Remarks - Am MIT spezialisierte KI-Forschung

Remarks
Und
Replies

Correspondence between XPs and Phonological Phrases

Daniel Bu¨ring
Hubert Truckenbrodt

Bresnan (1971, 1972) establishes an interaction between stress assign-
ment and syntactic movement. We are interested in a restriction on
this interaction. We argue that this restriction shows that the constraint
STRESS-XP needs to be part of the syntax-prosody mapping and that
it needs to be a restriction on a correspondence relation between syntac-
tic XPs and phonological phrases. (A second constraint on the corre-
spondence relation is either WRAP-XP or MATCH-XP.)

In the course of our argument, we analyze Bresnan’s interaction
between stress assignment and movement within an account in which
Internal Merge induces reconstruction effects at both LF and PF.

Schlüsselwörter: syntax-phonology interface, stress, Bewegung, reconstruc-
tion, STRESS-XP

Chomsky and Halle’s (1968) Nuclear Stress Rule (NSR) assigns stress rightmost in English as
In (1A). Bresnan (1971, 1972) discusses the fact that syntactic movement can lead to a nonfinal
stress pattern, as in (1B), and develops a cyclic account for this phenomenon.

(1) A. Helen has written some books.

B. What books1 has Helen written t1?

In section 1, we first review Bresnan’s arguments and then turn to a revision of Bresnan’s account
developed in Truckenbrodt 2019. In this revised account, Bresnan’s effect follows from the interac-
tion of Internal Merge (Chomsky 2000, 2001, 2008) with the stress-assigning constraint STRESS-
XP.

In section 2, we address an empirical problem: für (1B) to be a default stress pattern, Die
sentence subject Helen needs to be contextually given and destressed (Selkirk 1995). This does
not follow from Bresnan’s original account or from the update. We will show that the problem
is overcome if there is a formal correspondence relation between syntactic XPs and phonological
phrases that ties the effect of STRESS-XP together with the effects of another known constraint,
WRAP-XP.

For helpful feedback, we would like to thank Manfred Krifka, Lisa Matthewson, Lisa Selkirk, two anonymous LI
reviewers, and audiences at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, the University of Vienna, and the ZAS in Berlin.
All errors are of course our own. This work was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research
(BMBF), grants 01UG0711 and 01UG1411 to the Leibniz-Centre General Linguistics (ZAS) in Berlin.

Sprachliche Untersuchung, Volumen 52, Nummer 4, Fallen 2021
791–811
(cid:2) 2021 vom Massachusetts Institute of Technology
https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00391

791

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u

/
l
ich

N
G
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

5
2
4
7
9
1
1
9
7
0
1
4
6

/
l
ich

N
G
_
A
_
0
0
3
9
1
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

792

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

In section 3, we extend this argument. MATCH-XP (Selkirk 2011) cannot replace STRESS-
XP, but it could be that MATCH-XP and STRESS-XP jointly constrain a correspondence relation
between XPs and phonological phrases.

Our main point is thus that there is a correspondence relation between syntactic XPs and

phonological phrases and that it is restricted by STRESS-XP.

1 A Revision of Bresnan’s Account of Stress-Movement Interactions

1.1 Preliminaries: Information Structure and Default Stress

Most words in a sentence can in principle be focused. The focus attracts the strongest stress
(Chomsky 1970, Jackendoff 1972), marked here by double underlining: [Maria ]F made the cake,
Maria [made]F the cake, Mary made [the cake]F. Inside a larger focused constituent, zusätzlich
default rules of stress assignment must come into play: What happened? [Mary made a cake]F.
Classically, this was taken to be the NSR, which assigns rightmost stress.

Apart from focus, a further information structure effect is that contextually given constituents
reject stress. Here is a simple example from Ladd 1983:164: What about Fred? I don’t like
[Fred]Gegeben. See Bu¨ring 2016b for references and detailed discussion.1

This article is about default stress rules (such as the NSR) and their interaction with syntactic

Bewegung.

1.2 Bresnan’s Stress-Movement Interaction

In diesem Abschnitt, we review the evidence provided in Bresnan 1971, 1972 for an effect of syntactic
movement on stress. Sentences (2A) Und (3A) show the expected rightmost stress due to the NSR.
Sentences (2B) Und (3B) are exceptions to this in which the final element has moved (Newman
1946:179–180). Notice that (2B) is about George leaving some plans and (3B) is about George
leaving a proposal.

(2) A. George has plans to leave.

B. George has plans1 to leave t1.

(3) A. Mary liked the proposal that George leave.

B. Mary liked the proposal1 that George left t1.

Another class of cases contrasts the unexpected stress pattern under movement ((4A) Und (5A))
with corresponding sentences in which the overt exponent related to the moved element is pronom-
inal ((4B) Und (5B); these overt exponents are italicized there). The latter examples show the
expected final stress due to the NSR again. The examples are from Bresnan 1971:258–259.

(4) A. George found some friends1 he’d like you to meet t1.
B. George found someone1 he’d like you to meet t1.

1 Other such information structure effects involve topics (Ja¨ger 2001, Truckenbrodt 2019) and contrastive topics

(Bu¨ring 2003, 2016A,B, Constant 2014).

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u

/
l
ich

N
G
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

5
2
4
7
9
1
1
9
7
0
1
4
6

/
l
ich

N
G
_
A
_
0
0
3
9
1
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

793

(5) A. John asked what books1 Helen had written t1.
B. John asked what1 Helen had written t1.

The context in (6) shows that neither narrow focus on the stressed element nor givenness of the
final verb is required for the NSR-defying stress pattern. (Among other things, the verb written
is new, rather than given, in this context.) The stress pattern must result from the interaction of
default stress rules with syntactic movement, as claimed by Bresnan.2

(6) A: Your colleague Helen doesn’t have an online presence.
B: I know her well. Do you have any questions about her?
A: Ja, I wonder [what books she has written]F.
#Ja, I wonder [what books she has written]F.

Bresnan (1971, 1972) offers a cyclic account of the effect. In (6), the NSR assigns final
stress in [she has written what books] on the first cycle. This stress assignment is followed by
movement on the second cycle, which takes the stress along, deriving [what books has she written].

1.3 Two Issues for Bresnan’s Account

We now review two empirical problems for Bresnan’s account. Following this, we will show in
sections 1.4–1.6 how they are overcome in a revised account of stress-movement interaction. Alle
this is preparation for the arguments for our main point in sections 2 Und 3.

Bresnan’s cyclic account has at its core the interaction of movement with nuclear stress
Abtretung. As Bresnan (1971:272ff.) notes, the account makes the wrong predictions in structures
of the form [ . . . V object XP], where XP is moved. She predicts that the stress is again found
on the moved element. Stattdessen, stress is on the postverbal object.

(7) A. #[Whose knife]1 did Peter slice the salami with t1?
[Whose knife]1 did Peter slice the salami with t1?

Lakoff (1972) notes a related problem, shown in (8): when they undergo wh-movement, clause-
final adjuncts do not bear sentence stress in their derived position.

(8) A. #[At what time]1 did Sam collapse t1?
[At what time]1 did Sam collapse t1?

In what follows, we present a revised account that overcomes these two problems. We begin

with updating the account of stress assignment.

1.4 An Updated Account of Stress Assignment

Since Selkirk 1980, 1984 and Gussenhoven 1983a, sentence stress is mostly analyzed in terms
von (mindestens) two prosodic layers above the word; sehen, Zum Beispiel, Nespor and Vogel 1989,

2 See Jacobs 1991 and Truckenbrodt 2012 for detailed discussion of focus and givenness in wh-questions; see also

Bu¨ring 2016a and Truckenbrodt 2019.

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u

/
l
ich

N
G
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

5
2
4
7
9
1
1
9
7
0
1
4
6

/
l
ich

N
G
_
A
_
0
0
3
9
1
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

794

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

Uhmann 1991, Gussenhoven 1992, 2004, Jacobs 1993, Truckenbrodt 1995, 2007, 2017, Selkirk
1996, 2008, 2011, Frota 2000, Kahnemuyipour 2004, 2009, Wagner 2005, Bu¨ring 2006, 2012,
2016B, Kratzer and Selkirk 2007, to appear, Richards 2010, 2016, 2017. Many of the accounts
work across English, Dutch, and German without parameterization.

We refer to the lower prosodic layer as phrasal stress and represent it with single underlining.
Phrasal stress is correlated with an obligatory pitch accent in English, Dutch, und Deutsch. Wir
derive phrasal stress using the constraint STRESS-XP (Truckenbrodt 1995, 2006, 2007, 2017) Das
incorporates many of the insights of the other authors just mentioned; see also its applications in
Fe´ry and Samek-Lodovici 2006 and Bu¨ring 2016b, unter anderen.

(9) STRESS-XP

Each XP must contain a beat of phrasal stress.

Phrasal stress is assigned minimally but enough to satisfy STRESS-XP for all XPs in the structure.3
Comparing the English VP [teach linguistics] with its German translation [Linguistik unterrich-
zehn], zündete. ‘linguistics teach’, stress is not consistently rightmost, but it is consistently on the comple-
ment of the verb (see also Cinque 1993). STRESS-XP correctly predicts this dependency on the
phrase structure. Stress on [DP [NP linguistics]] Und [DP [NP Linguistik]] is unavoidable for satisfy-
ing STRESS-XP for DP and NP. This stress then also satisfies STRESS-XP for the VPs [VP teach
linguistics] Und [VP Linguistik unterrichten], since this stress is also inside the VP. Hier, eins
beat of stress does duty for multiple XPs, which is expected in the account. Allgemeiner, für
a set of XPs nested one within the next higher one, as in [XP . . . [XP . . . [XP X] . . . ] . . . ], STRESS-
XP is satisfied if phrasal stress is placed within the innermost XP as in [XP . . . [XP . . . [XP X]
. . . ] . . . ], since this innermost XP and all higher XPs then satisfy STRESS-XP.4

The structure [slice the salami with a knife] receives two beats of phrasal stress: [slice [Die
[salami]] [mit [A [knife]]]]. Stress on [Die [salami]] satisfies STRESS-XP for this NP and DP
but not for the XPs that follow, which thus require separate stress: [mit [A [knife]]]. The VP
then also contains stress. Allgemeiner, separate XPs next to each other will require separate
phrasal stress to satisfy STRESS-XP.

Turning to the second, higher layer, the nuclear stress is the strongest stress of the intonation
phrase in the two-level accounts. In English, Dutch, und Deutsch, this is obtained by strengthening
the rightmost phrasal stress.

(10) NSR-(cid:2)

Strengthen the rightmost phrasal stress in the intonation phrase (cid:2).
(Uhmann 1991, Selkirk 1995)

3 The analysis is embedded in a range of crosslinguistic evidence that XPs play a crucial role in the assignment of

phrasal prosody; sehen, Zum Beispiel, Selkirk 1986, Selkirk and Shen 1990, and Selkirk and Tateishi 1991.

4 Cinque (1993), building on Halle and Vergnaud 1987, postulates an effect of syntactic structure attracting stress,
which he formalizes in terms of X getting more stress in [Y[X]] als in [X] (where brackets are syntactic constituents).
STRESS-XP modifies this in two ways. For one thing, it is the presence of an XP that attracts the stress—for example,
In [ YP Y [XP X]] und in [ YP [XP X] Y]. For another, this effect is not cumulative: the amount of stress assigned to X in
[XP X] und in [ YP Y [XP X]] is the same. See Truckenbrodt 2006 for empirical arguments for this modification.

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u

/
l
ich

N
G
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

5
2
4
7
9
1
1
9
7
0
1
4
6

/
l
ich

N
G
_
A
_
0
0
3
9
1
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

795

We represent this strengthened nuclear stress using double underlining. We obtain:

(11) A. [[Helen]] [schrieb [manche [books]]]

B. Helen wrote some books

(12) A. [[Peter]] [sliced [Die [salami]] [mit [A [knife]]]]

B. Peter sliced the salami with a knife

(13) A. [Die [professor]] [VP recommended it]

B. the professor recommended it

STRESS-XP
NSR-(cid:2)

The pronoun in (13) is stress-rejecting. This is discussed below.

With this background, we return to the interaction of movement and stress. To begin with,
we need to put aside an issue that is discussed at length in section 2. This is the issue of stress
on the sentence subject when another constituent moves across the subject. We will avoid this
issue until section 2 by replacing the names in subject position with unstressed pronouns in the
examples.

1.5 The Interaction of Movement and Stress in Terms of Stress Reconstruction

For concreteness, we adopt Truckenbrodt’s (2019) account of Bresnan’s effect in terms of Internal
Merge (Chomsky 2000, 2001, 2008). The account employs the view that Internal Merge of (cid:3)
retains the original attachment of (cid:3) and adds a second attachment in a higher, c-commanding
Position, as in (14). (Here and in what follows, we omit the role of the vP phase, einschließlich der
intermediate landing at the edge of vP. The vP phase is orthogonal to the issue at hand.)

(14)

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u

/
l
ich

N
G
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

5
2
4
7
9
1
1
9
7
0
1
4
6

sie

schrieb

what books

(cid:2)

what books she wrote

/
l
ich

N
G
_
A
_
0
0
3
9
1
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Only the highest attachment is spelled out at PF. Jedoch, the lower attachment is still crucial
for phenomena involving LF reconstruction, as Chomsky (1993) first suggested with the copy

796

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

theory of movement and reconstruction. Chomsky (1993) postulated that the higher or the lower
copy is partly deleted at LF, while Safir (1999) maintained that they can both be retained at LF.
Either way, the multiply-linked structure is present before and at Spell-Out.

In the model in (15), the structure in (14) will pass through Spell-Out to LF, where the lower

attachment can have consequences for LF reconstruction.

(15) LF

stress assignment

Spell-Out

(Merge, Agree)

According to Truckenbrodt (2019), Bresnan’s observation shows that the lower attachment also
has consequences for the stress assignment constraints that map from Spell-Out to PF, und das
STRESS-XP detects the silent lower attachment. In (14), insbesondere, the VP must satisfy STRESS-
XP. This would require stressing the verb as in (16), if the trace were simply an empty category.
Jedoch, if we assume the multidominance structure in (14), the VP dominates the stressed word
books, satisfying STRESS-XP without verb stress. This results in the empirically attested stress
pattern in (17).

(16) A. #(I wonder) what books she had [VP written t]
B. #(I wonder) what books she had written

(17) A. (I wonder) what books she had [VP written what books]

B. (I wonder) what books she had written

STRESS-XP
NSR-(cid:2)

In this account, Dann, the representation in (14) leads to PF stress reconstruction for STRESS-XP
in its application to VP. This is the updated analysis of Bresnan’s effect.

For cases in which the moved element is pronominal, as in (4B) Und (5B), we follow Bresnan
(1971, 1972) in assuming that pronouns are stress-rejecting (see also Richards 2017 for discussion).
This effect needs to override STRESS-XP so as to prevent it from assigning phrasal stress to
[DP she], [DP it], Und [DP what].5 We obtain (18). Hier, the application of STRESS-XP to the VP
requires verb stress, with or without PF reconstruction. There is no stress to reconstruct.

(18) A. (I wonder) what she had [VP written what]

B. (I wonder) what she had written

STRESS-XP
NSR-(cid:2)

Allgemeiner, the revised account correctly predicts that the interaction of wh-movement
with stress assignment is a fairly narrow phenomenon. It concerns primarily the satisfaction of
STRESS-XP by the VP, and empirical consequences for stress assignment are primarily predicted

5 Wh-pronouns in situ show an additional effect of stress attraction. This is not shared by moved wh-pronouns in
single-wh questions, whose pronominal nature determines their prosody. See Chomsky 1995:397n69, Haida 2007, Und
Truckenbrodt 2012, 2013 for observations and analysis.

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u

/
l
ich

N
G
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

5
2
4
7
9
1
1
9
7
0
1
4
6

/
l
ich

N
G
_
A
_
0
0
3
9
1
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

797

where stress reconstruction into the VP exempts the verb from requiring stress as in the distinction
zwischen (16) Und (17).

Außerdem, there can be no reconstruction for the “rightmost” property of the NSR-(cid:2), nicht wie
in Bresnan’s account. The reason is this. While illustrations like (16)–(18) combine syntax and
prosody for reasons of space, the actual relation is between a syntactic structure like (14) und ein
phonological string with prosodic structure and stress but without a copy of the moved element.
The NSR-(cid:2) can only strengthen an overt element in the phonology. It would not be able to apply
to a covert, reconstructed one, since there are no empty copies in the phonology.

The revised account also correctly handles the cases that Bresnan notices as a problem for

her analysis. (19) shows the derivation of (7).

(19) A. [whose [knife]] did he [slice [Die [salami]]

[mit [whose [knife]]]]

B. whose knife did he slice the salami with

STRESS-XP
NSR-(cid:2)

No effect of stress reconstruction is expected: phrasal stress on [Die [salami]] and its absence on
slice are determined by the structural properties of these elements, whether another stressed
element is reconstructed into the VP or not.

We next turn to stress in connection with adjuncts and Lakoff ’s (1972) case in (8).

1.6 The Stress Pattern of Verbs next to Adjuncts

Stressed objects and stressed adjuncts affect default stress on the verb differently (Gussenhoven
1983A,B, 1984, Krifka 1984). The verb does not receive default phrasal stress next to a stressed
Objekt, as in (20a–b). The verb does receive default phrasal stress next to a stressed adjunct, als
In (20c–d).

(20) A. teach linguistics

B. Linguistik unterrichten

(Deutsch)

C. teach in Ghana

linguistics teach
D. in Ghana unterrichten

in Ghana teach

(Deutsch)

With the application of the NSR-(cid:2) in English and German, we obtain (21a–d).

(21) A. teach linguistics

B. Linguistik unterrichten

(Deutsch)

C. teach in Ghana

linguistics teach
D. in Ghana unterrichten

in Ghana teach

(Deutsch)

The distinction is empirically quite noticeable in head-final languages like German and Dutch,
where it affects the position of nuclear stress. The nuclear stress is on the preverbal object in
(21B) but on the verb when an adjunct precedes, as in (21D).

The distinction is subtle in English, where it does not affect the position of nuclear stress
((21A) vs. (21C)); it merely determines whether the prenuclear verb carries phrasal stress or not.
Gussenhoven (1983B) shows experimentally that this more subtle distinction in English is also
real.

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u

/
l
ich

N
G
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

5
2
4
7
9
1
1
9
7
0
1
4
6

/
l
ich

N
G
_
A
_
0
0
3
9
1
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

798

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

The distinction between arguments and adjuncts is captured by STRESS-XP. We follow the
standard assumption that (cid:4)-role assignment makes a distinction between arguments of X, welche
are merged inside XP, and adjuncts, which are merged at least partly outside. STRESS-XP sees
the distinction in the same way as (cid:4)-role assignment: arguments count as inside, while adjuncts
do not. Since an object is inside the VP, stress on it satisfies STRESS-XP for the VP, so that there
is no incentive for stressing the verb. This is shown in (22). Since an adjunct does not count as
inside the VP, stress on it cannot satisfy STRESS-XP for the VP. Satisfaction of STRESS-XP for
the VP then requires stress on the verb. This is shown in (23).

(22) A. [VP teach [DP linguistics]]

B. [VP [DP Linguistik] unterrichten]

(Deutsch)

linguistics teach

(23) A. [VP teach] [PP in [DP [NP Ghana]]]

B. [PP in [DP [NP Ghana]]] [VP unterrichten]
Ghana

teach

(Deutsch)

With these refinements, we can analyze Lakoff’s (1972) case in (8). Wie gezeigt in (24A), das Verb
next to the adjunct requires stress by STRESS-XP to begin with.

(24) A. [bei [what [Zeit]]] did he [VP collapse] [bei [what [Zeit]]]

B. at what time did he collapse

STRESS-XP
NSR-(cid:2)

Stress reconstruction does not have a detectable effect here, since the VP collapse requires phrasal
stress regardless of the adjunct.

In the revised account, Dann, movement and stress interact in terms of stress reconstruction.
A moved stressed object can satisfy STRESS-XP for the VP, exempting the verb from showing
its otherwise expected stress.

Stress reconstruction is striking confirmation for the copy theory of movement and recon-
struction (Chomsky 1993) and later versions of the theory: the copy (or the additional link) hat
effects not only at LF but also at PF.

The reader is referred to Truckenbrodt 2019 for a more detailed analysis of the relative clause
cases in (2B), (3B), Und (4A), and for independent support for this account from the interaction
of stress reconstruction with LF reconstruction for idiom chunks and for Condition C effects.

2 A Restriction on Stress Reconstruction and Its Consequences

2.1 The Restriction

We now turn to the restriction on stress reconstruction that is crucial for our main argument. Der
restriction was noted by Selkirk (1995:561) in a comment on the example in (25).6 Selkirk notes

6 The restriction is also implicit in the formulation by Gussenhoven (1983B, 1992) of a descriptive stress rule without
reference to movement. Closely related observations about movement across intervening stressed elements are made by
Richards (2017:229) in the context of a discussion of why tough-movement does not affect stress assignment.

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u

/
l
ich

N
G
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

5
2
4
7
9
1
1
9
7
0
1
4
6

/
l
ich

N
G
_
A
_
0
0
3
9
1
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

799

that the stress pattern shown is appropriate in a context in which reviewed is new but Helen is
given and destressed (see also (6)).

(25) What books has Helen reviewed t?

The fact that reviewed can be new in this stress pattern is crucial for the reality of the movement-
stress interaction. The fact that Helen needs to be contextually given does not undermine the
reality of the effect. It is an apparent quirk that had been overlooked before, and it is also true
of the names in subject position in earlier examples. Jedoch, an important problem is hiding
behind this apparent quirk. (26) shows what the updated account predicts in case Helen is not
given and destressed. Helen is stressed by STRESS-XP, the main verb is not stressed due to stress
reconstruction, and the NSR-(cid:2) assigns sentence stress on Helen.

(26) A.

[what [books]] hat [DP [NP Helen]] [reviewed
[what [books]]]

B. (cid:3)what books has Helen reviewed

STRESS-XP
NSR-(cid:2)

This is not an intuitively valid default stress pattern. It is possible only if Helen is narrowly
focused or if reviewed is contextually given. Stattdessen, the stress in (27) is the only possible default
stress if Helen is included with the new information.

(27) [There is a gap in the list of the institute’s work during the past year.]

[what [books]] hat [DP [NP Helen]] [VP reviewed]

A related contrast in German, inspired by examples in Gussenhoven 1983a, 1992, is shown in
(28) Und (29). In (28), the moved wh-phrase can satisfy STRESS-XP for the VPs.

(28) [Ob er die Pru¨fung besteht, ha¨ngt davon ab, . . . ]
‘Whether he passes the exam depends on . . . '
[wieviele Bu¨cher]1 er [VP [VP t1 gelesen] hat]
how.many books
hat
Er
‘how many books he read.’

read

In (29A), the moved wh-phrase crosses the stressed adjunct [PP in [DP [NP Ruhe]]]. Assuming
stress reconstruction, the adjunct would be assigned the sentence stress by the NSR-(cid:2) as in (29A).
Jedoch, (29A) is only possible empirically if the adjunct carries narrow focus or if the final
verb is contextually given. The empirically correct default stress pattern is (29B).

(29) [Ob er die Pru¨fung besteht, ha¨ngt davon ab . . . ]

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u

/
l
ich

N
G
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

5
2
4
7
9
1
1
9
7
0
1
4
6

/
l
ich

N
G
_
A
_
0
0
3
9
1
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

‘Whether he passes the exam depends on . . . '
A. #[wieviele Bu¨cher]1 er in Ruhe

he in peace.and.quiet

how.many books
[wieviele Bu¨cher]1 er in Ruhe
how.many books
read
„ . . . how many books he read in peace and quiet.’

he in peace.and.quiet

read

[[t1 gelesen] hat]
hat
[[t1 gelesen] hat]
hat

800

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

The restriction is schematically formulated in (30).

(30) The following configuration is ruled out as default stress:

Objekt . . . XP . . . [VP verb object]

2.2 Phonological Phrases and WRAP-XP

We now develop an account of (30) in terms of the interaction of STRESS-XP with WRAP-XP. In
the theory developed in Truckenbrodt 1995, 2007, 2017, STRESS-XP and WRAP-XP are the two
constraints relating syntactic XPs to phonological phrases across languages (see also Fe´ry and
Samek-Lodovici 2006 and Bu¨ring 2016b, unter anderen). WRAP-XP requires for each XP a phono-
logical phrase of the same size or larger.

(31) WRAP-XP

Each XP is contained in a phonological phrase.

STRESS-XP and WRAP-XP target the same level of prosodic structure, the phonological phrase (P-
Phrase, (cid:5)). Phrasal stress is the prosodic head of a phonological phrase. It is expected to stand
in a one-to-one relation with p-phrases.

(32) Faithfulness Condition (Hayes 1995, here for p-phrases)

Each p-phrase contains exactly one beat of phrasal stress, its prosodic head.

Zusammen, STRESS-XP and WRAP-XP require of each XP the prosody shown in (33).

(33) (

X
. . . [XP . . . ] . . .

)(cid:5)

Prosodic-metrical structure
Syntactic structure

WRAP-XP requires a p-phrase around XP that is at least the size of the XP. STRESS-XP requires
a beat of phrasal stress inside the XP. In examples, we have represented such phrasal stress by
single underlining; Hier, we represent it as an “x” on the line of the p-phrase. Außerdem, “x”
is the prosodic head of (cid:5) in diesem Fall.

The strongest arguments that WRAP-XP is needed in addition to STRESS-XP come from the
Native American language Tohono O’odham and the Bantu languages Chichewa and Kimatuumbi
(see Truckenbrodt 1995, 1999). Jedoch, we will now show that there is a crucial link between
STRESS-XP and WRAP-XP that is relevant to the interaction of stress assignment with movement
in English.

Let us first consider how WRAP-XP works in more detail. When a number of XPs are nested
one within the next higher one, WRAP-XP is satisfied if there is a single large p-phrase around
the entire structure: ([XP . . . [XP . . . [XP X ] . . . ] . . . ])(cid:5). In this way, the largest XP is contained
in a p-phrase, and the lower ones are as well. One p-phrase does multiple duty for several XPs,
which is expected in this account. Matters become more complex when there are several XPs
next to each other inside a higher XP, as in (34C). Possible prosodic structures for such cases are
shown in (34A) Und (34B). WRAP-XP requires a single p-phrase around the largest XP in (34C),
wrapping this largest XP (and the lower ones), as in (34A). We add a single grid-mark “x” in

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u

/
l
ich

N
G
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

5
2
4
7
9
1
1
9
7
0
1
4
6

/
l
ich

N
G
_
A
_
0
0
3
9
1
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

801

(34A) for the Faithfulness Condition (32). STRESS-XP, Jedoch, wants a grid-mark on each of the
smaller XPs next to each other in (34C), as in (34B). STRESS-XP and WRAP-XP are in conflict.
(34A) satisfies WRAP-XP but does not satisfy STRESS-XP. (34B) satisfies STRESS-XP but does not
satisfy WRAP-XP.

X )(cid:5)
(34) A. (
B. (
X )(cid:5)
C. [XP A [XP B ] [XP C ]]

X ) (

(
X )(cid:5)
(
X )(cid:5)
[XP [XP A] [XP B [XP C ]]]

X ) (

In the typology proposed in Truckenbrodt 1995, (ich) this conflict can be resolved in favor of WRAP-
XP as in (34A); (ii) it can be resolved in favor of STRESS-XP as in (34B); oder (iii) das resultierende
representation can include both (34A) Und (34B), the former on top of the latter, wie gezeigt, Also
that both STRESS-XP and WRAP-XP are satisfied, but a constraint against recursive structure,
NONRECURSIVITY, is violated. We will assume this third case here, in part because that assumption
will be useful later. It is compatible with the empirical situation that the effects of STRESS-XP
are not suppressed by WRAP-XP in German, as discussed in Bu¨ring 2016b. We think this is true
for English as well (sehen, z.B., the phrasings diagnosed in Hayes 1989 and the accent assignments
in Selkirk 1984).

We further assume that the choice to add the grid-mark on line (34A) rightmost on C rather
than farther to the left on A or B is indirectly required by the NSR-(cid:2), since this grid-mark is the
target of strengthening by the NSR-(cid:2). Daher, (A B C)(cid:2) will better satisfy the NSR-(cid:2) als (A B
C)(cid:2).7

2.3 Correspondence between XPs and P-Phrases

We return now to stress reconstruction. The case of successful stress reconstruction is shown in
(35). Anticipating the syntax-prosody correspondence that we will argue for, we coindex relevant
XPs with their corresponding p-phrases and their prosodic heads. The DP what books carries the
index 1. It is wrapped by the p-phrase that also carries this index ((cid:5)1,2), and stressed by the head
“x” of the p-phrase that also carries this index (x1,2). The VP is indexed 2. It includes the verb
written and the words of the moved wh-phrase what books. This VP satisfies WRAP-XP since the
coindexed (cid:5) ((cid:5)1,2) contains what books and written.8 The VP satisfies STRESS-XP since what
books is a VP element through the link to its underlying position and since it carries phrasal stress
by x1,2.

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u

/
l
ich

N
G
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

5
2
4
7
9
1
1
9
7
0
1
4
6

/
l
ich

N
G
_
A
_
0
0
3
9
1
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

7 Technically, we assume a formalization of the NSR-(cid:2) in the constraint format of McCarthy 2003 that assigns a
violation mark for each p-phrase that intervenes between the prosodic head of (cid:2) and the right edge of (cid:2). It will thus rule
)(cid:2) as an alternative to (34) (on the left) because of the intervening (cid:5)2. Gleichzeitig, it will not
out ((A B)(cid:5)
require rightward shift of p-stress within its p-phrase. The NSR-(cid:2) in this formulation is satisfied, Zum Beispiel, In ( . . .
([VP DP V])(cid:5))(cid:2).

(C)(cid:5)

8 Note that VP1 satisfies WRAP-XP only if (cid:5)1 contains the overt what books: there is no silent copy of what books

in the phonology that could allow the phrasing (written what books)(cid:5) with satisfaction of WRAP-XP.

802

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

(35) (

x1,2

)(cid:5)

1,2

[what books]1 she had [written [what books]]VP2
VP2 satisfies WRAP-XP by (cid:5)1,2 and satisfies STRESS-XP by x1,2.

The case we are seeking to rule out is shown in (36). With the account used up to here, Es
is wrongly predicted to be good. STRESS-XP requires stress on the DP what books and separate
stress on the disjoint DP Helen. This requires building two separate p-phrases at the lower (cid:5)-
Ebene. An additional higher (cid:5)-level is added, Wo (cid:5)3 can satisfy WRAP-XP for the VP3 elements
what books and written. VP3 also appears to satisfy STRESS-XP by x1 on what books. Wichtig,
x3 cannot satisfy STRESS-XP for VP3, since x3 is on Helen and thus not on an element of VP3.

(36) #(

x3
1 ( x2

)(cid:5)

(
[what books]1 [Helen]2 hatte [written [what books]]VP3
VP3 satisfies WRAP-XP by (cid:5)3 and satisfies STRESS-XP by x1.

)(cid:5)

Das, Dann, is a unique case. As we showed in connection with (33), an XP will normally satisfy
WRAP-XP and STRESS-XP via the same prosodic constituent, (xi)(cid:5)ich. In (36), Jedoch, the interac-
tion with movement leads to an atypical situation. The discontinuous VP3 what books . . . written
is wrapped by a p-phrase ((cid:5)3), but the head of that p-phrase, x3, is not in VP3 because VP3 is
discontinuous. Stattdessen, STRESS-XP could only be satisfied for VP3 by the head of another p-phrase
(the head x1 of (cid:5)1). Since this unique case is actually ill-formed, we are led to conclude that the
grammar disallows this. We can rule it out by insisting that if VP3 is wrapped by (cid:5)3, then it must
be stressed by x3. Das ist, we can rule it out by tying the effects of WRAP-XP and STRESS-XP to
each other.

For comparison, consider the acceptable stress pattern for this case in (37). If a further p-
Phrase, here labeled (cid:5)*, is added to the lower (cid:5)-Ebene, the prosodic head x3 of (cid:5)3 can be on
written. In this case, Dann, (cid:5)3 wraps VP3 and at the same time the head x3 of (cid:5)3 satisfies STRESS-
XP for VP3, since it is on an element of VP3 (d.h., on written).

(37) (
(
)(cid:5)
[what books]1
VP3 satisfies WRAP-XP by (cid:5)3 and satisfies STRESS-XP by x3.

)(cid:5)
)(cid:5)*
1 ( x2
[Helen]2 hatte [written [what books]]VP3

x3
X

2 (

)(cid:5)

We think that the unique case in (36) allows us to see that the effects of WRAP-XP and STRESS-
XP are tied to each other for each XP. In implementing this connection, we draw on an idea of
Selkirk’s (2011), nämlich, that XPs and p-phrases are in a correspondence relation. We formalize
this here in a way similar to the classical analysis of correspondence in McCarthy and Prince
1999.

Our suggestion is formulated in (38) (see also Bu¨ring 2016b:Sek. 6.3.2). MAX-XP requires
a correspondent for each XP. This is only a requirement for coindexing each XP with some p-

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u

/
l
ich

N
G
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

5
2
4
7
9
1
1
9
7
0
1
4
6

/
l
ich

N
G
_
A
_
0
0
3
9
1
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

803

Phrase. MAX-XP does not put any conditions on this p-phrase. As in McCarthy and Prince’s
Correspondence Theory more generally, other constraints then restrict the correspondence relation.
In the case at hand, these are the correspondence versions of WRAP-XP and STRESS-XP in (38b–c).
We name them WRAP-XPc and STRESS-XPc.9

(38) A. MAX-XP

Each overt XP must have a corresponding p-phrase (cid:5).
Let us notate a correspondence relation as [XPi, (cid:5)ich].

B. WRAP-XPc

For all [XPi, (cid:5)ich], XPi must be contained in (cid:5)ich.

C. STRESS-XPc

For all [XPi, (cid:5)ich], XPi must contain the prosodic head of (cid:5)ich.

For each XP, the effects of WRAP-XPc and STRESS-XPc are now tied to each other. In (35), Dann,
VP2 has the correspondent (cid:5)1,2, which satisfies WRAP-XPc and STRESS-XPc. In (36), VP3 has no
correspondent that satisfies WRAP-XPc and STRESS-XPc. Während (cid:5)3 satisfies WRAP-XPc, it does
not satisfy STRESS-XPc, since Helen is not part of VP3. This is now ruled out by the correspondence
constraint STRESS-XPc. In (37), (cid:5)3 is a correspondent for VP3 that satisfies both constraints.

STRESS-XPc also remedies a conceptual oddness of STRESS-XP. STRESS-XP seemed to cut
corners in relating an XP to a prominence head “x” of a certain prosodic level without reference
to a mediating p-phrase. This oddness is remedied in STRESS-XPc.

2.4 A Positional Faithfulness Constraint on the Correspondence Relation

We now turn to a related issue. We derived the nonrecursive phrasing in the German case (39A)
and the English case (40A), but what prevents the recursive phrasings with a different stress pattern
In (39B) Und (40B)? They also satisfy MAX-XP, STRESS-XPc, and WRAP-XPc.

(39) A.

(
)(cid:5)
[[ein Buch]1 lesen]2

1,2

Buch

read
X
1 (X

B. #(
X )(cid:5)
(
[[ein Buch]1 lesen]2

)(cid:5)
)(cid:5)*

Buch

read

9 In segmental correspondence (McCarthy and Prince 1999), a typical constraint on corresponding sounds, IDENT(fea),
requires that the sounds share a phonological feature fea. WRAP-XPc and STRESS-XPc may similarly be thought of as
requiring the sharing of elements: all words in XPi must be shared by (cid:5)ich (WRAP-XPc), and the elements in the prosodic
head of (cid:5)i must be shared by XPi (STRESS-XPc).

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u

/
l
ich

N
G
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

5
2
4
7
9
1
1
9
7
0
1
4
6

/
l
ich

N
G
_
A
_
0
0
3
9
1
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

804

(40) A.

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

(
)(cid:5)
[what books]1 she had [VP2 written]2
)(cid:5)
1 (
)(cid:5)*
she had [VP2 written]2

B. #(
(
)(cid:5)
[what books]1

X
X

1,2

If it were for these cases alone, we could invoke the ban on recursive structures, NONRECURSIVITY,
which favors the (A) structures over the (B) structures. Ähnlich, we could invoke the constraint
*P-PHRASE (Truckenbrodt 1999; it punishes each p-phrase) to rule out the (B) structures, gegeben
Die (A) structures with fewer p-phrases. Empirically, Jedoch, the gratuitous addition of a phrasal
stress, which is not allowed in (39B) Und (40B), is possible in prenuclear positions (see Wagner
2005:204ff. on this asymmetry). Daher, the German example (41A) is allowed to alternate with
(41B), Und (42A) is allowed to alternate with (42B).

(41) A. (

)(cid:5)
[der [Bruder [von [Maria]1]2]3]4
the brother of Maria

1,2,3,4

B. (

(

[der [Bruder

)(cid:5)

3,4

)(cid:5)* (

X
)(cid:5)
[von [Maria]1]2]3]4

1,2

(42) A. ( X

1(
)(cid:5)

)(cid:5)
[Helen]1 [wants [Zu [read [manche [books]2]3]4]5]6

(
1(
)(cid:5)

( X
[Helen]1 [wants [Zu [read

X )(cid:5)* (

X
)(cid:5)
[manche [books]2]3]4]5]6

2,3

2,3,4,5,6

)(cid:5)

4,5,6

The additional p-phrase in the (B) structures of (39)–(42) is labeled (cid:5)*. It does not contain a
regular XP. It can therefore not be indexed to any XP without violating WRAP-XPc.10 We could
rule out these instances of (cid:5)* by a constraint DEP-(cid:5) that requires that each (cid:5) have a corresponding
XP. Jedoch, in order to distinguish (39B) Und (40B) aus (41B) Und (42B), we require a positional
faithfulness version of DEP-(cid:5) (sehen, z.B., Beckman 1999 on positional faithfulness). In formulating
Es, we call the (cid:5) that contains the strongest stress of the intonation phrase the head (cid:5)of that
intonation phrase.

(43) NUCLEAR-DEP-(cid:5)

In the head (cid:5) of an intonation phrase, each p-phrase must have a corresponding XP.

10 In (40B), (cid:5)* does not wrap the VP, since the VP includes the overt occurrence of what books. Auch, it could not
be coindexed with [DP she], since STRESS-XPc would require stress on [DP she]. (If this stress were assigned, the result
would suffer the same fate as (36), as well as violating the ban on stressing pronouns.)

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u

/
l
ich

N
G
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

5
2
4
7
9
1
1
9
7
0
1
4
6

/
l
ich

N
G
_
A
_
0
0
3
9
1
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

805

NUCLEAR-DEP-(cid:5) rules out (39B) Und (40B): (cid:5)* has no corresponding XP and occurs in the position
of nuclear strengthening. NUCLEAR-DEP-(cid:5) is not violated in (41B) Und (42B): while (cid:5)* has no
corresponding XP, it does not stand in a position of nuclear strengthening.

A complete account will also include a constraint DEP-(cid:5), dominated by eurythmic or related
constraints that favor the addition of (cid:5)* In (41B) Und (42B). NUCLEAR-DEP-(cid:5) is ranked above
diese, making sure that the same eurythmic or related constraints cannot lead to the addition of
(cid:5)* in nuclear position in (39B) Und (40B). NUCLEAR-DEP-(cid:5) is in turn dominated by MAX-XP,
STRESS-XPc, WRAP-XPc, and the NSR-(cid:2). The latter jointly force a violation of NUCLEAR-DEP-(cid:5)
In (37); the offending p-phrase is here also notated (cid:5)*. Daher, NUCLEAR-DEP-(cid:5) suppresses “gratui-
tous” additions of stress in nuclear position, but its violation can be forced by other requirements
of the syntax-prosody mapping.

The contrast addressed in this section cannot be captured in terms of STRESS-XP and WRAP-
XP (or by various other mapping suggestions) without correspondence. The notions prosodic
matching and prosodic subordination advanced in Wagner 2005—without
reference to
XPs—were tailored to account for this contrast. We have shown that an XP-based account using
correspondence can also capture the asymmetry.

3 Extension to Match Theory

We now turn to conceivable analyses of stress reconstruction in terms of the constraint MATCH-
XP from Selkirk’s (2011) Match Theory (see also, z.B., Myrberg 2013, Elfner 2015, Elordieta
2015). We begin by introducing the account.

3.1 Phrasal Stress and Match Theory

Selkirk (2011) provides two formulations of the match constraint format. The first formulation
(for the level of XPs and p-phrases) is that each XP is matched by a corresponding p-phrase.
This formulation gives a sense of the idea of correspondence of XPs and p-phrases that we adopt
Hier. Jedoch, the notion of matching would need to be further formalized to make predictions
for the more complex case of the interaction of movement and stress that we are concerned with.
We show in the following that one way of making the notion of matching more precise does not
work unless STRESS-XP is added to the account. We believe, on the basis of calculations not
included in this article, that all ways of making the notion of matching more precise have this
Eigentum.

We employ an adaptation of the second formulation of match constraints in Selkirk 2011:

451, shown in (44).

(44) MATCH-XP (our adaptation)

For each XP, there must be a p-phrase (cid:5) so that XP and (cid:5) share their initial word and
their final word.

Unlike earlier accounts, Match Theory does not assume avoidance of recursive prosodic structure.
Recursion is taken to be the norm and freely allowed by the grammar. All else being equal, A
complex configuration of XPs is mapped to an isomorphic configuration of p-phrases.

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u

/
l
ich

N
G
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

5
2
4
7
9
1
1
9
7
0
1
4
6

/
l
ich

N
G
_
A
_
0
0
3
9
1
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

806

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

In a brief discussion of stress, Selkirk (2011:470) suggests that stress constraints of two
kinds interact with the match constraints. The Faithfulness Condition in (32) is an example of
one kind, requiring prosodic heads for prosodic constituents. The NSR-(cid:2) In (10) is an example
of the other kind, requiring a prosodic head to be close to the left or right edge of its prosodic
constituent.

A similar theory of stress assignment was developed in Fe´ry 2011: all syntactic XPs are
projected as prosodic domains into the phonology. Stress and accent are located in terms of
prosodic heads of these constituents.

