Cover not available
Part of
Morphological Metatheory
Edited by Daniel Siddiqi and Heidi Harley
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 229] 2016
► pp. 343–386

Towards a Restricted Realization Theory

Multimorphemic monolistemicity, portmanteaux, and post-linearization spanning

| Oberlin College
| Carleton University

In this paper we advance arguments in favor of a vocabulary-insertion-only program for non-lexicalist realizational models of morphology, Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993) in particular. We claim that this end can be achieved through relatively simple and well-motivated proposals. We suggest that the vast majority of non-syntactic mechanisms can be obviated by the adoption of non-terminal insertion (Radkevich 2010; Svenonius 2012; Merchant 2013; Starke 2009; Caha 2009; see Embick & Marantz 2008 for a contrary argument)– specifically post-linearization spanning. We restrict our discussion here to whether weak suppletion must be the output of phonological processes (see e.g. Marantz 1997; Embick & Halle 2005; Harley & Tubino Blanco 2013) or simply listed (see, e.g., Bermúdez-Otero 2013), and whether the containment prediction (Embick & Marantz 2008; Embick 2012) is indeed fatal for non-terminal insertion. We also propose here that Siddiqi’s (2009) feature blocking system can be co-opted for the tasks typical of impoverishment.

Published online: 29 June 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.229.12hau
References
Arregi, Karlos & Nevins, Andrew
2012 Morphotactics: Basque Auxiliaries and the Structure of Spellout. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark
1976 Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2012 Morphological stems: What William of Ockham really said. Word Structure 5(1): 28–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, Harald R
1992 Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In Yearbook of Morphology 1991, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 109–150. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993 On frequency, transparency, and productivity. In Yearbook of Morphology 1992, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 181–208. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994 Productivity in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes 9: 447–469. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald & Lieber, Rochelle
1991 Productivity and English derivation: A corpus based study. Linguistics 29: 801–843. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald & Renouf, Antoinette
1996 Chronicling the Times: Productive innovations in an English newspaper. Language 29: 801–843. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Alan
2011 Simplicity. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2011 edn, Edward N. Zalta (ed.). [URL]Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo
2013 The Spanish lexicon stores stems with theme vowels, not roots with inflectional class features. Probus 25(1): 3–103.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David
2000 The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. In University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 10, Kleanthes Grohmann & Caro Struijke (eds), 35–71. College Park MD: University of Maryland, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
2012 Universals in Comparative Morphology: Suppletion, Superlatives, and the Structure of Words. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulalia
2013 Agreement in two steps (at least). In Distributed Morphology Today, Ora Matushansky & Alec Marantz (eds). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L
1985 Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form [Typological Studies in Language 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caha, Pavel
2009 The Nanosyntax of Case. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø.
Chomsky, Noam
1970 Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in Transformational Grammar, Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds), 184–221. Waltham MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Chung, Inkie
2007 Suppletive negation in Korean and Distributed Morphology. Lingua 117: 95–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dakin, Karen & Wichmann, Søren
2000 Cacao and chocolate: A Uto-Aztecan perspective. Ancient Mesoamerica 11: 55–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria & Williams, Edwin
1987 On the Definition of Word. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Embick, David
2007a Blocking effects and analytic/synthetic alternations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25(1): 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007b Linearization and local dislocation: Derivational mechanics and interactions. Linguistic Analysis 33(3–4): 303–336.Google Scholar
2010a Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 On the targets of phonological realization. Talk given to the MSPI Workshop at Stanford University, 13 October 2012.
2013 Morphemes and morphophonological loci. In Distributed Morphology Today, Ora Matushansky & Alec Marantz (eds). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David & Halle, Morris
2005 On the status of stems in morphological theory. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 270], Twan Geerts, Ivo van Ginneken & Haike Jacobs (eds), 37–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David & Marantz, Alec
2008 Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39(1): 1–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf
2007 Distributed morphology and the syntax-morphology interface. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds), 289–324. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane
2000 Locality and extended projection. In Lexical Specification and Insertion [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 197], Peter Coopmans, Martin Everaert & Jane Grimshaw (eds), 115–133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris
1997 Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In Papers at the Interface [MIT Working Papers in Linguistcs 30], Benjamin Bruening, Yoonyung Kang & Martha McGinnis (eds), 425–450. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.Google 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
1994 Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In Papers on Phonology and Morphology [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21], Andrew Carnie & Heidi Harley, 275–288. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi
2009 A morphosyntactic account of the ‘Latinate’ ban on dative shiftin English. Ms, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
2014 On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics 40(3–4): 225–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Tubino Blanco, Mercedes
2013 Cycles, vocabulary items, and stem forms in Hiaki. In Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, Ora Matushansky & Alec Marantz (eds), 117–134. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Noyer, Rolf
1999 State-of-the-Article: Distributed Morphology. Glot International 4: 3–9.Google Scholar
Haugen, Jason D
2008 Morphology at the Interfaces: Reduplication and Noun Incorporation in Uto-Aztecan [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 117]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Borrowed borrowings: Nahuatl loanwords in English. Lexis 3: 63–106.Google Scholar
2011 Reduplication in Distributed Morphology. In Proceedings of the 4th Arizona Linguistics Circle Conference (ALC 4). Coyote Papers, Vol. 18. Tucson, AZ: Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona. [URL]
