The interface between syntax, prosody, and information structure: What we can learn from L2 speech

1. The interface between syntax, prosody, and information structure: What we can learn from L2 speech Maria Luisa Zubizarreta University of Southern California October 2009 In the first part of this talk, I will outline my view of the interaction between syntax, certain aspects of prosody, and information structure. In doing so, I will be comparing English and Spanish, two languages that are similar in certain respects and different in others. I will be claiming that not all differences are of the same nature: some are deeply rooted in grammar while others are more of a stylistic difference. In the second part of the talk, I will argue that L2 speech (through the acquisition timing of the different aspects of prosody) can provide evidence for such a view. In the first part of this talk, I will outline my view of the interaction between syntax, certain aspects of prosody, and information structure. In doing so, I will be comparing English and Spanish, two languages that are similar in certain respects and different in others. I will be claiming that not all differences are of the same nature: some are deeply rooted in grammar while others are more of a stylistic difference. In the second part of the talk, I will argue that L2 speech (through the acquisition timing of the different aspects of prosody) can provide evidence for such a view.

2. The grammatical relevance of discourse-based distinctions. The focus-presupposition divide Grammatically encoded in terms of a quantificational structure The new-given information divide Grammatically encoded in terms of anaphora The topic-comment divide; e.g. categorical vs. thetic statements Grammatically encoded in terms of predication. With regards to information structure, there are basically 3 (discourse-based) distinctions that we will be concerned with, each of which is grammatically encoded in one way or another. a) the focus-presupposition divide (encoded as a quantificational structure as suggested by Chomsky 1971 and other authors) b) the new-given divide. Given information (as opposed to new information) is often expressed via overt or covert anaphora. c) the topic-comment divide, a very general distinction, one particular instantiation of which is the so-called categorical statement (as opposed to thetic statement). Predication (in the sense of Reinhart 1981) might very well the grammatical signature of the topic-comment relation.With regards to information structure, there are basically 3 (discourse-based) distinctions that we will be concerned with, each of which is grammatically encoded in one way or another. a) the focus-presupposition divide (encoded as a quantificational structure as suggested by Chomsky 1971 and other authors) b) the new-given divide. Given information (as opposed to new information) is often expressed via overt or covert anaphora. c) the topic-comment divide, a very general distinction, one particular instantiation of which is the so-called categorical statement (as opposed to thetic statement). Predication (in the sense of Reinhart 1981) might very well the grammatical signature of the topic-comment relation.

3. Grammatical identification of focus Scope of focus identified via: Nuclear Stress --rhythmically most prominent word in sentence --e.g. Germanic and Romance. Prosodic phrasing --e.g. Bengali (Hayes & Lahiri 1991), Korean (Jun 1993), Chitumbuka (Downing 2006) , French (F�ry 2001). Morpho-syntax: syntactic position and morpho-syntactic markers (e.g. Chinese, West-African languages). Combination of above mechanisms. Languages have mechanisms for identifying the focus (or asserted part) of the sentence. The languages we will be concerned with here (as well as many other languages of the world) use main sentence prominence (or Nuclear Stress) to identify the scope of the focus. There are other mechanisms, like prosodic phrasing, argued to be relevant in determining the scope of the focus in a variety of languages, including French (according to F�ry 2001). There are also morpho-syntactic mechanisms, and languages may use more than one.Languages have mechanisms for identifying the focus (or asserted part) of the sentence. The languages we will be concerned with here (as well as many other languages of the world) use main sentence prominence (or Nuclear Stress) to identify the scope of the focus. There are other mechanisms, like prosodic phrasing, argued to be relevant in determining the scope of the focus in a variety of languages, including French (according to F�ry 2001). There are also morpho-syntactic mechanisms, and languages may use more than one.

4. Nuclear Stress and Focus. The focused constituent must contain the word with NS (Chomsky 1971, Jackendoff 1972). NSR generates unmarked patterns, i.e. patterns compatible with wide focus. Q: What�s new? A: John broke his leg. vs. *John broke his leg In the type of language under discussion here, the wide focus structures (where the entire sentence or the entire VP is asserted) are associated with the unmarked Nuclear Stress pattern. The unmarked NS patterns are generated by the Nuclear Stress Rule (or NSR), which in the case of transitive structures, generates NS on the object. Cf. the Q & A forms in the slide. We will discuss the NSR in more detail later. In the type of language under discussion here, the wide focus structures (where the entire sentence or the entire VP is asserted) are associated with the unmarked Nuclear Stress pattern. The unmarked NS patterns are generated by the Nuclear Stress Rule (or NSR), which in the case of transitive structures, generates NS on the object. Cf. the Q & A forms in the slide. We will discuss the NSR in more detail later.

5. Marked prominence patterns: deaccenting & NS-Shift patterns. In English (& other lgs), NS aligns with the Nuclear Pitch Accent (NPA): the last PA in the Intonational Phrase In English, given information gets deaccented (PA deletion or reduction) If deacc constituent is contained within the focus, NS-Shift applies: Words with no PA are less prominent than words with PA (in English) We assume (following Pierrehumbert 1980 and much work since then), that in pitch accent lgs like English (and also in Spanish according to Sosa 1999), the main stressed syllable of each word is associated with a pitch accent. And basically the last pitch accented word in the intonational phrase must correspond to the word that bears Nuclear Stress. Such pitch-accent is often referred to as the Nuclear Pitch Accent. In English (and other Germanic lgs), there is an interesting & non-trivial interaction between pitch accent assignment and Nuclear Stress. The reason is that in these lgs, given information (=information that has been explicitly or implicitly mentioned), in particular if it follows the NPA, undergoes pitch reduction or compression. What happens when the deaccented constituent is contained within the focused part of the sentence? In the lgs under discussion, in which a word with no pitch accent is never perceived as more prominent than a pitch-accented word, Nuclear Stress Shift must apply. We assume (following Pierrehumbert 1980 and much work since then), that in pitch accent lgs like English (and also in Spanish according to Sosa 1999), the main stressed syllable of each word is associated with a pitch accent. And basically the last pitch accented word in the intonational phrase must correspond to the word that bears Nuclear Stress. Such pitch-accent is often referred to as the Nuclear Pitch Accent. In English (and other Germanic lgs), there is an interesting & non-trivial interaction between pitch accent assignment and Nuclear Stress. The reason is that in these lgs, given information (=information that has been explicitly or implicitly mentioned), in particular if it follows the NPA, undergoes pitch reduction or compression. What happens when the deaccented constituent is contained within the focused part of the sentence? In the lgs under discussion, in which a word with no pitch accent is never perceived as more prominent than a pitch-accented word, Nuclear Stress Shift must apply.

6. �Givenness�: explicit mention. Q1: Why are you buying that old stamp? A1: Because I [foc collect stamps]. �Givenness� inferred from context (Ladd 1980,1996) Q2: Why didn�t you read the article I gave you? A2: I [foc can�t read German] �Given� within the assertion Review examples. Review examples.

7. Non-asserted �Given�:  Narrow focus cases Wide focus: Q1: What�s new? A1: [John broke his leg]. Narrow focus: Q2 :Who broke his leg? A2: [foc John ] broke his leg. (VP deacc) Another case where NS-shift gets to apply are cases of narrow focus such as the one illustrated in this slide. We refer to prosodic patterns that are the output of the NS-Shift as marked prosodic Patterns. Another case where NS-shift gets to apply are cases of narrow focus such as the one illustrated in this slide. We refer to prosodic patterns that are the output of the NS-Shift as marked prosodic Patterns.

8. Domain of Nuclear Stress.  A Caveat Nuclear Pitch Accent aligns with NS. In core cases, domain of NS is the sentence (= Intonational Phrase or InP) Symmetry �Sentence = InP� can be distorted by phonological weight and length, giving rise to �rephrasing� & �restructuring� of NS domain. Core cases: primary linguistic data for acquisition. Recall that the word with NS aligns with NPA, i.e. the last pitch in the Intonational domain. We may assume that in the core cases, there is a correspondence between sentence and Int P. Yet this symmetry is often distorted by considerations of phonological weight and length, which gives rise to rephrasing & restructuring of NS domain. Here we are concerned with the core cases (simple & short sentences), which we assume to constitute the primary linguistic data, on the basis of which acquisition takes place. Recall that the word with NS aligns with NPA, i.e. the last pitch in the Intonational domain. We may assume that in the core cases, there is a correspondence between sentence and Int P. Yet this symmetry is often distorted by considerations of phonological weight and length, which gives rise to rephrasing & restructuring of NS domain. Here we are concerned with the core cases (simple & short sentences), which we assume to constitute the primary linguistic data, on the basis of which acquisition takes place.

9. Determining Nuclear Stress. Different Views. Syntactic approaches: NSR applies directly to the syntactic structure: Chomsky & Halle 1968, Cinque 1993, Kahnemuyipour 2004 NSR applies to a �metrically interpreted� syntactic structure: Halle & Vergnaud 1984, Zubizarreta 1998, Zubizarreta & Vergnaud 2003, Nava & Zubizarreta 2009, to appear. The direct syntax-NS approach and the indirect syntax-NS approach. The direct syntax-NS approach and the indirect syntax-NS approach.

10. Determining Nuclear Stress. Different Views. The prosodic phrasing approach (Selkirk 1986, Nespor & Vogel 1986): Phonological phrase derived from syntactic structure via mapping algorithms Phrasal stress assigned to (right or left) edge of phonological phrase. NS identified as the stress on the last phonological phrase. The indirect syntax-NS approach. Here, we will be assuming the direct syntax-NS approach. For one part of what we have to say, it will not matter, but it will matter for another part of what we have to say.The indirect syntax-NS approach. Here, we will be assuming the direct syntax-NS approach. For one part of what we have to say, it will not matter, but it will matter for another part of what we have to say.

11. Nuclear Stress: the relevance of syntactic structure Adjunct-argument distinction in Germanic sentences and compounds (1) a. Hans hat an seinem Papier gearbeitet. Hans has on his paper worked b. Hans hat in seinem B�ro gearbeitet. Hans has in his office worked (Krifka 1984) (2)a. tree-eater �someone who eats trees� b. tree-eater �someone who eats on a tree� (3)a. toy-factory �factory that makes toys� b. toy-factory �a toy that is a factory� ( Fudge 1984, Selkirk 1984, Giegerich 2004, among others ) The arg-adjunct distinction observed at the phrasal level in German can also be observed in English within compounds. Although the issue of main stress in English compounds can be blurred by issues related to lexicalization and analogy, it does appear that arguments tend to attract main stress in compounds. Thus, the famous minimal pairs cited in the slide. The arg-adjunct distinction observed at the phrasal level in German can also be observed in English within compounds. Although the issue of main stress in English compounds can be blurred by issues related to lexicalization and analogy, it does appear that arguments tend to attract main stress in compounds. Thus, the famous minimal pairs cited in the slide.

12. Non-Phrase final NS in Germanic Unmarked stress patterns with non- sentence final NS (esp. with unacc verbs) (1) Why are you so happy? My friend arrived. (100%) (2) Why are the kids looking outside? A rabbit appeared. (100%) (3) What was that crashing sound? A window broke. (100%) (Schmerling 1976, Selkirk 1984, 1995, Gussenhoven 1984. Exs from Nava & Zubizarreta�s experimental protocol (in press)). While NS in transitive structures fall on the object, it is by now well-known that NS may fall on the subject in intransitives. This is particularly true for certain unacc structures. Examples cited from our own experimental protocol. While NS in transitive structures fall on the object, it is by now well-known that NS may fall on the subject in intransitives. This is particularly true for certain unacc structures. Examples cited from our own experimental protocol.

13. Nuclear Stress: final vs. non-final NS in intransitives SV ? NS on the subject The pizza arrived. S Adv V ? NS rightmost (Gussenhoven 1984) The pizza quickly arrived. An intervening Adv between the Subject and Verb pulls NS onto the Verb, as first noticed by Gussenhoven 1984, providing more evidence of the relevance of syntax in computing NS. An intervening Adv between the Subject and Verb pulls NS onto the Verb, as first noticed by Gussenhoven 1984, providing more evidence of the relevance of syntax in computing NS.

14. Nuclear Stress: the relevance of semantico-pragmatic factors Germanic Variability (esp. with unegartive verbs) (4) How did the party end? A guest sang. (57%) A guest sang. (43%) Pragmatics (predictability & noteworthiness) (5) Why are those children screaming? Because a dog is barking. (71%) (6) Why does everybody look so surprised? Because a dog is singing. (81%) (Exs. from Nava & Zubizarreta�s in press) Non-sentence final NS is also found in SV unergatives, but more variability is found with this class of verbs, depending on pragmatic factors.Non-sentence final NS is also found in SV unergatives, but more variability is found with this class of verbs, depending on pragmatic factors.

15. Categorical vs. thetic marking  via NS Categorical/thetic distinction can be marked via NS in Germanic (Sasse 1987). Unacc (due to their lexical semantics) tend to be construed as thetic (or eventive): SV Unergatives tend to be variable: SV (thetic) or (SV) (categorical) Pragmatics (predictability or noteworthiness) can influence construal of statement as categorical or thetic While the two patterns are not associated with a truth-conditional difference, it has been argued by Sasse 1987 (and others) that NS placement in such cases has a function, namely of marking thetic vs. categorical statements. NS on Verb: categorical statement. NS on Subject: thetic statement. Categorical statements are topic-comment structures: it asserts the existence of the subject and assigns the subject a property. Thetic statements are eventive statements, where the subject does not function as the topic of the sentence. Possibly, there is a covert (or overt) eventive arg that functions as the subject of predication. Unacc verbs (due to their lexical semantics) tend to be construed as thetic. Unergative verbs tend to be variable, either categorical or thetic, depending on pragmatic factors.While the two patterns are not associated with a truth-conditional difference, it has been argued by Sasse 1987 (and others) that NS placement in such cases has a function, namely of marking thetic vs. categorical statements. NS on Verb: categorical statement. NS on Subject: thetic statement. Categorical statements are topic-comment structures: it asserts the existence of the subject and assigns the subject a property. Thetic statements are eventive statements, where the subject does not function as the topic of the sentence. Possibly, there is a covert (or overt) eventive arg that functions as the subject of predication. Unacc verbs (due to their lexical semantics) tend to be construed as thetic. Unergative verbs tend to be variable, either categorical or thetic, depending on pragmatic factors.

