1. Schwa at the Phonology/Syntax Interface
Michael L. Mazzola
Northern Illinois University
The well known incongruence between the phonology and the syntax is
resolved by removing syntactic boundaries through rhythmic patterning.
Thus, since the interface between phonological phrasing and the syntax is
direct, the intermediary of the prosodic component is eliminated.
Accordingly, it is emphasized that language is rhythmic and that the rhythm
of any given language directly interprets the syntactic constituency. The
instrument by which this is achieved is the rhythmic foot, which contravenes
the syntactic constituency directly and restructures it to align it with the
rhythmic patterning. In contrast to Nespor (1990), the paper takes into
account no separation between the prosody and rhythm. As a result, it limits
the need for pre-compiled rules as proposed by Hayes (1990). Especially
targeted in relation to this discussion is the behavior of French schwa.

2. 1. Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to affirm that intonational environments are built
directly on syntactically defined domains. Most of the relevant accentual
patterns which will be discussed are derived from a linear syntactic
constituency. Others, however, will be shown to be no less relevant to tree
geometry and to the lexicon. The focus here, therefore, is on the direct access of
the phonological component to the syntactic component (cf. Odden 1987; Chen
1990: 20). Accordingly, this interface between phonological phrasing and the
syntax requires no hierarchical intermediary. As evidence for this claim, it is
emphasized that language is rhythmic and that the rhythm of any given
language directly interprets the syntactic constituency, of itself the rhythm
modifies that constituency and, as a consequence, the rhythm determines the
behavior of phonological operations. The instrument by which this is achieved,
I argue, is the rhythmic foot as the direct environment for the behavior of
sandhi segments. To highlight this, the rhythm will be shown to contravene the
syntactic constituency directly and restructure it to align it with the rhythmic
patterning. The approach adopted here, specifically regarding the behavior of
French schwa, should be considered, therefore, in the context of the issue over
whether the syntax has a direct or an indirect interface with the phonology.
Thus, the center of attention of this paper is the formal aspects of the grammar
and their structural relationships. There are some remote similarities between
the formal focus of this paper and the lesser known socio-linguistic orientation
referred to as macrosyntax (cf. especially Blanche-Benveniste 2000), known in
North America as well as abroad. However, this latter approach is devoted
exclusively to matters related to language use with goals superfluous to those
under scrutiny here.
Conventionally, formal concerns with the syntax/phonology interface have
22

3. centered around syntactic boundaries. These have inspired several well known
proposals to show how syntactic phrase structure may influence phonological
behavior: (1) phrasal rank (cf. Selkirk 1984); or (2) head/complement (cf.
Nespor & Vogel 1982); or (3) sisterhood (cf. Zec & Inkelas 1990); or (4) c-
command and edge membership (cf. Kaisse 1985). At the same time, however,
it is also well known that there is incongruence between syntactic domains and
the operation of phonological phenomena (cf. Hayes 1990: 86). This
incongruence has been noted especially with regard to external sandhi rules (cf.
Nespor 1990: 243). With specific reference to this issue, it is the point of this
paper that phonological behavior originates in the syntactic constituency, but
that the acknowledged incongruence is resolved by manipulating syntactic
boundaries not by means of putative, prosodic constituents, but rather by
removing them through a well defined rhythmic patterning. The imposition of
this rhythmic patterning, then, eliminates the intermediary of the prosodic
component. As a consequence, a separation between the prosodic and rhythmic
phonology is rendered unnecessary. This is in direct contrast to Nespor’s view
that “the interface between syntax and phonology is limited to prosodic
phonology; in the case of rhythmic phonology one can hardly speak of
reference to syntax at all” (1990: 244). Thus, in opposition to the perspective
promoted by Nespor (1990) and Hayes (1990), accentual constituents are
identified in this paper as the perceptible environments for the behavior of
schwa in French (cf. notably Mazzola 1992, 1993, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2001,
2006). By recognizing the functioning of this segment in an explicit way, it is
maintained that the influence of the rhythmic phonology on the information
handed down by the syntax is determinative at both the linear and arboreal
syntactic level, and has a role to play at the lexical level as well. Thus, the
rhythmic perspective targets both the syntax and the lexicon by means of a well
defined accentuation peculiar to French.
33

4. 1. Phonology/Morphology Interface
As indicated above, however, given the often observed incongruities between
phonological domains and syntactic constituency, emphasis has been placed on
an intermediate level of interpretation (cf. especially Selkirk 1984 and Nespor
& Vogel 1986). This prosodic level has a considerable degree of autonomy and
a hierarchy of its own constituents: phonological word, phonological phrase,
intonational phrase, utterance. In accord with this approach, the role of the
segmental level (cf. Côté 2004, 2006; Côté & Morrison 2007) has been
advanced recently to treat the behavior of French schwa as evidence for an
intermediate level between the phonology and the syntax, viz. the framework of
the prosodic phrase, the prosodic word, and the syllable. At issue is Côté’s
analysis of French schwa, which favors the prosodic word as a determinative
factor in the behavior of segments. In doing so, she gives preference to the role
of the morphology as a reflection of a prosody which works in marginal
cooperation with the syntax. The difference between the two orientations (i.e.
the accentual and the prosodic) can be formalized, therefore, from the
perspective regarding the interface either between the morphology and the
phonology, on the one hand, or the syntax and the phonology, on the other.
Côté (2006) grants in passing that the syntax has a role to play in the
determination of the prosody, but to support her emphasis on the segmental
level, she brings forward arguments that limit the function of accentuation in
the behavior of schwa as held by a number of scholars, e.g. Dell (1985), Léon
(1966), Mazzola (2001), Morin (1974), Tranel (1987). In (1-3), we see
summarized examples of this behavior as conventionally presented, where,
schwa is reported to be inserted between two morphemes if the second is
44

5. monosyllabic and stressed (1), but realized only optionally before two syllables
(2), and rarely if the second morpheme is a polysyllable (3).
(1) Carte Bleue, George Bush, filmǝ noir, oursǝ blanc
(2) Cart(e) Vermeille, Georg(e)s Dupont, film(ǝ) français, ours(ǝ)
sauvage
(3) carte perforée, Georges Pompidou, film canadien, ours griselé
Based on such data, it has been observed that when the vowel is realized, it is
between two stressed syllables, while before disyllables and polysyllables there
is no stress clash to be resolved. Everyone agrees that this is merely a summary
of the most conspicuous behavior of mute-e. It is certainly the case that there is
considerable variation where these data, as presented, are concerned. However,
to her credit, Côté does not merely reduce those vagaries of common usage to a
simple listing of well known counterexamples. Rather, she deals with examples
of variation as useful for what she views as an improvement on – rather than a
dismissal of – the previous perspective. In fact, in deference to Côté, several
examples of variation (cf. (4) below for one) represent a good deal of the value
of her argumentation. This is to be expected of formal approaches as they cut
through the thicket of vagaries in order to determine analyses other than those
which have traditionally prevailed. With this in mind, it must be stressed that it
is the discernment of structures that is the goal of this paper, as was indeed that
of Côté’s competing analysis. Items exemplifying pertinent variations relevant
to each proposal are raised below in their context.
Côté characterizes resorting to stress clash to explain schwa insertion as
merely formalizing a phenomenon accompanied by further complications
55

6. requiring attention. She agrees that the analysis based on accentuation can
explain the behavior of schwa if the data are limited to the environment
preceded by two consonants. However, she argues that the prosodic and
segmental constraints and their interactions remain to be explained where the
environment is preceded by one consonant. This is especially indicated in data
such as (4).
(4) l’Aztèque part a. [l=astɛk#pár] b. *[l=astɛkǝ#pár]
Here, there is no problem with the two stressed syllables appearing side by side.
This, she maintains, is an indication of a single phrase, where the schwa, in (4a)
is, as a consequence, not inserted, as opposed to (4b). In other words, her
perspective regarding prosodic structure eases setting aside the role of
accentuation. This perception of the structure through its effects rather than
through its concrete elements allows her to view, then, the restriction on schwa
in (4b) as being also due to a segmental constraint requiring phrase internal
consonants before and after the environment in question to be adjacent to a
vowel. On that basis, she repeats the conventional hierarchical principle: every
prosodic category must include at least two examples of a lower category. The
higher category is the familiar prosodic phrase; the lower categories are the
also familiar prosodic word and the syllable.
However, although she broadens our perspective, Côté dismisses the
accentual approach by observing that schwa is realized not only by the number
of syllables following the environment, but also by the same syllabic
configuration preceding the environment at issue:
(5) l'acte commence [laktǝ#kɔmãs] (?) [lakt#kɔmãs]
l'entracte commence [lãtrakt(ǝ)#k mãɔ s]
66

