Claire Beyssade
email: claire.beyssade@ehess.fr

Barbara Hemforth
email: barbara.hemforth@univ-paris5.fr

Jean-Marie Marandin
email: marandin@linguist.jussieu.fr

Cristel Portes
email: cristel.portes@lpl-aix.fr

Prosodic Marking of Information Focus in French

This article addresses the controversial issue of the prosodic marking of Information Focus in French. We report the results of three experiments (one in production two in perception) that support three claims. The first one is empirical. Phrases that resolve a question may be set off by two types of intonational marks in French: they host the nuclear pitch accent (NPA) on their right edge and/or they are intonationally highlighted (IH). The second one is analytical: NPA placement is sensitive to the informational/illocutionary partition of the content of utterances, while intonational highlighting (IH) is sensitive to any type of distinguishedness: semantic or pragmatic. The third one is methodological: the "Question/Answer" pair provides a criterion to identify the Information Focus (i.. e. the part of content specifically asserted and making up the update brought about by the utterance) only it the answer is congruent. Congruence of answers is impossible to control in experiments based on question/answers pairs.

Introduction

There is presently no consensus about the phonology of Information Focus (IF) in French. Among others, Fery 2001 claims that the reflex of IF is prosodic and belongs to phrasing, while Di Cristo 1999 or [START_REF] Beyssade | and Information in French[END_REF] claim that it is intonational and resorts to specific pitch movements. Here, we report the results of three experiments that contribute evidence relevant to the choice between the competing descriptive or analytical claims currently debated.

As a working hypothesis, we admit that the Question/Answer pair yields a criterion to identify the IF in utterances: the IF is the part of the content of answers that resolves the question. We put such a definition to use in the design of several experiments whose results are presented here. At first glance, the phenomenology of the prosodic/intonational realization of resolving XPs in answers is indeed varied. Accordingly, the question is whether IF gives rise to a systematic prosodic/intonational marking in French. We eventually give a positive answer and claim that the diversity results from the interplay of two distinct marking strategies: the placement of the nuclear pitch accent in the utterance and the intonational highlighting of phrases. Moreover, those two strategies cue two distinct types of semantic/pragmatic statuses, which are currently lumped together in the notion of IF: being specifically asserted and being distinguished in the content conveyed in the assertion.

The paper proceeds as follows. We briefly establish our terminology in section 2. In section 3, we describe the corpus obtained via a production experiment and present an analysis assuming the working hypothesis that resolving XPs are information foci. In section 4, we report the results of two perceptual experiments designed to verify whether speakers recognize the two distinct marking strategies observed in the production corpus and relate them to the resolution of questions. In section 5, we present a more comprehensive analysis, which accounts for both intonational marking strategies.

Descriptive framework

Terminology for the question/answer pair

Let's consider the two dialogues (1a) and (1b), involving discourse participants A and B. We call the question in (1a) a broad question and that in (1b) a partial question.

(1) a. A: What happened? B [Jean invited Marie to the party yesterday night] F b. A: Who did Jean invite? B: Jean invited [Marie] F to the party yesterday night In (1a), the resolving XP (R-XPs for short henceforth) is the whole sentence; in (1b), it is the Object NP. Under the assumption that IF is the part of content that resolves the question, the IF is contributed by the whole sentence in (1a), by the Object NP in (1b). Answer (1a) is an All Focus answer and (1b) a Narrow Focus one (a. o. [START_REF] Lambrecht | Information structure and sentence form: topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents[END_REF][START_REF] Vallduví | The linguistic realization of information packaging[END_REF].

It must be kept in mind that the equation "R-XP = IF" is only valid in congruent answers; congruent answers are answers that strictly convey a value for the parameter introduced in the question [START_REF] Krifka | For a structured meaning account of questions and answers[END_REF][START_REF] Kadmon | Formal Pragmatics: Semantics, Pragmatics, Presupposition, and Focus[END_REF]. Are thus excluded over-or under-informative answers of any types. This limitation will turn important for the comprehensive analysis of the data we present in section 5.

It is usually assumed in the literature that resolving the question is an appropriate criterion for IF, because it is a criterion for the newness of the content it contributes. The notion of new (vs. old) is notoriously vague. Here, we take it that "new" means the content the speaker proposes for updating the part of the Common Ground under discussion. Accordingly, new is closely linked to the working of the assertion in declaratives: what is new is this part of the content that is specifically asserted by the Speaker.

We strictly restrict ourselves to the Question/Answer pair here. We do not consider utterances conveying some sort of contrast be they corrections or denials (as e. g. in [START_REF] Jun | phonological model of French intonation[END_REF]or Dohen & Lowenbruck 2004). We assume that the intonational correlates of contrast are different from those of IF [START_REF] Beyssade | and Information in French[END_REF][START_REF] Selkirk | A New Paradigm for Studying the Prosodic Distinction between Contrastive Focus and Discourse-New[END_REF].

Prosodic framework

Our analysis is couched in the autosegmental-metrical framework (AMT). Two categories grounded in the descriptions and modeling of French proposed by the Aix-en-Provence school [START_REF] Di Cristo | Le cadre du français contemporain[END_REF][START_REF] Rossi | L'intonation: le système du français[END_REF]) play a central role in this study. We briefly introduce them here; they will be illustrated in the next section.

-Nuclear pitch accent (NPA). In keeping with Ladd 1996, Di Cristo introduces the notion of nuclear accent in the autosegmental analysis of French: it is the most prominent accent in the utterance. It typically occurs as the last accent in the utterance. When XPs occur to the right of the NPA, they are deaccented without being dephrased (Di Cristo & Jankowski 1999). 1 Di Cristo relates the placement of the nuclear accent to the marking of the information structure of the utterance and shows that an early placement in the utterance does not necessarily trigger a contrastive interpretation. Here, we assume that the intonational correlate of Di Cristo's nuclear accent is analyzable as a pitch accent in mainstream AMT. Hence the label: nuclear pitch accent (NPA). 2 -Intonational highlighting (IH). The intonational highlighting corresponds to an intonational setting off of a phrase realized as a cluster of phenomena involving pitch contour and pitch range [START_REF] Di Cristo | Le cadre du français contemporain[END_REF][START_REF] Rossi | L'intonation: le système du français[END_REF]. It involves an initial accentuation, (IA) which may form an "accentual arch" with the following rising accent, or triggers a high plateau up to the following accent. The IA or the high plateau is generally implemented quite high in the pitch range.3

Marking of resolving XPs

The corpus of answers we analyze here has been elicited via a production experiment. They correspond to the control utterances in a larger experiment devoted to the prosodic/intonational realization of the associate of the adverb seulement (only). [START_REF] Beyssade | The prosody of restrictive seulement in French[END_REF].

Experiment 1: set-up

Short texts, involving a description of the context such as (2) and a question/answer pair such as (3) were presented to the subjects. The contexts and the questions were presented visually as well as auditorily. There were two types of questions: partial questions (bearing on the Object) (3a) and broad questions (bearing on the whole sentence) (3b).The subjects' task was to read aloud answers as if they were actually participating in a dialogue.

(2) Context [translated]: Richard is a policeman. He has to treat various documents (films, leaflets, K7s) seized in a terrorist cache.

(3) a. Le responsable : Qu'as-tu visionné la nuit dernière ? What did you screen last night? Richard : J'ai visionné les vidéos la nuit dernière. I screened the videos last night b. Le responsable : Où en es-tu dans ton enquête ? What's up with your investigation? Richard : J'ai visionné les vidéos la nuit dernière. I screened the videos last night

We recorded 112 answers from 14 participants from the University Paris Descartes: 10 of them were psychology students who received course credits for participation and four were psychological staff. None of the participants had any training in linguistics. We only analyzed 107 of the answers here: 5 answers were not taken into account in our quantitative analyses because of disfluencies or production errors.

2

A caveat here is in order: there is no consensus about the repertory of NPAs required to analyze French intonation: Post 2000 has two (H*, H+H*), [START_REF] Beyssade | and Information in French[END_REF] have four (L*, H*, HL*, H+L*). In particular, NPAs are part of contours whose analysis may involve the positing of edge tones. We will not commit ourselves to a specific repertory here, as our study does not depend on a fine-grained analysis of those contours. For example, it does not depend on whether a Rise-Fall is analyzed as HL*, H*L-or H*L% as long as it involves the NPA. Notice that we assume the idea (stemming from Delattre 1969) that those nuclear contours are « contrastive », i. e. convey distinct pragmatic values.

Results

Results are graphically presented in Figures 1 (a,b).

Answers to partial questions

The Object noun phrases in answers to partial questions are distinguished in three different ways: 3.2.2. Answers to broad questions 69,2% of the answers to broad questions show pattern ( 5):

(5) NPA occurs at the right edge of the utterance (NPA is utterance final).

Pattern (5) generally gives rise to a regular downstep of the accentual phrases following the initial accentual phrase (figure 5). No constituent is highlighted: no high implemented initial accent occurs. This pattern corresponds to 50% of all answers to broad questions.

The remaining answers feature one of the patterns described in (4) for answers to a partial question. 30,8% (i.e. 17,3 + 13,5) of all answers show the NPA on the right edge of the Object, which corresponds to patterns (4a = with IH) and (4b = without IH). Moreover, 19,2% of the answers that show the NPA on the right edge of the utterance feature a highlighted Object, which corresponds to pattern (4c). We come back to those two cases in section 5 below.

Figure 5. Answers with Utterance-final NPA and downstep of the second and third accentual phrases. Downstep is modeled as a reference base line defined by the H targets (dashed line in bold) as proposed by van den [START_REF] Berg | Downstep in Dutch: Implications for a model[END_REF].

Analysis

We first analyze the patterns we observe in the data assuming the working hypothesis that X-RPs are IFs and the intonational approach to IF marking as defined in ( 6). . Narrow focus answer with a fall from the penultimate (FfP) occurring at the right edge of the focused Object "bain de boue". Note that an initial accent occurs on "bain" immediately followed by the initial pick of the fall on the penultimate syllable "de" which contains a schwa.

-rise-falls for which the pitch peak and the following valley occur on the last syllable. It is illustrated for narrow IF in Figure 7. Nevertheless, two facts do not fit the picture predicted by ( 6) and call for another analysis.

(7) The high frequency of Intonational Highlighting on the Objects. 72,6% (i.e. 49 + 23,6) of the answers to a partial question show a highlighted object. Among them, 23,6% presenting pattern (4c)-show only highlighting of the Object, while the NPA is docked at the right edge of the sentence.

(8) high number of answers that do not abide by (6). This is the case for 40% of the answers to a partial question, and 30,8% of the answers to a broad question.

We take (7) first and propose the hypothesis in (9) to account for the use of IH in answers:

(9) The XP resolving a narrow question may be marked either by NPA placement or by IH.

We devote the next section to the corroboration of ( 9) and we come back to (8) in section 5 where we present a more comprehensive analysis of IF marking.

Intonational highlighting

We ran two perception experiments in order to check hypothesis (9). In Experiment II, we are testing whether IH alone can be recognized as a way of marking the XP resolving a question. In Experiment III we asked whether IH is linked to the expression of Contrast (as suggested by Rossi 1999 and taken up by [START_REF] Beyssade | and Information in French[END_REF]).

Experiment II

Set-up. We selected 20 answers from the preceding corpus: 10 realizations with NPA at the end of the sentence and no IH that are supposed to be identified as all focus answers, 10 with marking of the Object (5 with NPA and 5 with IH only) which, conversely, are predicted to be identified as narrow focus answers. The sentences were presented in two blocks. The first block is composed of 5 answers with final NPA (hypothesized all focus) and 5 sentences with final NPA and IH on the object NP (hypothesized narrow focus). The second block is composed of 5 answers with final NPA (expected all focus) and 5 answers with NPA on the object NP (expected narrow focus). The 10 sentences composing each block were presented in random order. The subjects had to listen to the selected items and to judge to which of two visually presented questions the current sentence had been produced as an answer (10). The experiment involved 24 subjects, native speakers of French, first year undergrad students in Humanities at U. Paris Diderot.

(10) Questions:

1. Pour finir, qu'est-ce que tu as élargi ? Finally, what have you let out? 2. Pour finir, tu t'en es sorti comment ? Finally, how did you get by? Answer: J'ai élargi le gilet avec du velours noir.

I let out the vest with black velvet

Results. Figure 8 shows how often participants chose partial questions as relevant for the heard answer. Participants clearly distinguished between answers with Final NPA and answers with highlighted Objects (IH on NP) in block 1, as well as between answers with nuclear pitch accent at the end (Final NPA) and answers with nuclear pitch accent at the right edge of NP (NPA on NP) in block 2. They chose the partial question reliably more often for answers with IH on NP than for answers with final NPA (69 % vs. 40 %; F 1,24 =19.54; p < They also chose the partial question reliably more often for answers with NPA on NP %) than for answers with final NPA (25%, F 1,24 =23.93; p < 0.001). No reliable difference between answers with IH on NP and those with NPA on NP could be established.

Experiment III

The presence of IH in our production data concerns 72,6% of all responses to partial questions. Looking for an explanation, we linked this massive occurrence to the systematic presence of a set of alternatives in the eliciting contexts (see for example "films, leaflets, K7" in (2) above)5 . We thus designed a second perception experiment in order to test the hypothesis that IH is related to the expression of Contrast as formulated by [START_REF] Rossi | L'intonation: le système du français[END_REF]. We define the notion of contrast as a membership relation in a set of alternatives activated in the immediate context [START_REF] Chafe | Language and consciousness[END_REF].

Setup. The only difference between Experiments II and III is that we added a sentence presenting a set of alternatives in the description of the context before the presentation of the question. Otherwise the procedure was identical. For example, context (11) in which the phrase "le gilet et la veste" (in bold) corresponds to a set of two possible choices has been added to (10). The experiment involved 17 subjects, native speakers of French, first year undergrad students in Humanities at U. Paris Diderot, who did not participate in Experiment II.

(11) Pierre ne rentre plus dans son costume : le gilet et la veste sont trop serrés. Comme il est tailleur, il va faire les retouches. His suit does not fit Pierre any longer: the vest and the jacket are too tight. As he is a tailor, he will alter them.

Results: Figure 9 shows the percentage of partial questions chosen by participants to be consistent with the heard answer. The pattern is nearly identical to that of Experiment II. The 17 subjects chose the partial question reliably more often for answers with IH on NP (67 %) than for answers with final NPA (67 % vs. 40 %; F 1, 17 = 8.86, p < 0.01). They also chose the partial question reliably more often for answers with NPA on NP than for answers with final NPA (58 % vs. 28%, F 1,17 5.12, p < 0.04). No reliable difference between answers with IH on NP and those with NPA on NP could be established.

Figure 9. Results of Experiment III. On the x axis, the prosodic realization of the answers heard by participants, on the y axis, the percentage of partial question (vs. broad question) associated with each prosodic scheme.

Conclusion.

The presence of alternatives in the immediate context does not influence choice of marks of the R-XPs.

Conclusion of perception experiments

Both experiments show that speakers recognize the highlighting of the Object as a cue to its distinguished status. Accordingly, we conclude that hypothesis (9) is corroborated. Coming back to the intonational description of the corpus (summarized in figures 1a and 1b above), we observe: -that 83,6 % of the answers to a partial question intonationally show a distinguished R-XPs either by NPA placement or by IH.

-that 50% of the answers to a broad question intonationally distinguish the Object, which is unexpected and has to be explained.

Analysis

In this section, we propose a unified analysis for NPA placement and IH. Its core content is that NPA placement and IH do not cue the same phenomenon: NPA placement is sensitive to the illocutionary import of the content of the utterance, while IH is a polyvalent means to give intonational distinctness to the content of a phrase.

Background: congruent vs. non congruent answers

In section 2.2, we took up the accepted distinction between congruent vs. non-congruent answers. The equation between IF and R-XP holds only in congruent answers. But, we know that in naturally occurring contexts, dialogue participants quite often answer in a noncongruent way: they contribute under or over-informative answers. [START_REF] Krifka | For a structured meaning account of questions and answers[END_REF] This is easily explained by reasons of cooperation or default of cooperation. There is a whole gamut of cases. For example, it is very common that speakers offer over-informative answers anticipating the reason for questioning of the questioner. This is the case with overinformative answers in ( 12) and ( 13) below: in (12), the speaker doesn't produce a direct answer to the polar question "Est-ce que Bernadette t'a contacté?", but she produces an answer to the partial question "Qui t'a contacté?", and this answer implies that the answer to the polar question is positive. In ( 13), the answer resolves the question and contributes a more precise information about the issue raised by the question.

(12) A.: Est-ce que quelqu'un t'a contacté? Did someone contact you ?

B.: Bernadette. Bernadette did.

(13) A.: Qui t'a contacté? Who contacted you ? B.: Bernadette m'a envoyé un mail.

sent me an email.

A case of under-informative reply is given in ( 14): the answer does not resolve the question, while it contributes relevant information about the question.

(14) A.: Qui t'a contacté? Who contacted you ? B.: Il n'y a pas eu d'appel There was no call.

To recapitulate, discourse participants -when they answer-do not simply resolve the question of the interlocutor; they have their own agenda and the answers they offer are a trade-off between what is required by the interlocutor's question, what they think is required and which information they are able/willing to give. In experiments in the lab, one does not control that aspect of the answers all that well, nor do we necessarily do so in natural dialogues. Accordingly, we do expect that not all answers we have elicited are congruent answers.

Proposal

Phrases that resolve a question (be they a constituent in a clause or the entire sentence) have a double status: -a semantic status: they resolve the question, -a pragmatic status: they contribute the new content, viz. that part of content that makes up the update brought forth by the assertion.

is currently assumed that those two statuses are interdependent and coincide. They certainly do in congruent answers. Now, part of the working of non-congruent answers can be explained by the fact that both statuses are dissociated. For example, in (13), Bernadette resolves the question while the whole answer contributes the update brought over by the answer. If the statuses can be distinguished, their cueing can be too. Hence, we propose that:

(15)

NPA placement cues the part of the content that makes up the content of the update brought by the answer.

(16)

[Provisory] IH cues the constituent that resolves the question.

The proposal in ( 15) is just a reformulation in dialogical terms of Jacobs' 1984 definition of free focus (see also [START_REF] Beyssade | and Information in French[END_REF]. In terms of the contrast 'new vs. old' relativized to the working of the assertion, only the NPA placement is sensitive to the newness of the content.

We are now in a position to account for the distribution of the patterns we observe in the corpus including the answers that at first blush do not abide by ( 6) or (9).

Analysis of answers to a narrow question

Assuming ( 15) and ( 16), the analysis of patterns (4) can be made explicit for the answers to a partial question: -Pattern (4a) conjoins both the semantic and pragmatic markings, -Pattern (4b) only marks the pragmatic update.

Accordingly, the intonation of answers in pattern (4a) and (4b) fits the working of the QA pair: they are intonationally congruent.

-Pattern (4c) disjoints the statuses: the semantic relation is marked while the whole content is presented as making up the update of the answer. Accordingly, the intonation of answers in pattern (4c) is partly non-congruent. Now, we turn to the 16,9% of the answers that we left aside in section 3: they show no IH and the NPA occurs at the end of the sentence. As such, the intonation does not cue the semantic relation holding with the question and they are realized like All Focus answers. They make up a clear case of intonational non-congruence. It certainly explains why they are so few in the corpus.6

Analysis of answers to a broad question

At first blush, the analysis of answers to a broad question should be simpler, since only the placement of NPA is relevant: we expect NPA at the end of the sentence, which corresponds to pattern (5). And indeed, 69,2% of them in the corpus show pattern (5).

We left aside 30,8 % of the answers in section 3. They show NPA at the right edge of the Object, which indeed corresponds to patterns (4a) or (4b) we observed for answers to a narrow question. In other words, those answers are intonationally realized as answers to a narrow question. As such, they make up a case of intonational non-congruence. Their number the corpus is relatively high. We may speculate that it is in keeping with a tendency observed in naturally occurring contexts: speakers tend to offer answers which are more articulate than those that are required by polar or broad questions. Such a speculation has to be consolidated by experimental evidence.

