DOCSLIB.ORG

The Road Or the Door to Exponence? Examining Simultaneity at Spell-Out1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Road Or the Door to Exponence? Examining Simultaneity at Spell-Out1 Nicholas Rolle The Morphology and Syntax Workshop 2019.Jan.25 University of Chicago THE ROAD OR THE DOOR TO EXPONENCE? EXAMINING SIMULTANEITY AT SPELL-OUT1 Nicholas Rolle, Princeton University [1] Notion of ‘spell-out’ invoked in discussing linguistic interfaces across disciplines a. Syntax e.g. Minimalism/Generative syntax [Chomsky 1995, Uriagereka 1999, 2012, Dobashi 2004, a.o.] b. Morphology e.g. Distributed Morphology [Halle & Marantz 1993, Embick & Noyer 2001, Embick 2010, 2015, Arregi & Nevins 2012] c. Phonology e.g. Match Theory, Direct vs. Indirect Interface debates [Selkirk 2009, 2011, Elfner 2012, 2015, a.o] [2] This has left the field of interface studies – and particular ‘interface-ists’, e.g. Scheer 2011 – wondering how to fit it all together [3] Big picture questions: what constitutes spell-out? and is spell-out (i) serial and rule- based, (ii) parallel and constraint-based, (iii) something else/in-between? [4] I argue / have argued for a hybrid OT-DM framework, which has commitments both to a realizational, syntax-driven morphology but also constraint-based parallelism [5] But more interesting…: what can looking at post-syntax as a parallel and optimizing system get us? What are its predictions and how do they pan out? [6] Three predictions: a. Outward-looking phonologically-conditioned allomorphy b. No opacity at spell-out c. No access to syntax post-spell-out [7] Roadmap: a. What is an OT-DM framework? b. A case study of Cilungu tonal allomorphy which looks like outward-looking phonologically-conditioned allomorphy (though it’s complicated…) [8] Take away point: spell-out is a mapping between modules, and post-syntactic operations themselves constitute the substance of this mapping 1 Thank you to my colleagues Laura Kalin, Byron Ahn, Sam Zukoff, and Florian Lionnet for initial feedback, and many others at Princeton and Berkeley for talking to me over the years. Nicholas Rolle The road or the door to exponence? 1 AN OT-DM FRAMEWORK 1.1 A rocky start… [9] OT & morphology theory: In many approaches to morphology, an OT model and parallelism have been welcomed [Cophonology Theory - Inkelas & Zoll 2007; Optimal Construction Morphology - Cabellero & Inkelas 2013; Stratal OT - Kiparsky 2015; see summary of OT approaches to morphology in Xu 2016] [10] Optimality Theory and Distributed Morphology – emerging in the same (North American) generative period in the 90s – are assumed to be at odds with one another a. Embick (2010:ix) - DM “is incompatible with the dominant view in phonological theory, Optimality Theory (OT), which posits competition among infinite sets of complex objects” [emphasis mine; see also observations by Tucker 2011:200] [11] Since their respective inceptions, however, there have been many rumblings regarding the relationship between OT and DM (or at least some principle belonging to one or the other), and even some recent nascent debates [Noyer 1992, 1994, Bonet 1994, Trommer 2001a, 2001b, 2002, Don & Blom 2006, Opitz 2008, Haugen 2008, 2011, Wolf 2008, 2013, 2015, Lahne 2010, Tucker 2011, Günes 2015, Keine & Müller 2015, Brown 2017, Dawson 2017, Arregi & Nevins 2017, Deal & Wolf 2017, Franks 2017, Kiparsky 2017, Sande 2017, Vergara & Lopez 2017, Abramovitz 2018, Guseva & Weisser 2018, Rolle 2019, Foley’s to appear Optimal Vocabulary Insertion] [12] A cline from DM to OT: (1) DM (2) R&C-DM (3) OT-DM (4) OT-CC/OI (5) OT (1) Distributed Morphology (DM) [Halle & Marantz 1993, Marantz 1997, 2000, 2001, Embick & Noyer 2001, Embick 2010, 2015, etc.] (2) Rules & Constraints Distributed Morphology R&C-DM a ‘constraint-and-repair approach’ – Kiparsky 2017; a ‘Filter & Hierarchy’ approach – Trommer 2001a [Arregi & Nevins 2012] (3) Optimality-Theoretic Distributed Morphology (OT-DM) [Trommer 2001a, 2001b, Dawson 2017, Rolle 2019, Foley to appear; see Trommer 2001a, Rolle 2019 for historical context] (4) OT with Candidate Chains (OT-CC) / Optimal Interleaving (OI) [Wolf 2008, 2013, 2015] (5) Optimality Theory (OT) [Prince & Smolensky 2004 [1993], McCarthy & Prince 1993a, 1993b, Mester 1994, Kager 1996, 1999, a.o.] 2 Nicholas Rolle The road or the door to exponence? [13] R&C-DM effectively use constraints to provide insight into and a trigger for specific post-syntactic operations: “In order to capture the pandialectal fact that certain combinations of participant clitics are targets of Impoverishment, we propose that Participant Dissimilation rules are triggered by the following markedness constraint: Syntagmatic Participant Markedness An auxiliary M-word cannot contain two clitics Cl1 and Cl2 such that Cl1 is specified as [+participant, Φ] and Cl2 is specified as [+participant,Ψ]” [Arregi & Nevins 2012:214, emphasis