7. (6) la secte part [la=sɛktǝ#par] (?) [la=sɛkt#par]
la secte partait [la=sɛkt(ǝ)#partɛ]
(7) jette de l'ortie [ʒɛt#dǝ=l=ɔrti] (?) [ʒɛt#d=l=ɔrti]
achète de l'ortie [aʃɛt#d(ǝ)=l=ɔrti]
The phrases in (5), (6) et (7) resemble those in (1) et (2) except that the
morphological limits are preceded rather than followed by one or two syllables
without any effect on the insertion of schwa. It is rather the number of
preceding syllables, specified by the limits of the morphemes, which trigger the
occurrence of schwa. From this, she draws the conclusion that the contrasts in
(5), (6) and (7) can be due neither to accentuation, nor to stress clash, nor, as a
result, to the insertion of schwa before the stressed syllable.
In other words, the number of syllables of each prosodic unit is determined
by two factors: (1) the insertion of a cumbersome array of internal word barriers
(+) and external word barriers (#), as well as by limits indicating clitics (=); and
(2) the insertion of schwa. The example in (8) illustrates the place of clitic
limits.
(8) a. de l’eau [d#=l=o] ?[d=l=o] but
b. de l'audace [d(#)=l=odas]
This difference is attributed to a condition of minimality where in (8a) de l'eau,
the insertion serves to avoid a marked monosyllabic utterance, while in (8b) de
l'audace, the utterance without the insertion results in a dissyllabic phrase,
which automatically satisfies the criterion of minimality. As a result, the
insertion of schwa is realized before the environment in question as well as
77

8. after. The number of syllables, therefore, plays no role as the examples above
demonstrate.
She concludes, therefore, that it is the number of preceding syllables, as
specified by morphemic boundaries that determine the insertion of schwa.
Through this approach, Côté finds a link between the number of syllables in the
prosodic unit and the allowed adjacent consonants arising from the
insertion/non-insertion of schwa. These permitted clusters, she argues, are
determined not by structural considerations, but rather, in my view, by a rather
vague and largely undefined criterion of eurhythmic preferences. Accordingly,
she affirms the influence of segmental factors on the prosody by means of
eurhythmy, so called, and morphology. By this accounting, the behavior of
schwa in French is not attributed to a direct phonology/syntax interface. Côté
prefers, rather, a morphology/syntax interface; requiring a prosody
characterized more by the effects than by the physical correlates of its
constituents.
2. The phonology/syntax interface
In contrast, the prosodic level is considered here to be unnecessary given a
direct rhythmic instrument (i.e. the rhythmic foot), by means of which linear
syntactic constituents are reinterpreted at the suprasegmental level and are
either (1) simply restructured in accord with the rhythmic template; or (2)
aligned with the rhythmic foot in cooperation with mute-e insertion or stress
displacement. The operation of this rhythmic instrument is cogently imposed by
the behavior of mute-e in French in a well defined play in the patterns of
syllables. This patterning originates in the syntactic constituent and reinterprets
the constituent phonologically. Accordingly, the distinctive intonation patterns
88

9. of phrases can be considered to be what remains from the analyzing function of
the syntax. In the process, the syntactic constituents (containing
suprasegmental words, or lexical entries marked with syllable strength) are
immediately passed on to the phonology which shapes them into
suprasegmental phrases (= rhythmic feet) as environments resulting from the
resolution of stress clash, among other operations, with an automatic change in
the configuration of strong and weak syllables. These rhythmic processes, then,
operate to form rhythmic feet to account for the insertion of schwa and for other
phonological operations specified below. This accentual approach does not rely
on morphological boundaries to determine the behavior of schwa in French and
removes, therefore, any need for an intermediate prosodic level. Through a
nimble, rhythmic patterning, mute-e insertion is realized merely by a process of
stress clash resolution or stress displacement.
As already argued in several papers (Mazzola, op. cit.), it continues to be
claimed, as before and now in agreement with Côté, that the insertion of the
vowel is not dependent on the number of consonants following the environment
(cf. (19a-c) below). I argue, nonetheless, that the behavior of the segment is
determined by a flexible and well defined accentuation which works in direct
cooperation with the syntax. Deduced not only from its segmental effects, I
maintain that the rhythmic phraseology is realized in the form of templates
distinguished by alternations of strong (s) and weak (w) syllables: [s w s], [s w
w s]. It is important to recall here in passing that the syllables labeled as strong
are not all of equal weight. It is clear that the strong syllable to the right marks
the well known primary accent of French, while the leftmost strong syllable of
the constituent indicates a secondary accent which I have emphasized elsewhere
(cf. Mazzola 1992, 1993; for a more ample discussion of secondary accent in
French, see Hoskins 1994). These syllable strengths are automatically assigned
in the lexicon, concatenated in the syntax, and subsequently reorganized into
99

10. the purely phonological domains representative of French rhythm.
Although, these templates are sometimes similar to the prosodic phrase or
to the prosodic word of Selkirk (1984), Nespor & Vogel (1986), and Côté
(2007), there are several phenomena that neither the prosodic phrase nor the
prosodic word can explain. In question are the rhythmic processes themselves
(especially leftward stress displacement in French) and the consequences that
these processes can have not only for (a) the realization of schwa, but also for
(b) the placement of pauses, and (c) the glide of high vowels into semi-vowels.
In the following discussion, Côté's data will be folded in to show how they can
be accounted for through an accentual perspective.
2.1. Suprasegmental domains
The relevant domains are constructed and modified though their combination
into phrases resulting from the alternation of strong and weak syllables at the
suprasegmental level. The lexical units of French are, therefore, labeled
according to their syllabic characteristics: [ s ], [ w s ], [ w w s ] to which we
assign the term the suprasegmental word, i.e. the morpheme as already stored in
the lexicon with accentual value(s). See examples given in (9a-c):
(9) The Suprasegmental Word:
a. [ s ] sol; gris; vue; broche, disque, vis, main
b. [ w s ] bonheur; truqué; gratuit; malade; majeur
c. [ w w s ] parapluie; perforé
The template, illustrated in (10), identified by the syllable pattern [ s w (w) s ],
is labeled the suprasegmental phrase (= rhythmic foot), and begins with a
strong syllable. It is the case that, especially in rapid French, the phrase can be
1010

