Mecanismos de resistencia antibiótica en P aeruginosa

While discussing the processing of subword constituents in Section 2.3.4, I argued against the syntactic spell-out only account for the interaction of smaller objects (contraMarvin 2002, 2013). The argument there was that the phenomenon of overwriting violated the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC) when multiple category defining heads were present in an word. I noted, however, that the violation seemed limited to supersegmental features, such as stress, and in general the PIC holds. I need to make a similar point about the syntactic spell-out only theories for the larger objects (words) under discussion here.

The hypothesis of the syntactic spell-out only theories is that the syntactic phases exactly define the domains of phonology. For example, we can contrast the analysis of Plains Cree given in Section 3.8 with the analysis of Ojibwe given by Piggott and Newell (2006); Newell and Piggott (2014), and the analysis of Turkish in Chapter 4 with that of Newell (2005). In these theories, the boundaries of words are determined by big spellout phases such asvP and CP. Heads which are inside a spell-out domain together get phonologized together and are therefore able to be counted in the domain for

various phonological processes, such as stress and vowel coalescence. Heads which are outside this spell-out domain cannot be counted for such processes.

These phases do pick out many of the same domains as I do here by other mechanisms. However, as I note in Section 4.4.3, they are some phonological mechanisms which do respect these phase boundaries (and are also not purely across-the-board or completely insensitive to morphological boundaries). In particular, the syntactic spell-out only theories make no claims about why certain heads will lean phonologically onto nearby ř-Words versus form their own ř-Words (see Stray Terminal Grouping phenomena in Section 3.10 and cliticization phenomena in Chapter 4). For example, Turkish heads which, under the syntactic spell-out only theory of Newell (2005), are outside the phase boundary and therefore outside the calculation of stress still lean on theř-Word spelled-out by that phase boundary and undergo vowel harmony with the root of thatř-Word. For example, in (192) the NEG and ASP heads are separated from the root by the phase boundary determined by the v head. The phase boundary correctly predicts stress (which falls on the root, discussed further in Section 4.4), but not vowel harmony. Vowel harmony applies across the phase boundary, spreading from the root to NEGand ASP.

(192) Phase boundary ofvpredicts stress but not vowel harmony ASPP ASP[+perf] NEGP NEG vP v p ROOT

a. çıkmamı¸s“did not go out” b. gitmemi¸s“did not go”

çık -; -ma -mı¸s git -; -me -mi¸s

p

GO.OUT v NEG ASP[+perf] pGO v NEG ASP[+perf]

According to the syntactic phase theory and the phase impenetrability condition, these NEG and ASPheads should be in a completely separate calculation space from the root (a different syntactic phase). However, these heads “lean” onto the root’s ř-Word and harmonize with the root, so it cannot be the case that they are completely separate. We might ask why these heads do not form a

ř-Word of their own or lean onto ař-Word above them in the same spell-out phase.

phases determine what chunks of material get sent to the phonology at a time. That is, the syntax certainly seems to use phases for processing and sends information to the phonology phase by phase. However, the phonology does not strictly adhere to the boundaries given to it by the syntax. Rather, it can wait and incorporate elements across phase boundaries into some sort of phonological constituent, although, perhaps not until some phonological processing is done on each phase unit itself.52

In general, the syntactic phase approach is highly compatible with the framework proposed here, but I propose that there needs to be more to the phonological mechanism for determining phonological domains than pure sensitivity to syntactic phases.

3.12

Chapter Conclusion

In this chapter, I proposed that theř-Level phonology (equivalent to “non-cyclic” or “word level”) is calculated in a domain directly related to morphosyntactic structure. Specifically, the proposed rela- tionship is that complex morphosyntactic heads (M-Words) are turned intoř-Words (the domain of

ř-Level phonology) at the morphology-phonology interface. This statement is similar to statements in other theoretical frameworks that grammatical words align with phonological words. However, because grammatical words are proposed to be generated by the lexicon and are atomic units of the syntactic, this has caused some problems with supposed some mismatches between grammatical words and phonological words. However, in the framework here, I dismissed these mismatches in terms of the M-Word⇒ř-Word correspondence by showed that they can be handled either through other phonological processes or through the fact that the M-Word is a derived morphosyntactic unit and not an atomic one. The conclusion from this discussion, then, is the fact that the M-Word⇒

ř-Word correspondence holds up. This means that there is a direct relationship between the domain of calculation ofř-Level phonology and a particular morphosyntactic structure.

