Syntagmatic constraints on insertion

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

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.

    Google 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.

  5. Bonet, E. (1995). Feature structure of Romance clitics. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 13, 607–647.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Stump, G. (2001). Inflectional morphology: a theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google 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.

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  40. van Driem, G. (1993). A grammar of Dumi. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google 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 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Keine.

Additional information

For helpful discussion, comments and criticism I am indebted to the editor Jochen Trommer and two anonymous reviewers as well as Olivier Bonami, Gilles Boyé, Johannes Hein, Nick LaCara, and Gereon Müller. Portions of the material reported here have been presented at the Workshop on Polyfunctionality and Underspecification (August 2009, Wittenberg), the 14th International Morphology Meeting (May 2010, Budapest), and the 5th Workshop on Theoretical Morphology (June 2010, Wittenberg). I would like to thank the audiences for their comments and questions. All errors and inadequacies are my own responsibility. This research was supported by a DFG grant to the project ‘Argument Encoding in Morphology and Syntax’, as part of Forschergruppe 742.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Keine, S. Syntagmatic constraints on insertion. Morphology 23, 201–226 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-013-9221-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Distributed morphology
  • Multiple exponence
  • Feature insertion
  • Post-syntactic operations