Haugen, Jason D. & Everdell, Michael
2015 ‘To kill’ and ‘to die’ (and other suppletive verbs) in Uto-Aztecan. Language Dynamics and Change 5: 227–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugen, Jason D. & Siddiqi, Daniel
2013a Roots and the derivation. Linguistic Inquiry 44(3): 493–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013b On double marking and containment in Realization Theory. Ms. <[URL]
Hay, Jennifer & Baayen, R. Harald
2002 Parsing and productivity. In Yearbook of Morphology 2001, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 203–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Phonotactics, parsing, and productivity. Rivista di Linguistica 15(1): 99–130.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer & Plag, Ingo
2004 What constrains possible suffix combinations? On the interaction of grammatical and processing restrictions in derivational morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 565–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F
1954 Two models of grammatical description. Word 10: 210–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopi Dictionary Project
1998 Hopi Dictionary/Hopìikwa Lavàytutuveni: A Hopi-English Dictionary of the Third Mesa Dialect. Tucson AZ: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Izvorski, Roumi
2002 Some observations about the form and meaning of the perfect. In Perfect Explorations, Artemis Alexiadou, Monika Rathert & Armin von Stechow (eds), 153–204. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1983 Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1990 Semantic Structures. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1992 Languages of the Mind: Essays on Mental Representation. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. Douglas
1972 Formal Aspects of Phonological Description. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kandybowicz, Jason
2007 On fusion and multiple copy spellout. In The Copy Theory of Movement [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 107], Norbert Corver & Jairo Nunes (eds), 119–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald
1987 Three seductions of computational psycholinguistics. In Linguistic Theory and Computer Applications, Peter J. Whitelock, Mary McGee Wood, Harold L. Somers, Rod Johnson & Paul Bennett (eds), 149–188. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard
1997 The English complementizer of. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1: 43–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul
1982 Lexical morphology and phonology. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm: Selected Papers from SICOL 1981, Linguistic Society of Korea (eds), 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin.
1983 Word formation and the lexicon. In Proceedings of the 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference, Francis Ingemann (ed.), 3–29. Lawrence KS: University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle
1992 Deconstructing Morphology: Word Formation in Syntactic Theory. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec
1997 Stem suppletion, or the arbitrariness of the sign. Talk given at the Universite’ de Paris VIII.
1997 No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. U.Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2): 201–225.Google Scholar
2013 Locality domains for contextual allomorphy across the interfaces. In Distributed Morphology Today, Ora Matushansky & Alec Marantz (eds). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Melnar, Lynette
2004 Caddo Verb Morphology. Lincoln NB: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason
2013 How much context is enough? Two cases of span-conditioned stem allomorphy. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 77–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moskal, Baeta
2013 Limits on Noun-suppletion. GLOW 36, Lund University, Sweden.
Muriungi, Peter Kinyua
2009 The union spell-out mechanism. In Nanosyntax, Peter Svenonius, Gillian Ramchand, Michal Starke & Knut Tarald Taraldsen (eds). Special issue of Tromsø Working Papers on Language and Linguistics: Nordlyd 36(1): 191–205.Google Scholar
Newell, Heather
2008 Aspects of the Morphology and Phonology of Phases. Ph.D. dissertation. McGill University.
Noyer, Rolf
1992 Features, Positions and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Pancheva, Roumyana
2003 The aspectual makeup of perfect participles and the interpretation of perfect. In Perfect Explorations, Artemis Alexiadou, Monika Rathert & Armin von Stechow (eds), 277–306. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul M. & Pullum, Geoffrey K
1978 Traces and the description of English complementizer contraction. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 1–29.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul
1993 Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar [Technical Reports of the Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science, RuCCS-TR-2]. New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science. Published 2004, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Radkevich, Nina
2010 On Location: The Structure of Case and Adpositiona. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Ramchand, Gillian
2008 Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raimy, Eric
2000 The Phonology and Morphology of Reduplication [Studies in Generative Grammar 52]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schultnik, Henk
1961 Produktiviteit als morfologisch fenomeen. Forum der Letteren 33: 110–125.Google 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
2010 Distributed Morphology. Language and Linguistics Compass. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Starke, Michal
2009 Nanosyntax: A short primer on a new approach to language. In Nanosyntax, Peter Svenonius, Gillian Ramchand, Michal Starke & Knut Tarald Taraldsen (eds). Special issue of Tromsø Working Papers on Language and Linguistics: Nordlyd 36(1): 1–6.Google Scholar
Stemberger, Joseph Paul & MacWhinney, Brian
1986 Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms. Memory and Cognition 14: 17–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988 Are inflected forms stored in the lexicon? In Theoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics, Michael T. Hammond & Michael T. Noonan (eds), 101–116. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter
2012 Spanning. Ms, CASTL, University of Tromsø. [URL]
Taraldsen, Knut Tarald
2010 The nanosyntax of Nguni noun class prefixes and concords. Lingua 120: 1522–1548. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trommer, Jochen
1999 Morphology consuming syntax’s resources: Generation and parsing in a minimalist version of Distributed Morphology. In Proceedings of the ESSLI Workshop on Resource Logics and Minimalist Grammars.
2001 Distributed Optimality. Ph.D. dissertation, Universität Potsdam.
Williams, Edwin
2003 Representation Theory. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold
1990 Inflectional morphology as a (sub)component of grammar. In Contemporary Morphology, Wolfgang U. Dressler, Hans C. Luschützky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer & John R. Rennison (eds), 217–236. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold & Pullum, Geoffrey
1986 The principle of phonology-free syntax: Introductory remarks. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 32: 63–91.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 10 other publications

Bembridge, Gavin
2022. ASL negative incorporation as negative suppletion. Sign Language & Linguistics 25:2 ► pp. 135 ff. DOI logo
Caha, Pavel, Karen De Clercq & Guido Vanden Wyngaerd
2019. The Fine Structure of the Comparative. Studia Linguistica 73:3 ► pp. 470 ff. DOI 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 DOI logo
DOLATIAN, HOSSEP
2023. Fluctuations in allomorphy domains: Applying Stump 2010 to Armenian ordinal numerals. Journal of Linguistics ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Kilbourn-Ceron, Oriana, Heather Newell, Máire B. Noonan & Lisa deMena Travis
2016. Phase domains at PF. In Morphological Metatheory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 229], ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo
Newell, Heather
2021. Deriving Level 1/Level 2 affix classes in English: Floating vowels, cyclic syntax. Acta Linguistica Academica 68:1-2 ► pp. 31 ff. DOI logo
Newell, Heather
2021. Bracketing Paradoxes resolved. The Linguistic Review 38:3 ► pp. 443 ff. DOI logo
Revithiadou, Anthi, Giorgos Markopoulos & Vassilios Spyropoulos
2019. Changing shape according to strength: Evidence from root allomorphy in Greek. The Linguistic Review 36:3 ► pp. 553 ff. DOI 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. DOI logo
Schreiner, Sylvia L. R.
2021. Span–conditioned allomorphy and late linearization: Evidence from the Classical Greek perfect. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 6:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 may 2023. 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.