The interaction of morphology and syntax (original) (raw)

Morphology, divided and conquered. DRAFT

In Linguistica Brunensia, Brno. On line http://hdl.handle.net/11222.digilib/130163, 2016

Abstract: Concentrating on the taxonomy of grammatical morphemes, this study shows that traditional definitions of inflectional vs. derivational morphemes do not pass more rigorous testing, although they probably reflect instinctive distinctions present in a natural language system. The authors propose to define the distinctions by referring to derivational stages, namely by distinguishing levels of insertion for morphemes. Most of what is usually classified as derivational morphology and subject to Williams's (1981) Right Hand Head Rule are morphemes which enter derivations in narrow syntax. As such, they conform to what is here termed a Logical Form Interpretation Condition, which allows only one syntactic feature per morpheme. On the other hand, morphemes such as agreements are not subject to the Right Hand Head Rule and result from post-syntactic insertion and exhibit cross-classification. The authors propose that the source of these bound inflections is the process of Alternative Realisation. They argue that their new distinction between derivational and inflectional morphology correlates with testable semantic, phonetic and syntactic properties and that in terms of these properties, both are necessary parts of an adequate formal linguistic framework. 1 The basis for dividing inflection and derivation Analysts of natural language grammars never seem to tire of the quest to categorize two kinds of affixes, which are widely termed (1) inflectional and (2) derivational. 1 The persistence of these attempts indicates that linguists share intuitions about the reality of some core distinction between two kinds of elements, that this distinction is inherent to the language system, and therefore it must be part of any linguistic framework. The inconclusive discussions and variety of definitions, on the other hand, suggest that the study of the phenomena has not yet found a formalisation that can stand up to more rigorous scientific testing. We are going to address the issue from the perspective of generative grammar, accepting what is usually called Borer's Conjecture. In her study of parametric syntax, BORER (1984) proposes that the distinctions among the variety of human languages can be best expressed as distinctions among the repertory and characteristics of their grammatical morphemes. If so, a taxonomy of those morphemes must be a part of every linguistic analysis. 1 The division is in fact tripartite, but we are not going to address here free or lexical morphemes at all. Not because their status are much clearer but because of time and space reasons which force us to concentrate on a more limited topic.

Towards a Theory of Morphology as Syntax

Studies in Chinese Linguistics

Phenomena traditionally thought of as morphological can be accounted for in terms of syntactic operations and principles, hence bringing forth questions that traditional morphology fails to ask (for instance, concerning the licensing of empty morphemes). The language faculty contains no specific morphological component, nor any post-syntactic morphological operations.

The morphome in constructive and abstractive models of morphology

Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer Science +Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com". Abstract Although the definition and usage of the term 'morphome' differs in the academic literature, the original definition of a morphome by Aronoff is that it is a function which determines the distribution of form within the inflectional paradigm and beyond. More importantly, however, morphomes suppose the existence of what Aronoff terms 'a morphomic level' which embodies an empirical claim about the structure of language: 'the mapping from morphosyntax to phonological realization is not direct but passes through an intermediate level' (Aronoff in Morphology by itself, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1994:25). This is a strong claim concerning all types of morphological exponence. In this article, after an analysis of Aronoff's model of morphology, I draw upon the distinction which Blevins (J. Linguist. 42:531-573, 2006) makes between constructive and abstractive models of morphology. I note that the introduction of a morphomic level merely constitutes an incorporation of a partial paradigmatic dimension into a constructive model of morphology. With reference to a semantically and phonologically unmotivated distribution of allomorphy in Romance I argue that although the introduction of the morphomic level is beneficial, since it can formalise systematic and 'psychologically real' homonymies in synchronic grammars in a way which is not merely coincidental, a constructive morphomic theory of morphology does not present significant advantages over abstractive theories as regards the formalisation of the synchronic facts and presents disadvantages as regards the motivation of diachronic tendencies which this particular distribution of allomorphy shows cross-linguistically. I argue that these historical tendencies support a more paradigmatic theory of morphology inherent in abstractive models, which consider the word as the basic unit of analysis and word formation a matter of analogical deduction based on the predictable capacity of stored exemplar paradigms and principal parts.

Relating morphology to syntax 1 Relating Morphology to Syntax

We are also grateful to Ryo Otuguro and two anonymous reviewers for comments on this paper. Remaining errors are of course solely our own responsibility. Sadler is grateful to the University of Essex for a period of sabbatical leave during which this work was completed, and Nordlinger for the support of the Australian Research Council, grant F9930026, held at the University of Melbourne. 2 Existing work touching on, or having consequences for, these issues includes Ackerman 1990,

On the relation between morphology and syntax.

The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, 2007

According to the traditional view, the relation between morphology and syntax is the following: while morphology builds up word forms-typically by combining roots with other roots and with affixes, but also by applying other operations to them, syntax takes fully inflected words as input and combines them into phrases and sentences. The division of labour between morphology and syntax is thus perfect: morphology only operates below the word level whereas syntax only operates above the word level.

Autonomous morphology and paradigmatic relations

1996

eds.), Crossdisciplinary Approaches to Morphology 257 MARTIN HASPELMATH / Laura A. Janda, Back from the brink: a study of how relic forms in languages serve as source material for analogical extension 258 VI Autonomous morphology and paradigmatic relations GEERT BOOIJ 1. INTRODUCTION'

In Defense of a Morphous Morphology

2000

(1) "If we accept the evidence that the range of morphological possibilities in natural languages includes some processes that cannot properly be represented as the addition of an affix, we must conclude that a general morphological theory should admit both affixational and non-affixational rules. Since a process-based approach naturally accommodates affixation, but not vice versa, the alternative we should prefer is to explore a theory of morphological processes." Anderson (1992: 68) In Anderson is contrasting process-based approaches to an "affixation-only"