Schwa at the Phonology/Syntax Interface

Michael L. Mazzola Northern Illinois University

The well known incongruence between the phonology and the syntax is

resolved by removing syntactic boundaries through rhythmic patterning.

Thus, since the interface between phonological phrasing and the syntax is

direct, the intermediary of the prosodic component is eliminated.

Accordingly, it is emphasized that language is rhythmic and that the rhythm

of any given language directly interprets the syntactic constituency. The

instrument by which this is achieved is the rhythmic foot, which contravenes

the syntactic constituency directly and restructures it to align it with the

rhythmic patterning. In contrast to Nespor (1990), the paper takes into

account no separation between the prosody and rhythm. As a result, it limits

the need for pre-compiled rules as proposed by Hayes (1990). Especially

targeted in relation to this discussion is the behavior of French schwa.

1. Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to affirm that intonational environments are built

directly on syntactically defined domains. Most of the relevant accentual

patterns which will be discussed are derived from a linear syntactic

constituency. Others, however, will be shown to be no less relevant to tree

geometry and to the lexicon. The focus here, therefore, is on the direct access of

the phonological component to the syntactic component (cf. Odden 1987; Chen

1990: 20). Accordingly, this interface between phonological phrasing and the

syntax requires no hierarchical intermediary. As evidence for this claim, it is

emphasized that language is rhythmic and that the rhythm of any given

language directly interprets the syntactic constituency, of itself the rhythm

modifies that constituency and, as a consequence, the rhythm determines the

behavior of phonological operations. The instrument by which this is achieved,

I argue, is the rhythmic foot as the direct environment for the behavior of

sandhi segments. To highlight this, the rhythm will be shown to contravene the

syntactic constituency directly and restructure it to align it with the rhythmic

patterning. The approach adopted here, specifically regarding the behavior of

French schwa, should be considered, therefore, in the context of the issue over

whether the syntax has a direct or an indirect interface with the phonology.

Thus, the center of attention of this paper is the formal aspects of the grammar

and their structural relationships. There are some remote similarities between

the formal focus of this paper and the lesser known socio-linguistic orientation

referred to as macrosyntax (cf. especially Blanche-Benveniste 2000), known in

North America as well as abroad. However, this latter approach is devoted

exclusively to matters related to language use with goals superfluous to those

under scrutiny here.

Conventionally, formal concerns with the syntax/phonology interface have

22

centered around syntactic boundaries. These have inspired several well known

proposals to show how syntactic phrase structure may influence phonological

behavior: (1) phrasal rank (cf. Selkirk 1984); or (2) head/complement (cf.

Nespor & Vogel 1982); or (3) sisterhood (cf. Zec & Inkelas 1990); or (4) c-

command and edge membership (cf. Kaisse 1985). At the same time, however,

it is also well known that there is incongruence between syntactic domains and

the operation of phonological phenomena (cf. Hayes 1990: 86). This

incongruence has been noted especially with regard to external sandhi rules (cf.

Nespor 1990: 243). With specific reference to this issue, it is the point of this

paper that phonological behavior originates in the syntactic constituency, but

that the acknowledged incongruence is resolved by manipulating syntactic

boundaries not by means of putative, prosodic constituents, but rather by

removing them through a well defined rhythmic patterning. The imposition of

this rhythmic patterning, then, eliminates the intermediary of the prosodic

component. As a consequence, a separation between the prosodic and rhythmic

phonology is rendered unnecessary. This is in direct contrast to Nespor’s view

that “the interface between syntax and phonology is limited to prosodic

phonology; in the case of rhythmic phonology one can hardly speak of

reference to syntax at all” (1990: 244). Thus, in opposition to the perspective

promoted by Nespor (1990) and Hayes (1990), accentual constituents are

identified in this paper as the perceptible environments for the behavior of

schwa in French (cf. notably Mazzola 1992, 1993, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2001,

2006). By recognizing the functioning of this segment in an explicit way, it is

maintained that the influence of the rhythmic phonology on the information

handed down by the syntax is determinative at both the linear and arboreal

syntactic level, and has a role to play at the lexical level as well. Thus, the

rhythmic perspective targets both the syntax and the lexicon by means of a well

defined accentuation peculiar to French.

33

1. Phonology/Morphology Interface

As indicated above, however, given the often observed incongruities between

phonological domains and syntactic constituency, emphasis has been placed on

an intermediate level of interpretation (cf. especially Selkirk 1984 and Nespor

& Vogel 1986). This prosodic level has a considerable degree of autonomy and

a hierarchy of its own constituents: phonological word, phonological phrase,

intonational phrase, utterance. In accord with this approach, the role of the

segmental level (cf. Côté 2004, 2006; Côté & Morrison 2007) has been

advanced recently to treat the behavior of French schwa as evidence for an

intermediate level between the phonology and the syntax, viz. the framework of

the prosodic phrase, the prosodic word, and the syllable. At issue is Côté’s

analysis of French schwa, which favors the prosodic word as a determinative

factor in the behavior of segments. In doing so, she gives preference to the role

of the morphology as a reflection of a prosody which works in marginal

cooperation with the syntax. The difference between the two orientations (i.e.

the accentual and the prosodic) can be formalized, therefore, from the

perspective regarding the interface either between the morphology and the

phonology, on the one hand, or the syntax and the phonology, on the other.

Côté (2006) grants in passing that the syntax has a role to play in the

determination of the prosody, but to support her emphasis on the segmental

level, she brings forward arguments that limit the function of accentuation in

the behavior of schwa as held by a number of scholars, e.g. Dell (1985), Léon

(1966), Mazzola (2001), Morin (1974), Tranel (1987). In (1-3), we see

summarized examples of this behavior as conventionally presented, where,

schwa is reported to be inserted between two morphemes if the second is

44

monosyllabic and stressed (1), but realized only optionally before two syllables

(2), and rarely if the second morpheme is a polysyllable (3).

(1) Carte Bleue, George Bush, filmǝ noir, oursǝ blanc

(2) Cart(e) Vermeille, Georg(e)s Dupont, film(ǝ) français, ours(ǝ) sauvage

(3) carte perforée, Georges Pompidou, film canadien, ours griselé

Based on such data, it has been observed that when the vowel is realized, it is

between two stressed syllables, while before disyllables and polysyllables there

is no stress clash to be resolved. Everyone agrees that this is merely a summary

of the most conspicuous behavior of mute-e. It is certainly the case that there is

considerable variation where these data, as presented, are concerned. However,

to her credit, Côté does not merely reduce those vagaries of common usage to a

simple listing of well known counterexamples. Rather, she deals with examples

of variation as useful for what she views as an improvement on – rather than a

dismissal of – the previous perspective. In fact, in deference to Côté, several

examples of variation (cf. (4) below for one) represent a good deal of the value

of her argumentation. This is to be expected of formal approaches as they cut

through the thicket of vagaries in order to determine analyses other than those

which have traditionally prevailed. With this in mind, it must be stressed that it

is the discernment of structures that is the goal of this paper, as was indeed that

of Côté’s competing analysis. Items exemplifying pertinent variations relevant

to each proposal are raised below in their context.

Côté characterizes resorting to stress clash to explain schwa insertion as

merely formalizing a phenomenon accompanied by further complications

requiring attention. She agrees that the analysis based on accentuation can

55

explain the behavior of schwa if the data are limited to the environment

preceded by two consonants. However, she argues that the prosodic and

segmental constraints and their interactions remain to be explained where the

environment is preceded by one consonant. This is especially indicated in data

such as (4).

(4) l’Aztèque part a. [l=astɛk#pár] b. *[l=astɛkǝ#pár]

Here, there is no problem with the two stressed syllables appearing side by side.

This, she maintains, is an indication of a single phrase, where the schwa, in (4a)

is, as a consequence, not inserted, as opposed to (4b). In other words, her

perspective regarding prosodic structure eases setting aside the role of

accentuation. This perception of the structure through its effects rather than

through its concrete elements allows her to view, then, the restriction on schwa

in (4b) as being also due to a segmental constraint requiring phrase internal

consonants before and after the environment in question to be adjacent to a

vowel. On that basis, she repeats the conventional hierarchical principle: every

prosodic category must include at least two examples of a lower category. The

higher category is the familiar prosodic phrase; the lower categories are the

also familiar prosodic word and the syllable.

However, although she broadens our perspective, Côté dismisses the

accentual approach by observing that schwa is realized not only by the number

of syllables following the environment, but also by the same syllabic

configuration preceding the environment at issue:

(5) l'acte commence [laktǝ#kɔmãs] (?) [lakt#kɔmãs]

l'entracte commence [lãtrakt(ǝ)#kɔmãs]

66

(6) la secte part [la=sɛktǝ#par] (?) [la=sɛkt#par]

la secte partait [la=sɛkt(ǝ)#partɛ]

(7) jette de l'ortie [ʒɛt#dǝ=l=ɔrti] (?) [ʒɛt#d=l=ɔrti]

achète de l'ortie [aʃɛt#d(ǝ)=l=ɔrti]

The phrases in (5), (6) et (7) resemble those in (1) et (2) except that the

morphological limits are preceded rather than followed by one or two syllables

without any effect on the insertion of schwa. It is rather the number of

preceding syllables, specified by the limits of the morphemes, which trigger the

occurrence of schwa. From this, she draws the conclusion that the contrasts in

(5), (6) and (7) can be due neither to accentuation, nor to stress clash, nor, as a

result, to the insertion of schwa before the stressed syllable.

