The *York plays* exhibit a mixed system, where the NSR is more or less confined to the plural part of the paradigm (with some few exceptions with 1sg) and has not yet spread to 'be'. In the inventory of present tense markers we still find 2sg forms extended by *t*, similar to earlier stages of English. The extended forms are rare with lexical verbs, but are the dominant pattern with auxiliary verbs (*hast(e)*, and in particular *art(e)*). With auxiliaries, they serve to preserve the distinction between 2sg and plural (and 3sg) forms, which is blurred with lexical verbs (due to the loss of final *t* in the 2sg).32 The evidence for distinctive 2sg forms provided by auxiliaries precludes the development of a general impoverishment rule suggested above (here repeated in 21), which leads to system-wide syncretism of 2sg and 3sg forms (in varieties that have preserved *thou*).

(21) [+hearer] → ∅ / \_\_ pronoun[NOM]

To capture the fact that syncretism of 2sg and 3sg is confined to lexical verbs, we propose the following slightly modified version of (21), which applies only

32Note that it is not entirely clear whether the 2sg forms extended by *t* represent a retention or are the result of dialect contact (e.g., the MED lists *hæfes* as the 2sg of 'have' in Northumbrian OE).

### 9 The Northern subject rule revisited

to lexical verbs and deletes the verbal agreement feature [+hearer] when the finite verb is adjacent to a 2sg subject pronoun. As a result of (22), finite verbs that agree with 2sg subjects in the syntax lack positive values for [person] and [number] at the point of vocabulary insertion (assuming a realisational model of grammar, where phonological exponents of abstract morphosyntactic features are inserted postsyntactically, cf. e.g. Halle & Marantz 1993).33

(22) [+hearer] → ∅ / V\_\_ pronoun[NOM]

The system of present tense indicative markers for lexical verbs can thus be described by basically the same set of vocabulary items that we posited for the system in Table 9.2 (following standard assumptions, more specified exponents/ markers take precedence over less specified exponents due to the elsewhere condition, Kiparsky 1973):

(23) a. [+phi] ↔ -∅ b. elsewhere ↔ *-s*

After deletion of [+hearer] (due to the impoverishment rule in 22), both 2sg and 3sg forms are spelled out by the default inflection *-s* (recall that we assume that "3sg" corresponds to the absence of (positive) specifications for [person] and [number]). In this way, (22), in combination with the inventory of agreement markers in (23), accounts for the lack of NSR effects with 2sg (and 3sg) subjects.

A slightly different set of vocabulary items is used for present tense indicative forms of 'have'. We take it that the extended form *hast(e)* still signals 2sg. To account for the fact that *hast(e)* covaries with the reduced and ambiguous form *has*, we assume that the same feature set can be spelled out by *has* (probably as a result of phonological erosion (reduction of the final consonant cluster *st*), which happens to be homophonous with the elsewhere marker.

	- c. elsewhere ↔ *has*

The present tense paradigm of 'be' has preserved even more distinctions (three persons in the singular, and the distinctive plural form *are*). Moreover, NSR effects are virtually non-existent with 'be',34 and it is the only verb that exhibits

33Alternatively, one might assume that the *-s*-marker found with 2sg lexical verbs is still a genuine 2sg form, which only happens to be accidentally homophonous with the default *-s* found in other contexts (i.e., in the 3sg and plural).

34Recall that there are very few instances where *is* occurs with (non-adjacent) 1sg and 2sg subjects.

### Eric Fuß & Carola Trips

proper number agreement with nominal subjects. The inventory can thus be described as follows:

	- b. [+hearer, −pl] ↔ *art(e)*
	- c. [+pl] ↔ *are*
	- d. elsewhere ↔ *is*

Note that the inventory in (23–25) single out *s*-marked forms as the elsewhere case. In the next subsection, we will address the question of why *s*-marked forms gain a wider distribution in contexts where the verb fails to be adjacent to a pronominal subject. In addition, we will argue that the absence of NSR effects in connection with 1sg (in contrast to 2sg and 3sg) and all forms of 'be' cannot be attributed to morphological properties, i.e., the inventory of vocabulary items plus impoverishment, and should thus receive a syntactic explanation.35

### **4.2 Syntactic aspects**

In this section, we will present an analysis of the agreement system displayed by the *York plays* that is based on Roberts's (2010) proposal that functional heads may enter the syntactic derivation without featural content (so-called "blank generation"). We will argue that a slightly modified version of Roberts's approach to the NSR provides enough leeway to account for the mixed or hybrid character of the agreement system found in the *York plays* (in particular, the special behaviour of 'be'), in contrast to previous theoretical analyses. We take it that the lack of NSR effects with 'be' and 1sg subjects reflects a genuine syntactic difference and should not be captured by purely post-syntactic/morpho-phonological mechanisms (in contrast to what we have proposed for the absence of relevant effects with 2sg and 3sg). More precisely, the facts suggest that in these cases, subjectverb agreement is established by a syntactic operation (e.g., Agree; Chomsky 2000) that leads to feature matching between the phi-content of a relevant functional head (T/INFL) and the subject, independently of type and position of the latter.

35An anonymous reviewer raised the question whether the asymmetry between 'be' and other verbs could not simply be analysed as a lexical difference, in the sense that the paradigm of inflected forms of 'be' is richer than the paradigms of other verbs. However, a lexical solution fails to account for the fact that the difference between 'be' and lexical verbs is syntactic in nature: With lexical verbs, the agreement alternation (that is, the NSR) is governed by syntactic factors (type and position of the subject), while no such effects are observed with 'be'.

### 9 The Northern subject rule revisited

Roberts (2010) outlines an analysis of the NSR that is based on the idea that in the relevant varieties, T/INFL lacks a phi-set of its own (blank generation). As a result, T/INFL enters the syntactic derivation without agreement features. it can only acquire such features via incorporation of (clitic) subject pronouns.36 The presence of (positively specified) agreement features in T/INFL (resulting from the incorporation of clitic pronouns) is then signalled by zero marking on the verb, while *-s* is inserted as a default inflection when T/INFL lacks agreement features (cf. 23).37 To account for the adjacency effect, Roberts assumes that incorporation must go hand in hand with phonological cliticisation of the subject pronoun to the verb.38 In other words, a T/INFL head without an inherent phiset may acquire agreement features in the course of the derivation when the conditions in (26) are met.

	- b. phonological cliticisation: (pronoun X V) (where X is null or another clitic)

This account provides a straightforward description of "pure" NSR systems similar to the one given in Table 9.2 where all verbs (including auxiliaries) take

(i) That that we we *hym* him tharne lose sore sure may may vs us rewe, regret 'We will certainly regret that we lost him.' (York plays, 42, 14)

36A related, but purely post-syntactic, analysis of the NSR is proposed by Trips & Fuß 2010, who posit the following agreement rule that operates on the output of the syntactic derivation:

(i) *-*∅ marks the presence of positive specifications for [person] or [number] in the minimal phonological domain the finite verb is part of; *-s* is inserted elsewhere.

Similar to an approach in terms of blank generation, (i) assumes that the relevant agreement features are provided by weak subject pronouns under adjacency with the verb. However, notice that the special behaviour of 'be' seems to call for a (partially) syntactic treatment of subject-verb agreement in the *York plays*. See below for further discussion and a synthesis of the two accounts.

37Recall that we assume that '3sg' corresponds to the absence of (positively specified) person and number features, cf. e.g. Harley & Ritter (2002).

38Interestingly, it seems that the only elements that may regularly intervene between a subject pronoun and a zero-marked verb are (weak) object pronouns as in (i).

This can be accounted for if we assume that both the subject and object pronoun are part of a clitic cluster that attaches to the verb.

### Eric Fuß & Carola Trips

the marked (zero) ending only in connection with adjacent non-3sg (clitic) pronouns, while *-s* occurs elsewhere. In addition to the adjacency condition, Roberts' analysis also correctly predicts that stressed, coordinated and modified forms (which are not clitics) trigger default inflection on the verb:

	- b. Him and me *drinks* nought but water. (Roberts 2010: 6)
	- c. Us students *is* going. (Belfast English; Henry 1995: 24)

However, something more must be said to capture (a) the fact that the pronoun's phi-set is spelled out twice (as the pronoun itself and as zero marking on the verb), and (b) the observation that in many NSR dialects, the marked zero inflection also appears in inversion contexts, where the finite verb precedes an adjacent subject pronoun:

(28) So so sir, sir *slepe* sleep ye, you.pl and and *saies* say no no more. more (York plays, 30, 148)

Under the assumption that incorporation of the pronoun is a purely syntactic process, the fact that it may precede (compare 18) or follow the zero-marked verb (as in examples like 28) does not seem to receive a satisfying explanation. If incorporation is analysed as an instance of head movement, we would expect that the relative order of pronoun and finite verb is not variable. As a possible solution, one might suggest that the linearisation of the incorporated pronoun is sensitive to the syntactic position of the finite verb in the sense of a second position/Wackernagel effect that is only triggered when the verb has moved to C 0 . However, such an account would be quite stipulative. In what follows, we would like to argue that a more principled explanation becomes available if we take a closer look at the nature and cause of the assumed incorporation process. What we would like to propose is that in the NSR varieties, incorporation of the pronoun is in fact a postsyntactic repair operation that is triggered to patch up a T head that enters the morpho-phonological component without phicontent. The rationale behind this idea is that in a language with at least some morphological agreement, a phi-less T-head creates a problem at the interface to the morpho-phonological component.39 This problem can be repaired either by

39Arguably, no such repair is needed in languages that completely lack agreement features (e.g., Indonesian).

### 9 The Northern subject rule revisited

the insertion of default inflection (a last resort prior or during vocabulary insertion), or by "incorporation" of an adjacent phi-set that can then be spelled out by an appropriately marked agreement formative. The latter option is arguably more specific/complex and therefore preempts repair via default inflection (due to the elsewhere condition). To account for the fact that both the pronoun and the phi-set on T are spelled out (the latter usually via the zero marker in the NSR varieties), we assume that the pronoun's phi set is copied onto the finite verb/T under adjacency (i.e. when both elements are part of the same minimal prosodic domain). Crucially, this repair operation (giving rise to zero inflection) can apply in both inversion and non-inversion contexts as long as the pronoun is directly adjacent to the finite verb (note that this modification of Roberts' original account combines the idea of blank generation with certain aspects of the postsyntactic approach proposed by Trips & Fuß 2010, cf. footnote 37).

Some additional tweaking is needed to account for the intricacies of the version of the NSR that is found in the *York plays*. First of all, it is evident that in contrast to other verbs, 'be' cannot be subject to blank generation. Rather, 'be' is the phonetic realization of a special T/INFL node that comes with its own phi-features (in contrast to T/INFL linked to other verbs). As a result, 'be' may agree with non-pronominal subjects as well. Note that the special behaviour of 'be' is a major challenge for theoretical approaches that analyse agreement/nonagreement as the result of different subject positions (as e.g. de Haas & van Kemenade 2015). The fact that regular number agreement occurs with nominal subjects (which otherwise do not trigger agreement) shows that the structural position of the subject is not relevant. Rather, it seems that 'be' (in contrast to other verbs) can detect the phi-features of any kind of subject (independent of its position and categorial nature) due to the fact that Tbe always carries an unvalued set of phi-features that triggers a syntactic Agree operation. Thus, we take the asymmetry between 'be' and other verbs to suggest that blank generation may be parameterized so that it affects only certain types of inflectional heads.

Basically the same approach can be used to account for the absence of NSR effects with 1sg subjects. Again, we assume that T is not subject to blank generation in this case. Of course, this raises the more general question of how and why blank generation of inflectional heads is triggered. What we would like to propose is that the absence of agreement features on T is intimately linked to the breakdown of the (morphological) agreement system in Northern Old/Middle English. Recall that as a result of phonological erosion (and probably language contact with Scandinavian), *-s* (or rather, variants of it) became the only overt agreement marker in Northern varieties, eventually leading to a binary agreement system that does not any longer signal featural distinctions apart from [+/−phi]. We

### Eric Fuß & Carola Trips

take it that this is the prototypical situation that brings about wholesale "blank generation" of T/INFL.40 In the *York plays*, however, we still find a slightly richer system of endings. In addition to the fact that 'be' has preserved more inflectional distinctions than other verbs (including a systematic distinction between 2sg and 2pl), the zero ending is still closely linked to 1sg, in that it unambiguously signals [+speaker, −plural] with singular subjects and in cases where the subject fails to be adjacent to the verb (presumably reflecting an earlier pre-NSR stage where 1sg was the only feature combination that was clearly marked on the verb, by zero marking; cf. Table 9.2). It seems thus plausible to assume that blank generation of T is blocked in contexts where agreement marking can still be linked to featural distinctions that are more specific than a binary [+/−phi] contrast. Our approach to the NSR in the *York plays* is summarized in (29):

	- b. *no NSR effects/'be' & 1sg*: no blank generation of T, regular syntactic agreement;
	- c. *no NSR effects/2sg & 3sg*: impoverishment and underspecification of markers (→ *-s*).

This approach captures basic properties of the agreement system exhibited by the *York plays*. However, note that in addition to these general patterns, we have also observed a number of alternative agreement options. Some of these are presumably residues of a former system (such as the few cases of 2sg *-st* on lexical verbs), while others represent innovations that compete with some of the options in (29), such as NSR effects in connection with 1sg (which can perhaps be analyzed as extensions of blank generation to 1sg contexts), and cases where the position of subject constraint seems to be neutralized, leading to general zero marking with pronominal subjects (which foreshadows a development that has

40On a more technical note, one might assume that blank generation of T/INFL results from another type of impoverishment rule that deletes person and number features from T/INFL before the latter enters the syntactic derivation (cf. e.g. Müller 2006 on the notion that impoverishment rules may also operate presyntactically):

(i) [Person, Number] → ∅ / T\_\_

However, note that such an approach raises a number of questions concerning the interplay between presyntactic and postsyntactic impoverishment that we cannot discuss here. We leave this issue for future research.

### 9 The Northern subject rule revisited

taken place in a number of NSR dialects).41 The existence of this type of linguistic variation suggests that the particular version of the NSR that is found in the *York plays* represents an intermediate stage that eventually gave way to a more balanced agreement system where blank generation of T/INFL is not (lexically) confined to certain contexts.

## **5 Some remarks on the historical origin of the NSR**

So far, we have presented a theoretical analysis of the NSR in terms of "blank generation" of inflectional heads. From a diachronic point of view, we have seen that in OE, special inversion contexts show an unexpected -*e* affix which can be interpreted as foreshadowing the NSR, and that this rule actually occurred in some ME texts. In this section, we will bring these observations together and argue that after the breakdown of the OE agreement system, the NSR developed via a combination of generalized V2 in the northern varieties and agreement weakening in inversion contexts (which turned into the NSR after the loss of V2).42

The starting point for our diachronic analysis is Northumbrian OE, where only 1sg is unambiguously marked by verbal agreement (via *-e*/∅). Elsewhere, we find some form of *-s* marking, which alternates with the dental markers in 3sg contexts and in the plural part of the paradigm. The question then is how and why new zero markers were introduced into the northern paradigm. We believe that the rise of new zero-marked plural forms is closely related to the phenomenon of agreement weakening in OE. Following Roberts (1996), we analyze OE agreement weakening in terms of contextual allomorphy of 1pl/2pl forms which can be attributed to syntactic factors, namely the structural position of the finite verb (similar to complementizer agreement in present-day West Germanic dialects): (i) The reduced form is used only when the verb moves to C (in contexts with fronted operators such as *wh*, negation etc.). In contrast, full agreement obtains in all other contexts, where the verb occupies a lower inflectional head (Infl/T) (cf. e.g. Cardinaletti & Roberts 2002; Pintzuk 1999; Hulk & van Kemenade 1995; Kroch & Taylor 1997; Haeberli 1999; Fischer et al. 2000, and many others). As a result, agreement weakening is confined to inversion contexts where the finite

41A fuller description and quantitative analysis of the agreement options in the *York plays* is beyond the scope of this paper. We leave it for future investigation.

42Some authors (cf. Hamp 1976; Klemola 2000; Filppula et al. 2002; de Haas 2008) have claimed that the rise of the NSR was promoted by language contact with the Brythonic Celtic languages, which exhibit a similar distinction between pronouns and non-pronouns. See e.g. Pietsch (2005a), de Haas (2011) and Benskin (2011) for critical discussion.

### Eric Fuß & Carola Trips

verb immediately precedes a 1pl/2pl subject pronoun. In the other cases where the finite verb is in a lower position we find regular agreement with both subject pronouns and full subject DPs. This is illustrated with the following structures:

	- a. [CP Op [C ′ C+Vfin [TP subj.pron. [T ′ T [VP … ]]]]] → agreement weakening
	- b. [CP XP [C ′ C [TP [T ′ T+Vfin [VP DP subject …]]]]] → regular agreement
	- c. [CP XP [C ′ C [TP subj.pron. [T ′ T+Vfin [VP …]]]]] → regular agreement

The evidence available suggests that this kind of systematic (syntactic) agreement weakening was originally confined to southern varieties of OE, while northern texts show only occasional examples of reduced agreement endings (i.e., schwa or -∅) in inversion contexts (cf. e.g. Berndt 1956; Cole 2014 on Northumbrian OE). In other words, it does not seem to be possible to analyze the NSR as a direct continuation of OE agreement weakening (but recall that Northumbrian OE exhibits a related pattern where the *s*-marker appears under adjacency with a subject pronoun). However, it seems likely that the agreement patterns that eventually turned into the NSR entered northern grammars via dialect contact with southern varieties (cf. Pietsch 2005b: 53f. for discussion). In the northern varieties the original OE pattern shown in (30) was then generalized to all contexts with adjacent plural subject pronouns (cf. Rodeffer 1903; Pietsch 2005b).43 But why did this only happen in the northern varieties? To answer this question, let us take a closer look at grammatical factors that shaped the impact of dialect contact and possibly led to the rise of the NSR in the northern varieties. It has been claimed by a number of authors (cf. e.g. Kroch & Taylor 1997; Trips 2002) that there are major syntactic differences between northern and southern early ME varieties.44 In particular, the northern varieties had developed generalized V2 which means that the finite verb consistently occurred in C regardless of the

43Rodeffer's proposal is criticized by Berndt (1956), who argues that quantitative data from Northumbrian OE texts indicate that there is no direct link between agreement weakening in OE and the NSR (more precisely, Berndt argues that the evidence available to us suggests that agreement weakening had already been in decline in the northern varieties before *-s* was generalized to all persons and numbers; see Pietsch 2005b: 50ff. for comprehensive discussion and a critical assessment of Berndt's arguments).

44Moreover, the NSR could not have developed in the southern varieties for purely morphological reasons: the loss of plural /-n/ in the ME period served to neutralize the contrast between full and syncopated forms formerly introduced by OE Agr-weakening.

### 9 The Northern subject rule revisited

nature of the initial constituent. As a result of this change, the syntactic differences between subject pronouns and phrasal subjects seem to be less clear-cut than in OE (the only remaining diagnostic is the placement of the subject relative to certain high adverbs, cf. de Haas 2011, de Haas & van Kemenade 2015 for details):

(31) a. [CP XP [C ′ C+Vfin [TP subject [T ′ T [VP …]]]]] b. [CP subject [C ′ C+Vfin [TP tsubj [T ′ T [VP … ]]]]]

So as soon as the northern learners were confronted with southern agreement weakening, they could neither attribute it to a special position of the verb (due to generalized V2) nor, arguably, to a special position for subject pronouns since the evidence for differential subject positions had become blurred. What we would like to propose is that, at this point, learners did not discard the pattern (presumably because it was too robustly attested in the input), but rather reanalysed it in terms of a structure where the radically impoverished inflectional head was endowed with phi-features via incorporation of the subject pronoun. This gave rise to an early version of the NSR that initially distinguished between 1pl/2pl pronouns and all other subjects. The reanalysis of southern agreement weakening as incorporation of subject clitics led to the loss of syntactic restrictions on the distribution of reduced endings, and agreement weakening could be extended to all contexts with adjacent subject pronouns (VS and SV). The result was that the syncopated 1pl/2pl forms were not any longer confined to operator contexts, which widened the scope of agreement weakening to all 1pl/2pl contexts, including preverbal pronouns in both main and embedded clauses:

(32) … *we* we *go-*∅ go by by trouthe, truth noghte not by by syghte, sight þat that es, is *we* we *lyff-*∅ live in in trouthe, truth noghte not in in bodily bodily felynge; feeling (ROLLTR,36.752)

A further result was that the rule was extended to 3pl contexts:

(33) … þe the penance penance þat that *þai* they *suffer* suffer … (ROLLEP, 86.368)

This extension can possibly be attributed to the fact that in the Northern ME varieties the original OE 3pl pronoun *hio/heo* was replaced by the Scandinavian

### Eric Fuß & Carola Trips

form *ðai* (which later spread to all varieties). In inversion contexts, this innovation led to cluster reduction of [s + ð] to [ð] for phonetic reasons (which was possibly promoted by analogical pressure, 1pl/2pl, cf. Pietsch 2005a: 56).

A closer look at morphological aspects of this change reveals that we can indeed talk about a "markedness reversal" (Pietsch 2005a) since the "weak" syncopated southern OE forms turned into the marked inflections in the NSR dialects. When the zero affix entered the northern grammars via dialect contact with the southern varieties, it was pressed into service as a marked agreement formative on the model of the zero inflection that occurred with 1sg subjects. The observation that NSR effects appeared first in connection with lexical verbs is perhaps related to the fact that the underspecified *s*-marker had already gained a wider distribution here, which facilitated a reinterpretation of the zero inflection as a marked agreement formative that contrasted with default *-s*.

After the initial reanalysis, independent changes led to the extension of the zero affix first from 1pl/2pl to 3pl, then to 1sg and – in some varieties – 2sg, when the former 2pl *you* replaced the original 2sg form *thou*. Note that the latter changes led to a more balanced and less complex agreement system combining general "blank generation" of T/INFL with a binary inventory of agreement markers ([+phi] ∅ vs. [−phi] *-s*).45 The evidence from the *York plays* suggests that the development of this system, which corresponds to Table 9.1, proceeded via a set of intermediate stages where blank generation of T/INFL was restricted to certain verbs or verb classes and parts of the verbal paradigm that had ceased to show distinctive agreement marking.

## **6 Conclusions**

In this paper, we have discussed a set of open questions concerning the synchronic analysis and diachronic development of the NSR in northern varieties of English. We have presented a set of new data from the Northern ME *York plays*, which exhibit an early stage of the NSR where its effects are confined to plural forms of lexical verbs and 'have', while 'be' shows regular number agreement with all kinds of subjects. We have argued that the agreement system found in the *York plays* suggests a theoretical analysis of the NSR in which inflectional heads enter the syntactic derivation without a phi-set (due to pre-syntactic impoverishment leading to "blank generation", Roberts 2010) and acquire agreement features

45See Fuß (2010) for an analysis of relevant analogical changes in terms of a learning strategy that favours a minimal inventory of inflectional markers/features (based on the notion of *minimize feature content*, Halle 1997).

([person] and [number]) via the incorporation of clitic subject pronouns. Heads that have been endowed with positive specifications for [person] and/or [number] in the course of the syntactic derivation are spelled out by the zero marker. Elswehere, the underspecified form *-s* is used. Based on this account, we have then suggested a new scenario for the historical development of the NSR, arguing that, after the breakdown of the OE agreement system, the NSR developed via dialect contact between northern and southern varieties. More precisely, we have proposed that syncopated verb forms (resulting from Agr-weakening in the southern dialect) were integrated into the northern grammar as marked agreement formatives that contrasted with *-s*. We have linked the rise of the NSR to the interplay of a set of morphosyntactic properties of Northern ME (including generalized V2 and the advanced loss of inflections), which made available a reanalysis where southern Agr-weakening was attributed to syntactic incorporation of subject pronouns, which supplied a radically impoverished T/INFL-head with agreement features. This contact-induced change paved the way for an extension of the NSR to adjacent pronouns more generally, including preverbal and singular forms.

# **Abbreviations**

## **Acknowledgements**

We would like to use the opportunity to express our gratitude and indebtedness to Ian Roberts for support, linguistic insight and advice over the years (including a set of invaluable dos and don'ts for giving an academic presentation like "never … during your own talk"). Instead of 60 candles on a birthday cake, we originally planned to give him 60 linguistic examples on this special occasion, but must admit that we have fallen a bit short of that (if you want to know the exact number, you're welcome to count!). This is when we changed our plans

Eric Fuß & Carola Trips

and decided to present Ian with a neat analysis of the NSR by using his notion of "blank generation". And voilà, it works!

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at DiGS 2010 in Cambridge and WOTM 2010 in Wittenberg. We are very grateful to the audiences for helpful comments and suggestions. In particular, we want to thank Patrick Brandt, Nynke de Haas, Fabian Heck, Roland Hinterhölzl, and Ans van Kemenade. In addition, we benefited from comments by two anonymous reviewers for this volume, which led to a number of improvements.

## **References**

9 The Northern subject rule revisited

### Eric Fuß & Carola Trips

### 9 The Northern subject rule revisited

### Eric Fuß & Carola Trips

9 The Northern subject rule revisited

# **Chapter 10**

# **All those years ago: Preposition stranding in Old English**

Ans van Kemenade

Radboud University

This squib revisits the case for preposition stranding (P-stranding) in Old English as it was argued in the hot debate on *wh*-movement in the 1980s. It looks at more recent literature on the relevant issues, finding that P-stranding in Old English warrants an analysis in terms of *wh*-movement, which should allow for movement of a zero prepositional object out of PP. Examination of the York corpus of Old English adds more detail to the picture known, but largely confirms the findings so far.

# **1 Background**

This squib follows up the discussion and analysis of preposition stranding (Pstranding) in specific types of Old English relative clauses in van Kemenade (1987), which has featured in discussion of various issues in more recent literature (Alcorn 2014; Emonds & Faarlund 2014). My treatment here is based on examination of the *York corpus of Old English* (YCOE) (Taylor et al. 2003); it readdresses some of the theoretical issues, and reconsiders the analysis.

Examples of P-stranding in present-day English are given in (1a–b), exemplifying P-stranding by *wh*-movement in *wh*-relative clauses. *Wh*-movement in relative clauses moves a constituent to Spec,CP (in modern terms), and may involve long *wh*-movement through an intermediate Spec,CP (1b). This *wh*-movement strategy allows preposition stranding relatively freely in present-day English, as in (1a,b):

Ans van Kemenade. 2020. All those years ago: Preposition stranding in Old English. In András Bárány, Theresa Biberauer, Jamie Douglas & Sten Vikner (eds.), *Syntactic architecture and its consequences I: Syntax inside the grammar*, 221–231. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3972846

### Ans van Kemenade

	- b. That's the guy [CP whoi I thought [CP ti I had told you about ti ]]

Preposition stranding in Old English is, however, not allowed in constructions comparable to (1). Relative clauses that involve movement of an overt relative pronoun are common in Old English texts, but they do not feature P-stranding (this is also true of *wh*-questions, Allen 1977; 1980). When a prepositional object is relativised, it pied-pipes the preposition along to Spec, CP, as in (2):

(2) Blickling, 89.13 (Allen 1980: 270)

Gehyr Hear ðu thou arfæsta merciful God God mine my stefne, voice, [CP [mid with ðære]i which ic I, earm poor (one), to to ðe cleopie ti ]

thee call

There are several other types of relative clauses in Old English that do allow Pstranding, and in which stranding is indeed obligatory. These share the property that they do not have an overt relative pronoun. I give examples of relatives with the invariant complementiser *þe*, with short and long relativisation, in (3) (both from van Kemenade 1987: 147–148), of an infinitival relative in (4), and an example of an adjective+infinitive construction in (5).

	- a. & and het ordered forbærnan burn þæt the gewrit writ [CP 0i þe that hit it ti on in awriten written wæs] was 'and ordered to burn the writ that it was written in'
	- b. Đonne then hie they lecgeað put ða the tiglan tiles beforan before hie them [CP 0i þe that him them beboden ordered wæs was [CP 0i ðæt that hie they sceoldon should ða the ceastre city Hierusalem Jerusalem ti on on awritan]] draw 'Then they put in front of them the tiles that they were ordered to draw the city of Jerusalem on.'

10 All those years ago: Preposition stranding in Old English

(5) LS8 (Eust) 315 (Fischer et al. 2000: 266) Wæs was seo the wunung dwelling-place þær there swyþe very wynsum pleasant on in to to wicenne live 'The dwelling-place there was very pleasant to live in.'

A special case are relatives with *that* as the relative pronoun form, as we will see below.

P-stranding in constructions such as (3–5) featured prominently in the 1970's and 1980's debate on whether preposition stranding in the North and West Germanic languages is derived by *wh*-movement (Chomsky 1977; Chomsky & Lasnik 1977; Van Riemsdijk 1978: 286–297; Vat 1978; van Kemenade 1987), or by a second relativisation strategy of deletion over a variable (Maling 1976; Bresnan & Grimshaw 1978;Allen 1977;1980), which may involve long-distance deletion. This debate has been resolved to the extent that, as far as the data can show us, both strategies are subject to subjacency (Allen 1980; van Kemenade 1987): they both respect the complex NP constraint and the *wh*-island constraint, and occur only in constructions that allow COMP to COMP movement. In the terms of Chomsky (1977); Chomsky & Lasnik (1977), this means that they must result from *wh*movement. Vat (1978), in the wake of Van Riemsdijk (1978) follows Allen (1977) in showing that Old English has the same type of P-stranding by R-pronouns such as *þær* 'there', satisfying subjacency, and argues that P-stranding in relatives without an overt pronoun must be due to *wh*-movement of *þær*, with subsequent deletion under identity with the antecedent.

Van Kemenade (1987) presents another variant of this analysis. The general ban on P-stranding in Van Riemsdijk's (1978) analysis is accounted for by the status of PP as a bounding node for subjacency. Dutch P-stranding is allowed because Dutch allows an "escape hatch" to this ban in the form of positions on the left of the preposition in (6a–b) that are designated for R-pronouns, the only (overt) items in Dutch grammar that strand a preposition:

	- b. Jan heeft het *daar* gisteren *over* gehad.
	- c. *Daar* heeft Jan het gisteren *over* gehad.

(6c) shows that R-pronouns also move to Spec,CP. Van Kemenade (1987) proposes a parallel analysis for preposition stranding by *þær* and by various types of pronouns in Old English: this is obligatory when the object of the preposition is

### Ans van Kemenade

*þær* 'there', and optional when the object is a personal pronoun (both examples from van Kemenade 1987: 117):

(7) a. Boeth, XXVII, 61, 20

þæt that *þær* there nane no oðre others *on* on ne not sæton sat 'that no others sat (on) there'

b. WSgospel, Mt þa then genealæhte approached *him* him an a man man *to* to 'then a man approached him'

Van Kemenade (1987: 126–35) proposes that this type of pronoun fronting represents a form of cliticisation that is compatible with *wh*-movement, inspired by the fact that it applies to personal pronouns as well, and by the fact that the positions where *þær* and pronouns occur in Old English are special positions in Dutch syntax more generally. She extends this analysis to P-stranding in relatives without an overt pronoun as zero cliticisation, that is, P-stranding in the constructions exemplified in (3–5) are cases of *wh*-movement of a phonetically null variant of *þær* or a personal pronoun.

Let us now turn to a consideration of the merits of this approach in the light of more recent literature, and based on an examination of the *York corpus of Old English* (YCOE, Taylor et al. 2003). These concern a number of issues, which I would like to address in turn:

## **2 Locality conditions**

There is no evidence that the relation between the CP of *þe*-relatives and the variable with which they are associated in any way violates the subjacency condition, as noted above in relation to (3b). This would indicate that *þe*-relatives and related constructions in Old English are derived by *wh*-movement, of a zero clitic, or a zero operator. Note that the *þe*-relative is by far the most frequent

### 10 All those years ago: Preposition stranding in Old English

relative in Old English (over 13,000 examples in YCOE, including some 500 examples of P-stranding), but long *wh*-movement is generally rare in Old English, and (3b) is one of only two examples in the YCOE corpus of a *þe*-relative with a long-distance dependency. Note, nevertheless, that the facts are compatible with subjacency, and I therefore assume, with van Kemenade (1987), that they are derived by *wh*-movement of a zero element that is identified under identity with the antecedent. This is in line with the fact that they are most typically restrictive relatives.

## **3 P-stranding by pro-forms and zero pro-forms**

I now turn to a renewed assessment of the question to what extent it is justified to parallel P-stranding by pronouns and *þær*-adverbs with P-stranding in constructions with an invariant complementiser. An argument in favour of this parallel might be an observation in Alcorn (2014) that there are two spelling variants of the Old English antecedents of the prepositions *by* and *for*, {be} and {for} for unstranded prepositions, and {bi (big, bii, by, bie} and {fore} for stranded prepositions. She argues that the choice between the two is prosodically conditioned, with the stranded variant being prosodically independent. This observation applies equally to prepositions stranded by *þær* and personal pronouns, and those stranded in *þe*-relatives. This suggests that the prepositions involved behave similarly. Observe, however, that this does not necessarily mean that the stranding strategies are the same, it could rather be determined by their pre-verbal or clause-final position.

Allen (1980) argues against the parallelism between stranding by *þær* and personal pronouns and stranding in *þe*-relatives: *þær*-relatives, which also involve stranding, had been introduced into the debate by Vat (1978), who argues that *þe*relatives are really *þær*-relatives with subsequent deletion of *þær* in Spec,CP under identity with the antecedent. Allen argues that *þær*-relatives and *þe*-relatives take different antecedents, with *þær*-relatives occurring with inanimate antecedents only, while *þe*-relatives take any antecedent. This observation is borne out by examination of the YCOE corpus: *þær*-relatives, totalling 315 in number, are frequently found with NP antecedents that have no locative connotation, but these are not animate, they rather comprise rather diverse notions such as '(utter) darkness', 'the heavenly kingdom', 'eternal life', 'the course of things', 'hellfire', 'tortures', 'the fairness of glory', 'wedlock', and so on. Allen also argues that a parallel between stranding by personal pronouns and stranding in *þe*-relatives is problematic in view of the fact that the range of prepositions stranded by pronouns is limited, whereas this is not in the case of *þe*-relatives.

### Ans van Kemenade

An argument not mentioned by Allen which may also be important is that *þe*-relatives are dominantly restrictive, whereas *þær*-relatives are often non-restrictive.

(8) Or\_6:<IP_ADDRESS>63

& and on on oþerre other wæs was an a gewrit, writ, þær there wæron were on on awritene written ealra all þara the ricestena richest monna men's noman names 'and in the other was a writ, on which were written the names of all the richest men'

Note that the clause introduced by *þær* in (8) is ambiguous between a V2 main clause and a non-restrictive relative. This is frequently the case in *se*-relatives and *þær*-relatives (cf. Los & van Kemenade 2018). Surely the identification with the antecedent must be subject to tighter restrictions in restrictive relatives, where the relative clause serves to further identify the antecedent.

On the basis of the arguments reviewed so far, we may dismiss an analysis in terms of overt *þær*/pronoun movement to Spec,CP and subsequent deletion, *pace* Vat (1978), since on this analysis we would expect a complete parallelism between *ðær* and *þe*-relatives, and this is not feasible. Van Kemenade's zero cliticisation approach allows a broader set of contexts for extraction, including personal pronouns. Let us suppose that the zero clitic is in effect a zero operator which piggybacks on the escape hatch out of PP that is overtly around in the grammar, and which can be used more liberally in restrictive relatives with a zero operator, and other clauses where the identifying context for the zero operator is strict. There are several analyses to this effect available in the literature. One is Abels (2003; 2012), who casts the escape hatch in terms of phase theory, making crucial use of a zero parallel to R-stranding in Dutch. He proposes that Dutch R-pronouns (including their zero variant) are base-generated on the left of P of a special class of zero place prepositions. An argument against this analysis is thus again that it works for some prepositions only, whereas stranding in *þe*-relatives is general for all prepositions. Another analysis to the same effect is Matsuomoto (2013). He argues for a cyclic linearisation analysis that capitalises on the idea that (zero) prepositional objects can be extracted in contexts where V and P have the same head-complement parameters. In effect, this means that extraction is only possible when the complement of P is on its left (for whatever reason). All analyses along these lines thus make use of a position on the left of P that allows an escape hatch for extraction of the (zero) prepositional object.

### 10 All those years ago: Preposition stranding in Old English

At this point, it is also interesting to look at Old Norse, which has a relativisation strategy with an invariant complementiser *er* or*sem*, in which (zero) prepositional objects are relativised, stranding the preposition (Faarlund 2004: 260, see Maling 1976 for present-day Icelandic). Interestingly, Old Norse also has some form of stranding by pronouns, although apparently on a more limited scale: Faarlund (2004) cites an example of pronoun topicalisation with stranding (2004: 233, his (98)), and of an R-pronoun stranding a preposition in a nonroot question (2004: 258, his (32c)).

Emonds & Faarlund (2014) assume that Old English had no preposition stranding, based on van Kemenade's (1987)'s analysis of stranding in relatives with invariant complementisers as zero cliticisation. This glosses over the fact that zero cliticisation is in fact van Kemenade's analysis of P-stranding in relatives with invariant complementisers, a construction clearly shared by Old English and Old Norse.

An important remaining point are locality conditions: the evidence underlying Allen's (1980) and van Kemenade's (1987) conclusion that the various relativisation strategies respect subjacency is far from robust, although it is consistent across clause types and extraction sites. Abels (2003: 181–186) argues that comparatives of inequality provide the one context which can only involve operator movement. Here, we run into a robustness problem once again: there is only one relevant example of a comparative of inequality with P-stranding in the YCOE corpus:

(9) Or\_2:<IP_ADDRESS>8

to to beteran better tidun times þonne than we we nu now on in sint are 'in better times than we are in now'

We can conclude that the evidence is consistent with subjacency, although we would like to base this on more robust data. I nevertheless maintain that relatives with invariant complementisers and other *wh*-related constructions with zero operators are movement constructions. There is a general ban on P-stranding, and I follow Abels (2003; 2012) in taking PP to be a phase head. A zero operator can be extracted out of PP, via its Spec, or a Phase edge. I leave the details for further research (see e.g. Walkden 2017, CGSW abstract). The fact that there was stranding was an important basis for extension of stranding to other contexts over the Middle English period.

Ans van Kemenade

## **4 Other instances of P-stranding in relatives**

I now turn to further evidence for stranding in Old English, which also occurs in *that*-relatives, albeit to a limited extent. This is an interesting construction to consider, since the *þe*-relative is presumably the historical precursor of the present-day English *that*-relative, which is also typically assumed to involve *wh*movement, either of a null operator, or of a*wh*-pronoun with subsequent deletion under identity with the antecedent. Old English *that*-relatives are ambiguous: we could regard *that* as an overt demonstrative pronoun, which would make the *that*-relative a neuter gender instance of the *se*-relative (which is usually nonrestrictive); we could alternatively regard it as an early instance of an invariant complementiser. There is evidence both ways: of the total of 2,743 examples of *se*-relatives in the YCOE corpus, I found 42 coded as *se*-relatives with stranding. All of these have a demonstrative as relative pronoun, and the complementiser *þe*. 21 of the cases have *ðæt* as the relative marker, and have straightforward neuter antecedents, such as (10) with neuter *sweord* as antecedent; a further 12 have two *þæt* forms, the neuter demonstrative pronoun *ðæt* as antecedent, and *þæt* as the relative marker, as exemplified in (11); two examples have a feminine antecedent (12). Four examples have a relative form other than *þæt*, viz. *þære* (feminine genitive/dative singular, with a feminine antecedent); *þæm* (masculine/neuter dative singular), or *þa* (masculine/neuter nominative/accusative plural). This once again includes (12), remarkably with a feminine antecedent *mægþe*.

(10) Bede\_2:<IP_ADDRESS>7

Þa then sealde gave se the cyning king him him (a) *sweord*, sword, *þæt* that he he hine himself mid with gyrde; girded … 'Then the king gave him a sword, which he girded himself with'

(11) CP:46.351.5.2368

…, … sua so him them læs less licað pleases *ðæt* that *ðæt* that hie they to to gelaðode called sindon, are '…, the less they are pleased with that to which they are called'

(12) Bede\_5:22.478.23.4805

Ond and þonne then Norþanhymbra Northumbrians' *mægþe* province *þæm* that Ceolwulf Ceolwulf se the cyning king in in cynedome kingship ofer over is, is 'And in the province of Northumbria, over which King Ceolwulf reigns'.

### 10 All those years ago: Preposition stranding in Old English

The majority of these examples (21 + 12) is thus compatible, on the one hand, with a pronominal interpretation of *that* (since in most cases the antecedent is neuter) and on the other hand with that of an invariant complementiser (assuming that P-stranding involves zero operator movement). The cases with a feminine antecedent (2 in total) suggest that *that* is an invariant complementiser, since a gender mismatch between antecedent and relative pronoun would not be expected. The cases with pronominal forms other than *that* (4 in total) suggest, on the other hand, that movement of the pronoun strands the preposition, since the form of the pronoun is incompatible with an interpretation as invariant complementiser. Old English *that*-relatives with stranding thus suggest some evidence for P-stranding by an overt relative pronoun, in a specific context.

The YCOE corpus also features two examples of relatives coded as *se þe* relatives with P-stranding. One of these seems to be unreliable, as it is presumably not a *se*-relative but a *þe*-relative on an antecedent that is appositive in the context. (13) looks like a bona fide case of a *se þe* relative with P-stranding.

(13) Bede\_4:31.376.2.3751

Swylce such eac also ealle all ða the hrægl, robes, þa which ðe that he he mid with gegearwad attired wæs, was 'Also all the robes in which he was attired, …'

The observations about *that*-relatives fit well with the analysis sketched here: *þæt* is at this stage of the language clearly to some extent ambiguous between relative pronoun status and its later grammaticalised complementiser status, witness the fact that it features a substantial number of cases of P-stranding. We also find the first instances of unambiguous P-stranding by a relative pronoun as in (13).

In conclusion, we can say that the findings of the 1980's literature on P-stranding largely hold up. This applies to the theoretical analysis (any analysis must somehow allow for relatively free extraction out of PP when the prepositional object is a zero element), as well as to the factual coverage now allowed by the YCOE corpus (we can present more detail now, but there are no facts that were glossed over earlier).

## **Abbreviations**

YCOE York corpus of Old English

Ans van Kemenade

## **References**

10 All those years ago: Preposition stranding in Old English

# **Chapter 11**

# **From macro to nano: A parametric hierarchy approach to the diatopic and diachronic variation of Italian** *ben*

Norma Schifano University of Birmingham

# Federica Cognola

La Sapienza University, Rome

In this squib we discuss the morpho-syntactic requirements affecting the distribution of the Italian discourse particle *ben* (lit. 'well') as employed in a selection of regional varieties of the language. We present a preliminary comparison with its attestations in earlier stages of the language and we show how the attested diatopic and diachronic variation may be modelled in terms of a parameter hierarchy of the type developed by the *ReCoS* team.

