LINGUIST List 20.1223: Historical Ling/Phonology/Syntax: Speyer: 'Topicalization and...'

LINGUIST List 20.1223

Thu Apr 02 2009

Diss: Historical Ling/Phonology/Syntax: Speyer: 'Topicalization and...'

Editor for this issue: Evelyn Richter <evelynlinguistlist.org>

1. Augustin Speyer, Topicalization and Clash Avoidance: On the interaction of prosody and syntax in the history of English with a few glimpses at German

Message 1: Topicalization and Clash Avoidance: On the interaction of prosody and syntax in the history of English with a few glimpses at German
Date: 02-Apr-2009
From: Augustin Speyer <speyerbabel.ling.upenn.edu>
Subject: Topicalization and Clash Avoidance: On the interaction of prosody and syntax in the history of English with a few glimpses at German
E-mail this message to a friend

Institution: University of Pennsylvania Program: Department of Linguistics Dissertation Status: Completed Degree Date: 2008

Author: Augustin Speyer

Dissertation Title: Topicalization and Clash Avoidance: On the interaction of prosody and syntax in the history of English with a few glimpses at German

Linguistic Field(s): Historical Linguistics Phonology Pragmatics Syntax Text/Corpus Linguistics
Subject Language(s): English (eng) German, Standard (deu) Middle English (enm) Old English (ang)
Dissertation Director:
Eugene Buckley Anthony S. Kroch Jiahong Yuan Donald A. Ringe Rolf Noyer
Dissertation Abstract:

The first chapter gives a brief overview over the methods and theoriesused. The object of study bears on at least three different linguisticmodules, syntax, phonology (mainly prosody) and information structure,therefore the way how they are seen in this study and how they interactneeds to be introduced to the reader, as few readers will have fullexpertise in all three fields.

In the second chapter the decline of object topicalization in the historyof English is presented. The reason is neither a general tendency ofEnglish word order to become more rigid (topicalization stayedgrammatical), nor a loss of pragmatic environments in which topicalizationwas felicitous (the environments stayed the same). By closer look we seethat only sentences with full noun subjects are affected. Theinterpretation pursued in the thesis is that the loss of the V2 word orderoption led to situations in which topicalization would easily lead to thejuxtaposition of focused element (as in 'beans, John likes, but peas, Marylikes'). Since this situation conflicts with the Clash AvoidanceRequirement, language users chose not to topicalize in such cases.

Chapter 3 shows experimental evidence for the Clash Avoidance Requirement:In both English and German the participants avoided use of constructionsviolating the Clash Avoidance Requirement. If forced, they inserted clearlymeasurable pauses between the clashing accents. As a consequence of thesefindings, the proper treatment of metrical prominence and focal emphasis -focal emphasis understood as emphasis on an element in narrow focus - inthe framework of Metrical Stress Theory is discussed. The Clash AvoidanceRequirement appears here as essential condition on the relevant gridconstruction rules.

The fourth chapter investigates topicalization and the Clash AvoidanceRequirement in Old English. Among sentences with topicalization, thevariation of V2 and V3 sentences is shown not to be strictly governed bythe kind of subject - pronoun subject leading to V3, lexical NP subject toV2 - but to be sensitive to the information-structural function of bothtopicalized element and subject. As there are several V3 sentences with afull noun phrase subject, and it can be shown by direct evidence and bystatistical modeling that they cannot be verb-last sentences in disguise,an analysis on the lines of van Kemenade (1987) is not tenable; the datacan be explained only by analyses that feature two subject positions suchas Haeberli (2002). We detect a clear correlation between V2 and focus oneither the subject or the topicalized element which supports the theory ofa prosodic motivation for the Middle English decline presented in chapter 2.

This Year the LINGUIST List hopes to raise $60,000. This money will go to help keep the List running by supporting all of our Student Editors for the coming year. See below for donation instructions, and don't forget to check out our Fund Drive 2009 LINGUIST List Restaurant and join us for a delightful treat! http://linguistlist.org/fund-drive/2009/ There are many ways to donate to LINGUIST! You can donate right now using our secure credit card form at https://linguistlist.org/donation/donate/donate1.cfm Alternatively you can also pledge right now and pay later. To do so, go to: https://linguistlist.org/donation/pledge/pledge1.cfm For all information on donating and pledging, including information on how to donate by check, money order, or wire transfer, please visit: http://linguistlist.org/donate.html The LINGUIST List is under the umbrella of Eastern Michigan University and as such can receive donations through the EMU Foundation, which is a registered 501(c) Non Profit organization. Our Federal Tax number is 38-6005986. These donations can be offset against your federal and sometimes your state tax return (U.S. tax payers only). For more information visit the IRS Web-Site, or contact your financial advisor. Many companies also offer a gift matching program, such that they will match any gift you make to a non-profit organization. Normally this entails your contacting your human resources department and sending us a form that the EMU Foundation fills in and returns to your employer. This is generally a simple administrative procedure that doubles the value of your gift to LINGUIST, without costing you an extra penny. Please take a moment to check if your company operates such a program. Thank you very much for your support of LINGUIST! -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------