In other words, the number of syllables of each prosodic unit is determined

by two factors: (1) the insertion of a cumbersome array of internal word barriers

(+) and external word barriers (#), as well as by limits indicating clitics (=); and

(2) the insertion of schwa. The example in (8) illustrates the place of clitic

limits.

(8) a. de l’eau [d#=l=o] ?[d=l=o] but

b. de l'audace [d(#)=l=odas]

This difference is attributed to a condition of minimality where in (8a) de l'eau,

the insertion serves to avoid a marked monosyllabic utterance, while in (8b) de

l'audace, the utterance without the insertion results in a dissyllabic phrase,

which automatically satisfies the criterion of minimality. As a result, the

insertion of schwa is realized before the environment in question as well as

after. The number of syllables, therefore, plays no role as the examples above

77

demonstrate.

She concludes, therefore, that it is the number of preceding syllables, as

specified by morphemic boundaries that determine the insertion of schwa.

Through this approach, Côté finds a link between the number of syllables in the

prosodic unit and the allowed adjacent consonants arising from the

insertion/non-insertion of schwa. These permitted clusters, she argues, are

determined not by structural considerations, but rather, in my view, by a rather

vague and largely undefined criterion of eurhythmic preferences. Accordingly,

she affirms the influence of segmental factors on the prosody by means of

eurhythmy, so called, and morphology. By this accounting, the behavior of

schwa in French is not attributed to a direct phonology/syntax interface. Côté

prefers, rather, a morphology/syntax interface; requiring a prosody

characterized more by the effects than by the physical correlates of its

constituents.

2. The phonology/syntax interface

In contrast, the prosodic level is considered here to be unnecessary given a

direct rhythmic instrument (i.e. the rhythmic foot), by means of which linear

syntactic constituents are reinterpreted at the suprasegmental level and are

either (1) simply restructured in accord with the rhythmic template; or (2)

aligned with the rhythmic foot in cooperation with mute-e insertion or stress

displacement. The operation of this rhythmic instrument is cogently imposed by

the behavior of mute-e in French in a well defined play in the patterns of

syllables. This patterning originates in the syntactic constituent and reinterprets

the constituent phonologically. Accordingly, the distinctive intonation patterns

of phrases can be considered to be what remains from the analyzing function of

88

the syntax. In the process, the syntactic constituents (containing suprasegmental

words, or lexical entries marked with syllable strength) are immediately passed

on to the phonology which shapes them into suprasegmental phrases (=

rhythmic feet) as environments resulting from the resolution of stress clash,

among other operations, with an automatic change in the configuration of

strong and weak syllables. These rhythmic processes, then, operate to form

rhythmic feet to account for the insertion of schwa and for other phonological

operations specified below. This accentual approach does not rely on

morphological boundaries to determine the behavior of schwa in French and

removes, therefore, any need for an intermediate prosodic level. Through a

nimble, rhythmic patterning, mute-e insertion is realized merely by a process of

stress clash resolution or stress displacement.

As already argued in several papers (Mazzola, op. cit.), it continues to be

claimed, as before and now in agreement with Côté, that the insertion of the

vowel is not dependent on the number of consonants following the environment

(cf. (19a-c) below). I argue, nonetheless, that the behavior of the segment is

determined by a flexible and well defined accentuation which works in direct

cooperation with the syntax. Deduced not only from its segmental effects, I

maintain that the rhythmic phraseology is realized in the form of templates

distinguished by alternations of strong (s) and weak (w) syllables: [s w s], [s w

w s]. It is important to recall here in passing that the syllables labeled as strong

are not all of equal weight. It is clear that the strong syllable to the right marks

the well known primary accent of French, while the leftmost strong syllable of

the constituent indicates a secondary accent which I have emphasized elsewhere

(cf. Mazzola 1992, 1993; for a more ample discussion of secondary accent in

French, see Hoskins 1994). These syllable strengths are automatically assigned

in the lexicon, concatenated in the syntax, and subsequently reorganized into

the purely phonological domains representative of French rhythm.

99

Although, these templates are sometimes similar to the prosodic phrase or

to the prosodic word of Selkirk (1984), Nespor & Vogel (1986), and Côté

(2007), there are several phenomena that neither the prosodic phrase nor the

prosodic word can explain. In question are the rhythmic processes themselves

(especially leftward stress displacement in French) and the consequences that

these processes can have not only for (a) the realization of schwa, but also for

(b) the placement of pauses, and (c) the glide of high vowels into semi-vowels.

In the following discussion, Côté's data will be folded in to show how they can

be accounted for through an accentual perspective.

