2 - So what's in a word?

Summary

Introduction

Issues with the ‘base’ component of D-structure, not unlike those already posed in chapter 1 for the current MP, led to a deep rift within generative linguistics, whose consequences are still felt. In this chapter we examine what fueled the so-called ‘Linguistic Wars’: where and how syntax should bottom out. Prima facie syntax involves combinations of words – a common-sense intuition defended by atomist philosophers. However, linguistically it is not always clear what a word is, a matter we must put in perspective. In section 2 some background is provided, separating inflectional and derivational morphology, and describing the ‘generative semantics’ proposal for lexical decomposition. In section 3 we see how the problem that led to generative semantics is still unresolved, if matters of uniformity and universality are taken earnestly in syntax and semantics. Section 4 is devoted to the mapping in between, and to what extent the assumption that it is entirely arbitrary can lead to feasibility in language acquisition and naturalness in linguistic design. A multi-dimensional theory of syntactic representation is then sketched, which semantic nuances (to be developed in further chapters) can be cued to.

The source of the issue

Let's start by considering why it ever occurred to linguists to decompose words.

Derivational vs. inflectional morphology

As is well-known, derivational morphology occupies a layer in the word that is internal to the inflectional one. Thus we have [[[[imagin]at]ion]s] and not *[[[[imagin]s]at]ion], or [[[privat]ize]d] but not *[[[privat]ed]ize].