach. For example, let us take a look at (3.24) (based on Rubio Alcalá, 2014, p. 13, example 9). (3.24) a. CONTEXT: Someone reports what she has seen in the news. b. ¿Qué ha pasado? What has happened ‘What happened?' c. Pues que [ CLLD a un montañero] lo han encontrado en el Everest. well that DOM a climber.ACC Cl.ACC have.3rd.pl find.part on the Everest ‘Well, a climber was found in Mount Everest.' In example (3.24), the constituent in the left-periphery is CLLD-ed, but it includes brand-new information. One could argue that the dislocated constituent creates a contrast between a un montañero ‘a climber' and other climbers, or even that we somehow knew about this climber in advance so it is part of the common ground (note the brand-new meaning in the context, though). Even taking those assumptions as true, the fronted constituent is not anaphoric in the way described by López, as the possible antecedent does not explicitly appear in the local discourse A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 68 context (more about this in Chapter 7). Whatever syntactic/pragmatic phenomenon lies behind this example, it is clearly not the same as in the [+a, +c]-CLLD examples provided by López. Further, example (3.25) shows that HLD can successfully introduce an out-of-the-blue topic, as predicted by López (2016). (3.25) ¡Oh! ¡[HLD Los colegas de Coslada] ya nunca los veo! oh the friends from Coslada.ACC already never Cl.ACC see.1st ‘I don't see my friends from Coslada anymore.' This would be the topic-promotion discourse function discussed by the author for HLD. However, I would like to argue that this same discourse function can also be fulfilled by CLLD, as in example (3.26). (3.26) ¡Oh! ¡[CLLD A los colegas de Coslada] ya nunca los veo! oh DOM the friends from Coslada.ACC already never Cl.ACC see.1st ‘I don't see my friends from Coslada anymore.' Once again, one could argue that los colegas de Coslada 'the friends from Coslada' are part of the common ground. However, whatever label we decide to give to this discourse function, the point is that it is the same in both the HLD example in (3.25) and the CLLD example in (3.26). Either both constructions contain [+a, +c] features, or both are topic-promoters. In either case, López's model cannot account for it, as it predicts that each of these non-canonical constructions receive a unique and distinctive pragmatic interpretation. 3.2.3.2. Theoretical issues In addition to the counterexamples presented above, there are also two theoretical issues worth reviewing. First, let us pay closer attention to the pragmatic module proposed by López. The author states that "[the] module pragmatics [...] assigns features relevant for the insertion of a A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 69 syntactic object into a discourse structure to constituents in certain positions" (López, 2009a, p.22). If pragmatics acts over syntactic objects, one must assume that López’s pragmatic module is necessarily post-syntactic. Let me explain what I mean by post-syntactic here. López argues, for example, that movement to the left periphery takes place before the [+c] feature is assigned, and [+c] is not the cause for movement. Therefore, the [+c] feature may not come from numeration. In other words, the mechanism that creates the list of items to be included in the derivation has no way to look ahead and determine whether or not a [+c] feature is going to be needed. Therefore, I would like to argue that this proposal runs into a violation of the principle of Inclusiveness (Chomsky, 1995). As a reminder, this principle states that all constituents in a computation must come from numeration, and nothing can be added afterwards. Returning to our example, the numeration list is created, all syntactic phenomena take place (including movement to the left periphery), and it is then that the need for a [+c] feature first appears. As I already mentioned in Section 3.1.3.2., I do not take Inclusiveness as fact, but rather as a guideline for theorizing: if a theory needs to include features in a derivation at multiple stages, it means that there is probably a more optimal way to think about the issue. A second theoretical issue is related to co-referring constituents that are not part of one of the constructions for which López's (2009a) theory accounts (CLLD, CLRD, FF). Let us start by reintroducing an example discussed in Section 3.2.3.3. (López, 2009a, ex.2.16, p.30). (3.27) a. Ahir vaig conèixer el Joan i la Maria. yesterday PAST.1st meet.inf the Joan and the Maria ‘I met Joan and Maria yesterday.' b. La Maria crec que ès la nòvia del Joan. the Maria believe.1st that be.3rd the girlfriend of-the Joan ‘I think Maria is Joan's girlfriend.' A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 70 Based on example (3.27b), López would argue that la Maria 'Maria' appears in the left periphery, and is subsequently marked with a [+a] feature, which links la Maria 'Maria' in (3.27b) to the la Maria 'Maria' in (3.27a). Further, el Joan 'Joan' (3.27b) is regarded as accidentally co-referent to el Joan in (3.27a): this could be el Pep, el Max, or la Estefania. However, I would like to argue that la Maria 'Maria' could also be substituted for any other constituent, as in (3.28). (3.28) a. Ahir vaig conèixer el Joan i la Maria. yesterday PAST.1st meet.inf the Joan and the Maria ‘I met Joan and Maria yesterday.' b. La Estefania crec que ès la nòvia del Joan. the Estefania believe.1st that be.3rd the girlfriend of-the Joan ‘I think Estefania is Joan's girlfriend.' Therefore, I argue that the possibility of substitution does not tell us anything about the constituent that does in fact appear in the sentence. If la Maria ‘Maria’ and el Joan ‘Joan’ in (3.27b) have already appeared in (3.27a), then that connection must be explained. Further, I would like to argue that (3.28b) could be presented the other way around as in (3.29). (3.29) a. Ahir vaig conèixer el Joan i la Maria. yesterday PAST.1st meet.inf the Joan and the Maria ‘I met Joan and Maria yesterday.' b. El Joan crec que ès el nòvio de la Maria. the Joan believe.1st that be.3rd the boyfriend of the Maria ‘I think Joan is Maria's boyfriend.' In case there is still doubt that el Joan 'Joan' in (3.27b) is linked to el Joan 'Joan' in (3.27a), example (3.29b) shows that el Joan 'Joan' can also be dislocated. One may argue that, since (3.27b) and (3.28b) are different utterances than (3.29b), the involvement of discourse features may be different in each case. In fact, those examples do not present additional evidence for or against the presence of discourse features in non-fronted constituents. However, let us turn to the example in (3.30). A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 71 (3.30) a. ‘You see your friends quite a lot, right?' b. ¡[FF A MIS PRIMOS] veo! DOM my cousins.ACC see.1st ‘I see my cousins (not my friends)!' c. ¡Veo [ A MIS PRIMOS]! see.1st DOM my cousins.ACC ‘I see my cousins (not my friends)!' Example (3.30b) shows a FF-ed constituent A MIS PRIMOS 'my cousins', while the same constituent appears in a post-verbal canonical position in (3.30c) (in-situ contrastive focus, see Brunetti, 2003; Zimmermann, 2007). The constituent A MIS PRIMOS 'my cousins' is capitalized to indicate contrastive stress (review Chapter 2). The constituent in (3.30b) is fully explained by López's (2009a) model, as its movement to the left periphery correlates to the assignation of a [+c] feature. The constituent moves to the left, the pragmatic module assigns a [+c] feature, and the constituent is expressed with contrastive-stress phonologically. López does not make any claims about phonology, but the last step nicely aligns with his analysis. However, the constituent A MIS PRIMOS 'my cousins' in (3.29b) does not include a [+c] feature according to López, as this feature is only related to the left periphery. If this is the case, the contrastive-stress in that constituent remains unexplained. Should we theorize a completely different model for the same phonological phenomenon just because of its syntactic position? I believe it is fairly intuitive that it is contrastivity that externalizes as contrastive-stress in both cases. I return to this open issue in Chapter 6 (empirically) and Chapter 7 (theoretically). After reviewing López's (2009a) derivational approach and the counterexamples to this model, let us again update the test case: A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 72 TABLE VIII: THIRD VERSION OF THE TEST CASE.13 Syntax Discourse Phonology CLLD New-A-topic Pitch accent x CLLD C-topic Pitch accent y Cartographic approach FF ⟷ C-focus → Pitch accent y CLLD G-topic Pitch accent z CLLD Shift-A-topic Pitch accent z CLLD [+a,+c] (C-topic?) Derivational approach FF → [+c] (C-focus?) Canonical Possible co-reference CLLD or can* New-A-topic n/a CLLD or can C-topic n/a Counterexamples FF or can ⟷ C-focus → Contrastive-stress CLLD or can G-topic n/a CLLD or can Shift-A-topic n/a * “can” = Canonical SVO utterance. 3.3. The discourse-free approach Let us finally turn to Rubio Alcalá’s (2014) discourse-free approach. We have seen that discourse is very much present throughout the derivation of the left periphery in both the cartographic (e.g. topic types) and derivational approaches (e.g. syntactic phenomena that receive certain discourse features). However, Rubio Alcalá treats syntax as a domain completely free from the presence or the restrictions of discourse. In fact, the author only discusses syntax, focusing on the flexibility that word order presents in Spanish. As with the previous two approaches, this last model is presented for the assumptions it makes (Section 3.3.1.), a general description of the model (Section 3.3.2.), and some issues present in the model (Section 3.3.3.) 13 See the complete test case with an explanation at the very end of Chapter 3. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 73 3.3.1. Assumptions The discourse-free approach (Rubio Alcalá, 2014) makes less assumptions than the previous two models. In fact, the Minimalist model of language and language computation (Chomsky, 1995; see Chapter 2) and Phase Theory (Chomsky, 2000; see Section 3.2.1.1.) are enough to explain the model. There is, however, one point that distinguishes this approach from the ones presented previously in this chapter, which is the emphasis on the free movement of constituents. As shown in Chapter 2, movement is currently understood as an instance of merge (Chomsky, 2001). While external merge (aka, traditional merge) takes items directly from numeration, internal merge (aka, traditional movement) takes an item that is already in the utterance and re-introduces it in a higher syntactic position. Under Rubio Alcalá’s approach, the same way that external merge is free, movement is free. With this mind, let us look at Rubio Alcalá’s model in more detail. 3.3.2. Description Rubio Alcalá (2014) provides a syntactic analysis for CLLD, very much based on López (2009a) (see Sections 3.3.2.1. and 3.3.2.2.). Unlike López, however, Rubio Alcalá argues that the syntactic derivation of Spanish CLLD is fully independent from any discourse feature. The author shows multiple examples of free word order in Spanish, along the lines of examples (3.19) and (3.20), repeated here as (3.31) and (3.32). (3.31) a. ¿Qué ha pasado? What has happened ‘What happened? A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 74 b. A María el bolso se lo robaron en el metro. to Maria.DAT the purse.ACC Cl.DAT Cl.ACC steal.3rd.pl.past in the subway ‘Maria got her purse stolen in the subway.' c. El bolso a María se lo robaron en el metro. the purse.ACC to Maria.DAT Cl.DAT Cl.ACC steal.3rd.pl.past in the subway ‘Maria got her purse stolen in the subway.' d. A María le robaron el bolso en el metro. to Maria.DAT Cl.DAT steal.3rd.pl.past the purse.ACC in the subway ‘Maria got her purse stolen in the subway.' e. El bolso se lo robaron a María en el metro. the purse.ACC Cl.DAT Cl.ACC steal.3rd.pl.past to Maria.DAT in the subway ‘Maria got her purse stolen in the subway.' f. Le robaron a María el bolso en el metro. Cl.DAT steal.3rd.pl.past to Maria.DAT the purse.ACC in the subway ‘Maria got her purse stolen in the subway.' g. Le robaron el bolso a María en el metro. Cl.DAT steal.3rd.pl.past the purse.ACC to Maria.DAT in the subway ‘Maria got her purse stolen in the subway.' (3.32) a. ¿Cuándo le darás [ANTECEDENT el dinero] [ANTECEDENT a tus padres]? When Cl.DAT give.2nd.fut the money to your parents ‘When will you give the money to your parents? b. [C-TOPIC A mi madre] [G-TOPIC el dinero] se lo daré to my mother.DAT the money.ACC Cl.DAT Cl.ACC give.1st.fut mañana y [C-TOPIC a mi padre] la semana que viene. tomorrow and to my father.DAT the week that comes ‘I'll give the money to my mother tomorrow, and to my father next week.' c. [G-TOPIC El dinero] [C-TOPIC a mi madre] se lo daré the money.ACC to my mother.DAT Cl.DAT Cl.ACC give.1st.fut mañana y [C-TOPIC a mi padre] la semana que viene tomorrow and to my father.DAT the week that comes ‘I'll give the money to my mother tomorrow, and to my father next week.' Rubio Alcalá (2014) avoids the problems from previous accounts on the syntax-discourse interface (see Sections 3.2.3. and 3.3.3.) by excluding discourse altogether. If we assume that movement is free as an instance of merge (merge is free, and therefore 'internal' merge [aka, A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 75 movement] is free as well; see Chomsky, 2001 and subsequent work), and if we assume that co- reference is accidental (extending López, 2009a idea to all constituents), the proposal seems to make sense and simplify theory. However, this leads us to a different set of problems, as we will see in the next section. Let us look at the syntactic process that Rubio Alcalá (2014) proposes for the syntactic derivation of Spanish CLLD. First, the author argues for vP derivation very similar to López’s (2009a), but without the constraints of discourse. (3.33) In sum, CLLD and its doubling clitic-pronoun are merged under sisterhood, with CLLD then raising to Spec-D. Since this position is at the edge of the DP phase, CLLD is still available to raise again to the edge of the vP phrase. Further, Rubio Alcalá also provides a discourse-free derivation of the left periphery based on López’s (2009a). A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 76 (3.34) In short, since CLLD is at the edge of the vP phase, it is still available for raising to Spec-Fin. This way, via free internal merge, the target constituent raises to the left periphery and is doubled via a clitic-pronoun, all without the need of discourse to provide an explanation. 3.3.3. Issues As with the previous models, a completely free syntax runs into its own set of problems. First, let us see example (3.35): (3.35) a. ‘You see your friends quite a lot, right?' b. ¡No! ¡[FF A MIS PRIMOS] veo! No DOM my cousins.ACC see.1st ‘No! I see my cousins (not my friends)!' c. ¡No! ¡Veo [ A MIS PRIMOS]! No see.1st DOM my cousins.ACC ‘No! I see my cousins (not my friends)!' If we assume that all discourse relations are accidental, I believe it is difficult to explain why A MIS PRIMOS 'my cousins' is produced with contrastive-stress. At a lexical, morpho-syntactic, post-syntactic/pre-spell-out, or phonological level, something must mark this constituent so that it is produced with stress given the contrast it produces to the antecedent 'your friends' in the A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 77 question. Rubio Alcalá’s (2014) argument is only syntactic, n example such (3.40) shows that his model leaves constituents underspecified for the phonological domain. A second piece of counterevidence comes from López (2009a) and Villalba (2000), who argue that CLLD cannot provide an answer to a wh-word. (3.36) a. [Who] do you visit? b. Visito a Paco. visit.1st DOM Paco ‘I visit Paco.’ c. #[ CLLD A Paco] lo visito. DOM Paco Cl visit.1st ‘I visit Paco.’ If discourse does not present restrictions to syntax, it is impossible to explain why (3.36c) is unacceptable. CLLD should work in any discourse context. Lastly, note that the presence of clitic- doubling does not appear in instances of fronted, contrastive focus. Instead, the utterance is clitic- less, and simply an instance of FF. (3.37) a. ‘You see [your friends] quite a lot, right?' b. ¡No! ¡[ FF A MIS PRIMOS] veo! c. #¡No! ¡[ CLLD A MIS PRIMOS] los veo! NEG DOM my cousins.ACC (Cl.ACC) see.1st ‘No! I see my cousins (not my friends)!' A staunch defender of the discourse-free approach may argue that syntax is free from discourse because discourse is post-syntactic, which explains the limitations shown in the previous examples. However, this sort of statement runs into its own problems, due to violation of Inclusiveness (Chomsky, 1995), as shown for the previous approaches discussed in this chapter (see Section 3.2.3. and 3.3.3.). A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 78 In sum, I believe that we cannot fully discard that discourse relations are somehow linguistically encoded. However, I believe that there is one interesting axiom that we can deduce from the work of Rubio Alcalá (2014): that there is not a 1:1 discourse ↔ syntax correlation, and that movement to the left periphery seems to be optional. This goes along the lines of one of the main goals of this dissertation, the multiple counterexamples shown throughout this chapter, and even previous literature (Dufter, 2009; Feldhausen & Vanrell, 2014, 2015). Throughout this chapter, the reader will have seen a tendency towards simplicity (as proposed by Chomsky, 2002) in the description of the discourse-grammar interface. I re-take this idea in Chapter 7, along with the empirical and theoretical issues provided, in my description of a morphological approach to discourse. 3.4. Interim summary This chapter presented the previous theoretical approaches that attempt to explain the left periphery; the cartographic (Section 3.1.), derivational (Section 3.2.), and discourse-free (Section 3.3.) approaches. First, there are problems at a theoretical level: ● The theorizing of a pre-established syntactic hierarchy is problematic (see Section 3.1.3.2.). ● The notions of 'topic' and 'focus' are problematic when theorized as linguistic entities (see Section 3.1.3.3.). ● The derivational approach, as currently stated, falls into a violation of the principle of Inclusiveness, contra Chomsky (1995) (see Sections 3.2.3.2.). ● The theoretical machinery from previous accounts is extremely complex, contra Chomsky (1992) (see Section 3.1.3.2.). ● Previous accounts have difficulties explaining the discourse function of non-fronted constituents (see Section 3.1.3.2. and 3.2.3.2.). ● The discourse-free approach proposes that the position of a constituent in terms of word- order, may be independent from its discourse function (see Section 3.3). A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 79 Second, there are mismatches in the empirical predictions. TABLE IX: FINAL VERSION OF THE TEST CASE. Syntax Discourse Phonology CLLD New-A-topic Pitch accent x CLLD C-topic Pitch accent y Cartographic approach FF ⟷ C-focus → Pitch accent y CLLD G-topic Pitch accent z CLLD Shift-A-topic Pitch accent z CLLD [+a,+c] (C-topic?) Derivational approach FF → [+c] (C-focus?) Canonical Possible co-reference Discourse-free approach CLLD → Possible co-reference Canonical CLLD or can New-A-topic n/a CLLD or can C-topic n/a Counterexamples FR or can ⟷ C-focus → Contrastive-stress CLLD or can G-topic n/a CLLD or can Shift-A-topic n/a First, the cartographic approach argues for a one-to-one correlation between syntax and discourse (CLLDs are topics, topics are CLLDs, FFs are contrastive foci, and contrastive foci are FFs), and a one-way correlation between each syntax-discourse pair and a specific pitch accent. Second, the derivational approach proposes a one-way correlation between non-canonical constructions and their discourse function (CLLD = [+a,+c], FF = [+c]); canonical construction may seem to fulfill those discourse functions via accidental co-reference. Third, the discourse-free approach argues that word order is independent from discourse function (both CLLD and its canonical counterpart A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 80 may fulfill a large range of discourse functions). Lastly, several experimental studies have shown that word order, discourse function, and pitch accent do not correlate. Instead, there is a correlation between contrastive foci and emphatic stress, which does not appear in topics. Note that the theoretical and empirical puzzles are actually independent from one another. For example, whether or not CLLD receives multiple interpretations is fully independent from issues related to violations to the principle of Inclusiveness. While the former depends on what intuitions speakers may have, the latter is related to how linguists theorize language. Taking this into account, I treat the empirical and theoretical issues separately. The theoretical solution that I propose is presented in Chapter 7, taking into account the limitations from previous models presented above. In a nutshell, I propose that discourse features are morphemes from numeration merged during morphosyntactic derivation as functional heads (based on Cruschina, 2009; Aboh, 2016; Rizzi, 1997; Rizzi & Cinque, 2016). The fact that discourse features are just morphemes is more evident in languages in which those morphemes are overtly externalized (e.g. wa in Japanese, num and ka in Korean [Lee & Shimojo, 2016], and na, (n)so, mpo, nko, and ara in Akan [a Niger-Congo language, Amfo, 2010], and mi, qa, taq, and ri among other in Quechua [Sánchez, 2010]). In the case of Spanish, contrastive-stress would be the externalization of a [contrast] feature, and clitic-doubling would be the externalization of the traces of features that provide links to given antecedents ( [anaphora] ) and new referents ( [promotion] ). For our empirical purposes (see test case in Table IX), the next section presents the research questions of the dissertation and proposes a series of methodologies to find experimental answers. The empirical answers to the research questions are provided before the definitive A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 81 version of the morphological approach to discourse, so that the theory is fully adapted to the experimental outputs. 3.5. Research questions Let us summarize the mismatches between the different approaches. First, let us look at the syntax-discourse pairs. First, the cartographic approach (e.g. Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010) argues that 1) CLLD receives a large range of discourse interpretations and 2) those discourse interpretations must be syntactically expressed via CLLD (two-way correlation). Second, the derivational approach (López, 2009a) predicts that 1) both CLLD receives a unique discourse interpretation, but 2) recognizes that the same discourse interpretation could be obtained otherwise, including canonical utterances. Lastly, the discourse-free approach argues for an extremely flexible word order. Therefore, the first set of research questions are the following: ● RQ1: Does Spanish CLLD fulfill multiple discourse contexts? ○ YES: cartographic prediction (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010) and discourse-free prediction (Rubio Alcalá, 2014). ○ NO: derivational prediction (López, 2009a) ● RQ2: May a canonical utterance fulfill the same discourse contexts as a Spanish CLLD? ○ YES: derivational prediction (López, 2009a, by accidental co-reference) and discourse-free prediction (Rubio Alcalá, 2014). ○ NO: cartographic prediction (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010) Let us now turn to phonology. Bianchi & Frascarelli (2010) argue that certain groups of discourse contexts are expressed phonologically via a specific pitch accent. Namely, New-A-topics are expressed with one pitch accent (x), different pitch accent is related to C-topics and C-foci (y), different from the pitch accent related to G-topics and Shift-A-topics (z). However, previous experimental inquiry has not been able to confirm any pitch accents patterns by discourse context. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 82 In fact, a different phonological index seems to tell apart C-focus from all topic-types: a combination of a rise-fall intonational contour and an expanded pitch-range, which I label as ‘contrastive-stress.’ In fact, contrastive-stress seems independent from syntactic position, and can appear in both fronted and canonical utterances. Therefore, the second set of research questions are the following: ● RQ3: Are different discourse-contexts marked via specific-pitch accent in Spanish? ○ YES: cartographic prediction (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010) ○ NO: based on previous experimental evidence (Gupton, forthcoming; Stavropoulou & Spiliotopoulos, 2011; Pešková, 2015, 2018) ● RQ4: Is contrastive focus marked via contrastive-stress in Spanish? ○ YES: based on intonational phonology theory (Ladd, 2008) and previous empirical evidence (Hualde & Prieto, 2015; Pešková, 2015, 2018) In order to find answers to the research questions presented above, I propose the following three studies. Study 1 (Chapter 4) is an analysis of the Spanish section of the NOCANDO corpus (Brunetti, Bott, Costa, & Vallduví, 2011). The coding of this corpus focuses on NOCANs (non- canonical constructions), which include labeling for focus fronting and clitic-doubled left dislocation, which correspond to the two constructions at the center of this dissertation: FF and CLLD. To my knowledge, this is the only publicly available corpus of this kind. The results for CLLD show that this construction can cover multiple discourse functions, and the same functions can be covered by canonical utterances. Further, discourse-context and pitch-accent do not show any correlation. This provides an affirmative answer for RQ1 and RQ2, and a negative answer to RQ3. However, no real instances of FF were found, therefore not providing any answers for RQ4. Given the lack of presence of FF and the limited number of CLLD items, two experimental studies are also included. In order to find perception evidence to complement the production evidence from Study 1, Study 2 (Chapter 5) reports the design and results of an acceptability judgment task (AJT). A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 83 Frascarelli and Hinterhölzl (2007) refer to the LIP Corpus (Frascarelli, 2000) for Italian and to Irene Forsthoffer's corpus (no reference provided) for German. However, to the best of my knowledge, no study has published the quantitative data upon which their claims are based. In order to fill this gap in the literature, I propose to test these claims (as well as López's, 2009a and Rubio Alcalá, 2014) experimentally. Therefore, the proposed AJT tests the discourse restrictions of CLLD and canonical utterances, with a higher statistical power than in the corpus analysis in Study 1.Basically, participants were presented with CLLD and canonical utterances in multiple discourse contexts. Results show that participants accept CLLD and canonical utterances equally in various contexts. This is additional support for the affirmative answer to RQ1 and RQ2. Lastly, and in order to find additional evidence for RQ3 and RQ4, Study 3 (Chapter 6) reports the design and results of a scripted production task (SPT) (based on Feldhausen, 2016; Stavropoulou & Spiliotopoulos, 2011). This experiment includes C-topic and G-topic CLLDs, C- focus FFs, and the canonical counterparts of these three discourse categories. Results show a consistent pitch accent across all three fronted categories, and the presence of contrastive-stress in C-focus utterances. This provides an additional negative answer to RQ3, and an affirmative answer to RQ4. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 84 4. STUDY 1: A CORPUS ANALYSIS 4.0 Introduction As the reader saw by the end of Chapter 3, there are four research questions that this dissertation attempts to answer. This fourth chapter is a first attempt to provide answers to the four of them: ● RQ1: Does Spanish CLLD fulfill multiple discourse contexts? ○ YES: cartographic prediction (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010) and discourse-free prediction (Rubio Alcalá, 2014). ○ NO: derivational prediction (López, 2009a) ● RQ2: May canonical utterances fulfill the same discourse contexts as Spanish CLLD? ○ YES: derivational prediction (López, 2009a, by accidental co-reference) and discourse-free prediction (Rubio Alcalá, 2014). ○ NO: cartographic prediction (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010) ● RQ3: Are different discourse-contexts marked via specific-pitch accent in the Spanish? ○ YES: cartographic prediction (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010) ○ NO: based on previous experimental evidence (Gupton, forthcoming; Stavropoulou & Spiliotopoulos, 2011; Pešková, 2015, 2018) ● RQ4: Is contrastive focus marked via contrastive-stress in Spanish? ○ YES: based on intonational phonology theory (Ladd, 2008) and previous empirical evidence (Hualde & Prieto, 2015; Pešková, 2015, 2018) In order to achieve this goal, this chapter presents an analysis of the discourse contexts in which CLLD and its canonical counterparts appear, as well as an intonational analysis of CLLD. The data comes from the Spanish section of the NOCANDO corpus (Brunetti, Bott, Costa, & Vallduví, 2011). The coding of this corpus focuses on NOCANs (non-canonical constructions), which include labeling for focus fronting and clitic-doubled left dislocation, which correspond to the two constructions at the center of this dissertation: FF and CLLD. As justified below, the label ‘focus fronting’ did not represent actual instances of FF. Therefore, any discussion of RQ4 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 85 becomes irrelevant within this chapter, and this issue is addressed in Chapter 6 with the addition of a scripted production task. With these RQs and limitations in mind, there are three different predictions to be tested. (4.1) Cartographic prediction (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010): a. CLLD will receive multiple discursive interpretations (A-, C-, and G- topics). a1: Each CLLD type will be produced with a different pitch accent. b. Canonical constructions will NOT be able to fulfill those same interpretations. (4.2) Derivational prediction (López, 2009a): a. CLLD will receive a unique discursive interpretation (namely [+a,+c] ) b. Canonical constructions will be able to fulfill those same interpretations. (4.3) Discourse-free prediction (Rubio Alcalá, 2014): a. CLLD will receive multiple discursive interpretations (potentially unlimited). b. Canonical constructions will be able to fulfill those same interpretations. As the reader will see, the results from the corpus analysis show that 1) CLLD fulfills multiple discourse interpretations, 2) canonical utterances do fulfill those same interpretations, and 3) intonational pitch accents do not correlate to the discursive interpretation of CLLD. In sum, neither Bianchi and Frascarelli’s (2010) nor López’s (2009a) predictions are fulfilled, and the results align with the discourse-free prediction (Rubio Alcalá). The rest of the chapter is as follows: Section 4.1 presents a description of the NOCANDO corpus and its Spanish section, Section 4.2 investigates the discourse interpretation of CLLD and its canonical counterparts. Section 4.3 studies the correlation between CLLD’s discourse function and its intonational externalization. Finally, Section 4.4 discusses the findings from the two previous sections. 4.1 The NOCANDO corpus A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 86 4.1.1. Description of the corpus Brunetti et al. (2011) explain that their corpus includes spoken narratives for 68 L1 speakers of Catalan, Spanish, Italian, German and English. In the case of Spanish, there are 40 narratives from 13 speakers (12 from Catalonia, one from Castilla y León). These speakers were recorded for a total of 2h:35m:20s, which was segmented in 3081 utterances and 25,077 words. Participants were given Mercer Mayer’s children’s books Frog goes to dinner (1974), A frog on his own (1973), and One frog too many (1975). These books present child stories with images, but without text. Brunetti et al. argue that previous research has used other books by the same author to study narration strategies (Berman & Slobin, 1994; Stromqvist & Verhoven, 2004). The authors then transcribed these oral texts into written ones, following standard orthography for each language, and the LIP corpus’ (De Mauro, Mancini, Vedovelli, & Voghera, 1993) guidelines for the transcription of spoken language. The authors segmented clauses following a criterion similar to MacWhinney (2000, CHILDES corpus) and Gavarró and Laca (2000). The NOCANDO corpus is available open source via https://parles.upf.edu/llocs/nocando/home. According to Brunetti et al. (2011), the NOCANDO corpus is the only corpus that annotates NOCANs (non-canonical constructions) coming from oral production. For the Romance languages included in the corpus, the authors provide a full list of the labels they used (see Table 3.2.). A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 87 TABLE X:NOCAN´S (NON-CANONICAL CONSTRUCTIONS) LABELS FOR THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES IN THE NOCANDO CORPUS (BRUNETTI ET AL., 2011). Label Description Label Description sbjinv Subject inversion cldbl Clitic doubling sbjinv-deacc Subject inversion with deaccenting obj-sep Object separation nsbj Null subject narg Null argument nsbj_c Null subject in a coordinate clause focfr Focus fronting arbnsbj Arbitrary subject deacc De-accenting sbj-sep Subject separation pres Presentational sentence clld Clitic left dislocation pass Passive construction ld Left dislocation impers Impersonal construction ht Hanging topic cleft Cleft sentence clrd Clitic right dislocation pscleft Pseudo-cleft sentence rd Right dislocation inv-cleft Inversed pseudo-cleft sentence 4.1.2. Review of CLLDs and FFs For our purposes, out of the 3081 utterances (sentences or sentence-fragments), there are 27 instances (0.0087%) of the label clld and five instances of the label focfr (0.0016%); this percentages will become relevant in Chapter 7. The entire list of items from this original coding can be reviewed in Appendix 1. In principle, I take the label clld as instances of CLLD and the label focfr as instances of FF. However, the analysis is not quite that simple. Some of the utterances coded as clld were left out of the analysis. First, three of these utterances are / could be instances of hanging topics. One of the examples is presented and fully glossed in (4.4). (4.4) la rana (el chico) la tiene cogida al brazo the frog.NOM.fem the boy.NOM.masc Cl.ACC.fem have.3rd grab.part to-the arm “The boy has the frog grabbed to his arm.” A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 88 These three examples refer to la rana ‘the frog.’ If we consider this frog a pet, as seems to be the case throughout the NOCANDO corpus, this constituent should include a DOM when appearing as a direct object. If this is the case, these three instances of DOM-less, direct object la rana in the left periphery would be hanging dislocations. However, if we consider that la rana is not a pet, then the constituent should never include a DOM. In that case, the constituents in those three sentences could not be identified as either CLLD or a hanging dislocation. Either way, we cannot be 100% sure that these are instances of CLLD, and therefore they were removed from data analysis.. Secondly, four additional utterances coded as clld could not be fully identified as neither CLLD nor a hanging topic. This is the case because the relevant constituent is not animate, and therefore it could never include a DOM. One of the examples is presented in (4.5). (4.5) Eso lo ha hecho ella that.NOM.ACC Cl.ACC have.3rd do.part she.NOM “She did that.” Further, none of the utterances coded as focfr in the corpus could be established as actual instances of FF with 100% confidence. First, the constituent esto ‘this’ in (4.6) appears coded as focfr even though it is clitic-doubled by lo, which would make it an instance of either CLLD or a hanging dislocation, but never FF; this is the only instance of this kind. (4.6) Claro esto, la tortuga sí que lo vio Clearly this the turtle yes that Cl.ACC see.3rd.past “Of course, the turtle saw this.” Third, four examples contain adverbs / adjectives / subject pronouns, which are parts of speech that cannot be doubled by a clitic-pronoun in Spanish. Therefore, it is not possible to know if they are instances of either FF or a hanging dislocation. One of these three examples is presented in (4.7). A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 89 (4.7) Todos contentos se van All happy Cl.ref go.3rd.pl “They all were happy and left.” Putting all these exceptions together, we have a total of seven instances of clld and five instances of focfr that are not the constructions for which they are coded, or the construction is not fully determinable. For consistency, I leave these 12 instances out of the analysis. After narrowing down the usable items, we have 20 instances of CLLD (0.0064%; see first page in Appendix 1) and no instances of FF. As announced in Section 4.0, therefore, no claims are made about FF and contrastive-stress in this chapter. In order to fix this issue and to be able to provide an answer to RQ4, a scripted production task is included in Chapter 6. 4.2. The discourse-syntax interface This section reports on the discourse-function fulfilled by CLLD (Section 4.2.1.) and its canonical counterpart (Section 4.2.2.) in the NOCANDO corpus. 4.2.1. Quantitative analysis of CLLD 4.2.1.1. Coding guidelines Once the 20 actual instances of CLLD were determined, they were coded for their discourse function in order to find out whether there is one or multiple discourse functions that CLLD can fulfill. In order to complete this second part of the analysis, I followed Götze et al. (2007) guidelines (see Appendix 2) for procedure (part 1), information status (part 2), topicality (part 3), A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 90 and focus (part 4). As the reader can see, these guidelines are a series of questions that lead the researcher either to a coding or to the next question. The authors argue that this procedure is independent from any theory of information structure, which is the reason why I chose it for this dissertation. I did make one small change to Götze et al.’s (2007) guidelines that I will now justify. Namely, I would like to argue that whether or not a constituent is active does not depend on whether the referent is in the immediately preceding sentences (active) or not (inactive). Instead, and based on Asher and Lascarides (2003), this distinction depends on whether or not the constituent develops the narrative in relation to that previous referent. Let us look at two examples from López (2009a, p. 51-52, ex. 2.72-2.73). (4.8) a. John brought in the [food]. b. He put the [fish] in the fridge. c. It was an [excellent fish]… d. …and he [didn’t want it to go bad]. e. He completely forgot about the [meat]. (4.9) Note that the denotation of the constituent ‘the meat’ in (4.7e) is a subset of the denotation of the constituent ‘the food’ in (4.7a). Additionally, the denotation of the constituent ‘the meat’ is excluded from the denotations of all of the sentences about fish in (4.7b-d). Therefore, ‘the meat’ is linked to a constituent four utterances before it (‘the food’ in 4.7a). Even more, the constituent ‘meat’ had not even been verbalized prior to (4.7e), but the presence of ‘food’ and ‘the subsets of food’ appear throughout the entire example. Therefore, I argue that elements are ‘active’ as long A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 91 as the entire discourse structure is still present andI codified the instances of CLLD in the NOCANDO corpus according to this approach. The coding of each CLLD item based on Götze et al.’s (2007) guidelines with Asher and Lascarides’ (2003) modification is attached in Appendix 3. 4.2.1.2. Coding transformation Once the coding process was finalized, Götze et al.’s (2007) labels were transformed into one of the two approaches relevant to this dissertation: Bianchi and Frascarelli (2010) and López (2009a). These labels are also included in Appendix 3. Let us discuss this re-labeling process in full detail. First, let us discuss the transformation from Götze et al.’s (2007) labels into Bianchi and Frascarelli’s (2010) labels. Based on the topic-type/focus definitions from Bianchi and Frascarelli’s (2010) and colleagues (see Chapter 3), I followed the following transformation table: TABLE XI: TRANSFORMATION TABLE - INFORMATION STATUS (GÖTZE ET AL., 2007) INTO TOPIC/FOCUS TYPES (BIANCHI & FRASCARELLI, 2010). Information status Topic-type/focus Topic. Given-inactive. (New)Aboutness-t Topic. Given-active. Shared-set. Contrastive-topic Focus. Contrastive. Focus-replacing, -selection, -partially, - Contrastive-focus implication Topic. Given-active. Given-topic Topic. Given-inactive. Shared-set. → (Shift)Aboutness-t Focus. Solicited or unsolicited. Focus (Anything plus) situational, world-knowledge, part-whole, subset, Unlabeled superset, aggregation, entity-attribute A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 92 Second, let us turn to the transformation from Götze et al.’s (2007) labels into López’s (2009a) labels. Once again, I follow the author’s definitions for each of his features in order to create the following transformation table: TABLE XII: TRANSFORMATION TABLE - INFORMATION STATUS (GÖTZE ET AL., 2007) INTO FEATURES (LÓPEZ, 2009a). Information status Features Topic. Given-active. [+a] Topic. Given-active. Shared-set, subset, superset, aggregation, part-whole, [+a,+c] entity-attribute. → Focus. Contrastive. Focus-replacing, -selection, -partially, -implication [+c] Topic. Given-inactive. Situational, world-knowledge. New-referent Focus. Solicited or unsolicited. Rheme 4.2.1.3. Results After reviewing the entire coding procedure for syntax (Section 4.1.2.) and discourse (Section 4.2.1.), let us look at the results in Tables XIII, XIV, and XV (the full data set that is attached in Appendix 4). TABLE XIII: CLLD BY INFORMATION STATUS (GÖTZE ET AL., 2007) IN THE SPANISH SECTION OF THE NOCANDO CORPUS (ORIGINAL CODING). Given-active Given-inactive - Subset Aggregation Shared-set - Shared-set 4 3 1 9 1 2 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 93 TABLE XIV: CLLD BY TOPIC/FOCI TYPE (BIANCHI & FRASCARELLI, 2010) IN THE SPANISH SECTION OF THE NOCANDO CORPUS (TRANSFORMATION FROM GÖTZE ET AL.'S, 2007 CODING, AS IN PREVIOUS TABLE).: Contrastive Given New Shift Unlabeled 45% (n = 9) 20% (n = 4) 5% (n = 1) 10% (n = 2) 20% (n = 4) TOTAL: n = 20 TABLE XV: CLLD BY FEATURE-TYPE (LÓPEZ, 2009a) IN THE SPANISH SECTION OF THE NOCANDO CORPUS. [+a,+c] [+a] Topic-promotion 65% (n = 13) 20% (n = 4) 15% (n = 3) TOTAL: n = 20 One the one hand, Table XIV shows the results from the Spanish section of the NOCANDO corpus under Bianchi and Frascarelli’s (2010) labeling system. CLLD fulfills a contrastive-topic function 45% of the time, a given-topic function 20%, a new-aboutness-topic function 5%, a shift- aboutness-topic function 10%, and it remains unlabeled 20% of the time. On the other hand, Table XV shows the same results under López’s (2009a) labeling system. CLLD fulfills a [+a,+c] function 65% percent of the time, a [+a] function 20% of the time, and promotes new information as topics 15% of the time. These results are discussed in Section 4.4. Let us make a side note for the instances of CLLD that remained discursively unlabeled under Bianchi and Frascarelli’s (2010) labeling system. Note that the 20% of unlabeled utterances (under Bianchi and Frascarelli) coincides with the difference between the 65% of [+a,+c] (under López, 2009a) minus the 45% of contrastive-topics (under Bianchi and Frascarelli). In other words, 20% of the utterances that were labeled as [+a,+c] could not be labeled as the equivalent contrastive-topic. This is because of differences in the definition of the feature [+c] in comparison to contrastive-topic. On the one hand, López defines [+c] in a way that allows for relationships A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 94 such shared-set, part-whole, subset, superset, aggregation, entity-attribute based on Villalba (2000). On the other hand, Frascarelli and colleagues describe contrastive-topic as a phenomenon that "creates oppositional pairs" (Frascarelli & Hinterhölzl, 2007, p.87), "along the lines of Büring['s] (2003)" (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010, p.56). Therefore, the presence of multiple items from the same set creates those oppositional pairs, but this is not the case when there are other types of relationships, such as part-whole, subset, superset, aggregation, entity-attribute. The reader may decide to consider those unlabeled utterances as instances of contrastive-topic. However, this does not change the fact that CLLD fulfills multiple discourse functions, such as aboutness or given topics. 4.2.2. Qualitative comparison between CLLD and canonical constructions As explained above, the NOCANDO corpus presents labels for non-canonical utterances only. This allowed me to find all CLLDs in the corpus, analyze their discourse function, and present quantitative results, as shown in section 4.2.1. The second research question requires that we look into canonical utterances as well. However, since canonicals are not coded, the quantitative analysis becomes extremely difficult due to the difficulty in determining what ‘all’ the canonical utterances are. Instead, I present a qualitative analysis in which I describe the discourse function of CLLD vs. canonical sentences. I accept the limitation of this type of analysis, which is further discussed in Section 4.4. Let us start with an example that was labeled as ‘given-active’ based on Götze et al.’s (2007) guidelines. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 95 (4.10) Given-active a. CLLD, item #09: Entonces cuando llegan a casa los padres castigan al niño en su habitación y_ le dicen que bueno que nunca más le Ocurra de llevar una rana a_ # que nunca más le ocurra de llevar una rana a cenar a un restaurante. [Bueno entonces] [?] que el niño se mete en su habitación y bueno se ponen a reír porque les ha hecho mucha gracia la situación y_ bueno que [[[ al niño no no le ha afectado nada el castigo de sus padres ]]], ya... # bueno, un poco liado, este cuento, al final ¡ya lo sé! ‘Then when they get home the parents tell the child to go to this room and_ they tell him that he should never even think of taking a frog to_ he should never even think of taking a frog to a restaurant for dinner. [Well then] [?] that the child goes to his room and well they start laughing because they though the situation was funny and_ well that the punishment from the parents did not affect the child, so… # well, it’s tricky, the story, at the end, I know!’ b. Canonical, from example #24: Entonces luego se van-- # dan un paseo por el bosque, y el niño va primero, luego le sigue el perro y en la tortuga se ven las las dos ranitas, lo que la grande pues esta[ba] así con cara de indignada, y mirándola así un poco con con recelo y de reojo. Entonces aprovecha que_ que va detrás la rana, le da una patada y la tira al suelo. Lo vuelven a ver, tanto el niño como la tortuga y el perro y le dicen pues otra vez que está mal, que [[[ no que no puede hacer eso ]]], le echan la bronca, y la ranita pequeñita sigue llorando y la grande bueno, pues, # le han dicho que que está mal y se lo piensa. ‘Then they leave-- # they go for a walk at the forest, and the child goes first, then the dog and the turtle, and the two frogs, and the big one was, like, making a face, looking at her like not trusting her. Then she takes advantage_ because the frog is in the back, she kicks her and she falls to the floor. They see it again, and both the child and the turtle and the dog tell her again that this is wrong, they she cannot do that, they scold her, and the small frog is still crying and the big one has been told that she misbehaved and thinks about it.’ In both cases, the underlined constituent has been mentioned within the developing narrative (SDRT, Asher & Lascarides 2003). Therefore, I label the constituent as ‘given-active’ for its information status. Further, the constituent does fulfill the ‘Let me tell you about X’ test. On the one hand, the underlined constituent is a given topic based on Bianchi & Frascarelli (2010). On the other hand, based on López (2009a), it is coded as a [+a] constituent. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 96 Let us now turn to an example that was labeled as ‘given-active, shared-set’ based on Götze et al.’s (2007) guidelines. (4.11) Given-active, shared-set a. CLLD, item #8: De repente, la_ rana grande le da una patada a la pequeña y la echa del caparazón de la tortuga. Entonces la otra empieza a llorar, todos los demás se dan cuenta, y recriminan a la rana grande. Como ya es la segunda vez que lo hace van a cruzar un río en una tabla todos, y [[[ a la rana grande la castigan y la dejan en la orilla ]]]. ‘Suddenly, the big frog kicks the little one out of the turtle’s shell. Then she starts crying, everyone realizes, and they scold the big frog. Since this is the second time that she does it, they are going to cross the river, but they leave the big frog on the shore.’ b. Canonical, part of item #23: Total, que empezaron a buscar a la rana pequeñita entre todos. La rana grande se sentía mal por lo que había hecho porque [[[ no encontraban a la rana pequeña ]]]. ‘So, they started to look for the small frog. The big frog felt bad due to what she has done because they couldn’t find the small frog.’ In these two cases, the underlined constituent has been mentioned within the developing narrative (SDRT, Asher & Lascarides 2003). Additionally, there is a back-and-forth discourse about la rana grande and la rana pequeña. Therefore, I label the constituent as ‘given-active/shared-set’ for its information status. Further, the constituent does fulfill the ‘Let me tell you about X’ test. Based on Bianchi & Frascarelli (2010), the underlined constituent is a contrastive topic. Based on López (2009a), it is a [+a,+c] constituent. Let us now turn to an example that was labeled as ‘given-active, subset’ based on Götze et al.’s (2007) guidelines. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 97 (4.12) Given-active, subset a. CLLD, item #04: Va a salir, a cenar con sus padres y tiene unos animales en la habitación: un perro y una tortuga y una rana; son sus amigos, por lo que se ve. # Y_ va a salir y [[[ al perro y a la tortuga l[es] deja a la habitación ]]] y el chico se [le] mete en la_ en el bolsillo de la chaqueta la rana… ‘He’s going out, for dinner with his parents and he has some animals in his bedroom: a dog and a turtle and a frog; they are his friends, apparently. # And _ he’s going out and he leaves the dog and the turtle in his room and the frog gets into the child’s pocket.’ b. Canonical, from example #13: Todos sus amigos parecían muy contentos, menos la rana, que puso cara de enfadada. El niño vio que en la caja había una ranita pequeña, una ranita muy simpática, que [[[ le gustaba mucho al perro y a la tortuga ]]], pero a la rana grande que no le gustaba demasiado, y puso cara de enfadada. ‘All his friends looked very happy, except the frog, who made a face like she was mad. The child saw that there was a small frog in the box, and very nice frog, who the dog and the turtle liked a lot, but the big from didn’t like her much, and made a face like she was mad.’ In both cases, the underlined constituent has been mentioned within the developing narrative (SDRT, Asher & Lascarides 2003). Additionally, the underlined constituent is a subset of its antecedent (al perro y a la tortuga are part of the antecedent sus amigos in (4.12a), and al perro y a la tortuga are part of the antecedent todos sus amigos in (4.12b)). Therefore, I label the constituent as ‘given-active/shared-set’ for its information status. Further, the constituent does fulfill the ‘Let me tell you about X’ test. Based on López (2009a), it is a [+a,+c] constituent. However, no coding is possible based on Bianchi & Frascarelli (2010). Let us now turn to an example that was labeled as ‘given-active, aggregation’ based on Götze et al.’s (2007) guidelines. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 98 (4.13) Given/active-Aggregation a. CLLD, item #17: (Beginning) Primera parte. Pues está_ el niño, que le han regalado un regalo, y están todos los animalitos a su lado como siempre y entonces cuando van a abrir el regalo, el niño hace cara de contento, de que le gusta el regalo, >y [[[ a todos parece gustarle ]]], pero a la rana no porque es otra rana, como él, y claro supongo que_ no le gustará que haya otra como él. ‘First part. Well there’s _ the kid, who got a present, and all the animals are around him as usual and they when they are about to open the present, the child makes a happy faces, like he likes the present,> and everyone seems to like it, but not to the frog because it is another from, like him, and of course I guess that _ he probably doesn’t like that there is another one like him.’ b. Canonical, from item #10: Al mismo tiempo hay una pareja que están haciendo un picnic, porque han decidido pasar un día romántico en el parque. Él le está poniendo café, llevan una cestita con su comida_, la manta en el suelo_Mientras el hombre bebe café, la chica busca algo en la cesta del picnic, y la rana aprovecha para meterse dentro. “[Mm] aquí seguro que encuentro algo bueno para comer” piensa. #Pero la chica topa con algo que no le gusta: [o-o_] le ha descubierto. Y la rana se coge al brazo de la chica. ¡Qué horror! Al hombre se le cae el café y se le caen las gafas y [[[ se le cae todo ]]], y la chica pone una cara de susto horrible. ‘At the same time there is a couple that is doing a picnic, because they have decided to spend a romantic day in the park. He’s serving coffee to her, they have a basket with their food_, the blanket on the floor. While the man drinks coffee, the girl is looking for something on the picnic basket, and the frog gets inside. “[Mm] I’m sure I’ll find something to eat in here” she thinks. #But the girl feels something she doesn’t like: [o_o] she got caught. And the frog gets the girl’s arm. What a horror! The man drops the coffee, the glasses, everything, and the girl makes a scary face.’ In both cases, the underlined constituent has been mentioned within the developing narrative (SDRT, Asher & Lascarides 2003). Additionally, the underlined constituent aggregates different antecedents into one set (todos los animalitos plus el niño become a todos in (4.13a), and el café, las gafas, la cesta, etc. become todo in (4.13b)). Therefore, I label the constituent as ‘given- active/shared-set’ for its information status. Further, the constituent does fulfill the ‘Let me tell A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 99 you about X’ test. Based on López (2009a), it is a [+a,+c] constituent. Based on the LDH, it is also a [+a,+c] constituent. Finally, no coding is possible based on Bianchi & Frascarelli (2010). Let us now turn to an example that was labeled as ‘given-inactive’ based on Götze et al.’s (2007) guidelines. (4.14) Given-inactive a. CLLD, item #07: Todos están muy enojados con el niño y con la rana en el coche. (8 utterances before the end of narrative #2) (Beginning of narrative #3) (Interviewer: Ok, sí.) [[[ A nuestro niño protagonista le han hecho un regalo ]]]. ‘Everyone is mad at the child and the frog when they are in the car. (8 utterances before the end of narrative #2) (Beginning of narrative #3) (Interviewer: Ok, yeah.) They have given a present to our child.’ b. Canonical, NOCANDO item ES_02_1_0033: Como decía, el perro y la tortuga estuvieron muy contentos... (8 utterances later) Pero, ¿qué pasó? La rana grande le mordió el anca a la ranita. Evidentemente al niño esto le disgustó mucho, y [[[ también le disgustó mucho a su amigo el perro y a su amiga la tortuga ]]]. ‘As I was saying, the dog and the turtle were very happy… (8 utterances later) But, what happened? The big frog bit the little frog’s leg. Obviously the child got pretty sad, and also his friend the dog and his friend the turtle got pretty sad.’ In both cases, the underlined constituent has been previously mentioned. However, it had appeared beyond its developing narrative (SDRT, Asher & Lascarides 2003). Therefore, I label the constituent as ‘given-inactive’ for its information status. Further, the constituent does fulfill the ‘Let me tell you about X’ test. Based on Bianchi & Frascarelli (2010), the underlined constituent is an aboutness topic. Finally, no coding is possible under on López (2009a), but it is possibly a case of topic-promotion under López (2016). A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 100 Finally, let us see an example that was labeled as ‘given-inactive, shared-set’ based on Götze et al.’s (2007) guidelines. (4.15) Given-inactive, shared-set a. CLLD, item #06: Y el niño se da cuenta (17 utterances later…) La rana también hace cara un poco de_ ¡qué he hecho!". Y entonces, nada, llegan a casa y [[[ al niño le mandan a la habitación con la rana ]]]. ‘And the kid realices (17 utterances later…) The frog also makes a face like_ what have I done!? And then, well, they all got home and they send the child to his bedroom with the frog.’ b. Canonical, NOCANDO item ES_09_3_0003: Y cuando llegan a casa también le dice su padre que se vaya a su habitación y el niño se va pero luego_ se ve como si se estuviese riendo con la rana en su habitación . (Beginning of narrative #3). Va el niño por el campo con el perro y [[[ en un cubo lleva_ a la tortuga y a la rana ]]] y_ va andando y entonces la rana_ ve una mariposa o un mosquito no sé y salta y_ y la intenta coger con la lengua para comérsela. ‘The child is on the country with the dog and with a bucket where the turtle and the frog are, and then the frog_ sees a butterfly or a mosquito, I dunno, and she jumps and _ and tries to catch it with his tongue to eat it.’ In both cases, the underlined constituent has been previously mentioned. However, it had appeared beyond its developing narrative (SDRT, Asher & Lascarides 2003). Additionally, the re-introduction of the constituent creates a discourse shift (from la rana to el niño in (4.15a), and from previous characters to a la rana to in (4.15b)). Therefore, I label the constituent as ‘given- inactive, shared-set’ for its information status. Further, the constituent does fulfill the ‘Let me tell you about X’ test. Based on Bianchi & Frascarelli (2010), the underlined constituent is an aboutness-shift topic. Finally, no coding is possible under on López (2009a), but it is possibly a case of topic-promotion under López (2016). A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 101 Putting the both quantitative and qualitative analysis of CLLD and its canonical counterparts together, we see that both constructions fulfill multiple discourse functions in the NOCANDO corpus, under any of the coding procedures presented (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010; Götze et al.’s, 2007; López, 2009a). I return to these results for discussion in Section 4.4., but let us now turn to the intonational analysis of CLLD within the NOCANDO corpus. 4.3. The discourse-phonology interface The same way that Section 4.2. focused on the discourse-syntax interface, the current section looks at the discourse-phonology interface. The phonological phenomenon that has been claimed to correlate to discourse in the left periphery is intonation. Bianchi and Frascarelli (2010) argue that different pitch-accents are used to mark different types of CLLD (aboutness-topic, contrastive-topic, given-topic). However, multiple experimental studies have tested this prediction (e.g. Stavropoulou & Spiliotopoulos, 2011, in Modern Greek; Pešková, 2015, 2018, in Spanish; Gupton, forthcoming, in Galician), and all of them have showed non-significant results. Even though the question may seem resolved at this point due to the lack of instances of FF (see Section 4.0), I would like to include an intonational analysis of the NOCANDO corpus in order to obtain a more rounded observation of the data. 4.3.1. Coding procedure The data was coded following the explanations presented in Chapter 2. Given the tentative nature of this first study, the data was coded without the help of a second coder. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 102 4.3.2. Results The results of the qualitative analysis described in the previous section is presented in Table XVI. TABLE XVI: PITCH ACCENTS BY CLLD-TYPE IN THE NOCANDO CORPUS. L*+H H+L* H* L+ Given the limited number of items – per participant and overall – no inferential statistics are provided. The complete data set is presented in Appendix 5. Further, these results are discussed in Section 4.4. As explained in the previous sections, this study is unable to provide an initial answer to RQ4, given the lack of instances of contrastive focus. However, for the sake of completeness in the results, Table XVII presents the results for boundary tone. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 103 TABLE XVII: BOUNDARY TONE BY CLLD-TYPE IN THE NOCANDO CORPUS. H- L- Contrastive-topic (100%) 89%(n=8) 11%(n=1) Given-topic (100%) 100%(n=4) Aboutness-new-topic (100%) 100%(n=1) Unlabeled (100%) 33%(n=1) 67%(n=2) Lastly, the analysis included no reference to pitch range. This is because there is no possible comparison to a contrastive focus condition, which is the only reason to design such analysis based on the research questions. These results are compared to those from Study 3 (Chapter 6) in the general discussion at the end of the dissertation (Chapter 7). 4.4. Discussion The results of the analyses of the Spanish section of the NOCANDO corpus (Brunetti et al., 2011) can be summarized as follows: First, Section 4.2.1.3. shows that CLLD fulfills multiple discourse functions, no matter how the coding is done; following Götze et al.’s (2007) information status in Table XIII, Bianchi and Frascarelli’s (2010) topic-type in Table XIV, or López’s (2009a) feature- type in Table XV. Further, the qualitative analysis in Section 4.2. shows that CLLDs and canonical sentences are able to fulfill all the same discourse contexts. Lastly, the intonational analysis in Section 4.3.2. shows that each topic-type is produced with multiple pitch accents. Going back to our background, RQ1 asks whether Spanish CLLD fulfills multiple discourse contexts, and the results show that this is the case, following Bianchi and Frascarelli (2010) and Rubio Alcalá (2014), and contra López (2009a). Second, RQ2 asks whether canonical A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 104 utterances fulfill those same discourse contexts, and results also show that this is the case, following López and Rubio Alcalá, and contra Bianchi and Frascarelli. In fact, note that the double-positive set of responses aligns with the discourse-free prediction (Rubio Alcalá, 2014), and none of the examples shown throughout the NOCANDO corpus seems to challenge this approach. The reader will see that this is going to change in Studies 2 and 3 (Chapters 5-6), where some counterexamples will emerge. Lastly, RQ3 asks whether different discourse-contexts are marked via specific pitch accents in the Spanish left-periphery, and the results indicate that this is not the case, contra Bianchi and Frascarelli (2010) and following from previous experimental studies (Gupton, forthcoming; Pešková, 2015, 2018; Stavropoulou & Spiliotopoulos, 2011). As we have seen throughout the chapter, Study 1 run into several limitations. First, the limited number of CLLD items makes it impossible to conduct any inferential statistics. For example, even though both contrastive and given topics are expressed via multiple pitch accents, it might be the case that contrastive topics have a tendency towards pitch accent A in comparison to given topics’ tendency towards pitch accent B. In other words, the variability in the results could simply be noise due to performance, while the overall ‘tendencies’ may indicate actual phonological representations. Therefore, the claims that I make above can easily be called into question due to the absolute lack of statistical inference. Second, there are no true instances of FF in the Spanish section of the NOCANDO corpus. This limits the analysis of pitch accents to CLLD-only, for RQ3. For example, even though the pitch accents results do not indicate any tendencies with CLLD, what about FF? Lastly, following from the lack of FF, no answer can be provided for RQ4: is FF in its ‘contrastive-focus’ context more emphatic that CLLD in its topic contexts? A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 105 The limitations presented above call for the collection of additional evidence. I propose an acceptability judgment task (Chapter 5) that includes CLLD and its canonical counterpart. The goal is to find additional evidence for whether word order makes a difference in the discourse contexts in which the sentences appear (RQ1 and RQ2). Additionally, in order to obtain FF data that can be compared to CLLD data in terms of pitch accent and contrastive-stress (RQ3 and RQ4), I propose a scripted production task (Chapter 6). A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 106 5. STUDY 2: AN ACCEPTABILITY JUDGMENT TASK 5.0. Introduction As the reader saw by the end of Chapter 3, there are four research questions that this dissertation attempts to answer. Based on the limitations in Study 1 (Chapter 4), this fifth chapter is an attempt to provide additional experimental evidence in order to answer the first and second research questions: ● RQ1: Does Spanish CLLD fulfill multiple discourse contexts? ○ YES: cartographic prediction (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010) and discourse-free prediction (Rubio Alcalá, 2014). ○ NO: derivational prediction (López, 2009a) ● RQ2: May canonical utterances fulfill the same discourse contexts as Spanish CLLD? ○ YES: derivational prediction (López, 2009a, by accidental co-reference) and discourse-free prediction (Rubio Alcalá, 2014). ○ NO: cartographic prediction (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010) In order to achieve this experimental goal, 25 participants completed an acceptability judgment task designed with three discourse conditions – local antecedent (aka, local), new referent (aka, new), and as an answer to a wh-question (aka, wh) - and two syntactic conditions - utterances with fronted (aka, CLLD) versus non-fronted (aka, CAN [canonicals]) target constituents. To my knowledge, there has been no previous attempt to test the discursive restrictions of CLLD experimentally. Based on the literature review from Chapter 3, let us justify the criteria to establish these three contexts (local, new, wh) as the conditions for the experiment. On the one hand, Bianchi and Frascarelli (2010) argue that CLLD is able to fulfill multiple discourse functions, while López A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 107 (2009a) argues for a unique interpretation of the derivation of CLLD. Namely, López proposes that CLLD must be linked to an antecedent in previous discourse, while Bianchi and Frascarelli propose that CLLD may be a new-A-topic with no link to previous discourse. In our experiment, López’s [+a,+c] and Bianchi and Frascarelli’s C-topic coincides with the local condition, while Bianchi and Frascarelli’s new-A-topic coincides with our new condition. I also considered including Bianchi and Frascarelli’s G-topics in the experiment, but López´s [+c] can explain those fully given topics. CLLD opens a quantificational domain, which is closed with the category itself (antecedent = a group, CLLD = the same group). Therefore, only the local and new discourse contexts are considered based on these two approaches. Let us now turn to the wh condition. Both Bianchi and Frascarelli (2010) and López (2009a) agree that CLLD is not able to provide an answer for a wh-word. However, under Rubio Alcalá’s (2014) discourse-free approach, there is no reason why this sentence in this context should not be acceptable. In sum, the combination of these three conditions are able to produce different predictions for each of the approaches. The relevant predictions are presented in Figures 15, 16, and 17, with canonical utterances in dark blue and CLLD in light blue. These predictions are presented in a binomial manner (high judgments around 6, low judgments around 1), and small differences should not be considered so that the reader gets a general idea. These same predictions are presented in detailed statistical terms in Section 5.1.4. The results from our acceptability judgment task point in a direction that is in fact unpredicted by any of those previous models. In informal terms, (1) canonicals are accepted across the board, (2) CLLD is accepted in the local and new conditions, and (3) CLLD is rejected in the wh condition. Still in informal terms, the results look along the lines of Figure 18. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 108 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 local new wh can CLLD Figure 15: Cartographic prediction (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010) for the acceptability judgment task. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 local new wh can CLLD Figure 16: Derivational prediction (López, 2009a) for the acceptability judgment task. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 109 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 local new wh can CLLD Figure 17: Discourse-free prediction (Rubio Alcalá, 2014) for the acceptability judgment task. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 local new wh can CLLD Figure 18: Informal representation of the results found in the acceptability judgment task. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 110 The rest of the chapter is outlined as follows: Section 5.1 explains the design of the acceptability judgment task, as well as its statistical analysis. Section 5.2 presents the actual results from the 25 participants, and Section 5.3 discusses the results in the light of the research questions. 5.1. Methodology 5.1.1. Participants The participants were 25 L1 speakers of Castilian Spanish who lived in the Madrid area at the time of testing. Madrid was chosen as the testing location for three reasons. First, most people in central and Southern Spain are monolingual in Spanish, unlike in Northern and Eastern Spain and the Spanish-speaking Americas. Second, Madrid is the largest city in this part of the country, which makes it easier to find potential participants. Additionally, the variety of Spanish spoken in Madrid matches the descriptions of the left periphery presented in Chapter 1. Participants completed two pre-experimental documents. First, they signed an IRB form, where they stated whether they gave consent to participate in the experiment. Second, they completed a background questionnaire in which they provided sufficient information to control for four variables: age, gender, level of education, and percentage of life living in Spain. A description of the participants as a group is given in Table XVIII, and a description of each individual is given in Appendix 6. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 111 TABLE XIX: DESCRIPTION OF THE 25 PARTICIPANTS IN THE ACCEPTABILITY JUDGMENT TASK. Number Age Gender Education % of life in Spain 25 Mean = 41.52 Female = 15 Graduate school = 2 Mean = 99.64% (SD = 12.05) Male = 10 Undergraduate = 11 (SD = 0.01%) [24-60] High school = 12 [95.64%-100%] 5.1.2. Materials and procedures The experimental followed a 3x2 design: three discourse conditions - local, new, and wh - and two syntactic conditions - utterances with fronted versus non-fronted target constituents. The design is summarized in Table XX: TABLE XXI: LATIN-SQUARE DESIGN OF THE ACCEPTABILITY JUDGMENT TASK. local new wh Fronted local-CLLD new-CLLD wh-CLLD Non-fronted local-canonical new-canonical wh-canonical An example of each kind is provided in (5.1), based on the same experimental item. (5.1) CONTEXTO: Eres guardia de seguridad, y preguntas: ‘CONTEXT: You are a security guard, and you ask:’ A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 112 a. ¿Qué pasó al final con [ ANTECEDENT los chavales aquellos]? What happen.3rd.past at-the end with the guys those ‘What happened with those guys?’ A1: - [ local-CLLD A un chico] le vieron por el centro, DOM a guy.ACC Cl.ACC see.3rd.pl.past by the center y a los demás no sé. and DOM the others NEG know.1st ‘They saw one of the guys downtown, but I don’t know about the others.’ A2: - Vieron [ local-CAN a un chico] por el centro, y a los demás no sé. b. ¿Qué ha pasado? What have.3rd happen.part ‘What happened?’ B1: - [ new-CLLD A un chico] le vieron por el centro. DOM a guy.ACC Cl.ACC see.3rd.pl.past by the center. ‘They saw a guy downtown.’ B2: - Vieron [ new-CAN a un chico] el otro día en el parque. c. ¿A quién vieron por el centro? DOM who see.3rd.pl.past by the center ‘Who did they see downtown?’ C1: - [ wh-CLLD A un chico] le vieron por el centro. DOM a guy.ACC Cl.ACC see.3rd.pl.past by the center. ‘They saw a guy downtown.’ C2: - Vieron [ wh-CAN a un chico] por allí. Appendices 7 and 8 present the instructions presented to the participants, and the complete set of stimuli (contexts and questions are all in Spanish) sorted by experimental conditions and fillers, respectively Note that some of the items include instances of leísmo (use of the clitic le instead of lo for human, masculine direct objects) and laísmo (use of the clitic la instead of le for human, feminine indirect objects), which I included considering how natural these phenomena are in Castilian Spanish. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 113 The experimental list consists of 30 experimental items and 30 fillers, counterbalanced across six pseudorandomized lists.The 30 experimental items are divided in six discourse conditions, times two syntactic conditions - local (5 CLLDs and 5 canonicals), new (5 CLLDs and 5 canonicals) and wh (5 CLLDs and 5 canonical). The 30 lexicalizations are counterbalanced among conditions across six lists: Lexicalizations 1-5 are local-CLLDs in List 1, local-canonicals in List 2, new-CLLDs in List 3, and so on. Each participant saw each lexicalization only once. The 30 fillers were common among all six lists. These items represent four different groups of predicted acceptability. F7s are designed to be fully acceptable (ditransitive broad focus, direct + indirect: Le dan el regalo al niño), F5s to be slightly acceptable (ditransitive broad focus, indirect + direct: Le dan al niño el regalo), F3s to be slightly unacceptable (accusative clitic-doubling: Le están mirando al niño), and F1s are designed to be fully unacceptable (accusative double clitic- doubling: Le están mirándole al niño). The two main goals of this design, following Schütze and Sprouse (2013), are: 1) to ensure that all points of the scale are used and 2) to avoid scale bias. Additionally, this helps to have a more realistic normalization process in the linear mixed model, as the entire use of the scale by each participant is represented (see Section 5.1.5.). As a final note, the 25 participants described above completed this acceptability judgment by themselves via Google Form. This sort of procedure has the benefit of allowing for a larger reach of participants; this is especially important in this dissertation, considering the geographical difficulty that involves studying a linguistic phenomenon of the Iberian Peninsula all the way from the North American Midwest. Further, I believe that any possible effect for the lack of the presence of the researcher is controlled, as every single participant completed the experiment in the same remote manner. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 114 5.1.3. Variables The dependent variable of the experiment is judgment (continuous: from 1 to 714). Further, the independent variables are discourse (categorical: local, new, and wh ) and syntax (categorical: CLLD vs. canonicals). The following factors are controlled for in this experiment. Lexical items were not controlled by frequency; however, this aspect controls itself as the same lexical items were presented and counterbalanced across conditions in the six different lists. All target constituents consist of a differential object marker followed by an indeterminate article (un), and a noun referring to a human referent (soldado ‘soldier,’ trabajador ‘worker,’ policía ‘police officer,’ etc.). The differential object marker ensures that the constituent can only be interpreted as a human direct object. Making sure that the target constituent cannot be interpreted as a subject is relevant in the session with fronted constituents. Lastly, for all three conditions, the main clause contains a transitive verb conjugated in the preterite tense, and an adjunct. Despite the similarities, there are also some differences among the three conditions. Both local (‘What happened with those guys?’) and new (‘What happened?’) conditions allow for a broad focus interpretation, in which the answer may include more than one element. Therefore, the answer ‘They saw one of the guys downtown’ works in both cases. Condition wh, however, is based on questions that elicit narrow focus (‘Who did they see?’), in which just one element is 14 Schütze and Sprouse, 2013 propose that AJT data should be z-score transformed to account for the different ways in which different speakers consider Likert-scales. However, I use mixed models throughout this dissertation; z- scores are problematic for this sort of analysis because individual differences are eroded. Instead, a mixed model is able to account for individual differences if random slopes by participant are included. I come back to this issue in Section 5.1.4. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 115 to be included (‘Paco,’ ‘that guy,’ etc.). Even if we add something else in the question (‘Who did they see downtown?’), the question still elicits narrow focus only. Therefore, this third condition is necessarily different than the other two. In order to solve this issue while maintaining lexical coherence across conditions, one decision was made- both the question and the answer in the wh condition would include an adjunct (as in the local and the new conditions). Further, there were two options: maintaining the full adjunct in the answer (‘Who did they see downtown?’ ‘They saw a guy downtown.’) or pronominalizing it (‘Who did they see downtown?’ ‘They saw a guy there.’). Both options were tested on a pilot version of the experiment, and the wh-canonical conditions received a higher degree of acceptance when the adjunct was pronominalized (‘downtown?’ in the question, ‘there’ in the answer). For this reason, the pronominalized version was included in the final design of the materials presented here. 5.1.4. Statistical Analysis For the group results, I first conducted a linear mixed model. The dependent variable of the experiment is judgment (continuous: from 1 to 715). Further, the independent variables are discourse (categorical: local, new, and wh) and syntax (categorical: CLLD vs. canonicals). Following Barr et al. (2013), I will first try the maximal random structure – by-participant random slope and intercept, and by-item random slope and intercept. If the model converges, this is the model to be considered. If the maximal model does not converge, the random structure is to be 15 Schütze and Sprouse, 2013 propose that AJT data should be z-score transformed to account for the different ways in which different speakers consider Likert-scales. However, I use mixed models throughout this dissertation; z- scores are problematic for this sort of analysis because individual differences are eroded. Instead, a mixed model is able to account for individual differences if random slopes by participant are included. I come back to this issue in Section 5.1.4. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 116 reduced as follows: First, I would discard the slope that accounts for less variance (e.g. by- participant slope and intercept + by-item intercept-only); I would use this model if it converges. Second, I would discard the intercept for that same random variable (e.g. by-participant slope and intercept only) and compared it to the intercepts-only model (e.g. by-participant intercept + by- item intercept); between the two, I would use the model that accounts for more variance. If the 1- slope, 1-intercept model did not converge, I would stay with the intercepts-only model. This analysis is to be run in R-Studio 1.2.5019 (RStudio Team, 2019), following the 3.5.1. version of Davidson’s (2019) code for this type of analysis (p. 10-11), with small modifications. This code also includes the code for Tukey HSD (Tukey, 1949) post-hoc pairwise comparisons. The final version of the R code is included in Appendix 9, with Davidson’s blanks updated to the names of the variables relevant for this study. After establishing the statistical analysis for the study, we can re-phrase the experimental predictions from Figures 5.1. – 5.3. in more sophisticated terms. First, the cartographic approach predicts CLLD to be acceptable in the local and new discourse contexts, while CAN should be acceptable in the wh context only. This should translate as a NON-significant effect by Discourse (when one construction is accepted the other one should be rejected, which should balance the results), a significant effect by Syntax (as CLLD should be preferred in two of the three conditions), and a Discourse*Syntax significant interaction (as both variables interact in a two- versus-one, unbalanced manner). Second, the derivational approach predicts both CLLD and CAN to be acceptable in the local condition, while only CAN should be acceptable in the new and wh conditions. This should translate as a significant effect for Discourse (the ‘local’ condition should receive higher judgments overall), a significant effect for Syntax (CAN more acceptable than CLLD overall), and a Discourse*Syntax significant interaction (as both variables interact in A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 117 an two-versus-one, unbalanced manner). Third, the discourse-free approach predicts both CLLD and CAN to be acceptable across the board, and therefore no effects at all are predicted. For the analysis of individual variation, an appropriate method is to calculate the 95% confidence interval of the mean difference between canonicals-minus-CLLD in each condition (Cumming & Finch, 2005). If the CI does not cross zero, we can be confident that the participant’s true mean ratings for each sentence type are indeed different—and they thus make a real distinction between those two conditions. This method, however, has been shown to be problematic for the small data set represented in individual data (e.g., Sequeros-Valle, Hoot & Cabrelli, 2020, accepted); therefore, this method will be attempted, but closely observed. 5.2. Results The data set for the upcoming sections is presented in Appendix 10. The relevant group results (Section 5.2.1.) and individual variation (Section 5.2.2.) are presented below. 5.2.1. Group results The data set was run in R-Studio 1.2.5019 (RStudio Team, 2019), and the output is attached in Appendix 11. The maximal linear mixed model (by-participant slope and intercept, by-item slope and intercept) converged. The estimated results are presented in Figure 19 (canonical utterances in dark blue and CLLD in light blue) and Table XX. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 118 7 6 5 4 3 Estimated Judgment 2 1 local new wh Condition Figure 19: Estimated group results from the acceptability judgment task. Canonical utterances are represented in dark-blue, CLLD is represented in light blue, and the error bars represent the 95% Confidence Interval. TABLE XXII: ESTIMATED GROUP RESULTS FROM THE ACCEPTABILITY JUDGMENT TASK. Discourse Syntax emmean 95%C.I. local CAN 5.8 5.3 - 5.29 CLLD 5.56 4.98 - 5.15 new CAN 5.91 5.43 - 5.4 CLLD 4.85 4.09 - 5.61 wh CAN 4.63 3.93 - 5.32 CLLD 3.55 2.94 - 4.16 The fixed effects results are presented in Table XXI. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 119 TABLE XXIII: FIXED EFFECTS FROM THE LINEAR MIXED MODEL (ACCEPTABILITY JUDGMENT TASK). Factor/Interaction Estimate SE Statistic ddf p-value Sig.? (Intercept) β = 5.798 0.2359 t = 24.582 31.157 < 0.001 * Discourse F = 17.79 2, 25.99 < .0001 * Syntax F = 7.14 1, 32.97 = .01 * Discourse*Syntax F = 3.45 2, 18.22 = .05 * The goal of this analysis is to find outthe discourse contexts in which CLLD is acceptable, and whether canonical utterances are acceptable in those same discourse contexts. In order to do this, the relevant Tukey HSD post-hoc pairwise comparisons (Tukey, 1949) results would be those for within CLLDs and within discourse context comparisons. However, given the Discourse*Syntax interaction, I also include the pairwise comparisons within canonicals in order to observe the source of this interaction. The pairwise comparisons are presented in Table XXII. 5.2.2. Individual variation The results from the 95% confidence interval of the mean differences (95% C.I.M.D.; Cumming & Finch, 2005) between canonicals-minus-CLLD in each condition are attached in Appendix 12. Participants can be grouped in a series of different patterns, as shown in Table XXIII. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 120 TABLE XXIV: TUKEY HSD POST-HOC PAIRWAISE COMPARISONS FROM THE LINEAR MIXED MODEL (ACCEPTABILITY JUDGMENT TASK). Comparison t-ratio (df) p-value Sig.? Hedges’ g Size WITHIN CLLDs local – new CLLD 2.137 (27.2) = 0.299 0.307 Small local – wh CLLD 5.752 (24.4) < 0.001 * 1.110 Large new – wh CLLD 3.692 (27.2) = 0.011 * 0.669 Medium WITHIN CANONICALS local – new CAN -0.434 (20.4) = 0.997 0.041 Very small local – wh CAN 3.023 (30.0) = 0.052 ! 0.352 Medium new – wh CAN 4.354 (25.8) = 0.002 * 0.389 Medium WITHIN CONDITION local CAN – CLLD 0.744 (23.1) = 0.974 0.135 Very small new CAN – CLLD 2.571 (32.2) = 0.133 0.574 Medium wh CAN – CLLD 2.838 (31.6) = 0.077 0.568 Medium TABLE XXV: PATTERNS IN THE INDIVIDUAL RESULTS OF THE ACCEPTABILITY JUDGMENT TASK. Pattern Description # of participants Predicted patterns Mirroring group results local=n.e. new=n.e. wh=CAN 4 À la discourse-free local=n.e. new=n.e. wh=n.e. 10 À la derivational local=n.e./CLLD new=CAN wh=CAN 1 À la cartographic local=CLLD new=CLLD wh=CAN 0 Unpredicted patterns local=CAN new=CAN wh=CAN 3 local=n.e. new=CAN wh=n.e. 3 local=CLLD new=n.e. wh=CLLD 1 local=CLLD new=CAN wh=n.e. 1 local=CAN new=CAN wh=n.e. 1 local=n.e. new=CLLD wh=n.e. 1 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 121 5.3. Discussion Let us now return to the two first research question of this second study, in order to observe the meaning of the results presented above. The two research questions are the following: ● RQ1: Does Spanish CLLD fulfill multiple discourse contexts? ○ YES: cartographic prediction (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010) and discourse-free prediction (Rubio Alcalá, 2014). ○ NO: derivational prediction (López, 2009a) ● RQ2: May canonical utterances fulfill the same discourse contexts as Spanish CLLD? ○ YES: derivational prediction (López, 2009a, by accidental co-reference) and discourse-free prediction (Rubio Alcalá, 2014). ○ NO: cartographic prediction (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010) In order to find answers to these question, 25 participants completed an acceptability judgment task with a 2 x 2 (discourse by syntax) design. The results from a linear mixed model show a significant intercept, significant fixed effects for both Discourse and Syntax fixed factors, and a significant Discourse*Syntax interaction. Based on the explanation Section 5.1.4., these findings align with the derivational prediction. Let us look into the results from the pairwise comparisons for each research question in order to understand the findings in full detail. The first research question asks whether Spanish CLLD fulfills multiple discourse contexts. Group results show a non-significant difference between CLLDs in the local and new conditions. Further, the judgments for CLLD in the wh condition are significantly lower than in the local and new conditions. Based on these results, I claim that participants judge CLLD differently in the wh condition than in the local and new conditions, but they did not judge any differences between these two. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 122 Let us now turn to RQ2: do canonical utterances fulfill the same discourse contexts as Spanish CLLD? We saw that Spanish CLLD is accepted in the local and new discourse contexts. Therefore, these are the two contexts in which to observe the judgments of canonical utterances. Group results show no significant differences between CLLD and canonical utterances in these two discourse conditions, which may indicate interchangeability between both constructions. In sum, CLLD seems to be accepted in both local and new conditions, with canonical utterances being acceptable in those discourse contexts as well. The above discussion may seem straightforward, but there are additional findings that complicate matters. One unexpected finding is that the same pattern found for CLLD (significantly less acceptable in the ‘wh’ context) is found for canonical utterances. Therefore, what seems less acceptable is not wh-CLLD, but wh overall. From this point, I believe there are two possible approaches to deal with this issue. The first possible approach is to look at the pairwise comparisons within each discourse context to see whether there are significant differences for CLLD from its canonical baseline. If CLLD is significantly less acceptable than the canonical counterpart, CLLD could be considered unacceptable for the discourse context under discussion. Table XXIII shows that all within-condition comparisons came up non- significant. However, the new and wh conditions approach significance and show a larger effect size than that of the local condition. Even though the results are not clear cut, one may argue that CLLD is more acceptable in the local condition than in the other two (along the derivational prediction by López, 2009a). The second approach to interpreting this unclear result is to look at a tentative chance analysis. If the mean and the 95% confidence interval (C.I.) are above the mid-scale value (4.0), the construction can be considered acceptable in the relevant discourse context. If they are below A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 123 that mid-scale value, the construction is considered rejected. The results presented in Figure 19 and Table XX are estimates from the linear mixed model that account for individual variability in the use of Likert-scales (reference) due to the presence of ‘participant’ in the random structure. Note, however, that both canonical utterances and CLLD present values above chance in the local and new conditions (mean and confidence interval above 4.0). At the same time, the values for the wh condition are on the upper part of the scale for canonicals (mean above 4.0) and on the lower part of the scale for CLLD (mean under 4.0). The findings for the wh are not conclusive, however, as the confidence interval do cross the 4.0 mid-point. Despite this limitation, I believe it is fair to claim that the wh condition behaved differently than the other two. In other words, canonical utterances are acceptable in the three discourse contexts, and CLLD is acceptable in the local and new discourse contexts while rejected in the wh discourse context. If we take this second interpretation of the results as the true one, none of the previous models is able to account for it. In sum, the difference between the two interpretations of the results differs in whether CLLD is rejected (first interpretation) or accepted (second interpretation) in the new condition. I believe there are two additional pieces of evidence in favor of the second interpretation. First, the individual results show that four participants pattern with the second interpretation, while only one patterns with the first interpretation. Second, and on a broader scope beyond this chapter, the results from Study 1 show multiple examples of CLLD being used in a context without a local antecedent (see Chapter 4). In sum, the group results show that both CLLD and canonicals are accepted in the local and new discourse contexts, while only canonicals are acceptable in the wh discourse context. First, the rejection of CLLD in the wh context leaves the discourse-free prediction (Rubio Alcalá, 2014) out of the game. Despite López’s (2009a) prediction of multiple effects in the overall model A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 124 (which our results did confirm), the acceptance of CLLD in the new condition was not predicted by the derivational approach. Does it mean that the results align with Bianchi & Frascarelli’s (2010) prediction? We see this is not the case either, as the differences between CLLD and canonicals came up non-significant in the local and new conditions. While Bianchi & Frascarelli had predicted that CLLD would be significantly more acceptable (and canonical utterances rejected) in both the local and the new conditions. In other words, none of the previous models fully predicts the output of the experiment. I return to this open issue in Chapter 7. Let us now turn to Study 3 (Chapter 6), which provides additional intonational evidence. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 125 6. STUDY 3: A SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK NOTE: Parts of this chapter have been previously published as: Sequeros-Valle, J. (2019). The intonation of the left periphery: A matter of syntax or Pragmatics? Syntax, 22(2/3), 274-302. doi: 10.1111/synt.12182. This paper, however, is not cited in this dissertation. In Appendix 21, the reader may see the license from the journal allowing its use in this dissertation. 6.0. Introduction As the reader saw by the end of Chapter 3, there are four research questions that this dissertation attempts to answer. Due to the limitations presented in Study 1 (Chapter 4), this sixth chapter is an attempt to provide additional experimental answers to the third and fourth research questions: ● RQ3: Are different discourse-contexts marked via specific-pitch accent in the Spanish? ○ YES: cartographic prediction (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010) ○ NO: based on previous experimental evidence (Gupton, forthcoming; Stavropoulou & Spiliotopoulos, 2011; Pešková, 2015, 2018) ● RQ4: Is contrastive focus marked via contrastive-stress in Spanish? ○ YES: based on intonational phonology theory (Ladd, 2008) and previous empirical evidence (Hualde & Prieto, 2015; Pešková, 2015, 2018) In order to achieve this goal, 22 participants completed a scripted production task designed with three discourse conditions – contrastive-focus, contrastive-topic, and given-topic - and two syntactic conditions - utterances with fronted versus non-fronted constituents (in two separated sessions, one for fronted and one for non-fronted, for the reasons explained in Section 6.1.3.). This scripted production task was designed based on previous literature that has used this methodology to test the presence of discourse-specific pitch-accents (e.g. Gupton, forthcoming; A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 126 Stavropoulou & Spiliotopoulos, 2011; Pešková, 2015, 2018) and the overall pitch patterns with topics and foci (Pešková, 2015, 2018). The comparison between fronted and non-fronted target constituents is included to learn whether intonational phenomena takes place as a result of a constituent being moved to the left- periphery (Session 1 only), or as a result of the discourse context that the utterance fulfills (Sessions 1 and 2). There are competing predictions for each research question: (6.1) RQ3: Are different discourse-contexts marked via specific-pitch accent in the Spanish? H1: A different pitch-accent for contrastive constituents (focus and topic) in comparison to given constituents (topic only). (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010) H0: No significant differences (Gupton, forthcoming; Stavropoulou & Spiliotopoulos, 2011; Pešková, 2015, 2018) (6.2) RQ4: Is contrastive-focus marked via contrastive-stress in Spanish? H1a: Low boundary in the contrastive-focus condition, high boundary tone otherwise. H1b: Extended pitch range in the contrastive-focus condition (Hualde & Prieto, 2015; Ladd, 2008; Pešková, 2015, 2018) H0: No significant differences As the reader can see, an affirmative answer to RQ3 would be based on a contrastive-vs-given significant difference, while an affirmative answer to RQ4 would be based on a focus-vs-topic significant difference. The combination of these two variables (contrastive-vs-given and focus- vs-topics) yields a design with three conditions (contrastive-focus, contrastive-topic, and given- topic). The combination given-focus is not predicted by any of the models relevant in this dissertation, and it is therefore left aside. For RQ3, results from the left periphery show no significant differences in either experimental session, not being able to confirm H1 in (6.1). For RQ4, significant differences between the contrastive-focus and the other two conditions (in utterances with both fronted and non-fronted constituents) confirms H1a in (6.2) and H1b for the left periphery only. These findings are discussed at the end of the chapter. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 127 The rest of the chapter is outlined as follows: Section 6.1 explains the design of the scripted production task, as well as its coding procedure and statistical analysis, Section 6.2 presents the results for Session 1, Section 6.3 does the same for Session 2, and Section 6.4 discusses the results in the light of the research questions. 6.1. Methodology 6.1.1. Participants Twenty-two L1 speakers of Castilian Spanish who lived or had originally lived in the Madrid area participated in this experiment. Twelve participated in Session 1, and ten in Session 2. Madrid was chosen as the testing location for the same reasons as for the previous experiment, as well as for consistency across studies. Participants completed two pre-experimental documents. First, they signed an IRB form, where they stated whether or not they consented to participate in the experiment. Second, they completed a background questionnaire in which they provided sufficient information to control for four variables: age, gender, level of education, and percentage of life living in Spain. See Appendix 13 for a complete copy of the background questionnaire. A description of the participants as a group is presented in Table XXIV, and a description of each individual is provided in Appendix 14. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 128 TABLE XXVI: DESCRIPTION OF THE 22 PARTICIPANTS IN THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK. Session Number Age Gender Education % of life in Spain 1 12 M = 36.75 Female = 6 Graduate school = 1 Mean = 99.00% (SD = 16.66) Male = 6 Undergraduate = 6 (SD = 0.02%) [18-62] High school = 5 [95.4%-100%] 2 10 M = 41.20 Female = 4 Graduate school = 0 Mean = 100% (SD = 16.23) Male = 6 Undergraduate = 0 (SD = 0.00%) [18-67] High school = 10 [100%-100%] 6.1.2. Materials The experimental stimuli consist of a 3x2 design: three discourse conditions – contrastive-focus, contrastive-topic, and given-topic - and two syntactic conditions - utterances with fronted versus non-fronted constituents. The design is summarized in Table XXV. TABLE XXVII: LATIN-SQUARE DESIGN OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK. Contrastive-focus Contrastive-topic Given-topic Fronted CF-FF CT-CLLD GT-CLLD Non-fronted CF-canonical CT-canonical GT-canonical An example of each kind is provided in (6.3). A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 129 (6.3) Context: Maria and Barbara are singing, and you love how Barbara sings. You want to correct your friend: ‘You get spellbound when [ ANTECEDENT Maria ] sings, dude.’ a. CF-FF: ¡No! ¡[ A Bárbara ] escucho, no a María! NEG DOM Barbara listen.1SG NEG DOM Maria ‘No! I listen to Barbara, not Maria.’ b. CF-canonical: ¡No! ¡Escucho [ a Bárbara ], no a María! NEG listen.1SG DOM Barbara NEG DOM Maria ‘No! I listen to Barbara, not Maria.’ (6.4) Context: You are looking at Barbara and Antonio, and your friend notices it: ‘Why are you looking at [ ANTECEDENT those two ] ?’ a. CT-CLLD: [ A Bárbara ] la miro los ojos, DOM Barbara Cl.ACC look.1st the eyes y a Antonio esas orejotas. and DOM Antonio those big.ears ‘I’m looking at Barbara’s eyes and Antonio’s big ears.’ b. CT-can.: Miro [ a Bárbara ] los ojos, look.1st DOM Barbara the eyes y a Antonio esas orejotas. and DOM Antonio those big.ears ‘I’m looking at Barbara’s eyes and Antonio’s big ears.’ (6.5) Context: You love Barbara, your cousin’s cat: ‘Why are you so touchy-feely with [ ANTECEDENT Barbara ] ?’ a. GT-CLLD: [ A Bárbara ] la acaricio porque es muy bonita. DOM Barbara Cl.ACC pet.1st because is very beautiful ‘I pet Barbara because she’s so cute.’ b. GT-canonical: Acaricio [ a Bárbara ] porque es muy bonita. pet.1st DOM Barbara because is very beautiful ‘I pet Barbara because she’s so cute.’ Appendix 15 presents the complete set of stimuli (contexts and questions are all in Spanish) sorted into experimental conditions and fillers. Note that some of the items include instances of leísmo (use of the clitic le instead of lo for human, masculine direct objects) and laísmo (use of the clitic A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 130 la instead of le for human, feminine indirect objects),as these phenomena are natural in Castilian Spanish. The experimental list consists of 12 experimental items and 12 fillers, presented in six pseudorandomized orders, counterbalanced across participants. The 12 experimental items are divided in three discourse conditions – contrastive-focus, contrastive-topic, and given-topic - with four experimental items for each of the three conditions. The experiment is divided in two sessions - one for fronted constituents vs. non-fronted constituents - for the reasons explained in Section 6.1.3.The 12 fillers were instances of broad-focus as this discourse-context is the most neutral one Spanish in terms of word-order, which allows for the same fillers in both sessions. Four items per condition is a small number of experimental items from a statistical point of view. However, previous production experiments have also worked with a small number of items (Feldhausen, 2016; Sequeros-Valle, Hoot & Cabrelli, 2020, accepted; Stavropoulou & Spiliotopoulos, 2011), motivated by the potential for processing pressure (Grüter, Lew-Williams, & Fernald, 2012) in production to cause fatigue in the participants. 6.1.3. Procedures The participants described above completed an elicited production task in two sessions; one session for utterances with fronted constituents, and a second session for canonical utterances. This design brings at least two benefits to the experiment. First, this design allows fronted and non-fronted utterances not to affect each other. For example, if a participant produces a canonical utterance with contrastive-stress, and is presented with FF in the same session, one may argue that the latter influenced the participant on the former. Second, a session with six experimental A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 131 conditions in production (24 experimental items, and a total of 48 items) could potentially create excessive processing pressure (Grüter et al., 2012), resulting participant fatigue. Therefore, each participant only saw a total of 24 items in each session. For each stimulus (a context, a question, an answer) the participants first took some time to read all three for themselves. Then they read the question and the answer aloud, and their out- loud production was audio recorded. Stimuli were presented on a computer screen from a digital PDF, with the principal investigator being present and alone with the participant and controlling the computer. 6.1.4. Variables The dependent variables of the experiment are pitch accent (categorical: L+H*, H*, etc.), boundary tone (binomial: H- vs. L-), and pitch range (continuous: in semitones). Further, the independent variable is simply condition: This is due to (1) the lack of a possible Latin-square design - CLLD can be both contrastive and given while FF can only be contrastive – and (2) the lack of a syntactic variable in Session 2 – all constructions are simply canonical utterances. Therefore, condition is coded as either (a) contrastive focus (FF in Session 1 and canonical in Session 2), (b) contrastive topic, and (c) given topic (both (b) and (c) being CLLD in Session 1 and canonical utterances in Session 2). The following factors are controlled for in this production experiment, in both sessions. First, every lexical item appears in a frequency dictionary of Spanish (Davies, 2006), thus being controlled for frequency. The exception to this rule is proper names in the target constituents, for reasons explained below. Second, all target constituents consist of a differential object marker A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 132 followed by a personal name of three syllables, with the stress on the third-to-last syllable. The differential object marker ensures that the constituent can only be interpreted as a human direct object. Making sure that the target constituent cannot be interpreted as a subject is relevant in the session with fronted constituents. The reason for using three-syllable initial-accented names is the same as Feldhausen’s (2016): to be able to easily distinguish the pitch accent on the stressed syllable from the boundary tone at the edge of the intermediate intonational phrase, be that the fronted constituents (Session 1) or the end of the target constituent before the second clause (Session 2). Third, these target constituents consist entirely of voiced phones, so the intonational contour is available throughout the entire constituent. These detailed requirements for choosing names could not be fulfilled except at the expense of controlling for frequency. Fourth, for all three conditions, the main clause contains a transitive verb conjugated in the present tense. Despite the similarities, there are also some differences among the three conditions. For the contrastive focus condition, the sentence includes a clarification of who the speaker does not mean and is introduced by ‘No!’ (as in (6.3)). Further, the responses in both the contrastive topic and the given topic conditions include discourse-new constituents that respond to the wh-word in the question (as los ojos ‘the eyes’ in (6.4) and porque es muy bonita ‘because she’s so cute’ (6.5)). The reason for making contrastive-focus items different from contrastive-topic / given- topic items in these respects lies in the semantic / pragmatic structure of these utterances. The contrastive-topic and given-topic conditions are anaphoric, and some new information is going to be added in relation to the anaphoric constituent. In our case, this new, comment information is added via a discourse-new constituent. Notice that in (6.4), where ‘Barbara’ is the target constituent, communicating the fact that it is ‘her eyes’ I am looking at is the main semantic goal of the utterance. Likewise, in (6.5), the main goal is to communicate that it is ‘because she is so A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 133 cute’ that I pet Barbara the cat. In sum, the addition of new information is needed for the contrastive-topic and given-topic conditions. By contrast, in the contrastive-focus condition, the fronted constituent itself is used to provide the new information, opening and closing a new variable (López, 2009a). For instances, in (6.3), where ‘Barbara’ is the contrastive-focus constituent, the reader will notice that the main semantic goal of the utterance is to clarify that it is ‘Barbara’ that I have seen, not ‘Maria’. Therefore, no additional discourse-new constituents are required, nor is one acceptable. The responses in (6.6) show that a contrastive-focus constituent accompanied by a discourse-new PP adjunct is problematic. (6.6) Context: ‘[ wh-question Where ] have you seen [ ANTECEDENT your friends ] ?’ a. CF-FF: # ¡[ [+c] A mis primos ] he visto [ wh-answer en el parque ] ! DOM my cousins have.1st see.part in the park # ‘No! I have seen my cousins in the park.’ b. CF-canonical: # ¡He visto [ [+c] a mis primos ] [ wh-answer en el parque ] ! have.1st see.part DOM my cousins in the park # ‘No! I listen to Barbara, not Maria.’ Lastly, let us briefly discuss the between-session comparison. As previously mentioned, Session 1 includes the experimental stimuli in its fronted form, and Session 2 in its canonical form. The stimuli include the same lexicalizations for the experimental items - only different in word order between session-, as well as the exact same fillers – with the same word order across tasks. In addition to this difference in word-order, within Session 1, the contrastive-topic and given-topic conditions include clitic doubling (these are instances of CLLD). While this is not the case in the contrastive-focus condition (these are instances of FF), this difference does not appear in Session 2. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 134 6.1.5. Coding procedure The data was coded following the explanations presented in Chapter 2. Study 3, unlike Study 1, attempts to provide strong experimental evidence for intonation. Therefore, the results presented below are based on multiple, independent coding procedures of the same data sets for both pitch accent and boundary tone. The two resulting data sets are to be compared using both percentages and Cohen’s unweighted kappa (k), a statistic that measures inter- and intra-rater reliability (Brennan & Prediger 1981, Randolph 2008, Yoon et al. 2004). The results are presented below, separately for each session. The author solved disagreements between the two data sets in a second round of coding. Unlike for pitch accent and boundary tone data, the numerical data for range was simply extracted from Praat (Boersma & Weenink, 2019), with a unique data extraction being sufficient. 6.1.6. Statistical analysis For the group results, I first propose a series of logistic mixed models (see Larson-Hall’s, 2014:214, discussion of Saito, 1999) for 1) pitch accent and 2) boundary tones. Additionally, I proposed a series of linear mixed models for the continuous semitone results for the variable pitch range. All these regressions include condition (contrastive-focus vs. contrastive-topic vs. given- topic) as its independent variable for the reasons explained in Section 6.1.4. As in Chapter 5, I follow the instructions from Barr et al. (2013) for the random structure of these models. In this case, each item appears only in one condition, and therefore the by-item slope is directly A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 135 discarded; the maximal random structure includes by-participant slope and intercept and by-item intercept. If the maximal model does not converge, I will discard the by-item intercept (e.g. by- participant slope and intercept only) and compare it to the intercepts-only model (e.g. by- participant intercept + by-item intercept); between the two, I will use the model that account for more variance. If the 1-slope, 1-intercept model does not converge, I will stay with the intercepts- only model. These analyses are to be run in R-Studio 1.2.5019 (RStudio Team, 2019), following the 3.6.1. version of Davidson’s (2019) code for this type of analyses (pages 10-11 for the linear mixed models, and pages 12-13 for the logistic mixed models). This code also includes the code for Tukey HSD (Tukey, 1949) post-hoc pairwise comparisons. The final version of the R code is included in Appendix 16, with Davidson’s blanks updated to the names of the variables relevant for this study. After establishing the statistical analysis for the study, we can re-phrase the experimental predictions from (6.1) and (6.3) in more sophisticated terms. First, let us start with the predictions for pitch-accent. H1 predicts that the main effect Condition will come up significant, and the pairwise comparisons will demonstrate that the given condition is significantly different from the two contrastive conditions (focus and topic). Alternatively, H0 predicts that the main effect Condition will come up non-significant, as well as the pairwise comparisons. Second, let us move to the second research question. On the one hand, H1 for both boundary-tone and range predicts that the main effect Condition will come up significant, and the pairwise comparisons will show that the condition contrastive-focus will be significantly different than the other two conditions. On the other hand, H0 predicts that the main effect Condition will come up non-significant, as well as the pairwise comparisons. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 136 For the analysis of the linear range variable in the individual results, an appropriate method is to calculate the 95% confidence interval of the mean difference between canonicals- minus-CLLD in each condition (Cumming & Finch, 2005). This is the same method from Chapter 5, with the same limitations and warnings. For the categorical variables pitch accent and range, the ideal test would be a McNemar mid-p-value analysis (Fagerland, Lydersen, & Laake, 2013). However, previous studies have found this test to be problematic for small stimuli numbers (e.g., Sequeros-Valle, Hoot & Cabrelli, 2020, accepted). Considering that there are four items per condition, I propose to take any 3-to-1 or 4-to-0 individual result as evidence that the majority result is the true output provided by that participant, while a 2-to-2 result will be disregarded as inconclusive. 6.2. Results for Session 1 – CLLD and FF The entire data set (Appendix 16) was run in R-Studio 1.2.5019 (RStudio Team, 2019), and the output is attached in Appendix 17. 6.2.1. Inter-rater reliability Results for Session 1 were coded by the author and a collaborator, independently from each other, for the variables pitch-accent and boundary-tone. Results show a high degree of agreement between both data sets: 91.608% and k = .701 [.540, .863] for pitch accent, and 98.601% and k = .972 [.934, 1.000] for boundary tone. After solving disagreements between both versions of the data set, the results are those presented in Sections 6.2.2. and 6.2.3. Further, the variable ‘range’ A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 137 did not need to be double-coded, as numerical values are directly provided in Praat (Boersma & Weenink, 2019). 6.2.2. Results for pitch-accent The descriptive results for pitch accent are presented in Figure 20. First, the Contrastive-FF condition presented 36 instances of L+H* (75%) and 12 instances of other pitch accents (25%). Second, the Contrastive-CLLD presented 38 instances of L+H* (79%) and 10 instances of other pitch accents (21%). Third, the Given-CLLD presented 34 instances of L+H* (71%) and 14 instances of other pitch accents (29%). 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% % of % counts 30% 20% 10% 0% Contrastive-FF Contrastive-CLLD Given-CLLD L+H* Other Figure 20: Pitch-accent group results in Session 1 of the scripted production task. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 138 Inferentially, the maximally generalized linear mixed model (by-participant slope and intercept, by-item intercept) and the by-participant-only model (by-participant slope and intercept) did not converge. Therefore, the intercept-only model (by-participant intercept, by-item intercept) is considered. Table XXVI presents the fixed effects results, Table XXVII shows the Tuckey HSC pairwise comparisons, and Table XXVIII reports the odds-ratio calculations (all odd-ratio and size effect calculations are included in Appendix 18). TABLE XXVIII: FIXED EFFECTS FOR PITCH-ACCENT IN SESSION 1 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK. Factor/Interaction Estimate SE z p-value Significant? (Intercept) β = 1.694 0.535 3.162 = 0.001 * Condition.1 β = -0.284 0.525 -0.541 = 0.588 Condition.2 β = -0.544 0.517 -1.051 = 0.293 TABLE XXIX: PAIRWISE COMPARISONS FOR PITCH-ACCENT IN SESSION 1 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK. Comparison z-ratio (df) p-value Significant? Condition 2 vs. 3 1.051 (Inf) = 0.544 Condition 2 vs. 1 0.541 (Inf) = 0.850 Condition 1 vs. 3 0.517 (Inf) = 0.863 TABLE XXX: ODDS RATIO FOR PITCH-ACCENT IN SESSION 1 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK. Phenomenon Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3 Odds-ratio L+H* 1 (.45,2.23) 1.3(.64,2.64) 0.77(.38,1.56) A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 139 Lastly, the individual results show the following patterns: TABLE XXXI: INDIVIDUAL VARIATION FOR PITCH-ACCENT IN SESSION 1 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK. Pattern Description # of participants Predicted H0: No differences 1 = L+H* 2 = L+H* 3 = L+H* 6 H1a: Contrastive vs. Given 1 = x 2 = x 3 = y 0 Unpredicted 1 = ? 2 = L+H* 3 = ? 3 1 = L+H* 2 = ? 3 = L*+H 1 1 = L+H* 2 = L*+H 3 = L+H* 1 1 = L+H* 2 = ? 3 = L+H* 1 6.2.3. Results for boundary-tone The descriptive results for boundary tone are presented in Figure 21. First, the Contrastive-FF condition presented 13 instances of H- (26.083%) and 35 instances of L- (72.916%). Second, the Contrastive-CLLD presented 44 instances of H- (91.667%) and 4 instances of L- (8.333%). Third, the Given-CLLD presented 47 instances of H- (96.916%) and 1 instances of L- (2.083%). Inferentially, the maximally generalized linear mixed model (by-participant slope and intercept, by-item intercept) and the by-participant-only model (by-participant slope and intercept) did not converge. Therefore, the intercept-only model (by-participant intercept, by-item intercept) is considered. Table XXX presents the fixed effects results, Table XXXI shows the Tuckey HSC pairwise comparisons, and Table XXXII reports the odds-ratio calculations. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 140 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% % of % counts 30% 20% 10% 0% Contrastive-FF Contrastive-CLLD Given-CLLD H- L- Figure 21: Boundary-tone group results in Session 1 of the scripted production task. TABLE XXXII: FIXED EFFECTS FOR BOUNDARY-TONE IN SESSION 1 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK. Factor/Interaction Estimate SE z p-value Significant? (Intercept) β = 2.568 0.655 3.920 < 0.001 * Condition.1 β = -3.659 0.830 -4.406 < 0.001 * Condition.3 β = 1.478 1.186 1.246 = 0.213 TABLE XXXIII: PAIRWISE COMPARISON FOR BOUNDARY-TONE IN SESSION 1 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK. Comparison z-ratio (df) p-value Significant? Condition 2 vs. 3 -1.246 (Inf) = 0.425 Condition 2 vs. 1 4.406 (Inf) < 0.001 * Condition 3 vs. 1 -4.220 (Inf) < 0.001 * A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 141 TABLE XXXIV: ODDS RATIO FOR BOUNDARY-TONE IN SESSION 1 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK. Phenomenon Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3 Odds-ratio H- 0.020 (0.01,0.06) 6.600 (2.19,19.9) 32.160 (4.26,294.94) Odds-ratio L- 49.000 (16.27,146.59) 0.150 (0.05,0.46) 0.030 (0,0.23) Lastly, the individual results show the following patterns: TABLE XXXV: INDIVIDUAL VARIATION FOR BOUNDARY-TONE IN SESSION 1 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK. Pattern Description # of participants Predicted H0: No differences 1 = H- 2 = H- 3 = H- 1 H1b: Focus vs. Topic 1 = L- 2 = H- 3 = H- 8 Unpredicted 1 = ? 2 = L+H* 3 = ? 3 1 = L+H* 2 = ? 3 = L*+H 1 1 = L+H* 2 = L*+H 3 = L+H* 1 1 = L+H* 2 = ? 3 = L+H* 1 6.2.4. Results for range The maximal linear mixed model (by-participant slope and intercept, by-item intercept) converged. The estimated results are presented in Figure 22 and Table XXXIV. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 142 6 5 4 3 2 Estimated Semitones 1 0 Contrastive-FF Contrastive-CLLD Given-CLLD Figure 22: Range group results in Session 1 of the scripted production task. The error bars represent the 95% Confidence Interval. TABLE XXXVI: RANGE GROUP RESULTS IN SESSION 1 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK. Condition emmean 95%C.I. Contrastive-FF 4.39 3.29 - 5.48 Contrastive-CLLD 3.58 2.45 - 4.71 Given-CLLD 2.92 1.95 - 3.9 The fixed effects results are presented in Table XXXV, and Table XXXVI shows the results of the Tukey HSC pairwise comparisons. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 143 TABLE XXXVII: FIXED EFFECTS FOR RANGE IN SESSION 1 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK. Factor/Interaction Estimate SE d(d)f Statistic p-value Significant? (Intercept) β = 3.582 0.505 14.248 t = 6.092 < 0.001 * Condition 2, 9.40 F = 3.67 = 0.7 TABLE XXXVIII: PAIRWISE COMPARISONS AND EFFECT SIZES FOR RANGE IN SESSION 1 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK. Comparison t-ratio (df) p-value Sig? Hedges’ g Interpretation Condition 2 vs. 3 1.281 (11.3) = 0.197 0.355 Small Condition 2 vs. 1 -1.852 (11.3) = 0.426 0.423 Small Condition 1 vs. 3 2.674 (16.4) = 0.041 * 0.797 Large Finally, the individual results show that two participants showed a significantly larger range in the Contrastive-focus condition in comparison to the Contrastive-topic condition, and the same was true for one participant between the Contrastive-focus condition in comparison to the Given- topic condition. No participant showed any significant differences between the two topic (contrastive vs. given) conditions. 6.2.5. Interim discussion I Let us now return to the third and fourth research questions of this last study, in order to observe the meaning of the results presented above. The two research questions are the following: A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 144 (6.7) RQ3: Are different discourse-contexts marked via specific-pitch accent in Spanish? H1: A different pitch-accent for the given condition, compared to the two contrastive conditions (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010) H0: No significant differences (Stavropoulou & Spiliotopoulos, 2011; Pešková, 2015, 2018) (6.8) RQ4: Is contrastive focus marked via contrastive-stress in Spanish? H1a: Low boundary in the contrastive-focus condition, high boundary tone otherwise. H1b: Extended pitch range in the contrastive-focus condition (Hualde & Prieto, 2015; Ladd, 2008; Pešková, 2015, 2018) H0: No significant differences First, the results from a first binomial logistic mixed model show a non-significant effect for Condition for pitch-accent, which aligns with H0 for RQ3. Second, the result from a second binomial logistic regression for boundary-tone shows a significant effect for one of the conditions only, which seems to partially align with H1a and partially with H0 in RQ4. Lastly, the results from a linear mixed model show a non-significant effect by Condition for pitch-range, which seems to align with H0 for RQ4. In addition, the pairwise comparisons point in the same direction: none of the three conditions is different from each other, and none of the participants show a significant difference within their own data. In relation to pitch accents, I believe there is enough evidence to claim that the results show no evidence of H1 for RQ3: no, different discourse-contexts do not show evidence to be marked via specific-pitch accent in the Spanish. For boundary tone, the results do not seem to point clearly towards one of predicted outputs (H1 or H0). The pairwise comparisons, however, show that contrastive-focus significantly differs from the other two conditions; while the former tends towards a low boundary tone (OR = 4.90), the formers tend towards a high boundary tone (OR = 6.60 for Contrastive- topic and OR=32.16 for Given-topic). Further, eight of the participants show the same pattern within their own between-condition differences. I think this is enough evidence to argue in favor A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 145 of a confirmation of H1a for RQ4: contrastive-focus presents a low boundary tone, while contrastive- and given-topics show a high boundary tone. For pitch range, the model shows a non-significant result, which points towards H0 for RQ4. To complicate matters, however, the pairwise comparisons show significantly larger results for contrastive-focus in comparison to given-topic. Contrastive-topic, at the same time, shows intermediate values with no significant differences to the other two. This picture does not allow us to learn whether the extended pitch-range in contrastive-focus is due to contrastivity (if contrastive-topic aligns with it) or to focality (if contrastive-topic aligns with given-topic). Therefore, I ran additional linear mixed models in which I collapsed 1) all contrastive versus given items (contrastive focus + topic versus given-topic), and 2) all topics versus focus items (contrastive-focus vs. contrastive + given topics). The output from R is presented in Appendix 20. Results show that there is a focus-vs-topic significant difference, but not a contrastive-vs- given significant difference. Therefore, contrastive-focus presents a significantly larger pitch- range than contrastive + given topics. Additionally, some of the participants show the same patterns. Even though individual data is subject to statistical noise, it is worth mentioning that the only pattern that seems to emerge is that contrastive-focus is the one condition that presents significantly larger pitch-ranges. In sum, and despite the first impression after the original analysis, I would like to claim that evidence in fact points towards H1 for RQ4: contrastive-focus in the left-periphery does show evidence of an extended pitch-range in comparison to contrastive- and given-topics. Putting all this information together, the findings from Session 1 of the scripted production task can be summarized as follows: contrastive-focus presents a rising pitch accent, a low boundary-tone, and a larger pitch-range (see Figure 23), while topics present the same rising pitch A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 146 accent, a high boundary-tone, and a smaller pitch-range (see Figure 24). As mentioned above, contrastive-focus in Session 1 is represented by the construction FF, while topics are represented by CLLD. In order to tell apart 1) construction from topicality-focality and 2) fronting from canonical utterances, Section 6.3. presents the same set of results from canonical utterances. Figure 23: Nuclear configuration for contrastive focus: Raising pitch-accent (L+H*) and a low boundary tone (L-), with a larger pitch-range. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 147 Figure 24: Nuclear configuration for both topic types (contrastive and given): Raising pitch- accent (L+H*) and a high boundary tone (H-), with a smaller pitch-range. 6.3. Results for Session 2 – Canonical constructions As with Session 1, the entire data set (Appendix 17) for Session 2 was run in R-Studio 1.2.5019 (RStudio Team, 2019), and the output is attached in Appendix 18. 6.3.1. Inter-rater reliability Given the lack of a trained collaborator at the time of coding, results for Session 2 are not double coded. This issue will be resolved when this dissertation moves forward for publication. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 148 6.3.2. Results for pitch-accent The descriptive results for pitch accent are presented in Figure 25. First, the Contrastive-focus condition presented 20 instances of L+H* (52.631%) and 18 instances of H+L* (46.368%). Second, the Contrastive-topic presented 24 instances of L+H* (66.667%), four instances of H+L* (11.111%), and eight instances of L*+H (22.222%). Third, the Given-topic presented 22 instances of L+H* (64.705%), four instances of H+L* (11.764%), and eight instances of L*+H (23.529%). 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% % of % counts 30% 20% 10% 0% Contrastive-Focus Contrastive-Topic Given-Topic L+H* H+L* L*+H Figure 25: Raw pitch-accent group results in Session 2 of the scripted production task. Inferentially, the maximally generalized linear mixed model (by-participant slope and intercept, by-item intercept) and the by-participant-only model (by-participant slope and intercept) did not converge. Therefore, the intercept-only model (by-participant intercept, by-item intercept) is A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 149 considered. Table XXXVII presents the fixed effects results, Table XXXVIII shows the Tuckey HSC pairwise comparisons, and Table XXXIX reports the odds-ratio calculations. TABLE XXXIX: FIXED EFFECTS FOR PITCH-ACCENTS IN SESSION 2 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTIONS TASK. Factor/Interaction Estimate SE z p-value Significant? (Intercept) β = 0.396 1.112 0.356 = 0.722 Condition.1 β = -0.697 0.776 -0.899 = 0.369 Condition.2 β = -0.307 0.756 -0.406 = 0.685 TABLE XL: PAIRWISE COMPARISONS FOR PITCH-ACCENT IN SESSION 2 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK. Comparison z-ratio (SE) p-value Significant? Condition 1 vs. 2 0.899 (Inf) = 0.641 Condition 1 vs. 3 0.406 (Inf) = 0.913 Condition 2 vs. 3 -0.503 (Inf) = 0.870 TABLE XLI: ODDS RATIO FOR PITCH-ACCENT IN SESSION 2 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK. Phenomenon Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3 Odds-ratio L+H* 0.740 (0.34,1.58) 1.360 (0.63,2.93) 1.000 (0.47,2.14) Odds-ratio L*+H 0.000 (0,NaN) 2.250 (0.78,6.53) 2.250 (0.78,6.53) Odds-ratio H+L* 6.360 (2.82,19.23) 0.290 (0.09,0.92) 0.290 (0.09,0.92) Finally, the individual results showed the following patterns: A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 150 TABLE XLII: INDIVIDUAL VARIATION FOR PITCH-ACCENT IN SESSION 2 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK. Pattern Contrastive-focus Contrastive-topic Given-topic # of participants L+H* always L+H* L+H* L+H* 4 Focus-different H+L* L+H* L+H* 2 H+L* L*+H L*+H 2 À la B&F L+H* L+H* H+L* 2 6.3.3. Results for boundary-tone The descriptive results for boundary tone are presented in Figure 26. First, the Contrastive-focus condition presented all 40 instances of L- (100.000%). Second, the Contrastive-topic presented 20 instances of H- (58.823%) and 14 instances of L- (41.176%). Third, the Given-topic presented 34 instances of H- (89.473%) and four instances of L- (10.526%). 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% % of % counts 30% 20% 10% 0% Contrastive-Focus Contrastive-Topic Given-Topic H- L- Figure 26: Boundary-tone group results in Session 2 of the scripted production task. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 151 Inferentially, the maximal generalized linear mixed (by-participant slope and intercept, by-item intercept) converged. Table XLI presents the fixed effects results, Table XLII shows the Tuckey HSC pairwise comparisons, and Table XLIII reports the odds-ratio calculations. TABLE XLIII: FIXED EFFECTS FOR BOUNDARY-TONE IN SESSION 2 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK. Factor/Interaction Estimate SE z p-value Significant? (Intercept) β = 2856.46 42.48 66.24 < 0.001 * Condition.1 β = -2833.57 42.47 -66.72 < 0.001 * Condition.2 β = -2895.63 39.91 -72.55 < 0.001 * TABLE XLIV: PAIRWISE COMPARISONS FOR BOUNDARY-TONE IN SESSION 2 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK. Comparison z-ratio (SE) p-value Significant? Condition 1 vs. 2 66.720 (Inf) < 0.001 * Condition 1 vs. 3 72.553 (Inf) < 0.001 * Condition 2 vs. 3 2.525 (Inf) = 0.031 * TABLE XLV: ODDS RATIO FOR BOUNDARY-TONE IN SESSION 2 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK. Phenomenon Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3 Odds-ratio H- 0.000 (0,NaN) 1.350 (0.63,2.9) 16.000 (6.22,46.43) Odds-ratio L- Inf (Nan,Inf) 0.440 (0.2,0.97) 0.050 (0.02,0.17) Finally, the individual results showed the following patterns: A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 152 TABLE XLVI: INDIVIDUAL VARIATION FOR BOUNDARY-TONE IN SESSION 2 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK. Pattern Contrastive-focus Contrastive-topic Given-topic # of participants Focus/topic L- H- H- 4 Contrast/given L- L- H- 4 Undetermined L- n/a n/a 2 6.3.4. Results for range The maximal linear mixed model (by-participant slope and intercept, by-item intercept) converged. The estimated results are presented in Figure 25 and Table XLV. 6 5 4 3 2 Estimated Semitones 1 0 Contrastive-Focus Contrastive-Topic Given-Topic Figure 27: Range group results in Session 2 of the scripted production task. The error bars represent the 95% Confidence Interval. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 153 TABLE XLVII: RANGE GROUP RESULTS IN SESSION 2 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK. Condition emmean 95%C.I. Contrastive-Focus 2.08 0.903 - 3.26 Contrastive-Topic 2.31 0.578 - 4.03 Given-Topic 2.23 0.745 - 3.71 The fixed effects results are presented in Table XLVI, and Table XLVII shows the results of the Tukey HSC pairwise comparisons. TABLE XLVIII: FIXED EFFECTS FOR RANGE IN SESSION 2 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK. Factor/Interaction Estimate SE d(d)f Statistic p-value Sig? (Intercept) β = 2.080 0.477 6.333 t = 4.362 < 0.001 * Condition 2, 6.14 F = 0.04 = 0.96 TABLE XLIX: PAIRWISE COMPARISONS AND EFFECT SIZES FOR RANGE IN SESSION 2 OF THE SCRIPTED PRODUCTION TASK. Comparison t-ratio (df) p-value Sig.? Hedges’ g Interpretation Condition 1 vs. 2 -0.279 (9.50) = 0.953 0.037 Very small Condition 1 vs. 3 -0.188 (9.79) = 0.980 -0.114 Very small Condition 2 vs. 3 0.151 (9.86) = 0.987 -0.077 Very small Finally, the individual results showed that none of the participants show any significant differences between conditions. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 154 6.3.5. Interim discussion II As a parallel to the interim discussion of the results from Session 1, let us now return to the third and fourth research questions to discuss the results from Session 2: (6.9) RQ3: Are different discourse-contexts marked via specific-pitch accent in the Spanish? H1: A different pitch-accent for the given condition, compared to the two contrastive conditions (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010) H0: No significant differences (Stavropoulou & Spiliotopoulos, 2011; Pešková, 2015, 2018) (6.10) RQ4: Is contrastive focus marked via contrastive-stress in Spanish? H1a: Low boundary in the contrastive-focus condition, high boundary tone otherwise. H1b: Extended pitch range in the contrastive-focus condition (Hualde & Prieto, 2015; Ladd, 2008; Pešková, 2015, 2018) H0: No significant differences First, the results from a first binomial logistic mixed model show a non-significant effect for Condition for pitch-accent, which aligns with H0 for RQ3. Second, the result from a second binomial logistic regression for boundary-tone shows a significant effect for Condition, which aligns with H1a in RQ4. Lastly, the results from a linear mixed model shows a non-significant effect by Condition for pitch-range, which seems to align with H0 for RQ4. Once again, given the mixed output from the mixed models, let us look into each set of pairwise comparisons in order to obtain a more detailed view of what the results look like. In addition to the lack of significant differences for pitch-accent in the mixed model, the pairwise comparisons point in the same direction. None of the three conditions is different from the other two. Unlike in Session 1, however, the pitch-accent results in Session 2 present a larger degree of variability. Therefore, this information as presented in Figure 6.4 is uninformative, as it does not show the status that each pitch-accent has within each participant’s idiolect. Bianchi A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 155 & Frascarelli (2010) argue that the actual pitch-accent output may differ from language to language (as Italian vs. German in Frascarelli & Hinterhölzl, 2007). Taking this idea even further, each individual may use different pitch-accents for this function. Therefore, the exact pitch accent is irrelevant, and in fact it may obscure our data; if participant A uses pitch-accent ‘a’ in Condition X and participant B uses pitch-accent ‘b’ in the same Condition X, group data will show a 50% ‘a’ and a 50% ‘b’ obscuring the fact that they both are using their special Condition X pitch- accent. The patterns shown in Table XL, however, may help solve this issue. These results show that only two of the participants produced the same pitch-accent in both contrastive (focus and topic) conditions, while the rest either produced the same pitch-accent across the board (four participants) or one pitch-accent for contrastive-focus and a different one for contrastive- and given-topics. I believe this is enough evidence to claim that these results show no evidence of H1 for RQ3: No, different discourse-contexts (contrastive vs. given) do not show evidence to be marked via specific-pitch accent in the Spanish. Further, the fact that four participants produced different pitch-accents in the focus vs. topic conditions is not predicted by any of the models under discussion; this may simply be due to statistical noise, but it may be an interesting avenue for further research. In any case, note that this aligns closer to the focus-vs-topic predictions for RQ4 than to the contrastive-vs-given predictions for RQ3. For boundary tone, the binomial logistic regression for boundary-tone shows a significant effect for Condition, which aligns with H1a in RQ4. The pairwise comparisons show that contrastive-focus significantly differs from given-topic, while contrastive-topic shows an intermediate value and a significant difference from the other two conditions. Further, while contrastive-focus leads towards a low boundary tone (OR = Infinite) and given-topic a high boundary tone (OR = 16.00), contrastive-topic shows no clear tendency (OR = 1.350 for H- and A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 156 OR = 0.440 for L-). with given-topic. I believe there is partial evidence to argue in favor of a confirmation of H1a for RQ4-contrastive-focus presents a low boundary tone, while the other two conditions significantly differ from it. One may say that, even though some participants show the same pattern in their individual variation, it is also true that the individual results show that contrastive-topic aligns with contrastive-focus for four participants. As in Study 2 (Chapter 5), I acknowledge this fact, but treat this as statistical noise and I disregard it going forwards. For pitch range, the model shows a non-significant result, which points towards H0 for RQ4. Along the same lines, all significant differences came up non-significant, as well as all within-participant differences. Due to all these pieces of evidence, I would like to claim H1 for RQ4 was not confirmed: contrastive-focus in a canonically located constituent does not show evidence of an extended pitch-range in comparison to contrastive- and given-topics. Putting all this information together, the results from Session 2 of the scripted production task can be summarized as follows: contrastive-focus presents a rising pitch accent and a low boundary-tone, whiletopics present the same rising pitch accent and a high boundary-tone (review Figures 25 and 26 in Section 6.2.5.). Further, the results show no evidence that range makes a difference. Moving forwards, Section 6.4discusses the results from both experimental sessions together. 