~ ROA Version, 8/2002. Essentially identical to the Tech Report, with new pagination (but the same footnote and example numbering); correction of typos, oversights & outright errors; improved typography; and occasional small-scale clarificatory rewordings. Citation should include reference to this version.

The paper proposes a theory relating syntax, semantics, and intonational prosody, and covering a wide range of English intonational tunes and their semantic interpretation in terms of focus and information structure. The theory is based on a version of combinatory categorial grammar which directly pairs phonological and logical forms without intermediary representational levels.

It is argued that a satisfactory global theory of intonation will require four levels of analysis : (i) physical (acoustic, physiological) (ii) phonetic (iii) surface phonological and (iv) deep phonological. The theoretical and cognitive status of each level is discussed and specific proposals are made for a model respecting such an overall architecture as well as a condition of interpretability which requires that each level of representation be interpretable in terms of adjacent levels. The level of phonetic representation is conceived of as providing an interface between abstract cognitive representations and their physical manifestations. This level is also assumed to provide an interface between constraints on production and perception. For fundamental frequency an algorithm, MOMEL, for the automatic derivation of a representation as a sequence of target-points is presented. The level of surface phonological representation is seen as the prosodic equivalent of the International Ph...

The position in which an argument is projected is usually assumed to be determined strictly by conditions of the computational system (X-bar theory) and the LF interface (Θ-theory). We will argue that these systems, although they obviously restrict the distribution of arguments, still allow in many cases a range of positions in which a given argument can be generated (merged). In the structures we will consider here, the choice between these is made,

This paper reports a difference in English between the prosodic properties of contrastive FOCUS and presentational focus entities when they are immediately followed within the sentence by a presentational focus. In this context, the contrastive FOCUS shows not only a L+H * pitch accent, but also a following phonological phrase break, marked by both a L- phrase accent and temporal disjuncture. In the same context, presentational focus shows a pitch accent H * and no phonological phrase break (no L- and no disjuncture). Since these differences in prosody correlating with different Focus types are not plausibly construed as the realization of distinct tonal morphemes, I suggest that the contrastive/presentational contrast is present in the interface informational/syntactic structure itself, and makes itself felt in the phonological representation through the action of syntax-phonology interface constraints which distinguish the two Focus types.

This paper links prosody to the information in the text and how it is processed by the speaker. It describes the operation and output of Loq, a text-to-speech implementation that includes a model of limited attention and working memory. Attentional limitations are key. Varying the attentional parameter in the simulations varies in turn what counts as given and new in a text, and therefore, the intonational contours with which it is uttered. Currently, the system produces prosody in three different styles: child-like, adult expressive, and knowledgeable. This prosody also exhibits differences within each style -- no two simulations are alike. The limited resource approach captures some of the stylistic and individual variety found in natural prosody. 1. INTRODUCTION Ask any lay person to imitate computer speech and you will be treated to an utterance delivered in melodic and rhythmic monotone, possibly accompanied by choppy articulation and a voice quality that is nasal and strained. ...

s. Both clauses appear to be problematic with respect to the formation of prosodic words. As to the first clause, the prosodization of affixes, clitics, and compound members can induce violations of the requirements on prosodic domination. Specifically, some of these elements neither incorporate into an adjacent prosodic word nor form an independent prosodic word. An example is provided by prefixation in Spanish. 2 In Spanish, words cannot begin with [s] followed by another consonant; a rule of e-epenthesis applies at the left edge of underlying /sC/-clusters (2a). Crucially, I show that whereas the process does not generally apply word-internally (2b), it does apply at the left edge of the base of productively formed prefixed words (2c). (2) a. estable stable esnob snob b. instruccin instruction obstaculo obstacle c. inestable unstable biescalar biscalar Contrary to Cressey (1978) and Harris (1983, 1986), I argue that e-epenthe

for their valuable comments and discussions. I am also grateful to three anony-mous reviewers for the 10th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar for their useful comments and their suggested references. Any oversights or shortcomings, however, are solely my responsibility.

Abstract not found

“We will limit our analysis to a domain which we will call the ‘phonemic clause’”. This is a