2.1. Suprasegmental domains

The relevant domains are constructed and modified though their combination

into phrases resulting from the alternation of strong and weak syllables at the

suprasegmental level. The lexical units of French are, therefore, labeled

according to their syllabic characteristics: [ s ], [ w s ], [ w w s ] to which we

assign the term the suprasegmental word, i.e. the morpheme as already stored in

the lexicon with accentual value(s). See examples given in (9a-c):

(9) The Suprasegmental Word:

a. [ s ] sol; gris; vue; broche, disque, vis, main

b. [ w s ] bonheur; truqué; gratuit; malade; majeur

c. [ w w s ] parapluie; perforé

The template, illustrated in (10), identified by the syllable pattern [ s w (w) s ],

is labeled the suprasegmental phrase (= rhythmic foot), and begins with a

strong syllable. It is the case that, especially in rapid French, the phrase can be

‘stretched’ to include more weak syllables between the two strong ones (e.g.

1010

s w w w s, s w w w w s, etc.). This in many instances is dependent on the

amount of breath the speaker happens to command to produce such a lengthy

phrase. The phrases dealt with in this paper, however, have been limited to

those having one or two intervening weak syllables. These phrases may include,

but are not limited to noun compounds, as exemplified also in (10).

(10) The Suprasegmental Phrase:

a. [ s w s ] b. [ w s ] [w s] c. [ w s] [ w w s ]

porte-bonheur

cartes truqués

Porte Maillot

l’acte commence l’entracte commence

jette de l’ortie achète de l’ortie

la secte partait l’Aztèque partait

In Côté's examples, (10 b-c), we have two suprasegmental words which, in (10

d-e), are reorganized into suprasegmental phrases:

d. [ w s ] + [ w s ] [ w [ s w s ]]

l’entracte commence l’en tracte commence

l’Aztèque partait l’Az tèque partait

e. [ w s ] + [ w w s ] [w [s w w s]]

achète de l’ortie a chète de l’ortie

As shown, we find the formation of the suprasegmental phrase resulting from a

regrouping of the syllable strengths, beginning with a strong syllable. In this

way, a new rhythmic phrase is imposed on the linear syntactic arrangement,

thereby creating a new environment not conducive for the insertion of schwa.

1111

Thus, the construction of the accentual phrase does not necessarily have to

appeal to the property of ‘branching’ (but cf. Bickmore 1990: 17). More

importantly, we see the process by which the syntax can certainly determine

phonological phrasing, if we acknowledge an interface through a rhythmic

instrument (but cf. Hayes 1990: 85).

2.1.1 Stress Displacement

So far, we have seen the formation of the suprasegmental phrase as a result of

the rhythmic reorganization of syllable strength. The formation of the same

constituent can be demonstrated by the insertion of schwa before a

monosyllable to resolve a conflict between two adjacent stressed syllables.

Thus, the insertion of schwa, which has as its purpose the resolution of stress

clash, is the second device for the formation of the suprasegmental phrase.

(10) Insertion of mute-e:

d. [ s w s ]

tournesol

(cf. also carte grise, à contre cœur, couvre feu, force d'âme, garde-boue, farce

maigre, ours[ǝ] blanc, film[ǝ] noir)

It is, however, also the case that the phenomenon of stress clash in French can

be resolved by means of the leftward displacement of stress before

monosyllables (cf. also Passy 1899 and Tranel 1987):

(11) Stress Displacement:

[ w s ] + [ s ] [ s w s ]

troisième + âge troisième âge

meilleurs + vœux meilleurs vœux

1212

l’Aztèque + part l’Aztèque part

and optional before polysyllables:

[ w s ] [ w s ] [ s w w s ]

(12) bateau + maison bateau maison

(It should be noted that a minority of speakers have expressed doubt in reaction

to the output given in (12). Others have accepted it as normal with no

appreciable reaction). In this way, we see clashes being resolved not only

through (1) the insertion of mute-e but also through (2) the displacement of

stress with the resultant creation of a suprasegmental phrase. It is interesting to

note with regard to the examples in (11) that syntactic phrases, even with the

apprearance of being lexicalized (e.g. troisième âge, meilleurs vœux), conform

nonetheless to the same accentual pattern. The rhythmic structure of the

resultant suprasegmental phrase is identical to the one found in other less

common phrases such as l’Aztèque part, which require the exact same syntactic

and rhythmic structure, even for less frequently selected semantic content. In

the process of their formation with or without subsequent, putative

lexicalization, lexical and linear syntactic information is passed on to the

phonology by means of the configurations of syllabic weight. It is important to

note, however, that although the syntax is involved through linear constituency,

as illustrated in (11) for attributive phrases, there is some question whether

predicative phrases can be automatically reorganized into suprasegmental

phrases (cf. 13). It is not clear whether morphological labeling and boundaries

are more properly at issue. These boundaries would restrict stress displacement

in nouns, but not in the case for adjectives:

(13) a. [ w s ] [ w s ] [ s w w s ]

1313

bateau + français ?bateau français

[ w s ] [ s ] [ s w s ]

b. bateau + moche ?bateau moche [sic]

Where we do encounter two suprasegmental words which are combined in

conformity with the template to form a suprasegmental phrase, however, these

templates can be analyzed and labeled as suprasegmental constituents cf. (14):

(14) [ w s ]SW + [ s ]SW [ s w = s ]SP

petit homme petit = home

From these constituents composed of suprasegmental words, we see formed

suprasegmental phrases which yield the restructuring in (15).