# **1 Introduction**

The aims of the following squib are: (i) introducing the morpho-syntactic requirements affecting the distribution of a poorly studied discourse particle, namely Italian *ben* (lit. 'well'), as employed in a selection of regional varieties of the language, building on the work in Cognola & Schifano (2015; 2018a,b) (§2), (ii) presenting a preliminary comparison with its attestations in earlier stages of the language (§3), and (iii) showing how the attested diatopic and diachronic variation are particularly relevant for our understanding of comparative syntax in that, far from being random, they fit the predictions of the parametric hierarchy approach, as developed by the *ReCoS* team (Roberts 2012; Biberauer & Roberts

Norma Schifano & Federica Cognola. 2020. From macro to nano: A parametric hierarchy approach to the diatopic and diachronic variation of Italian *ben*. In András Bárány, Theresa Biberauer, Jamie Douglas & Sten Vikner (eds.), *Syntactic architecture and its consequences I: Syntax inside the grammar*, 233–250. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3972848

### Norma Schifano & Federica Cognola

2012; 2015; 2016; Biberauer, Holmberg, et al. 2014; Biberauer, Roberts & Sheehan 2014, a.o.; §4).

The challenge raised by the behaviour of this element is twofold. On the one hand, particles represent a "poorly understood group of elements" (Biberauer & Sheehan 2011: 387) which raise a number of both empirical and theoretical questions, including i.a. a proper understanding and adequate description of their individual syntactic functions, of their (lack of) ordering restrictions, as well as defectivity, optionality, degree and path of grammaticalization and pragmaticalization, semantic contribution, etc. (Biberauer & Sheehan 2011; Biberauer, Haegeman, et al. 2014). On the other hand, the sub-category of *discourse* particles introduces a number of even more complex issues.1 According to Zimmermann's (2011: 2012) semantic criterion, discourse particles can be defined as "expressions [which] contribute only to the expressive content of an utterance, and not to its core propositional content" (cf. also Bayer & Obenauer 2011: 450, a.o.). This means that any formalization of discourse particles must be able to capture not only their syntactic behaviour and structural status (as, for example, (deficient) adverbs, Cardinaletti 2011; 2015; Manzini 2015; TP pro-forms, Haegeman & Weir 2015; speech act functional heads, Haegeman 2014; Hill 2014; propositional anaphors, Hinterhölzl & Munaro 2015), but also their discourse properties, which involve highly heterogeneous non-syntactic categories such as speakers' "emotional needs" (von der Gabelentz 1969 [1891]; cf. i.a. the expression of commitment, e.g. German *wohl*, Zimmermann 2011; confidence, e.g. *ben* in some varieties of Italian, Coniglio 2008; Cardinaletti 2011; surprise, e.g. Cantonese *me1*, Li 2006; surprise-disapproval, e.g. Bangla *ki*, Bayer 1996; concern, e.g. German *denn*, Bayer & Obenauer 2011; impatience, e.g. Dolomitic Ladin *po*, Hack 2014: 52) or context/common ground dependence (cf. i.a. presupposition, e.g. Italian *mica*, Cinque 1976, Zanuttini 1997; existence of mutual knowledge, e.g. German *ja*, Zimmermann 2011; evidentiality, e.g. Bellunese *lu*/*ti*/*mo*/*po*, Hinterhölzl & Munaro 2015), just to mention a few.

In what follows, we leave these issues aside, simply assuming that Italian *ben* is a discourse particle located in the IP area (see further discussion in Cognola & Schifano 2018a,b).2 Conversely, we focus our attention on the diatopic distribution of this element, as this proves to be particularly interesting in that it is

1A wider related issue concerns the notion of "discourse" itself, which is too vast for us to be able to discuss it here. The reader is referred to Bayer et al. (2015) for an updated overview of some of the most prominent proposals about its codification and relationship with syntax.

2As for the syntactic status of *ben*, the reader is referred to Cognola & Schifano (2015; 2018a,b), where *ben* is analysed as a weak XP (in the sense of Cardinaletti & Starke 1999), as it is subject to the series of syntactic restrictions affecting weak elements (e.g. impossibility of fronting, coordination, focusing) which do not extend to *ben(e)* when used as a manner adverb. More

11 From macro to nano

subject to an increasing set of morpho-syntactic restrictions which reflect the macro > meso > micro > nano typology of parameters of the kind advocated by the *ReCoS* approach. Accordingly, we claim that the fine-grained diatopic variation which affects Italian *ben* can be modelled in terms of a parameter hierarchy, which allows us to gain insights also into the diachronic development of this element. The case of Italian *ben* thus provides evidence that the adequacy of the parametric hierarchy approach stretches to (the morpho-syntactic behaviour of) elements at the syntax-discourse interface.

# **2 Italian: Diatopic variation in morpho-syntactic requirements**

Consistently with the cross-linguistic behaviour of manner adverbs, which are known to have developed homophonous forms with a discourse value both in Romance (Belletti 1990; 1994; Lonzi 1991; Cinque 1976; 1999; Vinet 1996; Waltereit & Detges 2007; Coniglio 2008; Hernanz 2010; Cardinaletti 2011; Padovan & Penello 2014, a.o.) and Germanic (Weydt 1969; Baardewyk-Resseguier 1991, a.o.), the Italian manner adverb *ben(e)* 'well' (1a,b) co-exists with the non-adverbial element *ben* (1c), which has been traditionally described as conveying an emphatic/assertive meaning, used to reinforce the assertion (Belletti 1990; 1994; Lonzi 1991) and to express speakers' confidence about the propositional content of their assertion (Coniglio 2008; Cardinaletti 2011):3

(1) Italian (Cinque 1999: 171, fn. 20)

a. Carlo C. disegna draw.prs.3sg *bene*. well 'Carlo is good at drawing.'

specifically, we assume that when it is used as a discourse particle, *ben* is licensed in NegPresuppositionalP by a silent negative operator in ForceP and receives its presuppositional character by a Focus in PolarityP (see Hernanz 2010 for the role of PolarityP in the licensing of Spanish *bien*). Also note that, according to the above definition of discourse particles (also called *modal particles* in the literature due to their semantics and position in the clause, see Weydt 1969), these elements have to be kept distinct from so-called conversational-management elements, in that the latter have a pragmatic function similar to discourse particles, but are typically hosted in the CP layer. Interestingly, the Italian manner adverb *bene/ben* has also developed an usage as a conversational-management element (cf. *be'*).

3The translation of *ben* in (1b) is the one offered in the cited work. On the whole, *ben* does not seem to have an immediate corresponding form in English, where it could at best be rendered with an emphatic stress on the verb or as *indeed*. As such, it will not be translated in the examples below coming from our corpus of contemporary Italian, while it will be rendered with various periphrases in the early examples, according to the context.

Norma Schifano & Federica Cognola

In Cognola & Schifano (2018a,b), we have argued instead that the core property of Italian *ben* is that of denying the interlocutor's negative presupposition (cf. also Waltereit & Detges 2007 on French and Hernanz 2010 on Spanish), i.e. *ben* can only occur in (syntactically positive) contexts in which the negative counterpart of the proposition expressed by the sentence is part of the common ground (cf. Cinque 1976 on *mica*):

	- a. Speaker A: (negative presupposition) Nicola N. non not l'avrebbe it=have.cond.3sg neanche even toccata touched quella that roba. stuff 'Nicola wouldn't even have touched that stuff.'
	- b. Speaker B: (negative presupposition denied) Nicola N. l'avrebbe it=have.cond.3sg *ben* ben mangiata eaten la the carne. meat 'Nicola would have eaten the meat.'

In order to shed further light on the behaviour of this element, we collected data with native speakers and we found that regional varieties of Italian can be classified into three main groups, in accordance with the morpho-syntactic requirements exhibited by *ben*, i.e. Group 1 (Trentino), Group 2 (mainly Venetan varieties) and Group 3 (Rovigo, plus localities in Friuli Venezia Giulia, Lombardy, Piedmont, Emilia Romagna, Lazio, Marche and Puglia).

Looking at the morpho-syntactic requirements in more detail, the following restrictions can be identified:4

4The following morpho-syntactic restrictions were identified through a questionnaire run with 28 speakers of mixed age, gender and education from 15 different localities, who were asked for grammaticality judgements on a 1–5 scale on 67 sentences testing the occurrence of *ben* across a variety of verb forms and tense, aspect, mood (TAM) contexts (see Cognola & Schifano 2018a,b for details). The reader is referred to the aforementioned works for a discussion of one additional morpho-syntactic restriction which was identified for Group 3 (cf. a preference for transitive over unaccusative verbs) and a difference in the interpretative requirements of *ben* between Group 1 and 3 (cf. negation of implicit vs explicit negative presupposition).

11 From macro to nano

	- a. embedded non-root contexts are ruled out (Restriction 1);
	- b. TAM combinations not involving a non-finite form are ruled out (Restriction 2);
	- c. among restructuring verbs, *potere* 'can' is widely accepted, *volere* 'want' is more restricted and *smettere* 'stop' is largely ruled out (Restriction 3);

While all the three restrictions apply to Group 3, Group 1 is only subject to Restriction 1.5 By way of illustration, consider the examples below, showing that embedded non-root contexts like the ones selected by a matrix volitional verb are ruled out in both groups (4); while both simple and compound tenses are admitted by Trentino speakers, only the latter combination is admitted by speakers of Group 3 (5); while Trentino allows *ben* to occur with *potere*/*volere*/*smettere*, only the former is completely grammatical in all the tested contexts in Group 3 (6):6

	- a. \* Gianni G. vuole want.prs.3sg che that Marco M. compri buy.sbjv.3sg *ben* ben qualcosa something per for cena.
		- dinner

'Gianni wants Marco to buy something for dinner.'

	- a. Group 1/\*3

Gianni G. compra buy.prs.3sg *ben* ben qualcosa something per for cena dinner quando when può. can.prs.3sg 'Gianni buys something for dinner when he can.'

5Note however that, for all speakers, *ben* can be used in root-like embedded clauses, like in embedded clauses introduced by a verbum dicendi.

6 See further examples in Cognola & Schifano (2018a,b).

### Norma Schifano & Federica Cognola

### b. Group 1/3

Gianni G. avrebbe have.cond.3sg *ben* ben comprato bought qualcosa something per for cena, dinner se if avesse have.sbjv.ipfv.3sg potuto. been.able 'Gianni would have bought something for dinner if he had been able to.'

### (6) Group 3 (Italian)

On the basis of the distributional facts summarised above, we classify Trentino as the productive isogloss for the use of *ben*. Conversely, Group 3 allows a considerably more restricted usage and Group 2 represents a transitional area between the two, where the above restrictions do not apply consistently yet. One of the most striking results of this investigation is that the localities in Group 3 behaved surprisingly homogeneously, in spite of their geographical scatteredness, suggesting that once outside the productive isogloss, any varieties conform to the same behaviour. In what follows, we shall not attempt at accounting for the above restrictions (see Cognola & Schifano 2018a,b for a proposal), but we will instead consider a representative set of examples regarding the distribution of this particle in earlier attestations of Italo-Romance in order to assess whether the more liberal pattern of Trentino instantiates an innovative or conservative stage in the distribution of *ben*.

11 From macro to nano

# **3 Italian: Diachronic variation in morpho-syntactic requirements**

A preliminary examination of occurrences of *ben* in earlier attestations of Italo-Romance suggests that the extensive use of Trentino reflects a conservative stage, where *ben* occurred in a wider range of TAM contexts than present-day (standard) Italian.7 More specifically, we observe that (i) the particle was already employed to deny a negative presupposition, and (ii) although occurrences of *ben* in non-root embedded contexts do not seem to be attested (cf. Restriction 1),8 the particle was not only allowed with compound tenses, such as the present perfect (7a) and pluperfect indicative (7b), as well as with restructuring verbs like *potere* 'can' (7c), but was also readily admitted with simple tenses, such as the present indicative (8), the imperfect indicative (9), the simple past (10) and the simple future (11), on a pair with modern-day Trentino and unlike the contemporary Italian varieties of Group 3 (cf. Restriction 2):9

(7) a. (negative presupposition: the knight does not deserve to be treated in such an uncivil manner)

> Così tenendo lor camino, trovaro il re Meliadus ch'andava a uno torneamento, altressì a guisa di cavaliere errante e sue arme coverte. E' domandò questi sergenti: "Perché menate voi a 'mperatore questo cavaliere? E chi [è] elli, che cosìe lo disonorate villanamente?" Li sergenti rispuosero: "Elli hae *bene* morte servita; e se voi il sapeste come [noi], voi il menareste assai più tosto di noi. Adomandatelo di suo misfatto!" (*Novellino*, LXIII, p.267, l.20–28) 'Along the road they met King Meliadus, on his way to a tournament, also dressed as a knight errant and hiding his weapons. He asked the

7We take "standard" Italian to pattern with Group 3, as shown by the scores provided by our central-southern informants, whose judgements refer to their competence of the standard language, *ben* being absent both from their regional varieties of Italian and their local Romance dialects. The diachronic data reported below are taken from two central-northern varieties only, namely Old Tuscan (cf. *Novellino*, about end of the 13th century) and Old Venetan (cf. *Lio Mazor*, 14th century). We therefore do not exclude the possibility that other early varieties of Italo-Romance behave differently. The English translation provided for *Novellino* have been freely adapted from Consoli's (1997) edition.

8That *ben* should be excluded from non-root embedded contexts also in the early varieties under review here is not surprising under the analysis proposed in Cognola & Schifano (2018a), where *ben* is licensed by a negative operator in ForceP, as argued elsewhere for other discourse particles (see Coniglio 2008 and Zimmermann 2004; 2011, a.o.).