16. No one-to-one correlation between NS placement and p-phrasing (S V) �my friend arrived� (unacc) (S) (V) �a guest sang� (uneg) (S V) �a guest sang� (unerg) Stress retraction: (ANne Marie BYcicled) Cf. Inkelas & Zec 1993 P-phrasing: categorical vs. thetic We note that there is no one-to-one correspondence between NS placement and p-phrasing.We note that there is no one-to-one correspondence between NS placement and p-phrasing.

17. Nuclear Stress: Germanic vs. Romance Germanic: flexible NS sentence-final and non-sentence final NS patterns. variability in the positioning of NS in certain structures (SV intransitives) Romance: rigid NS (e.g. Hualde 2006, 2009, Sosa 1999, Zubizarreta 1998 for Spanish) phrase-final NS patterns no variability

18. Theticity marking: Germanic vs. Romance Categorical / thetic distinction encoded syntactically in Romance, ie. via word in Span VS (thetic) vs. SV (categorical) Theticity can also be expressed syntactically in English (there-construction). Cross-linguistic difference remains (not explainable by discourse-considerations). There�s a dolphin swimming. Hay un delfin nadando. Spanish encodes the thetic/categorical distinction via word order: categorical statement ? preverbal subj. Thetic statement ? postverbal subject. Yet, English can also use syntactic means to express theticity, namely the there-construction, where the subject appears in postverbal position. Here the English and Spanish counterparts have exactly the same word order, yet English allows for NS on subject while Spanish does not.Spanish encodes the thetic/categorical distinction via word order: categorical statement ? preverbal subj. Thetic statement ? postverbal subject. Yet, English can also use syntactic means to express theticity, namely the there-construction, where the subject appears in postverbal position. Here the English and Spanish counterparts have exactly the same word order, yet English allows for NS on subject while Spanish does not.

19. The NSR: our view. A grammatically encapsulated algorithm. Generates �unmarked� rhythmic patterns �compatible with wide focus. In Germanic, NSR generates variable patterns in certain structures. Speaker chooses a particular NS pattern depending on: Sentence thetic or categorical; information highlighting

20. Cross-linguistic differences: Prosody of function words categories Prosodic nature of function words at the heart of the Romance/Germanic NSR parameter. Germanic: function words may be unstressed/reduced ? functional categories may be metrically invisible. Spanish: function words not reduced ? functional categories metrically visible.

21. The prosodic status of  (semi)-function verbs. Non-lexical verbs are intrinsically unstressed/reduced (Inkelas & Zec 1993) Becomes metrically strong: (Altenberg p. 172-3) If clause final. �Wherever she was, always a letter came through, asking how she was.� If followed by deaccented anaphoric complement. I [�] asked him how he was doing it.� If emphatic. �It had to be a well.� We assume that non-lexical verbs are intrinsically unstressed/reduced. But they can derivationally acquire stress due to independent factors, such as syntactic position, de-accenting, or emphasis. Altenberg identifies many such examples in her corpus. 2) Altenberg argues that different functional categories have different prosodic potentials and she proposes to capture the facts with a probabilistic analysis. --Prepositions, for example, are a mixed bag. Altenberg notes that prepositions like �to� and �about� tend to be unstressed, even when their complement are deaccented (e.g. This meant a lot to me; I will tell a little story about it). On the other hand, other more semantically salient prepositions (like �with� and �from�) are stressed when their complement is deaccented (e.g. [�] providing we could get someone to look after it. I�m told my mother went with them.) 3) While the prosodic potentials of different categories is perhaps better captured probabilistically (as Altenberg proposes), the grammatical status of function categories are categorical in nature: either they are part of the metrical structure or they are not. 4) In the case of Auxiliaries, the fact that they can be reduced or contracted attest to the fact that they can function as metrically invisible. The fact that they can acquire stress due to their position in the structure or due to the effects of de-acenting or emphasis, shows that they may be part of the metrical structure as well. Ergo, they are optionally metrically visible. Similarly, the fact that some prepositions can acquire stress, argues for the optional metrical visibility of this functional category. We assume that non-lexical verbs are intrinsically unstressed/reduced. But they can derivationally acquire stress due to independent factors, such as syntactic position, de-accenting, or emphasis. Altenberg identifies many such examples in her corpus. 2) Altenberg argues that different functional categories have different prosodic potentials and she proposes to capture the facts with a probabilistic analysis. --Prepositions, for example, are a mixed bag. Altenberg notes that prepositions like �to� and �about� tend to be unstressed, even when their complement are deaccented (e.g. This meant a lot to me; I will tell a little story about it). On the other hand, other more semantically salient prepositions (like �with� and �from�) are stressed when their complement is deaccented (e.g. [�] providing we could get someone to look after it. I�m told my mother went with them.) 3) While the prosodic potentials of different categories is perhaps better captured probabilistically (as Altenberg proposes), the grammatical status of function categories are categorical in nature: either they are part of the metrical structure or they are not. 4) In the case of Auxiliaries, the fact that they can be reduced or contracted attest to the fact that they can function as metrically invisible. The fact that they can acquire stress due to their position in the structure or due to the effects of de-acenting or emphasis, shows that they may be part of the metrical structure as well. Ergo, they are optionally metrically visible. Similarly, the fact that some prepositions can acquire stress, argues for the optional metrical visibility of this functional category.

