Abstract
Now that the basics of a theory of Palauan phrase structure have been established, the focus of this chapter is on the internal structure of the XP predicate selected by T. On the descriptive side, I examine the properties of a class of idiomatic predicates in Palauan that have been noted in the descriptive literature but whose syntax has not yet been analyzed. The theoretical goal is to show how an understanding of these idiomatic predicates can inform us about the relations between morphology and syntax in Palauan and cross-linguistically. Palauan phrasal idioms exhibit a locality restriction on their subparts, which I argue cannot be accounted for using standard structural or selectional constraints proposed for other languages, such as English. I propose an alternative constraint that refers to adjacency relations within strings, which must hold after linearization (after Spell Out). If the analysis is correct, Palauan idioms provide a new type of evidence for: (i) a post-syntactic component of the grammar, (ii) late insertion of lexical material, and (iii) the theory of category-neutral roots.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Recall that in Chap. 1, Sect. 1.2.2.2 I assume that the linker is inserted post-syntactically and does not appear in narrow syntactic structure. For this reason, when I bracket constituents that trigger the linker, I include the linker within the brackets to indicate that if it were not for that constituent, the linker would be absent. This convention is intended to improve readability, and should not be construed as a commitment on my part that the linker necessarily forms a (narrow) syntactic constituent with the material that triggers it .
- 2.
cf. Kam (Dong), a Kadai language spoken in China, in which the possessor occupies a preverbal position, separated from the postverbal possessee; see Gerner (2005).
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
Though we will see data in Sect. 4.3.2 involving nominalizations and compounds that diverge somewhat from this template.
- 6.
I thank an anonymous reviewer for the suggestion that I consider a selection-based constraint on locality as well.
- 7.
Baker (2014) analyzes pseudo-incorporation as a subtype of true incorporation and suggests that even case-marked nominals can incorporate in some languages, like Hungarian. Despite the parallels between the adjacency effects in Palauan \(\psi \)-idioms and pseudo-incorporation constructions, it seems unlikely that an incorporation analysis can explain the co-existence of the two different forms of nominal \(\psi \)-idioms (compounds and syntactic nominalizations) described in Sect. 4.3.2.
- 8.
In other languages, by contrast, there are transformations in which possessors can be promoted to direct object, for example in Malagasy (Keenan 1972; Keenan and Ralalaoherivony 2000), Tzotzil (Aissen 1979, 1987), Hungarian (Szabolcsi 1994), West Greenlandic (van Geenhoven 2002), and many others in Payne and Barshi (1999).
- 9.
Example (192a) comes from the Palauan translation of E.B. White’s book Charlotte’s Web , in which farm animals can speak. Interestingly, the Palauan translator marks the noun charm “animal” with the human plural marker re- in dialogue among talking animals. The prefix serves to mark nouns that are “sufficiently animate.” In normal conversation between human speakers, this usage is usually restricted to human nouns, but in fictional stories with talking animals, it appears that animals can be considered “sufficiently animate” to get the marking , too.
- 10.
It’s worthwhile to note that the examples in (207) are unambiguously interpreted as true durative statives, unlike their English translations, which can be coerced into denoting telic changes of state. In Palauan, the change of state interpretation requires the addition of the verb mo “become.” Compare (207) to (i).
- 11.
In the Minimalist syntactic framework I am assuming currently, the traditional raising-to-object analysis (Rosenbaum 1967) has been recast as movement of the embedded subject to the specifier of a projection between vP and VP, such as AspP or AgrOP (i.a., Koizumi 1993, 1995; Runner 1995, 1998; Lasnik 1995).
For several decades, the raising-to-object construction was reanalyzed and called the exceptional-case-marking (ECM) construction. On this analysis, the ECM verb crucially selects a non-finite TP complement (and not a CP complement), and licenses the embedded subject with Accusative Case. A Minimalist version of this analysis might appeal to transitive v to license the subject of the non-finite TP with structural Accusative Case via Agree. However, this analysis depends on SVO word order. Since the derived objects of Palauan ECM verbs appear between the ECM verb and the complement clause—rather than in a (rightward-branching) subject position at the end of the complement clause—it appears that actual movement has extracted the subject DP out of the embedded clause, likely with extraposition of the embedded clause applying later in the derivation. This set of facts renders an ECM analysis for the Palauan cases rather dubious, and in a very interesting way. The result is in line with arguments that have been made against the ECM analysis in favor of an overt movement analysis (Postal 1974; Johnson 1991; Runner 1995), such as those based on the allegedly embedded subject’s interpolation with material that is clearly in the matrix clause , such as (ii).
