Heads1 | Journal of Linguistics | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Extract

Recent work on morphology – Lieber, 1981; Williams, 1981; Kiparsky, 1982; and Selkirk, 1982, in particular – has extended the notion of HEAD from syntax into new areas in morphology. In particular, these writers propose that in forms with derivational affixes, like English happiness, the affix is the head of the combination; for instance, Kiparsky assumes (following Lieber) ‘that all word formation is endocentric’, meaning by this ‘that the category of a derived word is always non-distinct from the category of its head, in English usually the rightmost constituent (cf. Williams, 1981)’ (133).

References

Anderson, J. (1976). On serialization in English syntax. Ludwigsburg Studies in Language and Linguistics I. Ludwigsburg: R.O.U. Strauch.Google Scholar

Anderson, S. D. (1977). On the formal description of inflection. Chicago Linguistic Society 13. 15–44.Google Scholar

Aronoff, M. & Sridhar, S. N. (1983). Morphological levels in English and Kannada, or Atarizing Reagan. In Richardson, J. F., Marks, M. & Chukerman, A. (eds.), Papers from the parasession on the interplay of phonology, morphology, and syntax. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 3–16.Google Scholar

Bach, E. (1983). On the relationship between word-grammar and phrase-grammar. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 1.1. 65–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bach, E. & Partee, B. (1980). Anaphora and semantic structure. In Kreiman, J. & Ojeda, A. E. (eds.), Papers from the parasession on pronouns and anaphora. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 1–28.Google Scholar

Bartsch, R. & Vennemann, T. (1972). Semantic structures. Frankfurt: Athenäum.Google Scholar

Carlson, G. N. (1983). Marking constituents. In Heny, F. & Richards, B. (eds.), Linguistic categories: Auxiliaries and related puzzles, vol. 1. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. 69–98.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Crystal, D. (1980). A first dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Dahl, Ö. (1980). Some arguments for higher nodes in syntax: a reply to Hudson's ‘Constituency and dependency’. Linguistics 18. 485–488.Google Scholar

Emonds, J. E. (1972). Evidence that indirect object movement is a structure-preserving rule. FLang 8. 546–561.Google Scholar

Gazdar, G., Klein, E. & Pullum, G. K., (eds.). (1983). Order, concord and constituency. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Gazdar, G. & Pullum, G. K. (1982). Generalized phrase structure grammar: a theoretical synopsis. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Gazdar, G., Pullum, G. K. & Sag, I. A. (1982). Auxiliaries and related phenomena in a restrictive theory of grammar. Lg 58.3. 591–638.Google Scholar

Goldsmith, J. A. (1976). An overview of autosegmental phonology. Linguistic Analysis 2. 23–68.Google Scholar

Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.). Universals of language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 73–113.Google Scholar

Harris, Z. S. (1951). Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Hockett, C. A. (1958). A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Hudson, R. A. (1980a). Constituency and dependency. Linguistics 18. 179–198.Google Scholar

Hudson, R. A. (1980b). A second attack on constituency: a reply to Dahl. Linguistics 18. 489–504.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. S. (1977). X¯ syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Janda, R. D. (1983). ‘Morphemes’ aren't something that grows on trees: Morphology as more the phonology than the syntax of words. In Richardson, J. F., Marks, M. & Chukerman, A. (eds.), Papers from the parasession on the interplay of phonology, morphology, and syntax. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 79–95.Google Scholar

Jespersen, O. (1924). Philosophy of grammar. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar

Joseph, B. & Wallace, R. (1984). Lexical relatedness, head of a word, and the misanalysis of Latin. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 29. 30–49.Google Scholar

Keenan, E. L. (1974). The functional principle: Generalizing the notion of ‘subject of’. Chicago Linguistic Society 10. 298–309.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, P. (1982). From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds.), The structure of phonological representations (Part I). Dordrecht: Foris, 131–75.Google Scholar

Klein, E. & Sag, I. A. (To appear). Type-driven translation. Linguistics and Philosophy.Google Scholar

Korhonen, J. (1977). Studien zu Dependenz, Valenz und Satzmodell. Teil I: Theorie and Praxis der Beschreibung der deutschen Gegenwartsprache. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Lees, R. B. (1960). The grammar of English nominalizations. IJAL 26.3.Google Scholar

Lieber, R. (1981). On the organization of the lexicon. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Marantz, A. (1982). Re reduplication. LingI 13.3. 435–482.Google Scholar

Matthews, P. H. (1967). The main features of Modern Greek verb inflection. FLang 3. 262–284.Google Scholar

Matthews, P. H. (1972). Inflectional morphology: a theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. Cambridge: Cambridge Universtiy Press.Google Scholar

Matthews, P. H. (1974). Morphology: an introduction to the theory of word structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Matthews, P. H. (1981). Syntax. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

McCarthy, J. J. (1981). A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. LingI 12.3. 373–418.Google Scholar

McCarthy, J. J. (1982). Prosodic templates, morphemic templates, and morphemic tiers. In van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds.), The structure of phonological representations (Part I). Dordrecht: Foris. 191–223.Google Scholar

Muysken, P. (1982). Parametrizing the notion ‘head’. Journal of Linguistic Research 2.3. 57–75.Google Scholar

Pullum, G. K. & Wilson, D. (1977). Autonomous syntax and the analysis of auxiliaries. Lg 53.4. 741–788.Google Scholar

Robinson, J. J. (1970). Dependency structures and transformational rules. Lg 46.2. 259–285.Google Scholar

Sag, I. A., Gazdar, G., Wasow, T. & Weisler, S. (1984). Coordination and how to distinguish categories. Report No. CSLI-84–3. Stanford, Calif.: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.Google Scholar

Schmerling, S. F. (1983). Montague morphophonemics. In Richardson, J. F., Marks, M. & Chukerman, A. (eds.), Papers from the parasession on the interplay of phonology, morphology, and syntax. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 222–237.Google Scholar

Selkirk, E. O. (1980). On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Selkirk, E. O. (1982). The syntax of words. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Vennemann, T. (1975). An explanation of drift. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Word order and word order change. Austin: University of Texas Press. 269–305.Google Scholar

Wells, R. S. (1947). Immediate constituents. Lg 23. 81–177.Google Scholar

Whitney, W. D. (1889). Sanskrit grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Williams, E. (1981). On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’. LingI 12. 245–274.Google Scholar

Zwicky, A. M. (1977). On clitics. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Zwicky, A. M. (1984). Welsh Soft Mutation and the case of object NPs. Chicago Linguistic Society 20. 387–402.Google Scholar

Zwicky, A. M. (To appear). Cliticization vs. inflection: The Hidatsa mood markers. International Journal of American Linguistics.Google Scholar