Morphology

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 201–226

Syntagmatic constraints on insertion

Article
  • 165 Downloads

Abstract

This paper argues that the availability of exponents for insertion is restricted not only by their morpho-syntactic feature specification but, in addition, by an accessibility relation holding within a marker inventory: The exponent inserted at step n constrains the set of exponents competing for insertion at step n+1. The proposal is applied to a number of phenomena that have previously been dealt with by stipulating designated post-syntactic operations that modify the syntactically determined feature sets before morphological exponence is determined. Apparent mismatches between syntactically motivated feature specifications and morphological exponence are treated as the result of the accessibility relation. The paper contains analyses of multiple exponence in Archi and Dumi, apparent feature insertion in Nimboran, and obligatory co-occurrence of exponents in Spanish clitics.

Keywords

Distributed morphology Multiple exponence Feature insertion Post-syntactic operations 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anceaux, J. C. (1965). The Nimboran language: phonology and morphology. Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, S. (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bierwisch, M. (1967). Syntactic features in morphology: general problems of so-called pronominal inflection in German. In To honor Roman Jakobson (Vol. 1, pp. 239–270). The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar
  4. Bonet, E. (1991). Morphology after syntax. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  5. Bonet, E. (1995). Feature structure of Romance clitics. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 13, 607–647. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corbett, G. (2007). Deponency, syncretism, and what lies between. In M. Baerman, G. Corbett, D. Brown, & A. Hippisley (Eds.), Deponency and morphological mismatches (pp. 21–43). Oxford: Oxford University Press (for The British Academy). Google Scholar
  7. Embick, D., & Noyer, R. (2001). Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 555–595. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Embick, D., & Noyer, R. (2007). Distributed Morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In G. Ramchand & C. Reiss (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces (pp. 289–324). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  9. Halle, M. (1997). Distributed morphology: impoverishment and fission. In B. Bruening, Y. Kang, & M. McGinnis (Eds.), Papers at the interface (Vol. 30, pp. 425–449). Cambridge: MITWPL. MIT working papers in linguistics. Google Scholar
  10. Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20: essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 111–176). Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  11. Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1994). Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In A. Carnie, H. Harley, & T. Bures (Eds.), MIT working papers in linguistics: Vol. 21. Papers on phonology and morphology (pp. 275–288). Cambridge: MITWPL. Google Scholar
  12. Hankamer, J. (1986). Finite state morphology and left to right phonology. In M. Dalrymple, J. Goldberg, K. Hanson, & M. Inman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 5), Stanford University (pp. 41–52). Google Scholar
  13. Hankamer, J. (1989). Morphological parsing and the lexicon. In W. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.), Lexical representation and process (pp. 392–408). Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  14. Harbour, D. (2003). The Kiowa case for feature insertion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21, 543–578. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harris, J. (1994). The syntax-phonology mapping in Catalan and Spanish clitics. In A. Carnie, H. Harley, & T. Bures (Eds.), MIT working papers in linguistics: Vol. 21. Papers on phonology and morphology (pp. 321–353). Cambridge: MITWPL. Google Scholar
  16. Inkelas, S. (1993). Nimboran position class morphology. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 11, 559–624. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jakobson, R. (1936). Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 6, 240–288. Reprinted 1966 in: Readings in Linguistics II, ed. by E. Hamp, F. Householder and R. Austerlitz, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 51–89. Google Scholar
  18. Kibrik, A. (1991). Organising principles for nominal paradigms in Daghestan languages: comparative and typological observations. In F. Plank (Ed.), Paradigms: the economy of inflection (pp. 255–274). Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  19. Kibrik, A. (1998). Archi (Caucasian—Daghestanian). In A. Spencer & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Handbook of morphology (pp. 455–476). Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  20. Kibrik, A. (2003). Nominal inflection galore: Daghestanian, with side glances at Europe and the world. In F. Plank (Ed.), Noun phrase structure in the languages of Europe (pp. 37–112). Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  21. Kiparsky, P. (1973). ‘Elsewhere’ in phonology. In S. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (Eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 93–106). New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  22. Kratzer, A. (2009). Making a pronoun: fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 187–237. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lumsden, J. (1992). Underspecification in grammatical and natural gender. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 469–486. Google Scholar
  24. Marantz, A. (1996). ‘Cat’ as a phrasal idiom: consequences of late insertion in Distributed Morphology. Cambridge: MIT. Unpublished ms. Google Scholar
  25. Marantz, A. (1997). No escape from syntax: don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In A. Dimitriadis (Ed.), UPenn working papers in linguistics, University of Pennsylvania (Vol. 4.2, pp. 201–225). Philadelphia: PLC. Google Scholar
  26. Matthews, P. (1972). Inflectional morphology: a theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  27. Mel’čuk, I. (1999). Zero sign in morphology. In Proceedings of the 4th int. Tbilissi symposium on language, logic, and computation, Batumi. Google Scholar
  28. Müller, G. (2004a). A distributed morphology approach to syncretism in Russian noun inflection. In O. Arnaudova, W. Browne, M. L. Rivero, & D. Stojanovic (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL 12) (pp. 353–373). University of Ottawa. Google Scholar
  29. Müller, G. (2004b). On decomposing inflection class features: syncretism in Russian noun inflection. In G. Müller, L. Gunkel, & G. Zifonun (Eds.), Explorations in nominal inflection (pp. 189–227). Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Müller, G. (2005). Syncretism and iconicity in Icelandic noun declensions: a Distributed Morphology approach. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2004 (pp. 229–271). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Müller, G. (2007). Extended exponence by enrichment: argument encoding in German, Archi, and Timucua. In T. Scheffler, J. Tauberer, A. Eilam, & L. Mayol (Eds.), Penn working papers in linguistics: Vol. 13.1. Proceedings of the 30th annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium (pp. 253–266). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Google Scholar
  32. Noyer, R. (1992). Features, positions, and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge. Google Scholar
  33. Noyer, R. (1997). Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. New York: Garland Publishing. Google Scholar
  34. Noyer, R. (1998). Impoverishment theory and morphosyntactic markedness. In S. Lapointe, D. Brentari, & P. Farrell (Eds.), Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax (pp. 264–285). Palo Alto: CSLI. Google Scholar
  35. Stump, G. (1993). On rules of referral. Language, 69, 449–479. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stump, G. (2001). Inflectional morphology: a theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Trommer, J. (1999). Morphology consuming syntax’ resources. In Proceedings of the ESSLI workshop on resource logics and minimalist grammars (pp. 37–55). University of Nijmegen. Google Scholar
  38. Trommer, J. (2001). Distributed optimality. PhD thesis, Universität Potsdam. Google Scholar
  39. Trommer, J. (2003). The interaction of morphology and syntax in affix order. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2002 (pp. 283–324). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. van Driem, G. (1993). A grammar of Dumi. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wiese, B. (1999). Unterspezifizierte Paradigmen. Form und Funktion in der pronominalen Deklination. Linguistik Online 4. (www.linguistik-online.de/3_99).
  42. Zwicky, A. (1985). How to describe inflection. In M. Niepokuj, M. V. Clay, V. Nikiforidou, & D. Feder (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 372–386). Berkeley: BLS. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MassachusettsAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations