DOCSLIB.ORG

Reproductions Supplied by EDRS Are the Best That Can Be Made from the Original Document

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reproductions Supplied by EDRS Are the Best That Can Be Made from the Original Document DOCUMENT RESUME ED 444 358 FL 026 348 AUTHOR Dimitriadis, Alexis, Ed.; Lee, Hikyoung, Ed.; Moisset, Christine, Ed.; Williams, Alexander, Ed. TITLE Current Work in Linguistics. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 5, Number 2. INSTITUTION Pennsylvania Univ., Philadelphia. Penn Linguistics Club. PUB DATE 1998-00-00 NOTE 156p. AVAILABLE FROM PWPL, 619 Williams Hall, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6305 ($15). PUB TYPE Collected Works Proceedings (021) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC07 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Dialects; *Grammar; Kannada; *Language Research; *Linguistics; Mandarin Chinese; *Morphology (Languages); Second Language Instruction; Second Language Learning; Sociolinguistics; Syntax; Uncommonly Taught Languages; Vietnamese IDENTIFIERS Anaphora; Ellipsis ABSTRACT This issue includes the following articles: "A Multi-Modal Analysis of Anaphora and Ellipsis" (Gerhard Jager); "Amount Quantification, Referentiality, and Long Wh-Movement" (Anthony Kroch); "Valency in Kannada: Evidence for Interpretive Morphology" (Jeffrey Lidz); "Vietnamese 'Morphology' and the Definition of Word" (Rolf Noyer); "The Conflict between Future Tense and Modality: The Case of 'Will' in English" (Ancop Sarkar); and "Predemonstrative Modifiers in Mandarin" (Alexander Williams). References are appended to each article.(KFT) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 5 Number 2 Current Work in Linguistics 1998 r PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS Office of Educational Research and Improvement BEEN GRANTED BY EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) ci This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization W kRewCI'2 V originating it. 0 Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) Points of view or opinions stated inthis document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. '" 2 EST' COPY HAMM University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 5.2 (1998) Current Work in Linguistics Edited by: Alexis Dimitriadis, Hikyoung Lee, Christine Moisset and Alexander Williams 3 About the PWPLseries The University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics(PWPL) is an occasional series published by thePenn Linguistics Club, thegraduate student organization of theLinguistics Department ofthe University of Pennsylvania. The series hasincluded volumes of previouslyunpublished work, or work inprogress, by linguists withan ongoing affiliation with the Department, as well as volumes of papers from the NWAVEconference and the Penn LinguisticsColloquium. The current PWPL series editors are Alexis Dimitriadis,Hikyoung Lee, Christine Moisset, andAlexander Williams. This volume presents a cross-section of current work inlinguistics at the University of Pennsylvania.On behalf of both the editorsand the authors whose workappears in this volume,we wish to thank the reviewers of these papers for their important contribution. The Editors Publication in the Universityof Pennsylvania WorkingPapers in Linguistics (PWPL) does not precludesubmission of papers elsewhere; by the author(s) of copyright is retained individual papers. Commentson the papers should be sent directly to the authors,at the address provided at the endof each paper. The PWPL editorscan be contacted at the followingaddresses: U. Penn Working Papersin Linguistics 619 Williams Hall University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104-6305 working-papers @ babel.ling.upeim.edu For more information,please consult our web site: http://ling.upenn.edu/papers/pwpl.html Volumes of the PWPLare available at $15 per copy, pre-paid. the end of this volume). (See information at Multi-issue subscriptions, copiesof previous issues, and standing orders (for institutions only) are also available. Weinvite other student organizations to setup an exchange of publications withus. ii Table of Contents About the PWPL series ii A Multi-Modal Analysis of Anaphora and Ellipsis 1 Gerhard Jager Amount Quantification, Referentiality, and Long Wh-Movement 21 Anthony Kroch Valency in Kannada: Evidence for Interpretive Morphology 37 Jeffrey Lidz Vietnamese 'Morphology' and the Definition of Word 65 Rolf Noyer The Conflict Between Future Tense and Modality: The Case of Will in English 91 Anoop Sarkar Predemonstrative Modifiers in Mandarin 119 Alexander Williams Contents of Volume 5 147 iii A Multi-Modal Analysis of Anaphora and Ellipsis* Gerhard Jager 1. Introduction The aim of the present paper is to outlinea unified account of anaphora and ellipsis phenomena within the framework of Type Logical Categorial Gram- mar.1 There is at leastone conceptual and one empirical reason to pursue such a goal. Firstly, both phenomena are characterized by the fact that they re-use semantic resources that are also used elsewhere. This issue is discussed in detail in section 2. Secondly, they show a striking similarity in displaying the characteristic ambiguity between strict and sloppy readings. This supports the assumption that in fact the same mechanisms are at work in bothcases. (1) a. John washed his car, and Bill did, too. b. John washed his car, and Bill waxed it. In (la), the second conjunct can mean that Bill washed Bill'scar or that he washed John's car. Similarly, (lb) is ambiguous betweena reading where Bill waxed John's and one where he waxed hisown car. In the latter reading, it is usually called a paycheck pronoun or a lazypronoun. There is also a fundamental difference between ellipsis and anaphora, how- ever. While ellipses require a strong syntactic and semantic parallelism be- tween their own linguistic environment and the environment of their antece- dents, nothing comparable can be observed in thecase of (nominal) anaphors. This is immediately obvious in the case of strict readings, but sloppy, i.e. lazy readings show a considerable amount of tolerance here, too. (2) John already spent his paycheck, but in Bill'scase, it hasn't been handed out yet. Arguably, a sort of semantic/pragmatic parallelismcan be observed here, but certainly there is no syntactic parallelism, his paycheck beingan object and it a subject. *I am indebted to Natasha Kurtonina and Alexander Williams for valuable dis- cussions and comments. Besides I profited from the suggestions of twoanonymous referees. The research that led to this paper was funded partially by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and partially by the National Science Foundation. I'd liketo express my gratitude to both institutions. 'As introductions to this theory ofgrammar, the interested reader is referred to Carpenter 1997, Moortgat 1997, Morrill 1994. U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 5.2, 1998 2 GERHARD JAGER This observation is somewhat surprising in view of the fact thatit is fre- quently assumed that ellipsis interpretation is basedon the recognition of syn- tactic parallelism betweensource clause and target clause (as for instance in Dalrymple et al. 1991 or in Hobbs and Kehler 1997). If this istrue, anaphora and ellipsis are fundamentally different phenomena. Toput it the other way around, a unified account of anaphora and ellipsiscannot make reference to parallelism. Hence the parallelism constraints that undeniablyshow up cannot originate in the ellipsis interpretation module itself but haveto be located else- where in grammar. This is not too bad after all, sincecontexts that license VP ellipsislike coordinations, comparative construction,question-answer se- quences etc.display parallelism effects even when there is no ellipsis. Such a line of argumentation has the advantage that the ellipsis module doesn't have to account for contrasts like the following: (3) Who washed his car? a. John did, although Bill already had. b. John did, and Bill did, too. While (3b) only has a uniformly sloppy reading, thepreferred reading of (3a) is the one where both John and Bill washed John'scar. The availability of the latter reading rests on the fact that John's washinghis car is unlikely in case Bill already washed John'scar, but not in case of Bill having washed his own car. Since not contrast but similarity is required by the conjunction and... too in (3b), the corresponding reading is blocked.It strikes me as undesirable to give the syntax-semantics interface (which is arguablythe locus of ellipsis in- terpretation) access to this kind ofcommon sense knowledge. Thus the ellipsis interpretation module should giveaccess to both readings in both cases. 2. Semantic Resources and Compositionality If one assumes (a) a version of the Principle ofCompositionality and (b) that meanings of natural language expressionscan adequately be represented by means of expressions of the typed A-calculus, one immediately arrivesat the following claim (which is hardlymore than a truism): For each sign S consisting ofn lexemes, in each of its readings there is an expression M of the typed A-calculus withxl, , xi,occuring each exactly once such that M[x1 +-- , Nn] = S' where S' represents the meaning of S and Nithe meaning of the i'th lexeme. A MULTI-MODAL ANALYSIS OF ANAPHORA AND ELLIPSIS 3 The term M can be said to represent the semantic structure of the sign. It is an obvious question to ask whether there are restrictions on the form of these structures in natural language semantics. It is uncontroversial toassume that every A-operator should bind at least one variable occurrence.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Slavic Morphology
    Frank Y. Gladney University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Slavic Morphology Introduction. Slavic speakers are able to communicate because they share an inventory of sound-meaning pairings, or morphemes—a lexicon. The strings of meaningful sound which they exchange (sentences) are too long and various to be contained in the lexicon, so they need rules for combining morphemes into sentences— syntax. Occurring in sentences, morphemes assume various shapes, and rather than have all these shapes listed in the lexicon, some of them are described as the results of sound change—phonology. A few decades ago lexicon, syntax, and phonology were thought to suffice for describing a language. Syntax arranges the lexical items in sentences and phonology gives their pronunciation. Morphology? Word forms in Slavic are largely made up of morphemes, so in that sense Slavic, unlike Chinese, has morphology. It does not necessarily follow that Slavic has a separate grammar component called morphology. It is possible the facts of morphology can be accounted for with (sublexical) syntax and phonology. The facts in question include derivation, the formation of words,1 and inflection, their formal alteration as governed by the syntactic features of their sentence environment. Although it may seem reasonable to claim that words must be formed before they can be inflected—in most descriptions of Slavic languages, Stammbildungslehre (formation des mots, slovoobrazovanie) is treated before Formenlehre (flexion des mots, slovoizmenenie)—this selective survey of Slavic morphology will begin with inflection, for the reason that, first, it lies closer to the surface and, second, much that is regarded as word- (or stem-) formation is dependent on inflection.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection Morris Halle
    Chapter 3 Distributed Morphology and Morris Halle and the Pieces of Inflection Alec Marantz 1 Morphology with or without Affixes The last few years have seen the emergence of several clearly articulated alternative approaches to morphology. One such approach rests on the notion that only stems of the so-called lexical categories (N, V, A) are morpheme "pieces" in the traditional sense—connections between (bun- dles of) meaning (features) and (bundles of) sound (features). What look like affixes on this view are merely the by-product of morphophonological rules called word formation rules (WFRs) that are sensitive to features associated with the lexical categories, called lexemes. Such an a-morphous or affixless theory, adumbrated by Beard (1966) and Aronoff (1976), has been articulated most notably by Anderson (1992) and in major new studies by Aronoff (1992) and Beard (1991). In contrast, Lieber (1992) has refined the traditional notion that affixes as well as lexical stems are "mor- pheme" pieces whose lexical entries relate phonological form with mean- ing and function. For Lieber and other "lexicalists" (see, e.g., Jensen 1990), the combining of lexical items creates the words that operate in the syntax. In this paper we describe and defend a third theory of morphol- ogy, Distributed Morphology,1 which combines features of the affixless and the lexicalist alternatives. With Anderson, Beard, and Aronoff, we endorse the separation of the terminal elements involved in the syntax from the phonological realization of these elements. With Lieber and the lexicalists, on the other hand, we take the phonological realization of the terminal elements in the syntax to be governed by lexical (Vocabulary) entries that relate bundles of morphosyntactic features to bundles of pho- nological features.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributed Morphology As a Regular Relation Marina Ermolaeva University of Chicago, [email protected]
    Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics Volume 1 Article 20 2018 Distributed Morphology as a regular relation Marina Ermolaeva University of Chicago, [email protected] Daniel Edmiston University of Chicago, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/scil Part of the Computational Linguistics Commons Recommended Citation Ermolaeva, Marina and Edmiston, Daniel (2018) "Distributed Morphology as a regular relation," Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics: Vol. 1 , Article 20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7275/R51834PC Available at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/scil/vol1/iss1/20 This Extended Abstract is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Distributed Morphology as a regular relation Marina Ermolaeva and Daniel Edmiston University of Chicago {mermolaeva,danedmiston}@uchicago.edu 1 Introduction structure (FS). An FS F is defined as a pair M, E , h i where the feature bundle M = feat(F ) is a sub- This research reorganizes the Distributed Morphol- set of some finite set of features (including syntac- ogy (DM, (Halle and Marantz, 1993)) framework tic category labels) and the phonological exponent to work over strings. That the morphological mod- E = exp(F ) (Σ None, ), where Σ is a fi- ule should operate over strings is desirable, since it ∈ ∪ { } nite set of phonemes. The default exponent of each is assumed that most (arguably all) morphological syntactic unit is None, a place-holder to be replaced processes can be modelled with regular languages by vocabulary insertion (VI) in the morphological (Karttunen et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributed Morphology and the Syntax/Morphology Interface
    Distributed Morphology and the Syntax/Morphology Interface David Embick and Rolf Noyer University of Pennsylvania ***Draft of October 25, 2004*** (To appear in G. Ramchand and C. Reiss eds., The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, Oxford University Press) 1 Introduction: The Syntax/Morphology Interface A theory of the syntax/morphology interface is first, a theory of how ‘words’ and their internal structure – the traditional domain of morphology – relate to the structures generated by the syntax, and second, a theory of how the rules for deriving complex words relate to the rules for deriving syntactic structures. A prominent line of research in this area consists of approaches assuming some version of the Lexicalist Hypothesis. For present purposes, this is the claim that (at least some) words are special in ways that e.g. phrases are not, and that this ‘specialness’ calls for an architecture in which the derivation of words and the derivation of syntactic objects occur in different modules of the grammar (the Lexicon versus the syntax).1 While the ‘words’ derived in the Lexicon serve as the terminals in the syntactic derivation, there is a sharp division between syntax and morphology according to this approach. In this way, the interface between syntax and morphology in such a theory is opaque or indirect: there is no reason to expect the structure and composition of ‘words’ to relate to the structure and composition of syntactic objects in any transparent or for that matter systematic fashion. A second line of research advances the hypothesis that ‘words’ are assembled by rules of the syntax.
    [Show full text]
  • ABRALIN 2007 Course on Distributed Morphology
    Distributed Morphology ABRALIN 2007, February 22-27, 2007 Heidi Harley, University of Arizona [email protected]; http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~hharley/ Readings: Downloadable from the course home page, http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~hharley/courses/ABRALIN/ABRALIN2007/ (Note: Schedule is only approximate! We will deviate from this if we need to.) Feb. 22 Introduction to (post-)syntactic morphology Harley and Noyer 2000: "Distributed Morphology" Bobaljik 2000: "The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy" Feb. 23 Complex verb structure Harley, 2006, "On the causative construction" Travis, 2000, "Event Structure in Syntax" Feb. 24 Irregularity, blocking and getting morphemes in order Embick, David. "Locality, Listedness and Morphological Identity" Barragan, Luis. "Movement and allomorphy in the Cupeno verb construction" Feb. 25 Phi-features and post-syntactic morphological operations Williams, Edwin. "Remarks on Lexical Knowledge" Bobaljik, Jonathan. "Syncretism without paradigms" (Frampton, John. "Syncretism, Impoverishment and the structure of person features") Feb. 26 DM as a psychological model Pfau, R. 2000. "Speech Errors and Distributed Morphology" Chapts 1, 2 and 4 only. Longtin, C-M et al. 2000"Morphological Priming Without Morphological Relationship" Feb. 27 Wrap-up: DM and semantics Marantz, Alec. 1997. "No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon." Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. "Severing the external argument from its verb" Harley/ Distributed Morphology Lecture Notes ABRALIN 2007 1 Background: Distributed Morphology and the Syntax-Morphology Interface Harley and Noyer 2000: "Distributed Morphology" Some morphological terminology: stem for ‘suffix2’ [[prefix[[root]suffix1]]suffix2] root=stem for suffix1 stem for ‘prefix’ Example: [[in[[describ]abil]ity] derivation vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributed Morphology, Spans, Portmanteaux, Suppletion
    Nonlocal stem allomorphy 2 Answer from Bobaljik 2012: (7) a. α ... ]X0 ... β b.* α ... ] ... β Distributed Morphology, spans, portmanteaux, suppletion XP Answer from Embick 2010: Jason Merchant, University of Chicago (8) (A1) Insertion proceeds from the inside-out. LOT 2017 (9) (A2) Contextual allomorphy requires linear adjacency. (10) (A3) Two nodes can see each other for allomorphic purposes only when they are both active in the same cycle. 1 Locality for stem allomorphy, including suppletion (11) Complex head: a.Z (1) vP = λev.P (e) (2) a. PERFECTIVE = λPvt.λii. ev[P (e)& τ(e) i] Y Z J K ∃ ⊆ b. IMPERFECTIVE = λPvt.λii. ev[P (e)& t(t i)[t τ(e)]], ∃ Q ⊆ ⊆ X Y whereJ = (forK the progressive reading) or GEN (for the habitual) Q ∀ J K √ROOT X (3) a. b. Linearization: √ROOT X Y Z Tense − − − Aspect By (A1), VI occurs first at X, then at Y , then at Z. Thus, ... VI at Y could in principle Voice vVP see either phonological or morphosyntactic features of X but can look “outwards” only to morphosyntactic features of Z; and so on. In short, a node may show inward sensitivity ...V... to either morphosyntactic or phonological features, but it may show outward sensitivity b. Mirror Principle expectation: V-v-Voice-Aspect-Tense only to morphosyntactic features . by (A2) insertion at e.g. X could only be affected by √ROOT or Y . The reason for this is that only the Root and Y are concatenated with X. (4) a. Yo quise ir al circo. (Spanish) (Embick 2012:26) I wanted.PERF.1s go to.the circus ‘I wanted to go the circus.’ b.
    [Show full text]
  • DISTRIBUTED MORPHOLOGY* Jonathan David Bobaljik U Conn • Storrs August 2015
    DISTRIBUTED MORPHOLOGY* Jonathan David Bobaljik U Conn • Storrs August 2015 Distributed Morphology (DM) is a theoretical framework that emerged in the early 1990s. The name is introduced in Halle and Marantz (1993, 1994), with important precursors including Halle (1990), Bonet (1991), Noyer (1997), and Pesetsky (1995). At a broad level, DM represents a set of hypotheses about the interaction among components of grammar: Morphology, in DM, is (a part) of the mapping from the output of a syntactic derivation to the (input to) the phonology, as sketched in (1):1 (1) Architecture Syntactic derivation Output (Spell-Out) Morphology Phonology Semantics DM is centred around two key hypotheses; both common in various parts of the literature—where DM claims novelty is in the synthesis of these two leading ideas under the architecture in (1): (2) Syntax-all-the-way-down: The primary mode of meaningful composition in the grammar, both above and below the word-level, is the syntax. Syntax operates on sub-word units, and thus (some) word-formation is syntactic. (3) Late Insertion / Realization: The pieces manipulated by the syntax (functional morphemes) are abstract, lacking phonological content. The pairing of * This chapter attempts to elucidate some core ideas in the framework of Distributed Morphology, but does not aim to be a thorough review of the relevant literature. For conversations that have been particularly helpful in formulating the perspective presented here, I thank Mark Baker, Andrea Calabrese, David Embick, Alec Marantz, Andrew Spencer, Susi Wurmbrand, Jochen Trommer and members of the Network Grundmechanismen der morphologischen Exponenz, as well as the many class participants with whom I have discussed the merits of competing morphological theories.
    [Show full text]
  • State-Of-The-Article: Distributed Morphology Heidi Harley and Rolf Noyer, University of Pennsylvania Appeared in GLOT 4.4, April 1999, Pp
    1 State-of-the-Article: Distributed Morphology Heidi Harley and Rolf Noyer, University of Pennsylvania appeared in GLOT 4.4, April 1999, pp. 3-9 Whenever a major revision to the architecture of UG is proposed, it takes some time for sufficient work to accumulate to allow evaluation of the viability of the proposal, as well as for its broad outlines to become familiar to those not immediately involved in the investigation. The introduction of Distributed Morphology in the early 1990s, by Morris Halle and Alec Marantz, is a case in point. In the four-year period since the first paper outlining the framework appeared, a reasonably substantial body of work has appeared, addressing some of the key issues raised by the revision. The goal of this article is to introduce the motivation and core assumptions for the framework, and at the same time provide some pointers to the recent work which revises and refines the basic DM proposal and increases DM’s empirical coverage. Since the particular issues we discuss cover such a broad range of territory, we do not attempt to provide complete summaries of individual papers, nor, for the most part, do we attempt to relate the discussion of particular issues to the much broader range of work that has been done in the general arena. What we hope to do is allow some insight into (and foster some discussion of) the attitude that DM takes on specific issues, with some illustrative empirical examples. This article is organized as follows. Section 1 sketches the layout of the grammar and discusses the division of labor between its components.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributed Morphology and the Syntax/Morphology Interface
    Distributed Morphology and the Syntax/Morphology Interface David Embick and Rolf Noyer University of Pennsylvania ***Draft of December 9, 2005*** (To appear in G. Ramchand and C. Reiss eds., The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, Oxford University Press) 1 Introduction: The Syntax/Morphology Interface A theory of the syntax/morphology interface is first, a theory of how ‘words’ and their internal structure – the traditional domain of morphology – relate to the structures generated by the syntax, and second, a theory of how the rules for deriving complex words relate to the rules for deriving syntactic structures. A prominent line of research in this area consists of approaches assuming some version of the Lexicalist Hypothesis. For present purposes, this is the claim that (at least some) words are special in ways that e.g. phrases are not, and that this ‘specialness’ calls for an archi- tecture in which the derivation of words and the derivation of syntactic objects occur in different modules of the grammar (the Lexicon versus the syntax).1 While the ‘words’ derived in the Lexicon serve as the terminals in the syntactic derivation, there is a sharp division between syntax and mor- phology according to Lexicalist approaches of this type. In this way, the interface between syntax and morphology in such a theory is opaque or indirect: there is no reason to expect the structure and composition of ‘words’ to relate to the structure and composition of syntactic objects in any transparent or for that matter systematic fashion. A second line of research advances the hypothesis that ‘words’ are assembled by rules of the syntax.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributed Morphology and Prosody: the Case of Prepositions Abstract
    Distributed Morphology and prosody: The case of prepositions Abstract Prepositions in Israeli Hebrew, as in other languages, are clitics. They are often regarded as proclitics, cliticizing to their object, probably because they both introduce this object (conceptually) and select for it (morpho-syntactically). In this paper, we make the opposite claim, namely that these prosodically-dependent items are in fact entclitic: they cliticize to the preceding word, mainly the sentence predicate. This claim is first supported by the analysis of evidence from natural speech prosodic segmentation. Then, it is shown that within the morpho-syntactic theory of Distributed Morphology, this segmentation is in fact predicted. The morpho-syntactic analysis is confirmed by its capacity to account for the distribution of non-radical [h] in the verbal system of Israeli Hebrew, hitherto considered an arbitrary trait. Finally, the analysis is shown to correctly predict the encliticization of definite articles preceding prepositions. Finally, the analysis is shown to correctly predict the encliticization of definite markers to a preceding preposition. 