9We leave it open to future research to determine whether Restrictions 3 was active or not in the early varieties under investigation here.

vassals: "Why are you carrying this knight to the emperor?  The vassals replied: "He well deserves to die; and if you knew why, you would be carrying him faster than us. Ask him yourself about his crime!"'

b. (context: there is a quarrel involving Lena's son and Pero Stomarin. Lena's son was supposed to give Pero Stomarin money for the fish, but according to Çanun he has kept it for himself. Negative presupposition: Lena's son has not given the money to Pero Stomarin)

[…] la quala dis che Çanun diseua che lo fio de Lena aueua toleto li deneri del pes da Siluester Uener et lo fio dis ch'el li aueua *ben* dati a Pero Stomarin. (*Lio Mazor*, p.48, l.160–163)

'[…] she said that Çanun said that Lena's son had taken the money for the fish from Siluester Uener and the son said that he had indeed given it to Pero Stomarin.'

c. (negative presupposition: the infant girl cannot be the doctor's daughter)

Uno medico di Tolosa tolse per mogliera una gentile donna di Tolosa, nepote dell'arcivescovo. Menolla. In due mesi fece una fanciulla. Il medico non ne mostrò nullo cruccio, anzi consolava la donna e mostravale ragioni secondo fisica, che *ben* poteva esser sua di ragione […]. (*Novellino*, XLIX, p.234, l.3–7)

'A doctor from Toulouse took for his wife a gentle woman of Toulouse, the niece of the Archbishop. He brought her home. Two months later she gave birth to an infant girl. The doctor showed no signs of anger, instead he consoled his lady and presented many reasons, according to the law of physics, which logically proved the child could be his.'

(8) (negative presupposition: your god is not better)

E tornando al signore per iscommiatarsi da lui, il signore disse: – Or sei tu ancor qui? Non avestu la torta? – Messer sì, ebbi. – Or che ne facesti? – Messere, io avea allora mangiato: diedila a un povero giullare che mi diceva male perch'io vi chiamava mio Iddio. – Allora disse il signore: – Va' con la mala ventura: ché *bene* è miglior il suo Iddio che 'l tuo! – E disseli il fatto della torta. (*Novellino*, LXXIX, p.309, l.30–39) '[the minstrel] returned to his lord to formally take his leave, and his lord said: – You're still here? Didn't you receive a tart? – Sire, I had it – What

### 11 From macro to nano

did you do with it? – Sire, I had already eaten: I gave it to that poor minstrel who chided me for calling you my god. – Then the lord said: May misfortune follow you, for it is true that his god is better than yours! – And then he told him all about the tart.'

(9) (context: a watchman sees a boat in the sea which looks like Nasel's one. The watchman orders the man on the boat to dock, but the person refuses and gets a fine. The judge asks the watchman whether he knows the man on the boat and the watchman replies no. Negative presupposition: the boat was not Nasel's) Domandà s'el lo cogno[se]se, li dis, no; mo lo burclo era *ben* del Nasel. (*Lio Mazor*, p.43, l.11)

'[the judge] asks whether he knows [the man on the boat], he says "no"; but the boat was indeed Nasel's.'

(10) (negative presupposition: you didn't see them passing) Quell'altro cavalcò poi più volte, tanto che udì il padre e la madre fare romore nell'agio, e intese dalla fante com'ella n'era andata in cotal modo. Questi sbigottì: tornò a' compagni e disselo loro. E que' rispuosero: – *Ben* lo vedemmo passar con llei, ma nol conoscemmo: et è tanto, che puote bene essere allungato; et andarne per cotale strada.

(*Novellino*, XCIX, p.350, l.47–53)

'The other man rode past her house many times, until he heard her mother and father making a ruckus inside, and he learned from the maidservant what had taken place. He was mortified: he returned to his companions and told them all *[i.e. that the lady had left with another man, without being seen]*. They replied: – We did see him pass with her, but we didn't recognise him: and it was so long ago, they must be far away by now; this is the road they took.'

(11) (context: there is a quarrel involving Maria, Magdalena and Francesca. Maria wants to buy some bread from Magdalena. She takes a piece of bread, but another woman, Francesca, grabs it from her hands. There is a fight between the two women. Magdalena understands that Maria wants to steal the bread and Maria answers as below. Negative presupposition: you will not pay for the bread)

[…] no me-lo tor, ch'e' tel pagarò *ben*. (*Lio Mazor*, p.27, l.12) 'don't take it away from me, that I will indeed pay you for that'

The availability of *ben* across a wide selection of TAM contexts (vs. Restriction 2) exemplified in (8–11) points to a high degree of grammaticalization of this

### Norma Schifano & Federica Cognola

particle in earlier stages of Italo-Romance, a situation which today persists in Trentino, i.e. the productive isogloss, but not elsewhere.10 Accordingly, we suggest that the distribution of *ben* in Trentino reflects a conservative pattern. The reason why Trentino has preserved an earlier stage of the language, unlike all the other varieties of the Italian peninsula under investigation here, may be linked to the contact with German (in terms of reinforcement of a shared property, see Benincà 1994; Cordin 2011; Cognola 2014), which makes a very productive use of discourse particles (see Cognola & Schifano 2018b for a parallel between Italian *ben* and German *doch* and Weydt 1969, among many others, on German discourse particles). As for the other varieties, these show a reduced distribution of *ben* which, from a diachronic perspective, may be interpreted as an example of retraction (Norde 2011), i.e. it also reflects the steps of a diachronic process whereby *ben* was originally allowed in all the contexts admitted in early Italo-Romance and still retained by Trentino. Our fine-grained diatopic investigation has shown that, despite their geographical scatteredness, all the speakers outside the productive isogloss are remarkably consistent in their judgements. We take this to indicate that the retraction of *ben* from early Italo-Romance to the present-day varieties outside the productive isogloss has followed the same path. This diatopic and diachronic path can be informally represented as in (12):11

	- a. lexical verbs: simple tenses → compound tenses
	- b. functional verbs (cf. restructuring): *smettere* 'stop' → *volere* 'want' → *potere* 'can'

The path in (12) reads as follows: among lexical verbs, *ben* is first lost with simple tenses; among restructuring verbs, it is first lost with *smettere* 'stop' and, partially, with *volere* 'want'. (12) can also be read as a synchronic implicational

10Here we are also glossing over the (apparently) distinct placements of *ben* in the examples (8–11), including its preverbal placement (cf. 7c, 8, 10, which have to be interpreted in the light of the distinct word order restrictions which were active in earlier varieties of Italo-Romance (see Ledgeway 2012 for an overview and references) and which are not immediately relevant for the purposes of the present discussion. We leave it open to further research to determine the exact position of *ben* in early Italo-Romance varieties and to establish whether the analysis offered by Cognola & Schifano (2018a,b) can capture this variation. We also note, in passim, that the full form *bene* too was allowed in its discourse particle meaning (7a), (8), unlike in present-day regional Italian.

11Note that the geographical factor is not totally irrelevant here, as localities closer located to Trentino (see varieties in the transitional Group 2 like Cortina D'Ampezzo) allow *ben* in a wider selection of contexts than other localities of the same group.

### 11 From macro to nano

scale, i.e. if a variety admits *ben* with simple tenses, it will also admit it in all the other contexts, as shown by Trentino (and partly by the early varieties under investigation here, pending further research on a wider corpus).

## **4 Italian: Towards a parameter hierarchy**

In the remainder of this work, we would like to capture the implicational relationships described in (12) in terms of a parameter hierarchy. Following the latest advancements by the *ReCoS* group (Roberts 2012; Biberauer & Roberts 2012; 2015; 2016; Biberauer, Holmberg, et al. 2014; Biberauer, Roberts & Sheehan 2014, a.o.), we adopt the taxonomy of parameter-types outlined in (13) and schematized in Figure 11.1 (taken from Biberauer & Roberts 2012 and Biberauer & Roberts 2016):

	- a. *Macroparameters*: all functional heads of the relevant type share *vi* ;
	- b. *Mesoparameters*: all functional heads of a given naturally definable class, e.g. [+V], share *vi* ;
	- c. *Microparameters*: a small subclass of functional heads (e.g. modal auxiliaries) shows *vi* ;
	- d. *Nanoparameters*: one or more individual lexical items is/are specified for *vi* ;

The central idea summarised in (13) and Figure 11.1 is that a macroparametric effect obtains when a given property holds for all relevant heads, and is therefore easily set by the learner and likely to be stable over millennia. As one moves downward the hierarchy, the subset of heads characterised by the relevant property increasingly reduces, moving from a natural-class subset of heads (cf. mesoparameter), through a further restricted natural-class subset of heads (cf. microparameter), to a reduced set of lexically specified items (cf. nanoparameter), all increasingly less salient in the primary linguistic data (PLD) and consequently less resistant to reanalysis (Biberauer & Roberts 2016: 261).

Turning our attention again to the morpho-syntactic distribution of *ben* described above, which gradually decreases as one moves outside the productive isogloss of Trentino (cf. Group 3 and 1, respectively), passing through a grey area of variation (cf. Group 2), we immediately realise that this kind of diatopic variation remarkably reflects the path of specialization predicted by the above taxonomy. If we label the discourse function carried out by *ben* as "negative marking

Figure 11.1: General format of parameter hierarchies

of negative presupposition", as argued in Cognola & Schifano (2018a), we observe that in the early varieties discussed above (here cumulatively referred to as "early Italo-Romance") and in Trentino, such marking is allowed on all [+V] heads, that is a natural-class subset of heads, corresponding to a mesoparametric option. Conversely, Group 3 seems to split its behaviour. As far as its lexical verbs are concerned, these clearly instantiate a microparametric option, with *ben* being attested in a further restricted natural-class subset of heads, namely [+V] perfective heads (cf. Restriction 2). Conversely, its functional (viz. restructuring) verbs represent a nanoparametric choice, in that *ben* seems to be allowed only on lexically specified items (cf. *potere* vs. *smettere*).12 The relevant portion of this hierarchy is sketched in Figure 11.2.

The fact that Group 3 simultaneously instantiates both a micro and nanoparametric option or, more precisely, that lexical vs. functional verbs are split in their behaviour, may be unexpected under the taxonomy in (13) and Figure 11.1, but finds a plausible explanation if we consider the diachrony. As discussed in §3, the

12The restrictions on the occurrence of *ben* with restructuring verbs do not seem to be amenable to an alternative explanation to their nanoparametric classification proposed here. Indeed, the position of the tested restructuring verbs in Cinque's (2006) hierarchy, which could plausibly play a role, does not seem to be relevant here, as *volere*, which is the highest, is less accepted than *potere*, which is the lowest, but *smettere*, which lexicalises a position between the two, is largely ruled out (see also Cognola & Schifano 2018b).

11 From macro to nano

Figure 11.2: The distribution of *ben*

distribution of *ben* in Group 3 is likely to represent a reduction of a previously much more extended usage, i.e. it is an instance of diatopic variation which reflects a diachronic path. A closer look at the data presented in Cognola & Schifano (2018a,b) suggests that such a retraction may still be on-going.13 Under this hypothesis, the behaviour of Group 3 and the representation in Figure 11.2 are no longer surprising. That the lower branches represent unstable options is indeed consistent with current assumptions on diachronic change within the parametric hierarchy approach, where micro- and nanoparametric options are taken to be highly unstable (Biberauer & Roberts 2016: 261).

13For example, our investigation with native speakers has shown that there is a tendency for modally-marked compound tenses (e.g. conditional perfect) to score better than the temporallyrelated ones (e.g. present perfect). Similarly, if a compound form allows both a temporal and a modal reading (e.g. future perfect with temporal vs. epistemic interpretation), the latter is usually preferred.

This further and rather subtle specialization with compound tenses (i.e. the only morphosyntactic combination allowed with lexical verbs), not necessarily shared by all speakers yet, may indicate that the retraction of *ben* in Group 3 is still on its way. See Cognola & Schifano (2015) for data showing a similar tendency with *smettere* (i.e. largely ruled out, but modallymarked interpretations receive higher scores).

Norma Schifano & Federica Cognola

## **5 Conclusions**

In the present squib we have discussed the distribution of the discourse particle *ben* in a selection of regional varieties of Italian, as described in Cognola & Schifano (2015; 2018a,b). On the basis of the judgements expressed by native speakers, we have identified three main morpho-syntactic restrictions which affect the distribution of *ben* in Group 3 but not in Group 1, which we take to be the productive isogloss. A preliminary examination of diachronic evidence has also suggested that the more liberal use of Trentino reflects an earlier stage of Italo-Romance, where *ben* was also allowed in wide array of TAM-contexts. In conclusion, we have suggested that the attested diatopic variation can be successfully formalised in terms of a parameter hierarchy, in that the gradual retraction of the admitted contexts we described finds a remarkable parallel with the macro > meso > micro > nano path independently argued for by the parametric hierarchy approach on the basis of extensive diachronic and typological evidence. This also allows us to provide new insights into the diachronic development of *ben* from early Italo-Romance to present-day varieties. The advantage of modelling the (shrinking) diatopic and diachronic distribution of *ben* via a parameter hierarchy is that it allows us to formally capture a type of variation which would otherwise look like random change (see for example the *potere* vs. *volere* restriction, here captured as a nanoparametric option). The case of Italian *ben* also opens the way to future research on the possibility that the (morpho-syntactic) behaviour of elements at the syntax-discourse interface is also subject to the predictions of parametric hierarchy approach.

## **Abbreviations**

## **Acknowledgements**

We would like to dedicate this squib to Ian Roberts, whose work and outstanding scholarship has greatly inspired our own investigations. We hope that it is

11 From macro to nano

successful in showing how his research, including the one conducted with the *ReCoS* team, is opening the way to new thrilling lines of investigation.

Although this entire work stems from joint research, for the administrative purposes of the Italian academia Norma Schifano takes responsibility for §1, §2 and §4 and Federica Cognola for §3 and §5.

## **Sources**

*I monumenti del dialetto di Lio Mazor*. 1904. Ugo Levi (ed.). Venice: Visentini. *Il Novellino*. 1970. Guido Favati (ed.), *Testo critico, introduzione e note*. Genoa:

Fratelli Bozzi. (English translations adapted from Consoli 1997).

## **References**

Benincà, Paola. 1994. *La variazione sintattica*. Bologna: Il Mulino.

### 11 From macro to nano

### Norma Schifano & Federica Cognola

# **Part II**

# **Syntactic interfaces**

# **Chapter 12**

# **In search of prosodic domains in Lusoga**

## Larry M. Hyman

University of California, Berkeley

In this paper I raise the question of whether Lusoga, a Bantu language of Uganda, recognizes syntactically determined prosodic domains, which have been extensively described in near-mutually intelligible Luganda. I first briefly recapitulate the syntactic constructions that give rise to the tone group (TG) and tone phrase (TP) domains in Luganda and then consider the same constructions in Lusoga. Whereas the expectation is that pre-verbal constituents will be treated prosodically differently than post-verbal constituents in SVO Bantu languages, Lusoga treats both pre- and post-verbal constituents the same, including both left- and right-dislocations. While certain clitics do form a TG with the preceding word, perhaps forming a recursive phonological word, there is nothing corresponding to the multiword TG or TP of Luganda. Lusoga either fails to distinguish phonological phrases or if they do exist in the language (as universally claimed), Lusoga fails to mark them. I conclude that linguistic typology should not only determine how universal linguistic properties can be reflected in the grammar of a language, but also in how well a grammar can get along without signaling them at all.

> "… the very types of prosodic category above the foot and syllable are syntactically grounded and universal." (Selkirk & Lee 2015: 3)

> "… the prosodic phonology of Luganda is among the most intricate and complex of any language." (Hyman & Katamba 2010: 69)

Larry M. Hyman. 2020. In search of prosodic domains in Lusoga. In András Bárány, Theresa Biberauer, Jamie Douglas & Sten Vikner (eds.), *Syntactic architecture and its consequences I: Syntax inside the grammar*, 253–276. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3972850

Larry M. Hyman

## **1 Introduction**

The purpose of this paper is to raise the question whether the phrasal tonology of Lusoga (Bantu; Uganda), the most closely related language to Luganda, is syntactically grounded – or is free to apply without respect to syntax. Outside of Bantu, cases have been reported where phrasal or post-lexical tonology applies whenever two words meet within a clause, independently of the syntax, and hence without the need of prosodic domains. This includes the VSO Chatino languages of Mexico (Cruz 2011; Campbell 2014; McIntosh 2015; Sullivant 2015; Villard 2015) and the SOV Kuki-Thaadow language (Kuki-Chin; NE India, Myanmar) (Hyman 2010). In such languages appropriate tonal alternations occurring between words are blocked only by pause or "sentence breaks".

The story is considerably different in the Bantu languages. Although there is considerable variation, the expectation is that there will be extensive interaction between the syntax and the prosodic phonology, specifically between syntactic constituency and/or information structure (focus) with tone and/or penultimate lengthening. Specifically, we expect the SVO syntax to be prosodically reflected by an asymmetry between what precedes vs. follows the verb. Thus, in a number of works on Luganda, e.g. Hyman et al. (1987), Hyman & Katamba (2010), we have recognized the following postlexical domains within which tone rules act on the lexical stem and word tones:1

	- b. a larger tone phrase (TP), within which H tone anticipation (HTA) occurs

One question is whether this sensitivity to syntax can be attributed, perhaps universally, to the SVO syntax of Luganda (and other Bantu languages), or whether the prosodic phonology of an SVO language can also apply across the board, without any sensitivity to syntactic structure.

As I will show below, despite its near-mutual intelligibility with Luganda, Lusoga provides no evidence of prosodic domains above the phonological word. In what follows I will first briefly identify the above Luganda domains, then consider the corresponding structures in Lusoga, which show no empirical evidence for either prosodic domain. I will then discuss what Lusoga does have and what this might mean for syntax–phonology interactions and the quest for universals.

1We also recognize an intersecting clitic group (CG), which pertains mostly to vowel length alternations.

12 In search of prosodic domains in Lusoga

## **2 Prosodic domains in Luganda**

The analysis of Luganda tone is given in (2), as summarized by Hyman & Katamba (2010: 70):

As indicated, moras are either marked by an underlying privative /H/ or are toneless (∅). Within the lexical (word-level) phonology, L tones arise in one of two ways, illustrated in (3).

(3) a. /ba-lab-a/ → bá-làb-a 'they see' H H H L b. /ba-bal-a/ → bá-bàl-a 'they count' H H L

In (3a) Meeussen's rule converts a sequence of Hs on successive moras to one H followed by all Ls. A sequence /H-H-H-H/ would thus become H-L-L-L. In (3b) L tone insertion applies after a lone H which would not be subject to Meeussen's rule. The result is an intermediate ternary contrast between H, L, and ∅. Finally, after the phrasal phonology applies, the ∅s are all filled in with either H or L, thereby bringing the system back to a binary contrast, this time equipollent.2

### **2.1 The TP**

We are now ready to consider the two prosodic domains mentioned in (1). As illustrated in (4), within the TP, H tone is anticipated across words onto any number of preceding toneless moras, indicated here and in subsequent examples by underlining:3

(4) a. verb + object a-bal-a e-bi-kópò → à-bál-á é-bí-kópò 's/he is counting cups' H L %L H L

2There also is a marginal downstepped ꜜH which arises when two phonological phrases meet, the first ending in a HL falling tone, the second beginning with H.

3 In (4) and subsequent examples %L marks an initial boundary tone which will be crucial to establishing the tone phrases in Luganda. In §3 we will see that this %L is restricted to postpause position in Lusoga.

Larry M. Hyman

> b. object + object a-bal-ir-a o-mu-limi e-bi-kópò → à-bál-ír-á ó-mú-límí é-bí-kópò 3sg-count-appl-fv 's/he is counting cups for the farmer' H L %L H L

The example in (4a) shows HTA applying from the direct object onto the verb, while (4b) shows HTA from the second object through the first object and, again, onto the verb (which is marked by the applicative *-ir-* suffix). In (5) we see that HTA also applies between a right-dislocated element (RD) and the verb and between RDs, again onto the verb:4

(5) a. verb + RD a-bi-bal-a e-bi-kópò → à-bí-bál-á é-bí-kópò s/he-them-count 's/he is counting them, the cups' H L %L H L b. RD + RD a-bí-mù-bal-ir-a o-mu-limi e-bi-kópò → à-bí-mù-bál-ír-á ó-mú-límí é-bí-kópò s/he-them-him-count-appl-fv H L %L H L

's/he is counting them for him, the farmer, the cups'

HTA does not, however, apply from the verb onto a constituent that precedes, whether the subject, an adverb, or a left dislocation (LD):5

(6) a. subj + verb o-mu-limi a-bi-láb-à → ò-mù-lìmì à-bì-láb-à 'the farmer sees them' H L %L H L b. LD + LD o-mu-limi e-bi-kópò a-bi-láb-à → ò-mù-lìmì è-bì-kópò à-bì-láb-à H L H %L L L %L H L 'the farmer, the cups, he sees them'

As indicated by the dashed underlining, (6a) shows that HTA does not apply from the verb onto the subject *ò-mù-lìmì*, which instead receives default L tones. Nor is

4Here and elsewhere it is important to note that, without exception, when two vowels meet across a word boundary, they coalesce with deletion or gliding of the first vowel and compensatory lengthening of the second. Thus, (5a) is pronounced [à-bí-bál éé-bí-kópò]. Thus, to answer one reviewer, there is no pause between a right dislocation and what precedes. For more on the phonological processes involved, see Clements (1986), Hyman & Katamba (1999), and references cited therein.

5Below in (9a) I will suggest that each such constituent is marked by an initial %L boundary tone which is responsible for blocking HTA.

### 12 In search of prosodic domains in Lusoga

there HTA from one LD onto another in (6b).6 Instead, LDs and other pre-verbal constituents are marked off in a way that post-verbal constituents including RDs are not.7

Before accounting for this fact let us consider the opposite marking of dislocations in closely related Haya (Byarushengo et al. 1976: 201–202; Hyman & Katamba 1999: 155). In this language a /H-∅/ sequence is realized [HL-L] at the end of a tone phrase, e.g. in isolation:

$$\begin{array}{ccc} \text{(7)} & \text{a. } \text{ a-ba-kázi} \rightarrow \text{à-bà-kázi \text{\textquotedbl{}woman\textquotedbl{}}}\\ & \text{H} & \text{HL} \\ \text{b. } \text{ e-m-búzi} \rightarrow \text{e-m-búzi \textquotedbl{}goat(s)\textquotedbl{}} \\ & \text{H} & \text{HL} \end{array}$$

Noting this, we now see in (8) that Haya presents a near mirror-image of Luganda (we can ignore the "augment" initial vowel H on the nouns):

The base sentence is given in (8a). In (8b) we see that the /H/ of LDs is not affected, while in (8c), the /H/ of the verb and each RD becomes HL. RDs are thus each marked off, while LDs are not. The two languages are thus analyzed with the reverse nested structures in (9) (Byarushengo et al. 1976: 84; Hyman & Katamba 2010).

6Note in (6b) that HTA does not apply between *e-bi-kópò* 'cups' and *a-bi-láb-à* 'he sees them' because the former ends in a L tone. For HTA to apply, the preceding word must end with a toneless vowel.

7Again, not shown is the V#V coalescence that automatically applies between any words in sequence, including LDs and RDs, but does not affect the tonal discussion.

### Larry M. Hyman

(9) a. Luganda marks beginnings of complete Us

b.  As Byarushengo et al. (1976) point out, each L% correlates with the end of a complete assertion.

Before moving on to the tone group, it should perhaps be pointed out that if the TP correlates with the phonological (or even intonational) phrase of prosodic domain theory, we don't expect to find a TP break within a simple noun phrase. While this is largely the case, there is a problem with numerals in Luganda:

(10) a. noun + adjective: a-ba-limi a-ba-nénè → à-bá-límí á-bá-nénè 'big farmers' H L %L H L b. noun + numeral: a-ba-limi ba-sátù → à-bà-lìmì bà-sátù 'three farmers' H L %L H L

12 In search of prosodic domains in Lusoga

As expected, HTA applies in (10a) from an adjective onto a preceding noun. However, HTA does not apply in (10b) from the numeral onto the noun. It is as if the noun is in a separate TP, as in the case of a preverbal constituent. I don't see any reason to think of numerals as predicative, such that 'farmers' would be preposed to the numeral (as a subject is to the verb marked by %L). While it is hard to motivate syntactically, the apparent need is for there to be an analogous %L separating the numeral from the preceding noun. This being said, Bantu languages that allow a subset of modifiers to be either pre- or post-nominal, e.g. demonstratives (van de Velde 2005), may also not phrase them with the head noun.

### **2.2 The TG**

The TG is a smaller domain in which the head V or N of the corresponding XP undergoes reduction when followed by an appropriate dependent with H tone. In Haya, the V or N undergoes deletion of its one or more H tones, while in Luganda, the V or N loses the L(s) of a H to L pitch drop, as the result of a process of H tone plateauing (HTP). For this to occur several conditions must be met, as schematized in (11) (Hyman & Katamba 2010: 75):

$$\begin{array}{cccc} \text{(11)} & \text{XP} & & \text{where:} & \text{(i)} & \text{X} \neq \text{[+Focus]} \\ & \bigwedge & & \text{where:} & \text{(ii)} & \text{Z} \neq \text{[+AUQMENT]} \\ & \text{X} & \text{YP} & & \\ & & \mid & \\ & & \text{Z} & \text{= a phonon logical word} \end{array}$$

In (11), Z stands for a phonological word (PW) which is not necessarily the head of YP (as when there is an empty head, e.g. 'we saw two'). The [±focus] feature refers to whether a verb tense, aspect, mood (TAM)/polarity is inherently focused. The following pair of examples shows that negation is inherently [+focus] (cf. Hyman & Watters 1984):

$$\begin{array}{ccccc} \text{(12)} & \text{a. tw-áà-làb-à} \rightarrow \text{tw-áà-làb-à bì-kópò} \text{ 'we saw cụps'} & \text{(Past}\_2) \\ & \text{H} & \text{L} & \text{L} & \text{H} \oplus \text{ } \otimes & \text{H} \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccccc} \text{b. te-tw-áà-làb-à} \rightarrow \text{tè-tw-áà-làb-à bì-kópò} \text{ 'we didn't see cụps'} & \text{(Past}\_2) \\ & \text{H} & \text{L} & \text{L} & \text{L} & \text{L} \\ \end{array}$$

In (12a) the Hs of the verb and object create an all-H plateau, requiring the Ls of the verb to be deleted (indicated by ∅). (As glossed, focus is on *bí-kópò* 'cups', marked by the absence of the augment *e-.*) However, H tone plateauing (HTP)

### Larry M. Hyman

does not apply in (12b), where the only grammatical difference is the negative marking on the verb.8

The [±augment] feature refers to whether a noun has an augment, usually an initial *e-, o-* or *a-*. As seen in (13a), HTP will not apply if the augment is present. (13b) shows that the augment is obligatorily absent after a negative verb (without any focus effect), as it was in (12b) above.

$$\begin{array}{ccccc} \text{(13)} & \text{a. tw-áá-làb-à} & \rightarrow \text{tw-áá-làb-à \(\underline{e}\)-bi-kópò \(\text{we saw cups}\)}\\ & \text{H} & \text{L} & \text{L} & \text{H} & \text{L} & \text{H} & \text{L} \\ & \text{b. t-tw-áá-làb-à} & \rightarrow \text{"tè-tw-áá-làb-à è} & \underline{e}\text{-bi-kópò \(\text{we didn't see cups}\)} \text{(Pasty)} \\ & \text{H} & \text{L} & \text{L} & \text{H} & \text{L} & \text{L} & \text{H} & \text{L} \\ \end{array}$$

Within the verb phrase the YP can be anything as long as it isn't [+augment] (or a RD). This includes an object NP, prepositional phrase, adverb etc. Within the noun phrase, plateauing occurs only in (some) compounding (Hyman & Katamba 2005) and before a possessive/genitive NP. In (14) we see that HTP does not apply between a noun and following adjective (possibly because adjectives are not YPs):

$$\begin{array}{ccccc} \text{(14)} & \text{a. } \text{N} + \text{A} & \text{e-bi-kọ̀pò} \rightarrow \text{e-bi-kọ́pò è-bi-néné} \text{ è big cups} \\ & \text{H} \text{ L} & \text{H} \text{ L} \\\\ \text{b.} & \text{bi-kọ́pò} & \rightarrow \text{te-tw-áá-làb-à bì-kọ́pò bi-néné} \\ & \text{H} \text{ L} & \text{L} & \text{L} & \text{H} \text{ L} \\ & \text{'we didn't see big cups'} \end{array}$$

While this could also be attributed to the augment on *è-bì-nénè* 'big' in (14a), the non-plateauing in the absence of the augment after the negative verb in (14b) unambiguously shows that N+A fails to become a TG. The examples in (15) show that a possessive pronoun and genitive noun will form a TG with the preceding head noun:

8HTA also does not apply since it must cross a word boundary, but it cannot do so when the preceding word ends L (vs. ∅).

12 In search of prosodic domains in Lusoga

In (15a) the final L of 'cups' is deleted as a result of plateauing with the HL of *by-ê* 'his/her'. The same occurs in (15b), where there is plateauing with the HL of proper noun, pronounced *Kàtààmbâ* in isolation.

It is important to note that the TG is a relation of the head and one word (Z) to its right. That is, the full YP in (11) does not join the head X to form the TG. This is illustrated in (16).

(16) a. tw-áá-làb-à → tw-áá-láb-á bí-kópò bi-nénè 'we saw big cups' (Past2 ) H L L H ∅ ∅ H L H-L b. tw-áá-làb-à → tw-áá-làb-à bì-tábó bí-nénè 'we saw big books' (Past2 ) H L L H L L H-L

In (16a) there is plateauing between the verb and 'cups', which maintains its H-L pitch drop before the H-L of the adjective 'big'. In (16b) the verb joins with *bi-tabo* 'cups', but since the latter is underlyingly toneless there is no possibility of H tone plateauing. Crucially, the verb cannot "see" the H of the adjective 'big'. The Hs that are observed on *bì-tábó* result from HTA within the larger TP domain.

However, there are cases where a H tone plateau can encompass several words. The following examples show that HTP can affect sequences of Head-Dependent words without respect to bracketing (Hyman 1988: 159):

The more common right-branching structure is observed in (17a). In this case N2 +N3 form a constituent which then joins N1 . In the less common left-branching structure in (17b), N1 +N2 first form a constituent, which then joins N3 . Although a single, three-word TG is formed, HTP does not apply to the whole constituent all at once. This is seen from the fact that an intervening toneless phonological word blocks HTP (Hyman 1988: 157). In the following examples, underlined Hs are from the application of HTA:

(18) a. e-bi-kópò by-àà mù-túúndá + bí-kópò [ N1 [ N2 N3 ] ] H L H L 'cups of the cup-seller' (literally, seller-cups)

Larry M. Hyman

> b. mu-kúbà + bà-límí w-áá Kátáámbâ [ [ N1 N2 ] N3 ] H L HL 'farmer-beater of Katamba' (literally, beater-farmers)

Even though the same right- and left-branching complex TGs are formed, HTP must progress on a word-by-word basis. For this reason I proposed that HTP be a domain-juncture rule of the following form (Hyman 1988: 158):

(19) L n → ∅ / [ TG[ … PW[ … H \_\_ ] [ H … ]PW … ]TG

Presented as a rule of L tone deletion followed by the fusion of the left and right H tones, the conception is that HTP occurs between PWs which are grouped together within a TG.9

In summary, the above and other Luganda facts potentially bear on multiple issues concerning prosodic domain theory vs. direct reference to syntax, the nature and number of prosodic domains (TP, TG, and ultimately the CG), the potential interaction between domains (domain juncture effects, nesting), and the interaction of prosodic domains with information structure (focus). With all of this hyper-activity in Luganda, we now turn to consider the equivalent structures in closely related Lusoga.

# **3 Prosodic domains in Lusoga (?)**

In Lusoga the most striking property is a historical process of H tone retraction (HTR) onto the preceding mora. In the following examples %L is an initial boundary tone, and H% is the declarative phrase-final boundary tone (which also occurs, but is variable in Luganda):

The infinitive in (20a) is lexically toneless, realized L-H-H-H-H by mapping %L to the first mora, and H% to the remaining moras. The Luganda realization is either the same, or all L if the variable H% is not chosen. In contrast, the verb root has an underlying tone in (20b). In this case the Luganda form is more straightforward:

9A perhaps equivalent alternative is that TGs are nested.

### 12 In search of prosodic domains in Lusoga

The verb base *-wúlir-* 'hear' has an underlying /H/ on its first mora, which as seen earlier in (3b) then conditions L tone insertion on the second mora. The remaining toneless moras receive L tone, unless H% is realized, in which case the output is *ò-kù-wúlìr-á*, with a final H. In Lusoga, instead, the H is realized on the preceding infinitive prefix *-kú-* followed by two L tone moras. The H tone of the verb root clearly has shifted onto the preceding mora. The historical derivation is presented in (3).

(21) *stage 1 stage 2 stage 3 stage 4* o-ku-ghúlir-a > o-ku-ghúlìr-a > o-kú-ghùlìr-a > ò-kú-ghùlìr-á 'to hear' o-ku-kálakat-a > o-ku-kálàkat-a > o-kú-kàlàkat-a > ò-kú-kàlàkát-á 'to scrape' H HL H L L %L H L L H% H H L H L L %L H L L H%

At stage 1 we start with a H tone on the first mora of the verb base. Stage 2 represents the L tone insertion rule that was discussed with regard to Luganda, but which characterizes both languages. Stage 3 is where H tone retraction (HTR) applies in Lusoga only. As seen, I have indicated a L tone phonological "trace" on the original root-initial H tone mora in stage 3.

While (3) is historically correct, the proposed synchronic analysis is that \*H is now /L/. In other words, the Lusoga tone contrast has become /L/ vs. ∅ (Hyman 2018):

(22) a. o-ku-ghùlir-a 'to hear' b. o-ku-kàlakat-a 'to scrape' L L

Two rules are needed to derive the correct outputs. The first is L tone spreading (LTS): an input L spreads one mora to the right:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc} \text{(23)} & \text{a. } \text{o-ku-ghụilir-a} & \text{'to hear'} & \text{b. } \text{o-ku-kálàkat-a} & \text{'to scrape'}\\ & \text{|}' & & \text{|}' \\ \text{L} & & \text{L} \end{array}$$

The second rule is H tone insertion (HTI): a H is inserted on a mora that precedes an input L:

As seen in (25) HTI has to be specified to insert a single H before a sequence of L morphemes (which we can assume to fuse into a single, multilinked L):

(25) aug-inf-it-him-us-give-appl-fv ò-kú-cì-mù-tù-ghà-èr-á → ò-kú-cì-mù-tù-ghè-èr-á L L L L %L H L H% 'to give it to him for us'

With this established, we now have two relevant criteria to test for postlexical domains in Lusoga:

To anticipate the demonstration, the conclusion we will reach is that syntactic constituency never blocks HTI or HTA, thereby raising two competing hypotheses:

(26) Hypothesis 1: Lusoga does not have the prosodic domains found in Luganda. Hypothesis 2: Lusoga has prosodic domains, but does not mark them the same as Luganda.

The significance of the first is that the mapping of syntactic structures into prosodic domains would not be universal in the sense of Selkirk & Lee's claim in the quote at the beginning of this paper. The problem with the second is that there is no empirical evidence to justify the prosodic domains. To see this we need to consider the Lusoga facts which correspond to Luganda's TP and TG. We first consider HTA, then HTI.

### **3.1 H tone anticipation (HTA)**

Unlike Luganda, the final H% boundary tone can reach the subject (as well as left-dislocations):

$$\begin{array}{ll} \text{(27)} & \text{a. Luganda} & \text{b-mù-lìmì } \[ \text{à-làgír-á} \\ & \text{\%L} & \text{\%L} \\ \text{b. Lusaga} & \text{\%-mù-lìmí } \[ \text{à-làgír-á} \\ & \text{\%L} & \text{\%-lìmí } \\$ \text{\%-làgír-á} \\ \end{array} \text{(\text{\`elem})}$$

### 12 In search of prosodic domains in Lusoga

Similarly, unlike Luganda, HTA can spread a lexical or inserted H tone onto the subject:

(28) a. Luganda ò-mù-lìmì [ à-bál-á é-mí-sótà 'the farmer counts snakes' %L %L H L H% b. Lusoga ò-mú-límí [ á-bál-á é-mí-sòtá (idem) %L H L H% The following examples show that H% and HTA can also reach left-dislocations:

$$\begin{array}{ll} \text{(29)} & \text{a. } \text{ o-mu-limi e-bi-tabo a-bi-balu-a} & \rightarrow \text{b-mu} \overbrace{\text{l-limí \'e-bù-tàbó á-bi-bù-bàl-a}}^{\text{(}\text{(}\text{m}\text{)}\text{\'e-bù-tàbó á-bi-bù-bàl-a)}^{\text{(}\text{(}\text{m}\text{)}\text{\'e-bù-tàbó á-bi-bù-bù-bù-tà}^{\text{(}\text{(}\text{m}\text{)}\text{\'e-bù-tàbó á-bi-bù-bù-bù-bù-tà}^{\text{(}\text{(}\text{m}\text{)}\text{\'e-bù-tàbó á-bi-bù-bù-bù-tà}^{\text{(}\text{(}\text{m}\text{)}\text{\'e-bù-tàbó á-bi-bù-bù-bù-tà}^{\text{(}\text{(}\text{(}\text{m}\text{)}\text{\'e-bù-tàbó á-bi-bù-bù-tà}^{\text{(}\text{(}\text{(}\text{(}\text{(}\text{}\text{(}\text{}\text{}}\text{)}\text{\'e-bù-tàbó}^{\text{(}\text{(}\text{(}\text{(}\text{}\text{}}\text{)}\text{\'e-bù-tàbó}^{\text{(}\text{(}\text{(}\text{}\text{(}\text{}}\text{)}\text{\'e-bù-tàbó}^{\text{(}\text{(}\text{(}\text{}\text{(}\text{}}\text{)}\text{\'e-bù-tàbó}^{\text{(}\text{(}\text{(}\text{}\text{}}\text{)}\text{\'e-bù-tàbó}^{\text{(}\text{(}\text{(}\text{}}\text{)}\text{\'e-bù-tà$$

Spreading of H% and HTA can also start from a right-dislocated element:

(30) a. a-bi-bal-a o-mu-limi e-bi-tabo → à-bí-bál-á ó-mú-límí é-bí-tábó 'he counts them, the farmer, the books' %L H% b. a-bi-bal-a o-mu-limi e-bi-kopo → à-bí-bál-á ó-mú-límí é-bí-kópò 'he counts them, the farmer, the cups' L %L H L

As in Luganda, HTA will apply only if the preceding word ends in at least one toneless mora, as in (31a). It will not apply if the preceding word ends in L, as in (31b).

$$\begin{array}{ccccc} \text{(31)} & \text{a. } \text{ o-kú-għuċir-a e-mi-sọtà} \rightarrow \text{�}\text{-kú-għuùllir-a è-mí-sọtà} \\ & \text{i} & \text{l}^{\prime} & \text{i} & \text{l}^{\prime} & \text{i} & \text{l}^{\prime} & \text{h} & \text{h} \\ & \text{H} & \text{L} & \text{H} & \text{L} & \text{\%L} & \text{H} & \text{L} & \text{H} \text{ L} \text{H}\text{\%} \\ & \text{'to hear snakes'} & & & & & \\ \text{b. o-kú-bòn-à e-mí-sọtà} & \rightarrow \text{�}\text{-kú-bọ̀n-à è-mí-sọtà} & & & \\ & \text{i} & \text{l}^{\prime} & \text{i} & \text{l}^{\prime} & \text{i} & \text{l} & \text{h} & \text{H} \text{ L}\text{H}\text{\%} \\ & \text{H} & \text{L} & \text{H} & \text{L} & \text{\%L} & \text{H} & \text{L} & \text{H} \text{ L}\text{H}\text{\%} \\ & \text{'to see snakes'} & & & & & \end{array}$$

From the above we can safely assume that HTA will apply no matter what the syntactic configuration. As stated in §1, this is quite surprising, given that almost all Bantu languages treat pre-verbal constituents differently from postverbal ones. In the next section we will see that HTI leads to the same conclusion. Larry M. Hyman

### **3.2 H tone insertion (HTI)**

In this section it will be briefly demonstrated that HTI can also apply across any syntactic boundary. Because nouns have a prefix which is underlyingly toneless, this will have to be demonstrated by means of other word classes, e.g. verbs and demonstratives. Consider first (32a), where the subject prefix *a-* is underlyingly toneless:

(32) a. o-mu-kàzi a-sek-a → ò-mú-kàzì à-sék-á 'the woman laughs' L %L H L H% b. a-ba-kàzi bà-sek-a → à-bá-kàzí bà-sèk-á 'the women laugh' L L %L H L H L H%

In this case the subject noun 'woman' ends with a L tone by virtue of the L tone spreading (LTS) rule. Therefore, the final H% cannot spread onto the subject noun. Compare this now with (32b), where the subject prefix /bà-/ has an underlying /L/. In this case HTI overrides LTS onto the final mora of the subject noun. In historical terms, the \*H of *\*bá-* has been anticipated from the verb onto the subject (cf. Luganda *à-bà-kázì bá-sèk-á*). The same facts are seen with left dislocations:

In (33a), H% does not reach the left-dislocated noun /e-bi-bàla/ 'fruits', since its /L/ spreads onto the final mora. In (33b), however, where the subject prefix /bà-/ has /L/ tone, HTI applies, and the H links to the final mora of the left-dislocated noun. In fact, HTI will apply across any sequence of words, provided that the preceding word does not end in a single /L/. This is illustrated in (34).

### 12 In search of prosodic domains in Lusoga

The proximate demonstrative /-no/ 'this, these' requires a L tone noun class agreement prefix, here /bì-/. As seen in (34a), the prefix conditions HTI on the final mora of 'fruits'. In (34b), on the other hand, the noun 'cups' ends in a single /L/ and hence HTI is blocked.

We thus arrive at the conclusion that syntactic constituency never blocks HTI or HTA. Returning to the two hypotheses in (26), we must address whether Lusoga recognizes prosodic domains at all – or whether it simply fails to give evidence of the syntax-to-prosodic domain mapping that Selkirk's (2011) matching theory predicts. Favoring universality, let's tentatively entertain the latter theory-driven position, Hypothesis 2 in (26): Lusoga has prosodic domains, but does not mark them. As was seen in §2, Luganda marks TPs with an initial %L, which can be taken to block HTA from the verb or between sentential preverbal constituents, each one of which begins a TP with its own %L. As Lisa Selkirk puts it (email of March 18, 2016):

In Lusoga, if HTA can extend from verb to subject and so on, it must be that there is no such L at the left edge of TP/ip. In other words a "domainless" HTA can spread its way leftward in Lusoga without a problem, but it would be blocked by the boundary L in Luganda.

Under this interpretation Lusoga would not have %L internal to the intonational phrase (IP), at most an IP-initial %L to predict the realization of post-pause toneless words such as *ò-kú-lágír-á* 'to command' in (20a). Such words require an initial L to precede the multiple Hs from H%. This could either be the effect of an IP-initial %L tone or is perhaps due to some kind of constraint against initial H.