It seems clear that the relevant predicates in Palauan host derived objects that have moved overtly, but it is not clear to me that this movement is necessarily into the matrix clause. I do not understand the nuances of the construction well enough at this time to commit to a view on what the matrix landing site for these derived objects is.
- 12.
It is highly likely that the movement is actually rightward, followed by extraposition of the embedded clause. However, I have not yet elicited the relevant field data to be sure of this. For present purposes, it doesn’t matter what the exact analysis is; what matters is the resulting word order, and what meanings are or are not possible with this order.
- 13.
An anonymous reviewer wonders whether it is possible to conjoin two transitive \(\psi \)-predicates that have a shared direct object. Such a structure would be a correlate of English “right-node-raising” constructions like He cooked and ate the sausages. If so, the string locality constraint might predict that a structure like [[V\({}_{\mathrm {1}}\) and V\({}_{\mathrm {2}}\)] DP] would be grammatical in a context where V\({}_{\mathrm {2}}\) \(+\)DP is interpreted as a \(\psi \)-idiom, while V\({}_{\mathrm {1}}\) \(+\)DP receives a non-idiomatic interpretation. I’m honestly not sure whether this is possible in Palauan with transitive verbs, but I think a similar prediction can be probed with intransitive adjectives/verbs and across-the-board subject movement. One such example is given in (iii) below.
The conjoined predicates in (iii) are both predicated of the noun rengum “your heart.” If the Palauan sentence is an accurate translation of the English, then it would appear that the prediction is borne out: medecherecher “hard” is interpreted literally and diak lemesmechokl “not ordered” is interpreted idiomatically, which on the present line of analysis is due to its adjacency to a rengum “your heart,” where it takes on the meaning of “stubborn.”
- 14.
I have included lexical material in the phrase structure in grey: this is purely for expositional clarity. I have also omitted the Asp\({}_{\mathrm {v}}\)P and vP layers (which of course should appear between TP and VP) in Figs. 4.1 and 4.2, for reasons of space and readability. I introduce vP into the discussion surrounding Figs. 4.4 and 4.5 when I consider category-neutral root theory.
- 15.
This is also the case for tense morphemes on verbs in English (Embick and Noyer 2001), such as -ed [past] and -s [pres, 3sg].
- 16.
The same effects might be achieved using Grimshaw’s notion of Extended Projection , which allows feature sharing among heads that form a single extended projection (see Grimshaw 2005: Chap. 1 for details).
- 17.
The [\(\psi \)] notation is introduced merely to help identify the relevant portions of the \(\psi \)-expression. It is not intended to be a feature or have any theoretical import.
- 18.
An anonymous reviewer asks if mesisiich is reduplicative , and if so, what the reduplication means. The answer to the first question is yes, mesisiich is reduplicative. It is less clear what the reduplication means. The root of mesisiich is \(\sqrt{\textsc {siich}}\), which on its own means “success; favorable circumstances” (Josephs 1990: 306). In its non-reduplicated form, it appears in the adjective smiich “enthusiastic; motivated to do things in the extreme; dark in color; (food) well-cooked or well-done; (nut, screw) tight.” It is an open question whether the reduplicative portion of mesisiich is lexicalized along with \(\sqrt{\textsc {siich}}\) as a separate root \(\sqrt{\textsc {sisiich}}\), or whether it syntactically/morphologically complex. For no other reason than to simplify the discussion, I tentatively represent the root that corresponds to the “strength” interpretation as \(\sqrt{\textsc {sisiich}}\), with the understanding that it is very likely derivationally related to \(\sqrt{\textsc {siich}}\), in some way.
- 19.
