- Embracing edges: syntactic and phono-syntactic edge sensitivity in Nupe | SpringerLink
- Cookie Settings
- In This Article
The syntax of predication. Bresnan, Joan. Variables in the theory of transformations. In Formal Syntax , eds. Culicover, Thomas Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian, — New York: Academic Press. Chomsky, Noam. Lectures on government and binding. Cambridge: MIT Press. Categories and transformations. In The minimalist program , — Minimalist inquiries. In Step by step: essays on minimalism in honor of Howard Lasnik , eds.
Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: a life in language , ed.
Embracing edges: syntactic and phono-syntactic edge sensitivity in Nupe | SpringerLink
Michael Kenstowicz, 1— Approaching UG from below. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory , eds. The biolinguistic program: where does it stand today? Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8: — Citko, Barbara.
On the nature of merge: external merge, internal merge, and parallel merge. Cowart, Wayne. Experimental syntax: applying objective methods to sentence judgements. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Culicover, Peter. Evidence against ECP accounts of that-t effect. Focus and grammar.
In Proceedings of the workshop on the semantic and syntactic analysis of focus , eds. Peter Ackema and Maaiki Schoorlemmer, 1— Complementizer-trace effects and the ECP. Geneva Generative Papers 3. Prosody and subject traces. Manuscript, Waseda University.
Prosody and trace-licensing: Complementizer-trace effects and beyond. Poster presented at the workshop on prosody in processing. A minimal account of the that-t effect. In Paths towards universal grammar. Studies in honor of Richard S. Kayne , eds. Washington: Georgetown University Press. A reappraisal of vP being phasal—a reply to Legate. Relators and linkers: the syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Phase extension: a reply. Theoretical Linguistics — Questionnaire study on Dutch that-trace effects: stimuli and results.
Engdahl, Elisabet. Parasitic gaps, resumptive pronouns, and subject extractions. Linguistics 3— Phase sliding. Sub-extraction from subjects: a phase theory account. A critique of phase extension with a comparison to phase sliding. Theoretical Linguistics 65— That-trace effects in Spanish- and English-speaking monolinguals and bilinguals. In Developing grammars , eds.
Somerville: Cascadilla Press.
Giorgi, Alessandra, and Fabio Pianesi. Tense and aspect: from semantics to morphosyntax. Guest, Haley. Baccalaureate dissertation, University of Wales, Bangor. Haegeman, Liliane. Theory and description in generative syntax: a case study of West Flemish. Hoge, Kerstin. That-t effects in English and Yiddish. In The minimalist parameter , eds. Alexandrova and Olga Arnaudova, — Holmberg, Anders. Word order and syntactic features in the Scandinavian languages and English. PhD dissertation, University of Stockholm. Studia Linguistica 1— Ishii, Toru. The phase impenetrability condition, the vacuous movement hypothesis, and that-t effect.
Lingua — Some remarks on the use of Danish at der in embedded interrogatives and relative clauses. Paper presented at the first workshop on Scandinavian syntax, Trondheim. Subject extraction and the null subject parameter.
Charles Jones and Peter Sells, — Amherst: GLSA. Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. The syntax of sentential stress. Illustrated in logical notation:. The Encyclopedia associates syntactic units with special, non-compositional aspects of meaning. The Y-model of Minimalism , as well as the syntactic operations postulated in Minimalism, are preserved in Distributed Morphology. Distributed Morphology recognizes a number of morphology-specific operations that occur post-syntactically.
There is no consensus about the order of application of these morphological operations with respect to vocabulary insertion, and it is generally believed that certain operations apply before vocabulary insertion, while others apply to the vocabulary items themselves. Apart from the operations described above, some researchers Embick among others  have suggested that there are morphemes that represent purely formal features and are inserted post-syntactically but before spell-out: these morphemes are called "dissociated morphemes". Morphological Merger: At any level of syntactic analysis d-structure, s-structure, phonological structure , a relation between X and Y may be replaced by expressed by the affixation of the lexical head of X to the lexical head of Y.
Two syntactic nodes can undergo Morphological Merger subject to morphophonological well-formedness conditions. Two nodes that have undergone Morphological Merger or that have been adjoined through syntactic head movement can undergo Fusion, yielding one single node for Vocabulary insertion. An example can be found in Swahili , which has separate exponents for subject agreement e. However, 1st person singular exponent ni- and negation ha- undergo fusion and realized as si- :. An alternative analysis of si- exponent says that there is no fusion but rather context sensitive allomorphy:.
Fission refers to the splitting of one terminal node into two distinct terminal nodes prior to Vocabulary Insertion. Some of the most well-known cases of fission involve the imperfect conjugations of Semitic , in which agreement morphology is split into a prefixal and suffixal part, as investigated in the work of Noyer When Fission occurs, the order of morphemes is influenced by the featural complexity of Vocabulary items.
Impoverishment a term introduced into the theory in Bonet refers to a change in the feature content on a terminal node prior to Vocabulary Insertion, resulting in a less marked feature content. This can be accomplished by deleting a feature or by changing it from a marked to an unmarked value e. Impoverishment accounts for cases in which spell-out of a terminal node by a featurally specific Vocabulary Item is blocked by a less specific Vocabulary Item.