Re-analysis of IH

Now, we observe that 19,2 % of the answers to a broad question show a highlighted Object while the NPA is at the right edge of the sentence, which corresponds to pattern (4c).

to ( 16), we should analyze them as resolving a question. Assuming a hierarchical model of dialogue à la Büring 2003 or Roberts 1996, we could posit a covert intermediary question as we did in the informal analysis of (13). But, this is not the intuition triggered by those answers. In fact, the intuition is that IH in those answers may have a presentational flavor: a marker of empathy with an element of the content [START_REF] Kuno | Empathy and Direct Discourse Perspective[END_REF]) or a centering marker for the discourse topic to come. To capture such an intuition, we generalize ( 16) into ( 17):

(17) IH sets off a constituent that is distinguished at the semantic or pragmatic level. Claim (17) means that IH is a polyvalent marker that can be put to use for any sort of distinction. Resolving a question is just one among other distinguished statuses of phrases. [START_REF] Beyssade | The prosody of restrictive seulement in French[END_REF] observed that IH is also used to set off the associate of restrictive adverb seulement ('only'). The results of experiment III prevents one to analyze IH as a of Contrast (i. e. membership in an activated set of alternatives): IH is certainly compatible with Contrast, but not a marker of it.

Conclusion

Placement of NPA in the utterance (with the correlative de-accentuation to the right) and Intonational Highlighting are two ways of off a phrase in French. Both are used in answers, but with different roles. NPA placement marks the part of content that is specifically asserted, which counts for the new content with respect to the working of assertion. In that respect, placement of NPA is the primary way of marking what is new in answers, and more generally in assertions. On the other hand, IH sets off a phrase for any semantic or pragmatic reason. It may be used to mark a phrase that resolves the question cueing the semantic relation between questions and answers-, but also a phrase endowed with any other discourse role, in particular a role in the generation of the discourse topic.

The analysis of the results of Experiment I rests on the assumption that subjects in the lab behave as Speakers in everyday situation do: they do not always answer in a congruent way. The lack of control on the way subjects answer during an experiment turned out to be an advantage in the heuristic phase of our research we report here: it gave rise to non-congruent answers that show the dissociation of both marking strategies and their different motivation.

Figure 1a :

 1a Figure 1a: Answers to partial questions. On the x axis, the position of the NPA; on the y axis, the percentage of answers for each NPA position; in red the percentage of non IH objects and in blue the percentage of IH objects.

Figure 1b :

 1b Figure 1b: Answers to broad questions. On the x axis, the position of the NPA; on the y axis, the percentage of answers for each NPA position; in red the percentage of non IH objects and in blue the percentage of IH objects.

  Object hosts the NPA on its right edge and it is IH (intonationally highlighted) (Fig.2); b. The Object hosts the NPA on its right edge without being IH (Fig.3); c. The Object is IH, while the NPA occurs at the end of the utterance (Fig.4).Pattern (4a) conjoins the placement of NPA and IH. It is the most frequent pattern with 49 % of all answers. NPA placement and IH appear separately in the two other patterns (4b, 4c). Pattern (4b) features the placement of the NPA on the Object with the corresponding deaccenting of the PP to the right. It is the least attested pattern (11% of the whole answers). Pattern (4c) highlights the Object, while the NPA occurs at the end of the utterance. Crucially, the PP to the right of the Object is not deaccented. This pattern is well represented in the corpus: 23,6 % of all answers. Finally, there are 16,4% of the answers in which the Object is not distinguished: we come back to them in section 5 below.

Figure 2 .

 2 Figure 2. Answers with pattern 4a: IH Object (with a high implemented initial accent IA) and Object-final NPA.

Figure 3 .

 3 Figure 3. Answers with pattern 4b: Object-final NPA and no IH.

Figure 4 .

 4 Figure 4. Answers with IH object (realization of an accentual arch IA-H*) and utterancefinal NPA.

( 6 )

 6 XPs contributing the IF host the NPA on their right edge.Claim (6) is proposed by Di Cristo (1999) or[START_REF] Beyssade | and Information in French[END_REF]. According to Di Cristo, the right edge of XPs contributing the IF (focal XP for short) provide the site for anchoring the nuclear accent. The nuclear accent is a Low tone in declarative sentences.4 Beyssade et al take up Di Cristo's claim and generalize it: on the basis of corpus observation, they claim that the right edge of focal XPs may anchor the whole repertory of nuclear pitch accents in French. In their framework, it may host L*, H*, HL* and H+L*. In both approaches, IF marking is identical for narrow and broad IF: in the former case, IF is contributed by a phrase while it is contributed by the whole sentence in the latter. Moreover, Di Cristo and Beyssade et al. also observe that initial accentuation (IA) may occur on the first left syllable(s) of the phrase conveying narrow IF. Di Cristo proposes that IA marks the left edge of the narrow focal XP: he speaks of bilateral marking of Focus. As for Beyssade et al., they speculate that can be related to contrastive focus (following Rossi 1999). Claim (6) is corroborated in the majority of the cases: 60% of the answers to a partial question show the NPA at the right edge of the Object; -69,2 % of the answers to a broad question show the NPA at the right edge of the utterance. Moreover, it can be observed that several types of NPA contours occur at those edges, which corroborates Beyssade et al.'s generalization. Three types of nuclear pitch movement are attested in the corpus: -falls (corresponding to Di Cristo's B or Beyssade et al.'s L*) (Fig. 2, 3 and 4) above; -falls from the penultimate, which corresponds to Post's H+H* or Beyssade et al.'s H+L*: the pitch pick occurs on the penultimate syllable and the following valley on the last syllable. It is illustrated for narrow IF in Figure 6.

Figure 6

 6 Figure6. Narrow focus answer with a fall from the penultimate (FfP) occurring at the right edge of the focused Object "bain de boue". Note that an initial accent occurs on "bain" immediately followed by the initial pick of the fall on the penultimate syllable "de" which contains a schwa.

Figure 7 .

 7 Figure 7. Narrow focus answer with a rise-fall (RF) occurring at the right edge of the focused Object NP "la valise".

Figure 8 .

 8 Figure 8. Results of Experiment II. On the x axis, the prosodic realization of the answers heard by participants, on the y axis, the percentage of partial question (vs. broad question) associated with each prosodic scheme.

  Utterances with NPA on the Object or with IH Object are similarly recognized as answers to partial questions bearing on the Object.

The deaccentuation is more accurately defined as the result of a more or less complete compression of the pitch range[START_REF] Di Cristo | Le cadre du français contemporain[END_REF]

262).

The intonational highlighting roughly corresponds to the "focalisation d'emphase marquée bilatéralement" in Di Cristo (1999 : 266).

In Di Cristo's system, the Low tone is labelled B and called a conclusive morpheme.

This is due to the fact that our data come from an experiment originally designed to address the issue of "focus sensitive particles" where they appear as control material.

Moreover, sometimes participants' attention may falter in a long experiment. Between 5 and 15 % of errors can easily be expected for complex settings like that of experiment I.

