Catenae in Morphology

Thomas Groß Aichi University, Nagoya, Japan [email protected] takes the backseat with just 8 pages. Valency Abstract theory is characterized by putting valency- bearing lexical items at center stage. Assuming This paper argues for a renewed attempt at morpholo- that non-lexical material is somehow subsumed gy in dependency grammar. The proposal made here by lexical material seems on a logical trajectory. is based on the concept of the “catena” proposed by But research in typology, foremost Bybee (1985), Authors (in press). The predecessor to this notion was has confirmed that affixes as expressions of va- the “chain” introduced by O‟Grady (1998), and em- lency, voice, aspect, modality, tense, mood, and ployed by Osborne (2005) and Groß and Osborne (2009). In morphology and morphosyntax, a morph person obtain in a specific linear order (or hie- catena is A MORPH OR A COMBINATION OF MORPHS rarchy), and developments in generative gram- THAT IS CONTINUOUS WITH RESPECT TO DOMINANCE. mar during the 1980‟s emphasized the domin- This concept allows for a parsimonious treatment of ance structure of the IP/TP, where such affixes morphology on the surface. The fact that no additional are thought to be located. Similar statements also terms and concepts are necessary for the analysis of concern NP structure: if case or plural is ex- morphological data is highly desirable because it pressed by morphs, then these morphs appear in makes a fluid transition from syntax to morphology peripheral position, an indication that they domi- possible. This paper introduces the relevant depen- nate their nouns. In general, it is safe to say that dency relationships seen operating in morphology, dependency grammar has missed out on impor- and shows how they can be used to explain compound structure, bracketing paradoxes, and multiple periph- tant trends and insights, and this has severely rasis. hampered any formulation of a dependency- based morphology. The fact that Anderson went 1 Introduction on to establish “dependency phonology” (Ander- son & Ewen 1987) instead of pursuing his initial Hays (1964: 517f; see in particular the second program of dependency morphology, is a case in example on page 518) may have been the first to point. Among the widely known dependency recognize the merit of extending the notion of grammars, only Mel‟čuk‟s Meaning-Text-Theory dependency into morphology. The motivation for (1988) and Hudson‟s Word Grammar (1984, doing so is clear: the complexity of word struc- 1990, 2007) explicitly address morphology. ture in languages differs, and if dependency While the notion of dependency can be consi- grammar desires to say something enlightening dered as established in syntax and phonology, about languages with different word structure, morphology is still underdeveloped. In recent then it must have the means to do so. Heringer times, Harnisch (2003) and Maxwell (2003) have (1970: 96f) provided perhaps the first dependen- argued again that dependency grammar must cy trees that included separate nodes for morphs. achieve a better understanding of the morpholog- Anderson (1980) was the first to use the label ical component. “dependency morphology”, in his analysis of This paper outlines a proposal for a dependen- Basque verbs. Both Heringer‟s and Anderson‟s cy morphology based on the notion of “chain”, analyses are characterized by the assumption that which was introduced by O‟Grady (1998). derivational and inflectional morphs depend on O‟Grady shows that many idioms do not qualify the lexical morphs with which they form words. as constituents, rather they form incomplete de- This assumption has carried on to the present pendency trees, which he called “chains”. Os- (e.g. Eroms 2010: 38f). Speculating on the rea- borne (2005) recognized the versatility of this sons for this assumption, the European tradition notion for dependency grammar. Groß and Os- sees dependency grammar as the theoretical borne (2009) use the chain concept to address background for valency theory. A brief look at discontinuous structure in syntax, and Groß Ágel and Fischer (2010) confirms this evalua- (2010) endeavors, in a first attempt, to apply the tion; valency theory is treated prominently and chain to word structure, arguing that bracketing initially on 14 pages, while dependency grammar paradoxes and multiple auxiliary constructions

47 can be quite easily resolved. Below, however, the words. A dependency relationship between term catena will be used instead of “chain” be- morphs inside the same word is called an intra- cause “chain” is understood in an entirely differ- word dependency. Intra-word dependencies are ent way in derivational theories of syntax. This determined by distribution: decision is also motivated by the work of Os- If the combination of two morphs M borne et al (in press), who show that the catena, 1 and M distributes more like M than rather than the constituent, is implicated in idiom 2 2 like M , then M is a dependent of M . formation, ellipsis, and predicate formation. 1 1 2 They define a catena (in syntax) as A WORD OR A This definition is similar to Mel‟čuk‟s definition COMBINATION OF WORDS THAT IS CONTINUOUS of “surface syntactic dominance” (2003: 200f). WITH RESPECT TO DOMINANCE. This definition The next example from Japanese illustrates intra- identifies any dependency tree or subtree of a word dependencies: tree as a catena. By replacing “word” with (1) -na “morph”, the catena is also available for morphology. mu- This paper proceeds as follows: Section 2 in- kankei forms on the central notions and shows how they are used to explain morphological dependencies mu- kankei -na (Japanese) within and across words and with clitics. It also NEG relation -ADN illustrates briefly that non-concatenative mor- „unrelated‟ phology can be dealt with. Section 3 concerns The intra-word dependencies are represented by compounds: gradient compound structure as well the dotted edges (as opposed to solid edges). The as exocentric compounds are explained. Section lexical morph kankei receives a (vertical) projec- 4 addresses bracketing paradoxes. Section 5 de- tion edge. The hyphens represent phonological monstrates that a catena-based approach can par- attachment (in the horizontal dimension). The simoniously account for multiple periphrasis. A negation prefix mu- phonologically attaches to final section concludes the paper. the next morph to its right, and the attributive 2 Catena-based morphology suffix phonologically -na attaches to the next morph to its left; in (1) this morph is kankei. The Building on Osborne et.al. (in press), a morph prefix mu- must depend on the suffix -na because catena is a MORPH OR A COMBINATION OF the morph combination mu-kankei distributes MORPHS THAT IS CONTINUOUS WITH RESPECT TO like a member of the lexical class of nominal DOMINANCE. The choice of “morph” instead of adjectives “keiyō meishi”. The morph catena “morpheme” is motivated by the need to main- kankei-na is not possible because kankei is a tain a surface-oriented level of analysis. A morph noun rather than a nominal adjective. Intra-word is loosely defined as any meaning bearing unit dependencies are thus motivated on the basis of that cannot be reduced any further, but that can distribution. be separated from other meaning bearing units in 1 2.2 Across words the horizontal AND/OR vertical dimension. The inclusion of the notion “vertical dimension” al- An inter-word dependency is a morphosyntactic lows for the treatment of phenomena subsumed relationship between a morph and a word. If the under non-concatenative morphology (trans- and morph licenses the appearance of the word, then suprafixation, reduplication, etc.), as briefly the morph governs the word. The next example demonstrated below. This section addresses illustrates that with an example from German: morph dependencies within and across words, (2) mit clitics, and non-concatenative morphology. -n 2.1 Within words -er Morph catenae obtain in morphology proper, i.e. inside words, and in morphosyntax, i.e. across Kind mit Kind -er -n (German)

1 with child -PL -DAT While there are certainly difficulties with the notions „with children‟ “morph” and “morpheme” (cf. Mel‟čuk 2006: 384ff), the proposal here is sufficient in the present context.

48 Example (2) shows the two units mit and Kind- dent on a morph capable of constituting a pro- er-n. The former qualifies as a word and a morph, sodic word, or it must depend on a morph that while the latter only qualifies as a word. Again, depends on such a morph, and so on, recursively. the dotted edges represent the intra-word depen- “Wackernagel” or “second position” clitics chal- dencies inside the noun: the plural suffix -er is lenge many theories. In the approach here, these seen as dominating the noun Kind because Kind- clitics can appear as quasi-words but must be er distributes like a plural noun, rather than like prosodically dependent on – most often – the the singular noun Kind. The dative case suffix is final morph of the first minimal prosodic unit. seen as dominating the plural noun because the This is illustrated with a Serbo-Croat example dative case should encompass the entire plural taken from Corbett (1987: 406). There the clitics noun Kind-er rather than just singular Kind. The -mu and -ih depend on dati, but they are part of noun Kind-er-n is dominated by the preposition the prosodic word formed by Želim. -ih prosodi- mit. Since mit can be seen as a morph, Kind-er-n cally depends on -mu, which depends on Želim. is a dependent of mit, mit licensing the appear- (4) Želim ance of the entire word Kind-er-n. Note that the morphs in examples (1) and (2) dati qualify as morph catenae. In (1) the following -mu -ih morph catenae obtain: mu-kankei, mu-…-na, the individual morphs, and the entire expression. In Želim -mu -ih dati (2) Kind-er, -er-n, Kind-er-n, mit...-n, mit...-er-n, wish.1sg.NPST 3sg.m.DAT 3pl.ACC give the individual morphs and the entire expression „I wish to give them to him.‟ qualify as morph catenae. 