(15) [ w s ]SW + [ w s ]SW [ w[s = w s ]SP [ s w = w s ]SP

petit ami (a) petit = ami OR (b) petit = ami

Thus, (14) illustrates the composition of a suprasegmental phrase as the result

of stress displacement while (15) demonstrates the creation of two possible

suprasegmental phrases. The first result of (15) is the result of restructuring,

that is to say, the creation of a new rhythmic constituent starting with the first

strong syllable, giving [ s w s ] preceded by one orphaned weak syllable. The

second result of (15), on the other hand, is produced by the optional

displacement of stress before polysyllables in attributive phrases. The mute-e in

this case is in a strong syllable and thus fully targeted for insertion. As

discussed elsewhere (cf. Mazzola 1994), the suprasegmental phrase can serve

as an environment favoring liaison in French (indicated by the symbol ‘=’ in

(15)). We conclude, therefore, that this method of determining suprasegmental

1414

domains with the restructuring which results from it in (15) gives way to the

composition of the suprasegmental phrase. In other words, the rhythmic foot

must be asserted, if not by stress displacement (i.e. (15b), then necessarily by

suprasegmental restructuring (15a). This rhythmic constituent is now freed

from lexical and syntactic restrictions, which originated from the

suprasegmental words furnished by the lexicon.

Thus, unlike in a prosodic orientation favoring morphological conditioning,

the suprasegmental phrase is the driving rhythmic environment behind the

behavior of mute-e. In (10b) represented again as (16):

(16) [ s w s ] SP

tournesol

(cf. also carte grise, Carte Bleue, ours[ǝ] blanc, film[ǝ] noir, George Bush)

We have the noun compound represented as a suprasegmental phrase where the

insertion of mute-e is very common. For (10a), on the other hand, reproduced

here as (17) and (3), reproduced again as (18), no mute-e is inserted because the

phrase is already in conformity with one of the acceptable templates of French.

(17) [ s w s ] SP (18) [ s w w s ] SP

porte-bonheur porte-parapluies

cartes truquées carte perforée

Porte Maillot Georges Pompidou

Carte Vermeil

This phenomenon explains also why the examples of Côté can fall within a

single suprasegmental phrase where schwa is excluded (cf. (10d) l’entracte

commence, l’Aztèque partait). The same phenomenon in the examples in (19)

1515

which, at first, do not seem related, exemplify the behavior of schwa in the

same way:

(19) a. [ s w s ] SP b. [ s w w s ] SP

l'oncle de Paul l'oncle de Pauline

carte de vœux titre de transport

achète de l’eau achète d(e) l’ortie

l’entract(e) commence

l’Aztèque partait

c. [ s w w s ] SP [ w s ] SW

l'oncle de la petite Pauline

d. [ s ]SW + [ w [ s w w s ]] SP

carte de correspondence

Here, in (17-19), we still see the absence of the first schwa in the sequence of

syllables, not because of the increasing number of following syllables as we

would expect according to (2 a-b), but rather because the environment in

question comes before a weak syllable. This is to say that we have a phrase

where one of the two syllabic templates must be preserved. For exactly the

same reason, the schwa of the word petite en (19c) is unfilled before another

weak syllable to reduce the length of the phrase in conformity with the

rhythmic template.

3. The role of the syntax

We observed above that stress displacement can occur in noun + verb phrases

and compound nouns (e.g. 10), and in attributive noun phrases (e.g. (20a) and

1616

(21a). This stress displacement triggers the formation of a new constituent

which, because of beginning in a strong syllable, becomes a suprasegmental

phrase. Such a phenomenon seems questionable, however, as seen above, in

predicative noun phrases:

(20) a. [ w s ]SW [ s ]SW [ s w s ]SP

petit + homme petit homme

b. [ w s ]SW [ s ]SW [ s w s ]SP

bateau + moche ?bateau moche

(21) a. [ w s]SW [ w s ]SW [ s w w s ]SP

petit + ami petit ami

b. [ w s ]SW [ w s ]SW [ s w w s ]SP

bateau + français ?bateau français

Here, attributive phrases are properly re-created as suprasegmental phrases as

we see in (20a) and (21a) through stress displacement, but the same may or may

not be the case for predicative phrases (cf. (20b) and (21b)). The latter seem to

retain their status of sequences of suprasegmental words, which is reflected in

the representation of their syllabic weight. It is here, therefore, where we might

detect a direct relation with the morphology to indicate this interruption of the

rhythm. The phonology/morphology interface, therefore, has more to do with

restrictions on stress displacement rather than with the behavior of schwa in

French.