11. ‘stretched’ to include more weak syllables between the two strong ones (e.g.
s w w w s, s w w w w s, etc.). This in many instances is dependent on the
amount of breath the speaker happens to command to produce such a lengthy
phrase. The phrases dealt with in this paper, however, have been limited to
those having one or two intervening weak syllables. These phrases may include,
but are not limited to noun compounds, as exemplified also in (10).
(10) The Suprasegmental Phrase:
a. [ s w s ] b. [ w s ] [w s] c. [ w s] [ w w s ]
porte-bonheur
cartes truqués
Porte Maillot
l’acte commence l’entracte commence
jette de l’ortie achète de l’ortie
la secte partait l’Aztèque partait
In Côté's examples, (10 b-c), we have two suprasegmental words which, in (10
d-e), are reorganized into suprasegmental phrases:
d. [ w s ] + [ w s ]  [ w [ s w s ]]
l’entracte commence l’en tracte commence
l’Aztèque partait l’Az tèque partait
e. [ w s ] + [ w w s ]  [w [s w w s]]
achète de l’ortie a chète de l’ortie
As shown, we find the formation of the suprasegmental phrase resulting from a
regrouping of the syllable strengths, beginning with a strong syllable. In this
1111

12. way, a new rhythmic phrase is imposed on the linear syntactic arrangement,
thereby creating a new environment not conducive for the insertion of schwa.
Thus, the construction of the accentual phrase does not necessarily have to
appeal to the property of ‘branching’ (but cf. Bickmore 1990: 17). More
importantly, we see the process by which the syntax can certainly determine
phonological phrasing, if we acknowledge an interface through a rhythmic
instrument (but cf. Hayes 1990: 85).
2.1.1 Stress Displacement
So far, we have seen the formation of the suprasegmental phrase as a result of
the rhythmic reorganization of syllable strength. The formation of the same
constituent can be demonstrated by the insertion of schwa before a
monosyllable to resolve a conflict between two adjacent stressed syllables.
Thus, the insertion of schwa, which has as its purpose the resolution of stress
clash, is the second device for the formation of the suprasegmental phrase.
(10) Insertion of mute-e:
d. [ s w s ]
tournesol
(cf. also carte grise, à contre cœur, couvre feu, force d'âme, garde-boue, farce
maigre, ours[ ]ǝ blanc, film[ ]ǝ noir)
It is, however, also the case that the phenomenon of stress clash in French can
be resolved by means of the leftward displacement of stress before
monosyllables (cf. also Passy 1899 and Tranel 1987):
(11) Stress Displacement:
[ w s ] + [ s ] [ s w s ]
1212

13. troisième + âge  troisième âge
meilleurs + vœux  meilleurs vœux
l’Aztèque + part  l’Aztèque part
and optional before polysyllables:
[ w s ] [ w s ] [ s w w s ]
(12) bateau + maison  bateau maison
(It should be noted that a minority of speakers have expressed doubt in reaction
to the output given in (12). Others have accepted it as normal with no
appreciable reaction). In this way, we see clashes being resolved not only
through (1) the insertion of mute-e but also through (2) the displacement of
stress with the resultant creation of a suprasegmental phrase. It is interesting to
note with regard to the examples in (11) that syntactic phrases, even with the
apprearance of being lexicalized (e.g. troisième âge, meilleurs vœux), conform
nonetheless to the same accentual pattern. The rhythmic structure of the
resultant suprasegmental phrase is identical to the one found in other less
common phrases such as l’Aztèque part, which require the exact same syntactic
and rhythmic structure, even for less frequently selected semantic content. In
the process of their formation with or without subsequent, putative
lexicalization, lexical and linear syntactic information is passed on to the
phonology by means of the configurations of syllabic weight. It is important to
note, however, that although the syntax is involved through linear constituency,
as illustrated in (11) for attributive phrases, there is some question whether
predicative phrases can be automatically reorganized into suprasegmental
phrases (cf. 13). It is not clear whether morphological labeling and boundaries
are more properly at issue. These boundaries would restrict stress displacement
1313

14. in nouns, but not in the case for adjectives:
(13) a. [ w s ] [ w s ] [ s w w s ]
bateau + français  ?bateau français
[ w s ] [ s ] [ s w s ]
b. bateau + moche  ?bateau moche [sic]
Where we do encounter two suprasegmental words which are combined in
conformity with the template to form a suprasegmental phrase, however, these
templates can be analyzed and labeled as suprasegmental constituents cf. (14):
(14) [ w s ]SW + [ s ]SW  [ s w = s ]SP
petit homme petit = home
From these constituents composed of suprasegmental words, we see formed
suprasegmental phrases which yield the restructuring in (15).
(15) [ w s ]SW + [ w s ]SW  [ w[s = w s ]SP [ s w = w s ]SP
petit ami (a) petit = ami OR (b) petit = ami
Thus, (14) illustrates the composition of a suprasegmental phrase as the result
of stress displacement while (15) demonstrates the creation of two possible
suprasegmental phrases. The first result of (15) is the result of restructuring,
that is to say, the creation of a new rhythmic constituent starting with the first
strong syllable, giving [ s w s ] preceded by one orphaned weak syllable. The
second result of (15), on the other hand, is produced by the optional
displacement of stress before polysyllables in attributive phrases. The mute-e in
1414

15. this case is in a strong syllable and thus fully targeted for insertion. As
discussed elsewhere (cf. Mazzola 1994), the suprasegmental phrase can serve
as an environment favoring liaison in French (indicated by the symbol ‘=’ in
(15)). We conclude, therefore, that this method of determining suprasegmental
domains with the restructuring which results from it in (15) gives way to the
composition of the suprasegmental phrase. In other words, the rhythmic foot
must be asserted, if not by stress displacement (i.e. (15b), then necessarily by
suprasegmental restructuring (15a). This rhythmic constituent is now freed
from lexical and syntactic restrictions, which originated from the
suprasegmental words furnished by the lexicon.
Thus, unlike in a prosodic orientation favoring morphological conditioning,
the suprasegmental phrase is the driving rhythmic environment behind the
behavior of mute-e. In (10b) represented again as (16):
(16) [ s w s ] SP
tournesol
(cf. also carte grise, Carte Bleue, ours[ǝ] blanc, film[ǝ] noir, George Bush)
We have the noun compound represented as a suprasegmental phrase where the
insertion of mute-e is very common. For (10a), on the other hand, reproduced
here as (17) and (3), reproduced again as (18), no mute-e is inserted because the
phrase is already in conformity with one of the acceptable templates of French.
(17) [ s w s ] SP (18) [ s w w s ] SP
porte-bonheur porte-parapluies
cartes truquées carte perforée
Porte Maillot Georges Pompidou
Carte Vermeil
1515

16. This phenomenon explains also why the examples of Côté can fall within a
single suprasegmental phrase where schwa is excluded (cf. (10d) l’entracte
commence, l’Aztèque partait). The same phenomenon in the examples in (19)
which, at first, do not seem related, exemplify the behavior of schwa in the
same way:
(19) a. [ s w s ] SP b. [ s w w s ] SP
l'oncle de Paul l'oncle de Pauline
carte de vœux titre de transport
achète de l’eau achète d(e) l’ortie
l’entract(e) commence
l’Aztèque partait
c. [ s w w s ] SP [ w s ] SW
l'oncle de la petite Pauline
d. [ s ]SW + [ w [ s w w s ]] SP
carte de correspondence
Here, in (17-19), we still see the absence of the first schwa in the sequence of
syllables, not because of the increasing number of following syllables as we
would expect according to (2 a-b), but rather because the environment in
question comes before a weak syllable. This is to say that we have a phrase
where one of the two syllabic templates must be preserved. For exactly the
same reason, the schwa of the word petite en (19c) is unfilled before another
weak syllable to reduce the length of the phrase in conformity with the
rhythmic template.
1616

17. 3. The role of the syntax
We observed above that stress displacement can occur in noun + verb phrases
and compound nouns (e.g. 10), and in attributive noun phrases (e.g. (20a) and
(21a). This stress displacement triggers the formation of a new constituent
which, because of beginning in a strong syllable, becomes a suprasegmental
phrase. Such a phenomenon seems questionable, however, as seen above, in
predicative noun phrases:
(20) a. [ w s ]SW [ s ]SW [ s w s ]SP
petit + homme  petit homme
b. [ w s ]SW [ s ]SW [ s w s ]SP
bateau + moche  ?bateau moche
(21) a. [ w s]SW [ w s ]SW [ s w w s ]SP
petit + ami  petit ami
b. [ w s ]SW [ w s ]SW [ s w w s ]SP
bateau + français  ?bateau français
Here, attributive phrases are properly re-created as suprasegmental phrases as
we see in (20a) and (21a) through stress displacement, but the same may or may
not be the case for predicative phrases (cf. (20b) and (21b)). The latter seem to
retain their status of sequences of suprasegmental words, which is reflected in
the representation of their syllabic weight. It is here, therefore, where we might
detect a direct relation with the morphology to indicate this interruption of the
rhythm. The phonology/morphology interface, therefore, has more to do with
restrictions on stress displacement rather than with the behavior of schwa in
1717

