Abstract
A number of interactions in grammar are referred to as showing blocking effects, typically defined as cases in which the existence of one form prevents the existence of a form that is otherwise expected to occur. Patterns of analytic/synthetic alternation, in which two-word and one-word forms alternate with each other, have been taken to be instances of blocking in this sense. An example is found in the formation of English comparatives and superlatives, where, for example, the synthetic form smarter appears to block the analytic form *more smart. Analytic forms are available in other cases (e.g. more intelligent), such that the interaction between the “one word” and “two word” forms is crucially at issue. This paper examines English comparative and superlative formation, concentrating on the question of how the morphophonology relates to syntax and semantics. A central point is that in the architecture of Distributed Morphology, these cases do not involve word/word or word/phrase competition-based blocking. Rather, blocking effects broadly construed are reduced to the effects of distinct mechanisms: (1) Vocabulary Insertion at a particular terminal node (morpheme), and (2) the operation of combinatory processes. The paper provides a detailed discussion of the latter type, showing that synthetic comparative/superlative forms are created post-syntactically by affixation under adjacency. Throughout the discussion, questions concerning the status of blocking effects in Distributed Morphology, and those found in analytic/synthetic alternations in particular, play a central role.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aronoff M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Bhatt R., Pancheva R. (2004). Late merger of degree clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 35(1): 1–45
Bobaljik, J. (1994). What does adjacency do? In H. Harley & C. Phillips (Eds.), The morphology-syntax connection (pp. 1–32). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL 21.
Bresnan J. (1973). The syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 275–343
Bresnan J. (1999). Explaining morphosyntactic competition. In: Baltin M., Collins C. (eds). Handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 1–44
Chomsky N. (1995). The minimalist program. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
di Sciullo A.M., Williams E. (1987). On the definition of word. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Embick D. (2000). Features, syntax and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry 31(2): 185–230
Embick D. (2003). Locality, listedness, and morphological information. Studia Linguistica 57(3): 143–169
Embick, D. (2005). Linearization and local dislocation: Derivational mechanics and interactions. to appear in Linguistic Analysis.
Embick D., Halle M. (2005). On the status of stems in morphological theory. In: Geerts T., Jacobs H. (eds). Proceedings of going romance 2003. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 59–88
Embick, D., Halle, M. (forthcoming) Distributed morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Embick, D., & Marantz, A. (2006). Architecture and blocking. ms., University of Pennsylvania and MIT.
Embick D., Noyer R. (2001). Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32(4): 555–595
Fox D., Pesetsky D. (2005). Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31, 1–45
Giegerich H. (2001). Synonymy blocking and the elsewhere condition: Lexical morphology and the speaker. Transactions of the Philological Society 99(1): 65–98
Halle M. (1997). Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30, 425–449
Halle M., Marantz A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In: Hale K., Keyser S.J. (eds). The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 111–176
Hankamer J., Mikkelsen L. (2005). When movement must be blocked: A response to Embick and Noyer. Linguistic Inquiry 36(1): 85–125
Heim I. (2000). Degree operators and scope. In: Jackson B., Matthews T. (eds). Proceedings of SALT X. Cornell University, CLC Publications, Ithaca, pp. 40–64
Kennedy C. (1997). Comparison and polar opposition. In: Lawson A. (eds). Proceedings of SALT 7. CLC Publications, Ithaca, pp. 240–257
Kennedy C. (1999). Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. New York: Garland.
Kennedy C. (2001). Polar opposition and the ontology of “degrees”. Linguistics and Philosophy 24, 33–70
Kennedy C. (2002). Comparative deletion and optimality in syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20(3): 553–621
Kiparsky, P. (2005). Blocking and periphrasis in inflectional paradigms. Yearbook of Morphology, 2004, 113–135.
Kroch A. (1994). Morphosyntactic variation. In: Beals K. (eds). Papers from the 30th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: Parasession on variation and linguistic theory. Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, pp. 180–201
Lechner W. (1999). Comparatives and DP-Structure. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lechner W. (2004). Ellipsis in comparatives. de Gruyter, Berlin
Marantz A. (1984). On the nature of grammatical relations. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Marantz A. (1988). Clitics, morphological merger, and the mapping to phonological structure. In: Hammond M., Noonan M. (eds). Theoretical morphology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 253–270
Marantz, A. (1995). A late note on late insertion. In Explorations in generative grammar (pp. 357–368). Seoul: Hankuk Publishing.
Marantz A. (2001). Words and things. Handout, MIT
Marantz, A. (2003). Blocking. Handout, MIT.
McCawley J.D. (1988). The syntactic phenomena of English. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Newell, H. (2004). A late adjunction solution to bracketing paradoxes. Paper presented at NELS 35.
Pesetsky, D. (1979). Russian morphology and lexical theory. ms., MIT.
Pesetsky D. (1985). Morphology and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 193–246
Poser W.J. (1992). Blocking of phrasal constructions by lexical items. In Sag I., Szabolsci A. (eds). Lexical matters. CSLI, Stanford, pp. 111–130
Richards, N. (2002). A distinctness condition on linearization. ms., MIT.
Speyer, A. (2005). Bracketing paradoxes as cases of word-internal adjunction. ms., University of Pennsylvania.
Sproat, R. (1985). On Deriving the lexicon. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Williams, E. (2004). Dumping lexicalism. to appear In G. Ramchand & C. Reiss (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
An earlier version of this paper—in particular, the initial attempt to distinguish different types of so-called blocking effects and the outline of a treatment of comparative and superlative formation—was presented at Princeton University and the Coloquio de Morfosintaxis at the University of Buenos Aires, and parts were also discussed in my 2004 seminar at the University of Pennsylvania. I am grateful to these audiences for a number of helpful comments, which prompted a more detailed examination of comparatives along the lines presented here. For discussing this material with me at different points and commenting on earlier handouts or drafts I would also like to thank Rajesh Bhatt, Robin Clark, Morris Halle, Alec Marantz, Rolf Noyer, Marjorie Pak, and Maribel Romero. Finally, the article has improved because of the comments of NLLT reviewers.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Embick, D. Blocking Effects and Analytic/synthetic Alternations. Nat Language Linguistic Theory 25, 1–37 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9002-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9002-9