Article published in:
Morphological Metatheory
Edited by Daniel Siddiqi and Heidi Harley
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 229] 2016
► pp. 201–222

Spans and words

| CASTL, University of Tromsø – The Arctic University of Norway

1. The problem: Words are a pervasive unit of syntax and yet the dominant theory of them, the X0 theory, is problematic, predicting more parallels between phrasal and head movement than are observed. Phrasal movement approaches to word formation fare even worse on that score. Mirror Theory (MT) also has shortcomings, for example in relying on an unmotivated notion of specifier. 2. The solution: A theory of how syntactic structures are mapped onto functional and lexical words, positing syntactic features w for lexical access points and @ for linearization points. The theory draws on the late insertion of DM, the cycles of phase theory, the direct linearization principles of MT, and the non-terminal spell-out of Nanosyntax, separating word formation from linearization and appealing to spans (head-complement sequences) as the units of cyclic lexical access and storage.

Published online: 29 June 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.229.07sve
References
Adger, David
2007 Stress and phasal syntax. Linguistic Analysis 33(3–4): 238–266.Google Scholar
2013 A Syntax of Substance. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Adger, David, Harbour, Daniel & Watkins, Laurel J
2009 Mirrors and Microparameters: Phrase Structure Beyond Free Word Order. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C
1988 Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1996 The Polysynthesis Parameter [Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax]. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo
2011 Cyclicity. In The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Vol. 4, Marc van Oostendorp, Colin Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds), 2019–2048. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David
1995 Morphosyntax: The Syntax of Verbal Inflection. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
2012 Universals in Comparative Morphology: Suppletion, Superlatives, and the Structure of Words. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit
2005 Structuring Sense, Vol. I: In Name Only? Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Brody, Michael
2000a Mirror Theory: Syntactic representation in perfect syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 31(1): 29–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000b Word order, restructuring, and Mirror Theory. In The Derivation of VO and OV [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 31], Peter Svenonius (ed.), 27–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bye, Patrik & Svenonius, Peter
2012 Non-concatenative morphology as epiphenomenon. In The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence, Jochen Trommer (ed.), 427–495. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caha, Pavel
2009 The Nanosyntax of Case. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø.
Cardinaletti, Anna & Starke, Michal
1999 The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of three classes of pronouns. In Clitics in the Languages of Europe, Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), 145–233. Berlin: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Greg
2006 The meaningful bounds of incorporation. In Non-definiteness and Plurality [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 95], Svetlana Vogeleer & Liliane Tasmowski (eds), 35–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
2001 Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2008 On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 133–166. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
1999 Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert
1997 Much-support as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 28(1): 119–164.Google Scholar
Déchaine, Rose-Marie
2015 What “spell-out” reveals: Niger-Congo prosodification constrains the syntax-semantics interface. In Current Research in African Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Ọladele Awobuluyi, Ọlanikẹ Ọla Orie, Johnson Fọlọrunso Ilọri & Lendzemo Constantine Yuka (eds), 287–352. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria & Williams, Edwin
1987 On the Definition of Word [Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 14]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew
1989 Plural words. Linguistics 27: 865–895. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David
2007 Blocking effects and analytic/synthetic alternations. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25(1): 1–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David & Marantz, Alec
2008 Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39(1): 1–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David & Noyer, Ralf
2001 Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32(4): 555–595. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Danny & Pesetsky, David
2005 Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31(1–2):1–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert
2000 OV is more basic than VO. In The Derivation of VO and OV, [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 31], Peter Svenonius (ed.), 45–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec
1993 Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Ritter, Elizabeth
2002 Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78(3): 482–526. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin
2012 Recursive prosodic phrasing in Japanese. In Prosody matters: Essays in Honor of Elisabeth Selkirk, Toni Borowsky, Shigeto Sugahara, Mariko Sugahara & Takahito Shinya (eds), 280–303. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan
2009 The Syntax of Sentential Stress. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S
1994 The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2005 Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax, Guglielmo Cinque & Richard S. Kayne (eds), 3–69. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin
1997 Turkish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika & Selkirk, Elisabeth
2007 Phase theory and prosodic spellout: The case of verbs. The Linguistic Review 24(2–3): 93–135. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec
2001 Words. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
2007 Phases and words. In Phases in the Theory of Grammar, Sook-hee Choe (ed.), 196–226. Seoul: Dong-in.Google Scholar
2013 Locality domains for contextual allomorphy across the interfaces. In Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, Ora Matushansky & Alec Marantz (eds), 95–115. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marvin, Tatjana
2002 Topics in the Stress and Syntax of Words. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Nespor, Marina, Shukla, Mohinish, van de Vijver, Ruben, Avesani, Cinzia, Schraudolf, Hanna & Donati, Caterina
2008 Different phrasal prominence realizations in VO and OV languages. Lingue e linguaggio 7(2): 139–168.Google Scholar
Newell, Heather
2008 Aspects of the Morphology and Phonology of Phases. Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University, Montréal.
Nikolaeva, Irina
2013 Periphrasis in Tundra Nenets. In Periphrasis: The Role of Syntax and Morphology in Paradigms, Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds), 77–140. Oxford: The British Academy.Google Scholar
Noyer, Rolf
1998 Vietnamese ‘morphology’ and the definition of word. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 5(2): 65–89.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer
2013 Head movement as a phonological operation. In Diagnosing Syntax, Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds), 21–43. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, Jean Yves
1989 Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20(3): 365–424.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul
1969 Anaphoric islands. In Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 205–239. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian
2008 Verb Meaning and the Lexicon. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian & Svenonius, Peter
2014 Deriving the functional hierarchy. Language Sciences 46(B):152–174. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan
2002 The Noun Phrase. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian
2010 Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scheer, Tobias
2008 Why the prosodic hierarchy is a diacritic and why the interface must be direct. In Sounds of Silence: Empty Elements in Syntax and Phonology, Jutta Hartmann, Veronika Hegedus & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 145–192. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth
1996 The prosodic structure of function words. In Signal to Syntax: Bootstrapping from Speech to Grammar in Early Acquisition, James L. Morgan & Katherine Demuth (eds), 187–213. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
2011 The syntax-phonology interface. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 2nd edn, John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle & Alan Yu (eds), 435–483. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siddiqi, Daniel
2009 Syntax within the Word: Economy, Allomorphy, and Argument Selection in Distributed Morphology [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 138]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Son, Minjeong & Svenonius, Peter
2008 Microparameters of cross-linguistic variation: Directed motion and resultatives. In Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Natasha Abner & Jason Bishop (eds), 388–396. Somerville MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Starke, Michal
2009 Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language. In Svenonius, Ramchand, Starke & Taraldsen (eds), 1–6. http://​septentrio​.uit​.no​/index​.php​/nordlyd
Šurkalović, Dragana
2013 Modularity, phase-phase faithfulness and prosodification of function words in English. Nordlyd 40(1): 301–322. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter
2005 Extending the extension condition to discontinuous idioms. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 5: 227–263. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 Spanning. Ms, University of Tromsø. ling​.auf​.net​/lingBuzz​/001501
2016 Complex predicates as complementation structures. In Approaches to Complex Predicates, Léa Nash & Pollet Samvelian (eds), 212–247. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter, Ramchand, Gillian, Starke, Michal & Taraldsen, Knut Tarald
(eds) 2009 Tromsø Working Papers on Language and Linguistics: Nordlyd 36.1, Special issue on Nanosyntax . http://​septentrio​.uit​.no​/index​.php​/nordlydGoogle Scholar
Travis, Lisa
1984 Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Williams, Edwin
1981 On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’. Linguistic Inquiry 12(2): 245–274.Google Scholar
Woodbury, Anthony C
1987 Meaningful phonological processes: A consideration of Central Alaskan Yupik Eskimo prosody. Language 63(4): 685–740. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 17 other publications