An additional type of mismatch between morphosyntactic and phonological structure which

52_{One possibility is that all of the determination of M-Word status and ř-Word status for the phonology is done} extremely late in the derivation, perhaps only after the entire syntactic tree is computed. One small piece of evidence in this direction is the interaction of vowel deletion with the imperative clitic in Kashaya, in which the CP level clitic appears to be incorporated into theř-Word to its left even if thatř-Word is deeply embedded in another phrase (see Buckley 2015). That is, the calculation of theř-Word needs to wait until the entire sentence is built in order to know whether theř-Word final vowel is going to get deleted or not.

was not discussed in this chapter is the interaction of clitics with phonological words. This will be covered in Chapter 4.

Chapter 4

The Clitic/Affix Distinction

4.1

Overview

In Chapter 3, I motivated the correspondence between M-Words andř-Words. Recall, however, that the revised correspondence claims that only non-minimal M-Words correspond toř-Words. (193) Revised Morphosyntax-Phonology Correspondence: Non-minimal M-Word⇒ř-Word

• Non-minimal M-Words correspond toř-Words.

This revision claims that non-minimal M-Words correspond toř-Words, but leaves out what hap- pens to minimal M-Words (= individual syntactic heads) . I suggested that these elements are clitics, but did not elaborate on what that with respect their syntactic or phonological interactions. In this chapter, I take up this issue of the morphosyntactic and phonological status of clitics.

As a standard assumption, I will treat clitics as syntactic heads (see, e.g., Klavans 1985; Marantz 1988). However, even though individual heads are M-Words, they are defective in some way. Note that it is not unusual to have objects which are phonologically defective in one way or other. For example, extrametrical feet and extrasyllabic consonants are regularly found in analyses of a wide variety of phenomena. Here I will posit that clitics,quaindividual syntactic heads, are exceptional in the sense that they do not correspond toř-Words. This is formulated by the Defective M-Word hypothesis, a corollary of the Non-minimal M-Word⇒ř-Word correspondence:

(194) Defective M-Word Hypothesis: A minimal M-Word (an individual syntactic head) does not correspond to ař-Word.

The Defective M-Word hypothesis simply states that ř-Words are not built from individual (i.e., non-complex) syntactic heads.

The problem to be solved, then, is what do these defective M-Words do phonologically? As we saw with Stray Terminal Grouping in Section 3.10, one possibility is that these defective M-Words get grouped together with adjacent defective M-Words to form their ownř-Word via Stray Terminal Grouping. This is not the only possibility.

Two other phonological behaviors of defective M-Words involve these units becoming somehow phonologically dependent on a neighboringř-Word. In what I will propose is the base case, these morphemes “lean” onto ař-Word and behave in a manner that we typically associate with clitics; they do not participate in theř-Level phonology, but are otherwise pronounced next to theř-Word and seem to function as a single unit with theř-Word for higher level prosodic computation.

The other behavior that these morphemes show is to become incorporated into their neighboring

ř-Word and behave precisely as if they were an affix (i.e. a head inside of the M-Word). That is, sometimes morphemes which we believe are generated outside of the M-Word for syntactic reasons behave phonologically like they are inside the ř-Word. To maintain the M-Word ⇒ ř- Word correspondence, there must be a post-syntactic operation which modifies the morphosyntactic structure in such a way that these morphemes are incorporated into the M-Word.

Note that the difference I am describing here between participation in the ř-Level phonology and “leaning” is the classic problem of clitic versus affix, at least on the phonological side. That is, phonologically, affixes are supposed to participate in the ř-Level phonology of their host while (free) clitics are supposed to not participate (of course, the behavior of so-called affixal clitics participating in the ř-Level phonology has been noted and has caused trouble in some theories, see Zwicky 1977, 1985; Nespor and Vogel 1986; Selkirk 1995).

In this chapter, I’m going to explore the traditional differentiation between clitics and affixes and show that in the theory proposed here, these terms are not inherent types of objects, but rather they are descriptions of behaviors that morphemes take in different contexts.

In Section 4.4 on Turkish, I will show cases of morphemes that variable do or do not participate in theř-Word based upon their syntactic structure. That is, depending on the syntax, morphemes are sometimes affixes and sometimes free clitics.

In Section 4.5, I will show the effect of a post-syntactic morphological operation, Local Dislo- cation, which modifies the linearized morphosyntactic structure of the M-Word. In doing so, it can take morphemes which were syntactically generated outside the M-Word (that is, they should be free clitics) and move them into the M-Word (so that they end up behaving like affixes phonologically). Two case studies showing this variation are presented in Section 4.6.

The goal of this chapter is to show that an interface function based on derived morphosyntactic units can explain the variable phonological behavior of morphemes and solve some of the problems which clitics pose for other frameworks.