6.4. General discussion As we have seen throughout the previous sections, the results from Session 1 show a non- significant effect for pitch-accent, a significant focus-vs-topic significant difference for boundary- tone, and a significant focus-vs-topic significant difference for pitch-range. Further, the results A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 157 from Session 2 show a non-significant effect for pitch-accent, a significant focus-vs-topic significant difference for boundary-tone (some participants only), and a non-significant effect for pitch-range. Linking these findings to the research questions, both Sessions 1 and 2 found no evidence in favor of H1 for RQ3; different discourse contexts show no evidence of being marked via a specific pitch-accent. Recall that in section xx I discussed that B&F argue that… My finding challenges Bianchi and Frascarelli’s (2010) prediction, because … Thus, my results align with previous research which… in Spanish (Pešková, 2015, 2018), Galician (Gupton, forthcoming), and Greek (Stavropoulou & Spiliotopoulos, 2011). Further, both Sessions 1 and 2 show evidence in favor of H1a for RQ4; while contrastive- focus is marked via low boundary-tone, both contrastive- and given-topics significantly differ from it in the direction of a high boundary-tone. This finding aligns with previous studies that found similar patterns in Spanish, such as Pešková (2015, 2018). It is worth noting, however, that the pattern found by Pešková is not the exact same as the one found here. While she finds a rise- fall pattern within the tonic syllable for contrastive foci (aka, raise-fall pitch accent, with an indistinguishable boundary tone), the results in the current study found such a pattern along the entire target constituent (rising pitch-accent, low boundary tone). Lastly, results from Session 1 support H1b for RQ4; contrastive-focus presents a significantly larger pitch-range than topics. Results from Session 2, however, do not show evidence of this significant difference. This finding also aligns with previous studies on the issue. Recall that H&P find that … My results align with H&P because… (Hualde & Prieto, 2015; Ladd, 2008), at least for Session 1. The implications of these findings for the literature review discussed in Chapter 3 are presented in Chapter 7. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 158 7. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 7.0. Introduction Thus far, in this dissertation, we have seen a literature review (Chapter 3) that motivated the following research questions: ● RQ1: Does Spanish CLLD fulfill multiple discourse contexts? ○ YES: cartographic prediction (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010) and discourse-free prediction (Rubio Alcalá, 2014). ○ NO: derivational prediction (López, 2009a) ● RQ2: May canonical utterances fulfill the same discourse contexts as Spanish CLLD? ○ YES: derivational prediction (López, 2009a, by accidental co-reference) and discourse-free prediction (Rubio Alcalá, 2014). ○ NO: cartographic prediction (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010) ● RQ3: Are different discourse-contexts marked via specific-pitch accent in Spanish? ○ YES: cartographic prediction (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010) ○ NO: based on previous experimental evidence (Stavropoulou & Spiliotopoulos, 2011; Pešková, 2015, 2018) ● RQ4: Is contrastive focus marked via contrastive-stress in Spanish? ○ YES: based on intonational phonology theory (Ladd, 2008) and previous empirical evidence (Hualde & Prieto, 2015; Pešková, 2015, 2018) Further, these research questions were tested in a corpus analysis (Chapter 4), an acceptability judgment task (Chapter 5), and a scripted production task (Chapter 6): Each set of findings was discussed separately in its respective chapter. The goals of this final chapter are to look at the three sets of results together in the light of the research questions above (Section 7.1) in orderto 1) discuss what these findings mean for the theoretical approaches from Chapter 3 (Section 7.2), 2)provide an alternative analysis able to accommodate all those findings (Section 7.3),3) present A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 159 the limitations of this dissertation, 4)argue for future avenues for further research (Section 7.4), and 5) provide a general conclusion (Section 7.5) 7.1. Comparison across Studies 1-3 Let us summarize the main findings of the three experimental studies that comprise this dissertation with the goal of finding the general patterns that appear in the results. Study 1 (Chapter 4) is a discursive and intonational analysis of fronted and canonical utterances from the Spanish section of the NOCANDO corpus (Brunetti, Bott, Costa, & Vallduví, 2011). The study was designed to find answers to all four research questions. However, due to the lack of FF in the corpus, we were only able to answer research questions 1-3. The quantitative part of the analysis shows that CLLD fulfills multiple discourse contexts, providing an affirmative answer to RQ1. Further, the qualitative part of the analysis shows that CLLD and its canonical counterpart can fulfill the same discourse contexts, providing an affirmative answer to RQ2. Lastly, the intonational section of the analysis shows that each topic-type is produced with multiple pitch accents, providing a negative answer to RQ3. Given the limited extent of Study 1 and its impossibility to provide any answers for RQ4, two additional studies were also designed and carried out. In Study 2 (Chapter 5), 25 participants completed an acceptability judgment task in order to find additional evidence in the form of perception data for RQ1 and RQ2. Group results show that CLLD is acceptable in two conditions (local and new), and with judgments significantly higher than in the wh condition. This posits an affirmative answer to RQ1. Further, the same set of results show that canonical utterances are also acceptable in those same two conditions when A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 160 CLLD is accepted, which provides an affirmative answer to RQ2. Note that the affirmative answers for RQ1 and RQ2 found in Study 1 via production, are replicated in perception in Study 2. In Study 3 (Chapter 6), 22 participants completed a scripted production task in order to find additional evidence for RQ3, and some evidence for RQ4.. Both fronted and canonical utterances show that pitch-accent does not mark any special type of discourse phenomena in Spanish. I note that this finding replicated the negative answer to RQ3 from Study 1. While Study 1 (as all previous studies) found multiple pitch-accents per condition, Study 3 found only one pitch-accent across the board. Despite these differences, finding a unique pitch-accent still does not provide an affirmative answer to RQ3. Further, and unlike Study 1, Study 3 does provide an answer to RQ4. First, both fronted and canonical utterances show a low boundary tone in contrastive-focus, and a high boundary tone in topics, which indicates an affirmative answer to RQ4. Second, while fronted contrastive-focus shows a significantly larger pitch-range than topics, this difference is not found among canonical utterances, which indicates a partially affirmative answer to RQ4 (fronted) and a partially negative answer (canonicals). Putting all these findings together, it seems to be the case that: 1) CLLD can fulfill multiple discourse contexts (RQ1: Studies 1 and 2), 2)canonical utterances can also fulfill those same discourse contexts (RQ2: Studies 1 and 2), 3) pitch-accent does not mark specific discourse function (RQ3: Studies 1 and 3), 4) a low boundary-tone marks contrastive-focus (RQ4: Study 3), and 5)an expanded pitch-range marks contrastive-focus in fronted constituents (RQ4: Study 3). The implications of this empirical landscape are discussed in Section 7.2. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 161 7.2. Implications for linguistic theory Let us now discuss the implications of the empirical landscape discussed in Section 7.1 in the light of the literature reviewed in Chapter 3. On the one hand, the affirmative answer to RQ1 aligns with both the cartographic prediction (Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010) and the discourse-free prediction (Rubio Alcalá, 2014). On the other hand, the affirmative answer to RQ2 aligns with both the derivational (López, 2009a) and the discourse-free predictions (Rubio Alcalá). Note that this combination of answers is incompatible with the cartographic prediction (Bianchi & Frascarelli). It is predicted that CLLD can fulfill multiple discourse contexts, but canonical utterances should not be able to fulfil those same discourse contexts as the sentence peripheries are the only locations with specific syntactic positions to receive those discursively-marked constituents. Further, note that this combination of answers is also incompatible with the derivational prediction (López) which predicts that an interchangeability between CLLD and canonicals utterances may take place. Moreover, the presence of fronting-plus-clitic is predicted to be interpreted only as a discursive anaphora, and we see in both Study 1 and Study 2 that this construction can take other discourse functions. Therefore, the only option is to argue in favor of the double-affirmative finding (in RQ1 and RQ2) predicted by the discourse-free prediction (Rubio Alcalá); all options are possible since discourse does not present any limitations for syntax. However, this theoretical option is not able to explain why CLLD is rejected in the wh- condition: if anything goes in terms of word order, why not CLLD as an answer to a wh-question? We saw that CLLD was rejected in the wh-condition, as predicted by López (2009a) and Villalba (2000). The rejection of wh-CLLD in Study 2 is further emphasized by the lack of wh-CLLDs in A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 162 Study 1. After all, the fact remains that none of the three models can account for the syntax- discourse findings. Let us now turn to the phonological findings. Study 1 found the presence of multiple pitch- accents to mark each discourse function, while in Study 3 a unique pitch-accent was used across the board. Despite the diverse outputs – maybe due to a task effect in Study 3 - both studies posit a negative answer to RQ3. There is not a specific pitch-accent to mark each discourse function. Further, note that this finding aligns with previous studies on the issue (Gupton, forthcoming; Stavropoulou & Spiliotopoulos, 2011; Pešková, 2015, 2018). This finding challenges claims from Frascarelli and colleagues (e.g. Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010; Frascarelli & Hinterhölzl, 2007; and others) on this regard. However, it is fair to say that this finding challenges the relation between syntax-discourse and intonation, but not the cartographic model per se. It is not the case that pitch- accent correlates to syntax-discourse, but it could still be the case that syntax and discourse do correlate in the way shown in Chapter 3. What truly challenges the cartographic-model from an empirical perspective is, in my opinion, the combination of intonation and word order. Lastly, the results from Study 3 in relation to RQ4 also challenge the discourse-free approach (Rubio Alcalá, 2014). We have seen that contrastive-focus is marked with a low boundary tone that does not appear in topics, and something similar happens with pitch-range at least for fronted constituents. In Session 1 of Study 3, one may say that the contrastive-focus vs. topics differences are actually a difference between CLLD and FF, and therefore still a syntactic difference that can be explained with the discourse-free approach. However, the difference in boundary-tone between contrastive-focus and topics is still present among canonical utterances, which indicates that this is due to discourse only, as the comparison is run across canonical SVO utterances. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 163 If none of the three predictions from previous literature are able to explain the results from Studies 1-3, I believe it is necessary to theorize a new model. The theoretical issues left aside at the end of Chapter 3 will serve as a starting point to help determine what this new model should looks like. This is the starting point for the next section. 7.3. An alternative: A morphological approach to discourse Considering the empirical issues for all previous models, let us now return to the theoretical models left aside at the end of Chapter 3. These will give us a hint of what an alternative theoretical model should look like. In sum, the new model must: ● Not to rely on a pre-established syntactic hierarchy (contra Frascarelli and colleagues). ● Not rely on the notions of 'topic' and 'focus' (contra Frascarelli and colleagues). ● Respect the principle of Inclusiveness (following Chomsky, 1995). ● Be simple (following Chomsky, 1992). ● Be able to explain the discourse function of non-fronted constituents (contra Frascarelli and colleagues and López, 2009a). ● Posit word-order as highly independent from discourse-function (following Rubio Alcalá, 2014; contra Frascarelli and colleagues and López, 2009a). In order to respect all these requirements, I propose the following idea: (7.1) The morphological discourse hypothesis: Discourse features are morphemes from numeration merged during morphosyntactic derivation as functional heads. The fact that information structure are morphemes is more evident in languages in which discourse is expressed via overt discourse-related markers (e.g. wa in Japanese, num and ka in Korean [Lee & Shimojo, 2016], and na, (n)so, mpo, nko, and ara in Akan [a Niger-Congo language, Amfo, 2010], and mi, qa, taq, and ri among others in Quechua [Sánchez, 2010]). This sort of morphological approach has previously been proposed for Romance languages as well (Cruschina, 2009; Aboh, 2016; Rizzi, 1997; Rizzi & Cinque, 2016; see Cartography in Chapter A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 164 3). Unlike those authors, however, I do not posit any correlation between a given feature and a given obligatory word order or construction type. Instead, I propose that a constituent that receives a discourse-specific feature may express this feature phonologically (rise-fall intonation, clitic- doubling, etc,), regardless of where the constituent appears in the sentence. Further, this constituent may move to the left periphery if an unvalued feature appears there (fronting), but that unvalued feature may in fact not be there (canonical utterances). This goes along the lines of Bošković (1997) for in-situ wh. Note that, following López (2009a), I define discourse in solely Minimalist terms (features, their interpretation, their spell-out), leaving out any extra-linguistic factors (what the speaker knows, his intentions, etc.). Throughout the rest of the chapter, the reader will see that this approach (1) does not rely on a pre-established syntactic hierarchy (contra Frascarelli and colleagues), (2) does not rely on the notions of 'topic' and 'focus' (contra Frascarelli and colleagues, more about this below), (3) respects the principle of Inclusiveness (following Chomsky, 1995) as these features come from the lexicon, (4) is extremely simple (following Chomsky, 1992) as it relies only on the introduction of three morphemes, (5) is able to explain the discourse function of non-fronted constituents (contra Frascarelli and colleagues and López, 2009a) via the presence / absence of an unvalued feature, and (6) posits word-order as independent from discourse-function (following Rubio Alcalá, 2014; contra Frascarelli and colleagues and López, 2009a). I develop my morphological approach to discourse in full detail below, but let us first consider the assumptions (and non-assumptions) for the analysis to make complete sense. 7.3.1. Assumptions (and non-assumptions) A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 165 My proposal assumes most of the points discussed in Chapter 2: (1) the Minimalist model of language (Chomsky, 1995), (2) the model of language computation proposed by Minimalism (merge, agree, move: Chomsky, 2000, 2001; and functional phrases: González-Vilbazo & López, 2012; Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010), (3) the Autosegmental-Metrical Model for intonational theory (Ladd, 2008; Pierrehumbert, 1980), and (4) the Sp_ToBI system of analysis (Hualde & Prieto, 2015; Silverman et al., 1992). Further, and despite the strong critique that I provide in that chapter to the cartographic and derivational approaches, there are also some points that I directly take from them. First, at an empirical level, I take the topic/focus typology from Bianchi & Frascarelli (2010) as appropriate for Spanish. However, I assume their categories as purely discursive (a constituent may fulfill a given-topic, contrast-focus, etc. discourse function), but this does not tell us anything about word order. Second, at a theoretical level, I take the [+anaphora] and [+contrast] discourse features from López (2009a) to be on the right track. Further, I add a [+promotion] discourse feature based on López (2016) description of the ‘topic-promotion’ phenomena. However, I break with the relationship between discourse-feature and syntactic-construction. Further, these features will have implications for LF, which is not something that López claims. Putting these previous two points together, the reader will see that these three discourse features and the combinations among them (from López, 2009a, 2016) are able to explain Bianchi & Frascarelli’s (2010) topic/focus typology. I return to these issues in Section 7.3.2.. There is one additional assumption that I would like to make very explicit, and justify. There is ample debate on whether CLLD and FF are inserted directly in the left periphery (e.g. Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010), or whether these constituents are first inserted in their canonical positions and then moved to the left (e.g. López, 2009a; Rubio Alcalá, 2014). The stance I take is A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 166 that I assume that CLLD and FF are generated in their original positions and then moved (Dobrovie-Sorin, 1990; Kayne, 1994; López, 2003, 2009a; Valmala, 2011; Rubio Alcalá, 2014, 2016; Sportiche, 1983; Villalba, 2000). Fábregas (2016, pp.49-51) details the main arguments for this analysis, which I summarize here. First, CLLD includes case marking, such as the differential object marker a for human direct objects in Spanish. This marker is evidence that the constituent has accusative case, which is given under sisterhood with the verb. Under a movement approach, the constituent gets accusative case from the verb, and then it moves to the left periphery. If it appeared directly in the left, the analysis would become much more complex. Second, the CLLD- ed constituent and the clitic pronoun, not only have semantic co-reference, but they also present formal agreement (number, gender, case, etc.). This agreement can be explained if both the constituent and the clitic are sisters at a certain point (e.g. they may receive accusative case together). Once again, an analysis without insertion and then movement, becomes much more complicated. Third, CLLD is sensitive to strong islands. An island is a constituent (e.g. conditional clauses) from which no material can be taken out. Therefore, the fact that CLLD cannot be taken out of a subject means that the constituent is in fact inside the island at a certain point; if it appears outside the island in the first place, there is no reason why it would be disallowed there. For example, from the canonical utterance Me enfado [CONDITIONAL si no saludas a la chica] 'I get mad if you do not say 'hi' to the girl', the extraction of a la chica from the conditional clause is not possible: *[CLLD A la chica] me enfado [CONDITIONAL si no la saludas] (Fábregas, 2016, p. 50, example 188). A frequent counterargument is that CLLD violates weak islands. However, by their own very nature, 'weak' islands are violable. Fourth, CLLD is subject to reconstruction effects. For example, let us take the example María no se critica a sí misma 'Maria doesn't criticize herself'. If the anaphora moves to the left A sí misma, María no se A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 167 critica 'Herself, Maria doesn't criticize', the co-references between a sí misma and María is maintained. Under a movement analysis, the trace of the anaphora in its original position is what allows for the shown co-reference. An analysis without movement, and therefore without this trace, would run into problems to explain examples of this kind. Out of these four arguments for CLLD, at least the first and fourth ones also apply to FF. Further, and following López and Rubio Alcalá, having a parallel analysis for both constructions is simpler from a theoretical point of view. Therefore, I assume a movement analysis for both CLLD and FF going forward. Additionally, there are some points NOT being assumed that need to be clarified, as they may seem as assumptions if overlooked. First, I do not take a position on whether syntactic derivation takes place via bare phrase structure or via antisymmetric syntax (see Chapter 2). I present the syntactic trees below in a bare-phrase structure fashion, but this is not to be taken as an assumption. Second, I do not take a position on whether or not syntactic derivation takes place in phases. I present the morphological discourse hypothesis without making any reference to Phase Theory (Chomsky, 2000). I acknowledge these two non-assumptions in Section 7.3.5. 7.3.2. Discourse features As briefly introduced in Chapter 1, the core proposal of this dissertation can be summarized in the morphological discourse hypothesis presented in (7.1). Further, the concrete pragmatic features that I propose are the following: (7.2) a. [+a] : Anaphora. Link to a discourse-local referent. (López, 2009a; Vallduví, 1992; Villalba, 2000). b. [+p] : Promotion. Introduction of a discourse-new referent, which becomes salient. (based on Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010; López, 2016). c. [+c] : Contrast. Evoking of alternatives. (López, 2009a; Vallduví & Vilkuna, 1998; Villalba, 2000). A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 168 d. [ ∅ ] : Comment, by default. (López, 2009a) Note that I deviate from López (2009a) at this point. I argue that these features are part of the lexicon, part of numeration for a given utterance, and they have sematic/pragmatic and phonological effects (as the reader will see in the sections below). In this sense, the way I theorize these features is more similar to cartographic features (e.g. Cruschina, 2009), as they are the cause of certain syntactic, sematic/pragmatic, and phonological phenomena, not the result (e.g. López, 2009a). Let us look at each of those features in further detail. 7.3.2.1. The [+a(naphora)] feature Let us start from López’s (2009a) definition of the [+a(naphora)] feature. According to the author, a constituent that includes the [+a] feature has three characteristics: 1) the constituent is linked to an antecedent, 2) the antecedent is local, and 3) the relation to the antecedent is asymmetric. The first and second conditions proposed by López (2009a) require a [+a]-constituent to have a local antecedent. In order to define locality, the author follows Villalba (2000), who argues that an antecedent must be mentioned explicitly in previous discourse. The condition of explicitness for locality is worth clarifying, as this may differ from other approaches (e.g. active- accessible distinction; Dipper, Goetze, & Skopeteas, 2007 among many others). The third condition assumed by López (2009a) for [+a] constituents is the asymmetry between the constituent and its local antecedent. For this purpose, the author assumes the Segmented Discourse Representation Theory (Asher & Lascarides, 2003). Under this approach, there are two possible relationships within a discourse context, represented graphically in ((7.3), coordination) and ((7.4), subordination). A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 169 (7.3) utterance 1 - utterance 2 (7.4) utterance 1 | utterance 2 An example of coordination would be the example in (7.5) (López, 2009a, p. 47, example 2.57), and an example of subordination would be the example in (7.6) (López, 2009a, p. 48, example 2.58): (7.5) a. Mary took a screwdriver from the box. b. She proceeded to ensemble the bed. (7.6) a. Mary took a screwdriver from the box. b. It had to be a screwdriver of the right size and shape. While the second utterance continues with the narration in example (7.5) (coordination), the second utterance in example (7.6) makes a comment on the first utterance (subordination). According to the author, the requirement of asymmetry in the definition of the [+a] feature coincides with the subordination shown in example (7.6). The examples in (7.7) /-(7.8) (based on López, 2009a, pp. 51-52, examples 2.72 & 2.73) show this sort of subordinated, local antecedence relationship. (7.7) a. John brought in [ANTECEDENT the food]. b. He put [ [+a] the fish] in the fridge. c. It was an excellent fish... d. ...and he didn't want it to go bad. e. He forgot [ [+a] the meat] completely! (7.8) A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 170 According to López, utterances (7.7b) and (7.7e) build on what happens in (7.7a), explaining further actions beyond the buying of the food. This is what makes (7.7b) and (7.7e) be in a subordinated relationship to (7.7a), as represented in (7.8). In sum, both ‘the fish’ and ‘the meat’ have a local antecedent in ‘the food,’ and the utterances in which ‘the fish’ and ‘the meat’ appear are discursively subordinated to the utterance in which ‘the food’ appears. Given all these conditions, ‘the fish’ and ‘the meat’ may receive a [+a] feature each. Note that I say MAY, as a fourth condition is that the relevant constituents ‘the fish’ and ‘the meat’ are dislocated. If they are not, López treats it as a case of accidental coreference, and assumes no involvement of any pragmatic feature. Unlike López (2009a), I propose a disconnection between the syntactic structure of an utterance and its role in a given discourse structure. In sum, I assume that [+a] marks a constituent that has a local antecedent, to which it is subordinated at the discourse level (following López). However, this is independent from syntax (unlike López); this discursively- marked constituent may or may not appear dislocated. 7.3.2.2. The [+p(romotion)] feature In contrast to the definition of [+a] discourse-feature, I argue that a constituent marked with the [+p] feature can be identified if the following three conditions are met: 1) the constituent is linked to an antecedent, 2) the antecedent is NOT discursively-local (in contrast to the anaphoric feature), and 3) the constituent is the theme of the utterance. Let us start with the first two points of the definition of [+p], namely that a constituent is linked to a constituent that is not discourse-local (see previous section). This could be any information that appears out-of-the-blue (7.9), any information that is common knowledge (7.10), A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 171 any information that can be inferred from the extra-linguistic context but has not been uttered (7.11), and even any information that has been verbalized beyond the limits of the local discourse (as defined in the previous section) (7.12). (7.9) Out-of-the-blue: - Man, I just learned I have [ [+p] a cousin in Australia]. (7.10) Common knowledge: - Did you see [ [+p] what the president said today]? (7.11) Deictic referent: - I love [ [+p] those flowers]! (7.12) Beyond the local discourse: A: Man, I just learned I have a cousin in Australia. 30 minutes later… B: I love summer! A: Oh, you know who loves summer? [ [+p] My new cousin from Australia!] What these four discourse contexts, and probably others beyond those, have in common is that there is an external referent, and the referent is NOT discursively-local. These two conditions by themselves result in a category that includes anything that is non-anaphoric. However, note that non-anaphoric constituents that are fronted typically pass Dipper et al.’s (2007) test for aboutness topicality. Let us see this point with an example. (7.13) Pues [ [+p] al primo ese de Australia] lo he visto Well DOM+the cousin that from Australia Cl.ACC have.1st see.part por videoconferencia ayer. via video-call yesterday ‘I have seen my cousin from Australia yesterday via video-call.’ a. Let me tell you about el primo ese de Australia: I have seen him via video-call yesterday. b. What about el primo ese de Australia?: I have seen him via video-call yesterday. c. Concerning el primo ese de Australia: I have seen him via video-call yesterday. However, note that the same constituent in its canonical position can also fulfill the description of an aboutness topic. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 172 (7.14) Pues he visto [ [+p] al primo ese de Australia] Well have.1st see.part DOM+the cousin that from Australia por videoconferencia ayer. via video-call yesterday ‘I have seen my cousin from Australia yesterday via video-call.’ a. Let me tell you about el primo ese de Australia: I have seen him via video-call yesterday. b. What about el primo ese de Australia?: I have seen him via video-call yesterday. c. Concerning el primo ese de Australia: I have seen him via video-call yesterday. At the same time, not all non-fronted constituents fulfill the description for an aboutness topic. (7.15) Pues he visto al primo ese de Australia Well have.1st see.part DOM+the cousin that from Australia por [ [+p] videoconferencia] ayer. via video-call yesterday ‘I have seen my cousin from Australia yesterday via video-call.’ a. Let me tell you about videollamadas: I have seen my cousin from Australia yesterday. b. What about videollamadas: I have seen my cousin from Australia yesterday. c. Concerning videollamadas: I have seen my cousin from Australia yesterday. Aboutness can help distinguish which non-anaphoric constituents include the [+promotion] feature from those that are simply ‘comment’ (in Chomsky’s, 1990 terms) or ‘rheme’ (in López’s, 2009a terms). Putting this and the previous section together, constituents marked with a [+a] feature are linked to a local antecedent, while constituents marked with a [+p] are not linked locally AND behave like aboutness topics. Now, anaphoric constituents may also fulfill the description of aboutness topics, but this characteristic is not necessary to define the group. The link to a local antecedent seems enough to describe a constituent as anaphoric. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 173 7.3.2.3. The [+c(ontrast)] feature Thus far I have described [+c] as an evocation of alternatives. Let us now investigate the details of this discourse feature with the following example pair (López, 2009a, p. 34, examples 2.31- 2.32). (7.16) a. [What] did John bring? b. John brought [the wine]. (7.17) a. You gave him [the spoons]. b. I gave him [ [+c] THE KNIVES]. Let us compare the answer-question relationship in each example. In (7.16), the constituent 'what' in the question opens up a variable, which is closed by 'the wine' in the answer. This is what I define as default comment in the list of features in (7.2). However, in (7.17), no variable is opened in the discourse context by 'the spoons' or by any other constituent. However, the constituent 'the knives' opens a quantificational domain of the relevant constituents, and closes the variable with one of those constituents. In (7.17), the quantificational domain could include 'the spoons', 'the knives', 'the forks', 'the plates', 'the glasses', etc. This opening and closure of a variable is what I assume is the [+c] feature (following López, 2009a). If the focus vs. contrastive focus example pair does not seem convincing, let us take a given vs. contrastive topic example. (7.18) a. Where do you see [your friends]? b. I see [ [+a] my friends] at home. (7.19) a. Where do you see [your friends]? b. I see [ [+a,+c] Mary] in the park and [ [+a,+c] Paul] at home. In (7.18), the answer simply provides the information required by the wh-word in the question. However, in (7.19), the answer separates different referents ('Mary' and 'Paul') within a set ('your A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 174 friends'). However, the non-contrastive answer in (7.18) shows that there is nothing in the question to create contrast. Therefore, it is the answer in (7.19b) itself that opens and closes a discursive variable. In the morphological approach to discourse that I am proposing, this sort of quantificational domain is open due to the presence of a [+c] feature in the morphosyntax of an utterance. For a more intuitive definition, I define this discourse feature as an 'evocation of alternatives' in (7.2). However, this section have defined what the feature [+contrast] means exactly: the opening of a quantification domain not present in the previous discourse, and its closure within the same utterance. In order to get an intuition on what these discourse features and their combination look like, Table L presents the approximate equivalences between discursive features and descriptive discourse phenomena from previous research. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 175 TABLE LI: APPROXIMATE EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN DISCOURSE FEATURES AND DESCRIPTIVE DISCOURSE PHENOMENA. Feature(s) Phenomenon Characteristics Example [+a] Given topic Link to a local antecedent. - Where is [[A]Pedro]? - [[+a]He] is in Madrid. [+p] New topic Introduction of a new element, - I love [[+p]those flowers]! which becomes salient. [+c] Contrastive Evoking of alternatives. - You love [[A]María]. focus - I love [[+c]Sara], not Maria. [+a,+c] Contrastive Link to local antecedent, - Where are [[A]they]? topic evoking alternatives. - [[+a,+c]He] is in Madrid, and [[+a,+c]she] is in Barcelona. [+p,+c] Shift topic Introduction of a new element, - I love [the blue flowers]. evoking alternatives. - I prefer [[+p,+c]the red ones]. [+a,+p] n/a A constituent is either new or given, but not both. [ ∅ ] Comment None of the above. - [Where] is Pedro? - He is [[∅]in Madrid]. 7.3.3. Morphosyntactic derivation After defining the [+a], [+p], and [+c] discourse features, let us now discuss how they behave in morphosyntax. Under a morphological approach to discourse, the three discourse-features work as in the tree in (7.20), in which I take [+x] to be either [+a], [+p], or [+c]. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 176 (7.20) Both [+x] and each of the elements within XP (let us say a Pedro 'Pedro') are morphemes from a numeration. [+x] would behave as the head of a [+x]phrase, taking XP as its complement16. Then, [+x]XP could be inserted in its canonical position where XP could get its theta-role and case, without any further assumptions. As the reader can see there are no discourse-specific devices involved here beyond the discourse-feature, as this sort of functional phrase is not different from a determiner or prepositional phrase. As the reader saw in Table LII, some discourse phenomena may involve two discourse features at the same time. This is represented in (7.21), where [+x] and [+y] are two discourse features of the three presented above. At this point, I do not make any assumptions on whether [+c] appears over or under [+a] or [+p], and this aspect is left for future research. (7.21) 16 I claim that discourse features are heads based on the cartographic literature review included in Chapter 3 (e.g., Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010). Alternatively, within the Distributed Morphology framework (Halle & Marantz, 1993), authors often postulate morphemes that attach or sprout to structures without projecting. This is an aspect to be considered in future research. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 177 The syntactic trees presented thus far account for the involvement of discourse features in utterances with a canonical word order. However, as justified in Section 7.2., I assume a movement analysis for CLLD and FF constituents. Therefore, the derivation of the left periphery requires a separate explanation. My proposal for this point is provided in (7.22). (7.22) In (7.22), [+x]XP moves to the left periphery due to the presence of an unvalued u-x feature in the C-head. My proposal here is similar to wh-movement (Cheng, 1997; Chomsky, 1977): if movement happens, it is due to an unvalued feature in the C-head, but this unvalued feature may not be there (following Bošković,1997 analysis of in-situ wh), not leading to fronting (see optional wh-movement in French: Cheng & Rooryck, 2000; and Spanish: Etxepare & Uribe Etxebarria, 2005). There are two points about the second step that I proposed, that need further clarification. First, recent inquiry has suggested that movement may be free instead of feature-motivated (Chomsky, 2008, 2013). It is beyond the scope of this dissertation to analyze this claim at large, but I discuss only its implications to the left periphery (as proposed by Rubio Alcalá, 2014). If CLLD could move freely, there is no reason why CLLD could not appear, for example, as an answer to a wh-question. At this point, let me remind the reader that CLLD does not appear in Study 1 as an answer to a wh-question, nor it is accepted in Study 2. Therefore, my claim is that the movement part of the derivation of CLLD must be motivated, and the motivation is related A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 178 to discourse restrictions. This leads us to the second point that I would like to clarify. Explaining the exact process that makes a constituent appear in a position for discourse-related reasons has been a challenge to all previous models, and those models seem to avoid explaining the process (how) and focus uniquely on the end-result (what). For example, Bianchi & Frascarelli (2010) argue for a certain discourse-related position, but not how or why a constituent merges there and not anywhere else. López (2009a) argues that a CLLD-to-be or an FF-to-be moves to Spec,v, with a limited explanation on what motivates that movement in the first place (see a full review in Chapter 3). My attempt to solve this problem is as follows: I claim that movement to the left periphery is motivated by the presence of an unvalued feature in C-head. This is simply a formal phenomenon with no implications for meaning or phonology (beyond fronting in linearization, of course). Previous work (e.g. Lochbihler & Mathieu, 2016; Miyagawa, 2010) has already argued for the presence of unvalued discourse features ( [u훿] ) in C-head, which typically bundle together with other features (e.g. [uϕ] ). Their analysis is compatible and quite similar to the one that I propose here: C-head may contain [u-a], [uQ], or others on the same head. For clarity, let us look into a full derivation of CLLD and FF. Let us run through the tree in (7.23), bottom-up. A series of morphemes form the direct object (DO). Further, the DO merges with the discourse feature [+a]. Then, the verb 'V' and the direct object '[+a]-DO' merge (forming 'VP'), with '[+a]-DO' receiving accusative case from 'V', which results in the appearance of the differential object marker a (provided that other conditions are met, beyond the scope of this dissertation, such as specificity or animacy). At this point, 'little-v' is introduced as a sister of 'VP.' This leads to 1) the movement of 'V' to 'little-v' where the verb becomes an action, 2) [+a]-DO receives accusative case, and 3) the introduction of the subject of the action. Then, T is introduced. Once again, this leads to 1) the movement of the 'v+V' to 'T' so that the verb gets inflection, and A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 179 2) the rise of the subject to Spec-T so that it gets nominative case from 'T.' At this point, we may have a finalized canonical sentence: [TP [Subject Yo] [T veo] [vP [VP (+a) a Pedro]]]. The next step, however, is the one that defines the left periphery: the merge of an unvalued feature u-a, which leads the direct object (or whatever constituent with a [+a] feature) to move to the left periphery. The reader can see that this is the same procedure proposed for wh-movement, but with the existence of u-a instead of u-Q. (7.23) Now, the tree in (7.24) represents the derivation of FF. The reader will notice that the syntactic derivation for CLLD and FF look almost identical, with the exception of the features involved ( [+a] in the CLLD example, and [+c] in the FF example). If that is the case, how can we explain the differences between CLLD and FF - namely, clitic-doubling and contrastive? Let us look into it in the next section. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 180 (7.24) For clarity, I would like to emphasize once more that the only discourse-specific devices that I am proposing are the three morphemes: [+anaphora], [+promotion], and [+contrast]. As we have seen throughout this dissertation, previous models have developed a large discourse machinery that sometimes violates Inclusiveness and modifies the Minimalist model of language at large (contra Chomsky, 1995). One cannot help but wonder whether all these devices are justifiable for such low frequency utterances. Should we change our entire view on language for utterances that represent less than 1 in 10,000 utterances (e.g. CLLD in Study 1)? I do not think so, and therefore one of main goals in this dissertation is to simplify that discourse machinery. 7.3.4. Spell-out After studying the morphosyntactic behavior of discourse features, let us see how they behave once they reach their phonological form (PF) and their logical form (LF) (see Chapter 2). I argue A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 181 that the differences between CLLD and FF are the result of different phonological spell-outs for the features involved (7.25). (7.25) a. [+a] → Clitic-doubling (optional)17 b. [+p] → Clitic-doubling (optional) c. [+c] → Contrastive-stress d. [ua], [up], [uc] → Movement to the left periphery The analysis of clitic-doubling as related to a [+a] discourse feature comes directly from López (2009a): Clitic-doubling is the phonological spell-out of the discourse feature ( [+a] → clitic- doubling). I further extend this same analysis to the [+p] feature for constituents that introduce new referents (as Bianchi and Frascarelli’s, 2010, new-A-topics; [+p] → clitic-doubling). Next, the spell-out of [+c] as contrastive stress comes from various Optimality Theory (OT; Prince & Smolensky, 1993) analyses of the issue (De Hoop, 2004; Feldhausen & Vanrell 2014; Truckenbrodt 1995:10). Beyond this general description, there are two aspects worth investigating in further detail: the spell-out of feature-combinations, and clitic-doubling in canonical word orders. First, let us talk about the spell-out of feature-combinations. I argued that the [+c] feature leads a constituent to present contrastive-stress. (7.26) a. ‘You see [your friends] quite a lot, right?' b. ¡No! ¡[ [+c] A MIS PRIMOS] veo! c. ¡No! ¡Veo [ [+c] A MIS PRIMOS]! No see.1st DOM my cousins.ACC ‘No! I see my cousins (not my friends)!' However, for the [+a,+c] and [+p,+c] combinations contrastive stress does not appear, and only clitic-doubling does. (7.27) a. ‘Where do you see your friends?' 17 The optionality of clitic-doubling is discussed in full detail two paragraphs below with evidence from Rioplatense and Basque varieties of Spanish. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 182 b. *Pues [ [+a,+c] A PEDRO] [no-clitic-doubling] veo en el parque, y A MARÍA en casa. c. *Pues [ [+a,+c] A PEDRO] [clitic-doubling lo] veo en el parque, y A MARÍA en casa. d. Pues [ [+a,+c] a Pedro] [clitic-doubling lo] veo en el parque, y A MARÍA en casa. Well DOM Pedro.ACC (Cl.ACC) see.1st in the park and DOM Maria at home ‘Well, I see my friends in the park.' (7.28) a. *¡Oh! [ [+p,+c] A LOS COLEGAS DE COSLADA] ya nunca [clitic-doubling los] veo, b. *¡Oh! [ [+p,+c] A LOS COLEGAS DE COSLADA] ya nunca [clitic-doubling los] veo, c. ¡Oh! [ [+p,+c] A los colegas de Coslada] ya nunca [clitic-doubling los] veo, Oh! DOM the friends from Coslada.ACC already never (Cl.ACC) see.1st ...pero [ [+p,+c] a los de Chicago] sí. but DOM the-ones from Chicago yes ‘I don't see my friends from Coslada anymore, but I do see the ones from Chicago.' I argue that the presence of [+a] or [+p] blocks the presence of the stress that would otherwise mark the presence of [+c]. One may think about this in terms of a phonological rule or as the result of OT constraints. The exact way that happens is beyond the scope of this dissertation, and it is left for future research. Second, let us turn to the presence / absence of clitic-doubling depending on word order. In “standard” Spanish, a topic ( [+a] or [+p] ) is only doubled with a clitic-pronoun when the constituent is fronted (as in 7.29b), but it is not doubled when the constituent appears in its canonical position (7.29c). (7.29) a. ¿Dónde ves [ANTECEDENT a tus amigos]? Where see.2nd DOM your friends 'Where do you see your friends?' A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 183 b. Pues [ [+a] a Pedro] [doubling lo] veo en el parque, y a María en casa. Well DOM Pedro.ACC Cl.ACC see.1st in the park and DOM Maria at home 'Well, I see Pedro in the park, and Maria at home.' c. Pues [no-doubling] veo [ [+a] a Pedro] en el parque, y a María en casa. Well see.1st DOM Pedro.ACC in the park and DOM Maria at home 'Well, I see Pedro in the park, and Maria at home.' One may argue that the example in (7.29) is evidence that we are dealing with two different constructions, and that the involvement of discourse features is different in both cases. However, there are counterexamples from other dialects of Spanish in which clitic-doubling always or never appears in topics, independently of whether or not the target constituent is fronted. For example, a clitic pronoun always appears in Rioplatense Spanish ((7.30); Belloro, 2008, p. 396, example 8a) and it never does in Basque Spanish ((7.31.); Gómez Seibane, 2012, p. 19, example 22, my translation). (7.30) a. 'The other day a guy from Buenos Aires got on the bus. [ANTECEDENT The bus driver] was also from Buenos Aires. He tried to pay for the ticket with a big bill.' [A few utterances later...]} b. [doubling Lo ] miró fijo y provocativamente [ [+a] al colectivero] Cl.ACC look.3rd.past fixed and provocatively DOM-the bus-driver 'He looked at the bus drive very fixed and provocatively.' (7.31) a. ’The sausages where hanged over there. And every once in a while, [ANTECEDENT we would steal one or two]. But our mother was like, ”Eh, who’s been around here?”’ b. [ [+a] El pecado] había que descubrir [no-doubling]. The sin have.3rd.past that discover.inf ’The sin had t o be figured out.’ Once again, the exact phonological mechanism is beyond the scope of this dissertation, but I believe these examples are evidence that presence or absence of clitic-doubling is a purely phonological phenomenon. For the variety of Madrid-Spanish that we are discussing in this dissertation, I claim that clitic-doubling is the phonological externalization of the trace left behind by the [+a] and [+p] features when there is fronting, leading to what we know as CLLD. When A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 184 the constituent does not move to the left periphery, however, there is no trace, and therefore there is no clitic-doubling. In this sense, [+a] and [+p] are different from [+c] in the externalization. While the trace of the former is what it is externalized as clitic-doubling, the presence of the latter is what gives the target constituent its emphatic phonology. In the [+c] case, the phonological externalization is not related to a trace, but to a feature itself, and therefore it appears despite its fronted or non-fronted position. This is just an initial generalization, and further research is needed to fully explain the phonological mechanisms involved, as well as the externalization processes in other varieties of Spanish, and in other languages. Finally, I re-interpret my interface model from (7.25) in order to include Logical Form as well. In each of the following figures, the feature that comes from lexicon-morphosyntax appears in the upper branch, the logical form in the lower-left, and the phonological form in the lower- right. Figure 28: Logical and phonological (trace) output of the [+anaphora] discourse feature. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 185 Figure 29: Logical and phonological (trace) output of the [+promotion] discourse feature. Figure 30: Logical and phonological output of the [+contrast] discourse feature. 7.3.5. Antisymmetry and Phase Theory Let us pause for a side note before the final re-interpretation of the experimental results of the dissertation. As I argue in Section 7.3.1., I do not make any assumptions on 1) whether syntax is A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 186 symmetric or antisymmetric, and 2) whether or not syntax is derived in phases. The previous sections show bare-phrase structure representations and no phase intervention for simplicity. In order to demonstrate that they are not necessary assumptions for the model that I propose, let us see some examples of what an antisymmetric and a phase-based morphological approach to discourse may look like. Example (7.32) shows a discursive functional phrase, much at the cartographic style. (7.32) Unlike cartography, however, I do not posit a pre-established position for this sort of phrase. For example, (+x)Phrase may be merged to V-head and be the direct object of a sentence. Examples (7.33) and (7.34) show what the derivation of a discursive functional phrase would look like under Phase Theory (Chomsky, 2000). (7.33) (7.34) A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 187 Following López (2009a), the pragmatically charged constituent that is going to end up on the left periphery in (7.34), would have to stop at an intermediate Spec-vP position as shown in (7.33) (note the parallel to the derivational approach). As a parallel to its final movement to the left periphery (7.34), a similar unvalued feature may start the movement to the intermediate position (7.33). This is certainly problematic for our morphological approach, as looking ahead is not an option in syntax; any action should be justified in and of itself. Note, however, that this same dilemma has been observed for other sorts of movement at a long distance (e.g. Heck & Müller, 2000; McCloskey, 2002; Van Hurk, 2015), such as wh-movement. Given the large range of answers, this can be considered an open issue in syntax at the moment, and well beyond the scope of this dissertation. Therefore, and for simplicity, I leave out any mention to Phase Theory, while acknowledging the possibility of phase intervention. 7.3.6. A new interpretation of the dissertation results Let us finally provide a full explanation of the results of this dissertation based on the new framework that I have developed in this chapter. Based on the affirmative answers to RQ1 and A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 188 RQ2, we have seen that CLLD and its canonical counterpart are acceptable in multiple discourse contexts, both when there is an antecedent and when the constituent brings in a new referent. The canonical utterances present a [+a] and [+p] feature in the target constituent. In the CLLD-ed version, the additional presence of [ua] and [up] causes the movement of the constituent to the left periphery, as well as the phonological externalization of t([+a]) / t([+p]) as clitic-doubling. As shown in Studies 1 and 2 (Chapters 4 and 5), both fronted and non-fronted versions are productive and acceptable in both contexts. Unlike previous models, the morphological approach described in these pages is able to account for fronted and non-fronted constituents in different discourse contexts. Further, let us talk about the answer to a wh-question. Canonical utterances are acceptable in this context, as no specific feature is required to answer a narrow focus question. However, the rejection of CLLD is explained precisely due to the absence of a feature for focus. Dislocation and clitic-doubling take place due to the requirement of a series of discourse features (for examples [+a] in combination with [ua] ). In a focus context, there is no reason why a constituent would raise to the left periphery or be doubled with a clitic-pronoun. For RQ4, we saw that contrastive focus is expressed with a low boundary tone and (in Session 1) with an expanded pitch-range. This is the phonological externalization of the [+c] discourse feature. Similarly to the [+a] / [+p] instances, the presence of [uc] explains the raising of some of the contrastive-focus constituents to create FF utterances, such as those in Study 3 (Chapter 6). Contrastive-topics, however, do not present contrastive-stress; this is due to the phonological blockage that the [+a] feature has over the [+c] feature. Lastly, contrastive-stress does not take place in given topics, as only a [+a] feature is present. Also, note that while contrastive-focus only presents contrastive-stress (the externalization of [+c]), contrastive-topic and given-topic, when fronted, only present clitic-doubling (the externalization of t([+a]) ). A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 189 7.4. Limitations and further research Before closing this dissertation, I would like to discuss the limitations of the research presented herein: Four of them are general issues into which all research projects run, and three of them are specific for this research project. Among the general issues, first, I would have liked to be able to collect data from more participants. On the one hand, the two experiments could be completed by more speakers, and it is just a matter of time and patience. On the other hand, I will try to visit other corpora. Despite the large size of the NOCANDO corpus, CLLD and FF are produced in such a low frequency that finding this type of construction in natural production is difficult. Second, and after the first point has been completed, I will make sure to run power analyses on all the data. Third, a replication of these three studies with other populations could provide us with a larger view of whether my findings in Madrid can be generalized beyond this dialect and, perhaps, to other Romance languages. Lastly, all data will be doubled coded going forward. Among the issues specific to this research project, there are three issues that I had previously put aside. First, Frascarelli and colleagues (e.g. Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010) propose a strict word order on the left periphery based on the discourse functions of different constituents (aboutness topic precedes contrastive topic, etc.), while Rubio Alcalá (2014) proposes extreme flexibility in word order. To my knowledge, such diverging predictions have never been tested experimentally. Second, I have claimed throughout this dissertation that clitic-doubling is the externalization of t([+a]) and t([+p]), that emphatic stress is the externalization of [+c], and that emphatic stress is neutralized when there is a feature combination of [+c] with either [+a] or [+p]. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 190 However, due to the morphosyntactic nature of this dissertation, I have not explained how the phonological domain transforms these features into such externalizations. I believe a model based on Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky, 1993) could fill that gap. There is already an existing explanation for the externalization of [+c] as emphatic stress (De Hoop, 2004) that could be extended to clitic-doubling. Lastly, this dissertation did not provide a detailed explanation of whether [+c] appears over or under [+a] and [+p] in cases of feature combination (e.g. contrastive topics, shift topics). At this point it is unclear whether this detail has an effect in morphosyntax or its interface with PF or LF, and therefore further research is needed. Finally, let me mention an important implication that a morphological approach to discourse may have for the study of bilingualism. There is an ample academic debate on whether bilinguals can converge to control-like patterns at the interface between grammar-internal (e.g. syntax) and grammar-external (e.g. discourse/pragmatics) domains. However, if discourse is represented by morphemes in the linguistic system, there are no grammar-external domains per se (if so, interpretational only, but not generative). This theoretical analysis opens up an important question: how should bilingual divergence be interpreted if discourse is represented simply by morphemes? My working hypothesis is that bilinguals do not struggle with the linguistic knowledge of, for example, discursive anaphora in L2 Spanish, as the same speakers already build anaphoric relationships in their L1 English. However, the true source of the problem is simply the phonological externalization of anaphora as clitic-doubling in L2 Spanish, since there is no clitic- doubling in English. One fruitful avenue might be to reinterpret previous bilingual data on the issue (e.g. Leal, Slabakova, & Farmer, 2017; Leal Méndez, Rothman, & Slabakova, 2015; Sequeros-Valle, Hoot, & Cabrelli, 2020, accepted; Slabakova, Kempchinsky, & Rothman, 2012;), in the light of the morphological-discourse hypothesis. This reinterpretation of existing findings A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 191 would provide a strong contribution within existing discussions on bilingual grammars at and beyond the interfaces (e.g. The Interface Hypothesis, Sorace, 2011; The Bottleneck Hypothesis, Montrul, 2018; Slabakova, 2014; The Missing Surface Inflection Hypothesis, Grüter, 2006, etc.). 7.5. Conclusion The goal of this dissertation was twofold. First, this was an empirical attempt to investigate whether certain discourse contexts determine word order and phonology. Second, this project provided a theoretical account for those findings. In order to fulfill the empirical goal, this dissertation presented three studies. Study 1 (Chapter 4) analyzed the Spanish section of the NOCANDO corpus (Brunetti et al., 2011) as a first tentative approach to the issue. Given some limitations in this first study, I proposed two additional experimental studies. In Study 2 (Chapter 5), participants provided their judgments on different word orders (CLLD vs. canonicals) in a series of discourse contexts. In Study 3 (Chapter 6), participants read different word orders (CLLD vs. FF vs. canonicals), and their phonology was analyzed. Results showed that speakers produce (Study 1) and accept (Study 3) both CLLD and its canonical counterpart in multiple discourse contexts (contra both López, 2009a and Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010). However, CLLD did not work as an answer to a wh-question (contra Rubio Alcalá, 2014) Further, no specific pitch accent was found for each discourse context (Studies 1 and 3; contra Bianchi & Frascarelli, 2010; aligning with Gupton, forthcoming; Stavropoulou & Spiliotopoulos, 2011; Pešková, 2015, 2018). Instead, contrastive focus (FF and its canonical counterpart) included contrastive stress, which was not found in topics (CLLD and its canonical counterpart; aligning with Hualde & Prieto, 2015; Ladd, 2008; Pešková, 2015, 2018). In sum, the A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 192 results of these three studies presented challenges to all the previous models discussed (Chapter 3). My theoretical claim to explain such variability in word order and phonology can be summarized as follows. Discourse features are morphemes from a numeration merged as functional heads into the derivation. Under this morphological approach to discourse, the discourse features such as [+anaphora], [+promotion] and [contrast] merge to the relevant constituent (e.g. [anaphoric-XP [+anaphora] [XP]], similar to a determiner or prepositional phrase). Further, an optional movement to the left periphery in CLLD is caused by an unvalued feature in C-head (e.g. [CP [[anaphoric-XP] [[unvalued-anaphora] [... [t(anaphoric-XP) ]]]]], similar to wh-movement). For example, a feature such as [anaphora] explains the linked interpretation as well as the clitic-doubling present in CLLD, while [contrast] explains the contrastive interpretation and the emphatic phonology present in FF. This model simplifies discourse by the addition of only a small number of morphemes to the basic architecture of human language (Chomsky, 1995; contra Bianchi & Frascarelli 2010, and López, 2009). A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 193 REFERENCES Abe, J. (1999). On directionality of movement: A case of Japanese right dislocation. Ms., Nagoya University. Aboh, E.O. (2016). Information structure: A cartographic perspective. In C. Féry & C. Ishihara, S. (Eds.), Handbook of Information Structure (pp. 147-164). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Adger, D. (2003). Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Amfo, N. A. A. (2010). Lexical signaling of information structure in Akan. Linguistics, 48(1), 195-225. Asher, N. & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge University Press. Avelino, H., & Kim, S. (2003). Variability and constancy in the articulation and acoustics of Pima Coronals. In P.M. Nowak, C. Yoquelet, & D. Mortensen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 43-53). Berkeley Linguistic Society. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255-278. Beckman, M.E. & Ayers, G.M. (1994), Guidelines for ToBI Labelling. Online MS and accompanying files. Available at http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/phonetics/E_ToBI. Beckman, M. E. and Hirschberg, J. (1994), The ToBI Annotation Conventions. Online MS. Available at http://www.ling.ohio- state.edu/~tobi/ame_tobi/annotation_conventions.html. Beckman, M., Díaz-Campos, M., McGory, J. T., & Morgan, T. A. (2002). Intonation across Spanish, in the Tones and Break Indices framework. Probus, 14(1), 9-36. Belloro, V. A. (2008). Encoding information structure via object agreement in Spanish interactions. In S. Berson, A. Bratkievich, D. Bruhn, A. Campbell, R. Escamilla, A. Giovine, L. Newbold, M. Perez, M. Piqueras-Brunet, & R. Rhomieux (Eds.), Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 34 (pp. 391-401). Berkeley Linguistics Society. Benincà, P., & Poletto, C. (2001). Topic, focus, and V2: Defining the CP sublayers. Talk at Siena Workshop on Cartography. Ms. University of Padova. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 194 Berman, R.A. & Slobin, D.I. (Eds.) (1994). Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bianchi, V., & Frascarelli, M. (2010). Is topic a root phenomenon? Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 2(1), 43-88. Bickerton, D. (2016). Roots of language. Berlin, Germany: Language Science Press. Boeckx, C., & Grohmann, K. K. (2007). Remark: Putting phases in perspective. Syntax, 10(2), 204-222. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2019). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Retrieved from www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/ (October 2, 2019). Bonet, E. (1991). Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Bonvino, E. (2003). Le sujet postverbal en italien parlé: syntaxe, zones et intonation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Paris, France: Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes. Bošković, Ž. (1997). LF movement and the Minimalist Program. In P. Tamanji & K. Kusumoto, Proceedings of the North-Eastern Linguistic Society, 28 (NELS-28, pp. 43-57). Boston, MA: Graduate Linguistics Students Association. Brennan, R. L., & Prediger, D. J. (1981). Coefficient kappa: Some uses, misuses, and alternatives. Educational and psychological measurement, 41(3), 687-699. Brunetti, L. (2003) A unification of focus. Padova, Italy: Unipress. Brunetti, L., Bott, S., Costa, J., & Vallduví E. (2009). NOCANDO: A multilingual annotated corpus for the study of Information Structure. Presentation at the fifth Corpus Linguistics Conference. The University of Liverpool. Büring, D. (2003). On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and philosophy, 26(5), 511-545. Büring, D. (2016). (Contrastive) Topic. In C. Féry & C. Ishihara, S. (Eds.), Handbook of Information Structure (pp. 64-85). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Casielles-Suárez, E. (2003). Left-dislocated structures in Spanish. Hispania, 86(2), 326-338. Cheng, C. C. (1997). Measuring relationship among dialects: DOC and related resources. In International Journal of Computational Linguistics & Chinese Language Processing, 2(1): Special Issue on Computational Resources for Research in Chinese Linguistics, 41- 72. Cheng, L., & Rooryck, J. (2000). Licensing Wh-in situ. Syntax, 3, 19-45. Cheung, L.Y.L. (2009). Dislocation focus construction in Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 18, 197-232. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 195 Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. Chomsky, N. (1959). A Note on Phrase Structure Grammars. Information and Control, 2(4), 393- 395. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam (1976) ‘Conditions on rules of grammar.’ Linguistic Analysis 2:302-350. Chomsky, N. (1977). Essays on Form and Interpretation. Journal of Philosophy, 75(5), 270-279. Chomsky, Noam (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (1990). On formalization and formal linguistics. Natural Language and Linguistics Theory, 8, 143-47. Chomsky, N. (1992). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquires: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Steps by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89-156). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (2001). Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 20. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Chosmky, N. (2002). On nature and language. Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. Current Studies in Linguistics Series, 45, 133-166. Chomsky, N. (2013). Problems of projection. Lingua, 130, 33-49. Chung, D. (2009). An elliptical coordination analysis of the right dislocated construction in Korean. The Linguistic Association of Korean Journal, 17, 1-23. Cinque, G. (1999). "Restructuring" and the order of aspectual and root modal heads. Working Papers in Linguistics, 8(1), 113-140. Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental syntax. London, England: Sage Publishing. Cruschina, S. (2009). The syntactic role of discourse-related features. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 5, 15-30. Cumming, G., & Finch, S. (2005). Inference by eye: Confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. American Psychologist, 60, 170–180. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 196 Davidson, J. (2019). Navigating the Statistical Tides: An R Tutorial for the Non-Coding-Inclined. Workshop at the 2019 Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. El Paso, TX; October 24, 2019. Davies, M. 2006. A frequency dictionary of Spanish. New York: Routledge. De Hoop, H. (2004). On the interpretation of stressed pronouns. In H. Blutner & H. Zeevat (Eds.), Optimality theory and pragmatics (pp. 25-41). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Den Dikken, M., & Surányi, B. (2017). Contrasting contrastive left-dislocation explications. Linguistic Inquiry, 48(4), 543-584. D’Imperio, M. (2002). Italian intonation: An overview and some questions. Probus, 14(1), 37- 69. De Mauro, T., Mancini, F., Vedovelli, M., & Voghera, M. (Eds.) (1993). Lessico di frequenza dell’italiano parlato. Milano, Italy: Etaslibri. Dipper, S., Götze, M., & Skopeteas, S. (2007). Information structure in cross-linguistic corpora: annotation guidelines for phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics and information structure. Potsdam, NY: Interdisciplinary Studies of Information Structure. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (1990). Clitic doubling, wh-movement, and quantification in Romanian. Linguistic inquiry, 21(3), 351-397. Dufter, A. (2009). Clefting and discourse organization: Comparing Germanic and Romance. In A. Dufter & D. Jacob (Eds.), Focus and background in Romance languages (pp. 83-121). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Erteschik-Shir, N. (2006). The architecture of topic and focus. In V. Molnár & S. Winkler (Eds.), The architecture of focus (pp. 33-58). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Escobar, A. M. (1997). From time to modality in Spanish in contact with Quechua. Hispanic Linguistics, 9, 64-99. Estebas-Vilaplana, E., & Prieto, P. (2008). La notación prosódica del español: Una revisión del Sp-ToBI. Estudios de Fonética Experimental, 17, 264-283. Estebas-Vilaplana , E. , & Prieto , P . (2010). Castilian Spanish intonation . In P. Prieto & P. Roseano (Eds.), Transcription of intonation of the Spanish language (pp. 18-47). Munich: Lincom. Etxepare, R., & Uribe-Etxebarria, M. (2005). In-situ wh-phrases in Spanish: locality and quantification. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes, 33, 9-34. Fábregas, A. (2016). Information structure and its syntactic manifestation in Spanish: Facts and proposals. Borealis–An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 5(2), 1-109. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 197 Face, T.L. (2002). Intonational marking of contrastive focus in Madrid Spanish. Munich, Germany: Lincom Europa. Fagerland, M.W., Lydersen, S. & Laake, P. (2013). The McNemar test for binary matched-pairs data: Mid-p and asymptotic are better than exact conditional. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13(1), 91–99. Feldhausen, I. (2016). The Relation between Prosody and Syntax: The case of different types of Left-Dislocations in Spanish. In M. Armstrong, N. Henriksen, & M. Vanrell (Eds.). Interdisciplinary approaches to intonational grammar in Ibero-Romance [Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics] (pp. 153-180). Amsterdam, Neetherlands: John Benjamins. Feldhausen, I., & Lausecker, A. (2018). Diatopic Variation in Prosody: Left-and Right- Dislocations in Spanish. In M. Beltz et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference of Phonetics and Phonology in German-speaking Countries, 13, 57-60. Humboldt- Universität zu Berlin Feldhausen, I., & Vanrell, M.M. (2014). Prosody, focus and word order in Catalan and Spanish: An Optimality Theoretic approach. In S. Fuchs, M. Grice, A. Hermes, L. Lancia, & D. Mücke (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international seminar on speech production (ISSP) (pp. 122-125). Cologne, Germany: Köln University. Feldhausen, I., & Vanrell M.M. (2015). Oraciones hendidas y marcación del foco estrecho en español: Una aproximación desde la Teoría de la Optimidad Estocástica. In E. Diez del Corral & M. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana, 13(2), 39-60. Frascarelli, M. (2000). The syntax-phonology interface in focus and topic constructions in Italian. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media. Frascarelli, M. (2004). L’interpretazione del Focus e la portata degli operatori sintattici. In F. Albano Leoni, F. Cutugno, M. Pettorino, & R. Savy (Eds.), Il parlato italiano. Atti del Convegno Nazionale (13-15 febbraio 2003), B06. Napoli: M. D’Auria Editore, CIRASS. Frascarelli, M. (2010). Intonation, information structure and the derivation of inverse VO languages: And interfaces analysis of Tagalog and Malagasy. In R. Mercado, E. Potsdam, & L. Travis (Eds.), Austronesian and theoretical linguistics. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Frascarelli, M., & Hinterhölzl, R. (2007). Types of topics in German and Italian. In K. Schwabe & S. Winkler (Eds.), On information structure, meaning and form (pp. 87-116). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. Frascarelli, M. & Puglielli, A. (2009). Position, function and interpretations of topics in Somali. In L. Mereu (Ed.), Information structure and its interfaces (pp. 325-348). Berlin, Germany: Morton de Gruyter. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 198 Frota, S. (2000). Prosody and focus in European Portuguese: Implication for intonation theory. New York, NY: Garland. Gavarró, A. & Laca, B. (2002). Les perífrasis temporals, aspectuals i modals. In J. Solà et al. (Eds.), Gramàtica del català contemporani, Vol. 3 (pp. 2665-2774). Barcelona: Empúries. George, D. & Mallery, P. (1999). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Gertken, L. M., Amengual, M., & Birdsong, D. (2014). Assessing language dominance with the bilingual language profile. In P. Leclercq, A. Edmonds & H. Hilton (Eds.), Measuring L2 proficiency: Perspectives from SLA (pp. 208–225). Bristol, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters. Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In T. Givón (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative crosslanguage study (pp. 5-41). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Gómez Seibane, S. (2012). Contacto de lenguas y orden de palabras: OV/VO en el español del País Vasco. LEA: Lingüística española actual, 34(1), 115-136. González-Vilbazo, K., & López, L. (2012). Little v and parametric variation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 30(1), 33-77. Götze, M., Weskott, T., Endriss, C., Fiedler, I., Hinterwimmer, S., Petrova, S., Schwarz, A., Skopeteas, S., Stoel, R. (2007). Information structure. In S. Dipper, M. Götze, & S. Skopeteas (Eds.), Information Structure in Cross-Linguistic Corpora (pp. 147–187). Potsdam, NY: Interdisciplinary Studies of Information Structure. Grüter, T. (2006). Object (clitic) omission in L2 French: Mis-setting or missing surface inflection. In M.G. O’Brien, C. Shea, & J. Archibald (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th generative approaches to second language acquisition conference (pp. 63-71). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Grüter, T., Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, A. (2012). Grammatical gender in L2: A production or a real-time processing problem? Second Language Research, 28(2), 191–215. Gupton, T. (Forthcoming). Aligning syntax and prosody in Galician: Against a prosodic isomorphism account. Haegeman, L. (2004). Topicalization, CLLD and the left periphery. In C. Maienborn, W. Frey, & B. Shaer (Eds.), ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 35: Proceedings of the Dislocated Elements Workshop (pp. 157-192). Berlin, Germany: ZAS. Halle, M. & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale and J. Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building (pp. 111–176). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 199 Hart, J. ‘t (1981). Differential sensitivity to pitch distance, particularly in speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 69, 811-821. Hart, ‘t J., R. Collier and A. Cohen (1990). A Perceptual Study of Intonation. An Experimental- phonetic Approach to Speech Melody. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Heblich, S., Lameli, A., & Riener, G. (2015). The effect of perceived regional accents on individual economic behavior: A lab experiment on linguistic performance, cognitive ratings and economic decisions. PloS one, 10(2), e0113475. Hualde, J. I., & Prieto, P. (2015). Intonational variation in Spanish: Euro-pean and American varieties. In S. Frota & P. Prieto (Eds.), Intonational Variation in Romance (pp. 350-391). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Huang, C. T. J. (1984). On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic inquiry, 15(4), 531-574. Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Kayne, R. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Krifka, M. (2001). Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics, 9, 1-40. Ladd, D. R. (2008). Intonational phonology. Second edition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Laird, NM. & Ware, JH. (1982). Random-Effects Models for Longitudinal Data. Biometrics: International Biometric Society, 38(4): 963–974. Larson, R. K. (1988). Scope and comparatives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 11(1), 1-26. Larson-Hall, J. (2014). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York: Routledge. Leal Méndez, T., Rothman, J., & Slabakova, R. (2015). Discourse-sensitive clitic-doubled dislocations in heritage Spanish. Lingua, 155, 85-97. Leal, T., Slabakova, R. & Farmer, T.A. (2017). The fine-tuning of linguistic expectations over the course of L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(3), 493-525. Lee, E., & Shimojo, M. (2016). Mismatch of topic between Japanese and Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 25(1), 81-112. Lipták, A. K., & Vicente, L. (2009). Pronominal doubling under topicalization. Lingua, 119, 37. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 200 Lochbihler, B., & Mathieu, E. (2016). Clause typing and feature inheritance of discourse features. Syntax, 19(4), 354-391. López, L. (2003). Steps for a well‐adjusted dislocation. Studia Linguistica, 57(3), 193-231. López, L. (2009a). A derivational syntax for information structure. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. López, L. (2009b). Ranking the LCA. Linguistic Inquiry, 40(2), 239-276. López, L. (2016). Dislocations and information structure. In C. Féry & C. Ishihara, S. (Eds.), Handbook of Information Structure (pp. 402-421). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. MacWhinney, B. (2000): The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. Voll. 1-2. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mayer, M. (1973). Frog on his own. New York, NY: Dial Books for Young Readers. Mayer, M. (1974). Frog goes to dinner. New York, NY: Dial Books for Young Readers. Mayer, M. (1975). One frog too many. New York, NY: Dial Books for Young Readers. McCloskey, J. (2002). Resumption, successive cyclicity, and the locality of operations. In S. D. Epstein & T. D. Seely (Eds.), Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program (pp. 184-226). Oxford, England: Blackwell. Miyagawa, S. 2010. Why agree? Why move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse configurational languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Montrul, S. (2018). The Bottleneck Hypothesis extends to heritage language acquisition. In J. Cho, M. Iverson, T. Judy, T. Leal, & E. Shimanskaya (Eds.), Meaning and Structure in Second Language Acquisition: In honor of Roumyana Slabakova (pp. 149-177). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Muntendam, A., Torreira, F., Armstrong, M. E., Henriksen, N., & del Mar Vanrell, M. (2016). Focus and prosody in Spanish and Quechua. In M.E. Armstrong, N. Heriksen, & M.M. Vanrell (Eds.), Intonational grammar in Ibero-Romance: Approaches across linguistic subfields (pp. 69-90). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Newell, H. (2015). Phonology without strata. In S. Vinerte (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Linguistic Association. Nolan, F. (2003). Intonational equivalence: an experimental evaluation of pitch scales. In A. Galván & R. Laboissière (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th international congress of phonetic sciences (pp. 774-777). Barcelona, Spain: International Phonetic Association. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 201 Nolda, A. (2013). Topics detached to the left: On 'Left Dislocation', 'Hanging Topic', and related constructions in German. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Universitätsbibliothek Johann Christian Senckenberg, Goethe-Universität. Nooteboom, S. (1997). The prosody of speech: melody and rhythm. The handbook of phonetic sciences, 5, 640-673. Olarrea, A. (2012). Word order and information structure. In J.I. Hualde, A. Olarrea, & E. O‘Rourke (Eds.), The handbook of Hispanic linguistics (pp. 603–628). West Sussex, England: Wiley-Blackwell. O’Rourke, E. (2012). Intonation in Spanish. In J.I. Hualde, A. Olarrea & E. O'Rourke (Eds.), Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics (pp. 173-191). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Ott, D. (2011). A note on free relative clauses in the theory of phases. Linguistic Inquiry, 42(1), 183-192. Ott, D. (2012). Movement and ellipsis in Contrastive Left-dislocation. In N. Arnett & R. Bennett (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 281– 291). University of California Santa Cruz. Ott, D. (2014). An ellipsis approach to Contrastive Left-dislocation. Linguistic Inquiry 45(2), 269–303. Ott, D. (2015). Connectivity in left-dislocation and the composition of the left periphery. Linguistic Variation 15(2), 225–290. Pešková, A. (2015). Sujetos pronominales en el español porteño: Implicaciones pragmáticas en la interfaz sintáctico-fonológica (Vol. 394). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. Pešková, A. (2018). Intonation of pronominal subjects in Porteño Spanish: Analysis of spontaneous speech. In I. Feldhausen, J. Fliessbach, & M. M. Vanrell (Eds.), Methods in prosody: A Romance language perspective (pp. 45-79). Berlin: Language Science Press. Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Prieto, P., & Roseano, P. (2010). Transcription of Intonation of the Spanish Language. Munich, Germany: Lincom Europa. Prince, A. & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Randolph, J.J. (2008). Online Kappa calculator. Software. http://justus.randolph.name/kappa. Reinhart, T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27, 53-93. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 202 Rietveld, A.C.M. & C. Gussenhoven (1985). On the relation between pitch excursion size and prominence. Journal of Phonetics, 13, 299-308. Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar. Handbook in generative syntax (pp. 281-337). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Rizzi, L. (2004). Locality and the left periphery. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond (pp. 223-251). Oxford University Press. Rizzi, L., & Cinque, G. (2016). Functional categories and syntactic theory. Annual Review of Linguistics, 2, 139-163. Rochemont, M. S. (1986). Focus in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. RStudio Team (2019). RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston, MA URL http://www.rstudio.com/. Retrieved on November 12, 2019. Rubio Alcalá, C. (2014). Syntactic constraints of topicalization phenomena. Ph.D. dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Saito, H. (1999). Dependence and interaction in frequency data analysis in SLA research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 453–475. Sánchez, L. (2010). The morphology and syntax of topic and focus: Minimalist inquiries in the Quechua periphery. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Schütze, C.T. & Sprouse, J. (2013) Judgment data. In: R.J. Podesva & D. Sharma (Eds.), Research methods in linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 27-50. Sequeros-Valle, J. Hoot, B., Cabrelli, J. (2020). Clitic-doubled left dislocation in L2 Spanish: The effect of processing load at the syntax-discourse interface. Language Acquisition. Advanced online publication: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2020.1769628 Sequeros-Valle, J., Hoot, B., Cabrelli, J. (accepted). Clitic-doubled left dislocation in heritage Spanish: Judgment vs. speeded production data. Languages. Senghas, A., Kita, S., & Özyürek, A. (2004). Children creating core properties of language: Evidence from an emerging sign language in Nicaragua. Science, 305, 1779-1782. Silverman, K.E. & Beckman, M., Pitrelli, J., Ostendorf, M., Wightman, C., & Prica, P., Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1992). To BI: A Standard for Labeling English Prosody. In R. Cardenas, V. Mochalov, O. Parra, & O. Martin (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Processing of Spoken Language (pp. 867-870). New York City: Springer Publishing. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 203 Slabakova, R. (2014). The bottleneck of second language acquisition. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 46(4), 543-559. Slabakova, R., Kempchinsky, P., & Rothman, J. (2012). Clitic-doubled left dislocation and focus fronting in L2 Spanish: A case of successful acquisition at the syntax-discourse interface. Second Language Research, 28(3), 319-343. Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of ‘interface’ in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(1), 1-33. Sportiche, D. (1983). Structural invariance and symmetry (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Stavropoulou, P., & Spiliotopoulos, D. (2011). Prosodic realization of topics. In E. Kitis, N. Lavidas, N. Topintzi, & T. Tsangalidis (Eds.), Selected Papers from the 19th International Symposium of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics (ISTAL) (pp. 413-420). Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Strömquist, A. and Verhoeven, L. (Eds.) (2004). Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tanaka, H. (2001). Right-dislocation as scrambling. Journal of Linguistics, 37(3), 551-579. Truckenbrodt, H. (1995). Phonological phrases--their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence (Umpublished doctoral dissertation). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Tukey, J. (1949). Comparing Individual Means in the Analysis of Variance. Biometrics, 5(2): 99– 114. Vallduví, E. (1992). A preverbal landing site for quantificational operators. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics, 2, 319-343. Vallduví, E., & Vilkuna, M. (1998). On rheme and kontrast. Syntax and semantics, 29, 79-108. Valmala, V. (2011). On Spanish clitic left dislocation and the preference of move over bind. Paper presented at the GLIF Seminar. Barcelona, Spain: Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Van Hurk, C. (2015). A uniform syntax for phrasal movement: A case study of Dinka Bor (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Wenger (2008) Me a sentence type?!: English adult root infinitives reconsidered in a minimalist syntax framework. M.A. thesis, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg. Villalba, X. (2000). The syntax of the left periphery. Ph.D. dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 204 Whitman, J. (2000). Right dislocation in English and Japanese. Syntactic and functional explorations in honor of Susumu Kuno (pp. 445-470). Tokyo, Japan: Kuroshio Publishers. Yoon, T., S. Chavarria, J. Cole & M. Hasegawa-Johnson. 2004. Intertranscriber reliability of prosodic labeling on telephone conversation using ToBI. Paper presented at The 8th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Jeju, South Korea, October. Zimmermann, M. (2007). Contrastive focus. In: C. Féry, G. Fanselow, & M. Krifka (Eds.), The Notions of Information Structure (pp. 147–159). Potsdam University Press. Zubizarreta, M.L. (1998). Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 205 APPENDICES Appendix 1 - Study 1: Syntactic labeling Location NOCANDO My Analysis Sentence Y un día a este niño le regalaron pues una ES_02_1_0004 clld CLLD caja muy grande ES_02_1_0088 clld CLLD Esta a mí no me quiere nada bien Así que en el camino a casa, en el coche, a William todos le miran con cara de pocos ES_04_1_0106 clld CLLD amigos. y al perro y a la tortuga l[es] deja a la ES_05_1_0011 clld CLLD habitación porque_ a ella también la quieren a la ranita ES_05_3_0031 clld CLLD pequeña y al niño le mandan a la habitación con la ES_08_2_0081 clld CLLD rana. A nuestro niño protagonista le han hecho un ES_12_3_0002 clld CLLD regalo. ES_12_3_0038 clld CLLD y a la rana grande la castigan y_ bueno que al niño no no le ha afectado ES_01_2_0080 clld CLLD nada el castigo de sus padres, ES_02_2_0061 clld CLLD Al hombre se le cae el café ES_12_3_0083 clld CLLD y ésta- - y a ésta le hace daño, ES_12_3_0008 clld CLLD al perro y al niño se les ve muy contentos ES_02_1_0014 clld CLLD pero a la rana grande pareció Evidentemente al niño esto le disgustó ES_02_1_0033 clld CLLD mucho ES_02_3_0005 clld CLLD que al niño le gusta bastante ES_03_2_0021 clld CLLD Entonces hm como a él no le gustaba ES_08_3_0008 clld CLLD y a todos parece gustarle, ES_08_3_0009 clld CLLD pero a la rana no (parece gustarle) ES_12_3_0017 clld CLLD de que a la otra rana no le ha gustado nada, ES_13_2_0009 clld CLLD ya que a él le gustan muchísimo. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 206 Excluded ítems: Location NOCANDO My Analysis Sentence la rana (el chico) la tiene cogida al ES_05_2_0034 clld HLD / CLLD-HLD? brazo pero es que encima la pequeñita no ES_06_1_0055 clld HLD / CLLD-HLD? la habían encontrado La rana (el chico) no se dio cuenta que se le coló en el bolsillo de la ES_06_2_0013 clld HLD / CLLD-HLD? chaqueta. ES_02_1_0103 clld CLLD-HLD? Claro esto, la tortuga sí que lo vio Entonces este plato lo_ terminan en ES_04_1_0071 clld CLLD-HLD? la mesa de una señora ya todo se lo dan en comida para ES_04_3_0029 clld CLLD-HLD? ranas ES_12_2_0065 clld CLLD-HLD? de que eso lo ha hecho ella, ES_02_1_0103 focfr + ld CLLD-HLD? Claro esto, la tortuga sí que lo vio ES_02_2_0134 focfr FR or HLD? y ahí tampoco la quieren ES_08_1_0089 focfr FR or HLD? Todos contentos se van. ES_11_3_0062 focfr FR or HLD? Pero sí que se dio cuenta el gato. Él debía ser la única... el único sapo, ES_03_2_0023 focfr FR or HLD? la única rana. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 207 Appendix 2 – Study 1: Discourse coding procedure (from Götze et al., 2007) PART 1: Recommended Annotation Procedure (1) Preparation of the Data Make sure that the data is prepared for the annotation with information structure. In particular, check for the annotation of sentences and NPs and PPs according to the Syntax Annotation Guidelines. If the data is not annotated accordingly, do this annotation first! (2) Annotation step 1: Information Status and Topic Start from the beginning of the discourse. For every sentence: (a) Check for the referentiality of each NP and PP in the sentence (cf. Section 2.2.1). (b) Specify the Information Status of every referring NP- and PP-marked constituent. Follow the instructions in 2.3.! (c) Test for the Topic status of each NP and PP in the sentence. Follow the guidelines in Section 3! (3) Annotation step 2: Focus Start from the beginning of the discourse. For every sentence: Apply the annotation procedure for the Focus Annotation Scheme in Section 4.6. (4) Check for Completeness Check for the completeness of the Annotation: (a) Check for the complete annotation of Information Status for all referring NPs and PPs. (b) Check for the complete annotation of new-information focus: for each sentence a new- information focus should be assigned. PART 2: Annotation of Information Status: Always go to Q4 and Q5 to complete annotation Q1: Has the referent been mentioned in the previous discourse? • yes: label expression as giv! If you annotate with the Extended Annotation Scheme: o Q1.1: Was the referent referred to within its developing narrative (Segmented Discourse Representation Theory (SDRT, Asher & Lascarides 2003))? ▪ yes: label expression as given-active ▪ no: label expression as given-inactive • no: go to Q2! Q2: Is the referent a physical part of the utterance situation? • yes: label expression as acc! o If you annotate with the Extended Annotation Scheme: Label the expression as accessible-situational! • no: go to Q3! A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 208 Q3: Is the referent accessible (1) via some kind of relation to other referents in the previous discourse, (2) from assumed world knowledge, or (3) by denoting a group consisting of accessible or given discourse referents? • yes: go to Q4! • no: label expression as new! Q4: Does the referring expression denote a group consisting of accessible or given discourse referents? • yes: label element as acc! o If you annotate with the Extended Annotation Scheme: Label the expression as accessible-aggregation! • no: go to Q5! Q5: Is the referent inferable from a referent in the previous discourse by some relation as specified in section 2.2.5 under ‘Inferable (acc-inf)’? • yes: label element as acc! o If you annotate with the Extended Annotation Scheme: Label the expression as: ▪ accessible-part/whole! The garden is beautiful. Its entrance… the fence... ▪ accessible-subset! The flowers in the garden… The flowers in the entrance... ▪ accessible-superset! The children A, but the entire family B. ▪ accessible-shared/set! The flowers in the garden… The flowers inside... ▪ accessible-entity/attribute! The flowers are in the garden. Their scent... • no: go to Q6! Q6: Is the referent assumed to be inferable from assumed world knowledge? • yes: label element as acc! If you annotate with the Extended Annotation Scheme: Label the expression as accessible-world/knowledge! • no: go back to Q1 and start all over again! You must have missed something. PART 3: Annotation of Topic Frame Settings • Spatial locations • Temporal locations • Domains against which the subsequently reported fact is to be evaluated (physically, mentally, etc.) Test for Aboutness Topics An NP X is the aboutness topic of a sentence S containing X if • S would be a natural continuation to the announcement Let me tell you something about X • S would be a good answer to the question What about X? • S could be naturally transformed into the sentence A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 209 o Concerning X, S ́ or into the sentence o Concerning X, S ́, where S ́ differs from S only insofar as X has been replaced by a suitable pronoun. Test for Aboutness Topics for Specific Indefinites A specific indefinite X is the aboutness topic of a sentence S containing X if the following transformation of S sounds natural: • Within S, replace the indefinite article in X by this or that • Transform the resulting sentence S ́ into Concerning X, S ́. PART 4: Annotation of Focus Q1: Is the sentence a declarative or a non-declarative one? • if non-declarative (imperative, question): go to Q3 • if declarative: go to Q2 Q2: Does the utterance complete an explicit wh-question? • Yes: the constituent which is congruent to the wh-word is to be annotated “new/focus- solicited” • No: go to Q3 Q3: Does a constituent of the utterance (or the utterance as a whole) evoke the notion of contrast to another constituent in previous context? • Yes: annotate it for “cf” – for further annotation go to Q4 • No: go to Q5 Q4: Does the context enable you to further specify the contrastive relation according to the inventory given in 5.3.2? • Yes: annotate according to the inventory given in 5.3.2. o “contrastive/focus-replacing” Contrastive replacing: Corrects the contextually given information by replacing parts of it for suppletive information. - I heard she is growing vegetables now? - No, she is growing bananas. o “contrastive/focus-selection” Contrastive selection: An element out of a given set of explicitly expressed alternatives is selected. - Do you want the red or the blue one? - I want the red one. o “contrastive/focus-partially” Contrastive partially: Introduces a new part or subset of a previously mentioned entity. - What are your sisters doing? - My older sister works in an office. o “contrastive/focus-implication” Contrastive implication: The requested information holds true not for the information provided explicitly in the answer but for other alternatives that are accessible in the context. - Where are the chickens? - Well, in the city, there are no chickens. • No: restrict the annotation to “contrastive/focus” Q5: Which part of the utterance reveals the new and most important information in discourse? Try to identify the domain by asking implicit questions as done in the example in 4.2.2! • annotate the identified constituent or domain as “new/focus-unsolicited” A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 210 Q6: Is it possible to add to the utterance a formula like “It is true / It is not true ...”, “Is it true / Is it not true ...?” to the respective proposition without changing its meaning/function within the discourse? • Yes: annotate it as “contrastive/focus-verum” according to 5.3.2.5 o Emphasizes the truth-value of the proposition. - The exam was difficult, but lots of students passed. - Yeah, lots of students passed! • No: no additional specification is necessary Q7: Does the sentence contain a focus operator? 186 Götze et al. • Yes: annotate the constituent that is bound by it for “+op” (focus associated to adverbs) • No: no additional specification is necessary A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 211 Appendix 3 – Study 1: CLLD in context #01 Annotation: [Status: Q1: yes. Q1.1: yes. Q4: no. Q5: yes. Given-active/Shared-set (este niño+amigos, protagonistas). Topic: Yes. Focus: n/a] Coding: [B&H: Contrastive topic. López: [+a,+c].] Había una vez un niño que tenía tres amigos: un perro muy bonito, una rana y una tortuga. Y un día a este niño le regalaron pues una caja muy grande y llevaba una etiqueta, y el niño parecía muy contento. #02 Annotation: [Status: Q1: yes. Q1.1: yes. Q4: no. Q5: no. Given-active. Topic: Yes. Focus: n/a] Coding: [B&H: Given topic. López: [+a].] Pero lo que el niño no vio, es que cuando salieron del muelle, la tortuga (rana) grande dio un salto, y se fue a la-- a la barca que habían construido. El perro y la tortuga no lo habían visto, pero la ranita pequeña sí, y puso una cara de susto porque dijo: “Esta a mí no me quiere nada bien”. #03 Annotation: [Status: Q1: yes. Q1.1: yes. Q4: no. Q5: yes. Given-active/Shared-set (William+all other characters, protagonistas). Topic: Yes. Focus: n/a] Coding: [B&H: Contrastive topic. López: [+a,+c].] Entonces William rápidamente va al rescate de su_ pequeña rana entonces_ se queja al camarero y consigue que le devuelvan su rana pero, como ha montado tanto escándalo, la familia de William es expulsada del restaurante. Así que en el camino a casa, en el coche, a William todos le miran con cara de pocos amigos. #04 Annotation: [Status: Q1: yes. Q1.1: yes. Q4: no. Q5: yes. Given-active/Subset (perro+tortuga vs. perro+tortuga+rana). Topic: Yes. Focus: n/a] Coding: [B&H: Contrastive topic. López: [+a,+c].] Va a salir, a cenar con sus padres y tiene unos animales en la habitación: un perro y una tortuga y una rana; son sus amigos, por lo que se ve. # Y_ va a salir y al perro y a la tortuga l[es] deja a la habitación y el chico se [le] mete en la_ en el bolsillo de la chaqueta la rana... #05 Annotation: [Status: Q1: yes. Q1.1: yes. Q4: no. Q5: no. Given-active. Topic: Yes. Focus: n/a] Coding: [B&H: Given topic. López: [+a].] Y durante el trayecto la rana grande tira a la ranita pequeña [de] la tortuga, y_ y se cae en el suelo la ranita pequeña. Enonces le hechan la bronca otra vez al- a la rana grande que eso no se tiene que hacer porque_ está mal porque_ a ella también la quieren a la ranita pequeña y_ se pone en su contra el niño, el perro y la tortuga. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 212 #06 Annotation: [Status: Q1: yes. Q1.1: no. Q4: no. Q5: no. Given-inactive/Shared-set (rana+niño, protagonistas). Topic: Yes. Focus: n/a] Coding: [B&H: Shift topic. López: [ ? ].] Y el niño se da cuenta (17 utterances later…) La rana también hace cara un poco de_ ¡qué he hecho!". Y entonces, nada, llegan a casa y al niño le mandan a la habitación con la rana. #07 Annotation: [Status: Q1: yes. Q2: no. Q3: yes. Q4: no. Q5: no. Q6: yes. Given-inactive. Topic: Yes. Focus: n/a] Coding: [B&H: Aboutness topic. López: [ ? ].] Todos están muy enojados con el niño y con la rana en el coche. (8 utterances before the end of narrative #2) (Beginning of narrative #3) (Interviewer: Ok, sí.) A nuestro niño protagonista le han hecho un regalo. #08 Annotation: [Status: Q1: yes. Q1.1: yes. Q4: no. Q5: yes. Given-active/shared-set (grande+pequeña, protagonistas). Topic: Yes. Focus: n/a] [B&H: Contrastive topic. López: [+a,+c].] De repente, la_ rana grande le da una patada a la pequeña y la echa del caparazón de la tortuga. Entonces la otra empieza a llorar, todos los demás se dan cuenta, y recriminan a la rana grande. Como ya es la segunda vez que lo hace van a cruzar un río en una tabla todos, y a la rana grande la castigan y la dejan en la orilla. #09 Annotation: [Status: Q1: yes. Q1.1: yes. Q4: no. Q5: no. Given-active. Topic: Yes. Focus: n/a] Coding: [B&H: Given topic. López: [+a].] Entonces cuando llegan a casa los padres castigan al niño en su habitación y_ le dicen que bueno que nunca más le Ocurra de llevar una rana a_ # que nunca más le ocurra de llevar una rana a cenar a un restaurante. [Bueno entonces] [?] que el niño se mete en su habitación y bueno se ponen a reír porque les ha hecho mucha gracia la situación y_ bueno que al niño no no le ha afectado nada el castigo de sus padres, ya... # bueno, un poco liado, este cuento, al final ¡ya lo sé! #10 Annotation: [Status: Q1: yes. Q1.1: yes. Q4: no. Q5: yes. Given-active/shared-set (hombre+chica+rana, protagonistas). Topic: Yes. Focus: n/a] Coding: [B&H: Contrastive topic. López: [+a,+c].] Al mismo tiempo hay una pareja que están haciendo un picnic, porque han decidido pasar un día romántico en el parque. Él le está poniendo café, llevan una cestita con su comida_, la manta en el suelo_Mientras el hombre bebe café, la chica busca algo en la cesta del picnic, y la rana aprovecha para meterse dentro. “[Mm] aquí seguro que encuentro algo bueno para comer” piensa. #Pero la chica topa con algo que no le gusta: [o-o_] le ha descubierto. Y la rana se coge al brazo de la chica. ¡Qué horror! Al hombre se le cae el café y se le caen las gafas y se le cae todo, y la chica pone una cara de susto horrible. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 213 #11 Annotation: [Status: Q1: yes. Q1.1: yes. Q4: no. Q5: yes. Given-active/shared-set (grande+pequeña, protagonistas). Topic: Yes. Focus: n/a] Coding: [B&H: Contrastive topic. López: [+a,+c].] Para variar, la ranita pequeña cae encima de la rana grande y ésta- - y a ésta le hace daño, pero al final acaba todo el mundo contento y las dos ranas se han hecho amigas. #12 Annotation: [Status: Q1: yes. Q1.1: yes. Q4: no. Q5: yes. Given-active/Subset (perro+niño vs. perro+niño vs. todo el mundo). Topic: Yes. Focus: n/a] Coding: [B&H: Contrastive topic. López: [+a,+c].] (Beginning of narrative #3). A nuestro niño protagonista le han hecho un regalo. Todo el mundo está impaciente para ver que es, sobre todo sus animalitos. El niño abre la caja y la pobre tortuga no puede ver nada, al perro y al niño se les ve muy contentos y la rana tiene un gesto de disgusto_. #13 Annotation: [Status: Q1: yes. Q1.1: yes. Q4: no. Q5: yes. Given-active/shared-set (grande+pequeña, protagonistas). Topic: Yes. Focus: n/a] Coding: [B&H: Contrastive topic. López: [+a,+c].] Todos sus amigos parecían muy contentos, menos la rana, que puso cara de enfadada. El niño vio que en la caja había una ranita pequeña, una ranita muy simpática, que le gustaba mucho al perro y a la tortuga, pero a la rana grande que no le gustaba demasiado, y puso cara de enfadada. #14 Annotation: [Status: Q1: yes. Q1.1: yes. Q4: no. Q5: yes. Given-active/shared-set (rana+ranita+niño, protagonistas). Topic: Yes. Focus: n/a] Coding: [B&H: Contrastive topic. López: [+a,+c].] El niño, por su parte parecía muy satis- muy satisfecho Pero ¿qué pasó? La rana grande le mordió el anca a la ranita. Evidentemente al niño esto le disgust mucho, y también le disgustó mucho a su amigo el perro y a su amiga la tortuga. #15 Annotation: [Status: Q1: yes. Q1.1: yes. Q4: no. Q5: no. Given-active. Topic: Yes. Focus: n/a] Coding: [B&H: Given topic. López: [+a].] Nos volvemos a encontrar con nuestro viejo amigo, bueno, nuestros viejos amigos: el niño, su perro, su tortuga, y su_ rana. Están en el cuarto del niño, un cuarto que, bueno, no vemos mucho pero parece que al niño le gusta bastante. #16 Annotation: [Status: Q1: yes. Q1.1: yes. Q4: no. Q5: no. Given-active. Topic: Yes. Focus: n/a] Coding: [B&H: Given topic. López: [+a].] A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 214 Entonces el el sapo, estaba_-- que estaba también por ahí fisgoneando hm miró en la caja y empezó a hacer caras hm terribles de de miedo y de_ de decepción. Y lo que había pasado era que ese regalo era otro sapo más pequeño, más bonito, y_ parecía más simpático que él. Entonces hm como a él no le gustaba, porque_ le_ le estaban invadiendo su territorio y su protagonismo, él debía ser la única_ - - el único sapo, la única rana y_ y entonces hm se pe- se pele- se pelearon y_ se pelearon. #17 Annotation: [Status: Q1: yes. Q2: yes. Q3: yes. Q4: yes. Given-active/Aggregation (niño+animales, todos). Topic: Yes. Focus: n/a] Coding: [B&H: Contrastive topic. López: [+a,+c].] (Beginning) Primera parte. Pues está_ el niño, que le han regalado un regalo, y están todos los animalitos a su lado como siempre y entonces cuando van a abrir el regalo, el niño hace cara de contento, de que le gusta el regalo, >y a todos parece gustarle, pero a la rana no porque es otra rana, como él, y claro supongo que_ no le gustará que haya otra como él. #18 Annotation: [Status: Q1: yes. Q1.1: yes. Q4: no. Q5: yes. Given-active/Subset (la rana vs. todos los animalitos). Topic: Yes. Focus: n/a] Coding: [B&H: Contrastive topic. López: [+a,+c].] (Beginning of narrative #3) Primera parte. Pues está_ el niño, que le han regalado un regalo, y están todos los animalitos a su lado como siempre y entonces cuando van a abrir el regalo, el niño hace cara de contento, de que le gusta el regalo, >y a todos parece gustarle, pero a la rana no porque es otra rana, como él, y claro supongo que_ no le gustará que haya otra como él. #19 Annotation: [Status: Q1: yes. Q1.1: yes. Q4: no. Q5: yes. Given-active/shared-set (rana1+rana2, protagonistas). Topic: Yes. Focus: n/a] Coding: [B&H: Contrastive topic. López: [+a,+c].] El niño abre la caja y la pobre tortuga no puede ver nada, al perro y al niño se les ve muy contentos y la rana tiene un gesto de disgusto_. Entonces el niño mete la mano en la_ caja y resulta que es una ranita más, una rana más pequeñita que la que tiene y todo el mundo está muy contento con ella, excepto la otra rana. ## El niño, nada más que ha sacado la rana de la caja, se ha dado cuenta de que a la otra rana no le ha gustado nada, porque la está atacando. #20 Annotation: [Status: Q1: yes. Q1.1: yes. Q4: no. Q5: yes. Given-active/shared-set (él+animal, protagonistas). Topic: Yes. Focus: n/a] Coding: [B&H: Contrastive topic. López: [+a,+c].] A ver, en esta historia el protagonista_ es un niño amante de los animales, por lo que tiene tres mascotas: una tortuga, una rana y un perro. Por su cumpleaños recibe una gran caja, un enorme regalo que en su interior contiene una pequeña ranita. Él ya tenía una, pero aún así le hace mucha ilusión el regalo y decide que, bueno, que_ un animal más en casa nunca sobra, ya que a él le gustan muchísimo. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 215 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 216 Appendix 4 – Study 1: Discourse data-set Item Speaker Information Status Bianchi & Frascarelli López #01 #2 Given-(A) Shared-set C [+a,+c] #02 #2 Given-(A) - G [+a] #03 #4 Given-(A) Shared-set C [+a,+c] #04 #5 Given-(A) Sub Unlabeled [+a,+c] #05 #5 Given-(A) - G [+a] #06 #8 Given-(xxx) Shared-set S Topic-promotion #07 #12 Given-(xxx) - N Topic-promotion #08 #12 Given-(A) Shared-set C [+a,+c] #09 #1 Given-(A) - G [+a] #10 #2 Given-(A) Shared-set C [+a,+c] #11 #12 Given-(A) Shared-set C [+a,+c] #12 #12 Given-(A) Sub Unlabeled [+a,+c] #13 #2 Given-(A) Shared-set C [+a,+c] #14 #2 Given-(A) Shared-set C [+a,+c] #15 #3 Given-(A) - G [+a] #16 #8 Given-(A) Aggr Unlabeled [+a,+c] #17 #8 Given-(A) Sub Unlabeled [+a,+c] #18 #12 Given-(A) Shared-set C [+a,+c] #19 #13 Given-(A) Shared-set C [+a,+c] #20 #2 Given-(xxx) Shared-set S Topic-promotion A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 217 Appendix 5 – Study 1: Intonation data-set Item Speaker Information Status B&F López Intonation #01 #2 Given-(A) Shared-set C [+a,+c] H* H- #02 #2 Given-(A) - G [+a] L*+H H- #03 #4 Given-(A) Shared-set C [+a,+c] L+ A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 218 Appendix 6 - Study 2: Participants Participant Age Gender Education % of life in Spain Group M = 41.52 Female = 15 Graduate School = 2 M = 99.64% (SD = Male = 10 College = 11 (SD = 0.01%) 12.05) High School = 12 [95.45%-100%] [24-60] 01 30 M College 95.45% 02 31 M Graduate School 100% 03 57 F College 100% 04 57 F High School 100% 05 31 F High School 100% 06 56 F College 100% 07 45 F High School 100% 08 29 F College 100% 09 31 F High School 100% 10 60 F High School 100% 11 43 F College 100% 12 45 M High School 100% 13 43 F High School 100% 14 47 M High School 100% 15 30 F Graduate School 100% 16 35 M College 100% 17 36 F College 100% 18 60 F High School 100% 19 57 F High School 100% 20 24 M College 95.45% 21 33 M College 100% A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 219 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 220 Participant Age Gender Education % of life in Spain 22 29 F College 100% 23 37 M College 100% 24 32 M High School 100% 25 60 M High School 100% A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 221 Appendix 7 - Study 2: Instructions and practice items (Spanish original) Muchas gracias por participar en este experimento. Tus respuestas al cuestionario que viene a continuación serán de gran ayuda para el avance de la lingüística. Lo que viene a continuación son 60 conversaciones (unos 15 minutos) con las siguientes tres partes: Un contexto - Tu pregunta /// - Una respuesta /// Una escala (de 1 a 7). Tu trabajo consiste en utilizar la escala para decirnos cómo de ACEPTABLE o INACEPTABLE te parece LA RESPUESTA QUE RECIBES. ¿Qué quieres decir con aceptable?, te estarás preguntando. Una respuesta es ACEPTABLE si puedes imaginarte a ti mismo diciéndola, y una respuesta es INACEPTABLE si te llamaría la atención al decirlo otra persona. Por ejemplo, ¿qué te parece por si sola la frase ”A Mario he visto”? ¿Suena aceptable o inaceptable? Y ahora, ¿qué te parece esa misma frase como respuesta en el contexto siguiente?: Eres barrendero, y preguntas: - Has visto a Paco, ¿no? /// - ¡A Mario he visto! ¡Ya te lo he dicho antes, hombre! (no es aceptable) 1 — 2 — 3 — 4 — 5 — 6 — 7 (sí es aceptable) ¿Y qué te parece por si sola la frase ”Hablando de Paco, le visto en el parque”? ¿Te suena aceptable o inaceptable? ¿Y como respuesta en el siguiente contexto?: Eres corredor aficionado, y preguntas: - ¿A quién has visto en el parque? /// - Hablando de Paco, le he visto en el parque. (no es aceptable) 1 — 2 — 3 — 4 — 5 — 6 — 7 (sí es aceptable) Es muy probable que los ejemplos no te suenen del todo aceptables (un 7) o del todo inaceptables (un 1). Por esa razón tienes la posibilidad de utilizar los puntos intermedios (del 2 al 6) para darnos una opinión intermedia. OTRA COSA IMPORTANTE: NO LO PIENSES DEMASIADO. Lo que queremos saber en este experimento es lo que tu primera intuición te dice sobre estas respuestas en su contexto, pues ninguna es de por sí correcta o incorrecta. No somos la Real Academia, sino que queremos conocer las intuiciones lingüísticas de quienes participáis. Si tienes alguna pregunta, escribe a Jose Sequeros-Valle a la dirección de correo electrónico ”[email protected]”(o FB o WhatsApp si lo tienes) y él te contestará tan pronto como le sea posible. Si no tienes ninguna pregunta, puedes comenzar con cinco ejercicios de prueba… A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 222 ------ (English Translation) Thank you for participating in this experiment. Your answers to the experiment coming next will be very helpful in the advancement of Linguistics. You will see 60 conversations (around 15 minutes) with the following parts: A context - Your question /// - An answer /// A scale (from 1 to 7). Your work is to use the scale to tell us how ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE you think THE ANSWER is. What does acceptable mean?, you will be wondering. An answer is ACCEPTABLE if you can imagine yourself saying it, and an answer is UNCCAPTABLE if it would catch your attention if someone else says it. For example, what do you think about the sentence “A Mario he visto” by itself? Does it sound acceptable or unacceptable? And now, what do you think about the same sentence in the following context?: Eres barrendero, y preguntas: - Has visto a Paco, ¿no? /// - ¡A Mario he visto! ¡Ya te lo he dicho antes, hombre! (no es aceptable) 1 — 2 — 3 — 4 — 5 — 6 — 7 (sí es aceptable) An what do you think about the sentence ”Hablando de Paco, le visto en el parque” by itself? Does it sound acceptable or unacceptable? And as an answer in the following context?: Eres corredor aficionado, y preguntas: - ¿A quién has visto en el parque? /// - Hablando de Paco, le he visto en el parque. (no es aceptable) 1 — 2 — 3 — 4 — 5 — 6 — 7 (sí es aceptable) It is very possible that those examples do not sound completely acceptable (7) nor completely unacceptable (1). That is why you have the possibility of using the intermediate scores (2-6) to give us your opinion. ONE MORE THING: DO NOT THINK TOO MUCH. What want to know with this experiment is what your first intuition tells you about these sentences in context, and none of them is correct or incorrect. We are not the Royal Academy of the Language, but rather we want to know your intuitions. Should you have any questions, write to Jose Sequeros-Valle to the email address ”[email protected]”(or FB or WhatsApp if you have it) and he will answer as soon as possible. If you do not have any question, you can start with five practice items… ------ A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 223 (Practice items) Conversación de prueba 01 Eres barrendero, y preguntas: - Has visto a Paco, ¿no? - ¡A Mario he visto! ¡Ya te lo he dicho antes, hombre! Conversación de prueba 02 Eres corredor aficionado, y preguntas: - ¿A quién has visto en el parque? - Hablando de Paco, le he visto en el parque. Conversación de prueba 03 Eres enfermero, y preguntas: - ¿Cuándo llegó Juan? - Llegó ayer Juan. Conversación de prueba 04 Eres oficinista, y preguntas: - Ayer trajeron a Paco de visita, ¿sabes? - Fue a Miguel a quien trajeron. Conversación de prueba 05 Eres gerente de un hotel, y preguntas: - ¿Cuándo visitaron a Paco y a María? - Le visitaron ayer a Paco. A María no sé. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 224 Appendix 8 - Study 2: Stimuli ITEM 01 CONTEXTO: Eres guardia de seguridad, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con los chavales aquellos? - A un chico le vieron por el centro, y a los demás no sé. - Vieron a un chico por el centro, y a los demás no sé. CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - A un chico le vieron el otro día en el parque. - Vieron a un chico el otro día en el parque. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién vieron en el parque? - A un chico le vieron por allí. - Vieron a un chico por allí. ITEM 02 CONTEXTO: Trabajas en un restaurante, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con los clientes aquellos? - A un hombre le echaron del restaurante, y a los demás no sé. - Echaron a un hombre del restaurante, y a los demás no sé. CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - A un hombre le echaron del restaurante. - Echaron a un hombre del restaurante. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién echaron del restaurante? - A un hombre le echaron de allí. - Echaron a un hombre de allí. ITEM 03 CONTEXTO: Eres policía, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con los tíos aquellos? - A un tío le encontraron el otro día, y a los demás no sé. - Encontraron a un tío el otro día, y a los demás no sé. CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - A un tío le encontraron el otro día. - Encontraron a un tío el otro día. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién se encontraron por el centro? - A un tío le encontraron por allí. - Encontraron a un tío por allí. ITEM 04 CONTEXTO: Eres manager de bandas de rock, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con los músicos aquellos? - A un guitarrista le pagaron en B, y a los demás no sé. - Pagaron a un guitarrista en B, y a los demás no sé. CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - A un guitarrista le pagaron con dinero en B. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 225 - Pagaron a un guitarrista con dinero en B. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién pagaron en B? - A un guitarrista le pagaron así. - Pagaron a un guitarrista así. ITEM 05 CONTEXTO: Eres arquitecto, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con los trabajadores aquellos? - A un albañil le despidieron de su trabajo, y a los demás no sé. - Despidieron a un albañil de su trabajo, y a los demás no sé. CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - Albañil le despidieron de su trabajo. - Despidieron a un albañil de su trabajo. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién despidieron de su trabajo? - A un albañil le despidieron de allí. - Despidieron a un albañil de allí. ITEM 06 CONTEXTO: Eres profesor universitario, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con los tipos aquellos? - A un profesor le escarmentaron a base de bien, y a los demás no sé. - Escarmentaron a un profesor a base de bien, y a los demás no sé. CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - A un profesor le escarmentaron a base de bien. - Escarmentaron a un profesor a base de bien. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién escarmentaron a base de bien? - A un profesor le escarmentaron así. - Escarmentaron a un profesor así. ITEM 07 CONTEXTO: Eres taxista, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con los conductores aquellos? - A un taxista le pararon después del accidente, y a los demás no sé. - Pararon a un taxista despu\'es del accidente, y a los demás no sé. CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - A un taxista le pararon después de un accidente. - Pararon a un taxista después de un accidente. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién pararon después del accidente? - A un taxista le pararon entonces. - Pararon a un taxista entonces. ITEM 08 CONTEXTO: Eres organizador de evento deportivos, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con los conductores aquellos? - A un piloto le llevaron al hospital, y a los demás no sé. - Llevaron a un piloto al hospital, y a los demás no sé. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 226 CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - A un piloto le llevaron al hospital. - Llevaron a un piloto al hospital. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién se llevaron al hospital? - A un piloto le llevaron para allá. - Llevaron a un piloto para allá. ITEM 09 CONTEXTO: Eres portero de una discoteca, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con los tipos aquellos? - A un tipo le echaron de la discoteca, y a los demás no sé. - Echaron a un tipo de la discoteca, y a los demás no sé. CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - A un tipo le echaron de la discoteca. - Echaron a un tipo de la discoteca. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién echaron de la discoteca? - A un tipo le echaron de allí. - Echaron a un tipo de allí. ITEM 10 CONTEXTO: Eres el nuevo alcalde, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con los juristas aquellos? - A un abogado le multaron a lo bestia, y a los demás no sé. - Multaron a un abogado a lo bestia, y a los demás no sé. CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - A un abogado le multaron a lo bestia. - Multaron a un abogado a lo bestia. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién multaron a lo bestia? - A un abogado le multaron así. - Multaron a un abogado así. ITEM 11 CONTEXTO: Eres trabajador de Renfe, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con los compañeros aquellos? - A un maquinista le despidieron de Renfe, y a los demás no sé. - Despidieron a un maquinista de Renfe, y a los demás no sé. CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - A un maquinista le despidieron de Renfe. - Despidieron a un maquinista de Renfe. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién despidieron de Renfe? - A un maquinista le despidieron de allí. - Despidieron a un maquinista de allí. ITEM 12 CONTEXTO: Eres policía, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con los sinvergüenzas aquellos? A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 227 - A un notario le pagaron en negro, y a los demás no sé. - Pagaron a un notario en negro, y a los demás no sé. CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - A un notario le pagaron en negro. - Pagaron a un notario en negro. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién pagaron en negro? - A un notario le pagaron así. - Pagaron a un notario así. ITEM 13 CONTEXTO: Eres un trabajador de un puerto, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con los trabajadores aquellos? - A un marinero le encontraron en alta mar, y a los demás no sé. - Encontraron a un marinero en alta mar, y a los demás no sé. CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - A un marinero le encontraron en alta mar. - Encontraron a un marinero en alta mar. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién encontraron en alta final? - A un marinero le encontraron allí. - Encontraron a un marinero allí. ITEM 14 CONTEXTO: Eres coordinador del 112, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con el equipo de rescate? - A un bombero le sacaron del bosque, y a los demás no sé. - Sacaron a un bombero del bosque, y a los demás no sé. CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - A un bombero le sacaron del bosque. - Sacaron a un bombero del bosque. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién sacaron del bosque? - A un bombero le sacaron de allí. - Sacaron a un bombero de allí. ITEM 15 CONTEXTO: Eres periodista, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con los militares aquellos? - A un general le enviaron a Irak, y a los demás no sé. - Enviaron a un general a Irak, y a los demás no sé. CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - A un general le enviaron a Irak. - Enviaron a un general a Irak. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién enviaron a Irak? - A un general le enviarion para allá. - Enviarion a un general para allá. ITEM 16 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 228 CONTEXTO: Eres gestor de una mina, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con los trabajadores aquellos? - A un minero le echaron de la mina, y a los demás no sé. - Echaron a un minero de la mina, y a los demás no sé. CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - A un minero le echaron de la mina. - Echaron a un minero de la mina. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién echaron de la mina? - A un minero le echaron de allí. - Echaron a un minero de allí. ITEM 17 CONTEXTO: Eres un trabajador de un hotel de lujo, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con los clientes aquellos? - A un caballero le echaron del hotel, y a los demás no sé. - Echaron a un caballero del hotel, y a los demás no sé. CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - A un caballero le echaron del hotel. - Echaron a un caballero del hotel. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién echaron del hotel? - A un caballero le echaron de allí. - Echaron a un caballero de allí. ITEM 18 CONTEXTO: Eres un directivo de la Rey Juan Carlos, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con los profesores aquellos? - A un profesor le llevaron a la Autónoma, y a los demás no sé. - Llevaron a un profesor a la Autónoma, y a los demás no sé. CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - A un profesor le llevaron a la Autónoma. - Llevaron a un profesor a la Autónoma. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién llevaron a la Autónoma? - A un profesor le llevaron para allá. - Llevaron a un profesor para allá. ITEM 19 CONTEXTO: Eres un académico, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con los científicos aquellos? - A un físico le premiaron con dinero, y a los demás no sé. - Premiaron a un físico con dinero, y a los demás no sé. CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - A un físico le premiaron con dinero. - Premiaron a un físico con dinero. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién premiaron con dinero? - A un físico le premiaron así. - Premiaron a un físico así. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 229 ITEM 20 CONTEXTO: Eres coordinador de obras públicas, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con los empleados aquellos? - A un jardinero le mandaron al centro, y a los demás no sé. - Mandaron a un jardinero al centro, y a los demás no sé. CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - A un jardinero le mandaron al centro. - Mandaron a un jardinero al centro. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién mandaron al centro? - A un jardinero le mandaron para allá. - Mandaron a un jardinero para allá. ITEM 21 CONTEXTO: Eres un trabajador de Iberia, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con los empleados aquellos? - A un piloto le mandaron a París, y a los demás no sé. - Mandaron a un piloto a París, y a los demás no sé. CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - A un piloto le mandaron a París. - Mandaron a un piloto a París. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién mandaron a París? - A un piloto le mandaron para allá. - Mandaron a un piloto para allá. ITEM 22 CONTEXTO: Eres un trabajador de una residencia, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con los abuelos aquellos? - A un abuelo le llevaron a Madrid, y a los demás no sé. - Llevaron a un abuelo a Madrid, y a los demás no sé. CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - A un abuelo le llevaron a Madrid. - Llevaron a un abuelo a Madrid. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién llevaron a Madrid? - A un abuelo le llevaron para allá. - Llevaron a un abuelo para allá. ITEM 23 CONTEXTO: Eres profesor, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con los padres aquellos? - A un padre le detuvieron ilegalmente, y a los demás no sé. - Detuvieron a un padre ilegalmente, y a los demás no sé. CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - A un padre le detuvieron ilegalmente. - Detuvieron a un padre ilegalmente. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién detuvieron ilegalmente? A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 230 - A un padre le detuvieron así. - Detuvieron a un padre así. ITEM 24 CONTEXTO: Eres un gerente de La Paz, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con los empleados aquellos? - A un enfermero le subieron al piso 13, y a los demás no sé. - Subieron a un enfermero al piso 13, y a los demás no sé. CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - A un enfermero le subieron al piso 13. - Subieron a un enfermero al piso 13. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién subieron al piso 13? - A un enfermero le subieron para allá. - Subieron a un enfermero para allá. ITEM 25 CONTEXTO: Eres un organizador de bodas, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con los distribuidores aquellos? - A un panadero le atropellaron con un avión, y a los demás no sé. - Atropellaron a un panadero con un avión, y a los demás no sé. CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - A un panadero le atropellaron con un avión. - Atropellaron a un panadero con un avión. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién atropellaron con un avión? - A un panadero le atropellaron así. - Atropellaron a un panadero así. ITEM 26 CONTEXTO: Eres profesor de guardería, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con los chiquillos aquellos? - A un niño le castigaron sin recreo, y a los demás no sé. - Castigaron a un niño sin recreo, y a los demás no sé. CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - A un niño le castigaron sin recreo. - Castigaron a un niño sin recreo. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién castigaron sin recreo? - A un niño le castigaron así. - Castigaron a un niño así. ITEM 27 CONTEXTO: Eres coordinador de niñeros, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con los niñeros aquellos? - A un niñero le mandaron a Vallecas, y a los demás no sé. - Mandaron a un niñero a Vallecas, y a los demás no sé. CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - A un niñero le enviaron a Vallecas. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 231 - Enviarion a un niñero a Vallecas. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién enviarion a Vallecas? - A un niñero le enviarion para allá. - Enviarion a un niñero para allá. ITEM 28 CONTEXTO: Eres un coordinador en el aeropuerto, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con los empleados aquellos? - A un aduanero le mandaron a la T4, y a los demás no sé. - Mandaron a un aduanero a la T4, y a los demás no sé. CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - A un aduanero le mandaron a la T4. - Mandaron a un aduanero a la T4. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién mandaron a la T4? - A un aduanero le mandaron para allá. - Mandaron a un aduanero para allá. ITEM 29 CONTEXTO: Eres un organizador de eventos, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con los técnicos aquellos? - A un fotógrafo le mandaron a Valladolid, y a los demás no sé. - Mandaron a un fotógrafo a Valladolid, y a los demás no sé. CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - A un fotógrafo le mandaron a Valladolid. - Mandaron a un fotógrafo a Valladolid. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién mandaron a Valladolid? - A un fotógrafo le mandaron para allá. - Mandaron a un fotógrafo para allá. ITEM 30 CONTEXTO: Eres militar, y preguntas: ¿Qué pasó al final con los militares aquellos? - A un soldado le enviarion a Galicia, y a los demás no sé. - Enviarion a un soldado a Galicia, y a los demás no sé. CONTEXTO: ¿Qué ha pasado? - A un soldado le enviarion a Galicia. - Enviarion a un soldado a Galicia. CONTEXTO: ¿A quién enviarion a Galicia? - A un soldado le enviaron para allá. - Enviarion a un soldado para allá. ITEM 31 (F7) Oyes jaleo en la calle, y preguntas: ¿Qué ha pasado? - Le han robado el bolso a una mujer. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 232 ITEM 32 (F7) Estás en la carnicería y empiezas a oir una discusión, y preguntas: ¿Qué ha pasado? - Le han cobrado 1000 euros a ese tío. ITEM 33 (F7) Te pones a ver las noticias pero ya habían empezado, y preguntas: ¿Qué ha pasado? - Le han quitado el tour a ese ciclista. ITEM 34 (F7) Oyes una discusión en la universidad, y preguntas: ¿Qué ha pasado? - Le han suspendido siete asignaturas a una estudiante. ITEM 35 (F7) Oyes una discusión en la fábrica, y preguntas: ¿Qué ha pasado? - Le han enviado el finiquito a un trabajador. ITEM 36 (F7) Oyes gritos en la calle, y preguntas: ¿Qué ha pasado? - Le han robado un juguete a ese niño. ITEM 37 (F7) Llegas tarde a ver las noticias, y preguntas: ¿Qué ha pasado? - Le han dado el Nobel a un músico. ITEM 38 (F7) Cuando llegas ya habían empezado las noticias, y preguntas: ¿Qué ha pasado? - Le han robado el dinero a esa gente. ITEM 39 (F5) Tu jefe llevaba tiempo sin pagarle a unos compañeros, y preguntas: ¿Qué ha pasado? - Le han pagado a los empleados el sueldo. ITEM 40 (F5) Te has perdido una parte de una película por ir al baño, y preguntas: ¿Qué ha pasado? - Le han regalado a la chica una flor. ITEM 41 (F5) A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 233 Estabas despistado en clase hasta que oyes que hay jaleo, y preguntas: ¿Qué ha pasado? - Le han quitado al estudiante el móvil. ITEM 42 (F5) Siempre cotilleas con tu vecino de al lado, y preguntas: ¿Qué ha pasado? - Le han entregado al vecino un paquete. ITEM 43 (F5) Te has perdido una parte de una película por ir a por más palomitas, y preguntas: ¿Qué ha pasado? - Le han dado al mafioso el dinero. ITEM 44 (F5) Eres espía profesional pero te has despistado un segundo, y preguntas: ¿Qué ha pasado? - Le han llevado a la madre un café. ITEM 45 (F5) Ves que hay problemas en la carnicería, y preguntas: ¿Qué ha pasado? - Le han devuelto al tendero un paquete. ITEM 46 (F5) Eres cotilla profesional, y preguntas: ¿Qué ha pasado? - Le han entregado a esa mujer unos documentos. ITEM 47 (F3) Unos familiares han ido a Madrid, y preguntas: ¿Qué están haciendo? - Le están visitando al tío en Madrid. ITEM 48 (F3) Ves que hay un problema entre unas personas, y preguntas: ¿Qué están haciendo? - Le están mirando al hombre fijamente. ITEM 49 (F3) Ves a unos enfermeros con un señor, y preguntas: ¿Qué están haciendo? - Le están cuidando al señor muy bien. ITEM 50 (F3) Ves a un grupo de gente, y preguntas: A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 234 ¿Qué están haciendo? - Le están dibujando al modelo a la acuarela. ITEM 51 (F3) Ves que hay un incendio, y preguntas: ¿Qué están haciendo? - Le están sacando al hombre del incendio. ITEM 52 (F3) Crees que va a haber una pelea, y preguntas: ¿Qué están haciendo? - Le están mirando a ese tío muy malamente. ITEM 53 (F3) Ves a un grupo de policías, y preguntas: ¿Qué están haciendo? - Le están buscando al barrendero por la calle. ITEM 54 (F1) Tus amigos son enfermeros, y preguntas: ¿Qué están haciendo? - Le están cuidándole al señor por las mañanas. ITEM 55 (F1) Ves una interacción muy rara entre unas personas, y preguntas: ¿Qué están haciendo? - Le están soplándole al tipo en la cara. ITEM 56 (F1) Ves un grupo de gente y dinero de por medio, y preguntas: ¿Qué están haciendo? - Le están pagándole al cliente a tocateja. ITEM 57 (F1) Ves una ambulancia, y preguntas: ¿Qué están haciendo? - Le están preparándole al paciente rápido. ITEM 58 (F1) Ves a unos policías hablando con alguién, y preguntas: ¿Qué están haciendo? - Le están escuchándole al testigo cuidadosamente. ITEM 59 (F1) Ves a un corredor rodeado de mucha gente, y preguntas: ¿Qué están haciendo? A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 235 - Le están entrenándole al atleta con intensidad. ITEM 60 (F1) Ves a un grupo trabajando en una oficina, y preguntas: ¿Qué están haciendo? - Le están escribiéndole al abogado ahora mismo. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 236 Appendix 9 – Study 2: Data set participant item discourse syntax judgment 1 10 local CAN 7 1 30 wh CAN 7 1 21 wh CLLD 6 1 5 local CLLD 7 1 20 new CAN 7 1 14 new CLLD 2 1 29 wh CAN 7 1 11 new CLLD 3 1 3 local CLLD 3 1 18 new CAN 7 1 6 local CAN 7 1 24 wh CLLD 6 1 12 new CLLD 7 1 28 wh CAN 7 1 2 local CLLD 1 1 25 wh CLLD 1 1 16 new CAN 7 1 9 local CAN 7 1 8 local CAN 7 1 23 wh CLLD 2 1 13 new CLLD 1 1 26 wh CAN 3 1 1 local CLLD 7 1 19 new CAN 7 1 15 new CLLD 2 1 4 local CLLD 7 1 27 wh CAN 7 1 17 new CAN 7 1 7 local CAN 7 1 22 wh CLLD 1 2 10 local CAN 5 2 30 wh CAN 7 2 21 wh CLLD 5 2 5 local CLLD 7 2 20 new CAN 7 2 14 new CLLD 7 2 29 wh CAN 6 2 11 new CLLD 7 2 3 local CLLD 7 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 237 2 18 new CAN 3 2 6 local CAN 4 2 24 wh CLLD 6 2 12 new CLLD 7 2 28 wh CAN 7 2 2 local CLLD 7 2 25 wh CLLD 4 2 16 new CAN 7 2 9 local CAN 7 2 8 local CAN 7 2 23 wh CLLD 1 2 13 new CLLD 7 2 26 wh CAN 4 2 1 local CLLD 7 2 19 new CAN 7 2 15 new CLLD 7 2 4 local CLLD 7 2 27 wh CAN 7 2 17 new CAN 7 2 7 local CAN 7 2 22 wh CLLD 4 3 10 local CAN 3 3 30 wh CAN 6 3 21 wh CLLD 5 3 5 local CLLD 7 3 20 new CAN 7 3 14 new CLLD 6 3 29 wh CAN 3 3 11 new CLLD 7 3 3 local CLLD 3 3 18 new CAN 7 3 6 local CAN 4 3 24 wh CLLD 4 3 12 new CLLD 7 3 28 wh CAN 7 3 2 local CLLD 7 3 25 wh CLLD 1 3 16 new CAN 7 3 9 local CAN 5 3 8 local CAN 7 3 23 wh CLLD 5 3 13 new CLLD 7 3 26 wh CAN 7 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 238 3 1 local CLLD 5 3 19 new CAN 7 3 15 new CLLD 7 3 4 local CLLD 6 3 27 wh CAN 7 3 17 new CAN 4 3 7 local CAN 6 3 22 wh CLLD 5 4 10 local CAN 2 4 30 wh CAN 1 4 21 wh CLLD 7 4 5 local CLLD 7 4 20 new CAN 7 4 14 new CLLD 3 4 29 wh CAN 6 4 11 new CLLD 7 4 3 local CLLD 7 4 18 new CAN 7 4 6 local CAN 6 4 24 wh CLLD 5 4 12 new CLLD 7 4 28 wh CAN 1 4 2 local CLLD 7 4 25 wh CLLD 5 4 16 new CAN 6 4 9 local CAN 6 4 8 local CAN 7 4 23 wh CLLD 5 4 13 new CLLD 7 4 26 wh CAN 1 4 1 local CLLD 7 4 19 new CAN 1 4 15 new CLLD 6 4 4 local CLLD 7 4 27 wh CAN 1 4 17 new CAN 7 4 7 local CAN 7 4 22 wh CLLD 1 5 10 local CAN 7 5 30 wh CAN 7 5 21 wh CLLD 7 5 5 local CLLD 7 5 20 new CAN 7 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 239 5 14 new CLLD 1 5 29 wh CAN 7 5 11 new CLLD 6 5 3 local CLLD 5 5 18 new CAN 7 5 6 local CAN 7 5 24 wh CLLD 6 5 12 new CLLD 7 5 28 wh CAN 7 5 2 local CLLD 6 5 25 wh CLLD 1 5 16 new CAN 7 5 9 local CAN 7 5 8 local CAN 7 5 23 wh CLLD 1 5 13 new CLLD 1 5 26 wh CAN 1 5 1 local CLLD 1 5 19 new CAN 7 5 15 new CLLD 1 5 4 local CLLD 7 5 27 wh CAN 7 5 17 new CAN 7 5 7 local CAN 7 5 22 wh CLLD 1 6 10 local CAN 3 6 30 wh CAN 5 6 21 wh CLLD 4 6 5 local CLLD 6 6 20 new CAN 5 6 14 new CLLD 3 6 29 wh CAN 4 6 11 new CLLD 6 6 3 local CLLD 5 6 18 new CAN 4 6 6 local CAN 1 6 24 wh CLLD 3 6 12 new CLLD 4 6 28 wh CAN 4 6 2 local CLLD 5 6 25 wh CLLD 3 6 16 new CAN 5 6 9 local CAN 4 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 240 6 8 local CAN 5 6 23 wh CLLD 3 6 13 new CLLD 5 6 26 wh CAN 3 6 1 local CLLD 2 6 19 new CAN 4 6 15 new CLLD 5 6 4 local CLLD 3 6 27 wh CAN 4 6 17 new CAN 5 6 7 local CAN 3 6 22 wh CLLD 3 7 26 local CLLD 5 7 9 new CLLD 7 7 2 local CAN 5 7 15 new CAN 6 7 21 wh CAN 7 7 17 wh CLLD 5 7 28 local CLLD 7 7 4 local CAN 7 7 11 new CAN 7 7 25 wh CAN 6 7 19 wh CLLD 5 7 6 new CLLD 7 7 18 wh CLLD 6 7 30 local CLLD 7 7 23 wh CAN 5 7 1 local CAN 7 7 12 new CAN 7 7 10 new CLLD 7 7 7 new CLLD 7 7 5 local CAN 7 7 27 local CLLD 7 7 24 wh CAN 4 7 14 new CAN 6 7 20 wh CLLD 4 7 16 wh CLLD 4 7 13 new CAN 7 7 22 wh CAN 4 7 8 new CLLD 6 7 29 local CLLD 7 7 3 local CAN 7 8 26 local CLLD 7 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 241 8 9 new CLLD 4 8 2 local CAN 7 8 15 new CAN 7 8 21 wh CAN 7 8 17 wh CLLD 6 8 28 local CLLD 7 8 4 local CAN 2 8 11 new CAN 6 8 25 wh CAN 3 8 19 wh CLLD 6 8 6 new CLLD 5 8 18 wh CLLD 6 8 30 local CLLD 7 8 23 wh CAN 5 8 1 local CAN 1 8 12 new CAN 7 8 10 new CLLD 6 8 7 new CLLD 5 8 5 local CAN 7 8 27 local CLLD 7 8 24 wh CAN 7 8 14 new CAN 6 8 20 wh CLLD 1 8 16 wh CLLD 6 8 13 new CAN 7 8 22 wh CAN 6 8 8 new CLLD 3 8 29 local CLLD 7 8 3 local CAN 7 9 16 wh CAN 7 9 4 new CLLD 6 9 7 new CAN 7 9 24 local CLLD 6 9 13 wh CLLD 1 9 28 local CAN 6 9 9 new CAN 7 9 15 wh CLLD 1 9 30 local CAN 1 9 18 wh CAN 5 9 5 new CLLD 1 9 22 local CLLD 5 9 8 new CAN 7 9 26 local CAN 7 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 242 9 21 local CLLD 3 9 3 new CLLD 1 9 11 wh CLLD 1 9 19 wh CAN 4 9 10 new CAN 4 9 14 wh CLLD 3 9 29 local CAN 6 9 17 wh CAN 5 9 25 local CLLD 2 9 1 new CLLD 2 9 23 local CLLD 2 9 6 new CAN 7 9 2 new CLLD 5 9 27 local CAN 6 9 12 wh CLLD 3 9 20 wh CAN 7 10 16 wh CAN 1 10 4 new CLLD 7 10 7 new CAN 7 10 24 local CLLD 7 10 13 wh CLLD 7 10 28 local CAN 7 10 9 new CAN 7 10 15 wh CLLD 1 10 30 local CAN 7 10 18 wh CAN 7 10 5 new CLLD 1 10 22 local CLLD 7 10 8 new CAN 1 10 26 local CAN 7 10 21 local CLLD 7 10 3 new CLLD 1 10 11 wh CLLD 1 10 19 wh CAN 1 10 10 new CAN 7 10 14 wh CLLD 1 10 29 local CAN 7 10 17 wh CAN 1 10 25 local CLLD 1 10 1 new CLLD 4 10 23 local CLLD 7 10 6 new CAN 7 10 2 new CLLD 4 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 243 10 27 local CAN 7 10 12 wh CLLD 7 10 20 wh CAN 7 11 16 wh CAN 2 11 4 new CLLD 7 11 7 new CAN 2 11 24 local CLLD 1 11 13 wh CLLD 1 11 28 local CAN 7 11 9 new CAN 7 11 15 wh CLLD 1 11 30 local CAN 7 11 18 wh CAN 1 11 5 new CLLD 1 11 22 local CLLD 7 11 8 new CAN 7 11 26 local CAN 6 11 21 local CLLD 7 11 3 new CLLD 1 11 11 wh CLLD 1 11 19 wh CAN 1 11 10 new CAN 2 11 14 wh CLLD 1 11 29 local CAN 7 11 17 wh CAN 1 11 25 local CLLD 1 11 1 new CLLD 1 11 23 local CLLD 7 11 6 new CAN 1 11 2 new CLLD 7 11 27 local CAN 2 11 12 wh CLLD 1 11 20 wh CAN 1 12 16 wh CAN 6 12 4 new CLLD 6 12 7 new CAN 7 12 24 local CLLD 6 12 13 wh CLLD 5 12 28 local CAN 6 12 9 new CAN 6 12 15 wh CLLD 5 12 30 local CAN 7 12 18 wh CAN 5 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 244 12 5 new CLLD 2 12 22 local CLLD 6 12 8 new CAN 5 12 26 local CAN 7 12 21 local CLLD 6 12 3 new CLLD 5 12 11 wh CLLD 5 12 19 wh CAN 5 12 10 new CAN 4 12 14 wh CLLD 6 12 29 local CAN 6 12 17 wh CAN 7 12 25 local CLLD 6 12 1 new CLLD 5 12 23 local CLLD 6 12 6 new CAN 7 12 2 new CLLD 5 12 27 local CAN 6 12 12 wh CLLD 6 12 20 wh CAN 6 13 16 wh CAN 5 13 4 new CLLD 6 13 7 new CAN 6 13 24 local CLLD 7 13 13 wh CLLD 5 13 28 local CAN 7 13 9 new CAN 5 13 15 wh CLLD 4 13 30 local CAN 6 13 18 wh CAN 4 13 5 new CLLD 2 13 22 local CLLD 6 13 8 new CAN 6 13 26 local CAN 7 13 21 local CLLD 7 13 3 new CLLD 4 13 11 wh CLLD 2 13 19 wh CAN 4 13 10 new CAN 4 13 14 wh CLLD 4 13 29 local CAN 7 13 17 wh CAN 4 13 25 local CLLD 7 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 245 13 1 new CLLD 4 13 23 local CLLD 7 13 6 new CAN 5 13 2 new CLLD 7 13 27 local CAN 7 13 12 wh CLLD 6 13 20 wh CAN 4 14 16 wh CAN 5 14 4 new CLLD 6 14 7 new CAN 6 14 24 local CLLD 6 14 13 wh CLLD 4 14 28 local CAN 6 14 9 new CAN 6 14 15 wh CLLD 5 14 30 local CAN 6 14 18 wh CAN 6 14 5 new CLLD 2 14 22 local CLLD 6 14 8 new CAN 6 14 26 local CAN 6 14 21 local CLLD 6 14 3 new CLLD 6 14 11 wh CLLD 6 14 19 wh CAN 6 14 10 new CAN 6 14 14 wh CLLD 6 14 29 local CAN 6 14 17 wh CAN 6 14 25 local CLLD 3 14 1 new CLLD 2 14 23 local CLLD 3 14 6 new CAN 6 14 2 new CLLD 6 14 27 local CAN 6 14 12 wh CLLD 6 14 20 wh CAN 6 15 16 wh CAN 2 15 4 new CLLD 2 15 7 new CAN 6 15 24 local CLLD 7 15 13 wh CLLD 2 15 28 local CAN 6 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 246 15 9 new CAN 6 15 15 wh CLLD 2 15 30 local CAN 7 15 18 wh CAN 7 15 5 new CLLD 1 15 22 local CLLD 1 15 8 new CAN 7 15 26 local CAN 7 15 21 local CLLD 1 15 3 new CLLD 1 15 11 wh CLLD 1 15 19 wh CAN 1 15 10 new CAN 7 15 14 wh CLLD 1 15 29 local CAN 7 15 17 wh CAN 7 15 25 local CLLD 1 15 1 new CLLD 1 15 23 local CLLD 1 15 6 new CAN 7 15 2 new CLLD 1 15 27 local CAN 7 15 12 wh CLLD 1 15 20 wh CAN 7 16 11 wh CAN 5 16 24 local CAN 2 16 17 local CLLD 2 16 2 new CAN 7 16 27 new CLLD 6 16 6 wh CLLD 4 16 15 wh CAN 4 16 3 new CAN 6 16 29 new CLLD 7 16 23 local CAN 5 16 18 local CLLD 3 16 7 wh CLLD 1 16 28 new CLLD 6 16 1 new CAN 7 16 14 wh CAN 7 16 8 wh CLLD 3 16 16 local CLLD 4 16 22 local CAN 5 16 25 local CAN 1 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 247 16 30 new CLLD 7 16 4 new CAN 7 16 19 local CLLD 5 16 10 wh CLLD 2 16 13 wh CAN 4 16 9 wh CLLD 2 16 21 local CAN 6 16 5 new CAN 7 16 20 local CLLD 6 16 12 wh CAN 5 16 26 new CLLD 7 17 11 wh CAN 1 17 24 local CAN 3 17 17 local CLLD 3 17 2 new CAN 3 17 27 new CLLD 2 17 6 wh CLLD 2 17 15 wh CAN 6 17 3 new CAN 3 17 29 new CLLD 2 17 23 local CAN 3 17 18 local CLLD 4 17 7 wh CLLD 5 17 28 new CLLD 2 17 1 new CAN 7 17 14 wh CAN 7 17 8 wh CLLD 4 17 16 local CLLD 6 17 22 local CAN 4 17 25 local CAN 5 17 30 new CLLD 7 17 4 new CAN 7 17 19 local CLLD 7 17 10 wh CLLD 5 17 13 wh CAN 2 17 9 wh CLLD 6 17 21 local CAN 6 17 5 new CAN 7 17 20 local CLLD 6 17 12 wh CAN 6 17 26 new CLLD 7 18 11 wh CAN 3 18 24 local CAN 7 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 248 18 17 local CLLD 6 18 2 new CAN 7 18 27 new CLLD 7 18 6 wh CLLD 7 18 15 wh CAN 7 18 3 new CAN 7 18 29 new CLLD 7 18 23 local CAN 6 18 18 local CLLD 7 18 7 wh CLLD 6 18 28 new CLLD 7 18 1 new CAN 7 18 14 wh CAN 5 18 8 wh CLLD 5 18 16 local CLLD 7 18 22 local CAN 7 18 25 local CAN 1 18 30 new CLLD 7 18 4 new CAN 7 18 19 local CLLD 7 18 10 wh CLLD 1 18 13 wh CAN 1 18 9 wh CLLD 1 18 21 local CAN 6 18 5 new CAN 7 18 20 local CLLD 6 18 12 wh CAN 6 18 26 new CLLD 7 19 11 wh CAN 7 19 24 local CAN 7 19 17 local CLLD 5 19 2 new CAN 5 19 27 new CLLD 7 19 6 wh CLLD 1 19 15 wh CAN 7 19 3 new CAN 7 19 29 new CLLD 6 19 23 local CAN 6 19 18 local CLLD 7 19 7 wh CLLD 5 19 28 new CLLD 7 19 1 new CAN 7 19 14 wh CAN 7 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 249 19 8 wh CLLD 7 19 16 local CLLD 5 19 22 local CAN 5 19 25 local CAN 5 19 30 new CLLD 7 19 4 new CAN 7 19 19 local CLLD 7 19 10 wh CLLD 1 19 13 wh CAN 7 19 9 wh CLLD 1 19 21 local CAN 7 19 5 new CAN 7 19 20 local CLLD 7 19 12 wh CAN 7 19 26 new CLLD 5 20 19 local CAN 6 20 30 new CAN 7 20 3 wh CLLD 3 20 9 wh CAN 3 20 23 new CLLD 2 20 11 local CLLD 6 20 5 wh CLLD 2 20 29 new CAN 6 20 21 new CLLD 5 20 16 local CAN 6 20 8 wh CAN 4 20 14 local CLLD 3 20 17 local CAN 4 20 10 wh CAN 1 20 25 new CLLD 4 20 26 new CAN 6 20 12 local CLLD 4 20 2 wh CLLD 4 20 13 local CLLD 6 20 18 local CAN 6 20 28 new CAN 7 20 24 new CLLD 5 20 6 wh CAN 3 20 4 wh CLLD 6 20 1 wh CLLD 4 20 27 new CAN 5 20 7 wh CAN 3 20 22 new CLLD 7 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 250 20 15 local CLLD 6 20 20 local CAN 6 21 19 local CAN 7 21 30 new CAN 3 21 3 wh CLLD 1 21 9 wh CAN 2 21 23 new CLLD 4 21 11 local CLLD 3 21 5 wh CLLD 1 21 29 new CAN 2 21 21 new CLLD 2 21 16 local CAN 5 21 8 wh CAN 3 21 14 local CLLD 3 21 17 local CAN 3 21 10 wh CAN 3 21 25 new CLLD 1 21 26 new CAN 3 21 12 local CLLD 4 21 2 wh CLLD 2 21 13 local CLLD 4 21 18 local CAN 5 21 28 new CAN 2 21 24 new CLLD 3 21 6 wh CAN 2 21 4 wh CLLD 2 21 1 wh CLLD 2 21 27 new CAN 2 21 7 wh CAN 1 21 22 new CLLD 1 21 15 local CLLD 4 21 20 local CAN 4 22 19 local CAN 7 22 30 new CAN 7 22 3 wh CLLD 6 22 9 wh CAN 7 22 23 new CLLD 6 22 11 local CLLD 6 22 5 wh CLLD 1 22 29 new CAN 7 22 21 new CLLD 1 22 16 local CAN 7 22 8 wh CAN 6 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 251 22 14 local CLLD 6 22 17 local CAN 6 22 10 wh CAN 1 22 25 new CLLD 1 22 26 new CAN 7 22 12 local CLLD 6 22 2 wh CLLD 5 22 13 local CLLD 7 22 18 local CAN 7 22 28 new CAN 7 22 24 new CLLD 6 22 6 wh CAN 1 22 4 wh CLLD 1 22 1 wh CLLD 2 22 27 new CAN 7 22 7 wh CAN 1 22 22 new CLLD 4 22 15 local CLLD 5 22 20 local CAN 7 23 19 local CAN 3 23 30 new CAN 1 23 3 wh CLLD 1 23 9 wh CAN 4 23 23 new CLLD 4 23 11 local CLLD 6 23 5 wh CLLD 2 23 29 new CAN 6 23 21 new CLLD 6 23 16 local CAN 7 23 8 wh CAN 6 23 14 local CLLD 7 23 17 local CAN 7 23 10 wh CAN 6 23 25 new CLLD 6 23 26 new CAN 7 23 12 local CLLD 7 23 2 wh CLLD 7 23 13 local CLLD 7 23 18 local CAN 7 23 28 new CAN 7 23 24 new CLLD 6 23 6 wh CAN 4 23 4 wh CLLD 7 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 252 23 1 wh CLLD 7 23 27 new CAN 7 23 7 wh CAN 6 23 22 new CLLD 6 23 15 local CLLD 7 23 20 local CAN 7 24 11 local CAN 7 24 26 wh CLLD 1 24 17 new CLLD 7 24 4 wh CAN 1 24 25 new CAN 1 24 10 local CLLD 7 24 5 wh CAN 1 24 12 local CAN 1 24 29 wh CLLD 7 24 21 new CAN 7 24 19 new CLLD 7 24 6 local CLLD 7 24 30 wh CLLD 1 24 1 wh CAN 7 24 7 local CLLD 7 24 16 new CLLD 7 24 15 local CAN 7 24 24 new CAN 1 24 9 local CLLD 7 24 14 local CAN 7 24 23 new CAN 7 24 28 wh CLLD 1 24 20 new CLLD 7 24 3 wh CAN 7 24 13 local CAN 7 24 18 new CLLD 7 24 8 local CLLD 7 24 27 wh CLLD 1 24 2 wh CAN 1 24 22 new CAN 7 25 11 local CAN 7 25 26 wh CLLD 6 25 17 new CLLD 6 25 4 wh CAN 5 25 25 new CAN 5 25 10 local CLLD 6 25 5 wh CAN 5 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 253 25 12 local CAN 7 25 29 wh CLLD 2 25 21 new CAN 7 25 19 new CLLD 7 25 6 local CLLD 5 25 30 wh CLLD 5 25 1 wh CAN 6 25 7 local CLLD 7 25 16 new CLLD 7 25 15 local CAN 7 25 24 new CAN 7 25 9 local CLLD 7 25 14 local CAN 7 25 23 new CAN 7 25 28 wh CLLD 4 25 20 new CLLD 4 25 3 wh CAN 6 25 13 local CAN 7 25 18 new CLLD 7 25 8 local CLLD 7 25 27 wh CLLD 5 25 2 wh CAN 5 25 22 new CAN 7 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 254 Appendix 10 - Study 2: R output > install.packages("afex") > install.packages("lmerTest") > install.packages("emmeans") > install.packages("r2glmm") > install.packages("pivottabler") > install.packages("ggplot2") > library(afex) > library(lmerTest) > library(emmeans) > library(r2glmm) > library(pivottabler) > library(ggplot2) > DissAJTdata <- read.csv(file.choose(),header=T) > head(DissAJTdata) participant item discourse syntax judgment 1 1 10 local CAN 7 2 1 30 wh CAN 7 3 1 21 wh CLLD 6 4 1 5 local CLLD 7 5 1 20 new CAN 7 6 1 14 new CLLD 2 > qhpvt(DissAJTdata,"discourse",c("syntax"),"n()") > attach(DissAJTdata) > DissAJTmodelMAX = lmer(judgment ~ discourse*syntax + (discourse*syntax|ite m) + (discourse*syntax|participant), data=DissAJTdata,REML=FALSE) boundary (singular) fit: see ?isSingular > summary(DissAJTmodelMAX) Linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood . t-tests use Satterthwaite's m ethod [lmerModLmerTest] Formula: judgment ~ discourse * syntax + (discourse * syntax | item) + (discourse * syntax | participant) Data: DissAJTdata AIC BIC logLik deviance df.resid 3077.2 3303.6 -1489.6 2979.2 701 Scaled residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -3.3231 -0.4454 0.1444 0.5794 2.4963 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 255 Random effects: Groups Name Variance Std.Dev. Corr item (Intercept) 0.34944 0.5911 discoursenew 0.09089 0.3015 -0.98 discoursewh 0.86178 0.9283 -0.47 0.46 syntaxCLLD 0.09113 0.3019 -0.51 0.45 -0.49 discoursenew:syntaxCLLD 0.69322 0.8326 -0.54 0.37 -0.04 0. 72 discoursewh:syntaxCLLD 0.69480 0.8335 0.17 -0.33 -0.55 0. 54 0.73 participant (Intercept) 0.60216 0.7760 discoursenew 0.59360 0.7705 -0.38 discoursewh 1.79427 1.3395 -0.35 0.95 syntaxCLLD 1.22882 1.1085 -0.36 0.24 0.16 discoursenew:syntaxCLLD 0.35069 0.5922 -0.49 -0.14 -0.29 0. 42 discoursewh:syntaxCLLD 1.01390 1.0069 0.29 -0.90 -0.85 -0. 36 -0.12 Residual 2.31699 1.5222 Number of obs: 750, groups: item, 30; participant, 25 Fixed effects: Estimate Std. Error df t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 5.7986 0.2359 31.1574 24.582 < 2e-16 *** discoursenew 0.1153 0.2548 28.4602 0.453 0.65422 discoursewh -1.1712 0.3761 28.0418 -3.114 0.00422 ** syntaxCLLD -0.2339 0.3049 28.6780 -0.767 0.44931 discoursenew:syntaxCLLD -0.8285 0.3418 46.9842 -2.424 0.01926 * discoursewh:syntaxCLLD -0.8433 0.3823 31.3787 -2.206 0.03485 * --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 Correlation of Fixed Effects: (Intr) dscrsn dscrsw syCLLD dscrsn:CLLD discoursenw -0.573 discoursewh -0.483 0.659 syntaxCLLD -0.499 0.382 0.224 dscrsn:CLLD 0.034 -0.437 -0.231 -0.222 dscrsw:CLLD 0.352 -0.516 -0.708 -0.445 0.408 convergence code: 0 boundary (singular) fit: see ?isSingular > mixed(DissAJTmodelMAX,DissAJTdata) Formula (the first argument) converted to formula. Fitting one lmer() model. boundary (singular) fit: see ?isSingular [DONE] Calculating p-values. [DONE] Mixed Model Anova Table (Type 3 tests, KR-method) Model: judgment ~ discourse * syntax + (discourse * syntax | item) + Model: (discourse * syntax | participant) Data: DissAJTdata Effect df F p.value 1 discourse 2, 26.99 17.79 *** <.0001 2 syntax 1, 32.97 7.14 * .01 3 discourse:syntax 2, 18.22 3.45 + .05 --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘+’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 Warning message: lme4 reported (at least) the following warnings for 'full': * boundary (singular) fit: see ?isSingular > tapply(judgment,discourse,mean) local new wh 5.660 5.352 4.060 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 256 > tapply(judgment, syntax,mean) CAN CLLD 5.432 4.616 > emmeans(DissAJTmodelMAX,list(pairwise~discourse*syntax),adjust="tukey") boundary (singular) fit: see ?isSingular $`emmeans of discourse, syntax` discourse syntax emmean SE df lower.CL upper.CL local CAN 5.80 0.242 28.5 5.30 6.29 new CAN 5.91 0.235 25.7 5.43 6.40 wh CAN 4.63 0.343 33.9 3.93 5.32 local CLLD 5.56 0.284 28.5 4.98 6.15 new CLLD 4.85 0.373 34.1 4.09 5.61 wh CLLD 3.55 0.302 33.1 2.94 4.16 Degrees-of-freedom method: kenward-roger Confidence level used: 0.95 $`pairwise differences of discourse, syntax` contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value local,CAN - new,CAN -0.115 0.265 20.4 -0.434 0.9977 local,CAN - wh,CAN 1.171 0.387 30.0 3.023 0.0522 local,CAN - local,CLLD 0.234 0.314 23.1 0.744 0.9740 local,CAN - new,CLLD 0.947 0.473 35.5 2.001 0.3622 local,CAN - wh,CLLD 2.248 0.364 30.1 6.170 <.0001 new,CAN - wh,CAN 1.287 0.295 25.8 4.354 0.0023 new,CAN - local,CLLD 0.349 0.324 23.9 1.079 0.8849 new,CAN - new,CLLD 1.062 0.413 32.2 2.571 0.1339 new,CAN - wh,CLLD 2.364 0.334 29.1 7.073 <.0001 wh,CAN - local,CLLD -0.937 0.438 33.1 -2.138 0.2936 wh,CAN - new,CLLD -0.224 0.494 37.5 -0.454 0.9974 wh,CAN - wh,CLLD 1.077 0.380 31.6 2.838 0.0771 local,CLLD - new,CLLD 0.713 0.334 27.2 2.137 0.2991 local,CLLD - wh,CLLD 2.015 0.298 24.4 6.752 <.0001 new,CLLD - wh,CLLD 1.301 0.352 27.2 3.692 0.0114 Degrees-of-freedom method: kenward-roger P value adjustment: tukey method for comparing a family of 6 estimates > r2beta(DissAJTmodelMAX,method="nsj") Effect Rsq upper.CL lower.CL 1 Model 0.143 0.194 0.105 3 discoursewh 0.028 0.055 0.009 6 discoursewh:syntaxCLLD 0.007 0.024 0.000 5 discoursenew:syntaxCLLD 0.007 0.024 0.000 4 syntaxCLLD 0.001 0.011 0.000 2 discoursenew 0.000 0.008 0.000 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 257 Appendix 11 – Study 2: Effect size calculations M1 SD1 M2 SD2 SDpooled Hedges' g Interpretatio n BETWEEN CLLDs local - new CLLD 5.56 3.175 4.85 4.17 1.916 0.370 Small 0 local - wh CLLD 5.56 3.175 3.55 3.37 1.809 1.110 Large 6 new - wh CLLD 4.85 4.170 3.55 3.37 1.942 0.669 Medium 6 WITHIN CONDITION local CAN - CLLD 5.8 2.705 5.56 3.17 1.714 0.135 Very small 5 new CAN - CLLD 5.91 2.627 4.85 4.17 1.843 0.574 Medium 0 Wh CAN - CLLD 4.63 3.834 3.55 3.37 1.898 0.568 Medium 6 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 258 Appendix 12 - Study 2: Individual variation M SD M (dif) 95%C.I. Participant 1 Local CAN 7 0 2 0.457192378 3.542807622 CLLD 5 3.098 New CAN 7 0 4 2.595075063 5.404924937 CLLD 3 2.569 Wh CAN 6.2 1.959 3 1.080800667 4.919199333 CLLD 3.2 2.835 M SD M (dif) 95%C.I. Participant 2 Local CAN 6 1.549 -1 -2.09092973 0.090929732 CLLD 7 0 New CAN 6.2 1.959 -0.8 -2.02684102 0.426841017 CLLD 7 0 Wh CAN 6.2 1.428 2.2 0.56554332 3.83445668 CLLD 4 2.049 M SD M (dif) 95%C.I. Participant 3 Local CAN 5 1.732 -0.6 -2.25501082 1.055010816 CLLD 5.6 1.833 New CAN 6.4 1.469 -0.4 -1.62652785 0.826527847 CLLD 6.8 0.489 Wh CAN 6 1.897 2 0.292661112 3.707338888 CLLD 4 1.897 M SD M (dif) 95%C.I. Participant 4 Local CAN 5.6 2.271 -1.4 -2.72092949 -0.079070509 CLLD 7 0 New CAN 5.6 2.856 -0.4 -2.31097487 1.510974872 CLLD 6 1.897 Wh CAN 2 2.449 -2.6 -4.53017711 -0.669822889 CLLD 4.6 2.4 M SD M (dif) 95%C.I. Participant 5 Local CAN 7 0 1.8 0.352516446 3.247483554 CLLD 5.2 2.727 New CAN 7 0 3.8 2.202389584 5.397610416 CLLD 3.2 3.322 Wh CAN 5.8 2.939 2.6 0.406725845 4.793274155 CLLD 3.2 3.322 M SD M (dif) 95%C.I. Participant 6 Local CAN 3.2 1.624 -1 -2.62195181 0.621951812 CLLD 4.2 1.8 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 259 New CAN 4.6 0.6 0 -1.19157684 1.191576838 CLLD 4.6 1.248 Wh CAN 4 0.774 0.8 -0.18508282 1.785082819 CLLD 3.2 0.489 M SD M (dif) 95%C.I. Participant 7 Local CAN 6.6 0.979 0 -1.22652785 1.226527847 CLLD 6.6 0.979 New CAN 6.6 0.6 -0.2 -1.11471333 0.714713332 CLLD 6.8 0.489 Wh CAN 5.2 1.428 0.4 -0.94199183 1.741991833 CLLD 4.8 0.916 M SD M (dif) 95%C.I. Participant 8 Local CAN 4.8 3.322 -2.2 -3.79761042 -0.602389584 CLLD 7 0 New CAN 6.6 0.6 2 0.80810081 3.19189919 CLLD 4.6 1.249 Wh CAN 5.6 1.833 0.6 -1.2138209 2.413820895 CLLD 5 2.449 M SD M (dif) 95%C.I. Participant 9 Local CAN 5.2 2.615 1.6 -0.28078316 3.480783156 CLLD 3.6 1.989 New CAN 6.4 1.469 3.4 1.638615272 5.161384728 CLLD 3 2.569 Wh CAN 5.6 1.469 3.8 2.367992291 5.232007709 CLLD 1.8 1.2 M SD M (dif) 95%C.I. Participant 10 Local CAN 7 0 1.2 -0.30269507 2.702695072 CLLD 5.8 2.939 New CAN 5.8 2.939 2.4 0.309496673 4.490503327 CLLD 3.4 2.749 Wh CAN 3.4 3.6 0 -2.352 2.352 CLLD 3.4 3.6 M SD M (dif) 95%C.I. Participant 11 Local CAN 5.8 2.374 1.2 -0.94241538 3.342415385 CLLD 4.6 3.6 New CAN 3.8 3.231 0.4 -1.89093735 2.690937345 CLLD 3.4 3.6 Wh CAN 1.2 0.489 0.2 -0.41295063 0.812950634 CLLD 1 0 M SD M (dif) 95%C.I. Participant 12 Local CAN 6.4 0.6 0.4 -0.27896392 1.078963917 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 260 CLLD 6 0 New CAN 5.8 1.428 1.2 -0.34056499 2.740564987 CLLD 4.6 1.661 Wh CAN 5.8 0.916 0.4 -0.67924655 1.479246552 CLLD 5.4 0.6 M SD M (dif) 95%C.I. Participant 13 Local CAN 6.8 0.489 0 -0.8668431 0.8668431 CLLD 6.8 0.489 New CAN 5.2 0.916 0.6 -0.93105987 2.131059868 CLLD 4.6 2.135 Wh CAN 4.2 0.489 0 -1.27415076 1.27415076 CLLD 4.2 1.624 M SD M (dif) 95%C.I. Participant 14 Local CAN 6 0 1.2 0.024 2.376 CLLD 4.8 1.8 New CAN 6 0 1.6 0.242072167 2.957927833 CLLD 4.4 2.4 Wh CAN 5.8 0.489 0.4 -0.66202343 1.462023427 CLLD 5.4 0.979 M SD M (dif) 95%C.I. Participant 15 Local CAN 6.8 0.489 4.6 2.977101063 6.222898937 CLLD 2.2 2.939 New CAN 6.6 0.6 5.4 4.485286668 6.314713332 CLLD 1.2 0.489 Wh CAN 4.8 3.322 3.4 1.664099358 5.135900642 CLLD 1.4 0.6 M SD M (dif) 95%C.I. Participant 16 Local CAN 3.8 2.374 -0.2 -1.97615369 1.576153687 CLLD 4 1.732 New CAN 6.8 0.489 0.2 -0.71471333 1.114713332 CLLD 6.6 0.6 Wh CAN 5 1.341 2.6 1.189616903 4.010383097 CLLD 2.4 1.248 M SD M (dif) 95%C.I. Participant 17 Local CAN 4.2 1.428 -1 -2.57484506 0.574845059 CLLD 5.2 1.8 New CAN 5.4 2.4 1.4 -0.63689175 3.43689175 CLLD 4 3 Wh CAN 4.4 2.959 0 -1.88404841 1.884048407 CLLD 4.4 1.661 M SD M (dif) 95%C.I. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 261 Participant 18 Local CAN 5.4 2.749 -1.2 -2.80408967 0.404089673 CLLD 6.6 0.6 New CAN 7 0 0 0 0 CLLD 7 0 Wh CAN 4.4 2.638 0.4 -1.69930549 2.499305485 CLLD 4 3.098 M SD M (dif) 95%C.I. Participant 19 Local CAN 6 1.095 -0.2 -1.52789096 1.127890959 CLLD 6.2 1.2 New CAN 6.6 0.979 0.2 -1.02652785 1.426527847 CLLD 6.4 0.979 Wh CAN 7 0 4 2.457192378 5.542807622 CLLD 3 3.098 M SD M (dif) 95%C.I. Participant 20 Local CAN 5.6 0.979 0.6 -0.79366888 1.993668885 CLLD 5 1.549 New CAN 6.2 0.916 1.6 0.106022222 3.093977778 CLLD 4.6 1.989 Wh CAN 2.8 1.2 -1 -2.47300227 0.473002267 CLLD 3.8 1.624 M SD M (dif) 95%C.I. Participant 21 Local CAN 4.8 1.624 1.2 -0.10718923 2.507189229 CLLD 3.6 0.6 New CAN 2.4 0.6 0.2 -1.04825997 1.448259973 CLLD 2.2 1.428 Wh CAN 2.2 0.916 0.6 -0.47924655 1.679246552 CLLD 1.6 0.6 M SD M (dif) 95%C.I. Participant 22 Local CAN 6.8 0.489 0.8 -0.18508282 1.785082819 CLLD 6 0.774 New CAN 7 0 3.4 1.946689407 4.853310593 CLLD 3.6 2.749 Wh CAN 3.2 3.322 0.2 -1.92748046 2.327480463 CLLD 3 2.569 M SD M (dif) 95%C.I. Participant 23 Local CAN 6.2 1.959 -0.6 -1.97143989 0.771439886 CLLD 6.8 0.489 New CAN 5.6 2.856 0 -1.71653931 1.716539309 CLLD 5.6 0.979 Wh CAN 5.2 1.2 0.4 -1.46395897 2.26395897 CLLD 4.8 3.322 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 262 M SD M (dif) 95%C.I. Participant 24 Local CAN 5.8 2.939 -1.2 -2.70269507 0.302695072 CLLD 7 0 New CAN 4.6 3.6 -2.4 -4.06311515 -0.736884851 CLLD 7 0 Wh CAN 3.4 3.6 1.2 -1.04143804 3.441438038 CLLD 2.2 2.939 M SD M (dif) 95%C.I. Participant 25 Local CAN 7 0 0.6 -0.26728616 1.467286158 CLLD 6.4 0.979 New CAN 6.6 0.979 0.4 -0.9599067 1.759906703 CLLD 6.2 1.428 Wh CAN 5.4 0.6 1 -0.31801803 2.318018027 CLLD 4.4 1.661 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 263 Appendix 13 - Study 3: Background questionnaire HISTORIAL DEL PARTICIPANTE ______Nombre Apellidos ______Edad Género ______Lugar de Nacimiento/Infancia Lugar de Residencia Años en Lugar de Residencia ______Nivel Educativo ¿Hablas castellano? Sí No ¿Desde qué edad? ______ ¿Hablas otras lenguas? Sí** No* *NOTA 1: Si no hablas otras lenguas, para aquí. ---- **NOTA 2: Si hablas otras lenguas, continúa. Ordena las lenguas de la que mejor hablas hasta la que peor hablas. LENGUA 2: ______ LENGUA 3: ______ LENGUA 4: ______ Continúa en las siguientes páginas... A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 264 Historial Lingüístico: Responda con un número. Deje el espacio en blanco para las lenguas que no habla. 1. ¿A qué edad empezó a aprender las siguientes lenguas? L2: _____ L3: _____ L4: _____ 2. ¿A qué edad empezó a sentirse cómodo usando las siguientes lenguas? L2: _____ L3: _____ L4: _____ 3. Cuántos años de clases (gramática, historia, matemáticas, etc.) ha tenido en las siguientes lenguas (desde la escuela primaria a la universidad)? L2: _____ L3: _____ L4: _____ 4. ¿Cuántos años ha pasado en un país/región donde se hablan las siguientes lenguas? L2: _____ L3: _____ L4: _____ 5. ¿Cuántos años ha pasado en familia hablando las siguientes lenguas? L2: _____ L3: _____ L4: _____ 6. ¿Cuántos años ha pasado en un ambiente de trabajo donde se hablan las siguientes lenguas? L2: _____ L3: _____ L4: _____ Uso de Lenguas: Responda con un porcentaje; asumimos que el resto hasta 100% sería castellano. Deje el espacio en blanco para las lenguas que no habla. En una semana normal, ¿qué porcentaje del tiempo usa las siguientes lenguas... 7. ...con sus amigos? L2: _____ A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 265 L3: _____ L4: _____ 8. ...con su familia? L2: _____ L3: _____ L4: _____ 9. ...en la escuela/el trabajo? L2: _____ L3: _____ L4: _____ 10. Cuándo se habla a usted mismo, ¿con qué frecuencia se habla a sí mismo en las siguientes lenguas? L2: _____ L3: _____ L4: _____ 11. Cuándo hace cálculos contando, ¿con qué frecuencia cuenta en las siguientes lenguas? L2: _____ L3: _____ L4: _____ Competencia Lingüística: De 0 (muy mal) a 6 (muy bien), indique tu nivel en cada lengua. Deje el espacio en blanco para las lenguas que no hablas. 12. ¿Cómo hablas en las siguientes lenguas? L2: _____ L3: _____ L4: _____ 13. ¿Cómo entiendes en las siguientes lenguas? L2: _____ L3: _____ L4: _____ 14. ¿Cómo lees en las siguientes lenguas? L2: _____ L3: _____ A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 266 L4: _____ 15. ¿Cómo escribes en las siguientes lenguas? L2: _____ L3: _____ L4: _____ Actitudes Lingüísticas: Marque con una x donde corresponda. Si la respuesta es “no” o si no habla alguna de las lenguas, deje el espacio en blanco. 16. Me siento "yo mismo" cuando hablo en las siguientes lenguas: CASTELLANO: ______L2: _____ L3: _____ L4: _____ 17. Yo me identifico con las siguientes culturas: CASTELLANO: ______L2: _____ L3: _____ L4: _____ 18.Es importante para mi usar (o llegar a usar) las siguientes lenguas como un hablante nativo: CASTELLANO: ______L2: _____ L3: _____ L4: _____ 19. Quiero que los demás piensen que soy un hablante nativo de las siguientes lenguas: CASTELLANO: ______L2: _____ L3: _____ L4: _____ A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 267 Appendix 14 - Study 3: Participants Session ID Age Gender Education % Life in Spain 1 Group M = 37.75 Female = 6 Graduate School = 1 M = 99.00% (SD = 16.66) Male = 6 Undergraduate = 6 (SD = 0.02%) [18 – 62] High School = 5 [95.4% - 100%] 01 28 Female Graduate School 100% 02 18 Female High School 100% 03 55 Female High School 100% 04 22 Male College 95.45% 05 28 Male College 96.43% 06 62 Male High School 100% 07 58 Female College 100% 08 35 Male College 100% 09 43 Female College 100% 10 28 Male College 100% 11 18 Male High School 100% 12 58 Female High School 100% 2 Group M = 41.20 Female = 4 Graduate school = 0 M = 100% (SD = 17.23) Male = 6 Undergraduate = 0 (SD = 0.00%) [18-68] High school = 10 [100%-100%] 01 66 M High school 100% 02 30 M High school 100% 03 19 F High school 100% 04 32 M High school 100% 05 45 F High school 100% 06 18 F High school 100% 07 46 M High school 100% 08 44 M High school 100% 09 68 M High school 100% 10 44 F High school 100% A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 268 Appendix 15 - Study 3: Stimuli Instrucciones ¡Muchas gracias por participar en este experimento! Vamos a ensayar diálogos para una obra de teatro. El objetivo es conseguir que los diálogos suenen de la manera más natural posible. Primero, lee en silencio el contexto, y las dos líneas de diálogo de dos personajes. Asegúrate que lo entiendes todo. Segundo, avisa al investigador. Él/ella dirá el número de diálogo en voz alta. Y entonces... Tercero, lee las líneas de ambos personajes en voz alta. NO LEAS EL CONTEXTO. Diálogos de Práctica DIÁLOGO DE PRÁCTICA 1. CONTEXTO: Ana es una fanática de Los del Río. • ¿Qué hace Ana en su tiempo libre? • Ana escucha mucha música de Los del Río. DIÁLOGO DE PRÁCTICA 2. CONTEXTO: Carmen come todos los días en Casa Pepe. • ¿En qué restaurante come Carmen normalmente? • Carmen siempre va a Casa Pepe. ¡Será maniática la tía! DIÁLOGO DE PRÁCTICA 3. CONTEXTO: José va a la sierra cada verano. • ¿Dónde va José de vacaciones? • José se pasa el verano entero en la sierra. Condition 1: Contrastive-FF (for session 1; canonical counterparts in session 2) DIÁLOGO 1. CONTEXTO: María y Bárbara están cantando, y te encanta como canta Bárbara. Quieres corregir a tu amigo. • Te quedas embelesado cuando canta María, macho. • ¡No! ¡A Bárbara escucho, no a María! DIÁLOGO 2. CONTEXTO: Siempre andas buscando a José por la oficina, pero hoy buscas a Águeda. Quieres corregir a tu amigo. • Si buscas a José, hoy no está. • ¡No! ¡A Águeda busco, no a José! A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 269 DIÁLOGO 3. CONTEXTO: Haces de niñero de tu sobrino Álvaro de vez en cuando, pero nunca de Isabel. Quieres corregir a tu amigo. • ¿Ya te han confirmado si cuidas a Isabel? • ¡No! ¡A Álvaro cuido, no a Isabel! DIÁLOGO 4. CONTEXTO: Eres el entrenador de boxeo de Rómulo, pero no de Juan. Quieres corregir a tu amigo. • ¿Cómo va Juan con el boxeo? • ¡No! ¡A Rómulo entreno, no a Juan! Condition 2: Contrastive-CLLD (for session 1; canonical counterparts in session 2) DIÁLOGO 5. CONTEXTO: Tienes felicitaciones pendientes para Álvaro y Ana. • ¿Por qué felicitas a esos dos? • A Álvaro le felicito por su boda, y a Ana por su cumpleaños. DIÁLOGO 6. CONTEXTO: Tu amigo va a conocer a Águeda y a Manuel, y quiere prepararse para las presentaciones. • ¿Como te saludas con tus amigos normalmente? • A Águeda la beso en la mejilla, y a Manuel le doy la mano. DIÁLOGO 7. CONTEXTO: Eres un detective y estás investigando a dos sospechosos; Rómulo y Carmen. • Ascensorista, ¿a qué piso sube a esos dos normalmente? • A Rómulo le subo al tercero, y a Carmen al quinto. DIÁLOGO 8. CONTEXTO: Te has quedado mirando a Bárbara y a Antonio, y un amigo tuyo se ha dado cuenta. • ¿Qué andas mirando a esos dos? • A Bárbara la miro los ojos, y a Antonio esas orejotas. Condition 3: Familiar-CLLD (for session 1; canonical counterparts in session 2) DIÁLOGO 9. CONTEXTO: Un amigo te pregunta sobre tu prima Águeda. • ¿Cuándo ves a Águeda? • A Águeda la veo los fines de semana. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 270 DIÁLOGO 10. CONTEXTO: Tu amigo y tú necesitáis ayuda de un tal Álvaro. • ¿Cómo vas a convencer a Álvaro? • A Álvaro le manipulo cuando quiera. DIÁLOGO 11. CONTEXTO: Te encanta la gata Bárbara, que es de tu primo. • ¿Por qué eres tan sobón con Bárbara? • A Bárbara la acaricio porque es muy bonita. DIÁLOGO 12. CONTEXTO: Rómulo es el nuevo en la empresa, y le preguntas a tu jefe: • Jefe, ¿dónde ponemos a Rómulo? • A Rómulo le necesito en la máquina. Fillers: Broad Focus (for both sessions) DIÁLOGO 13. CONTEXTO: A Bárbara le gusta la música. • ¿Qué le gusta a tu amiga Bárbara? • Bárbara es una fanática de la música. DIÁLOGO 14. CONTEXTO: Águeda se aburre en el trabajo. • ¿Cómo le va a Águeda en el trabajo? • Águeda está muy aburrida, la verdad. DIÁLOGO 15. CONTEXTO: Álvaro es un fanático de los coches. • ¿Qué le gusta a tu amigo Álvaro? • Álvaro está obsesionado con los coches. DIÁLOGO 16. CONTEXTO: Rómulo está embobado con su hijo. • ¿Cómo le va la vida a Rómulo? • Rómulo está embobado con su bebé. DIÁLOGO 17. CONTEXTO: A Álvaro le encanta jugar al fútbol. • ¿Qué hace Álvaro en su tiempo libre? • Álvaro anda siempre jugando al fútbol. DIÁLOGO 18. CONTEXTO: Tu amigo y tú tenéis dudas sobre Águeda, a quien acabáis de conocer. • ¿Qué piensas de Águeda? A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 271 • Águeda me mal rollo, la verdad. DIÁLOGO 19. CONTEXTO: Rómulo está interesado en la política. • ¿Qué sabes de Rómulo? • Rómulo anda siempre hablando de política, por lo visto. DIÁLOGO 20. CONTEXTO: Tu amigo te pide opinión sobre su nueva novia, Bárbara. • ¿Qué piensas de Bárbara? • Bárbara es un poco imbécil, si quieres que te diga la verdad. DIÁLOGO 21. CONTEXTO: Tu amigo te pregunta sobre Águeda. • ¿Qué le pasa a Águeda? • Águeda se ha quemado en la playa. DIÁLOGO 22. CONTEXTO: Álvaro está de visita por Madrid por primera vez. • ¿Qué piensa Álvaro de la ciudad? • Álvaro está encantado de haber venido. DIÁLOGO 23. CONTEXTO: Bárbara tiene trabajo ahora, pero con un contrato temporal. • ¿Cuándo termina el contrato de Bárbara? • Bárbara va a estar con nosotros otros dos meses más. DIÁLOGO 24. CONTEXTO: Rómulo está a punto de conseguir un ascenso. • ¿Cuándo le van a dar el ascenso a Rómulo? • Rómulo va a ser ascendido en un par de semanas. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 272 Appendix 16 - Study 3: Data set SESSION 1 Participant Item Discourse Syntax Pitch Boundary RangeSyllable 1 7 Contrastive CLLD 0 1 3.490023858 1 9 Given CLLD 1 1 2.084149843 1 3 Contrastive FF 1 0 4.298514433 1 4 Contrastive FF 1 0 3.352860539 1 6 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 2.756603597 1 10 Given CLLD 1 1 3.686618943 1 2 Contrastive FF 1 0 5.177444858 1 5 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 1.759059005 1 12 Given CLLD 1 1 3.206459438 1 11 Given CLLD 1 1 4.697689658 1 1 Contrastive FF 1 0 4.647838724 1 8 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 3.103751643 2 8 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 4.175713332 2 1 Contrastive FF 1 0 3.599242219 2 11 Given CLLD 0 1 0.218211282 2 12 Given CLLD 0 1 0.244036177 2 5 Contrastive CLLD 0 1 1.345335317 2 2 Contrastive FF 1 0 5.912652643 2 10 Given CLLD 0 1 1.76743886 2 6 Contrastive CLLD 0 1 0.228394459 2 4 Contrastive FF 0 0 0.303960974 2 3 Contrastive FF 0 0 2.200471983 2 9 Given CLLD 0 1 0.094509587 2 7 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 3.420249524 3 9 Given CLLD 1 1 1.975048865 3 5 Contrastive CLLD 1 0 3.443378936 3 3 Contrastive FF 1 1 2.427658532 3 10 Given CLLD 1 1 2.481471918 3 1 Contrastive FF 1 1 3.359551007 3 7 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 3.719411954 3 2 Contrastive FF 1 0 3.647136935 3 12 Given CLLD 1 1 5.92149476 3 6 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 2.058775822 3 8 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 4.564820502 3 4 Contrastive FF 0 0 6.530336171 3 11 Given CLLD 1 1 0 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 273 4 11 Given CLLD 1 1 1.890679806 4 4 Contrastive FF 1 0 8.935313839 4 8 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 5.431072409 4 6 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 3.808802221 4 12 Given CLLD 1 1 5.184653457 4 2 Contrastive FF 1 0 6.686916477 4 7 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 9.134104186 4 1 Contrastive FF 1 0 5.817604282 4 10 Given CLLD 0 1 0 4 3 Contrastive FF 1 0 6.39849799 4 5 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 5.318648185 4 9 Given CLLD 1 1 2.323705635 5 12 Given CLLD 1 1 2.861909241 5 7 Contrastive CLLD 1 0 4.941681767 5 1 Contrastive FF 0 0 3.657729133 5 5 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 0.532271551 5 3 Contrastive FF 0 0 3.333447042 5 9 Given CLLD 0 1 1.186654708 5 10 Given CLLD 0 0 0.155941038 5 4 Contrastive FF 1 0 5.663303516 5 8 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 4.900254846 5 6 Contrastive CLLD 0 1 2.768551701 5 11 Given CLLD 1 1 3.316713787 5 2 Contrastive FF 1 0 3.507636812 6 2 Contrastive FF 0 0 3.885577804 6 11 Given CLLD 1 1 3.501231492 6 6 Contrastive CLLD 0 1 1.356649556 6 8 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 1.516871333 6 4 Contrastive FF 1 1 3.346803508 6 10 Given CLLD 1 1 1.59459143 6 9 Given CLLD 1 1 0.472876532 6 3 Contrastive FF 1 0 2.104399617 6 5 Contrastive CLLD 0 1 0.829049422 6 1 Contrastive FF 1 0 1.966171839 6 7 Contrastive CLLD 0 1 0.082070495 6 12 Given CLLD 0 1 1.231803362 7 7 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 2.614846667 7 9 Given CLLD 1 1 2.271687231 7 3 Contrastive FF 1 1 6.520264113 7 4 Contrastive FF 1 1 6.181279494 7 6 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 1.931746699 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 274 7 10 Given CLLD 0 1 3.700570028 7 2 Contrastive FF 1 0 2.608928434 7 5 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 3.257174074 7 12 Given CLLD 1 1 2.872235489 7 11 Given CLLD 1 1 3.203713436 7 1 Contrastive FF 1 1 3.034110426 7 8 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 7.203419062 8 8 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 6.239114851 8 1 Contrastive FF 0 1 6.157132959 8 11 Given CLLD 1 1 4.571028577 8 12 Given CLLD 0 1 4.479790373 8 5 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 5.050718636 8 2 Contrastive FF 1 0 7.120008481 8 10 Given CLLD 0 1 2.943373862 8 6 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 5.83372924 8 4 Contrastive FF 0 0 7.563061247 8 3 Contrastive FF 1 0 10.03055994 8 9 Given CLLD 1 1 7.943314679 8 7 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 10.31117432 9 9 Given CLLD 1 1 4.888457417 9 5 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 3.918049575 9 3 Contrastive FF 1 1 4.735015499 9 10 Given CLLD 1 1 7.667538503 9 1 Contrastive FF 0 1 4.869802472 9 7 Contrastive CLLD 0 1 4.551613753 9 2 Contrastive FF 1 0 3.739748574 9 12 Given CLLD 0 1 5.201001332 9 6 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 3.594457664 9 8 Contrastive CLLD 0 1 7.376001548 9 4 Contrastive FF 1 0 3.759656688 9 11 Given CLLD 1 1 4.660807434 10 11 Given CLLD 1 1 3.143700078 10 4 Contrastive FF 1 0 3.63837898 10 8 Contrastive CLLD 1 0 1.413365594 10 6 Contrastive CLLD 0 1 3.818963722 10 12 Given CLLD 0 1 0.269393895 10 2 Contrastive FF 0 0 4.153053785 10 7 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 2.416354304 10 1 Contrastive FF 0 1 5.343677786 10 10 Given CLLD 1 1 4.884115889 10 3 Contrastive FF 0 1 4.769515906 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 275 10 5 Contrastive CLLD 1 0 3.310022176 10 9 Given CLLD 0 1 1.942583974 11 12 Given CLLD 1 1 3.559594696 11 7 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 2.329717561 11 1 Contrastive FF 1 0 3.653509036 11 5 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 1.313294224 11 3 Contrastive FF 1 0 1.877855719 11 9 Given CLLD 1 1 1.549052865 11 10 Given CLLD 1 1 2.183616183 11 4 Contrastive FF 1 1 1.985366311 11 8 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 3.191555775 11 6 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 2.307839412 11 11 Given CLLD 1 1 2.707421902 11 2 Contrastive FF 1 0 0.650819889 12 2 Contrastive FF 1 0 2.787324639 12 11 Given CLLD 1 1 4.516500361 12 6 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 3.265713458 12 8 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 4.710743485 12 4 Contrastive FF 1 1 5.804698149 12 10 Given CLLD 1 1 3.43790937 12 9 Given CLLD 1 1 3.846774562 12 3 Contrastive FF 1 0 4.483372109 12 5 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 2.242137589 12 1 Contrastive FF 1 0 4.306191409 12 7 Contrastive CLLD 1 1 5.05793353 12 12 Given CLLD 1 1 3.852031199 SESSION 2 Participant Item Condition Pitch Boundary RangeSyllable 1 7 2 L+H* 0 3.18 1 9 3 L+H* 1 3.2 1 3 1 L+H* 0 0.98 1 4 1 L+H* 0 4.67 1 6 2 L+H* 0 1.04 1 10 3 L+H* 0 0.6 1 2 1 L+H* 0 5.35 1 5 2 n/a 0 2.07 1 12 3 L+H* 1 3.62 1 11 3 n/a 1 1.35 1 1 1 L+H* 0 2.79 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 276 1 8 2 n/a 0 0.95 2 8 2 L+H* 1 1.39 2 1 1 L+H* 0 0.43 2 11 3 L+H* 1 0.8 2 12 3 L+ A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 277 5 3 1 L+H* 0 0.51 5 9 3 n/a 1 1.22 5 10 3 H+L* 0 1.97 5 4 1 H+L* 0 1.39 5 8 2 H+L* 1 0.55 5 6 2 L+H* 1 2.12 5 11 3 H+L* 0 0.47 5 2 1 L+H* 0 3.1 6 7 2 L+H* 0 3.18 6 9 3 L+H* 1 3.2 6 3 1 L+H* 0 0.98 6 4 1 L+H* 0 4.67 6 6 2 L+H* 0 1.04 6 10 3 L+H* 0 0.6 6 2 1 L+H* 0 5.35 6 5 2 n/a 0 2.07 6 12 3 L+H* 1 3.62 6 11 3 n/a 1 1.35 6 1 1 L+H* 0 2.79 6 8 2 n/a 0 0.95 7 8 2 L+H* 1 1.39 7 1 1 L+H* 0 0.43 7 11 3 L+H* 1 0.8 7 12 3 L+ A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 278 8 8 2 L*+H 1 0.85 8 4 1 H+L* 0 1.49 8 11 3 L*+H 1 0.36 9 11 3 L+H* 1 5.29 9 4 1 H+L* 0 0.36 9 8 2 L+H* 1 4.67 9 6 2 L+H* 0 3.89 9 12 3 L+H* 1 2.62 9 2 1 H+L* 0 0.72 9 7 2 L+H* 0 4.13 9 1 1 H+L* 0 0.79 9 10 3 L+H* 1 2.54 9 3 1 H+L* 0 8.45 9 5 2 H+L* 0 7.52 9 9 3 L+H* 1 6.19 10 12 3 L+H* 1 1.16 10 7 2 L+H* 0 0.85 10 1 1 L+H* 0 0.69 10 5 2 L+H* 0 1.97 10 3 1 L+H* 0 0.51 10 9 3 n/a 1 1.22 10 10 3 H+L* 0 1.97 10 4 1 H+L* 0 1.39 10 8 2 H+L* 1 0.55 10 6 2 L+H* 1 2.12 10 11 3 H+L* 0 0.47 10 2 1 L+H* 0 3.1 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 279 Appendix 17 - Study 3: R output %Installing packages > install.packages(“afex”) > install.packages(“lmerTest”) > install.packages(“emmeans”) > install.packages(“r2glmm”) > install.packages(“pivottabler”) %Preparing packages > library(afex) > library(lmerTest) > library(emmeans) > library(r2glmm) > library(pivottabler) %%% Session 1 %%% %Preparing the data set > DissSPT1data <- read.csv(file.choose(),header=T) > head(DissSPT1data) Participant Item Discourse Syntax Condition Pitch Boundary RangeSyllable 1 1 7 Contrastive CLLD ContrastiveCLLD 0 1 3.490024 2 1 9 Given CLLD GivenCLLD 1 1 2.084150 3 1 3 Contrastive FF ContrastiveFF 1 0 4.298514 4 1 4 Contrastive FF ContrastiveFF 1 0 3.352861 5 1 6 Contrastive CLLD ContrastiveCLLD 1 1 2.756604 6 1 10 Given CLLD GivenCLLD 1 1 3.686619 > summary(DissSPT1data) Participant Item Discourse Syntax Condition Pitch Min. : 1.00 Min. : 1.00 Contrastive:96 CLLD:96 ContrastiveCLLD:48 Min. :0.00 1st Qu.: 3.75 1st Qu.: 3.75 Given :48 FF :48 ContrastiveFF :48 1st Qu.:0.75 Median : 6.50 Median : 6.50 GivenCLLD :48 Median :1.00 Mean : 6.50 Mean : 6.50 Mean :0.75 3rd Qu.: 9.25 3rd Qu.: 9.25 3rd Qu.:1.00 Max. :12.00 Max. :12.00 Max. :1.00 Boundary RangeSyllable Min. :0.0000 Min. : 0.000 1st Qu.:0.0000 1st Qu.: 2.196 Median :1.0000 Median : 3.496 Mean :0.7222 Mean : 3.631 3rd Qu.:1.0000 3rd Qu.: 4.795 Max. :1.0000 Max. :10.311 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 280 %Binomial Mixed Model for Pitch Accent > attach(DissSPT1data) > DissSPT1PitchModelMAX = glmer(Pitch ~ Condition + (Condition |Participant) + (1|Item), d ata = DissSPT1data, family = "binomial") Warning message: In checkConv(attr(opt, "derivs"), opt$par, ctrl = control$checkConv, : Model failed to converge with max|grad| = 0.00857369 (tol = 0.001, compone nt 1) > ssSPT1PitchModelPARTICIPANT = glmer(Pitch ~ Condition + (Condition|Partici pant), data = DissSPT1data, family = "binomial") Warning message: In checkConv(attr(opt, "derivs"), opt$par, ctrl = control$checkConv, : Model failed to converge with max|grad| = 0.00704584 (tol = 0.001, compone nt 1) > DissSPT1PitchModelINTER = glmer(Pitch ~ Condition + (1 |Participant) + (1|Item), data = D issSPT1data, family = "binomial") > summary(DissSPT1PitchModelINTER) Generalized linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood (Laplace Approximat ion) ['glmerMod'] Family: binomial ( logit ) Formula: Pitch ~ Condition + (1 | Participant) + (1 | Item) Data: DissSPT1data AIC BIC logLik deviance df.resid 159.2 174.0 -74.6 149.2 139 Scaled residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -3.14597 -0.01288 0.31787 0.56673 1.14600 Random effects: Groups Name Variance Std.Dev. Participant (Intercept) 1.378 1.174 Item (Intercept) 0.000 0.000 Number of obs: 144, groups: Participant, 12; Item, 12 Fixed effects: Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|) (Intercept) 1.6945 0.5359 3.162 0.00157 ** ConditionContrastiveFF -0.2847 0.5258 -0.541 0.58827 ConditionGivenCLLD -0.5442 0.5178 -1.051 0.29321 --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 Correlation of Fixed Effects: (Intr) CndCFF CndtnCntrFF -0.527 CndtnGvCLLD -0.546 0.537 convergence code: 0 boundary (singular) fit: see ?isSingular > emmeans(DissSPT1PitchModelINTER, list(pairwise ~ Condition), adjust = "tukey") $`emmeans of Condition` Condition emmean SE df asymp.LCL asymp.UCL ContrastiveCLLD 1.69 0.536 Inf 0.644 2.74 ContrastiveFF 1.41 0.517 Inf 0.398 2.42 GivenCLLD 1.15 0.502 Inf 0.166 2.13 Results are given on the logit (not the response) scale. Confidence level used: 0.95 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 281 $`pairwise differences of Condition` contrast estimate SE df z.ratio p.value ContrastiveCLLD - ContrastiveFF 0.285 0.526 Inf 0.541 0.8509 ContrastiveCLLD - GivenCLLD 0.544 0.518 Inf 1.051 0.5446 ContrastiveFF - GivenCLLD 0.260 0.502 Inf 0.517 0.8631 Results are given on the log odds ratio (not the response) scale. P value adjustment: tukey method for comparing a family of 3 estimates > r2beta(DissSPT1PitchModelINTER) Effect Rsq upper.CL lower.CL 1 Model 0.007 0.070 0.001 3 ConditionGivenCLLD 0.007 0.059 0.000 2 ConditionContrastiveFF 0.002 0.043 0.000 %Binomial Mixed Model for Boundary Tone > attach(DissSPT1data) > DissSPT1BoundaryModelMAX = glmer(Boundary ~ Condition + (Condition |Participant) + ( 1|Item), data = DissSPT1data, family = "binomial") Warning message: In checkConv(attr(opt, "derivs"), opt$par, ctrl = control$checkConv, : Model failed to converge with max|grad| = 0.0490428 (tol = 0.001, componen t 1) > DissSPT1BoundaryModelPARTICIPANT = glmer(Boundary ~ Condition + (Condition |Participant), data = DissSPT1data, family = "binomial") Warning message: In checkConv(attr(opt, "derivs"), opt$par, ctrl = control$checkConv, : Model failed to converge with max|grad| = 0.0135563 (tol = 0.001, componen t 1) > DissSPT1BoundaryModelINTER = glmer(Boundary ~ Condition + (1|Participant) + (1|Item), data = DissSPT1data, family = "binomial") > summary(DissSPT1BoundaryModelINTER) Generalized linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood (Laplace Approximat ion) ['glmerMod'] Family: binomial ( logit ) Formula: Boundary ~ Condition + (1 | Participant) + (1 | Item) Data: DissSPT1data AIC BIC logLik deviance df.resid 102.8 117.7 -46.4 92.8 139 Scaled residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -5.4067 -0.4425 0.1388 0.2707 1.7355 Random effects: Groups Name Variance Std.Dev. Participant (Intercept) 0.2550 0.5049 Item (Intercept) 0.1824 0.4271 Number of obs: 144, groups: Participant, 12; Item, 12 Fixed effects: Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|) (Intercept) 2.5688 0.6553 3.920 8.85e-05 *** ConditionContrastiveFF -3.6596 0.8307 -4.406 1.06e-05 *** ConditionGivenCLLD 1.4782 1.1862 1.246 0.213 --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 282 Correlation of Fixed Effects: (Intr) CndCFF CndtnCntrFF -0.836 CndtnGvCLLD -0.406 0.312 > emmeans(DissSPT1BoundaryModelINTER, list(pairwise ~ Condition), adjust = "tukey") $`emmeans of Condition` Condition emmean SE df asymp.LCL asymp.UCL ContrastiveCLLD 2.57 0.655 Inf 1.28 3.853 ContrastiveFF -1.09 0.458 Inf -1.99 -0.194 GivenCLLD 4.05 1.098 Inf 1.89 6.199 Results are given on the logit (not the response) scale. Confidence level used: 0.95 $`pairwise differences of Condition` contrast estimate SE df z.ratio p.value ContrastiveCLLD - ContrastiveFF 3.66 0.831 Inf 4.406 <.0001 ContrastiveCLLD - GivenCLLD -1.48 1.186 Inf -1.246 0.4259 ContrastiveFF - GivenCLLD -5.14 1.217 Inf -4.220 0.0001 Results are given on the log odds ratio (not the response) scale. P value adjustment: tukey method for comparing a family of 3 estimates > r2beta(DissSPT1BoundaryModelINTER) Effect Rsq upper.CL lower.CL 1 Model 0.274 0.396 0.168 2 ConditionContrastiveFF 0.155 0.270 0.064 3 ConditionGivenCLLD 0.027 0.101 0.000 %Linear Mixed Model for Range(pitch) > attach(DissSPT1data) > DissSPT1RangeModelMAX = lmer(RangeSyllable ~ Condition + (Condition |Participant) + (1|Item), data = DissSPT1data, REML=FALSE) > summary(DissSPT1RangeModelMAX) : RangeSyllable ~ Condition + (Condition | Participant) + (1 | Item) Data: DissSPT1data AIC BIC logLik deviance df.resid 576.6 609.3 -277.3 554.6 133 Scaled residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -2.1508 -0.5853 -0.1048 0.4675 2.3406 Random effects: Groups Name Variance Std.Dev. Corr Participant (Intercept) 2.15353 1.4675 ConditionContrastiveFF 0.08055 0.2838 -0.33 ConditionGivenCLLD 0.88437 0.9404 -0.62 -0.54 Item (Intercept) 0.13307 0.3648 Residual 2.03382 1.4261 Number of obs: 144, groups: Participant, 12; Item, 12 Fixed effects: Estimate Std. Error df t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 3.5822 0.5051 14.2486 7.092 4.9e-06 *** ConditionContrastiveFF 0.8039 0.3975 11.3980 2.023 0.0672 . ConditionGivenCLLD -0.6573 0.4743 12.8511 -1.386 0.1894 --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 Correlation of Fixed Effects: A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 283 (Intr) CndCFF CndtnCntrFF -0.433 CndtnGvCLLD -0.614 0.338 > mixed(DissSPT1RangeModelMAX, DissSPT1data) Fitting one lmer() model. [DONE] Calculating p-values. [DONE] Mixed Model Anova Table (Type 3 tests, KR-method) Model: RangeSyllable ~ Condition + (Condition | Participant) + (1 | Model: Item) Data: DissSPT1data Effect df F p.value 1 Condition 2, 9.40 3.67 + .07 --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘+’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 > emmeans(DissSPT1RangeModelMAX, list(pairwise ~ Condition), adjust="tukey") $`emmeans of Condition` Condition emmean SE df lower.CL upper.CL ContrastiveCLLD 3.58 0.535 16.9 2.45 4.71 ContrastiveFF 4.39 0.519 17.1 3.29 5.48 GivenCLLD 2.92 0.461 17.5 1.95 3.90 Degrees-of-freedom method: kenward-roger Confidence level used: 0.95 $`pairwise differences of Condition` contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value ContrastiveCLLD - ContrastiveFF -0.804 0.434 11.3 -1.852 0.1974 ContrastiveCLLD - GivenCLLD 0.657 0.513 15.4 1.281 0.4263 ContrastiveFF - GivenCLLD 1.461 0.546 16.4 2.674 0.0411 Degrees-of-freedom method: kenward-roger P value adjustment: tukey method for comparing a family of 3 estimates > r2beta(DissSPT1RangeModelMAX, method ="nsj") Effect Rsq upper.CL lower.CL 1 Model 0.083 0.190 0.023 2 ConditionContrastiveFF 0.027 0.100 0.000 3 ConditionGivenCLLD 0.018 0.084 0.000 %%% Session 2 %%% %Preparing the data set > DissSPT2data <- read.csv(file.choose(),header=T) > head(DissSPT2data) Participant Item Condition Pitch Boundary RangeSyllable 1 1 7 ContrastiveTopic L+H* L- 3.18 2 1 9 GivenTopic L+H* H- 3.20 3 1 3 ContrastiveFocus L+H* L- 0.98 4 1 4 ContrastiveFocus L+H* L- 4.67 5 1 6 ContrastiveTopic L+H* L- 1.04 6 1 10 GivenTopic L+H* L- 0.60 > summary(DissSPT2data) Participant Item Condition Pitch Boundary Rang eSyllable Min. :1 Min. : 1.00 ContrastiveFocus:40 L+H* :66 H-:54 Min. :0.3600 1st Qu.:2 1st Qu.: 3.75 ContrastiveTopic:40 Other:54 L-:66 1st Qu.:0.8375 Median :3 Median : 6.50 GivenTopic :40 Medi an :1.4400 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 284 Mean :3 Mean : 6.50 Mean :2.2038 3rd Qu.:4 3rd Qu.: 9.25 3rd Qu.:3.1575 Max. :5 Max. :12.00 Max. :8.4500 %Binomial Mixed Model for Pitch Accent > attach(DissSPT2data) > DissSPT2PitchModelMAX = glmer(Pitch ~ Condition + (Condition|Participant) + (1|Item), da ta = DissSPT2data, family = "binomial") Warning message: In checkConv(attr(opt, "derivs"), opt$par, ctrl = control$checkConv, : Model failed to converge with max|grad| = 0.00144279 (tol = 0.001, compone nt 1) > DissSPT2PitchModelPARTICIPANT = glmer(Pitch ~ Condition + (Condition|Participant), da ta = DissSPT2data, family = "binomial") Warning message: In checkConv(attr(opt, "derivs"), opt$par, ctrl = control$checkConv, : Model failed to converge with max|grad| = 0.00892114 (tol = 0.001, compone nt 1) > DissSPT2PitchModelINTER = glmer(Pitch ~ Condition +(1|Participant) + (1|Item), data = Di ssSPT2data, family = "binomial") > summary(DissSPT2PitchModelINTER) Generalized linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood (Laplace Approximat ion) ['glmerMod'] Family: binomial ( logit ) Formula: Pitch ~ Condition + (1 | Participant) + (1 | Item) Data: DissSPT2data AIC BIC logLik deviance df.resid 139.6 153.5 -64.8 129.6 115 Scaled residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -1.0497 -0.5493 -0.3589 0.3736 2.3375 Random effects: Groups Name Variance Std.Dev. Item (Intercept) 0.5275 0.7263 Participant (Intercept) 4.5347 2.1295 Number of obs: 120, groups: Item, 12; Participant, 5 Fixed effects: Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|) (Intercept) 0.3960 1.1127 0.356 0.722 ConditionContrastiveTopic -0.6974 0.7761 -0.899 0.369 ConditionGivenTopic -0.3073 0.7566 -0.406 0.685 Correlation of Fixed Effects: (Intr) CndtCT CndtnCntrsT -0.344 CndtnGvnTpc -0.341 0.487 > emmeans(DissSPT2PitchModelINTER, list(pairwise ~ Condition), adjust = "tukey") $`emmeans of Condition` Condition emmean SE df asymp.LCL asymp.UCL ContrastiveFocus 0.3960 1.11 Inf -1.78 2.58 ContrastiveTopic -0.3014 1.12 Inf -2.49 1.89 GivenTopic 0.0887 1.11 Inf -2.09 2.27 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 285 Results are given on the logit (not the response) scale. Confidence level used: 0.95 $`pairwise differences of Condition` contrast estimate SE df z.ratio p.value ContrastiveFocus - ContrastiveTopic 0.697 0.776 Inf 0.899 0.6411 ContrastiveFocus - GivenTopic 0.307 0.757 Inf 0.406 0.9131 ContrastiveTopic - GivenTopic -0.390 0.776 Inf -0.503 0.8700 Results are given on the log odds ratio (not the response) scale. P value adjustment: tukey method for comparing a family of 3 estimates > r2beta(DissSPT2PitchyModelINTER) ??? %Binomial Mixed Model for Boundary Tone > attach(DissSPT2data) > DissSPT2BoundaryModelMAX = glmer(Boundary ~ Condition + (Condition|Participant) + (1 |Item), data = DissSPT2data, family = "binomial") > summary(DissSPT2BoundaryModelMAX) Generalized linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood (Laplace Approximation) ['glmerMod'] Family: binomial ( logit ) Formula: Boundary ~ Condition + (Condition | Participant) + (1 | Item) Data: DissSPT2data AIC BIC logLik deviance df.resid 61.4 89.3 -20.7 41.4 110 Scaled residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -0.096193 -0.000009 0.000000 0.000000 0.089497 Random effects: Groups Name Variance Std.Dev. Corr Item (Intercept) 1973.8 44.43 Participant (Intercept) 313.3 17.70 ConditionContrastiveTopic 3695.6 60.79 0.97 ConditionGivenTopic 1747.9 41.81 0.32 0.10 Number of obs: 120, groups: Item, 12; Participant, 5 Fixed effects: Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|) (Intercept) 2856.46 42.48 67.24 <2e-16 *** ConditionContrastiveTopic -2833.57 42.47 -66.72 <2e-16 *** ConditionGivenTopic -2895.63 39.91 -72.55 <2e-16 *** --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 Correlation of Fixed Effects: (Intr) CndtCT CndtnCntrsT -0.768 CndtnGvnTpc -0.897 0.824 > emmeans(DissSPT2BoundaryModelMAX, list(pairwise ~ Condition), adjust = "tukey") $`emmeans of Condition` Condition emmean SE df asymp.LCL asymp.UCL ContrastiveFocus 2856.5 42.5 Inf 2773.2 2939.72 ContrastiveTopic 22.9 28.9 Inf -33.8 79.62 GivenTopic -39.2 18.9 Inf -76.2 -2.19 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 286 Results are given on the logit (not the response) scale. Confidence level used: 0.95 $`pairwise differences of Condition` contrast estimate SE df z.ratio p.value ContrastiveFocus - ContrastiveTopic 2833.6 42.5 Inf 66.720 <.0001 ContrastiveFocus - GivenTopic 2895.6 39.9 Inf 72.553 <.0001 ContrastiveTopic - GivenTopic 62.1 24.6 Inf 2.525 0.0311 Results are given on the log odds ratio (not the response) scale. P value adjustment: tukey method for comparing a family of 3 estimates > r2beta(DissSPT2BoundaryModelMAX) ??? %Linear Mixed Model for Range(pitch) > attach(DissSPT2data) > DissSPT2RangeModelMAX = lmer(RangeSyllable ~ Condition + (Condition|Participant) + (1|Item), data = DissSPT2data, REML=FALSE) > summary(DissSPT2RangeModelMAX) Linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood . t-tests use Satterthwaite's m ethod [lmerModLmerTest] Formula: RangeSyllable ~ Condition + (Condition | Participant) + (1 | I tem) Data: DissSPT2data AIC BIC logLik deviance df.resid 473.7 504.4 -225.9 451.7 109 Scaled residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -1.6541 -0.5203 -0.2256 0.5026 3.9712 Random effects: Groups Name Variance Std.Dev. Corr Item (Intercept) 0.2412 0.4911 Participant (Intercept) 0.5829 0.7635 ConditionContrastiveTopic 1.5468 1.2437 -0.21 ConditionGivenTopic 1.3103 1.1447 -0.41 0.98 Residual 2.0251 1.4231 Number of obs: 120, groups: Item, 12; Participant, 5 Fixed effects: Estimate Std. Error df t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 2.0805 0.4770 7.3336 4.362 0.00296 ** ConditionContrastiveTopic 0.2250 0.7288 7.2690 0.309 0.76620 ConditionGivenTopic 0.1450 0.6956 7.3630 0.208 0.84053 --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 Correlation of Fixed Effects: (Intr) CndtCT CndtnCntrsT -0.434 CndtnGvnTpc -0.552 0.768 > mixed(DissSPT2RangeModelMAX, DissSPT2data) Fitting one lmer() model. [DONE] Calculating p-values. [DONE] Mixed Model Anova Table (Type 3 tests, KR-method) Model: RangeSyllable ~ Condition + (Condition | Participant) + (1 | Model: Item) Data: DissSPT2data A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 287 Effect df F p.value 1 Condition 2, 6.14 0.04 .96 --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘+’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 > emmeans(DissSPT2RangeModelMAX, list(pairwise ~ Condition), adjust="tukey") $`emmeans of Condition` Condition emmean SE df lower.CL upper.CL ContrastiveFocus 2.08 0.528 9.99 0.903 3.26 ContrastiveTopic 2.31 0.751 8.09 0.578 4.03 GivenTopic 2.23 0.651 8.75 0.745 3.71 Degrees-of-freedom method: kenward-roger Confidence level used: 0.95 $`pairwise differences of Condition` contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value ContrastiveFocus - ContrastiveTopic -0.225 0.807 9.50 -0.279 0.9583 ContrastiveFocus - GivenTopic -0.145 0.770 9.79 -0.188 0.9807 ContrastiveTopic - GivenTopic 0.080 0.531 9.86 0.151 0.9876 Degrees-of-freedom method: kenward-roger P value adjustment: tukey method for comparing a family of 3 estimates > r2beta(DissSPT2RangeModelMAX, method ="nsj") Effect Rsq upper.CL lower.CL 1 Model 0.003 0.068 0 2 ConditionContrastiveTopic 0.002 0.052 0 3 ConditionGivenTopic 0.001 0.046 0 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 288 Appendix 18 - Study 3: Odds ratio and effect size calculations • Odds ratio for Pitch Accent SESSION 1 Condition 1 No Condition 2 No Condition 3 No L+H* 36 72 38 70 34 74 No 12 24 10 26 14 22 Odds-ratio: L+H* 1 (.45,2.23) 1.3(.64,2.64) 0.77(.38,1.56) SESSION 2 Condition 1 No Condition 2 No Condition 3 No L+H* 20 46 24 42 22 44 No 20 34 16 38 18 36 Condition 1 No Condition 2 No Condition 3 No H+L* 18 8 4 22 4 22 No 22 72 36 58 36 58 Condition 1 No Condition 2 No Condition 3 No L*+H 0 16 8 8 8 8 No 40 64 32 72 32 72 Odds of L+H* 0.74 (.34,1.58) 1.36 (.63,2.93) 1 (.47,2.14) Odds of H+L* 7.36 (2.82,19.23) 0.29 (.09,.92) 0.29 (.09,.92) Odds of L*+H 0 (0,NaN) 2.25(.78,6.53) 2.25(.78,6.53) • Odds ratio for Boundary Tone SESSION 1 Condition 1 No Condition 2 No Condition 3 No H- 13 91 44 60 47 57 No 35 5 4 36 1 39 Condition 1 No Condition 2 No Condition 3 No L- 35 5 4 36 1 39 No 13 91 44 60 47 57 Odds-ratio: H- 0.02 (.01,.06) 6.6 (2.19,19.9) 32.16 (4.26,294.94) Odds-ratio: L- 49 (16.27,147.59) 0.15 (.05,.46) 0.03 (0,.23) SESSION 2 Condition 1 No Condition 2 No Condition 3 No H- 0 54 20 34 34 20 No 40 26 20 46 6 60 Condition 1 No Condition 2 No Condition 3 No L- 40 18 14 44 4 54 No 0 62 26 36 36 26 Odds-ratio: H- 0 (0,NaN) 1.35 (.63,2.9) 17 (6.22,46.43) Odds-ratio: L- Inf (Nan,Inf) 0.44 (.2,.97) 0.05 (.02,.17) A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 289 • Effects sizes for the variable “Pitch Range” SESSION 1 M1 SD1 M2 SD2 SDpooled Hedges' g 2 vs 3 3.58 3.706 2.92 3.193 1.857 0.355 2 vs 1 4.39 3.595 3.58 3.706 1.910 0.423 3 vs 1 4.39 3.595 2.92 3.193 1.842 0.7978274 SESSION 2 M1 SD1 M2 SD2 SDpooled Hedges' g 2 vs 3 2.31 4.749 2.23 4.117 2.105 0.037 2 vs 1 2.08 3.339 2.31 4.749 2.011 -0.114 3 vs 1 2.08 3.339 2.23 4.117 1.930 -0.077 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 290 Appendix 19 – Study 3: Individual variation SESSION 1 1 PITCH M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 0.75 0.5 1 0 -0.74 0.24 2 vs 1 0.75 0.5 1 0 -0.74 0.24 3 vs 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 BOUNDARY M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 vs 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 vs 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 RANGE-SYLLABLE M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 2.78 0.74202 3.42 1.08531 -2.43215 1.149411 2 vs 1 2.78 0.74202 4.37 0.76786 -3.07149 -0.11212 3 vs 1 3.42 1.08531 4.37 0.76786 -2.76654 0.86567 2 PITCH M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 0.5 0.57735 0 0 -0.0658 1.065803 2 vs 1 0.5 0.57735 0.5 0.57735 -1.13161 1.131607 3 vs 1 0 0 0.5 0.57735 -1.0658 0.065803 BOUNDARY M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 vs 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 vs 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 RANGE-SYLLABLE M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 2.29 1.82355 0.58 0.79361 -0.85344 4.276192 2 vs 1 2.29 1.82355 3 2.36294 -4.81441 3.391097 3 vs 1 0.58 0.79361 3 2.36294 -5.51646 0.670389 3 PITCH M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 1 0.28868 1 0 -0.2829 0.282902 2 vs 1 1 0 0.75 0.5 -0.24 0.74 3 vs 1 1 0 0.75 0.5 -0.24 0.74 BOUNDARY M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 0.75 0.5 1 0 -0.74 0.24 2 vs 1 0.75 0.5 0.5 0.57735 -0.8058 1.305803 3 vs 1 1 0 0.5 0.57735 -0.0658 1.065803 RANGE-SYLLABLE M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 3.45 1.04098 2.59 2.46285 -2.58165 4.28584 2 vs 1 3.45 1.04098 3.99 1.77099 -3.3003 2.211157 3 vs 1 2.59 2.46285 3.99 1.77099 -5.54583 2.752493 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 291 4 PITCH M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 1 0 0.75 0.5 -0.24 0.74 2 vs 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 vs 1 0.75 0.5 1 0 -0.74 0.24 BOUNDARY M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 vs 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 vs 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 RANGE-SYLLABLE M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 5.92 2.26482 2.35 2.14238 -0.74566 7.892459 2 vs 1 5.92 2.26482 6.96 1.36587 -4.5945 2.52165 3 vs 1 2.35 2.14238 6.96 1.36587 -8.04791 -1.17174 5 PITCH M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 0.75 0.5 0.5 0.57735 -0.8058 1.305803 2 vs 1 0.75 0.5 0.5 0.57735 -0.8058 1.305803 3 vs 1 0.5 0.57735 0.5 0.57735 -1.13161 1.131607 BOUNDARY M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 0.75 0.5 0.75 0.5 -0.98 0.98 2 vs 1 0.75 0.5 0 0 0.26 1.24 3 vs 1 0.75 0.5 0 0 0.26 1.24 RANGE-SYLLABLE M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 3.29 2.09745 1.88 1.46985 -2.09057 4.90134 2 vs 1 3.29 2.09745 4.04 1.08993 -3.87847 2.368796 3 vs 1 1.88 1.46985 4.04 1.08993 -4.66882 0.348367 6 PITCH M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 0.25 0.5 0.75 0.5 -1.48 0.48 2 vs 1 0.25 0.5 0.75 0.5 -1.48 0.48 3 vs 1 0.75 0.5 0.75 0.5 -0.98 0.98 BOUNDARY M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 vs 1 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.26 1.24 3 vs 1 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.26 1.24 RANGE-SYLLABLE M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 0.95 0.64668 1.7 1.28849 -2.65043 1.142495 2 vs 1 0.95 0.64668 2.83 0.94056 -3.43507 -0.32409 3 vs 1 1.7 1.28849 2.83 0.94056 -3.31008 1.058851 7 PITCH M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 1 0 0.75 0.5 -0.24 0.74 2 vs 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 vs 1 0.75 0.5 1 0 -0.74 0.24 BOUNDARY M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 292 2 vs 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 vs 1 1 0 0.75 0.5 -0.24 0.74 3 vs 1 1 0 0.75 0.5 -0.24 0.74 RANGE-SYLLABLE M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 3.75 2.36387 3.01 0.59958 -2.16443 3.64392 2 vs 1 3.75 2.36387 4.59 2.04967 -5.15962 3.490918 3 vs 1 3.01 0.59958 4.59 2.04967 -4.17036 1.022171 8 PITCH M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 1 0 0.5 0.57735 -0.0658 1.065803 2 vs 1 1 0 0.5 0.57735 -0.0658 1.065803 3 vs 1 0.5 0.57735 0.5 0.57735 -1.13161 1.131607 BOUNDARY M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 vs 1 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.26 1.24 3 vs 1 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.26 1.24 RANGE-SYLLABLE M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 6.86 2.35392 4.98 2.10922 -2.49957 6.248189 2 vs 1 6.86 2.35392 7.72 1.64983 -4.78268 3.064671 3 vs 1 4.98 2.10922 7.72 1.64983 -6.41719 0.950561 9 PITCH M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 0.5 0.57735 0.75 0.5 -1.3058 0.805803 2 vs 1 0.5 0.57735 0.75 0.5 -1.3058 0.805803 3 vs 1 0.75 0.5 0.75 0.5 -0.98 0.98 BOUNDARY M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 vs 1 1 0 0.5 0.57735 -0.0658 1.065803 3 vs 1 1 0 0.5 0.57735 -0.0658 1.065803 RANGE-SYLLABLE M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 4.86 1.72378 5.6 1.3931 -3.79896 2.310123 2 vs 1 4.86 1.72378 4.28 0.61032 -1.70344 2.871391 3 vs 1 5.6 1.3931 4.28 0.61032 -0.63496 3.291751 10 PITCH M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 0.75 0.5 0.5 0.57735 -0.8058 1.305803 2 vs 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.5 -0.48 1.48 3 vs 1 0.5 0.57735 0.25 0.5 -0.8058 1.305803 BOUNDARY M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 0.5 0.57735 1 0 -1.0658 0.065803 2 vs 1 0.5 0.57735 0.5 0.57735 -1.13161 1.131607 3 vs 1 1 0 0.5 0.57735 -0.0658 1.065803 RANGE-SYLLABLE M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 2.74 1.05732 2.56 1.94682 -2.76433 3.123786 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 293 2 vs 1 2.74 1.05732 4.48 0.74048 -3.49832 0.025364 3 vs 1 2.56 1.94682 4.48 0.74048 -4.54976 0.717341 11 PITCH M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 vs 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 vs 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 BOUNDARY M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 vs 1 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.26 1.24 3 vs 1 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.26 1.24 RANGE-SYLLABLE M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 2.29 0.76781 2.5 0.85052 -1.80028 1.371641 2 vs 1 2.29 0.76781 2.04 1.23322 -1.71729 2.204719 3 vs 1 2.5 0.85052 2.04 1.23322 -1.58403 2.500101 12 PITCH M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 vs 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 vs 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 BOUNDARY M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 vs 1 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.26 1.24 3 vs 1 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.26 1.24 RANGE-SYLLABLE M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 3.82 1.30675 3.91 0.44648 -1.81233 1.623991 2 vs 1 3.82 1.30675 4.35 1.23528 -3.01745 1.964921 3 vs 1 3.91 0.44648 4.35 1.23528 -2.08021 1.216026 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 294 SESSION 2 1 BOUNDARY M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 0 0 0.75 0.5 -1.24 -0.26 2 vs 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 vs 1 0.75 0.5 0 0 0.26 1.24 RANGE-SYLLABLE M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 1.81 1.045148 2.1925 1.448985 -2.82675 2.06175 2 vs 1 1.81 1.045148 3.4475 1.969338 -4.5917 1.316696 3 vs 1 2.1925 1.448985 3.4475 1.969338 -4.60496 2.094957 PITCH M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 0.5 0.57735 0.75 0.5 -1.3058 0.805803 2 vs 1 0.5 0.57735 1 0 -1.0658 0.065803 3 vs 1 0.75 0.5 1 0 -0.74 0.24 2 BOUNDARY M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 0.75 0.5 1 0 -0.74 0.24 2 vs 1 0.75 0.5 0 0 0.26 1.24 3 vs 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 RANGE-SYLLABLE M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 1.8025 0.911313 2.68 1.450057 -3.19164 1.436643 2 vs 1 1.8025 0.911313 0.895 0.712297 -0.68364 2.498638 3 vs 1 2.68 1.450057 0.895 0.712297 -0.33411 3.904107 PITCH M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 1 0 0.75 0.5 -0.24 0.74 2 vs 1 1 0 0.75 0.5 -0.24 0.74 3 vs 1 0.75 0.5 0.75 0.5 -0.98 0.98 3 BOUNDARY M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 vs 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 vs 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 RANGE-SYLLABLE M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 1.49 0.967505 0.89 0.485592 -0.82404 2.024036 2 vs 1 1.49 0.967505 2.0575 2.171442 -3.64367 2.508668 3 vs 1 0.89 0.485592 2.0575 2.171442 -3.77139 1.436393 PITCH M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 vs 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 vs 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 BOUNDARY M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 0.25 0.5 1 0 -1.24 -0.26 2 vs 1 0.25 0.5 0 0 -0.24 0.74 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 295 3 vs 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 RANGE-SYLLABLE M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 5.0525 1.677029 4.16 1.861344 -2.5751 4.360105 2 vs 1 5.0525 1.677029 2.58 3.917865 -3.0105 7.955496 3 vs 1 4.16 1.861344 2.58 3.917865 -4.08362 7.243624 PITCH M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 0.75 0.5 1 0 -0.74 0.24 2 vs 1 0.75 0.5 0 0 0.26 1.24 3 vs 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 5 BOUNDARY M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 0.5 0.57735 0.5 0.57735 -1.13161 1.131607 2 vs 1 0.5 0.57735 0 0 -0.0658 1.065803 3 vs 1 0.5 0.57735 0 0 -0.0658 1.065803 RANGE-SYLLABLE M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 1.3725 0.788517 1.205 0.613107 -1.20609 1.541091 2 vs 1 1.3725 0.788517 1.4225 1.180999 -1.98013 1.880125 3 vs 1 1.205 0.613107 1.4225 1.180999 -1.97572 1.540724 PITCH M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.5 -0.48 1.48 2 vs 1 0.75 0.5 0.75 0.5 -0.98 0.98 3 vs 1 0.25 0.5 0.75 0.5 -1.48 0.48 6 BOUNDARY M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 0 0 0.75 0.5 -1.24 -0.26 2 vs 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 vs 1 0.75 0.5 0 0 0.26 1.24 RANGE-SYLLABLE M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 1.81 1.045148 2.1925 1.448985 -2.82675 2.06175 2 vs 1 1.81 1.045148 3.4475 1.969338 -4.5917 1.316696 3 vs 1 2.1925 1.448985 3.4475 1.969338 -4.60496 2.094957 PITCH M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 0.5 0.57735 0.75 0.5 -1.3058 0.805803 2 vs 1 0.5 0.57735 1 0 -1.0658 0.065803 3 vs 1 0.75 0.5 1 0 -0.74 0.24 7 BOUNDARY M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 0.75 0.5 1 0 -0.74 0.24 2 vs 1 0.75 0.5 0 0 0.26 1.24 3 vs 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 RANGE-SYLLABLE M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 1.8025 0.911313 2.68 1.450057 -3.19164 1.436643 2 vs 1 1.8025 0.911313 0.895 0.712297 -0.68364 2.498638 3 vs 1 2.68 1.450057 0.895 0.712297 -0.33411 3.904107 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 296 PITCH M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 1 0 0.75 0.5 -0.24 0.74 2 vs 1 1 0 0.75 0.5 -0.24 0.74 3 vs 1 0.75 0.5 0.75 0.5 -0.98 0.98 8 BOUNDARY M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 vs 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 vs 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 RANGE-SYLLABLE M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 1.49 0.967505 0.89 0.485592 -0.82404 2.024036 2 vs 1 1.49 0.967505 2.0575 2.171442 -3.64367 2.508668 3 vs 1 0.89 0.485592 2.0575 2.171442 -3.77139 1.436393 PITCH M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 vs 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 vs 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 BOUNDARY M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 0.25 0.5 1 0 -1.24 -0.26 2 vs 1 0.25 0.5 0 0 -0.24 0.74 3 vs 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 RANGE-SYLLABLE M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 5.0525 1.677029 4.16 1.861344 -2.5751 4.360105 2 vs 1 5.0525 1.677029 2.58 3.917865 -3.0105 7.955496 3 vs 1 4.16 1.861344 2.58 3.917865 -4.08362 7.243624 PITCH M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 0.75 0.5 1 0 -0.74 0.24 2 vs 1 0.75 0.5 0 0 0.26 1.24 3 vs 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 10 BOUNDARY M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 0.5 0.57735 0.5 0.57735 -1.13161 1.131607 2 vs 1 0.5 0.57735 0 0 -0.0658 1.065803 3 vs 1 0.5 0.57735 0 0 -0.0658 1.065803 RANGE-SYLLABLE M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 1.3725 0.788517 1.205 0.613107 -1.20609 1.541091 2 vs 1 1.3725 0.788517 1.4225 1.180999 -1.98013 1.880125 3 vs 1 1.205 0.613107 1.4225 1.180999 -1.97572 1.540724 PITCH M1 SD1 M2 SD2 95%C.I. 2 vs 3 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.5 -0.48 1.48 2 vs 1 0.75 0.5 0.75 0.5 -0.98 0.98 3 vs 1 0.25 0.5 0.75 0.5 -1.48 0.48 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 297 Appendix 20 – Study 3: Post-hoc reanalyses SESSION 1 – RANGE %%% PREPARING DATA SET %%% > DissSPT1data <- read.csv(file.choose(),header=T) > head(DissSPT1data) Participant Item Discourse Syntax Condition Pitch Boundary RangeSy llable 1 1 7 Contrastive CLLD ContrastiveCLLD 0 1 3. 490024 2 1 9 Given CLLD GivenCLLD 1 1 2. 084150 3 1 3 Contrastive FF ContrastiveFF 1 0 4. 298514 4 1 4 Contrastive FF ContrastiveFF 1 0 3. 352861 5 1 6 Contrastive CLLD ContrastiveCLLD 1 1 2. 756604 6 1 10 Given CLLD GivenCLLD 1 1 3. 686619 > summary(DissSPT1data) Participant Item Discourse Syntax Condit ion Pitch Min. : 1.00 Min. : 1.00 Contrastive:96 CLLD:96 ContrastiveCLLD: 48 Min. :0.00 1st Qu.: 3.75 1st Qu.: 3.75 Given :48 FF :48 ContrastiveFF : 48 1st Qu.:0.75 Median : 6.50 Median : 6.50 GivenCLLD : 48 Median :1.00 Mean : 6.50 Mean : 6.50 Mean :0.75 3rd Qu.: 9.25 3rd Qu.: 9.25 3rd Qu.:1.00 Max. :12.00 Max. :12.00 Max. :1.00 Boundary RangeSyllable Min. :0.0000 Min. : 0.000 1st Qu.:0.0000 1st Qu.: 2.196 Median :1.0000 Median : 3.496 Mean :0.7222 Mean : 3.631 3rd Qu.:1.0000 3rd Qu.: 4.795 Max. :1.0000 Max. :10.311 %%% SYNTAX ANALYSIS %%% > attach(DissSPT1data) > DissSPT1RangeModelSyntaxMAX = lmer(RangeSyllable ~ Syntax + (Syntax |Parti cipant) + (1|Item), data = DissSPT1data, REML=FALSE) > summary(DissSPT1RangeModelSyntaxMAX) Linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood . t-tests use Satterthwaite's m ethod [lmerModLmerTest] Formula: RangeSyllable ~ Syntax + (Syntax | Participant) + (1 | Item) Data: DissSPT1data AIC BIC logLik deviance df.resid 577.7 598.5 -281.8 563.7 137 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 298 Scaled residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -2.82870 -0.50327 -0.06856 0.47937 2.72900 Random effects: Groups Name Variance Std.Dev. Corr Participant (Intercept) 1.4684 1.2118 SyntaxFF 0.1118 0.3344 0.25 Item (Intercept) 0.1783 0.4223 Residual 2.2999 1.5165 Number of obs: 144, groups: Participant, 12; Item, 12 Fixed effects: Estimate Std. Error df t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 3.2535 0.4106 14.2005 7.923 1.39e-06 *** SyntaxFF 1.1326 0.3848 9.1140 2.943 0.0162 * --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 Correlation of Fixed Effects: (Intr) SyntaxFF -0.240 > mixed(DissSPT1RangeModelSyntaxMAX, DissSPT1data) Fitting one lmer() model. [DONE] Calculating p-values. [DONE] Mixed Model Anova Table (Type 3 tests, KR-method) Model: RangeSyllable ~ Syntax + (Syntax | Participant) + (1 | Item) Data: DissSPT1data Effect df F p.value 1 Syntax 1, 9.16 7.62 * .02 --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘+’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 > emmeans(DissSPT1RangeModelSyntaxMAX, list(pairwise ~ Syntax), adjust="tuke y") $`emmeans of Syntax` Syntax emmean SE df lower.CL upper.CL CLLD 3.25 0.431 16.4 2.34 4.17 FF 4.39 0.516 17.0 3.30 5.48 Degrees-of-freedom method: kenward-roger Confidence level used: 0.95 $`pairwise differences of Syntax` contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value CLLD - FF -1.13 0.41 11.8 -2.760 0.0175 Degrees-of-freedom method: kenward-roger > r2beta(DissSPT1RangeModelSyntaxMAX, method ="nsj") Effect Rsq upper.CL lower.CL 1 Model 0.066 0.161 0.01 2 SyntaxFF 0.066 0.161 0.01 %%% DISCOURSE ANALYSIS %%% > attach(DissSPT1data) > DissSPT1RangeModelDiscourseMAX = lmer(RangeSyllable ~ Discourse + (Discour se |Participant) + (1|Item), data = DissSPT1data, REML=FALSE) > summary(DissSPT1RangeModelDiscourseMAX) Linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood . t-tests use Satterthwaite's m ethod [lmerModLmerTest] Formula: RangeSyllable ~ Discourse + (Discourse | Participant) + (1 | I tem) Data: DissSPT1data A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 299 AIC BIC logLik deviance df.resid 573.0 593.8 -279.5 559.0 137 Scaled residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -2.1420 -0.5843 -0.1016 0.4366 2.3299 Random effects: Groups Name Variance Std.Dev. Corr Participant (Intercept) 2.0449 1.4300 DiscourseGiven 1.0340 1.0169 -0.61 Item (Intercept) 0.2458 0.4958 Residual 2.0581 1.4346 Number of obs: 144, groups: Participant, 12; Item, 12 Fixed effects: Estimate Std. Error df t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 3.9842 0.4718 14.8015 8.445 4.84e-07 *** DiscourseGiven -1.0593 0.4926 13.8115 -2.150 0.0497 * --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 Correlation of Fixed Effects: (Intr) DiscoursGvn -0.541 > mixed(DissSPT1RangeModelDiscourseMAX, DissSPT1data) Fitting one lmer() model. [DONE] Calculating p-values. [DONE] Mixed Model Anova Table (Type 3 tests, KR-method) Model: RangeSyllable ~ Discourse + (Discourse | Participant) + (1 | Model: Item) Data: DissSPT1data Effect df F p.value 1 Discourse 1, 13.44 4.22 + .06 --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘+’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 > emmeans(DissSPT1RangeModelDiscourseMAX, list(pairwise ~ Discourse), adjust ="tukey") $`emmeans of Discourse` Discourse emmean SE df lower.CL upper.CL Contrastive 3.98 0.493 16.5 2.94 5.03 Given 2.92 0.484 17.6 1.91 3.94 Degrees-of-freedom method: kenward-roger Confidence level used: 0.95 $`pairwise differences of Discourse` contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value Contrastive - Given 1.06 0.515 16.1 2.055 0.0564 Degrees-of-freedom method: kenward-roger > r2beta(DissSPT1RangeModelDiscourseMAX, method ="nsj") Effect Rsq upper.CL lower.CL 1 Model 0.058 0.149 0.007 2 DiscourseGiven 0.058 0.149 0.007 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 300 SESSION 2 – BOUNDARY TONE %%% PREPARING DATA SET %%% DissSPT2data <- read.csv(file.choose(),header=T) > head(DissSPT2data) Participant Item FT CG Condition Pitch Boundary RangeSy llable 1 1 7 Topic Contrastive ContrastiveTopic L+H* L- 3.18 2 1 9 Topic Given GivenTopic L+H* H- 3.20 3 1 3 Focus Contrastive ContrastiveFocus L+H* L- 0.98 4 1 4 Focus Contrastive ContrastiveFocus L+H* L- 4.67 5 1 6 Topic Contrastive ContrastiveTopic L+H* L- 1.04 6 1 10 Topic Given GivenTopic L+H* L- 0.60 > attach(DissSPT2data) %%% FOCUS/TOPIC ANALYSIS %%% > DissSPT2BoundaryModelFTMAX = glmer(Boundary ~ FT + (FT|Participant) + (1|I tem), data = DissSPT2data, family = "binomial") Warning messages: 1: In checkConv(attr(opt, "derivs"), opt$par, ctrl = control$checkConv, : unable to evaluate scaled gradient 2: In checkConv(attr(opt, "derivs"), opt$par, ctrl = control$checkConv, : Model failed to converge: degenerate Hessian with 2 negative eigenvalues > DissSPT2BoundaryModelFTPARTICIPANT = glmer(Boundary ~ FT + (FT|Participant ), data = DissSPT2data, family = "binomial") Warning messages: 1: In checkConv(attr(opt, "derivs"), opt$par, ctrl = control$checkConv, : unable to evaluate scaled gradient 2: In checkConv(attr(opt, "derivs"), opt$par, ctrl = control$checkConv, : Model failed to converge: degenerate Hessian with 3 negative eigenvalues > DissSPT2BoundaryModelFTintercept = glmer(Boundary ~ FT + (1|Participant) + (1|Item), data = DissSPT2data, family = "binomial") > summary(DissSPT2BoundaryModelFTintercept) Generalized linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood (Laplace Approximat ion) ['glmerMod'] Family: binomial ( logit ) Formula: Boundary ~ FT + (1 | Participant) + (1 | Item) Data: DissSPT2data AIC BIC logLik deviance df.resid 77.2 88.3 -34.6 69.2 116 Scaled residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -1.37030 -0.12578 0.00000 0.00004 1.47078 Random effects: Groups Name Variance Std.Dev. Item (Intercept) 10.99 3.315 Participant (Intercept) 11.54 3.396 Number of obs: 120, groups: Item, 12; Participant, 5 Fixed effects: Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|) (Intercept) 24.16 8616.01 0.003 0.998 FTTopic -26.70 8616.01 -0.003 0.998 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 301 Correlation of Fixed Effects: (Intr) FTTopic -1.000 convergence code: 0 unable to evaluate scaled gradient Hessian is numerically singular: parameters are not uniquely determined > emmeans(DissSPT2BoundaryModelFTintercept, list(pairwise ~ FT), adjust = "t ukey") $`emmeans of FT` FT emmean SE df asymp.LCL asymp.UCL Focus 24.16 8616 Inf -16862.91 16911.23 Topic -2.54 2 Inf -6.45 1.37 Results are given on the logit (not the response) scale. Confidence level used: 0.95 $`pairwise differences of FT` contrast estimate SE df z.ratio p.value Focus - Topic 26.7 8616 Inf 0.003 0.9975 Results are given on the log odds ratio (not the response) scale. %%% CONTRAST/GIVEN ANALYSIS %%% > attach(DissSPT2data) > DissSPT2BoundaryModelCGMAX = glmer(Boundary ~ CG + (CG|Participant) + (1|I tem), data = DissSPT2data, family = "binomial") Warning message: In checkConv(attr(opt, "derivs"), opt$par, ctrl = control$checkConv, : Model failed to converge with max|grad| = 0.0467707 (tol = 0.001, componen t 1) > DissSPT2BoundaryModelCGparticipant = glmer(Boundary ~ CG + (CG|Participant ), data = DissSPT2data, family = "binomial") > summary(DissSPT2BoundaryModelCGparticipant) Generalized linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood (Laplace Approximat ion) ['glmerMod'] Family: binomial ( logit ) Formula: Boundary ~ CG + (CG | Participant) Data: DissSPT2data AIC BIC logLik deviance df.resid 124.8 138.8 -57.4 114.8 115 Scaled residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -2.2176 -0.2744 0.2925 0.4875 1.7684 Random effects: Groups Name Variance Std.Dev. Corr Participant (Intercept) 0.857 0.9257 CGGiven 3.587 1.8939 0.23 Number of obs: 120, groups: Participant, 5 Fixed effects: Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|) (Intercept) 1.2996 0.5289 2.457 0.0140 * CGGiven -4.3651 1.7787 -2.454 0.0141 * --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 Correlation of Fixed Effects: (Intr) CGGiven -0.030 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 302 > emmeans(DissSPT2BoundaryModelCGparticipant, list(pairwise ~ CG), adjust = "tukey") $`emmeans of CG` CG emmean SE df asymp.LCL asymp.UCL Contrastive 1.30 0.529 Inf 0.263 2.336 Given -3.07 1.840 Inf -6.672 0.541 Results are given on the logit (not the response) scale. Confidence level used: 0.95 $`pairwise differences of CG` contrast estimate SE df z.ratio p.value Contrastive - Given 4.37 1.78 Inf 2.454 0.0141 Results are given on the log odds ratio (not the response) scale. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 303 Appendix 21 – Study 3: License from Syntax A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 304 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 305 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 306 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 307 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 308 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 309 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 310 VITA Updated July 6, 2020 Bilingualism Research Lab LinkedIn: 601 South Morgan Street https://www.linkedin.com/in/jose-sequeros-valle-1a7213a9/ Suite 1702 Research Gate: Chicago, Illinois 60607 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jose_Sequeros-Valle United States Academia: [email protected] https://uic.academia.edu/JoseSequerosValle EDUCATION 2020 Ph.D. Hispanic Linguistics University of Illinois at Chicago Dissertation: A morphological approach to discourse in Spanish: A theoretical and experimental review (Chair: Luis López). 2015 M.A. Spanish Linguistics DePaul University Thesis: Clitic-doubled left dislocation in L2 Spanish: Findings from learners' production data (Chair: Bradley Hoot). 2008 B.A. Education Universidad Complutense de Madrid SCHOLARSHIP Peer-reviewed Publications Accepted Sequeros-Valle, J., Hoot, B., Cabrelli, J. (accepted). Clitic-doubled left dislocation in heritage Spanish: Judgment vs. speeded production data. Languages. 2020 Jose Sequeros-Valle , Bradley Hoot & Jennifer Cabrelli (2020): Clitic-doubled left dislocation in L2 Spanish: The effect of processing load at the syntax-discourse interface. Language Acquisition, 27(3), 306-330. DOI: 10.1080/10489223.2020.1769628 2019 Sequeros-Valle, J. (2019). The intonation of the left periphery: A matter of syntax or pragmatics? Syntax, 22(2/3), 274-302. DOI: 10.1111/synt.12182 Current Research Projects • Sequeros-Valle, J. (in progress). Acceptability, self-paced reading, and production of the Spanish left periphery: An L1 - L2 comparison. [initial stages] • Sequeros-Valle, J. (in progress). Bilingual grammars under a lexical-discourse approach. [initial stages] • Sequeros-Valle, J. Left dislocations in code-switching. [data collection] • Parafita Couto, MC … & Sequeros-Valle, J. Determiner-verb in code-switching. [data collection] • Parafita Couto, MC … & Sequeros-Valle, J. Idioms in code-switching. [data collection] A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 311 SCHOLARLY PRESENTATIONS Peer-reviewed Conference Presentations 2020 Sequeros-Valle, J. (2020, February). Canonical and non-canonical utterances in context: Evidence from judgment data. Paper presented at the In/between Conference. Chicago, Illinois. 2019 Sequeros-Valle, J. (2019, October). The lack of 1:1 correlation between discourse and other domains: A corpus analysis. Poster presented at the 2019 Hispanic Linguistic Symposium. El Paso, Texas. 2019 Sequeros-Valle, J. (2019, April). Discourse-free intonation at the Spanish left periphery. Paper presented at the In/between Conference. Chicago, Illinois. 2019 Sequeros-Valle, J. (2019, March). Phonological effects of contrast and anaphora: Evidence from the Spanish left-periphery. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Conference of Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics. Columbus, Ohio. 2018 Sequeros-Valle, J., Hoot, B., Cabrelli Amaro, J. (2018, October). Clitic-doubled left dislocation in heritage Spanish: Judgment vs. speeded production data. Paper presented at the Bilingualism Forum. Chicago, Illinois. 2017 Sequeros-Valle, J. (2017, October). Topic type and pitch accent: Data from an elicited production task. Poster presented at the 1st International Workshop on the Interface of Information Structure and Argument Structure. Seville, Spain. 2017 Sequeros-Valle, J. Hoot, B., Cabrelli Amaro, J. (2017, June). Clitic-doubled left dislocation in heritage Spanish: Data from a speeded production task. Paper presented at the International Symposium of Bilingualism. Limerick, Ireland. 2016 Sequeros-Valle, J., Hoot, B., Cabrelli Amaro, J. (2016, November). Clitic-doubled left dislocation in L2 Spanish: Data from a speeded production task. Poster presented at the Boston University Conference on Language Development. Boston, Massachusetts. 2016 Sequeros-Valle, J., Hoot, B., Cabrelli Amaro, J. (2016, October). Clitic-doubled left dislocation in L2 Spanish: The effect of a timed task in L2 performance. Paper presented at the Hispanic Linguistic Symposium. Washington D.C. 2016 Sequeros-Valle, J., Hoot, B., Cabrelli Amaro, J. (2016, October). Clitic-Doubled left dislocation in L2 Spanish: Data from a speeded production task. Paper presented at the Bilingualism Forum. Chicago, Illinois. 2016 Sequeros-Valle, J., Hoot, B., Cabrelli Amaro, J. (2016, September). Clitic-doubled left dislocation in L2 Spanish: Speeded production data. Paper presented at the Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition of North America. Urbana, Illinois. Departmental Presentations 2019 Sequeros-Valle, J. (2019, November). It’s just words!: A lexical approach to discourse. Paper presented at Talks in Linguistics. Chicago, Illinois. A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 312 2018 Sequeros-Valle, J., Hoot, B., Cabrelli Amaro, J. (2018, September). Clitic-doubled left dislocation in heritage Spanish: Judgment vs. speeded production data. Paper presented at Talks in Linguistics. Chicago, Illinois. 2017 Sequeros-Valle, J. (2017, April). L2 Access to UG?: Evidence from fronted topics. Paper presented at Second Language Acquisition Symposium. Chicago, Illinois. 2016 Sequeros-Valle, J., Hoot, B., Cabrelli Amaro, J. (2016, September). Clitic-doubled left dislocation in L2 Spanish: Speeded production data. Paper presented at Talks in Linguistics. Chicago, Illinois. RESEARCH EXPERIENCE 2020-present Research Assistant Bilingualism Research Laboratory University of Illinois at Chicago 2019-2020 Graduate Director Bilingualism Research Laboratory University of Illinois at Chicago 2019-2020 Director of Research Administration Bilingualism Research Laboratory University of Illinois at Chicago 2018-2019 Director of Finance Bilingualism Research Laboratory University of Illinois at Chicago 2017-2018 Director of Media, Design, and Communications Bilingualism Research Laboratory University of Illinois at Chicago 2016 Research Assistant Multilingual Phonology Laboratory University of Illinois at Chicago TEACHING AREAS Linguistics Information Structure, Morphosyntax, Phonology, Second Language Acquisition Language Spanish Basic Language Courses, Spanish Heritage Language Courses TEACHING EXPERIENCE University of Illinois at Chicago 2020-present Online Course Developer College of Liberal Arts and Sciences A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 313 2015-2020 Teaching Assistant Spanish Basic Language Program Spanish Heritage Language Program Spanish Grammar in Use Introduction to Linguistics 2019-2020 Materials Development Committee Member Spanish Basic Language Program 2018-2019 Spanish 101 Coordinator Spanish Basic Language Program DePaul University 2015 Spanish Practicum Instructor Second-semester Spanish Outside Academia 2012-2014 Spanish Instructor (Adults) Spanish Language Center Chicago, Illinois 2011-2014 Spanish Instructor (Adults) Multilingual Connections Chicago, Illinois 2011-2012 Spanish Instructor (Children) Instituto Cervantes Chicago, Illinois 2008-2010 Private Tutor (Adults and Children) Madrid, Spain 2005-2008 Student Teacher (Children) Madrid, Spain’s Public Schools TEACHING TRAINING 2020 Course Builder Training Heather O'Leary University of Illinois at Chicago 2020 Overview of Online Instruction Kathy Olesen-Tracey University of Illinois System 2020 Basic Steps of Teaching Online Academic Computer and Communications Center University of Illinois at Chicago A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 314 2019 Heritage Language Teaching Workshop Kim Potowski University of Illinois at Chicago 2018 Task-based Approach Professional Development Workshop Claudia Fernández University of Illinois at Chicago 2016-2017 Second Language Acquisition Ph.D. Courses Kara Morgan-Short University of Illinois at Chicago 2015 Communicative Language Teaching Ph.D. Course Kara Morgan-Short University of Illinois at Chicago 2015 Independent Study on Communicative Language Teaching Mark Johnston and María Luisa Ortega Hernández DePaul University 2014 Second Language Acquisition M.A. Courses Jason Goulah and Sung Park-Johnson DePaul University 2009-2010 English as a Foreign Language B.A. Courses Universidad Complutense de Madrid GRANTS 2020 Graduate Student Council Travel Award University of Illinois at Chicago Award: $275 2020 Award for Graduate Support University of Illinois at Chicago Award: $500 2020 Graduate College Presenter Travel Award University of Illinois at Chicago Award: $300 2019 Award for Graduate Support University of Illinois at Chicago Award: $500 2019 Graduate College Presenter Travel Award University of Illinois at Chicago Award: $300 2019 Graduate Student Council Travel Award University of Illinois at Chicago Award: $275 A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 315 2017 Graduate Student Council Travel Award University of Illinois at Chicago Award: $275 2016 Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition of North America Travel Award National Science Foundation Award: $500 SERVICE 2020-present Management Mentor University of Illinois at Chicago Spanish Club for Pre-medical Students 2015-2020 Undergraduate Research Mentor University of Illinois at Chicago Mayra Fajardo (2019-present) Ryan Brown (2018-2019) Aletia Rebollar (2015-2017) 2018 Organizing Committee Member Bilingualism Forum University of Illinois at Chicago 2016-2017 Director of the Organizing Committee Talks in Linguistics University of Illinois at Chicago 2016 Session Chair Bilingualism Forum University of Illinois at Chicago COMPUTING SKILLS Experiments E-Prime, Microsoft Power Point Data Science Python Statistics R-Studio, SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) Management Blackboard Other Praat, LaTex LANGUAGES English Fluent, at all four skills Spanish Native, at all four skills Portuguese Intermediate, at all four skills A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DISCOURSE 316 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS 2019-present Bilingualism Matters 2016-present Bilingualism Research Lab 2014-present Sigma Delta Pi - Spanish Honors Society 2015-2016 Multilingual Phonology Lab