No author info given
2020.  In Stative Inquiries [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 264], Crossref logo
Acedo-Matellán, Víctor
2021. Goal, source, and route preverbs in Latin: their interaction with spatial datives. The Linguistic Review 38:2 ► pp. 233 ff. Crossref logo
Arregi, Karlos & Asia Pietraszko
2021. The Ups and Downs of Head Displacement. Linguistic Inquiry 52:2 ► pp. 241 ff. Crossref logo
Blix, Hagen
2021. Spans in South Caucasian agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 39:1 ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Böhm, Roger
2018.  In Substance-based Grammar – The (Ongoing) Work of John Anderson [Studies in Language Companion Series, 204], ► pp. 261 ff. Crossref logo
Carlson, Matthew T., Antonio Fábregas & Michael T. Putnam
2021. How Wide the Divide? – Theorizing ‘Constructions’ in Generative and Usage-Based Frameworks. Frontiers in Psychology 12 Crossref logo
Dékány, Éva
2021.  In The Hungarian Nominal Functional Sequence [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 100], ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Georgieva, Ekaterina, Martin Salzmann & Philipp Weisser
2021. Negative verb clusters in Mari and Udmurt and why they require postsyntactic top-down word-formation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 39:2 ► pp. 457 ff. Crossref logo
Harizanov, Boris & Vera Gribanova
2019. Whither head movement?. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37:2 ► pp. 461 ff. Crossref logo
Hsu, Brian
2021. Coalescence: A Unification of Bundling Operations in Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 52:1 ► pp. 39 ff. Crossref logo
Kiparsky, Paul
2021. Phonology to the rescue: Nez Perce morphology revisited. The Linguistic Review 38:3 ► pp. 391 ff. Crossref logo
Newell, Heather
2021. Bracketing Paradoxes resolved. The Linguistic Review 38:3 ► pp. 443 ff. Crossref logo
Rolle, Nicholas & Lee Bickmore
2022. Outward-sensitive phonologically-conditioned suppletive allomorphy vs. first-last tone harmony in Cilungu. Morphology 32:2 ► pp. 197 ff. Crossref logo
Svenonius, Peter
2021. Prepositions with CP and their implications for extended projections. Linguistic Variation 21:1 ► pp. 11 ff. Crossref logo
Taraldsen, Knut Tarald
2019. An introduction to Nanosyntax. Linguistics Vanguard 5:1 Crossref logo
Ursini, Francesco-Alessio & Keith Tse
2021. Region Prepositions: The View from French. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 66:1 ► pp. 31 ff. Crossref logo
Wiślicki, Jan
2021. Light heads and predicate formation: on two scopes of discontinuity. Linguistics 59:6 ► pp. 1389 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 may 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.