3.1 Tree geometry

The interface between the phonology and the syntax can be highlighted even

1717

more markedly by the examples given in (22) and (23):

(22) a. [ s ]SW [ s ]SW [ w s ]SW b.[ s w s ]SP [ w s ]SW

livre d'art chinois livre d'art chinois

(23) a. [ s ]SW [ s w s ]SG b. [ s w w s ]SG

livre d'art chinois livre d'art chinois

In these examples, taken from Dell (1973), the mute-e in (22), so obvious in its

role in making the distinction between (22) and (23), is inserted to eliminate the

stress clash while rendering the suprasegmental phrase as illustrated.

Remarkably, this stress clash resolution with resultant insertion seems to take

place within the Noun Phrase before being passed on to the phonology, given

that the contrast between both noun phrases must have been already present in

order for the insertion in (22) but not in (23).

(22) c. [[ s ] [ s ]]NP [ w s ]Ad [ s w s ]SP [ w s ]SW

livre d'art chinois livre d'art chinois

(23) c. [ s ]N [ [ s w s ]]NP [ s w w s ]SP

livre de art chinois livre d'art chinois

These examples indicate, further, that that the rhythmic phrase (represented

right of the arrow) is the realization of the major syntactic boundaries

(represented left of the arrow). The rhythm in this way interprets the syntax

directly at yet another depth where branching is required. Here, where

branching is evident, rhythm is the grammatical tool which conveys the

semantic content by preserving the syntactic constituency phonologically. The

1818

stress clash for (23), therefore, is resolved by operating within the major

syntactic constituent to align it with the template of the suprasegmental phrase.

The environment for the insertion of schwa in (23), identical to the environment

in (19), remains, thus, not realized. For this reason, the resolution of the stress

clash either by the insertion of schwa or by stress displacement may be put into

play within a major syntactic constituent. During this process, other changes

can be produced on the suprasegmental structure of the phrase, because of the

resolution of the stress clash resulting in the new constituent given in (23b). We

see result from that an enlarged suprasegmental phrase, in which, given the

preservation of the favored template, there is no necessity for the insertion of

schwa. For (22a), on the other hand, the clash is resolved through insertion.

This is in contrast to Hayes’ strong assertion that “there are no rules of true

phrasal phonology that refer directly to syntax” (1990: 95). We conclude from

this that the behavior of French schwa gives evidence for the cyclic formation

of the rhythmic foot: (1) in the lexicon, e.g. compounding; (2) within the tree

geometry, e.g. (22); and (3) on the linear syntactic level, e.g. (10d-e). Thus,

while it is the case that there may be a difference between pre-cyclic and cyclic

rules as applied to segments, rhythmic processes should be regarded as applying

both lexically and post-lexically.

4. Related consequences

4.1. Placement of pauses

The rhythm and its interpretive constituency is just as important with regard to

the phenomenon of pauses in French (cf. Mazzola 1996). It is not surprising, for

example, that in the phrase (cf. Philippe Martin 1978, 1979, 1981):

1919

(24) [ s w w w s ] ║ [ s w s ]

professeur de droit ║ canadien “Canadian law professor”

the pause occurs at the syntactic boundary. For the phrase in (17), on the other

hand, the pause has nothing to do with the syntactic constituency:

(25) [ s w s ] w ║ [ s w w s ]

professeur de ║ droit canadien “professor of Canadian law”

(The placement of the pause in (25) is as intended. Another possible placement

of pause would be between professeur and de droit canadien. This latter

placement does indeed occur at a syntactic boundary. However, its placement

should be viewed as merely another possibility, and not as a reason to dismiss

the pause as properly cited in (25).) This phenomenon, unlike what we saw in

(23), is uniquely the result of a rhythmic constituent which serves as the

environment for this operation and it is the secondary effect of the perspective

which sees this variation as the function of a suprasegmental constituency. The

examples of pause which we see in (24) and (25) both occur before

suprasegmental phrases, whatever the syntactic relation of the preceding word

and whatever the syllabic weight of that preceding word. Thus, the syntactic

analysis is transmitted directly to the intonation to be remade in rhythmic terms.

As a result, we see that the environment re-created by the rhythmic structure,

labeled here as the suprasegmental phrase, is the sole domain for the pause and

gives evidence, once more, for how the phonology interfaces directly with the

syntax.