Impoverishment can also target an entire terminal node rather than just one of its features , in which case it is referred to as 'obliteration'. Lowering is sensitive to syntactic headedness and operates on abstract feature bundles, after syntactic movement but prior to vocabulary insertion. For example, T in English e. String-adjacent Vocabulary items may undergo Local Dislocation, in which the two items form a unit, with reversed linear order. Embick and Noyer  suggest that linearization takes place at Vocabulary Insertion.
At this point it is possible to reorder linearly adjacent vocabulary items. This reordering must respect the relationship between the constituents, however. Since the relationships between the constituents have been respected or properly converted, the derivation is well-formed. Local Dislocation applies after Vocabulary insertion to reorder two linearly adjacent elements, such as the comparative feature and an adjective in John is smarter than Mary.
In Distributed Morphology, the linear order of morphemes is determined by their hierarchical position in the syntactic structure, as well as by certain post-syntactic operations. Head movement is the main syntactic operation determining morpheme order, while Morphological Merger or Merger under Adjacency is the main post-syntactic operation targeting affix order. Other post-syntactic operations that might affect morpheme order are Lowering and Local Dislocation see previous section for details on these operations.
The general principle behind morpheme order is the Mirror Principle first formulated by Baker , according to which the linear order of morphemes is the mirror image of the hierarchy of syntactic projections. For example, in a plural noun like cat-s , the plural morpheme is higher in the hierarchy than the noun: [ NumP -s[ NP cat]]. The Mirror Principle dictates that the linear order of the plural morpheme with respect to the noun should be the mirror image of their hierarchy, namely the attested cat-s.
The syntactic mechanism responsible for the effects of the Mirror Principle is head movement: heads raise and left-adjoin to higher heads. Moreover, head movement is subject to the Head Movement Constraint, according to which when a head moves, it cannot skip an intervening head. Research subsequent to Baker has shown that there are some apparent violations to the Mirror Principle and that there are more operations involved in the determination of the final linear order of morphemes.
Firstly, the left adjunction requirement of head movement has been relaxed, as right adjunction has been shown to be possible Harley among others [ by whom? Therefore, different heads can have a specification for right vs. We could imagine, for example, that there is a language in which head movement of the noun to the Number head is specified for right adjunction, rather than left adjunction which is the case in English.
In that language, the predicted order of the noun and plural morpheme would then be s-cat. Notice, however, that right vs. Let's look at a hypothetical example to make this clear. Assuming that Tense is merged higher than Aspect, there are four possible orders for the tense and aspect morphemes with respect to the verb stem, once we allow for variation between left and right adjunction in head movement.
These orders are the orders in which the tense morpheme is closer to the root than the aspect morpheme. Since Aspect is merged before Tense and morpheme order still reflects hierarchical order, such a configuration is predicted to be impossible.
In This Article
Finally, certain post-syntactic operations can affect morpheme order. This operation merges two adjacent terminal nodes into one morphological word. In other words, it allows for two heads which are adjacent to merge into one word without syntactic head movement — the operation is post-syntactic. This operation is doing the work of, say, affix lowering of the past tense morpheme in English in early generative syntax.
For the operation to apply, what is crucial is that the morphemes to be merged are linearly adjacent. A core idea in deriving allomorphy in Distributed Morphology is underspecification. The phonological exponents of the feature bundle terminal nodes in the syntactic tree are listed in the Exponent List. The Maximal Subset Condition states firstly that, for a given exponent E to be inserted into some feature bundle T, the featural specification on E must be a subset of the features on T. Featural specification derives allomorphy in featural paradigms. Allomorphy in which different phonological exponents of the same feature bundle are idiosyncratically realized depending on the morphological or phonological environment is captured through contextual specification.
An example of such allomorphy is the English plural marker. However, the plural of child is children, and the plural of cactus is cacti. Since the choice of the plural morpheme exponent is not related to features, but rather simply to the root it attaches to, the roots must be listed in the contextual specification:.
If the contextual specification of some item is met, it is inserted. Otherwise, insert the item that has no contextual specification. Contextual specification is also used to account for phonologically conditioned suppletive allomorphy, using phonological contexts. Thus, the singular indefinite marker in English can be stated as follows we could also underspecify one of the allomorphs to express a default morpheme :. That is, the contextual environments must always involve items lower in the tree.
Suppletion and readjustment rules apply to a terminal node and its associated Vocabulary item — unlike affixation, which combines this terminal node with a separate terminal node that has its own distinct though potentially null Vocabulary item. Suppletion arises from the competition of Vocabulary items for insertion into a terminal node. Competition involving root Vocabulary items is a topic of ongoing research, however.
Early work in Distributed Morphology suggests that a single, abstract lexical root appears in the syntax; in this view, roots do not compete for insertion into root nodes, but exist in free variation, constrained only by semantic and pragmatic well-formedness.
- Studies in Generative Grammar [SGG];
- Mastering Autodesk Inventor 2012 and Autodesk Inventor LT 2012!
- Top Authors.
- Hot Cherry (When Girl Meets Chase Book 1).
Subsequent research has suggested that the distribution of root Vocabulary items can be grammatically restricted Embick , Pfau , Marantz ; this means that roots may be featurally restricted and thus subject to competition. The term suppletion refers to allomorphy of an open-class lexical item. For a large-scale study of suppletion in the context of comparative and superlative adjectival morphology within the general framework of Distributed Morphology, see Bobaljik The containment hypothesis is a theory under the framework of Distributed Morphology advanced by Bobaljik to account for the restrictions on the patterns of suppletion seen in language.