Cover not available
Part of
Morphological Metatheory
Edited by Daniel Siddiqi and Heidi Harley
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 229] 2016
► pp. 223–236

Building words

| Humboldt University of Berlin
This chapter discusses some views on syntactic word formation, by focusing on the assumptions being made within the framework of Distributed Morphology. This is contrasted to two other syntactic views on word formation, namely the exoskeletal model and span based word formation. The chapter also discusses the three individual contributions to this volume that precede it and outlines how these relate to the more general issue of word internal complexity.
Published online: 29 June 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.229.08ale
References (31)
References
Alexiadou, Artemis 2001. Functional Structure in Nominals: Nominalization and Ergativity [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 42]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Roots don’t take complements. Theoretical Linguistics 40: 278–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian. 2006. The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In Phases of Interpretation, Mara Frascarelli (ed.), 187–212. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations: A Layering Approach. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan & Wurmbrand, Susi. 2013. Suspension across domains. In Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, Ora Matushansky & Alec Marantz (eds), 185–198. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005. In Name Only. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2013. Taking Form. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1989/2004. A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. In The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Martin Everaert (eds), 22–59. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Roderick Jacobs & Peter Rosenbaum (eds), 184–221. Waltham MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Beyond explanatory adequacy [MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20]. Cambridge MA: MIT.Google Scholar
De Belder, Marijke & van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2015. How to merge a root. Linguistic Inquiry 46(4). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doron, Edit 2003. Agency and voice: The semantics of semitic templates. Natural Language Semantics 11: 1–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1979. Word, Meaning and Montague Grammar. The Semantics of Verbs and Time in Generative Semantics and Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David & Halle, Morris. 2005. On the status of stems in morphological theory. In Proceedings of Going Romance 2003 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 270], Twan Geerts, Ivo van Ginneken & Haike Jacobs (eds), 37–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gennari, Silvia & Poeppel, David. 2003. Processing correlates of lexical semantic complexity. Cognition 89: B27–B41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 2005. Extended projection. In Words and Structure, Jane Grimshaw (ed.), 1–74. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2014. On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics 40: 225–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugen, Jason & Siddiqi, Daniel. 2013. Roots and the derivation. Linguistic Inquiry 44: 493–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2001. Words. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Piñon, Christopher. 2001. A finer look at the causative-inchoative alternation. In Procedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 11, Rachel Hastings, Brendan Jackson & Zsofia Zvolenszky (eds), 346–364. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax Approach. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2002. The theta system – An overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28: 229–290.Google Scholar
Schäfer, Florian. 2008. The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives. External Arguments in Change-of-state Contexts [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 126]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. The causative alternation. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(2): 641–681. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siddiqi, Daniel. 2009. Syntax Within the Word: Economy, Allomorphy, and Argument Selection in Distributed Morphology [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 138]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Punske, Jeffrey
2023. Word‐Internal Inflection. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Spencer, Andrew
2019. Manufacturing consent over Distributed Morphology. Word Structure 12:2 ► pp. 208 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 2024. 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.