2020

4.2. Behavior of high vowels

Some years ago, Hannahs (1995) studied carefully the question of the formation

of semi-consonants in French where high vowels glide into semi-consonants

when followed by another vowel:

(26) colonie colonial (27) j'envie Alain

attribut attribuable il a dû attendre

joue jouable je joue au football

The data given in (26) demonstrate that in French the semi-consonants are

formed within the word as illustrated in (26) between a root and a suffix, but

that this phenomenon does not occur typically between words as in (27). On the

other hand, we do not encounter a semi-consonant within the word nor between

prefixes and roots, e.g. anti-, semi-; nor between the members of a composed

word as in (28):

(28) antialcoolique tissu-éponge

In order to explain this behavior of the high vowels, Hannahs, in his careful and

well reasoned handling of the data, assumed the existence of Prosodic Words.

These Prosodic Words served as environments within which semi-consonants

are created, as in (26). Where we find the non-formation of semi-consonants, he

postulated, the segments occurred not within, but between Prosodic Words, as

in (27) and in (28). Consequently, the prefixes and the members of the

composed items in (28) are identified as Prosodic Words.

It is proposed, however, in accord with the perspective sketched out in this

paper (cf. also Mazzola op. cit.) that the data can be presented as follows:

2121

(29) [ w s ] [ w w s ] [ w [sw w s ]

anti + alcoolique antialcoolique

[ w s ] [ w s ] [ w [s w s ]

tissu + éponge tissu-éponge

The output allows us to see once again a restructuring in conformity with the

characteristic template of the suprasegmental phrase, which, — although related

to the lexicon, morphology, and syntax — is no longer determined by a lexical,

morphological, or syntactic structure. Here, we have rather the suprasegmental

constituent whose function is rhythmic rather, beginning in a strong syllable to

initiate the definition of the group. For this reason, the last syllable of anti- and

tissue cannot be reduced to a weak syllable. It will, therefore, block the high

vowel from gliding in both cases.

The same restructuring occurs in the phrases given in (27), reproduced here

as (30):

(30) [ w s ] [ w s ] [ w [s w s ]

j'envie + Alain j'envie Alain

[ w s ] [ w w s ] [ w [ s w w s ]

je joue + au football je joue au football

[ w w s ] [ w s ] [ w w [ s w s ]

il a dû + attendre il a dû attendre

The presence of the template does not favor the reduction of the vowel to a

semi-consonant as the examples given en (26), reproduced here as (31):

(31) w w s s w w w s w w s

2222

colonie + al coloni + al colonial

w w s s w ws s w w s

attribut + able attribut + able attribuable

s s w s w s

joue + able jou + able jouable

Here, once more, we see the necessity of resolving the stress clash during the

composition of the suprasegmental word within the lexicon. The reduction of

the vowel into a semi-consonant therefore takes place as a result of the

weakening of the first strong syllable of the composed word. Here, once more,

we see the rhythmic process at work both within the lexicon and in the syntax.

This rhythmic operation demonstrates once again a direct interface between the

phonology and the syntax.

5. Conclusion

We have seen that the rhythmic template can be demonstrated to interface

directly with both the lexicon and the syntax. This interface has important and

direct consequences for sandhi segmental behavior. It has been demonstrated

that suprasegmental processes are triggered to effect the resolution of stress

clash resulting in a change in the configuration of the strong and weak syllables.

At times, examples have revealed the rhythmic behavior at work in the lexicon.

More frequently, however, we have seen that syntactic constituents are passed

on to the phonology and modified by the rhythmic foot to create

suprasegmental phrases which are environments for the behavior of segments.

At other times, the rhythmic operation, as illustrated in (22 and 23), is at work

directly on the syntax at a greater depth than might be expected. In this

2323

instance, the distinctive rhythms of the phrases — with immediate

consequences for the behavior of the variants — can be considered to be the

vestiges of a deeper analyzing function of the syntax. Since this patterning is

observed to be at work both lexically and post-lexically, we conclude that the

functioning of the rhythmic patterning is cyclic. This appears to be strong

evidence to eliminate both the prosodic component as well as compilation in the

phonology. These structural operations of accentual rhythm serve as metrical

devices, cadenced strategies, available to the speaker as s/he uses language to

convey meaning. To that end, more specifically, it is submitted that accentual

rhythm is determinative for the behavior of mute-e in French.

References

Bickmore, Lee. 1990. “Branching Nodes and Prosodic Categories”. Inkelas &

Zec. eds. 1990, 1-17.

Blanche-Benveniste, Claire. 2000. Approches de la langue parlée en français.

Paris: Ophrys.

Chen, Matthew. 1990. “What Must Phonology Know about Syntax ?”. Inkelas

& Zec, eds. 1990, 19-46.