Here, I am conflating the Distributed Morphology notion of verbalizer v (in the sense of Marantz 1997 and subsequent work) with the Minimalist notion of Voice (in the sense of Kratzer 1996). It remains to be seen whether empirical evidence can decide whether these should be bundled together as I have done in Figs. 4.6 and 4.7 or whether they should remain separate. For example, Legate (2014) argues persuasively that v and Voice are necessarily separate heads in the related Austronesian language Acehnese. The choice between these two analyses is not immediately crucial for the present discussion; what is important is that the \(\sqrt{\textsc {root}}\) forms a constituent with the DP argument before it is determined whether the predicate XP is transitive or intransitive.
- 20.
- 21.
That the -el suffix in \(\psi \)-nominalizations is a possessor agreement morpheme and not simply an instance of the linker el is clear from the stress shift and resulting vowel reduction that applies in the stem that -el attaches to, as well as its allomorphy, e.g., -al in a dech-al a rengul and -il in a deu-il a rengul, a kngt-il a rengul, and so forth. Furthermore, even though the linker el and the possessor agreement suffix -el are spelled alike, the linker is pronounced with
whereas the possessor agreement suffix is pronounced with 
. - 22.
Compare this structure, which incorporates aspects of the theory of category-neutral roots, with that in Fig. 2.9, which assumes that all terminal syntactic nodes are category-specific.
- 23.
I thank Mark Baker for pointing this out to me.
- 24.
Cf. Roeper and Siegel (1978) for a lexical analysis.
- 25.
- 26.
Harley proposes head movement in order to preserve the spirit of Baker’s (1988) analysis of noun incorporation (Harley 2008: 133). However, as Harley’s analysis of English compounds dictates that the incorporated element cannot be a DP (see also Lieber 1992: 12), it seems to me that no head movement is necessary, as there is no evidence that the incorporated noun (nP in Harley’s terms) is extracted from any larger constituent.
- 27.
- 28.
Cf. Fraser 1970: 36–42 for the original formulation and further discussion of each level, which I have slightly modified in (237). Fraser refers to Level 5 Idioms as the class that allows “reconstitution.” He also refers to Level 1 Idioms as the class that allows only “adjunction,” as he views the relevant morphological changes as adjunction processes.
- 29.
I do, in fact, assume that certain v heads may bear voice features like [active] or [passive], but I do not assume that it is the primary function of v morphemes (as a class) to encode voice features. Certain v morphemes, e.g., unaccusative v, do not bear any voice features on the theory I develop in Chap. 5.
whereas the possessor agreement suffix is pronounced with 
.References
Aissen, Judith. 1979. Possessor ascension in Tzotzil. In Papers in Mayan linguistics, ed. Laura Martin, 89–108. Columbia: Lucas Brothers.
Aissen, Judith. 1987. Tzotzil clause structure. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Arad, Maya. 2003. Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 737–778.
Arad, Maya. 2005. Roots and patterns: Hebrew morphosyntax. Dordrecht: Springer.
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Baker, Mark. 2014. Pseudo noun incorporation as covert noun incorporation: Linearization and crosslinguistic variation. Language and Linguistics 15: 5–46.
Bell, Sarah. 1983. Advancements and ascensions in Cebuano. In Studies in Relational Grammar 1, ed. David Perlmutter, 143–218. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Blake, Barry. 1990. Relational Grammar. London: Routledge.
Borer, Hagit. 2005a. In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borer, Hagit. 2005b. The normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bruening, Benjamin. 2010. Ditransitive asymmetries and a theory of idiom formation. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 519–562.
Capell, Arthur. 1949. A grammar of the language of Palau. Coordinated investigation of Micronesian anthropology (CIMA) 1947–1949. Part 6b of the final report to the Pacific science board, National Research Council.
Chafe, Wallace. 1968. Idiomaticity as an anomaly in the Chomskyan paradigm. Foundations of Language 4: 109–127.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and beyond, ed. Adriana Belletti, 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, eds. Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–166. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chung, Sandra, and William Ladusaw. 2003. Restriction and saturation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Clark, Marybeth. 1996. Where do you feel? Stative verbs and body part terms in Mainland Southeast Asia. In The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part-whole relation, eds. Hilary Chappell and William McGregor, 529–563. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dayal, Veneeta. 2011. Hindi pseudo-incorporation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 123–167.
Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Embick, David, and Alec Marantz. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 1–53.
Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555–595.
Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, eds. Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Everaert, Martin. 2010. The lexical encoding of idioms. In Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure, eds. Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron, and Ivy Sichel, 76–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Farkas, Donka, and Henriëtte de Swart. 2003. The semantics of incorporation: From argument structure to discourse transparency. Stanford: CSLI.
Fox, Danny, and David Pesetsky. 2005. Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31: 1–45.
Fraser, Bruce. 1970. Idioms within a transformational grammar. Foundations of Language 6: 22–42.
Georgopoulos, Carol. 1985. Variables in Palauan syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 59–94.
Georgopoulos, Carol. 1986. Palauan as a VOS language. In FOCAL I: Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, eds. Paul Geraghty, Lois Carrington, and Stephen Wurm, 187–198. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, C-93.
Georgopoulos, Carol. 1991. Syntactic variables: Resumptive pronouns and \(A^{\prime }\) binding in Palauan. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Gerner, Matthias. 2005. The zoom-on-possessee construction in Kam (Dong): The anatomy of a new construction type. Journal of Linguistics 41: 307–352.
Grimshaw, Jane. 2005. Words and structure. Stanford: CSLI.
Halle, Morris. 1990. An approach to morphology. In Proceedings of NELS 20, eds. Juli Carter, Rose-Marie Déchaine, Bill Philip, and Tim Sherer, 150–184. Amherst: GLSA.
Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, eds. Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In Papers on phonology and morphology, eds. Andrew Carnie and Heidi Harley, 275–288. Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2: 29–68.
Harley, Heidi. 2008. Compounding in Distributed Morphology. In The Oxford handbook of compounding, eds. Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer, 129–144. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hayes, Bruce. 1989. The prosodic hierarchy in meter. In Rhythm and meter, eds. Paul Kiparsky and Gilbert Youmans, 201–260. Orlando: Academic Press.
Iwasaki, Shoichi. 2002. Proprioceptive-state expressions in Thai. Studies in Language 26: 33–66.
Johnson, Kyle. 1991. Object positions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 577–636.
Josephs, Lewis. 1975. Palauan reference grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Josephs, Lewis. 1990. New Palauan-English dictionary. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Josephs, Lewis. 1997. Handbook of Palauan grammar, Vol. 1. Koror: Ministry of Education, Republic of Palau.
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Keenan, Edward L. 1972. Relative clause formation in Malagasy. In The Chicago which hunt: Papers from the Relative Clause Festival, eds. Paul M. Peranteau, Judith N. Levi, and Gloria C. Phares, 169–189. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Keenan, Edward L., and Baholisoa Ralalaoherivony. 2000. Raising from NP in Malagasy. Lingvisticæ Investigationes 23: 1–44.
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1993. Object agreement phrases and the split VP Hypothesis. In Papers on case and agreement I, eds. Jonathan Bobaljik and Colin Phillips, 99–148. Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1995. Phrase structure in Minimalist syntax. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Koopman, Hilda, and Dominique Sportiche. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85: 211–258.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, eds. Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–391.
Lasnik, Howard. 1995. A note on pseudogapping. In Papers on Minimalist syntax, eds. Rob Pensalfini and Hiroyuki Ura, 143–163. Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Legate, Julie Anne. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Marantz, Alec. 1992. Case and licensing. In Proceedings of the 1991 Eastern States Conference On Linguistics, eds. Germán Westphal, Benjamin Ao, and Hee-Rahk Chae, 234–253. Columbus: Ohio State University. Reprinted as Marantz 2000.
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Proceedings of PLC 21, eds. Alexis Dimitriadis, Laura Siegel, Clarissa Surek-Clark, and Alexander Williams, 201–225. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics.
Marantz, Alec. 2000. Case and licensing. In Arguments and case: Explaining Burzio’s generalization, ed. Eric Reuland, 1–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Marantz, Alec. 2001. Words. Paper presented at the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, University of Southern California, 23–25 February.