22. A two-layer NSR. NSR applies to a metrically interpreted syntactic tree & assigns Strong vs. Weak to sister nodes (Liberman 1975). Given two metrical sister nodes A and B: (i) If A is a head and B is its argument, assign S(trong) to B. (specific NSR) (ii) Otherwise, assign S(trong) to the rightmost constituent node (general NSR). (Zubizarreta 1998, Zubizarreta & Vergnaud 2003)

23. Germanic NS patterns.  A metrical analysis. Nw Tw Vs a dog is barking Ns T Vw a dog is barking Note that it is abstract syntax which we are claiming to be relevant to NS placement. So whether the Aux is phonologically there or not, Tense may or may not be part of the metrical structure. Note that it is abstract syntax which we are claiming to be relevant to NS placement. So whether the Aux is phonologically there or not, Tense may or may not be part of the metrical structure.

24. Germanic NS patterns.  A metrical analysis. Nw (T) Advw Vs The pizza quickly arrived As mentioned earlier, this type of contrast, first noted by Gussenhoven, shows the relevance of syntactic structure in determining NS placement. Irrespective of the metrical status of Tense, the presence of the Adv pulls the NS to the right. As mentioned earlier, this type of contrast, first noted by Gussenhoven, shows the relevance of syntactic structure in determining NS placement. Irrespective of the metrical status of Tense, the presence of the Adv pulls the NS to the right.

25. Germanic NS patterns Nw Aspw Vs I saw a dolphin swimming NS Asp Vw I saw a dolphin swimming Recall that the view that we are endorsing here is that abstract syntax is relevant in determining NS placement & abstract functional categories may be part of the metrical structure. Recall that the view that we are endorsing here is that abstract syntax is relevant in determining NS placement & abstract functional categories may be part of the metrical structure.

26. Germanic NS: Compositional Compounds NS NW mice hunt-ing �the hunting of mice� NW NS night hunt-ing �hunting at night�

27. Anaphoric Deaccenting A-deaccenting: pitch-range reduction interacts directly with discourse not gramm constraint variable & gradient Output of A-deacc (as well as Emphasis) affects metrical structure ? NS-Shift. non-pitch accented syllables always metrically weaker than pitch-accented ones Recall Slide 6: Why are you buying that old stamp? Because I collect stamps (explicit mention) Why didn�t you read the article I gave you? Because I can�t read German (implict givenness). Recall Slide 6: Why are you buying that old stamp? Because I collect stamps (explicit mention) Why didn�t you read the article I gave you? Because I can�t read German (implict givenness).

28. Model of Grammar (preliminary) proposal core syntax segmental p-syntax LF phonology (NSR & other rhythmic rules, p-phrasing, PA assignment) discourse Intonational Phonetics (A- deacc, emphasis, etc)

29. Recapitulation 2 distinct types of phenomena: Type 1: Phenomena to be described at an abstract grammatically-encapsulated level (e.g. NSR) Type 2: Phenomena to be described at the interface level between signal & discourse (e.g. A-deaccenting, Emphasis) RECAPITULATION. 1) there are two distinct types of prosodic phenomena:: 1) phenomena to be described at an abstract level --namely P-syntax. NSR belongs at that level. 2) phenomena to be described at the interface level between the acoustic signal and discourse: Anaphoric deaccenting and emphasis belong to the second type. 2) Of course, what happens at the lower level can affect the higher level. Because a syllable with reduced pitch is perceived as more prominent than a syllable with non-reduced pitch (at least in this type of lg), A-deaccenting has an effect on metrical structure. RECAPITULATION. 1) there are two distinct types of prosodic phenomena:: 1) phenomena to be described at an abstract level --namely P-syntax. NSR belongs at that level. 2) phenomena to be described at the interface level between the acoustic signal and discourse: Anaphoric deaccenting and emphasis belong to the second type. 2) Of course, what happens at the lower level can affect the higher level. Because a syllable with reduced pitch is perceived as more prominent than a syllable with non-reduced pitch (at least in this type of lg), A-deaccenting has an effect on metrical structure.

30. A-deacc: English vs. Spanish Spanish does not use A-deacc No grammatical reason Rather, stylistic reasons. Spanish uses other grammatical resources instead, such as cliticization and dislocation. We argued that the difference with respect to NS placement between Germanic and Spanish is grammatically rooted, we suggest that this is not the case for A-deaccenting. Spanish does not use A-deaccenting, but there is no intrinsic grammatical reasons why it should not. It is a stylistic choice. It uses other grammatical means instead, such as cliticization and dislocation.We argued that the difference with respect to NS placement between Germanic and Spanish is grammatically rooted, we suggest that this is not the case for A-deaccenting. Spanish does not use A-deaccenting, but there is no intrinsic grammatical reasons why it should not. It is a stylistic choice. It uses other grammatical means instead, such as cliticization and dislocation.

31. Implications. Typological differences: Type 1: deeply rooted in the grammar of the language (e.g. type of NSR depends on the metrical status of functional categories) Type 2: merely stylistic; it has no grammatical �raison d��tre�. Hypothesis: Type 2 is more amenable to change than Type 1.

32. L2 Speech: ideal testing grounds L1 Spanish/L2 English speech ideal testing grounds (Nava & Zubizarreta 2009, 2010; Zubizarreta & Nava to appear) L1 & L2: Grammars in competition (Yang 2003) Dominant L2 (L2 �acquired�) Dominant L1 or oscillation between L1 and L2 grammar (L2 �not acquired�)

33. Our L2 study Production of target-like Germanic NS (as a measure of acquisition of Germanic NSR) Production of vowel reduction (as a measure of metrical invisibility) A-deaccenting & NS-shift in wide focus and narrow focused contexts.

34. Studies on L2 rhythm Studies on L2 rhythm: e.g. Carter 2005, White & Mattys 2007, Carter 2005, Gut 2003 Gut 2003 investigated L1 rhythmic influence on vowel duration across populations. Compared L1 Romance (French, Italian, Romanian) and L1 English learners of L2 German. English: general vowel reduction in unstressed syllables. German: vowel reduction in inflectional morphemes & in syllables in final position in lexical words Romance: no vowel reduction.

35. Gut 2003: L2 vowel duration Gut�s results: L1 Romance native populations showed evidence of L1 transfer via their low level of vowel reduction in L2 German. L1 English natives reduced vowels in more contexts in German than German natives.

36. Acquisition of Germanic NS Acquisition of Germanic NS patterns involves two aspects: the formal and the functional acquisition of metrical invisibility of functional categories (i.e.Tense) measured by production of reduced Aux Acquisition of NS as marker of theticity measured by distinction between unacc. (thetic) and unergatives (variable).

37. Timing of acquisition of Germanic NS & Aux-reduction Acquisition of metrical invisibility of Aux is a necessary (although not sufficient) condition for acquisition of Germanic NSR. Prediction: acquisition of Aux-reduction should precede acquisition of Germanic NS.

38. Timing of acquisition of Germanic NS vs. A-deaccenting  Acquisition of Germanic NS requires �restructuring� of deep-rooted L1 grammatical properties Acquisition of A-deacc requires a stylistic change (no grammatical restructuring involved) Prediction: Acquisition of A-deacc should precede acquisition of Germanic NS.

39. Participants

40. Question & Answer (Q&A) Protocol. Scripted dialogue between experimenter and participant. Experimental test items: wide variety of structures in different information structure contexts Latin-square design, with two Q&A sets Dialogue recorded & analyzed with PitchWorks by two independent coders.

41. Coding Coded for presence/absence of pitch accents and position of Nuclear Pitch Accent (i.e. last pitch-accented word) 22 auxiliaries were identified within experimental test items & coded for presence or absence of vowel reduction (contracted Aux and Aux with stressless, reduced vowel)

42. Test items: part 1. 12 SV unaccusatives come (twice), enter, arrive (twice), appear, escape, vanish, broke, close, open, die. 12 SV unergatives bark, roar, swim (twice), talk, dance, sing (twice), smile, run, cry, sneeze. 4 OV compounds Each Q&A set: 6 SV unaccusatives, 6 SV unergatives, and 2 OV-compounds.

43. Results for Cloze-based proficiency groups. Effect of L1 (esp. for intermediates) High Prof: effect of L1 stronger for SV unacc than for compounds. ENCs: in the case of unacc SVs and compounds, pattern with NS on subject close to 100%. in the case of unegartive SVs, variable NS pattern L2ers: the comparaison of L2ers and ENCs show an effect of the L1, in particular w.r.t. unacc and compounds, and more so for intermediates. interestingly, high-prof. L2ers did better with compounds than we unacc SVs. ENCs: in the case of unacc SVs and compounds, pattern with NS on subject close to 100%. in the case of unegartive SVs, variable NS pattern L2ers: the comparaison of L2ers and ENCs show an effect of the L1, in particular w.r.t. unacc and compounds, and more so for intermediates. interestingly, high-prof. L2ers did better with compounds than we unacc SVs.

44. Results for Cloze-based proficiency groups. Pair-wise group comparison for Germanic NS. All comparisons are significant (<.05) Chi-square statistical analysis showed that all pair-wise comparison were significant. Chi-square statistical analysis showed that all pair-wise comparison were significant.

45. Results for prosodic-based proficiency groups. L2ers regrouped in terms of above-chance target-production of Germanic NS in unacc SV and OV-compounds (at least 5 out of 8) 9 L2ers above chance level of Germanic NS (+NS group) 37 L2ers at chance, below chance, or no Germanic NS (-NS group) All L2ers in +NS group tested native-like in cloze test (70%-75%).

46. Auxiliary Reduction All +NS L2ers above 75% of Aux-reduction. Great variability in the �NS group.

47. Germanic NS & Aux-reduction. Individual Analysis.

48. The function of Germanic NS. Unacc. vs. Unergatives. Results. ENC and +NS L2ers: significantly more SV than SV for unacc, but not for unergatives. Both for ENC and +NS L2ers: No significant different between the two prosodic patterns for unergatives. Sig. difference between the two prosodic patterns for unaccusatives. This shows that the +NS group has acquired the function of Germanic NS (as marker of theticity).Both for ENC and +NS L2ers: No significant different between the two prosodic patterns for unergatives. Sig. difference between the two prosodic patterns for unaccusatives. This shows that the +NS group has acquired the function of Germanic NS (as marker of theticity).

49. Summary & conclusion. All +NS L2ers produced more than 75% of Aux Red, but also significant number of �NS L2ers have 75% or more of Aux Red. Acquisition of Aux Red precedes �acquisition� of Germanic NS. +NS L2ers produce signif. more SV than SV patterns with unacc. than with unergatives. +NS L2ers have acquired the function of Germanic NS (as marker of theticity).

50. English: Anaphoric-deaccenting & NS-shift (wide focus contexts) In English (but not in Spanish), �givenness� can trigger significant pitch-reduction at the grammar-discourse interface. If deaccented material includes NS-bearing word, NS-Shift applies (shifting NS onto metrical sister) Why are you buying that old stamp? Because I collect stamps. (75%) Why are these notebooks missing their covers? Because I�m drawing pictures on the covers. (88%)

51. Anaphoric-deaccenting  & NS-shift (wide focus) Q&A protocol contained 4 transitives with �given� DO 4 ditransitives with �given� PP Above chance-level production of A-anaphoric deacc & NS-shift: 16 (out of 27) High Prof. learners 3 Intermediates Recall: only 9 High Prof. learners produced unmarked Germanic NS.

52. English: Anaphoric-deaccenting & NS-Shift (narrow focus). Aligning NS with narrow focus via A-deaccenting & NS-Shift: Who was crying? An actress was crying. Who arrived? My friend arrived. Who broke his leg? A boy broke his leg. Of course, the English NSR can also directly generate SV patterns with NS on the Subject. On the other hand, the transitive NS pattern can only be generated via deaccenting & NS-shift.Of course, the English NSR can also directly generate SV patterns with NS on the Subject. On the other hand, the transitive NS pattern can only be generated via deaccenting & NS-shift.

53. Anaphoric-deaccenting  & NS-Shift (narrow focus). L1 Spanish-L2 English (Nava & Zubizarreta�s study) Based on 4 SV intran (2 unacc and 2 unergatives) L2ers remarkably accurate. High Prof. are native-like. ENC vs. Interm stats signif. (at p<.05 value)

54. Summary & Conclusion. A-deacc is acquired earlier than Germanic NSR (i.e. easier to acquire) Lers switch to A-deacc especially early when it is required for focus-identification Results support our expectations regarding ordering of acquisition. Anecdotal evidence: English influence on deacc patterns in Eng-Span bilinguals. Intermediates: produced 18% of deaccenting & NS-shift with given info contained within asserted constituent. produced 68% of deaccenting & NS-shift in cases of narrow focus.Intermediates: produced 18% of deaccenting & NS-shift with given info contained within asserted constituent. produced 68% of deaccenting & NS-shift in cases of narrow focus.

55. Germanic NS in compounds vs. sentences. Future research. Germanic NS at the phrasal level. Requires acquisition of metrical invisibility of functional categories Germanic NS in compounds. Metrical invisibility of functional categories irrelevant. Expectation: Acquisition of Germanic NS in compounds precedes acquisition of Germanic NS in phrases.

56. Germanic NS in compounds vs. sentences. Future research. Germanic NS should be acquired earlier in compounds than in sentences. No correlation between Aux reduction & Germanic NS in compounds. Prosodic patterns in compounds serve as cue for acquisition of the formal part of Germanic NS; i.e. trigger switch from L1 to L2 algorithm

57. Appendix. Vowel reduction: content vs. function words. �North Wind and the Sun text� (English & Spanish version) Nava et al. 2009: Extracted & measured vowels using a �forced alignment� technique from ASR Compared vowels in content and function words in English across 4 groups: ENCs, L2 +NS, L2 �NS, and Span natives.

58. Vowel reduction: function vs. content words. 2-way ANOVA: sig. diff. (<.05) between 2 types of vowels for ENC and L2 +NS.

59. References Altenberg, B. 1987. Prosodic Patterns in Spoken English. Lund University Press. Cruttenden, A. 1997. Intonation, Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, N. & M. Halle. 1968. Sound Patterns of English. New York: Harper & Row. Chomsky, N. 1971. Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In D. Steinberg and L. Jakobovits, eds. Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics, and psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giegerich, H.J. 2004. Compound or phrase? English noun-plus-noun constructions and the stress criterion. English Language and Linguistics 8:1-24. Gussenhoven, C. 1984. On the grammar and semantics of sentence accents. Dordrecht, Foris. Gut, U. 2003. Prosody in second language speech production: the role of the native language. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen 32, 133-152.

60. References. Huald, J.I. 2006. Stress removal and stress addition in Spanish, Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 5(2), 59-89. Hualde, J.I. 2009. Unstressed Words in Spanish. Language Sciences. 31:199-212. Inkelas, S. and D. Zec. Auxiliary reduction without empty categories: a prosodic account. Working Papers of a the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory. Vol 8: 205-253. Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Jun, S. 1993. The Phonetics and Phonology of Korean Prosody. Ph D. thesis, Ohio State University. Ladd. R. 1980. The structure of Intonational Meaning. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Ladd, R. 1996. Intonational Phonology. Cambridge University Press, Bloomington. Ladd. R. 1980. The structure of Intonational Meaning. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Hualde, J.I. 2006. Stress removal and stress addition in Spanish, Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 5(2), 59-89. Hualde, J.I. 2006. Stress removal and stress addition in Spanish, Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 5(2), 59-89.

61. References. Ladd, R. 1996. Intonational Phonology. Cambridge University Press, Bloomington. Nava, E. & Zubizarreta, 2009. Order of L2 Acquisition of Prosodic Prominence Patterns: Evidence from L1Spanish/L2 English Speech. In Proceedings of Galana 3. Somerville, Ma: Cascadilla Press. Nava, E. and ML. Zubizarreta. 2010. Deconstructing the Nuclear Stress Algorithm: Evidence from Second Language Speech. In N. Erteschik-Shir & L. Rochman, eds, The Sound Patterns of Syntax, Oxford University Press Pierrehumbert, J. 1980. The phonology and phonetics of English Intonation. PhD doctoral dissertation, Department of Linguistics, MIT, Cambridge, Ma. Sasse, H.J. 1987. The thetic-categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25, 511-580.

62. References. Selkirk, E. 1984. Phonology and Syntax: The relation between sound and Structure, MIT Press. Selkirk, E. 1995. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In J. Goldsmith., ed. The handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Sosa, J.M. 1999. La entoncaion del espa�ol. Madrid: C�tedra Zubizarreta, ML and JR. Vergnaud. 2005. Phrasal Stress, Focus, and Syntax. In M.Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk, eds., The Syntax Companion. Cambridge: Blackwell. Zubizarreta, ML. 1998. Focus, Prosody, and Word Order, Cambridge: MIT Press

63. Acknowledgements NSF Grant BCS-0444088 (2005-2009). USC Provost Fellowship for Advancing Scholarship in the Humanities & Social Sciences (2008-2009). USC Undergraduate Research Associates grant (2005-2009).