The Syntax-Prosody Interface and Sentential Complementation in Hungarian
This paper discusses the experimental results and theoretical implications of our investigations of
the syntax-prosody interface in Hungarian, in particular, syntax-prosody mapping in sentential
embedding constructions. Our findings suggest that factivity does not have direct syntactic and
prosodic correlate, contra e.g. Kiparsky&Kiparsky (1970) and Kalluli (2006), and are more
compatible with an alternative analysis proposed by de Cuba&Ürögdi (forthcoming).
Background: Sentences containing object clauses have been described with reference to factivity
since Kiparsky&Kiparsky (1970), although recently both tenets of their analysis (i.e. that (i)
factivity is a concept with a direct correlate in syntactic structure, and (ii) factive embedded
clauses are more complex than non-factive ones) have been disputed (cf. de Cuba&Ürögdi
(forthcoming) and references therein). Given that syntax-prosody mapping refers only to syntactic
structure but not lexico-semantic information (cf. Selkirk (1984); Truckenbrodt (1999)), the
competing syntactic analyses have distinct predictions for prosody. Following the Kiparskian line,
Kalluli claims that the more complex syntactic structure of factive complements directly reflects
their information structural status ([+presupposed] and/or [+given]), which in turn determines
prosodic realization (deaccenting). In de Cuba&Ürögdi’s analysis, on the other hand, factivity is a
lexico-semantic feature that is not active in syntax, and is thus not expected to have a prosodic
realization. They propose that a simple CP differs from a more complex [cP [CP]] – the syntactic
realization of a speech act – in the property of referentiality, a distinction that correlates directly
with neither factivity nor givenness. The two analyses make different predictions about prosodic
effects of syntax, (lexico-)semantics, and information structure. In Kalluli’s analysis, where
factivity is encoded in syntax and directly correlates with givenness, their effects cannot be
separated. De Cuba&Ürögdi’s analysis predicts that lexico-semantic information like factivity has
no direct impact on prosody, while functional structure and givenness factor in different modules
(syntax and pragmatics) and have independent effects. Our goal is to test these predictions.
Experiment: We controlled three factors: (i) factivity of matrix V; (ii) new-/givenness of the
complement; and (iii) contrastive focus (matrix V, complement clause, or none). The following
are the basic structures without or with a contrastive focus on the complement clause,
respectively. (The case with contrastive V is omitted here.)
(1)
CP complement; (non-contrastive) focus on (factive or non-factive) V
sajnálja/állítja … [CP hogy Lóri elveszi Nórát feleségül.]]]
[TopP* János [TP
János
regrets/claims
Comp Lóri Prt-takes Nóra-Acc wife-as
‘János regrets/claims that Noémi won the grand prize at the horse races.’
(2)
Contrastive focus on embedded CP (via the expletive azt); factive or non-factive V
[TopP* János [TP
AZT sajnálja/állítja, … [CP hogy Lóri elveszi Nórát feleségül.]]]
János
Dem regrets/claims
Comp Lóri Prt-takes Nóra-Acc wife
‘What János regrets/claims is that Lóri is going to marry Nóra.’
Each example was recorded with two contexts where the complement was either discourse-new
or given. As givenness is often claimed to affect prosody (Féry&Samek-Lodovici 2008), it was
important to set apart the (potential) effects of factivity from the effects of givenness to test which
(if either) corresponds to prosodic effects. The addition of contrastive focus was intended to show
whether new-/givenness or focusing (or both) have an effect on prosody if syntactic structure is
kept constant. In order to test de Cuba&Ürögdi’s claim about the CP/cP distinction, we also
tested a third structure, where the embedded clause is predicted to have matrix properties:
(3)
cP complement; non-factive verb embedding a speech act
azti
állítja [cP ti [CP hogy Lóri elveszi Nórát feleségül.]]]]
[TopP* János [TP
János
Dem claims
Comp Lóri Prt-takes Nóra-Acc wife-as
‘János claims that Lóri will marry Nóra.’
Results: Preliminary results confirm that (i) the new/given distinction is phonetically realized;
and (ii) the effect of new-/givenness does not correlate with factivity. (4) shows sample pitch
contours for the no contrast versions of (1). If we compare new (=(4a)) and given (=(4b))
complement CPs, the former show clear pitch movements (L*H accent on the topic phrase
followed by H*L on the preverbal phrase), while the latter show a deaccented contour. There is
no clear difference between non-factive (=(4a/b)) and factive (=(4a'/b')) conditions when the
syntactic structure is the same. Similar results obtained for contrastive CP conditions in (2). These
results show that factivity corresponds neither to givenness, nor to deaccenting directly. We did,
however, find prosodic evidence for the cP/CP structural distinction: The pitch contour of the
embedded clause in (3) (not shown here) is strikingly similar to that of a matrix clause (as
predicted by the cP=speech act analysis), while the contour of a CP (in (1) and (2)) is determined
by its information structural status (new vs. given; focused or not). As structures (1-3) are
possible with non-factive verbs, this supports the abandonment of factivity as a prosodic factor.
(4)
Sample pitch contours for the no contrast conditions (=(1) without V-focus)
a. non-factive V, new CP
a'. factive V, new CP
b. non-factive V, given CP
b'. factive V, given CP
Extension: Our results have implications for other aspects of the Hungarian syntax-prosody
interface. In the contrastive CP condition (2), when the complement clause is new, the matrix
clause optionally exhibits topic accent (L*H) on the preverbal position. In addition, the embedded
clause has an exaggerated pitch contour, which is arguably the realization of focus. This poses a
challenge to the stress-based analysis of focus movement proposed by Szendrıi (2001), where
movement to the preverbal position is driven by the requirement to realize prominence on the
focused element, and thus this position is expected to be assigned a focal pitch accent (H*L).
References: de Cuba, C. & B. Ürögdi. Forthcoming. Eliminating Factivity from Syntax. In:
Approaches to Hungarian 8, John Benjamins: Amsterdam. Féry, C. & V. Samek-Lodovici. 2006.
Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci. Language 82:131–150. Kallulli, D.
2006. Triggering factivity: Prosodic evidence for syntactic structure. WCCFL25. Kiparsky, P. &
C. Kiparsky. 1970. Fact. In Semantics. An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and
psychology, D. D. Steinberg and L. A. Jakobovits (eds.), 345-369. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. Selkirk, E. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and
structure. MIT Press. Szendrıi, K. 2001. Focus and the syntax-phonology interface. Ph.D.
Dissertation, UCL. Truckenbrodt, H. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and
phonological phrases. LI 30:219–255.