This is roughly equivalent to the clefting of a phrase in presentational cleft sentences, as in (ii) and (iii) below :A. : Qu'est-ce que c'est que ce bruit ? Why that noise ?


Gabriela Bîlbîie
email: gabriela.bilbiie@linguist.jussieu.fr

Stefan Müller

A Syntactic Account of Romanian Correlative Coordination from a Romance Perspective

This paper † examines the syntactic behaviour of two omnisyndetic coordinations (also called correlative coordinations), i.e. the disjunctive and the conjunctive types in Romanian, by explaining its data in a Romance perspective. Major issue has been whether these structures have symmetric or asymmetric structures. If all these Romance languages share a symmetric analysis for the disjunctive type Conj…Conj, it is not the case for the conjunctive type. Our aim is to show that the postulation of a conjunctional status for the Romanian structure 1i…1i ('both…and'), which is the most widespread view in Romanian grammars, is inadequate for the Romanian data.

Introduction

In the literature on coordination phenomenon (see Haspelmath 2000, Huddleston andPullum 2002, among others), one may find three main types of coordinate structures, with regard to the presence / the lack of the coordinator: i) simple coordination, when the coordinator appears with the last (or first 1 ) conjunct, and optionally with the other conjuncts (except the first one), cf. (1a-b); ii) omnisyndetic or correlative coordination, in which the coordinator seems to appear on each conjunct, cf. (2a-b), and, finally, iii) asyndetic coordination, when it is not overtly marked by a coordinator, but it is achieved by means of juxtaposition, cf. (3a-b). (English)

In this paper, we focus on the second type, the omnisyndetic structures, which a priori are more constrained than simple coordinations (cf. [START_REF] Mouret | Coordinations simples et coordinations à redoublement en français contemporain[END_REF][START_REF] Mouret | Aspects prosodiques des constructions coordonnées[END_REF]. The restrictions operating on the correlative coordinations include almost all levels of linguistic analysis: they concern syntactic, semantic, discursive and prosodic aspects. At the syntactic level, they are restricted with respect to the categories they conjoin, i.e. they conjoin maximal projections, but not words. From a semantic point of view, they accept only a Boolean reading. Let's take two examples in French (a priori available for other languages, too). If there is a conjunction of propositions, the conjunction et ('and') is ambiguous between a collective or distributive reading in simple coordination (4a), while it has only distributive reading in omnisyndetic structures (4b). We observe the same difference in the case of the disjunction of propositions: the conjunction ou 'or' has an inclusive or exclusive reading in simple coordination (5a), whereas in correlative structures, only the exclusive interpretation is available (5b). Representative pairs we are concerned with in this study are the disjunction either…or and the conjunctive type both…and2 . Crosslinguistically, there are two main structures proposed in the literature: a) an asymmetric structure A (cf. (6a)), available for Germanic languages (such as English, German or Norwegian) (cf. [START_REF] Johannessen | The syntax of the corelative adverbs[END_REF][START_REF] Hendriks | Either, both and neither in coordinate structure[END_REF][START_REF] Hofmeister | A linearization account of either…or constructions[END_REF], where the initial element of the structure is a Focus Particle (with relatively free distribution, restrictions by focus and intonation, scopal effects), modifying the whole coordination, thus the term initial coordination. b) a symmetric structure B (cf. (6b)), available for French (cf. [START_REF] Piot | Les conjonctions doubles: Coordination-subordination[END_REF][START_REF] Mouret | La syntaxe des coordinations corrélatives du français[END_REF][START_REF] Mouret | Coordinations simples et coordinations à redoublement en français contemporain[END_REF] and for Romance languages more generally (and a priori for Japanese and Korean), where all coordinators represent the same conjunctions combining with each conjunct, hence the term conjunction doubling. The paper is structured as follows: In Section 2, we briefly mention the main distributional properties in Romance languages, and contrast French and Italian vs. Spanish and Romanian. In Section 3, we argue that, contrary to most Romanian grammars, Romanian elements 1i…1i ('both…and') are (correlative) adverbs, rather than conjunctions. Finally, in Section 4, we give a syntactic analysis of the Romanian data within a construction-based HPSG framework. The index c in the left indicates that the form is always used in correlative structures.

Main properties of the correlative coordination in Romance

Forms of the coordinators

A quick look at the table 1 shows that Spanish seems special, since it lacks the correlative pair *y…y (9d). 3 A superficial examination of (9) would conclude that Romanian resembles French and Italian, but not Spanish. (Spanish) 'Both John and Mary came to the party.' Nevertheless, the structure 1i…1i significantly differs from its counterparts, as shown by the empirical arguments mentioned in the section 3.

Properties of the coordinators 4

If we look at the distribution of correlative items in these four languages, we observe at least three common properties. First of all, correlative items join phrasal categories such as NP (10-11-12-13a), PP (10-11-12-13b) or AP (10-11-12-13c) in all these languages.

3 Its equivalent would be tanto…como, rarely used (in political discourse), or the adverbial a la vez, corresponding to the French à la fois…et (which follows the structure A, given in ( 6

More on Romanian data

We give arguments for assigning structure B (given in (6b)) to Romanian disjunctive sau / ori / fie…sau / ori / fie ('either…or') and for assigning structures C (given in (8a-b)) to Romanian 1i…1i ('both…and'). to the party will come Paul, {and / but} also Mircea 'Paul will come to the party, and Mircea too'.

Correlative disjunction

As we have already mentioned, this item can occur outside coordinated phrases, in independent sentences, having a commonly accepted adverbial status: 1i ('too' / 'also') (see table 5):

(30) a. La petrecere, vor veni 2i prietenii, 2i colegii lui Ion. to the party, will come 1i friends, 1i colleagues of John 'Both John's friends and his colleagues will come to the party.' b. La petrecere, vor veni 2i {prietenii / colegii} lui Ion. to the party, will come also {friends / colleagues} of Ion 'Ion's friends / colleagues will come to the party, too.'

Generally, the phrase composed by modifiers like cam 'rather', chiar 'even ', doar, numai 'only', 1i 'also', nici 'neither', etc. ( An additional argument concerns the fact that the correlative conjunction (fie…fie 'either…or') always precedes each conjunct, whereas the adverbial 1i can occur inside the conjunct, following the subjunctive marker s2 'that' (32a) or modifying a NP inside a coordinated VP (33a).