Côté, Marie-Hélène. 2007. “Rhythmic Constraints on the Distribution of

Schwa”. Romance Linguistics 2006: Selected papers from the 36th

Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages ed. by José Camacho, Nydia

Flores-Ferrán, Liliana Sánchez, Viviane Déprez & María José Cabrera, 81-

95. Amsterdam & Philadephia: John Benjamins.

Hannahs, S. J. 1995a. Prosodic Structure and French Morphophonology.

Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.

Hannahs, S. J. 1995b. “The Phonological Word in French”. Linguistics 33.1125-

2424

1144.

Hayes, Bruce. 1990. “Precompiled Phrasal Phonology”. Inkelas & Zec, eds.

1990, 85-108.

Hoskins, Steven. 1994. “Secondary Stress and Stress Clash Resolution in

French: An empirical investigation”. Issues and Theory in Romance

Linguistics ed. by Michael L. Mazzola, 35-47. Washington, DC:

Georgetown University Press.

Inkelas, Sharon & Draga Zec, eds. 1990. The Phonology-Syntax Connection.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Inkelas, Sharon & Draga Zec. 1995. “Syntax-Phonology Interface”. The

Handbook of Phonological Theory ed. by John A. Goldsmith, 535-549.

Oxford: Blackwell.

Kaisse, Ellen. 1985. Connected Speech: The interaction of syntax and

phonology. San Diego: Academic Press.

Kenstowicz, Michel. 1994. Phonology in Generative Grammar. Cambridge,

Mass.: Blackwell.

Léon, Pierre. 1966. Prononciation du français standard. Paris: Didier.

Martin, Philippe. 1975. “Analyse phonologique de la phrase française”.

Linguistics 146.35-67.

Martin, Philippe. 1978. “Question de phonosyntaxe et de phono-sémantique en

français”. Linguisticae Investigationes 2.1-20.

Martin, Philippe. 1979. “Sur les principes d'une théorie syntaxique de

l'intonation”. Problèmes de prosodie ed. by Pierre Léon & Mario Rossi, 91-

101. Ottawa: Marcel Didier.

Martin, Philippe. 1981. “L'intonation est-elle une structure congruente à la

syntaxe?”. L'Intonation: De l'acoustique à la sémantique ed. by Mario

Rossi et al., 234-271. Paris: Klincksieck.

Mazzola, Michael L. 1992. “Stress Clash and Segment Deletion”. Theoretical

2525

Analyses in Romance Linguistics ed. by Christiane Laeufer & Terrell

Morgan, 81-97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Mazzola, Michael L. 1993. “French Rhythm and French Segments”. Linguistic

Perspectives on the Romance Languages ed. by William Ashby et al. 113-

126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Mazzola, Michael L. 1994. “Indirect Phonology and French Segments”.

Generative French phonology: Retrospective and perspectives ed. by

Chantal Lyche, 191-209. Salford: Association for French Language Studies

& European Research Institute.

Mazzola, Michael L. 1996. “Syntactic Constituency and Prosodic Phenomena”.

Aspects of Romance Linguistics: Selected papers from the Linguistic

Symposium on Romance Languages XXIV ed. by Claudia Parodi et al., 313-

327. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Mazzola, Michael L. 1998. “Suprasegmental Constituency as the Domain for

Sandhi Variation”. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of

Linguists ed. by B. Caron. CD Rom #0175. Oxford: Pergamon.

Mazzola, Michael L. 2000. “On the Independence of Suprasegmental

Constituency”. Issues in Phonological Structure ed. by S. J. Hannahs &

Mike Davenport, 181-193. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Mazzola, Michael L. 2001. “Prosodic Domains for Segment Deletion”. 1999

Mid-America Linguistics Conference Papers ed. by M. Henderson, 285-

294. Lawrence, Kan.: KU Linguistics Department.

Mazzola, Michael L. 2006. “Rhythm and Prosodic Change”. Historical

Romance Linguistics: Retrospective and perspectives ed. by Deborah

Arteaga & Randall Gess. 97-110. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John

Benjamins.

McHugh, Brian. 1990. “The Phrasal Cycle in Kivunjo Changa Tonology”.

Inkelas & Zec, eds. 1990, 217-242.

2626

Nespor, Marina. 1990. “On the Separation of Prosodic and Rhythmic

Phonology”. Inkelas & Zec, eds. 1990, 241-258.

Nespor, Marina, & Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.

Odden, David. 1987. “Kimatuumbi Phrasal Phonology”. Phonology Yearbook

4.13-26.

Passy, Paul. 1899. Les sons du français. Paris: Firmin-Didot & Société des

Traités.

Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1984. Phonology and Syntax: The relation between sound

and structure. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Tranel, Bernard. 1987. The Sounds of French. New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Zec, Draga & Sharon Inkelas. 1990. “Prosodically Constrained Syntax”. Inkelas

& Zec, eds. 1990, 365-378.

2727