Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 24
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen and Downing, Laura J. 2016. Phasal Syntax = Cyclic Phonology?. Syntax, Vol. 19, Issue. 2, p. 156.

    Dehé, Nicole 2016. The prosodic phrasing of parenthetical comment clauses in spontaneous spoken language: evidence from icelandicheld ég. Studia Linguistica,

    Giorgi, Alessandra 2016. Romance Linguistics 2013.

    Haselow, Alexander 2016. A processual view on grammar: macrogrammar and the final field in spoken syntax. Language Sciences, Vol. 54, p. 77.

    Poschmann, Claudia and Wagner, Michael 2016. Relative clause extraposition and prosody in German. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, Vol. 34, Issue. 3, p. 1021.

    Astruc, Lluïsa and Adinolfi, Lina 2015. An exploration of the phonology of lexical chunks in L2 speech. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, Vol. 9, Issue. 1, p. 10.

    Giorgi, Alessandra 2015. Discourse-oriented Syntax.

    Schwanenflugel, Paula J. Westmoreland, Matthew R. and Benjamin, Rebekah George 2015. Reading fluency skill and the prosodic marking of linguistic focus. Reading and Writing, Vol. 28, Issue. 1, p. 9.

    Syrett, Kristen and Koev, Todor 2015. Experimental Evidence for the Truth Conditional Contribution and Shifting Information Status of Appositives. Journal of Semantics, Vol. 32, Issue. 3, p. 525.

    Van Bogaert, Julie and Leuschner, Torsten 2015. Dutch ('t) schijnt and german scheint(')s: on the grammaticalization of evidential particles. Studia Linguistica, Vol. 69, Issue. 1, p. 86.

    Güneş, Güliz 2014. Constraints on syntax-prosody correspondence: The case of clausal and subclausal parentheticals in Turkish. Lingua, Vol. 150, p. 278.

    Haddican, Bill Holmberg, Anders Tanaka, Hidekazu and Tsoulas, George 2014. Interrogative slifting in English. Lingua, Vol. 138, p. 86.

    Travis, Catherine E. and Torres Cacoullos, Rena 2014. Stress onI: Debunking unitary contrast accounts. Studies in Language, Vol. 38, Issue. 2, p. 360.

    2014. The architecture of punctuation systems: A historical case study of the comma in German. Written Language & Literacy, Vol. 17, Issue. 2, p. 195.

    Benjamin, Rebekah George Schwanenflugel, Paula J. Meisinger, Elizabeth B. Groff, Carolyn Kuhn, Melanie R. and Steiner, Lilly 2013. A Spectrographically Grounded Scale for Evaluating Reading Expressiveness. Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 48, Issue. 2, p. 105.

    DEHÉ, NICOLE and BRAUN, BETTINA 2013. The prosody of question tags in English. English Language and Linguistics, Vol. 17, Issue. 01, p. 129.

    Ackema, Peter and Neeleman, Ad 2012. Agreement Weakening at PF: A Reply to Benmamoun and Lorimor. Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 43, Issue. 1, p. 75.

    Auran, Cyril and Loock, Rudy 2011. The prosody of discourse functions: The case of appositive relative clauses in spoken British English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, Vol. 7, Issue. 2,

    AVANZI, MATHIEU LACHERET-DUJOUR, ANNE OBIN, NICOLAS and VICTORRI, BERNARD 2011. Vers une modélisation continue de la structure prosodique: le cas des proéminences syllabiques. Journal of French Language Studies, Vol. 21, Issue. 01, p. 53.

    Dehé, Nicole Feldhausen, Ingo and Ishihara, Shinichiro 2011. The prosody–syntax interface: Focus, phrasing, language evolution. Lingua, Vol. 121, Issue. 13, p. 1863.


Clausal parentheticals, intonational phrasing, and prosodic theory1

  • NICOLE DEHÉ (a1)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 01 September 2009

This paper investigates the intonational phrasing of three types of parenthetical insertions – non-restrictive relative clauses (NRRCs), full sentences, and comment clauses (CCs) – in actual spoken language. It draws on a large set of data from a corpus of spoken British English. Its aim is twofold: first, it evaluates the correctness of previous claims about the intonational phrasing of parentheticals, specifically the assumption that parentheticals are phrased in a separate intonation domain; second, it discusses the implications of the intonational phrasing of parentheticals for prosodic theory. The results of the data analysis are as follows. First, the longer types of interpolations but not CCs are by default phrased separately. Second, both the temporal and the tonal structure of the host may be affected by the parenthetical. Third, CCs lend themselves more readily to the restructuring of intonational phrases such that they are phrased in one domain together with material from the host. Fourth, the prosodic results cannot be explained in syntactic accounts which do not allow for a syntactic relation between parenthetical and host. Fifth, the interface constraints on intonational phrasing apply to parentheticals. Sixth, the intonational phrasing of parentheticals supports the assumption of a post-syntactic, phonological component of the grammar at which restructuring applies.

Corresponding author
Author's address: Institut für Englische Philologie, FU Berlin, Habelschwerdter Allee 45, 14195 Berlin,
Hide All

I have benefitted from discussion of the work presented here with many people. Thanks are due to the audiences at the Workshop on Parenthesis and Sentence Amalgamation held at the University of Groningen in October 2007, and at the 2nd Prosody–Syntax Workshop (PSI 2) held at ZAS, Berlin, in June 2008; to Anne Wichmann for discussion and numerous native-speaker judgments; to my colleagues in the Berlin/Potsdam area: Laura Downing, Ingo Feldhausen, Sam Hellmuth, Shin Ishihara, Hubert Truckenbrodt and Cedric Patin; to colleagues elsewhere: Jelena Krivokapić, Aditi Lahiri, Frans Plank and Mark de Vries; and to the students attending the course Syntax III – Parentheticals in English, held at the University of Konstanz, summer 2008. I am particularly grateful to Lisa Selkirk and to one other, anonymous reviewer for the Journal of Linguistics for their extensive and insightful comments, as well as to the proofreader for JL. The work presented here has benefitted greatly from the International Corpus of English and accompanying software. ICE-GB is coordinated by the Survey of English Usage, University College London. For more information, consult the following website:

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Peter Ackema & Ad Neeleman . 2004. Beyond morphology: Interface conditions on word formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Karin Aijmer . 1997. I think – an English modal particle. In Toril Swan & Olaf Jansen Westvik (eds.), Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspective, 147. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hans Altmann . 1981. Formen der “Herausstellung” im Deutschen: Rechtsversetzung, Linksversetzung, Freies Thema und verwandte Konstruktionen (Linguistische Arbeiten 106). Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Diane Blakemore . 2005. And-parentheticals. Journal of Pragmatics 37, 11651181.

William E. Cooper & Jeanne Paccia-Cooper . 1980. Syntax and speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

William Cooper & John Sorensen . 1981. Fundamental frequency in sentence production. Heidelberg: Springer.

Nicole Dehé & Yordanka Kavalova (eds.). 2007a. Parentheticals (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 106). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Fernanda Ferreira . 1991. Effects of length and syntactic complexity on initiation times for prepared utterances. Journal of Memory and Language 30, 210233.

Lyn Frazier , Charles Clifton Jr. & Katy Carlson . 2004. Don't break, or do: Prosodic boundary preferences. Lingua 114, 327.

Sónia Frota , Marina Vigário & Maria J. Freitas (eds.). 2005. Prosodies: With special reference to Iberian languages. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

James P. Gee & François Grosjean . 1983. Performance structures: A psycholinguistic and linguistic appraisal. Cognitive Psychology 15, 411458.

Sun-Ah Jun (ed.). 2005a. Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Angelika Kratzer & Elisabeth Selkirk . 2007. Phase theory and prosodic spellout: The case of verbs. The Linguistic Review 24, 93135.

Jelena Krivokapić . 2007. Prosodic planning: Effects of phrasal length and complexity on pause duration. Journal of Phonetics 35, 162179.

John Local . 1992. Continuing and restarting. In Peter Auer & Aldo di Luzio (eds.), The contextualization of language, 273296. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Gerald Nelson , Sean Wallis & Bas Aarts . 2002. Exploring natural language: Working with the British component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Francis Nolan . 2006. Intonation. In Bas Aarts & April McMahon (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics, 433457. Oxford: Blackwell.

Marga Reis . 2002. Wh-movement and integrated parenthetical constructions. In C. Jan-Wouter Zwart & Werner Abraham (eds.), Studies in comparative Germanic syntax: 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 53), 340. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Stefan Schneider . 2007a. Reduced parenthetical clauses as mitigators: A corpus study of spoken French, Italian and Spanish (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 27). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel & Alice E. Turk . 1996. A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25, 193247.

John C Wells . 2006. English intonation: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Linguistics
  • ISSN: 0022-2267
  • EISSN: 1469-7742
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-linguistics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *