Bronwyn M. Bjorkman

Finite-State Phonology Predicts a Typological Gap in Cyclic Stress Assignment

IN CYCLIC STRESS ASSIGNMENT Bronwyn Bjorkman Queen’s University Ewan Dunbar Laboratoire de Sciences Cognitives et Psycholinguistique, EHESS/ CNRS/Ecole Normale Supérieure–PSL Research University In this squib, we start from the empirical generalization that phonological grammars are all within the computational power of finite-state devices, a position nearly universally accepted in computational phonology. We show that this rules out certain patterns of morphologically sensitive stress assignment that are predicted by the phonological cycle hypothesis. Given that morphological structure is hierarchical in complex words, the phonological cycle proposes that the phonological grammar reapplies successively to each morphological subconstituent, starting with the smallest (Chomsky, Halle, and Lukoff 1956, Chomsky and Halle 1968). Variants on this basic idea have been widely influential in phonological theory, including versions with a Strict Cycle Condition (Kean 1974, Mascaró 1976), versions that group constituents into strata (Kiparsky 2000, Bermúdez-Otero 2011), and versions that make reference to phases (Marvin 2002, Newell and Piggott 2014). We claim that, while phonology is sensitive to some aspects of morphological structure, true constituency is not used, as would be predicted by the phonological cycle: the structure seen by phonology is nonisomorphic to the full morphological structure in the sense of Scheer 2010. Cyclic phonological theories predict that interactions at a distance between prefixes and suffixes can be sensitive to their relative height, as in (1). Squibs and Discussion

Checking up on (φ-)Agree

We argue for a uniformly upward-probing implementation of Agree (Upward Agree, UA), showing that it can account for a wide range of long-distance agreement phenomena, including cases that have been cited as evidence against earlier UA models of ϕ-agreement. Our core revision to earlier UA approaches is a distinction between checking and valuation: while we maintain that checking is strictly regulated by UA, we propose that valuation depends on a secondary relation of accessibility, which allows valuation of a higher probe by a lower, accessible goal, in cases where the checker of the probe cannot (fully) value it. This model provides a better account of asymmetries between Spec-head agreement and long-distance agreement patterns, and also accounts for movement-agreement interactions without a need for EPP features.

Accounting for unexpected subject gaps in TP coordination

Abstract Work on coordination has been concerned with the conditions in which elements can be “shared” between two conjuncts since at least Ross (1967). This paper aims to describe a curious case of apparently obligatory sharing, where coordinated clauses below a shared element in C – i.e. coordinated TP clauses – are required to “share” a single initial subject unless the subject of the second clause is focused. I argue that this restriction arises from properties of cyclic linearization (Fox and Pesetsky 2005, Richards 2010). Limitations of the linearization algorithm prevent it from distinguishing DP arguments from one another (Richards 2010). What distinguishes the subjects of TPs from arguments of other clausal conjuncts is that they are both visible to the linearization algorithm on a single cycle of Spell Out. Unable to distinguish the two subjects, this algorithm linearizes them in a single position, except in cases where subject-oriented focus requires an overt subject in the second clause. The final section of the paper extend the analysis to SLF coordination (Höhle, 1983, 1990), which shows a similar restriction on overt subjects in the second conjunct.