### **3.3 The TG**

In §2 we saw that Luganda distinguishes two prosodic domains, the TP and the TG. The preceding discussion of HTA and HTI have both addressed the TP. In this section we show that Lusoga provides evidence for the TG only at the phonological word (PW) level. Importantly, there is no "phrasal" TG in Lusoga, i.e. no case of a head (X) + phonological word (Z) producing H tone plateauing (HTP). The examples in (35) show that the configurations that were seen to produce HTP in Luganda in (4a) and (15b) above fail to produce HTP in Lusoga:

Larry M. Hyman

> b. N + GenN e-bí-sàgho + bi-a=jeenga → e-bí-sàghò by-àà=jééngà L L %L H L H L 'Jenga's bags'

In (35a) the distant past affirmative verb is followed by an object noun which lacks the augment vowel since it is in focus, while (35b) consists of a genitive construction marked by the proclitic /bi-a=/ on the second noun. In neither case is there HTP as was observed in Luganda in (12a) and (15b), respectively.

While there is no case of a TG consisting of two phonological words (PWs), HTP does apply word-internally and between a PW and certain enclitics. The first is seen in a process of noun reduplication which introduces a derogatory meaning. Thus, when *ò-mú-pákàsí* 'porter' is reduplicated to *ò-mú-pákásí-pákàsì* 'a lousy ol' porter' the portion I have underlined shows HTP. A full derivation is provided in (36).

As seen, we begin with two identical stems /-pakàsi/, which both undergo LTS in (36a). HTI also applies twice in (36b). This is followed by HTP in (36c) and assignment of the boundary tones in (36d).10

More significantly for our purposes, (3.3) shows that HTP also applies between a possessive enclitic and the host noun:

10Although not exemplified in §2, HTP also applies within a word in Luganda.

### 12 In search of prosodic domains in Lusoga

The tones of the unpossessed nouns in the first data column, all of which have a H to L pitch drop, are shown after HTI and LTS have applied, but without a final phrasal H%. As seen, the L tone possessive enclitic /-è/ 'his/her' fuses with a noun class agreement prefix. When HTI applies to the preceding noun, HTP applies, and the H to L pitch drop is lost. (There is no final H%, since the forms end H-L.) As can be recalled from (15a), noun+possessive is an environment where HTP applies in Luganda as well. The examples in (38a,b) show that HTP also applies in verb+enclitic constructions:

In (38a), the locative noun class 17 enclitic *=kù* is used also as an attenuative marker. As seen, HTI applies followed by HTP on the host verb. The same is seen in (38b) with the interrogative enclitic *=cì* 'what'. However, for HTP to apply, the verb must have the same [−focus] status as was discussed in Luganda. Recall that negative verbs are [+focus], and hence although HTI applies before *=kù*, there is no HTP in (38c). In addition, there is no HTP with the corresponding nominal interrogative *=cì* 'which' (also paralleling Luganda; cf. *mù-kázì =cí* 'which woman?'):

Larry M. Hyman

As seen, the enclitic *=c*ì 'which' does not condition HTP (perhaps because it isn't a YP), but always inserts a H, potentially combining with a preceding L to create a downstepped ꜜH.11

The above shows that clitics work differently from full words in Lusoga. HTP occurs in the same environment as in Luganda, except that Z must be an enclitic. Thus, compare (40) with the corresponding Luganda configuration in (11).

$$\begin{array}{cccc} \text{(40)} & \text{XP} & & \text{(i)} & \text{X} \neq \text{[+Focus]} \\ & \bigwedge\text{} & & \text{where:} & \text{(ii)} & \text{Z} \neq \text{[+AUQMENT]} \\ & \text{X} & \text{YP} & & & \\ & & \mid & & \\ & & \mid & & \\ & & & \text{Z} & \text{anencitic} \\ \end{array}$$

We have seen that there are two kinds of X=cl: those which form a TG satisfying (40), hence HTP, vs. those which don't satisfy (40), hence occurring without HTP. I propose that the first has the structure of a nested phonological word [[ word ]PW =cl]PW, while the second has the structure of a clitic group [[ word ]PW =cl]CG. If correct, this would mean that HTP only applies within a PW whose definition, however, is subject to the syntactic characterization in (40). A historical conjecture would be that HTP started out in individual words (X), then expanded to X = Z, then X # Z, always meeting the configuration and conditions (i) and (ii) in (40). Note in this regard that enclitics only condition HTP with their lexical host, not with each other:

(41) a-ta-a=muu=kuu=cii buli lunaku → á-tá-á=ꜜmúú=ꜜkúú=ꜜcí bùlì lúnàkú H L s/he-puts=in=a.little=what every day H L H L H LH L H L H% 'what does s/he put a little of in every day?

11Recall from (34b) that the inserted H cannot be assigned to a single L when it occurs between two phonological words.

### 12 In search of prosodic domains in Lusoga

In Lusoga, all enclitics are /L/, requiring HTI on the preceding mora. They also differ from full words in preventing a preceding long vowel from undergoing final vowel shortening (cf. 'tree' and 'which tree?' in 39). The unavoidable conclusion is that Lusoga tonology is not sensitive to prosodic domains above the (nested) PW level.

## **4 Two outstanding problems**

I would like to end the coverage of tonal phenomena by considering two outstanding problems. The first is a return to numerals, this time in Lusoga. We saw in (10b) that Luganda doesn't allow HTA from a numeral onto the preceding noun. There is an analogous issue in Lusoga, which is that numerals which begin with /L/ do not condition HTI (vs. demonstratives, which do). This is seen in (42).

We see this between a numeral and noun in (42a) and between a numeral and a preceding verb in (42b). We know that /bì-bìri/ has a /L/ on its prefix because of the augmented form, *é-bì-bìrí* '(the) two', where the normally L augment receives a H from HTI. Positing an initial %L was said to be unmotivated for Luganda, but is even more so in Lusoga, which otherwise doesn't have clause-internal %L. This is, however, the only situation I have discovered to date where a /L/ does not trigger HTI.

The second issue also characterizes both languages, this time in exactly the same way. The question is why HTA always has to leave at least one L tone behind. This is seen in the Luganda sentences in (43a,b).

(43) a. verb + object a-láb-à bi-tabo → à-láb-à bì-tábó 's/he sees books' H L %L H L H%

### Larry M. Hyman

As seen, the H% in (43a) is anticipated onto the preceding mora, and yet the prefix *bì-*stays L. In (43b), the H of /bi-kópo/ 'cups' is anticipated up to the second syllable of toneless /mu-limi/ 'farmer', leaving the prefix L. In addition, HTA does not apply from the host onto proclitics, as seen in (42c). The question is: What's wrong with prohibited L to H sequences in the following corresponding outputs?

(44) a. \* tè-y-à-láb-à ] [ bí-kópò 's/he didn't see cups' H L H L b. \* te-y-à-láb-à ] [ bí-tábó 's/he didn't see books' H L H c. \* by-àà= [ bá= [ kátáámbâ 'those of the Katambas' %L H L

In (44a) we see that HTA has applied word-internally. As we have said, HTA can only apply if it can cross a word boundary onto a ∅ mora. The problem in (44b) is that HTA should leave one L behind. (43b shows the same with a lexical /H/.) Finally, (44c) shows that a proclitic doesn't count as "crossing a word boundary". Why should all of the above examples prohibit HTA from hitting every available toneless mora on its leftward path?

The answer is that the ungrammatical forms in (43) have the prohibited configuration in (45):

$$\begin{array}{ccccc} \text{(45)} & \* & \mu & & \text{(NoJupM)}\\ & \mid & & & \\ & \mid & & & \\ \text{L} & \_{\text{PW}} \left[ & \stackrel{\text{H}}{\text{H}} \end{array} \end{array} \tag{\text{NoJupM}}$$

The prohibited sequence is one where one would jump from a L to a H across a PW boundary. This NoJump constraint has the following "conspiratorial" effects on HTA: (i) It stops the H from reaching the first mora of a word, which could then be preceded by a (%)L; (ii) It stops the H from reaching the first mora of a proclitic, which would have be PW-initial, preceded by a (%)L. NoJump is the kind of OT constraint that can of course be dominated by another constraint, e.g.

### 12 In search of prosodic domains in Lusoga

faithfulness to an input /H/, as in Luganda *tè-y-à-láb-à bí-bàlá* 's/he didn't see fruits', where *bí-bàlá* 'fruits' exceptionally has a /H/ prefix. The constraint in (45) can stop the creation of a L PW[ H output, but cannot remove a word-initial H tone. Of course the remaining question is why Luganda and Lusoga bother to implement HTA at all, since the affected moras would otherwise have become L, presumably by default. For this Selkirk (2016) has proposed the constraint HTSleft: H tone wants to spread to the left as far as it can go. The constraint in (45) puts a check on HTS-left: It spreads as far as it can, but stops short if the result would be a L PW[ H sequence.

## **5 Conclusion**

To summarize the findings for Lusoga, there is no empirical evidence for a prosodic domain corresponding to the TP in Luganda. Specifically, there is no evidence that what precedes the verb is treated differently from what follows it. The domain corresponding to the TG in Luganda does exist but is more restricted, being limited to certain word=enclitic combinations.12 At this point one might ask what other evidence there might be for prosodic domains in Lusoga. Two possibilities are intonation, which has thus far not yielded anything concrete, and instrumental phonetic studies, e.g. on segment durations, which I have not done – and which in any case would take us beyond my question, which had to do with whether there are discrete, categorical effects of prosodic domains in Lusoga.

I would like to conclude with some further thoughts about Lusoga in terms of linguistic typology, defined for our purposes as the study of how languages are the same vs. different. First, since there is no known empirical evidence to choose between the two hypotheses in (26), Lusoga is not a counterexample to the claim that syntax–phonology "matching" is universal. Second, nothing looks syntactically or prosodically aberrant in Lusoga. Rather, it is the lack of interest that Lusoga shows for prosodic constituents that is striking, particularly from a Bantu point of view. In fact, Lusoga provides the missing "cell" in the typology of whether LDs and RDs phrase with the main clause in Bantu:

12As pointed out to me by Jenneke van der Wal (p.c.), it is possible to treat such word=enclitic combinations as recursive phonological words, i.e. [[ word ]PW clitic]PW, since they share the same tonal properties as the lexical phonological word.

### Larry M. Hyman

We have already seen that Luganda and Haya are mirror images of each other as far as whether LDs (Luganda) or RDs (Haya) are marked off from the main clause. Chichewa has been reported to mark off both LDs and RDs (Downing & Mtenje 2011: 1966–1967). Finally Lusoga provides the fourth possibility: Neither LDs nor RDs are marked off.

The Lusoga distinterest in marking prosodic domains is remarkable from a Bantuist and perhaps universalist point of view. However, it has long been known that languages vary in how much they "care" about some of the "best bets" in phonology. Lusoga can now be added to the list of languages which have shown a disregard for one or another prosodic property:

	- b. Word stress: Bella Coola cares very little if at all about highlighting one syllable per word (Newman 1947: 132)
	- c. Prosodic domains: Lusoga cares very little if at all about reflecting syntactic constituency in the post-lexical phonology (this study)

For me, typology should not only determine the different ways in which universal linguistic properties can be reflected in the grammar of a language, but also how well a grammar can get along without signaling them at all.

## **Abbreviations**

# **Acknowledgements**

This article is a revision of a paper presented at the workshop on the effects of constituency on sentence phonology, University of Massachusetts at Amherst,

### 12 In search of prosodic domains in Lusoga

on July 30, 2016. I would like to thank the participants for their questions and comments. I am especially endebted to extensive comments received from two anonymous reviewers.

## **References**

### Larry M. Hyman

# **Chapter 13**

# **Apparent violations of the final-over-final constraint: The case of Gbe languages**

Enoch O. Aboh

University of Amsterdam

In a series of recent talks and articles, Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts, and Michelle Sheehan argue that the final-over-final condition (FOFC) is an absolute universal regulating structure building. Yet, many languages deviate from FOFC thus suggesting that this condition is not "surface-true". The question therefore arises what factors make languages violate FOFC on the surface. In order to answer this question, we need a typology of FOFC-violating languages, as well as a detailed description of such violations. In this short essay, I describe FOFC violations in Gbe and some creoles, while relating the observed phenomena to some theoretical questions they raise.

# **1 Introduction**

In a series of recent talks and articles, Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts, and Michelle Sheehan, analyse a very strong tendency across human languages which appears to be indicative of an absolute universal regulating structure building: The final-over-final condition/constraint (FOFC) defined as in (1), and further discussed in Sheehan et al. (2017), henceforth SBRH.

	- a. A head-final phrase αP cannot immediately dominate a head-initial phrase βP if α and β are members of the same extended projection.

Enoch O. Aboh. 2020. Apparent violations of the final-over-final constraint:The case of Gbe languages. In András Bárány, Theresa Biberauer, Jamie Douglas & Sten Vikner (eds.), *Syntactic architecture and its consequences I: Syntax inside the grammar*, 277–292. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3972852

### Enoch O. Aboh

b. \*[αP [βP β γ] α], where β and γ are sisters and α and β are members of the same extended projection.

FOFC is not bidirectional since the reverse does not hold: "a head-initial phrase αP may dominate a phrase βP which is either head-initial or head-final, where α and β are heads in the same extended projection" (cf. Biberauer et al. 2014: 171).

Accordingly, FOFC makes strict predictions both in terms of surface typological variation and possible outcomes of language change (cf. Biberauer et al. 2009). For instance, FOFC predicts the structures in (2a–c) to exist with the exclusion of the pattern in (2d) (cf. Biberauer et al. 2014: 171).

In its strong version, the generalisation in (2) could suggest that the human mind "prefers" harmonic structures (2a,b), tolerates one type of disharmonic structure in (2c), and totally excludes the disharmonic structure in (2d). This view is obviously misleading since, looking at surface form only, disharmonic structures abound in languages. This is, for instance, the case in Kwa (see the discussion below), and in Sinitic (cf. Hsieh & Sybesma 2007, Sybesma & Li 2007, Chan 2013 and references therein). On the basis of his database, Dryer (1992) concludes that completely harmonic languages actually represent a minority. Instead, the common cross-linguistic pattern seems to be that languages are rigidly consistent in some domains, but less so in other domains. FOFC therefore seems to strictly constrain certain core structures only. Given its surface flexibility, one

### 13 Apparent violations of the final-over-final constraint