18. French.
3.1 Tree geometry
The interface between the phonology and the syntax can be highlighted even
more markedly by the examples given in (22) and (23):
(22) a. [ s ]SW [ s ]SW [ w s ]SW  b.[ s w s ]SP [ w s ]SW
livre d'art chinois livre d'art chinois
(23) a. [ s ]SW [ s w s ]SG  b. [ s w w s ]SG
livre d'art chinois livre d'art chinois
In these examples, taken from Dell (1973), the mute-e in (22), so obvious in its
role in making the distinction between (22) and (23), is inserted to eliminate the
stress clash while rendering the suprasegmental phrase as illustrated.
Remarkably, this stress clash resolution with resultant insertion seems to take
place within the Noun Phrase before being passed on to the phonology, given
that the contrast between both noun phrases must have been already present in
order for the insertion in (22) but not in (23).
(22) c. [[ s ] [ s ]]NP [ w s ]Ad  [ s w s ]SP [ w s ]SW
livre d'art chinois livre d'art chinois
(23) c. [ s ]N [ [ s w s ]]NP  [ s w w s ]SP
livre de art chinois livre d'art chinois
1818

19. These examples indicate, further, that that the rhythmic phrase (represented
right of the arrow) is the realization of the major syntactic boundaries
(represented left of the arrow). The rhythm in this way interprets the syntax
directly at yet another depth where branching is required. Here, where
branching is evident, rhythm is the grammatical tool which conveys the
semantic content by preserving the syntactic constituency phonologically. The
stress clash for (23), therefore, is resolved by operating within the major
syntactic constituent to align it with the template of the suprasegmental phrase.
The environment for the insertion of schwa in (23), identical to the environment
in (19), remains, thus, not realized. For this reason, the resolution of the stress
clash either by the insertion of schwa or by stress displacement may be put into
play within a major syntactic constituent. During this process, other changes
can be produced on the suprasegmental structure of the phrase, because of the
resolution of the stress clash resulting in the new constituent given in (23b). We
see result from that an enlarged suprasegmental phrase, in which, given the
preservation of the favored template, there is no necessity for the insertion of
schwa. For (22a), on the other hand, the clash is resolved through insertion.
This is in contrast to Hayes’ strong assertion that “there are no rules of true
phrasal phonology that refer directly to syntax” (1990: 95). We conclude from
this that the behavior of French schwa gives evidence for the cyclic formation
of the rhythmic foot: (1) in the lexicon, e.g. compounding; (2) within the tree
geometry, e.g. (22); and (3) on the linear syntactic level, e.g. (10d-e). Thus,
while it is the case that there may be a difference between pre-cyclic and cyclic
rules as applied to segments, rhythmic processes should be regarded as
applying both lexically and post-lexically.
4. Related consequences
1919

20. 4.1. Placement of pauses
The rhythm and its interpretive constituency is just as important with regard to
the phenomenon of pauses in French (cf. Mazzola 1996). It is not surprising, for
example, that in the phrase (cf. Philippe Martin 1978, 1979, 1981):
(24) [ s w w w s ] ║ [ s w s ]
professeur de droit ║ canadien “Canadian law professor”
the pause occurs at the syntactic boundary. For the phrase in (17), on the other
hand, the pause has nothing to do with the syntactic constituency:
(25) [ s w s ] w ║ [ s w w s ]
professeur de ║ droit canadien “professor of Canadian law”
(The placement of the pause in (25) is as intended. Another possible placement
of pause would be between professeur and de droit canadien. This latter
placement does indeed occur at a syntactic boundary. However, its placement
should be viewed as merely another possibility, and not as a reason to dismiss
the pause as properly cited in (25).) This phenomenon, unlike what we saw in
(23), is uniquely the result of a rhythmic constituent which serves as the
environment for this operation and it is the secondary effect of the perspective
which sees this variation as the function of a suprasegmental constituency. The
examples of pause which we see in (24) and (25) both occur before
suprasegmental phrases, whatever the syntactic relation of the preceding word
and whatever the syllabic weight of that preceding word. Thus, the syntactic
analysis is transmitted directly to the intonation to be remade in rhythmic terms.
2020