The distributional behaviour of the adverbial 1i is not singular in Romanian. There is a class of adverbs (the so-called 'intensifiers') that has the same distribution as 1i (and nici, cf. Ciompec 1985). Inside this special adverbial class, [START_REF] Barbu | Complexul verbal. Studii 1i cercet2ri lingvsitice[END_REF]2004 distinguishes between lexical intensifiers (= adverbs 1 ) and affixes (= adverbs 2) . Elements of the first sub-set (adverbs 1 ) would be items like: nici ('neither', 'nor'), abia ('hardly'), aproape ('almost'), chiar ('even'), doar, m2car, numai ('only'), înc2 ('still'), 1i ('also', 'already'), while the second sub-class (adverbs 2 ) contain: 1i ('also', 'already'), cam ('rather'), mai ('nearly', 'still', 'again'), prea ('too'), tot ('still', 'repeatedly'). In table 2, one may see the general precedence order rule for both adverbial classes. As the table 3 shows, the adverbial 1i can have both distributions12 , either at the edge of the verb cluster (= adverb 1 ), or inside, between the auxiliary and the lexical verb (= adverb 2 ). We observe some variations related to the verbal mood or tense: with the subjunctive, both distributions are available (36); with the past tense, for example, it can occur only between the auxiliary and the past participle (37). To sum up this section, we can say that the Conj…Conj… structure is available only for the disjunction type in Romanian (like in Spanish). With correlative adverbs ( 1i…1i), what we have is in fact simple coordination, or asyndetic coordination 13 : Adv...{Conj / Ø} Adv.

As for the Romance perspective, the four Romance languages have one common correlative structure, i.e. the Conj…Conj… structure, as the new analysis of Romance shows in table 4. (39) Assuming a lexical type such as (39), one can allow head-complements structures, such as a NP structure (sau Maria 'or Maria') in (40a), or an AP structure (1i frumos 'and beautiful') in (40b):

conj-word 1 1 1 1 [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
As for the analysis of coordinate structures as a whole, we follow [START_REF] Pollard | Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar[END_REF][START_REF] Abeillé | Les syntagmes conjoints et leurs fonctions syntaxiques[END_REF]and 2006, by treating coordination as a subtype of non-headed phrase, rather than a binary conjunction phrase or some multiheaded construction. In order to give an unitary account for the Romance data, we further posit three subtypes of coordinated phrases (see [START_REF] Mouret | La syntaxe des coordinations corrélatives du français[END_REF][START_REF] Mouret | Coordinations simples et coordinations à redoublement en français contemporain[END_REF], differing on whether all the conjuncts (42), some conjuncts (43) or none of them ( 44) is headed by a conjunction. The first subtype is the omnisyndeticcoordinated-phrase, accounting for symmetric structures in Romance and, particularly, for the disjunction type in Romanian. Furthermore, the simplexcoordinated-phrase accounts for the simple coordination in general (mono-or polysyndetic), including also Romanian structures with correlative adverbs. And, finally, the asyndetic-coordinated phrase allows us to have Romanian coordinations with correlative adverbs (e.g. 1i 2 …1i 2 ), where there is no conjunction as coordinator at all. ( 42) The adverbial 1i 2 (as in ( 45)) selects the expression it modifies on a purely semantic basis; like other adverbs of the same type (see the two adverbial classes mentioned in [START_REF] Barbu | Complexul verbal. Studii 1i cercet2ri lingvsitice[END_REF][START_REF] Barbu | Statutul semiadverbelor din cadrul complexului verbal[END_REF], it occurs to the left of the head it modifies. Following previous work [START_REF] Van Noord | Adjuncts and the processing of lexical rules[END_REF]Bouma 1994, Abeillé and[START_REF] Abeillé | The Syntactic Flexibility of French Degree Adverbs[END_REF], we interpret it as an adjunct.

omnisyndetic-coordinated-phrase 1 1 1 1 fie ] 1 [ CONJ ([ list ne TRS D HEAD [NON - - - ∨ ori ∨ sau])] (43) simplex-coordinated-phrase 1 [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] ) 1 CONJ ( list ne ) CONJ ( list ne DTRS HEAD NON ∨ ∨ ∨ - ⊕ - - - dar sau ori nil a. ( 40
As for the representation of correlative adverbs, we follow [START_REF] Miller | Clitics and Constituents in Phrase Structure Grammar[END_REF][START_REF] Tseng | EDGE Features and French Liaison[END_REF] in assuming an EDGE Feature Principle which allows feature propagation along the right and left edges of phrases. We then build from Abeillé and Borsley 2006, using a LEFT feature [CORREL] to identify the adverbial correlative forms in the lexicon and to percolate the information on the left edge of the phrase.

(47) EDGE feature Principle

phrase 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ]] 2 [ RIGHT EDGE | SYNSEM [ ..., , ]] 1 [ LEFT EDGE | SYNSEM [ DAUGHTERS ]] 2 [ RIGHT , ] 1 [ LEFT [ EDGE SYNSEM |
A linear precedence rule requires that there be no intervening material between the adverb and the modified constituent (immediate precedence): Correlative adverbs in asyndetic coordination

Conclusion

Assuming three main types of coordinate structures (simplex, omnisyndetic and asyndetic), in this paper we have focussed on omnisyndetic constructions, the disjunctive either…or and the conjunctive both…and in four Romance languages (French, Italian, Spanish and Romanian). First, we have mentioned some of their common distributional properties in Romance and, then, we showed the hybrid case of Romanian, by a detailed analysis of the correlative 1i…1i. We have provided some empirical evidence for analysing the 1i…1i ('both…and') structure as asyndetic with the element 1i as an adverbial, by showing the double status of the element 1i (conjunction or adverbial). A more precise analysis of the distribution of correlative coordinations (e.g. Why is the omnisyndetic structure allowed for disjunction and not for conjunction in French and Italian? Why declarative sentences are less constrained than imperative or interrogative clauses), as well as an extension to other omnisyndetic coordinations (e.g. the negative type nici…nici 'neither…nor', which a priori has the same syntactic analysis as 1i…1i 'both…and') still need to be provided.

  a appris [et l'espagnol et le français]. (French) b. Paul has learnt [both Spanish and French]. (English) (3) a. Paul parle [l'espagnol, le français, l'anglais]. (French) Paul speaks Spanish, French, English b. John invited [all his colleagues, all his students].

  et Marie se sont mariés. Paul and Mary married (together or not) b. Et Paul et Marie se sont mariés. Both Paul and Mary married (not together) (5) a. Paul ou Marie viendront / viendra à la fête. Paul or Mary come.3pl/sg.FUT to the party b. Ou Paul ou Marie viendra à la fête. Either Paul or Mary come.3sg.FUT to the party Finally, omnisyndetic coordination obeys a prosodic and discourse-related constraint, each conjunct being emphasized and forming an intonational phrase. These structures are compatible with focus and topic, but the relation involved by the doubled constituent obligatorily receives a contrastive interpretation.

  Some languages use both structure A and structure B; for example, French has two different structures for the additive coordination: an asymmetric structure à la fois…et (7a) and a symmetric construction et…et (7b). (7) a. Jean lit [à la fois [en français et an anglais]]. John reads both in French and in English b. Jean lit [[et en français] [et en anglais]]. John reads both in French and in English A superficial Romance overview may suggest a common analysis for all Romance languages, i.e. a symmetric structure. Romanian data show that we have to handle a hybrid case: a symmetric structure B for the disjunction type (cf. table 1), whereas for the 'additive coordination' we have two possibilities: an asymmetric structure with conjunction (C 1 , cf. (8a)) or a symmetric one without conjunction (C 2 , cf. (8b)), in both cases the correlative elements behaving like adverbials.