1 Introduction1B This paper discusses the phonological attachment of the cliticized prepositions (be- 'in'/'at', ke- 'as', le- 'to', mi- 'from') of Israeli Hebrew in natural speech. Although morphologically these items are grouped with the following constituent, we show evidence from naturally occurring speech that they are produced as if they were concatenated to the preceding prosodic unit. This can be explained by assuming a prosodic boundary between the preposition and its nominal complement, but not between the preposition and the constituent that precedes it. We then provide evidence from lexical morpho-phonology as to the existence of this boundary.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributed Morphology and the Syntax--Morphology Interface
    Nicholas LaCara · University of Toronto lin333 · 25 February 2019 Distributed Morphology and the syntax–morphology interface We've seen seen a number of Distributed Morphology analyses in this course so far (including analyses of theme vowels, nominalization,andcompounding. Inlookingatthoseanalyses, we focused on structural concerns – how does the syntactic structure give rise to morphological structure. Today,we focus more on the background assumptions of Distributed Morphol- ogy and the novel operations it proposes. 1 Overview • Bobaljik (óþÕ¢) summarizes the assumptions of Distributed Morphology (DM). This paperhas beenpublished as Bobaljik 2017.Forother summaries, see Embick and – e founding work on DM is considered to be Halle and Marantz ÕÉÉì, but Noyer 2007 and Harley and the theory has changed a lot in the years. Noyer 1999. – is recent summary offers a nice overview of the current state of the art. – e focus here is on the various operations DM makes available beyond AnditisworthnotingthatDM those that are thought to be provided by standard Miminalist syntax. usually takes Minimalist syntax as its startingpoint. • Core tenants of DM: (Õ) Syntax-all-the-way-down: ere is no meaningful distinction between words and morphological ele- Inotherwords,the syntax ments at the level of syntax. (Some) word formation is accomplished in the manipulates morphemes. narrow syntax. (ó) Late Insertion: ere is no phonological content in the syntactic derivation. Phonological Phonological material is material is inserted or realized aer syntax has occurred. inserted very lateinthe derivation, well after SS/Spell Out. • is leads to the following general picture of the grammar: i. Syntax (in part) builds ‘words’ (or, more properly, the elements that phono- logical material will be inserted into).
    [Show full text]
  • Remarks and Replies
    Remarks and Replies Roots and the Derivation Jason D. Haugen Daniel Siddiqi Contrary to recent work in Distributed Morphology adopting Early Root Insertion (the notion that Roots are present from the outset of the syntactic derivation), we argue that Late Insertion applies to Roots just like other morphemes. We support this conclusion with empirical evidence (Root suppletion and hyponymous direct objects in noun incorporation and related constructions) and conceptual considerations (including the beneficial obviation of readjustment operations and the possibility that narrow syntax is universal). Additional data (Latin semideponent verbs) allow us to recast Embick’s (2000) licensing analysis of Latin deponent verbs as a further argument for Late Root Insertion. Keywords: Roots, Late Insertion, Root suppletion, readjustment rules, hyponymous objects, Distributed Morphology 1 Introduction The earliest work in Distributed Morphology (DM) crucially assumed Late Insertion for all Vocab- ulary items, or VIs (see Halle and Marantz 1993, 1994, Harley and Noyer 1999, and much other work). This entails that morphemes, construed as abstract syntacticosemantic features, are not attached to their phonological exponents until Vocabulary Insertion, which is presumed to occur at the level of morphological structure after the syntactic derivation occurs. This model can be schematized as in (1). (1) The architecture of the grammar in DM Syntax Morphology Phonology Vocabulary Insertion We thank Heidi Harley, Jeff Punske, and Matt Tucker for useful discussion
    [Show full text]