21. As a result, we see that the environment re-created by the rhythmic structure,
labeled here as the suprasegmental phrase, is the sole domain for the pause and
gives evidence, once more, for how the phonology interfaces directly with the
syntax.
4.2. Behavior of high vowels
Some years ago, Hannahs (1995) studied carefully the question of the formation
of semi-consonants in French where high vowels glide into semi-consonants
when followed by another vowel:
(26) colonie  colonial (27) j'envie Alain
attribut  attribuable il a dû attendre
joue  jouable je joue au football
The data given in (26) demonstrate that in French the semi-consonants are
formed within the word as illustrated in (26) between a root and a suffix, but
that this phenomenon does not occur typically between words as in (27). On the
other hand, we do not encounter a semi-consonant within the word nor between
prefixes and roots, e.g. anti-, semi-; nor between the members of a composed
word as in (28):
(28) antialcoolique tissu-éponge
In order to explain this behavior of the high vowels, Hannahs, in his careful and
well reasoned handling of the data, assumed the existence of Prosodic Words.
These Prosodic Words served as environments within which semi-consonants
2121

22. are created, as in (26). Where we find the non-formation of semi-consonants, he
postulated, the segments occurred not within, but between Prosodic Words, as
in (27) and in (28). Consequently, the prefixes and the members of the
composed items in (28) are identified as Prosodic Words.
It is proposed, however, in accord with the perspective sketched out in this
paper (cf. also Mazzola op. cit.) that the data can be presented as follows:
(29) [ w s ] [ w w s ] [ w [sw w s ]
anti + alcoolique  antialcoolique
[ w s ] [ w s ] [ w [s w s ]
tissu + éponge  tissu-éponge
The output allows us to see once again a restructuring in conformity with the
characteristic template of the suprasegmental phrase, which, — although related
to the lexicon, morphology, and syntax — is no longer determined by a lexical,
morphological, or syntactic structure. Here, we have rather the suprasegmental
constituent whose function is rhythmic rather, beginning in a strong syllable to
initiate the definition of the group. For this reason, the last syllable of anti- and
tissue cannot be reduced to a weak syllable. It will, therefore, block the high
vowel from gliding in both cases.
The same restructuring occurs in the phrases given in (27), reproduced here
as (30):
(30) [ w s ] [ w s ] [ w [s w s ]
j'envie + Alain  j'envie Alain
[ w s ] [ w w s ] [ w [ s w w s ]
je joue + au football  je joue au football
2222

23. [ w w s ] [ w s ] [ w w [ s w s ]
il a dû + attendre  il a dû attendre
The presence of the template does not favor the reduction of the vowel to a
semi-consonant as the examples given en (26), reproduced here as (31):
(31) w w s s w w w s w w s
colonie + al  coloni + al  colonial
w w s s w ws s w w s
attribut + able  attribut + able  attribuable
s s w s w s
joue + able  jou + able  jouable
Here, once more, we see the necessity of resolving the stress clash during the
composition of the suprasegmental word within the lexicon. The reduction of
the vowel into a semi-consonant therefore takes place as a result of the
weakening of the first strong syllable of the composed word. Here, once more,
we see the rhythmic process at work both within the lexicon and in the syntax.
This rhythmic operation demonstrates once again a direct interface between the
phonology and the syntax.
5. Conclusion
We have seen that the rhythmic template can be demonstrated to interface
directly with both the lexicon and the syntax. This interface has important and
direct consequences for sandhi segmental behavior. It has been demonstrated
2323

24. that suprasegmental processes are triggered to effect the resolution of stress
clash resulting in a change in the configuration of the strong and weak
syllables. At times, examples have revealed the rhythmic behavior at work in
the lexicon. More frequently, however, we have seen that syntactic constituents
are passed on to the phonology and modified by the rhythmic foot to create
suprasegmental phrases which are environments for the behavior of segments.
At other times, the rhythmic operation, as illustrated in (22 and 23), is at work
directly on the syntax at a greater depth than might be expected. In this
instance, the distinctive rhythms of the phrases — with immediate
consequences for the behavior of the variants — can be considered to be the
vestiges of a deeper analyzing function of the syntax. Since this patterning is
observed to be at work both lexically and post-lexically, we conclude that the
functioning of the rhythmic patterning is cyclic. This appears to be strong
evidence to eliminate both the prosodic component as well as compilation in the
phonology. These structural operations of accentual rhythm serve as metrical
devices, cadenced strategies, available to the speaker as s/he uses language to
convey meaning. To that end, more specifically, it is submitted that accentual
rhythm is determinative for the behavior of mute-e in French.
References
Bickmore, Lee. 1990. “Branching Nodes and Prosodic Categories”. Inkelas &
Zec. eds. 1990, 1-17.
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire. 2000. Approches de la langue parlée en français.
Paris: Ophrys.
Chen, Matthew. 1990. “What Must Phonology Know about Syntax ?”. Inkelas
& Zec, eds. 1990, 19-46.
2424

25. Côté, Marie-Hélène. 2007. “Rhythmic Constraints on the Distribution of
Schwa”. Romance Linguistics 2006: Selected papers from the 36th
Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages ed. by José Camacho, Nydia
Flores-Ferrán, Liliana Sánchez, Viviane Déprez & María José Cabrera, 81-
95. Amsterdam & Philadephia: John Benjamins.
Hannahs, S. J. 1995a. Prosodic Structure and French Morphophonology.
Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Hannahs, S. J. 1995b. “The Phonological Word in French”. Linguistics 33.1125-
1144.
Hayes, Bruce. 1990. “Precompiled Phrasal Phonology”. Inkelas & Zec, eds.
1990, 85-108.
Hoskins, Steven. 1994. “Secondary Stress and Stress Clash Resolution in
French: An empirical investigation”. Issues and Theory in Romance
Linguistics ed. by Michael L. Mazzola, 35-47. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Inkelas, Sharon & Draga Zec, eds. 1990. The Phonology-Syntax Connection.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Inkelas, Sharon & Draga Zec. 1995. “Syntax-Phonology Interface”. The
Handbook of Phonological Theory ed. by John A. Goldsmith, 535-549.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Kaisse, Ellen. 1985. Connected Speech: The interaction of syntax and
phonology. San Diego: Academic Press.
Kenstowicz, Michel. 1994. Phonology in Generative Grammar. Cambridge,
Mass.: Blackwell.
Léon, Pierre. 1966. Prononciation du français standard. Paris: Didier.
Martin, Philippe. 1975. “Analyse phonologique de la phrase française”.
Linguistics 146.35-67.
Martin, Philippe. 1978. “Question de phonosyntaxe et de phono-sémantique en
2525

26. français”. Linguisticae Investigationes 2.1-20.
Martin, Philippe. 1979. “Sur les principes d'une théorie syntaxique de
l'intonation”. Problèmes de prosodie ed. by Pierre Léon & Mario Rossi, 91-
101. Ottawa: Marcel Didier.
Martin, Philippe. 1981. “L'intonation est-elle une structure congruente à la
syntaxe?”. L'Intonation: De l'acoustique à la sémantique ed. by Mario
Rossi et al., 234-271. Paris: Klincksieck.
Mazzola, Michael L. 1992. “Stress Clash and Segment Deletion”. Theoretical
Analyses in Romance Linguistics ed. by Christiane Laeufer & Terrell
Morgan, 81-97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mazzola, Michael L. 1993. “French Rhythm and French Segments”. Linguistic
Perspectives on the Romance Languages ed. by William Ashby et al. 113-
126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mazzola, Michael L. 1994. “Indirect Phonology and French Segments”.
Generative French phonology: Retrospective and perspectives ed. by
Chantal Lyche, 191-209. Salford: Association for French Language Studies
& European Research Institute.
Mazzola, Michael L. 1996. “Syntactic Constituency and Prosodic Phenomena”.
Aspects of Romance Linguistics: Selected papers from the Linguistic
Symposium on Romance Languages XXIV ed. by Claudia Parodi et al., 313-
327. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Mazzola, Michael L. 1998. “Suprasegmental Constituency as the Domain for
Sandhi Variation”. Proceedings of the 16th
International Congress of
Linguists ed. by B. Caron. CD Rom #0175. Oxford: Pergamon.
Mazzola, Michael L. 2000. “On the Independence of Suprasegmental
Constituency”. Issues in Phonological Structure ed. by S. J. Hannahs &
Mike Davenport, 181-193. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Mazzola, Michael L. 2001. “Prosodic Domains for Segment Deletion”. 1999
2626

27. Mid-America Linguistics Conference Papers ed. by M. Henderson, 285-
294. Lawrence, Kan.: KU Linguistics Department.
Mazzola, Michael L. 2006. “Rhythm and Prosodic Change”. Historical
Romance Linguistics: Retrospective and perspectives ed. by Deborah
Arteaga & Randall Gess. 97-110. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
McHugh, Brian. 1990. “The Phrasal Cycle in Kivunjo Changa Tonology”.
Inkelas & Zec, eds. 1990, 217-242.
Nespor, Marina. 1990. “On the Separation of Prosodic and Rhythmic
Phonology”. Inkelas & Zec, eds. 1990, 241-258.
Nespor, Marina, & Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.
Odden, David. 1987. “Kimatuumbi Phrasal Phonology”. Phonology Yearbook
4.13-26.
Passy, Paul. 1899. Les sons du français. Paris: Firmin-Didot & Société des
Traités.
Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1984. Phonology and Syntax: The relation between sound
and structure. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Tranel, Bernard. 1987. The Sounds of French. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Zec, Draga & Sharon Inkelas. 1990. “Prosodically Constrained Syntax”. Inkelas
& Zec, eds. 1990, 365-378.
2727