Marantz, Alec. 2007. Phases and words. In Phases in the theory of grammar, ed. Sook-Hee Choe, 191–222. Seoul: Dong In.
Massam, Diane. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 153–197.
Massam, Diane. 2009. Existential incorporation constructions. Lingua 119: 166–184.
Matisoff, James. 1986. Hearts and minds in South-East Asian languages and English: An essay in the comparative lexical semantics of psycho-collocations. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie-Orientale 15: 5–57.
Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 69–109.
McGinnis, Martha. 2002. On the systematic aspect of idioms. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 665–672.
McVeigh, Brian. 1996. Standing stomachs, clamoring chests and cooling livers: Metaphors in the psychological lexicon of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 26: 25–50.
Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. Reprinted as Nespor and Vogel 2007.
Nespor, Marina, and Vogel Irene. 2007. Prosodic phonology (2nd edition). Dordrecht: Foris.
Nguyễn Ðăng Liêm. 1970. Four-syllable idiomatic expressions in Vietnamese. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics (D-6).
Ntelitheos, Dimitrios. 2010. Linking compounds in Malagasy. Paper presented at the 17th annual meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association, Stony Brook University, 7–9 May.
Ntelitheos, Dimitrios. 2012. Deriving nominals: A syntactic account of Malagasy nominalizations. Leiden: Brill.
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan Sag, and Thomas Wasow. 1994. Idioms. Language 70: 491–538.
Oey, Eric. 1990. “Psycho-collocations” in Malay. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 13: 141–158.
O’Grady, William. 1998. The syntax of idioms. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 279–312.
Payne, Doris, and Immanuel Barshi. 1999. External possession. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Perlmutter, David. 1980. Relational Grammar. In Current approaches to syntax (Syntax and semantics, Vol. 13), eds. Edith Moravcsik and Jessica Wirth, 195–229. New York: Academic Press.
Perlmutter, David. 1983. Studies in Relational Grammar 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Perlmutter, David, and Brian Joseph. 1990. Studies in Relational Grammar 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Perlmutter, David, and Carol Rosen. 1984. Studies in Relational Grammar 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Postal, Paul. 1974. On raising. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Richards, Norvin. 2001. An idiomatic argument for lexical decomposition. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 183–192.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2001. Relativized minimality effects. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, eds. Mark Baltin and Chris Collins, 89–110. Oxford: Blackwell.
Roeper, Thomas, and Muffy Siegel. 1978. A lexical transformation for verbal compounds. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 199–260.
Rosenbaum, Peter. 1967. The grammar of English predicated complement constructions. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Runner, Jeffrey T. 1995. Noun phrase licensing and interpretation. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Published as Runner 1998.
Runner, Jeffrey T. 1998. Noun phrase licensing. New York: Garland.
Runner, Jeffrey T. 2006. Lingering challenges to the raising-to-object and object-control constructions. Syntax 9: 193–213.
Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3: 371–405.
Smith, Kyle, and Debbie Tkel-Sbal. 1995. Prototype analyses of emotion terms in Palau, Micronesia. In Everyday conceptions of emotion: An introduction to the psychology, anthropology and linguistics of emotion, eds. James Russell, José-Miguel Fernández-Dols, Antony Manstead, and Jane C. Wellencamp, 85–102. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Sproat, Richard. 1985. On deriving the lexicon. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Swinney, David, and Anne Cutler. 1979. The access and processing of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18: 523–534.
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1994. The noun phrase. In The syntactic structure of Hungarian (Syntax and semantics, Vol. 27), eds. Ferenc Kiefer and Katalin É. Kiss, 179–274. San Diego: Academic Press.
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 219–255.
van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1998. Semantic incorporation and indefinite descriptions: Semantic and syntactic aspects of noun incorporation in West Greenlandic. Stanford: CSLI.
van Geenhoven, Veerle. 2002. Raised possessors and noun incorporation in West Greenlandic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 759–821.
Waters, Richard. 1980. Topicalization and passive in Palauan. Ms., MIT.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nuger, J. (2016). Idioms and Lexical Insertion. In: Building Predicates. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 92. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28682-2_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28682-2_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-28680-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-28682-2
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)