(45) illustrates the parallel between these accounts of stress and the account using STRESS-
XP. As seen in (45a–b), STRESS-XP (in the correspondence version) may have all XPs correspond
to a large p-phrase; Und, for each XPi, it localizes the stress of (cid:5)i inside that XP, and thus inside
the innermost XP. The alternative accounts of Selkirk (2011) and Fe´ry (2011) derive a matching
prosodic structure in (45C), for which the Faithfulness Condition then requires the stress in (45D).
In the case at hand and many others, the predicted location of stress is identical, as noted also in
Selkirk 2011:483n41 and Kratzer and Selkirk to appear.

(45) A. (

X )(cid:5)

1,2,3

B. [read [A [Buch]1]2]3

C. (
D. (

(
(

(
( X

)))
)))

(
)(cid:5)
[[ein [Buch]1]2 lesen]3

1,2,3

A
((
((

Buch
))
(
( X ))

read

)
)

STRESS-XP

Syntax: XPs

MATCH-XP
Faith. Cond.

Jedoch, the predictions differ in the case of Bresnan’s (1971, 1972) interaction of movement
and stress assignment. For one thing, while STRESS-XP(C) can derive Bresnan’s effects in its
interaction with Internal Merge, MATCH-XP faces empirical problems here. For another, deriving
the crucial restriction in (30) is also not possible without STRESS-XP in a correspondence format.
We show these points in turn.

3.2 Match Theory and Stress Reconstruction

We first consider how Match Theory can approach stress reconstruction. A multiply-linked struc-
ture like (14) is mapped to a p-phrasing as in (46) by MATCH-XP. We assume, as before, that the
overt material that belongs to VP2 is what books and written. This material is matched at its left
and right edges with (cid:5)2 In (46), as required by (44). Weiter, the wh-phrase is matched to a p-
Phrase. This derives to the correct stress pattern.

(46) ((

x1,2 )(cid:5)

)(cid:5)

[what books]1 she had [written [DP what books]]VP2

Jedoch, this way of approaching stress reconstruction does not work more generally. Con-

sider the case of a moved wh-pronoun with an intervening subject, as in (47).

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u

/
l
ich

N
G
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

5
2
4
7
9
1
1
9
7
0
1
4
6

/
l
ich

N
G
_
A
_
0
0
3
9
1
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

807

(47) #(

( x1,2 )(cid:5)

)(cid:5)

what [Helen]1 hatte [written what]VP2

The VP to be matched is again expanded to the beginning of the sentence by movement of the
wh-object. In this case, this wrongly derives the sentence stress on Helen, which is not a possible
default stress empirically. The predictions here differ from those of STRESS-XP(C) insofar as STRESS-
XP(C) sees the discontinuous VP1 what . . . written (the words dominated by VP2 in a structure
wie (14)) and requires stress on one of these, thus on written. MATCH-XP, andererseits,
links- and right-aligns what . . . written with a p-phrase, and there is no obstacle to its prosodic
head being on Helen.

3.3 Match Theory and the Restriction on Stress Reconstruction

MATCH-XP also cannot account for the restriction in (30). The representation we would expect
Ist (48).

(48) #((

x1,(3))(cid:5)

1 ( x2,(3))(cid:5)

)(cid:5)

[what books ]1 [Helen ]2 hatte [written [DP what books]]VP3

Strengthening of the rightmost phrasal stress leads to the stress pattern with nuclear stress on
Helen, which is not a default stress pattern.

3.4 A Correspondence Version of Match Theory

In the context of our argument for the need for STRESS-XP in a correspondence account, we point
out that the problems raised in sections 3.2 Und 3.3 disappear if we formulate MATCH-XP in a
correspondence format that incorporates STRESS-XPc, as in (49).

(49) A. MAX-XP

Each overt XP must have a corresponding p-phrase (cid:5).

B. MATCH-XPc

For all [XPi, (cid:5)ich], XPi must share its first and its final words with (cid:5)ich.

C. STRESS-XPc

For all [XPi, (cid:5)ich], XPi must contain the prosodic head of (cid:5)ich.

(46) is still correctly derived. VP2 has the correspondence (cid:5)2 that matches the discontinuous VP2
what books . . . written at its left and right edges. The head of (cid:5)2, x1,2, is on books, an element
dominated by VP2 in the syntax. (47) is ruled out by STRESS-XPc, since the correspondent (cid:5)2 von
VP2 does not have a prosodic head on a word within VP2. Hier, STRESS-XPc will correctly require
a stress on written. In (48), the prosodic head of (cid:5)3 is not clearly defined. This is remedied if
we switch to the representation in (36), which is also ruled out by STRESS-XPc for VP3 in the
extended Match Theory account in (49). The representation in (37) is correctly derived instead,

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u

/
l
ich

N
G
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

5
2
4
7
9
1
1
9
7
0
1
4
6

/
l
ich

N
G
_
A
_
0
0
3
9
1
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

808

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

where STRESS-XPc is satisfied for VP3, since the prosodic head of (cid:5)3 is on written, an element
of VP3.

4 Summary

In diesem Artikel, we motivated and reviewed an updated account of Bresnan’s (1971, 1972) interac-
tion of stress assignment and movement. In this account, the interaction results from PF reconstruc-
tion for STRESS-XP, given Internal Merge (Chomsky 2000, 2001, 2008).

We discussed an empirical problem for accounts of this interaction: stress on an intervening
element blocks stress reconstruction. We argued that this restriction shows that STRESS-XP is a
restriction on a correspondence relation between XPs and phonological phrases. This relation is
also restricted by WRAP-XP (in the theory of Truckenbrodt 1995 and later work) or MATCH-XP
(in the theory of Selkirk 2011).

Verweise

Beckman, Jill. 1999. Positional faithfulness. New York: Garland.
Bresnan, Joan. 1971. Sentence stress and syntactic transformations. Language 47:257–281.
Bresnan, Joan. 1972. Stress and syntax: A reply. Language 48:326–342.
Bu¨ring, Daniel. 2003. On d-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26:511–545.
Bu¨ring, Daniel. 2006. Focus projection and default prominence. In The architecture of focus, Hrsg. by Vale´ria

Molna´r and Susanne Winkler, 321–346. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bu¨ring, Daniel. 2012. Predicate integration – phrase structure or argument structure? In Contrasts and
positions in information structure, Hrsg. by Ivona Ku?erova´ and Ad Neeleman, 27–47. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Bu¨ring, Daniel. 2016A. (Contrastive) topic. In The Oxford handbook of information structure, Hrsg. by Caroline

Fe´ry and Shinichiro Ishihara, 64–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bu¨ring, Daniel. 2016B. Intonation and meaning. New York: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Deep structure, surface structure and semantic interpretation. In Studies in general
and Oriental linguistics, Hrsg. by Roman Jakobson and Shigeo Kawamoto, 62–119. Tokio: T.E.C.
Corporation for Language and Education Research.

Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from Building 20: Essays
in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Hrsg. by Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 1–52.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on Minimalism in
honor of Howard Lasnik, Hrsg. by Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–155.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, Hrsg. by Michael Kenstowicz,

1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-
Roger Vergnaud, Hrsg. by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–166.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Sprachliche Untersuchung 24:239–297.
Constant, Noah. 2014. Contrastive topic: Meanings and realizations. Doctoral dissertation, Universität

Massachusetts, Amherst.

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u

/
l
ich

N
G
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

5
2
4
7
9
1
1
9
7
0
1
4
6

/
l
ich

N
G
_
A
_
0
0
3
9
1
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

809

Elfner, Emily. 2015. Recursion in prosodic phrasing: Evidence from Connemara Irish. Natural Language

and Linguistic Theory 33:1169–1208.

Elordieta, Gorka. 2015. Recursive phonological phrasing in Basque. Phonology 32:49–78.
Fe´ry, Caroline. 2011. German sentence accents and embedded prosodic phrases. Lingua 121:1906–1922.
Fe´ry, Caroline, and Vieri Samek-Lodovici. 2006. Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci.

Language 82:131–150.

Frota, So´nia. 2000. Prosody and focus in European Portuguese. New York: Garland.
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1983A. Focus, mode and the nucleus. Journal of Linguistics 19:377–417.
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1983B. Testing the reality of focus domains. Language and Speech 26:61–80.
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1984. On the grammar and semantics of sentence accents. Dordrecht: Foris.
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1992. Sentence accents and argument structure. In Thematic structure: Its role in

grammar, Hrsg. by Iggy Roca, 79–106. Berlin: Foris.

Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haida, Andreas. 2007. The indefiniteness and focusing of wh-words. Doctoral dissertation, Humboldt-Univer-

sity Berlin.

Halle, Morris, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1987. An essay on stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hayes, Bruce. 1989. The prosodic hierarchy in meter. In Rhythm and meter, Hrsg. by Paul Kiparsky and Gilbert

Youmans, 201–260. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago: Universität von Chicago

Drücken Sie.

Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jacobs, Joachim. 1991. Implikaturen und “alte Information” in w-Fragen. In Fragesa¨tze und Fragen, Hrsg. von

Marga Reis and Inger Rosengren, 201–222. Tu¨bingen: Niemeyer.

Jacobs, Joachim. 1993. Integration. In Wortstellung und Informationsstruktur, Hrsg. by Marga Reis, 63–116.

Tu¨bingen: Niemeyer.

Ja¨ger, Gerhard. 2001. Topic-comment structure and the contrast between stage level and individual level

predicates. Journal of Semantics 18:83–126.

Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2004. The syntax of sentential stress. Doctoral dissertation, Universität von Toronto.
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2009. The syntax of sentential stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kratzer, Angelika, and Elisabeth Selkirk. 2007. Phase theory and prosodic spellout: The case of verbs. Der

Linguistic Review 24:93–135.

Kratzer, Angelika, and Elisabeth Selkirk. To appear. Deconstructing information structure. Glossa.
Krifka, Manfred. 1984. Focus, Topic, syntaktische Struktur und semantische Interpretation. Ms., München.
Ladd, D. Robert. 1983. Sogar, focus, and normal stress. Journal of Semantics 2:157–170.
Lakoff, George. 1972. The global nature of the Nuclear Stress Rule. Language 48:285–303.
McCarthy, John J. 2003. OT constraints are categorical. Phonology 20:75–138.
McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1999. Faithfulness and identity in Prosodic Morphology. In The prosody-
morphology interface, Hrsg. by Rene´ Kager, Harry van der Hulst, and Wim Zonneveld, 218–309.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Myrberg, Sara. 2013. Sisterhood in prosodic branching. Phonology 30:73–124.
Nespor, Yachthafen, and Irene Vogel. 1989. On clashes and lapses. Phonology 6:69–116.
Newman, Stanley. 1946. On the stress system of English. Word 2:171–187.
Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering trees. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Richards, Norvin. 2016. Contiguity Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Richards, Norvin. 2017. Nuclear stress and the life cycle of operators. In Order and structure in syntax 1:
Word order and syntactic structure, Hrsg. by Laura R. Bailey and Michelle Sheehan, 217–249. Berlin:
Language Science Press.

Safir, Ken. 1999. Vehicle change and reconstruction in A¯ -chains. Sprachliche Untersuchung 30:587–620.

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u

/
l
ich

N
G
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

5
2
4
7
9
1
1
9
7
0
1
4
6

/
l
ich

N
G
_
A
_
0
0
3
9
1
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

810

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1980. Prosodic domains in phonology: Sanskrit revisited. In Juncture: A collection of
original papers, Hrsg. by Mark Aronoff and Mary-Louise Kean, 107–129. Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri.
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relationship between sound and structure. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.

Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3:371–405.
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1995. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In The handbook of phonological

theory, Hrsg. by John Goldsmith, 550–569. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1996. The prosodic structure of function words. In Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from
speech to grammar in early acquisition, Hrsg. by James L. Morgan and Katherine Demuth, 187–213.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2008. Contrastive focus, givenness, and the unmarked status of “discourse new.” Acta

Linguistica Hungarica 55:331–346.

Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2011. The syntax-phonology interface. In The handbook of phonological theory, Hrsg. von

John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle, and Alan Yu, 435–484. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.

Selkirk, Elisabeth, and Tong Shen. 1990. Prosodic domains in Shanghai Chinese. In The phonology-syntax
connection, Hrsg. by Sharon Inkelas and Draga Zec, 313–337. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Selkirk, Elisabeth, and Koichi Tateishi. 1991. Syntax and downstep in Japanese. In Interdisciplinary ap-
proaches to language: Essays in honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, Hrsg. by Carol Georgopoulos and Roberta
Ishihara, 519–543. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence. Doctoral

dissertation, MIT.

Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic

Inquiry 30:219–255.

Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2006. Phrasal stress. In The encyclopedia of languages and linguistics, Hrsg. by Keith

Braun, 9:572–579. 2nd ed. Oxford: Sonst.

Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2007. The syntax-phonology interface. In The Cambridge handbook of phonology,

Hrsg. by Paul de Lacy, 435–456. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2012. On the prosody of German wh-questions. In Prosody and meaning, Hrsg. von

Gorka Elordieta and Pilar Prieto, 73–118. Berlin: Mouton.

Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2013. An analysis of prosodic F-effects in interrogatives: Prosody, syntax and seman-

Tics. Lingua 124:131–175.

Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2017. Die Analyse der Satzprosodie des Deutschen – ein Forschungsu¨berblick. Lingu-

istische Berichte 249:3–48.

Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2019. Notes on stress reconstruction and syntactic reconstruction. In Reconstruction
effects in relative clauses, Hrsg. by Manfred Krifka and Mathias Schenner, 145–185. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Uhmann, Susanne. 1991. Fokusphonologie: Eine Analyse deutscher Intonationskonturen im Rahmen der

nicht-linearen Phonologie. Tu¨bingen: Niemeyer.

Wagner, Michael. 2005. Prosody and recursion. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Daniel Bu¨ring
Linguistics Department
University of Vienna
Sensengasse 3a
1090 Vienna
Österreich

daniel.buring@univie.ac.at

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u

/
l
ich

N
G
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

5
2
4
7
9
1
1
9
7
0
1
4
6

/
l
ich

N
G
_
A
_
0
0
3
9
1
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

R E M A R K S A N D R E P L I E S

811

Hubert Truckenbrodt
Reichenberger Str. 108
10999 Berlin
Deutschland

hubert.truckenbrodt@gmail.com

D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D

F
R
Ö
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
ich
R
e
C
T
.

ich
T
.

e
D
u

/
l
ich

N
G
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

5
2
4
7
9
1
1
9
7
0
1
4
6

/
l
ich

N
G
_
A
_
0
0
3
9
1
P
D

B
j
G
u
e
S
T

Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
PDF Herunterladen