  Et Jean et Marie sont venus à la fête. (French) b. Sia Gianni sia Maria sono venuti alla festa. (Italian) c. 1i Ion, 2i Maria au venit la petrecere. (Romanian) d. *Y Juan y Marìa han venido a la fiesta.

  vrea [2i s1 citeasc1], [2i s1 deseneze]. Maria wants [1i Subj read], [1i Subj draw] b. Maria vrea [s1 2i citeasc1], [s1 2i deseneze]. Maria wants [Subj 1i read], [Subj 1i draw] 'Maria wants both to read and to draw.' (37) a. Ast1zi, [am 2i b1ut], [am 2i mîncat]. today [Aux 1i Vb] [Aux 1i Vb] b. *Ast1zi, [2i am b1ut], [2i am mîncat]. today [1i Aux Vb] [1i Aux Vb] 'Today I have both drunk and eaten.'

  types in Romanian Turning to the syntax of coordination, we follow Abeillé 2003 and 2005 by treating them as 'weak' syntactic heads (rather than markers) making a subconstituent with the following phrase and inheriting from it most of their syntactic features, except the CONJ feature they introduce; consequently, they inherit the variable [1] and valence requirements (SUBJ, MARKING, SPR and COMPS features), represented by the sharing of variables like [2], [3], [4] and [5] respectively, which can correspond to empty lists (cf. the lexical type in (39)).

  Ion 1i 1 2i 2 Maria ADV Ion CONJ ADV Maria 'both Ion and Maria'

Table 1 . Correlative coordinators of four Romance languages French Italian Spanish Romanian Disjunction Type

 1

		ou...ou	o...o	o...o	sau...sau
		ou bien…ou bien			ori...ori
		soit...soit c			fie...fie c
		soit que…soit que c
	Conjunctive	et...et	sia...sia c	*y…y	1i...1i
	Type	à la fois…et	sia...che c	a la vez…y

  Japón. go.1sg.IND both to Korea and to Japan 4 For Spanish examples, we retain only the pair o…o (see the footnote number 3). (14) F a. Paul s'imagine soit que Jean n'est pas là soit que Marie le cache. Paul thinks either that John is not here or that Mary hides him b. Raconte-moi soit ce que tu as lu à la maison, soit ce que tu as appris à l'école. Tell-me either what you read at home or what you learnt at school c. Je propose et que Jean vienne et que Marie le cache. I propose both that John come and that Mary hide him (15) I a. Paolo pensa o che Gianni non c'è o che Maria lo nasconde. Paul thinks either that John is not here or that Mary hides him b. Raccontami o quello che hai letto a casa o quello che hai imparato a scuola.

		'Either the weather will be fine or the weather will be bad.'
	b. %En ce moment, et ses élèves le fatiguent et ses collègues (24) S a. O comes, o haces los deberes.
		l'agacent. Either eat.2sg.IND, or do.2sg.IND the homework.pl
		At the moment, both his students are-wearing him out, and his b. *O come, o haz los deberes, ¡decídete!
		colleagues are-annoying him Either eat.2sg.IMPERAT, or do.2sg.IMPERAT the homework.pl
		'At the moment, it is both the case that his students are-wearing him c. *O quien vendrá o dónde iremos?
		out, and that his colleagues are annoying him.' Either who come.3sg.FUT or where go.1pl.FUT
	(19) I a. O il presidente guarisce entro domani, o la riunione verrà (25) R a. Fie m1nânci, fie cite2ti.
		annullata. Either eat.2sg.IND, or read.2sg.IND
		Either the president gets better until tomorrow, or the meeting will-be b. *Fie m1nânc1, fie cite2te, decide-te!
		cancelled Either eat.2sg.IMPERAT, or read.2sg.IMPERAT, decide yourself
	However, these coordinators are more constrained with root clauses. On the b. Either eat.2sg.IMPERAT, or do.2sg.IMPERAT your homework.pl c.
	one hand, the disjunction type seems less constrained than the conjunctive c. *Soit qui viendra soit où on ira?
	one (in French or Italian), as examples in (18 6 -19) show; on the other hand, Either who come.3sg.FUT or where we go.1pl.FUT
	declarative sentences are less constrained than imperative or interrogative
	clauses, as we observe in (22-23-24-25). (23) I a. O mangi, o fai i compiti.
		Either eat.2sg.IND, or do.2sg.IND the homework.pl
	)): (18) F a. Soit il fera beau soit il fera mauvais. b. *O mangia, o fa i compiti!
	(i)	a. Voy (*y) a Corea y a Japón. Either it be.FUT fine or it be.FUT bad Either eat.2sg.IMPERAT, or do.2sg.IMPERAT the homework.pl
		c. *O chi verrà o dove andremo?
		Either who come.3sg.FUT or where go.1pl.FUT

b. Voy a la vez a Corea y a (10) F a. J'ai vu {soit / et} Jean {soit / et} Marie. I saw {either / both} John {or / and} Mary b. Je vais {soit / et} en Corée {soit / et} au Japon. I go {either / both} to Korea {or / and} to Japan c. Il est {soit / et} beau {soit / et} intelligent. he is {either / both} beautiful {or / and} smart (11) I a. Ho visto {o / sia} Gianni {o / che} Maria. see.1sg.IND {either / both} John {or / and} Mary b. Vado {o / sia} in Corea {o / sia} in Giappone. go.1sg.IND {either / both} to Korea {or / and} to Japan c. E {o / sia} bello {o / che} intelligente. be.3sg.IND {either / both} beautiful {or / and} smart (12) S a. He visto o a Juan o a Marìa. see.1sg.IND {either / both} John {or / and} Mary b. Voy o a Corea o a Japón. go.1sg.IND {either / both} to Korea {or / and} to Japan c. Es o guapo o inteligente. be.3sg.IND {either / both} beautiful {or / and} smart (13) R a. Maria ador1 {fie / 2i} proza, {fie / 2i} poezia. Maria adores {either / both} prose.DEF {or / and} poetry.DEF b. Merg {fie / 2i} în Coreea, {fie / 2i} în Japonia. go.1sg.IND {either / both} to Korea {or / and} to Japan c. Este {fie / 2i} frumos, {fie / 2i} inteligent. be.3sg.IND {either / both} beautiful {or / and} smart As an additional remark, one may say that, inside the VP, the correlative coordination is more complicated, since the distribution of correlative items and speakers' acceptability vary cross-linguistically. 5 Secondly, examples (14-15-16-17) show that such correlative items can also join embedded clauses: Tell-me either what read.2sg.PAST at home or what learnt.2sg.PAST at school c. Propongo sia che Gianni venga sia che Maria lo nasconda. suggest.1sg.IND both that John come and that Mary hide him (16) S a. Pablo se imaginaba o [que Juan no estaba allì] o [que Marìa lo escondìa]. Pablo thought either that John was not there or that Mary hid him b. Cuéntame o lo que has leido en casa o lo que has aprendido en el colegio. Tell-me either what read.2sg.PAST at home or what learnt.2sg.PAST at school (17) R a. Paula î2i imagineaz1 fie [c1 Ion nu e aici], fie [c1 Maria îl ascunde]. Paul thinks either that John is not here or that Mary hides him b. Poveste2te-mi fie ce ai citit acas1, fie ce ai înv13at la 2coal1. Tell-me either what read.2sg.PAST at-home, or what learnt.2sg.PAST at school c. Propun 2i [ca Ion s1 vin1] 2i [ca Maria s1-l ascund1]. suggest.1sg.IND both that John come and that Mary hide him *In questo momento, sia i suoi studenti lo stancano sia\che i suoi colleghi lo innervosiscono. At the moment, both his students are-wearing him out, and his colleagues are-annoying him (20) S O el presidente se pone bueno antes de mañana, o la reunión tendrá que ser suspendida. Either the president gets better until tomorrow, or the meeting will-be cancelled (21) R a. Fie pre2edintele se va îns1n1to2i pân1 mâine, fie reuniunea va fi anulat1. Either the president will get better until tomorrow, or the meeting will be cancelled b. 1i gazul se scumpe2te, 2i vremea se r1ce2te. Both the gas is-getting-expensive, and the weather is-getting-bad 'It is both the case that the gas is getting expensive, and that the weather is getting bad.' (22) F a. Soit tu manges, soit tu prépares tes devoirs. Either you eat.IND, or you do.IND your homework.pl b. *Soit mange, soit prépare tes devoirs! *Fie cine a venit fie unde mergem? Either who come.3sg.FUT or where go.1pl.FUT This restriction on main (declarative) clauses can be explained by the Boolean interpretation of omnisyndetic coordination (interpreted as conjoining propositions), assuming Ginzburg and Sag 2000's hypothesis that only declarative clauses have a propositional content. If interrogatives and imperatives do not have a propositional content, when embedded clauses are coordinated, one can interpret the coordination as scoping over the matrix clauses as well.

  called semiadverbs 10 in traditional grammars) and their host always bears 'emphatic' or contrastive stress, and that is exactly what we observe with the modifier 1i: prosodically, the constituent modified by 1i becomes stressed (receiving a special intonation).

		_/_	_/_
	(31)	a. [Chiar Ion] a venit.	b. Am [doar trei copii].
		Even John came	have.1sg.IND only three children
		_/_	_/_	_/_
		c. [1i Ion] a picat examenul.	d. [[1i Ion] [2i Maria]] au venit.
		also John failed the exam	both John and Mary came

Table 2 . General precedence order rule

 2

	(PO) adv 1 s2 nu pron aux adv 2 vb
	s2 = subjunctive marker (see que in French)
	nu = negation
	pron = weak pronouns
	aux = auxiliaries
	adv = monosyllabic adverbs (cam, prea, mai, 1i, tot)
	vb = lexical verb

Table 3 . Precedence order rule for the adverbial

 3

1i

(PO) (1i) s2 nu pron aux (1i) vb

Table 4 . Analysis of Correlative coordination of 4 Romance languages

 4

		French	Italian	Spanish	Romanian
	Disjunction	Conj…Conj… Conj…Conj… Conj…Conj… Conj…Conj...
	Type
	Conjunctive	Conj…Conj…	Conj…Conj...	4	4
	Type	Adv…Conj…		Adv…Conj…
					Adv…Adv…

Table 5 . Categorial status of the different correlative items

 5 Let us first sketch the hierarchy of coordination types in Romanian:

			French	Italian Spanish Romanian
		simple	et	e	y	1i 1
		conjunction
	Conj	correlative	et...et	sia...sia c	4	4
	/	conjunction
	Adv	simple adverb 'aussi'	'anche' 'tambien' 1i 2
		correlative	à la fois		a la vez	1i 2 ...1i 2
		adverb
	4 An HPSG analysis

† Many thanks to Anne Abeillé, François Mouret, the audience of the HPSG08 conference and three anonymous reviewers for comments, as well as my informants for Romance data. All errors or misconceptions remain mine.1 For head-final languages, like Korean or Japanese, for example.

We leave aside the negative pair neither…nor which generally behaves as the conjunctive type both…and (at least, in Romanian). We use these terms (disjunction type, conjunctive type) for the sake of simplicity.

A priori, one can obtain a similarity between French and Italian on the one side, and Spanish and Romanian on the other side, according to at least two facts: first, the coordinator can freely combine with non-finite verbal categories in French or Italian, but this possibility is limited in Spanish and unavailable in Romanian; secondly, disjunctive coordinators combine with finite verbal categories (even if our data study shows some speakers' variation), while conjunctive ones are more constrained in French and Italian. We need further work in order to check these hypotheses.

% notes speakers' variation.

For the sake of simplicity, we give examples only with fie…fie (only correlative use in coordination).

The same observations hold for the pair nici…nici 'neither…nor' (cf.[START_REF] Bîlbîie | Les coordinations corrélatives du roumain[END_REF].

In these cases, we interpret the 'end-attachment' coordination as a 'split' conjunct (cf.[START_REF] Abeillé | Les syntagmes conjoints et leurs fonctions syntaxiques[END_REF], functioning as an adjunct.

Semiadverbs (cf. Ciompec 1985) behave differently from circumstantial adverbs, since they have modal or aspectual meaning (=intensifiers, so that they always need a head to modify), they can modify almost everything, they have relatively rigid order, in the immediate neighbourhood of the selected element. Barbu 2004 makes a distinction inside this class between lexical adverbs and affixal adverbs (the latter mentioned only occurring inside the verbal complex, next to the lexical verb).

This element marks the idea of surprise, an unexpected event ("The major of the village was the one least expected to come to the party").

The different distributions of the element 1i correspond to a different syntactic (and semantic) status, i.e. the occurrence of 1i as adverb 2 could be interpreted as an affix.

As for the correlative occurrences of the element 1i (e.g. 1i…1i 'both…and'), the widespread view is that this distribution is restricted to adverbial items, which by 'repetition' lose their meaning, inheriting conjunctional properties (GALR I: 644). Furthermore, the 1i occurrences in correlative pairs (1i…1i) are analysed as conjunctions, without any empirical evidence. In this sub-section, we give some arguments against the conjunctional status of 1i…1i, arguing for an adverbial interpretation of 1i in correlative environments.

First, 1i can be preceded by a coordinating conjunction which exclusively realizes the coordination relation: it can combine with conjunctions like 1i 'and' or dar 'but' (29a). Even if the first correlative item is absent 9 , a conjunction can occur before the second conjunct (29b).