2.4 Non-concatenative morphology 2.3 Clitics The morph catena can also accommodate phe- Clitics are morphs on the borderline between free nomena from non-concatenative morphology. and bound morphs (Klavans 1985, Kaisse 1985, The ability to accommodate transfixation is Nevis 1986, Zwicky 1987, Anderson 1992, 2005 demonstrated next with Hebrew data, taken from and others). Clitics express meanings usually Booij (2007: 37): reserved for free morphs, but fail – for whatever (5) a a_ hi i_ i a reasons – to appear as individual prosodic words. g d l gd l gd l In the current system, these properties are expressed by the following tree conventions: A clit- a. g a d a l b. hi gd i l c. gd i l a ic appears without a projection edge but with a „grow‟ „enlarge‟ „growth‟ hyphen and a solid dependency edge. The lower consonant series in (5a-c) constitute the lexical morph gdl, which expresses the vague (3) smile meaning of „grow‟. The transfixes _a_a_ „infini- -s tive‟, hi__i_ „causative‟, and __i_a „nominalizer‟ are seen as dominating the lexical morphs be- girl cause their appearance affects the distribution of the know the entire expression. The “root” morph and the transfixes qualify as morphs because they can be I separated from one another in the vertical dimen- the girl I know -s smile sion. The resulting horizontal units are the respective morphs. The slots in the transfixes fulfill The possessive -s depends on the following smile, the role of the hyphen in concatenative morphol- seemingly like a full word.2 It also governs the ogy.3 noun girl like a full noun. However, the clitic Ablaut can be analyzed in a similar fashion. In appears without a projection edge in exactly the some German nouns, the plural is formed solely fashion bound morphs would. Like bound by ablaut: Vater – Väter, Mutter – Mütter, Brud- morphs, the clitic must be prosodically depen-

2 A reviewer suggests the possibility of a DP analysis 3 A reviewer comments on whether tmesis such as such that the clitic dominates both girl and smile abso-bloody-lutely can be accommodated. In view of which would result in a D-projection of the entire the analysis in (5), one can assume that such an analy- expression. Evidence for DP is, however, ambiguous sis is possible in the current system, even though I at best, and as a result the current account rejects DP. refrain from providing one due to space reasons.

49 er – Brüder etc. Since the appearance of the ab- (8) tire laut changes the distribution of the whole expres- tire truck- sion, it is seen as the root: truck- military- (6) ¨ ¨ ¨ Vater Mutter Bruder a. truck- tire b. military- truck- tire a. Väter b. Mütter c. Brüder Example (8a) is a compound, but unlike (7b). „fathers‟ „mothers‟ „brothers‟ Here truck-, can still be modified, as (8b) illustrates. The truck is a military type of truck, ra- The ablaut, represented by ¨, now constitutes an ther than the tire being a military type of tire. individual node that can be accessed. The dotted This kind of compound is less syntactic than (7a), dependency edge is now completely vertical, a but more syntactic than (7b); this fact is feature also present in infixation, transfixation, represented by the solid dependency edge be- and suprafixation. Reduplication, suprafixation, tween the compound parts. and infixation can be accommodated in a similar German seems to dislike (8a)-type compounds. vein. Modifying adjectives must appear without their 3 Compounds attributive suffixes, an indication that the modified noun has lost the ability to license the ap- Compounds are words containing at least two pearance of attributives: lexical morphs. Because lexical morphs have the (9) Sport sport ability to constitute prosodic words, the appearance of two lexical morphs in one prosodic word -er Extrem- requires one of these morphs to be integrated into extrem the prosodic word structure of the other. a. extrem -er Sport b. Extrem- sport 3.1 Compound gradience „extreme sports‟ Compounds are of particular interest for depen- In (9a) the adjective is a regular attributive adjec- dency morphology because the semanto- tive, and it can be modified by sehr „very‟. In syntactic connection between compound parts (9b) however, the adjective is integrated into the exhibits gradience. Consider the next English prosodic word structure of sport, and it cannot be examples: marked with the attributive suffix -er (or any (7) room room other inflectional suffix), thus indicating compounding. dark dark- But German can build compounds by using a. dark room b. dark- room the Fugen -s-: Example (7a) shows a purely syntactic depen- (10) haus dency relationship. The attributive adjective can -s- still be modified by e.g. very. In (7b), that is im- possible, hence this expression is a compound. Wirt Because dark-room denotes a kind of room, not a Wirt -s- haus kind of dark(ness), room is seen as the root do- „tavern‟ minating the adjective. The adjective is integrated into the prosodic word structure of the Example (10) is very simple, and much more morph room, which is represented by the hyphen complex examples exist (e.g. Einzugsermächti- on dark-. Morphs must either be marked by a gung „collection authorization‟). The important hyphen or receive a projection edge (but never issue here is that -s- combines two units, each of both). which requires one of its morphs to be marked The words in (7a-b) represent the endpoints of with a projection edge (here: Wirt and haus). The a compound continuum. English allows com- hyphens on either side of -s- signal this important pounds to reside between these two end points, function; technically, -s- functions as an infix. as the next examples demonstrate:

50 3.2 “Exocentric” compounds tion with closer association of its parts should be preceded by a construction with freer association Exocentric compounds come in different types: 4 at an earlier time. When and how the association in bahuvrihi compounds, the meaning of the en- changes is a matter for specialists. The assump- tire expression cannot be deduced from its parts, tion of such a continuum is, however, compatible or only with great difficulty, e.g. skinhead, old- with much research in grammaticalization theory, money, bluecollar, etc. Other types of exocentric see Bybee‟s (2010:136-50) analysis of Engl. in compounds defy morphological categorization. spite of. The important issue here is that in order The words musthave and kickback are nouns (ra- to undergo this process, the individual parts of ther than verbs), auxiliaries, or prepositions. Fur- the complex expression must form catenae. thermore, there are dvandva compounds: copula- Since the bahuvrihi compound classes are tive dvandva have two (or more) semantic heads very extensive, the discussion concentrates on such as bitter-sweet or sleep-walk, and in apposi- four classes that contain verbal morphs: tional dvandva the compound parts contribute to a similar degree to the meaning of the entire ex- (12) a. VERB + NOUN pression, such as in maid-servant. b. VERB + PARTICLE At first blush, bahuvrihi and dvandva com- c. PARTICIPLE + PARTICLE pounds are removed from productive compounds d. AUXILIARY + VERB to a significant degree. Bahuvrihi such as skin- Examples for type (12a) are dodgeball, kickball, head, which means a certain type of person, ra- jumprope etc. For type (12b), one finds kickback, ther than a body part, are in the process of idiom breakdown, havenot etc, and examples for type formation or have already completed this process. (12c) are rundown, letdown, shutout, etc. Type Applying O‟Grady‟s (1998) lesson of syntactic (12d) includes musthave and hasbeen. idioms to compounding leads to the straightfor- Even though the noun ball depends on the ward assumption that the units involved in these verbs dodge and kick in the VPs dodge (a) ball types of compound must qualify as catenae if and kick (a) ball, the noun dominates the verb in they are to be retained in the lexicon. But the the compounds because these compounds denote lexicon, as understood in construction grammar, specific objects or activities using these objects, also contains constructions, which is why Gold- and these objects are represented by ball and berg (1995) calls it “constructicon” rather than rope. Type (12a) exhibits the following morph lexicon. Concerning compound constructions, dependencies: English requires the root of the compound to be a nominal, i.e. a noun, adjective, or some other (13) ball ball rope nominal form. In other words, the English com- dodge- kick- jump- pound construction continuum could look like this (with the horizontal order being free): a. dodgeball b. kickball c. jumprope (11) Y Y Y Examples (13a-c) show that the initial compound part depending on the final compound part. X X- X- Type (12b) compounds differ from type (12a) a. X Y b. X- Y c. X- Y insofar as the initial compound part is seen as the root. Expressions such as kickback, breakdown, Construction (11a) is purely syntactic, like (7a). havenot etc. are clearly nominals, because they In the next step (11b), X loses its ability to con- can be pluralized: kickbacks, breakdowns, have- stitute a prosodic word, but still retains the abili- nots. It is, however, the initial compound parts ty to govern modifiers. At stage (11c), the ability that undergo plural formation, i.e. kicks, breaks, to govern modifiers is relinquished. Beyond that haves, rather than *backs, *downs, *nots. Mul- stage, a new morph obtains. The example truck- tiple jumpropes are still multiple ropes, while tire in (8a) is at stage (11b), while (11c) is accu- multiple kickbacks are not multiple backs, but rate for dark-room in (7b). In general, a construc- multiple instances of kicking back. Hence the assumption that the initial parts form the roots, 4 The literature on this topic is quite extensive. Com- and that the plural morph vertically attaches to pounding and their types are treated in Fabb (1998), the initial parts is also justified when seen from Olsen (2000), Ten Hacken (2000), Bauer (2001, semantics. The structure of type (12b) com- 2009), etc. Dvandva are addressed in Bauer (2008). pounds is shown next: See Scalise and Bisetto (2009) and Arcodia (2010) for an overview.

51 (14) kick break ize more readily than expressions that contain such morphs. -back -down Finally, type (12d) compounds like musthave a. kick -back b. break -down seem to be very rare. Nevertheless, their struc- -s ture must be like (15): have have (17) has -not -not must -en c. have -not c'. have -not -s -have -be (14a-c) show the structure of kickback, break- a. must -have b. has -be -en down, and havenot. Example (14c') shows the Compare the structure (17b) with periphrasis in plural form of (14c). Section 5 below. Type (12c) is a variation of type (12b). The Once an expression has reached the stage difference lies with the form of the verb morph, (11c), it can be converted into a verb: babysit, which appears as a stem in (12b) but as a parti- benchpress, bodycheck, bullrush, carpetbomb, ciple form in (12c). As long as the participle crashdive, fieldtest, housebreak, housesit, proof- forms do not contain overt participle morphs, fread, slamdunk, tapdance, etc.5 Many of these type (12c) compounds are seen as structured examples are considered to have undergone along the lines of (14): backformation; for instance, baby-sit is derived (15) run let shut from babysitter, carpetbomb from carpetbomb- ing, etc. Other examples such as benchpress or -down -down -out crashdive are seen as zero-conversion. One real- a. run -down b. let -down c. shut -out life example shows the conversion of the compound noun cake-walk into a verb: Type (12c) compounds such as (15a-c) appear as nominal compounds because the participle is a (18) …as Joseph Addai really cakewalked nominal form. In the examples (13a-c), (14a-d), into the endzone… and (15a-c), dotted dependency edges obtain be- This example appeared in the commentary of the cause no material can intervene between the Colts-Raiders game (season 2010/11, week 17), compound parts. and it illustrates the productivity of the reconver- When a participle morph is present, a solid sion of apparent compounds to lexical morphs. dependency edge between the verb morph and the adverb must obtain because the participle 3.3 Clausal compounds morph must intervene in the horizontal dimension: A further phenomenon of interest is compounds containing whole clauses. Well known examples (16) -en -ing include the fully lexicalized English forget-me- brok mak not and its German version Vergissmeinnicht. Both are based on imperative clauses: evidence -down -out for this assumption is the ablaut of vergiss, the a. brok -en -down b. mak -ing -out stem of which is vergess. In German verbs with an /e→i/ ablaut, the ablaut version serves as the In (16a-b), the participle morphs -en and -ing imperative form. Since the verb is the clausal mark the expressions as nominals, but they ap- root, it retains this role in compounding within pear in medial position. The adverbs must there- its compound part. The structure of forget-me- fore be connected by solid dependency edges. not and Vergissmeinnicht are given next: This indicates that, in the compound continuum, the expressions in (15a-c) are located closer to (19) forget Vergiss the lexical endpoint of the continuum than the -me -not -mein -nicht expressions (16a-b). More precisely, the expressions (15a-c) are at stage (11c), while the expres- a. forget -me -not b. Vergiss -mein -nicht sions (16a-b) reside at stage (11b). Since highly irregular verbs such as run, let, shut, etc. do not 5 Contrary to spelling conventions, none of these ex- appear with a participle morph, they can lexical- pressions is written with a hyphen here, because these words are fully lexicalized.

52 The structure of the verbal morphs is left unana- compound root, nor between the units of the lyzed. A diachronic analysis of the German noun clausal compound. Unlike the English forget-me- would be much more complex. The German not and German Vergissmeinnicht, which must Vergissmeinnicht can undergo further com- be considered to be at stage (11c), this construc- pounding because one of its meanings is the tion is at stage (11b). flower in question, while an idiomatic meaning is „black eye‟. In this meaning, Vergissmeinnicht 4 Bracketing paradoxes can undergo compounding with German Auge Bracketing paradoxes (Williams 1981, Pesetsky „eye‟: 1985, Sproat 1988, Spencer 1988, Beard 1991, (20) auge Stump 1991/2001, Becker 1993, Müller 2003) pose significant problem for many theories. On Vergiss- adoption of catena-based dependency morpholo- mein- nicht- gy, however, bracketing paradoxes dissolve. Consider the next well-known example, intro- Vergiss- mein- nicht- auge duced by Williams (1981) and dubbed “personal „black eye‟ noun” by Spencer (1988): Note the hyphen convention in (20): because (24) moral philosopher Vergissmeinnicht is prosodically dependent on auge, the hyphens are employed to express this The expression in (24) is usually understood as property. Vergiss- attaches to mein- in the hori- referring to a philosopher concerned with moral zontal dimension, mein- attaches to nicht-, and issues, i.e. ethics. Under normal circumstances, nicht- to Auge. This example thus nicely illu- people do not view the philosopher as necessari- strates the logical transitivity of attachment in the ly moral, rather the type of philosophy this per- horizontal dimension, or prosodic dependency. son practices is concerned with moral issues. The Interestingly, the meaning of „not forgetting‟ problem with this reading is that it conflicts to a is also used in Japanese: a Japanese forget-me- certain degree with intuitions on word formation. not is a wasure-na-gusa. Its structure is illu- Consider the next two bracketing structures: strated as follows: (25) a. [moral [philosoph-er]] (21) gusa b. [[moral philosoph]-er] na- While (25a) means that the person is moral, (25b) correctly sees the philosophy as such, but it wasure- na- gusa does so at the expense of cutting into the second forget NEG grass word. In dependency grammars that do not reach „forget-me-not‟ into words, the structure of (24) should be (26): The expression in (21) must be a compound be- (26) philosopher cause the initial consonant of the compound root is voiced; on its own it is kusa „grass‟. moral English retains a rather productive construc- moral philosopher tion, where a clause forms a compound together with a noun such as face. Such a clausal com- (26) suggests an understanding along the lines of pound is shown in the next example: (25a). Employing the morph catena however, an insightful analysis becomes possible: (22) face (27) -er don‟t- philosoph mess- -al with- mor me- mor -al philosoph -er She gave me her don‟t- mess- with- me- face. A catena-based analysis can provide all and ex- The high productivity of this construction does actly those units required. (27) contains the cate- not merit the dotted dependency edge between na philosoph-er, which is missing in (25b), and it the root of the clausal compound part and the shows the catena mor-al philosoph, which is re-

53 quired for the correct semantic interpretation of the entire expression (and which is missing in (30) … (has -en) (be -ing) (be -ed) (discuss) (25a)). This ”hopping” guaranteed that there was one A phenomenon related to bracketing paradox- level at which the respective units were conti- es appears in compounding. Fabb (1998: 72f) guous, a prerequisite to establishing a semantic calls this phenomenon “subconstituency”. He relationship. uses the example American history teacher: In Distributed Morphology (DM) (Halle & (28) -er Marantz 1993, Harley & Noyer 2003, Embick and Noyer 2001/2007, Embick 2003), affix hop- teach ping is now seen as the predecessor of “lower- history- ing” and “local dislocation”.6 Whatever one calls the mechanism, the core assumption is that if American- some unit is displaced on the surface, this unit a. American- history- teach -er must have moved to its surface position from a position at which it was contiguous with other -er units with which it forms a greater semantic unit. American teach Based on the concepts introduced in the pre- vious sections, example (29) can now be reex- history- amined. The structure of the individual words b. American- history- teach been, being, and discussed is given below: (31) -en -ing -ed In (28a) American history is traditionally seen as a subconstituent of the whole expression, which be be discuss refers to a teacher of American history, the a. be -en b. be -ing c. discuss -ed teacher not necessarily being an American. In (28b), history teacher is seen as a subconstituent In (31), the suffixes invariably dominate their of the entire NP, which now refers to an Ameri- lexical verbs: in (31a), -en dominates be because can teacher of history, the history not necessarily be-en distributes like a participle rather than as being that of America. the infinitive. The same is true for (31c). In (31b), be-ing distributes like a progressive marked verb 5 Multiple periphrases form rather than like the infinitive. The complete morph dependency structure of example (29) is That multiple auxiliary constructions, i.e. mul- now shown: tiple periphrases, are a problem was acknowl- edged early on by Chomsky (1957: 39). He po- (32) perfective sits “affix hopping” in order to explain why the has morphemes expressing aspect and voice do not appear together on the surface. Consider the next problem -en progressive sentence: The be (29) The problem has be-en be-ing discuss-ed. -ing passive The units has and -en express perfective aspect, be the first be and -ing express progressive aspect, and the second be and -ed express passive voice. -ed The problem is that these units of functional discuss meaning are not contiguous, because parts of other functional units intervene on the surface. The problem has be -en be -ing discuss -ed. For instance, be of the progressive unit inter- The dependency structure in (32) must first be venes between has and -en forming the perfec- compared to the affix hopping/lowering analysis tive aspectual unit. Chomsky (1957: 39) pro- in (30): the units expressing the respective func- posed that the respective units are contiguous at a tional meanings are present as units on the sur- deeper level, and the affix of the unit “hops” over face. has and -en (=perfective aspect), be and - the verb of the next unit. The next example, ing (=progressive aspect), and be and -ed based on Anderson (1992: 16), shows how this proposal plays out: 6 See Sternefeld (2009: 481-88) for an overview.

54 (=passive voice) qualify as morph catenae. The lows for a fluid transition between syntax, mor- assumption of movement is unnecessary, since phosyntax, and morphology, and thus simplifies the respective morph combinations are discerni- the theoretical apparatus. ble in the vertical dimension (rather than the horizontal dimension). References Two issues are of importance here: 1. The Ágel, V. and K. Fischer. 2010. 50 Jahre Valenztheorie analysis in (32) obeys the Bybee hierarchy und Dependenzgrammatik. Zeitschrift für germa- (1985: 196-7), because the perfective morph ca- nistische Linguistik 16. 249-290 tena dominates the progressive morph catena, which in turn dominates the voice catena. 2. The Anderson, J. 1980. Towards dependency morphology: respective functional meanings are expressed by the structure of the Basque verb. Anderson, J. and C. Ewen eds., Studies in Dependency Phonology, units that qualify neither as constituents nor as 221-271. Ludwigsburg. words. As a corollary, the morph catena is – like its syntactic equivalent – a unit of meaning, Anderson, J. M. and C. J. Ewen. 1987. Principles of available on the surface. dependency phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 6 Conclusion Anderson, S. R. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. This paper has argued that morphological structure can be captured in dependency grammar by Anderson, S.R. 2005. Aspects of the Theory of Clitics. extending the notion of the catena from syntax Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. into morphology. The fact that no additional Arcodia, G.F. 2010. Coordinating compounds. Lan- concepts are necessary – and thus that morphol- guage and Linguistics Compass 4/9, 863-873. ogy plays out as syntax inside words is desirable. Bauer, L. 2001. Compounding. Haspelmath, M., E. Section 2 introduced the morph catena as A König, W. Oesterreicher and W. Raible eds., Lan- MORPH OR COMBINATION OF MORPHS THAT IS guage typology and language universals: an inter- CONTINUOUS WITH RESPECT TO DOMINANCE. national handbook, 695–707. Berlin/New York: The two relevant dependency relationships be- Mouton de Gruyter. tween morphs were then established: intra-word Bauer, L. 2008. Dvandva. Word Structure 1. 1–20. dependencies obtain between morphs contained in the same word; they are based on distribution. Bauer, L. 2009. Typology of compounds. Lieber, R. Inter-word dependency, or government, plays out and P. Štekauer eds., The Oxford handbook of compounding, 343–56. Oxford: Oxford University between a morph and a word, so that the morph Press. licenses the appearance of the word. Using these two concepts, morphs can be connected into ca- Becker, T. 1993. Back-formation, cross-formation, tenae regardless of the complexity of the struc- and „bracketing paradoxes‟ in Paradigmatic Mor- ture. It has also been demonstrated that this ac- phology. In Booij, G. & van Marle, J. (eds.), Year- count can accommodate non-concatenative mor- book of Morphology (vol. 6). Dordrecht: Foris Pub- lications. 1–25. phology (although these phenomena were not in focus). Booij, G. 2007. The Grammar of Words. Second Edi- The main message of this paper is that depen- tion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. dency grammar should and can make more of Bybee, J.L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation morphology. At present, dependency grammar between meaning and form. Amsterdam/Philadel- operates in syntax. However, the same meaning phia: John Benjamins Publishing can be encoded at different levels in different Bybee, J. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. languages. For instance, causative constructions Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. are periphrastic in English and German, but morphological in Japanese. In order to compare lan- Embick, D. and R. Noyer. 2001. Movement opera- guages, the concentration on syntax alone is in- tions after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry Vol 32, No. 4, 555–595 sufficient; rather it is necessary to provide a system that enables a fluid transition of description Embick, D. and R. Noyer. 2007. Distributed Mor- from syntax to morphology and back. This is phology and the Syntax/ Morphology Interface. possible if dependency relationships are seen as Ramchand, G. and C. Reiss eds. The Oxford Hand- operating not only in syntax, but also in morpho- book of Linguistic Interfaces. 289-324. Oxford University Press. syntax and morphology. The catena concept al-

55 Embick, D. 2003. Linearization and local dislocation: valency: An international handbook of contempo- Derivational mechanics and interactions. Linguistic rary research, vol. 1, 678-684. Berlin: Walter de Analysis 33/3-4. 303-336. Gruyter. Eroms, Hans-Werner. 2010. Valenz und Inkorpora- Mel‟čuk, I. 1988. Dependency syntax: Theory and tion. Kolehmainen Leena, Hartmut E. Lenk and practice. Albany: State University of New York Annikki Liimatainen eds. Infinite Kontrastive Hy- Press. pothesen. 27-40. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Mel‟čuk, I. 2003. Mel‟čuk, I. 2003. Levels of depen- Fabb, N. 1998. Compounding. Spencer A. and A. M. dency in linguistic description: concepts and prob- Zwicky eds., Handbook of morphology, 66–83. lems. In Ágel, V. et.al (eds.), Dependency and va- Oxford: Blackwell lency: an international handbook of contemporary research, vol. 1, 188-229. Berlin: Walter de Gruy- Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construc- ter. tion Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University Press of Chicago. Mel‟čuk, I. 2006. Aspects of the Theory of Morpholo- gy. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Groß, T. 2010. Chains in syntax and morphology. In Proceedings of the 24th Pacific Asia Conference Müller, S. 2003. Solving the bracketing paradox: an on Language, Information and Computation at To- analysis of the morphology of German particle hoku University, eds. O. Ryo, K. Ishikawa, H. verbs. Journal of Linguistics 39. 275–325. Uemoto, K. Yoshimoto & Y. Harada, 143-152. Nevis, J. A. 1986. Finnish Particle Clitics and Gen- Tokyo: Waseda University. eral Clitic Theory. Working Papers in Linguistics Groß, T. and T. Osborne 2009. Toward a practical DG 33. Columbus, Ohio: Dept. of Linguistics, Ohio theory of discontinuities. Sky Journal of Linguistics State University. 22. 43-90. O‟Grady, W. 1998. The syntax of idioms. Natural Halle, M. and A. Marantz. 1993. Distributed Mor- Language and Linguistic Theory 16. 79-312. phology and the Pieces of Inflection. Hale, K. and Olsen, S. 2000. Composition. Geert B., C. Lehmann S. J.Keyser eds., The View from Building 20, 111- and J. Mugdan eds. Morphologie-morphology, 176, Cambridge: MIT Press. 897–916. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter Harley, H. and R. Noyer. 2003. Distributed Morphol- Osborne, T. 2005. Beyond the constituent: a depen- ogy. In The Second GLOT International State-of- dency grammar analysis of chains. Folia Linguis- the-Article Book. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 463- tica 39/3-4: 251-297. 496. Osborne, T., M. Putnam and T. Groß (in press). Cate- Harnisch, R. 2003. Verbabhängige Morphologie und nae: Introducing a novel unit of syntactic analysis. Valenzmorphologie der Subjekt-Verb-Kongruenz. Syntax. Ágel, V. et al. (eds.), Dependency and valency: An international handbook of contemporary research, Pesetsky, D. 1985. Morphology and logical form. vol. 1, 411-421. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Linguistic Inquiry 16:193-246. Hays, D. 1964. Dependency theory: A formalism and Scalise, S. and A. Bisetto. 2009. The classification of some observations. Language 40. 511-525. compounds. Lieber, R. and P. Štekauer eds., The Oxford handbook of compounding, 34–53. Oxford: Heringer, H-J. 1970. Einige Ergebnisse und Probleme Oxford University Press. der Dependenzgrammatik. Der Deutschunterricht 4. 42-98. Spencer, A. 1988. "Bracketing paradoxes and the English lexicon." Language 64:663-682. Hudson, R. 1984. Word Grammar. New York: Basil Blackwell. Sproat, R. 1988. Bracketing paradoxes, cliticization, and other topics: The mapping between syntactic Hudson, R. 1990. An English Word Grammar. Ox- and phonological structure. In Everaert et al. (eds), ford: Basil Blackwell. Morphology and Modularity. Amsterdam: North- Hudson, R. 2007. Language networks: the new Word Holland. 339-360. Grammar. Oxford University Press. Stump, G. T. 1991. A paradigm-based theory of mor- Kaisse, E. M. 19985. Connected Speech. New York: phosemantic mismatches. Language 67/4. 675-725. Academic Press. Stump, G. T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Klavans, J. L. 1985. The Independence of syntax and Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge: phonology in cliticization. Language 61, 95-120. Cambridge University Press. Maxwell, D. 2003. The concept of dependency in Sternefeld, W. 2009. Syntax: Eine morphologisch morphology. Ágel, V. et al. (eds.), Dependency and motivierte generative Beschreibung des Deutschen.

56 Band 2. Third Edition. Tübingen: Stauffenberg. Ten Hacken, P. 2000. Derivation and compounding. Geert B., C. Lehmann and J. Mugdan eds. Morpho- logie-morphology, 349–60. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Williams, E. 1981. On the notions „lexically related‟ and „head of a word‟. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 245- 274. Zwicky, A. M. 1987. Suppressing the Zs. Journal of Linguistics 23, 133-148.