Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:10:20.402Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phrasal Concord in Icelandic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2007

Michael Hughes
Michael Hughes
Affiliation:
California State University, San Marcos
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Vocabulary insertion in realizational models of morphology like Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993) and Paradigm-Function Morphology (Stump 2001) rely on some form of the Elsewhere Condition (EC) (Kiparsky 1973, 2005, Halle & Marantz 1993) to resolve competition between vocabulary items when more than one is compatible with a syntactic terminal node. In Icelandic (and Faroese), however, morphosyntactically less specific forms routinely block more specific forms in definite NPs, contrary to the EC. If the EC is reformulated in terms of two Optimality Theoretic (McCarthy & Prince 1995) constraints on the correspondence between features of syntactic terminal nodes and vocabulary items, it is possible to formulate an intervening constraint, which provides a principled way of accounting for the Icelandic data while preserving the EC as the principle arbiter of the syntax-morphology interface and without sacrificing basic insights gained from its application.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the eleventh Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference at the University of California, Davis. I am particularly grateful to David Perlmutter, Farrell Ackerman, Eric Bakovic, and Sharon Rose for comments on previous versions of this paper. Comments from two anonymous referees were also greatly appreciated. Any flaws in this work remain, of course, solely attributable to the author.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 171 - 204
Copyright
© 2007 Society for Germanic Linguistics

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman Farrell. 1990. The morphological blocking principle and oblique pronominal incorporation in Hungarian. Grammatical relations: A cross-theoretical perspective, ed. by Katarzyna Dziwirek, Patrick Farrell & Errapel Mejías-Bikandi, 1–19. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Anderson Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 62.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Andrews Avery D. 1990. Unification and morphological blocking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8.507–557.Google Scholar
Archangeli Diana. 1988a. Underspecification in Yawelmani phonology and morphology. (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics.) New York: Garland Publishing.
Archangeli Diana. 1988b. Aspects of underspecification theory. Phonology. 5.183–207.Google Scholar
Aronoff Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar.. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Bierwisch Manfred. 1967. Syntactic features in morphology: General problems of so-called pronominal inflection in German. To honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his seventieth birthday., vol. 1, 239–270. The Hague: Mouton.
Blevins James P. 1995. Syncretism and paradigmatic opposition. Linguistics and Philosophy. 18.113–152.Google Scholar
Blevins James P. 1998. Markedness and blocking in German declensional paradigms. Lexicon in focus., ed. by Barbara Stiebels & Dieter Wunderlich (Studia Grammatica. 45), 83–103. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Bochner Harry. 1993. Simplicity in generative morphology. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Börjars Kersti & Mark Donohue. 2000. Much ado about nothing: Features and zeroes in Germanic noun phrases. Studia Linguistica 54.309–353.Google Scholar
Bresnan Joan. 2001. Explaining morphosyntactic competition. Handbook of contemporary syntactic theory., ed. by Mark Baltin & Chris Collins, 11–44. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cowper Elizabeth, 2005. The geometry of interpretable featrues: INFL in English and Spanish. Language. 81.10–46.Google Scholar
Durrell Martin. 1979. Some problems in the morphology of the German noun phrase. Transactions of the Philological Society., 66–88. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Einarsson Stefán. 1949. Icelandic: Grammar, texts, glossary.. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.
Embick David. 2003. Locality, listedness, and morphological identity. Studia Linguistica. 57.143–169.Google Scholar
Hawkins John A. 1978. Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction.. London: Croom Helm.
Halle Morris. 1997. Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission. Papers at the interface, ed. by Benjamin Bruening, Yoonjung Kang & Martha McGinnis, 425–449. (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. 30.) Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Halle Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger., ed. by Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hughes Michael. 2003. Morphological faithfulness to syntactic representations. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
Kathol Andreas, 1999. Agreement and the syntax-morphology interface in HPSG. Studies in contemporary phrase structure grammar., ed. by Robert D. Levine & Georgia M. Green, 209–260. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kiparsky Paul. 1973. ‘Elsewhere’ in phonology. A Festschrift for Morris Halle., ed. by Stephen R. Anderson & Paul Kiparsky, 93–106. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Kiparsky Paul. 2005. Blocking and periphrasis in inflectional paradigms. Yearbook of Morphology 2004, ed. by Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle, 113–135. Dordrecht: Springer.
Kress Bruno. 1982. Isländische Grammatik.. Leipzig: Max Hueber.
Lockwood William Burley. 1964. An introduction to modern Faroese.. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Lyons Christopher. 1999. Definiteness.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy John & Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. Papers in optimality theory, ed. by Jill Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey & Suzanne Urbanczyk, 249–384. (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics. 18.) Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.
Mohanan Karuvannur Puthanveettil. 1991. On the bases of radical underspecification. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 9.285–325.Google Scholar
Prince Alan & Paul Smolensky. 2004. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar.. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Sadler Louisa & Andrew Spencer. 2001. Syntax as an exponent of morphological features. Yearbook of Morphology 2000., ed. by Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle, 71–96. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Stump Gregory. 2001. Inflectional morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zwicky Arnold M. 1986. German adjective agreement in GPSG. Linguistics. 24.957–990.Google Scholar