Cliticization as prosodic integration: The case of Dutch

Abstract

In this paper it is argued that the phonological behavior of clitics should not be accounted f or by assuming a special prosodie category "Clitic Group ". Clitics are integrated into the preceding or the following prosodie word. As far as Dutch is concerned, it appears that proclitics behave like prefixes, and are Chomskyadjoined to the following prosodie word, whereas enclitics behave like suffixes, and form part of the last foot of the preceding prosodie word. In most cases, there is a general preference for leftward cliticization IntroductionClitics form a classic case of non-isomorphy between the syntactic structure and the prosodie structure of sentences. For instance, the relevant aspects of the syntactic structure and the prosodie structure of the simple Dutch sentence Jan kocht het boek 'John bought the book' can be represented as follows:The prosodie structure is non-isomorphic to the syntactic structure: The weak form of the determiner het /3t/ depends syntactically on the following noun, but1. This is the revised version of a paper given at the Prosodie Phonology workshop of the 1994 GLOW meeting in Vienna. I would like to thank the organi/ers of the workshop. Marina Nespor and Sharon Peperkamp, and Mirjam Ernestus for their comments. Thanks ure also due to the anonymous referee for the useful suggestions made.

Clitics and Voicing in Dutch

“…I propose a two-level Optimality Theory (OT) analysis (Prince andSmolensky 1993, Kiparsky 2000) of these data, in which the existence of two levels can handle the opaque interaction, and a combination of prosodic structure constraints and segmental constrains accounts for the attested variation. I will compare my analysis to two previous accounts for these data, those of Booij (1995Booij ( , 1996Booij ( , 1997 and . Booij's work is formulated in the framework of rule-based Lexical Phonology, while that of Grijzenhout and Krämer is a singlelevel OT theory.…”

“…For more detailed discussion of these and other processes, as well as a general overview of Dutch phonology, I refer the reader to Booij (1995).…”

“…(8) Booij's (1995) My proposal adopts Booij's basic idea, but cast in terms of two-level Optimality Theory (OT, Kiparsky 2000). Two-level OT also assumes a Lexical and a Postlexical level, each of which comes with its own constraint ranking.…”

Final devoicing and voicing assimilation in Dutch derivation and cliticization

“…In more recent constraint-based approaches, lexical and postlexical levels have been assumed to account for some Dutch voicing phenomena (Booij 1996), and other linguists propose context-specific faithfulness constraints for a few cases of final devoicing and voicing assimilation (e.g. Lombardi 1995Lombardi , 1996.…”

“…McCarthy (1998) proposed that the output candidate [von.t,k] wins because it is sympathetic to a loosing candidate [vont] and being 'sympathetic' outranks being faithful to the input form /vond/. McCarthy bases himself on Booij (1995Booij ( , 1996 who assumes that in the case of a stem plus a following vowel-initial clitic, the stem-final obstruent is devoiced at the lexical level. The stem-final obstruent is resyllabifies after the clitic is added at the postlexical level in order to avoid syllables without onsets:…”