Abstract
In this paper we discuss a recent proposal according to which: (1)derivational suffixes have a syntactic-like bar representation and (2) wordformation processes can be represented in terms of an X-bar syntax. Whilewe agree on the attribution of an argument structure to suffixes, we castsome doubt on the claim that such word-constituents are Complements of their(suffixal) selecting heads. We maintain that suffixes do not project as lexicalheads do and that a congurational X-bar structure in word formation is usefulonly to the extent that it represents the semantics (i.e., the LCS) of thewords selected by the suffix.
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. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
Belletti, A.-Rizzi, L. 1988. Psych-verbs and Theta-Theory. In: Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 291–325.
Bisetto, A. 1994. Gli aggettivi in-(x)to. In: Borgato, G. (ed.): Teoria del Linguaggio e Analisi Linguistica, XX Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, 63–81. Unipress, Padova.
Bisetto, A.-Scalise, S. 1997. L'autonomie de la morphologie. XVI Congrès International des Linguistes, Paris, Elsevier, CD ROM.
Booij, G. 1986. Form and meaning in morphology: the case of Dutch ‘Agent Nouns’. In: Linguistics 24: 503–18.
Booij, G.-van Haften, T. 1988. The external syntax of derived words: evidence from Dutch. In: Yearbook of Morphology 1: 29–44.
Borer, H. 1998. Morphology and syntax. In: Spencer, A.-Zwicky, A. (eds): Handbook of morphology, 151–90. Blackwell, Cambridge MA & Oxford.
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
Cinque, G. 1990. Types of A-bar dependencies. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
Di Sciullo, A.M. 1992. Selection and derivational affixes. Paper presented at the Fifth International Morphology Meeting in Krems.
Di Sciullo, A.M. 1993. The complement domain of a head al morphological form. In: Probus 5: 95–126.
Di Sciullo, A.M. 1996. Atomicity and relatedness in configurational morphology. In: Di Sciullo, A.M. (ed.): Configurations essays on structure and interpretation, 17–41. Cascadilla Press, Somerville.
Gruber, J. 1967. Studies in lexical relations. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge MA.
Hale, K. 1990. The syntax of lexical word formation. Ms., MIT, Cambridge MA.
Hale, K.-Keyser, J. 1992. The syntactic character of thematic structure. In: Roca, I.M. (ed.): Thematic structure. Its role in grammar, 107–41. Foris, Berlin-New York.
Hale, K.-Keyser, J. 1993. The view from Building 20. Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
Law, P. 1990. Heads, arguments and adjuncts in Derivational Morphology. In: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 12. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
Law, P. 1996. On some syntactic properties of word-structure and modular grammars. In: Di Sciullo, A.M. (ed.): Projections and interface conditions, 28–51. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Lieber, R. 1980. On the organization of the lexicon. Ph.D. dissertation, IULC, Bloomington, Indiana.
Lieber, R. 1983. Argument linking and compounds in English. In: Linguistic Inquiry 14: 251–85.
Lieber, R. 1992. Deconstructing morphology. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Pesetsky, D. 1995. Zero syntax: experiencers and cascades. The The MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
Roeper, T. 1987. Implicit argument and the head-complement relation. In: Linguistic Inquiry 18: 267–310.
Scalise, S. 1984. Generative morphology. Foris, Dordrecht.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bisetto, A., Scalise, S. Complement selection in morphology and syntax. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 47, 25–45 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014054213077
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014054213077