mine] [14] Optimality-Theoretic Distributed Morphology (OT-DM) [Trommer 2001a, Rolle 2019] a. Only constraints, no rules: Post-syntactic operations are decomposed into a series of constraints which apply in parallel b. All aspects of DM are maintained, except rule-based seriality See Appendix 1 c. Other than OT-DM, another name you could call it is: (Modular) Item-Based Realizational Non-Lexicalist Syntax-Driven Phonology- Free Optimality-Theoretical Morphology [(M)IBRNLSDPFOTM] 1.2 The substance of spell-out [15] Broadly, the mapping of syntactic structure to a phonological representation [16] Its purpose can be understood to ‘externalize’ an internal linguistic construction for communicative intent (at least on the PF side of things) [Why it doesn’t map directly to motor planning and articulation is a separate question…] [17] Y-Model of grammar (or ‘T-model’) [Chomsky 1981, Freidin & Lasnik 2011:13, Idsardi & Raimy 2013, Harley 2014, Bobaljik 2017, among numerous variants] Syntactic derivation Spell-out Phonetic Form (PF) Logical Form (LF) [≈ Phonology] [≈ Semantics] [18] Morpho-syntactic module maps to morpho-phonological module at spell-out Appendix 4 3 Nicholas Rolle The road or the door to exponence? [19] Input-output components of spell-out [Rolle 2018] a. /S/ is the input - the ‘syntactic image’ b. \Ƨ\ is the output - the ‘phonological image’ [20] Morpho-syntactic module: a. Primitives taken from the feature lexicon, bundles of morphosyntactic features (‘SynSem features’ in Embick 2015:34) [Narrow Lexicon - Marantz 1997:204; List A - Harley & Noyer 1999; List 1 - Harley 2014; List of Syntactic Atoms - Bobaljik 2017] b. Syntactic structure built up cyclically via Merge, proceeds bottom-up/inside-out [Chomsky 1995, Epstein 1999:325, Richards 2011:175-182, Uriagereka 2011, a.o.] [21] Morpho-phonological module: a. Ample evidence for cyclicity (or at least cyclic effects), catalogued in detail in Inkelas (2014:189-241) [Chomsky, Halle, & Lukoff 1956, Kean 1974, Mascaró 1976, Kiparsky 1982, Cole 1995, Benua 1997, Chen 2000:116, Hyman 2017; a good, recent discussion piece in Kastner 2018, a.o.] [‘Obligatory inheritance’ of a previous cycle, i.e. that ‘later evaluations [are forced] to inherit the results of earlier ones’ Steriade 2012:4] [22] An inside-out characterization of cyclicity is the most-common position across many subfields, frameworks, modules, and phenomena [Carstairs 1987; Bobaljik 2000; Carstairs-McCarthy 2001; Embick 2010:42; Bermúdez-Otero 2011; a.o.] [23] Spell-out primarily involves the ‘actuation of phonology’ Spell-out operation Provides a. Vocabulary insertion Phonological substance (primitives) [phonemes, tonemes, autosegments, etc.] b. Linearization Phonological precedence [basic morph order] c. Prosodification Phonological constituency [metrical structure, prosodic words, prosodic phrases, etc.] d. Hierarchy exchange Scope of phonological operations [scope/order of the application of phonological rules] [24] Vocabulary items (i.e. the morphs associating form to meaning) are inserted via vocabulary insertion (taken from Vocabulary), in the curly bracketed objects { } – each labelled for reference {VI}, i.e. {DOG} [Articulated VI structure in Sande & Jenks 2017, Rolle 2018] [25] Interface literature ripe with numerous, less-phonological spell-out operations a. Bundle manipulation – e.g. ‘fusion’, ‘fission’, insertion/deletion of morphosyntactic features (e.g. via ‘dissociated node insertion’, ‘enrichment’, ‘impoverishment’, etc.) [Embick & Noyer 2001, Müller 2007, Embick 2015, a.o.] b. Syntax-like operations such as DM’s ‘lowering’ (movement of X⁰ down to its closest head it c-commands), or its counterpart ‘raising’ [Embick & Noyer 2001, Chomsky 2001:37, Schoorlemmer & Temmerman 2012, Harizanov & Gribanova 2018] 4 Nicholas Rolle The road or the door to exponence? c. Economy conditions (e.g. multiple copy resolution, deletion-under-identity, e.g. suspended affixation) [Booij 1985, Kabak 2007, Merchant 2012, Guseva & Weisser 2018] [26] Not to mention where intonation/prosodic correlates of information structure fit in… 1.3 Morphology-in-parallel hypothesis (MIPH) [27] Post-syntactic operations apply in parallel in a constraint-based architecture a. One interaction of operations which apply simultaneously to ‘actuate’ phonology b. This does not preclude the possibility of multiple cycles of spell-out (i.e. ‘phases’) [28] Spell-out (and by extension morphology) itself is not a module a. Cf. Paradigm Functional Morphology (PFM) where ‘morphology is an autonomous system’ [Bonami & Stump forthcoming] [29] Morphology-in-parallel hypothesis (MIPH) The substance of spell-out are a set of post-syntactic ‘operations’ which map a syntactic image / S / to an optimal phonological image \ Ƨ , applying in parallel within an OT architecture (involving morphological CON, EVAL, GEN,
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]