No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Affixes at the Edge
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 June 2016
Abstract
This article shows how affixal scope and precedence relations fall out in a natural way from properties of the computational system. Using Asymmetry Theory (Di Sciullo 2005), it is proposed that: (i) roots and affixes form minimal trees; (ii) minimal trees compose with each other to form morphological phases; (iii) features of a morphological phase edge that are legible at Phonetic Form (PF) determine affix-root linearization; and (iv) ordering of affixes relative to each other follows the Hierarchy of Homogeneous Projections, which constrains scope relations at Logical Form (LF). Three languages are considered: English (which has prefixing and suffixing), Yekhee (strongly prefixal), and Turkish (strongly suffixal). The findings presented here support a parallel model of grammar: morphological derivations (DM) parallel syntactic derivations (DS), with restricted interactions between them.
Résumé
Cet article démontre comment les relations affixales de portée et de précédence découlent de façon naturelle des propriétés du système computationnel. Utilisant la théorie de l’asymétrie (Di Sciullo 2005), il est proposé que : (i) les racines et les affixes constituent des arbres minimaux ; (ii) les arbres minimaux composent les uns avec les autres pour former des phases morphologiques ; (iii) les traits de la marge d’une phase morphologique qui sont lisibles en Forme Phonétique (PF) déterminent la linéarisation affixe-racine ; et (iv) l’ordonnance des affixes les uns par rapport aux autres s’ensuit de la Hiérarchie des Projections Homogènes, qui impose des contraintes sur les relations de portée en Forme Logique (LF). Trois langues sont considérées : l’anglais (qui est préfixal et suffixal), le yekhee (qui est fortement préfixal) et le turque (qui est fortement suffixal). Les résultats présentés ici viennent à l’appui d’un modèle parallèle de la grammaire où les dérivations morphologiques (DM) sont parallèles aux dérivations syntaxiques (DS), avec un nombre restreint d’interactions entre les deux types de dérivations.
- Type
- Part I: Knowledge of Language
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2005
References
Adger, David. To appear. Stress and phasal syntax. Linguistic Analysis.Google Scholar
Arregi, Karlos. 2003. Nuclear stress and syntactic structure. Paper read at the First North American Syntax Conference, Montreal.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1996. On the grammar of complex words. In Configurations: Essays on structure and interpretation, ed. Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, 1–16. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C.
1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bakovic, Eric. 2000. Harmony, dominance and control. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Bendor-Samuel, John T., and Hartell, Rhonda L., eds. 1989. The Niger-Congo languages: A classification and description of Africa’s largest language family. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Symmetries and asymmetries in multiple checking. In Multiple wh-fronting, ed. Boeckx, Cedric and Grohmann, Kleanthes K., 17–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1991. The causative-inchoative alternation: A case study in parallel morphology. Linguistic Review
8:119–158.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1998. Morphology and syntax. In Multiple wh-fronting, ed. Spencer, Andrew and Zwicky, Arnold, 151–190. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2001. A puzzle about indefinites. In Semantic interfaces: Reference, anaphor and aspect, ed. Cecchetto, Carlo, Chierchia, Gennaro, and Guasti, Maria Theresa, 51–89. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000a. Beyond explanatory adequacy. Ms., Massachussetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000b. Minimalist inquiries. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Kenstowicz, Michael, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. To appear. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory, ed. Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos, and Zubizaretta, Maria-Luisa. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry
24:239–297.Google Scholar
Collins, Christopher. 2002. Eliminating labels. In Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program, ed. Epstein, Samuel David and Seely, T. Daniel, 42–64. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles: On the syntax of verb-particle, triadic and causative constructions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria. 1996. Modularity and X0/XP asymmetry. Linguistic Analysis
23:1–23.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria. 1997. Prefixed-verbs and adjunct identification. In Projections and interface conditions: Essays in modularity, ed. Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, 52–74. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria. 1999. The local asymmetry connection. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics
35:25–49.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria. 2003. Morphological relations in Asymmetry Theory. In Asymmetry in grammar. Vol. 2: Morphology, phonology and acquisition, ed. Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, 9–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria. 2004. Morphological phases. In Generative grammar in a broader perspective: The 4th GLOW in Asia 2003, ed. Yoon, James, 113–137. The Korean Generative Grammar Circle and Cognitive Science, Seoul National University.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria. 2005. Asymmetry in morphology. MIT Monograph no. 46. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, and Fong, Sandiway. 2001a. Asymmetry, zero morphology and tractability. In Proceedings of the 15th Pacific Asia Conference on Language Information and Computation, ed. T’sou, Benjamin K., Kwong, Olivia O.Y., and Lai, M.Y., 61–72. University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, and Fong, Sandiway. 2001b. Efficient parsing for word structure. In NLPRS2001: Proceedings of the 16th Natural Language Processing Pacific Rim Symposium, ed. Tsujii, Junichi, 741–748. Hitotsubashi Memorial Hall, National Center of Sciences, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, and Isac, Dana. 2004. Possible extraction domains and AGREE as an asymmetric relation. Paper read at the Interfaces Conference, Loreto Aprutino, Italy.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, Paul, Ileana, and Somesfalean, Stanca. 2003. The clause structure of extraction asymmetries. In Asymmetry in grammar. Vol. 1: Syntax and semantics, ed. Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, 279–300. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, and Williams, Edwin. 1987. On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Elugbe, Ben Ohi. 1989. Edoid. In The Niger-Congo languages: A classification and description of Africa’s largest language family, ed. Bendor-Samuel, John T. and Hartell, Rhonda L., 291–304. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel J.. 2002. Prolegomena to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from building 20, ed. Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel J., 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene, and Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Hill, Virginia, and Roberge, Yves. 2005. Transitivization, unergatives and argument structure. Paper read at the Workshop on Issues on Form and Interpretation of Argument Structure, LSA Summer Institute, Boston.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2001. Expletives and agreement in Scandinavian passives. Journal of Comparative Germanic Syntax
4:85–128.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry, and Mchombo, Sam. 1992. Morphotactic constraints in Chichewa verb stem. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Special session on the Typology of Tone Languages, ed. Peterson, David A., Buszard-Welcher, Laura, Wee, Lionel H.A., and Weigel, William, 350–364. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie. 2003. Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry
34: 506–516.Google Scholar
Levi, Susannah. 2001. Glides, laterals, and Turkish vowel harmony. In Proceedings from the 37 meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. Andronis, Mary, Ball, Christopher, Elston, Heidi, and Neuvel, Sylvain. 379–393. Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing morphology: Word formation in syntactic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try to do morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics
4(2): Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, ed. Dimitriadis, Alexis, Siegel, Laura, Surek-Clark, Clarissa, and Williams, Alexander, 201–225.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2003. Pulling words up by the root. Paper read at the Department of Linguistics, McGill University.Google Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2005. Going through a phase. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49: Perspectives on Phases, ed. McGinnis, Martha and Richards, Norvin, 157–181.Google Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 2001. Variation in the phase structure of applicatives. Linguistic Variation Yearbook
1:105–141.Google Scholar
Muysken, Pieter. 1981. Quechua word structure. In Binding and filtering, ed. Heny, Frank, 279–326. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Nissenbaum, Jon. 2000. Covert movement and parasitic gaps. In Proceedings of the 30th annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, ed. Hirotani, Masako, Coetzee, Andries, Hall, Nancy, and Kim, Ji-yung, 541–555. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Raimy, Eric. 2003. Asymmetry and linearization in phonology. In Asymmetry in grammar. Vol. 2: Morphology, phonology and acquisition, ed. Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, 129–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren. 1998. Slave (Northern Athapaskan). In The handbook of morphology, ed. Spencer, Andrew and Zwicky, Arnold, 649–689. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Roeper, Thomas, and Keyser, Samuel J.. 1992. Re: The abstract clitic hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry
23:89–125.Google Scholar
Rohrbacher, Bernhard. 1994. The Germanic VO languages and the full paradigm: A theory of V to I raising. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi, and Kageyama, Taro. 1988. Word formation in a modular theory of grammar: A case of post-syntactic compounds in Japanese. Language
64:451–484.Google Scholar
Somesfalean, Stanca. 2005. On two issues related to the clitic clusters in Romance languages. In UG and external systems: Language, brain and computation, ed. Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, 27–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 1996. The verb-particle alternation in the Scandinavian languages. Ms., University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2003. Phases at the interface. Paper read at the IAP Workshop on EPP and Phases, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Tsapkini, Kyrana, Jarema, Gonia, and Di Sciullo, Anna Maria. 2004. The role of configurational asymmetry in the lexical access of prefixed verbs: Evidence from French. Brain and Language
90:143–150.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple Spell-Out. In Working minimalism, ed. Epstein, Samuel David and Hornstein, Norbert, 251–283. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wall, Robert. 1970. Introduction to mathematical linguistics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar