219-7677 10 7500817 John Benjamins Publishing Company Marketing Department / Karin Plijnaar, Pieter Lamers onix@benjamins.nl 201705011127 ONIX title feed eng 01 EUR
39011342 03 01 01 JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 JB code LA 229 Eb 15 9789027267122 06 10.1075/la.229 13 2016012868 DG 002 02 01 LA 02 0166-0829 Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 229 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Morphological Metatheory</TitleText> 01 la.229 01 https://benjamins.com 02 https://benjamins.com/catalog/la.229 1 B01 Daniel Siddiqi Siddiqi, Daniel Daniel Siddiqi Carleton University 2 B01 Heidi Harley Harley, Heidi Heidi Harley University of Arizona 01 eng 560 xiii 547 LAN009000 v.2006 CFK 2 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.MORPH Morphology 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.SEMAN Semantics 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.SYNTAX Syntax 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.THEOR Theoretical linguistics 06 01 The field of morphology is particularly heterogeneous. Investigators differ on key points at every level of theory. These divisions are not minor issues about technical implementation, but rather are foundational issues that mold the underlying anatomy of any theory. The field has developed very rapidly both theoretically and methodologically, giving rise to many competing theories and varied hypotheses. Many drastically different and often contradictory models and foundational hypotheses have been proposed. Theories diverge with respect to everything from foundational architectural assumptions to the specific combinatorial mechanisms used to derive complex words. Today these distinct models of word-formation largely exist in parallel, mostly without proponents confronting or discussing these differences in any major forum. After forty years of fast-paced growth in the field, morphologists are in need of a moment to take a breath and survey the drastically different points of view within the field. This volume provides such a moment. 05 If you're looking for an antidote to theoretical myopia in morphology: look no further! This impressive volume provides a wide range of current perspectives on morphological theory, with penetrating discussions engaging the high-level questions that delineate frameworks. The scope of debate and array of views make this collection not only a must-read for morphologists across the spectrum, but also an excellent focal point for the future debates that will advance the field. Jonathan David Bobaljik, University of Connecticut 05 The editors have done the field a great service in bringing this project to fruition. The result is a volume in which morphologists with very different agendas and perspectives debate their assumptions and goals. There is plenty here to agree with, disagree with and debate further. Let’s hope this interesting book will be the start of greater engagement across the different approaches to morphology. Greville G. Corbett, Surrey Morphology Group 05 This book is a trove of tantalizing morsels for the morphological gourmet. Whatever your taste, you are sure to find something here to stimulate your linguistic appetite. Guaranteed, though, you won’t be able to stop at one. Mark Aronoff, Stony Brook University 05 A masterful assembly of current reflections on modeling syncretism, suppletion, affix-ordering, and other cornerstones of morphological theory. With extensive cross-framework comparison and a rich tapestry of empirical coverage, it provides ample resources for new evaluation and syntheses of the state of the art and the way forward. Andrew Nevins, University College London 04 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475/la.229.png 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_jpg/9789027257123.jpg 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_tif/9789027257123.tif 06 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_front/la.229.hb.png 07 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/125/la.229.png 25 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_back/la.229.hb.png 27 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/3d_web/la.229.hb.png 10 01 JB code la.229.001abo ix xiv 6 Article 1 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">About the Authors</TitleText> 10 01 JB code la.229.01spe 1 26 26 Article 2 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">How are words related&#63;</TitleText> 1 A01 Andrew Spencer Spencer, Andrew Andrew Spencer University of Essex 01 I argue in favour of the notions &#8216;word (form)&#8217;, &#8216;lexeme&#8217;, &#8216;paradigm&#8217; against Distributed Morphology claims that lexical roots are indexed only by their form. That approach entails there can be no suppletion in lexical items. In addition to the obvious counterexamples I point out more subtle cases such as Russian prefixed verbs. Following Spencer (2013) I propose that a lexical entry is identified with a unique lexemic index. Transpositions, such as participles, preserve their base verb&#8217;s lexemic index (cf inflected forms). They contrast with transpositional lexemes such as <i>prepositional</i> or participle-form adjectives such as <i>interesting</i>. They share their semantic content with their base verb yet they are distinct lexemes, hence, are furnished with a distinct lexemic index. 10 01 JB code la.229.02stu 27 58 32 Article 3 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paradigms at the interface of a lexeme&#8217;s syntax and semantics with its inflectional morphology</TitleText> 1 A01 Gregory T. Stump Stump, Gregory T. Gregory T. Stump University of Kentucky 01 The interface of a language&#8217;s syntax and semantics with its inflectional morphology is quite constrained: canonically, the morphosyntactic property set that determines a word form&#8217;s use and interpretation in a particular syntactic context also determines its inflectional shape in that context. There are, however, frequent deviations from this canonical congruence. Deviations of this sort favor a theory of morphology in which the definition of a word form&#8217;s syntactico-semantic content is in principle separate from that of its morphological realization. Such a theory necessitates the postulation of two sorts of paradigms: content paradigms constitute the interface of word forms&#8217; inflectional morphology with their syntax and semantics; form paradigms determine the definition of word forms&#8217; morphological realizations. In a theory of this sort, a language&#8217;s inflectional morphology must not only define patterns of inflectional exponence; it must also define the linkage between the cells of a lexeme&#8217;s content paradigm and the cells of the form paradigm through whose mediation they are realized morphologically. The Old English conjugational system provides a rich basis for exemplifying a theory of this sort. 10 01 JB code la.229.03tro 59 94 36 Article 4 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">A postsyntactic morphome cookbook</TitleText> <TitlePrefix>A </TitlePrefix> <TitleWithoutPrefix textformat="02">postsyntactic morphome cookbook</TitleWithoutPrefix> 1 A01 Jochen Trommer Trommer, Jochen Jochen Trommer University of Leipzig 01 In this tutorial, I introduce methods to implement morphomes (i.e., systematisc patterns of unnatural syncretism, Aronoff 1994) in Distributed Morphology (DM, Halle &#38; Marantz 1993). Whereas proponents of DM have virtually completely ignored the morphome concept, I show that the theory provides a crucial formal mechanism to transfer morphomes into a postsyntactic setting: &#8220;parasitic&#8221; morphological features which are not interpretable by syntax, but depend in their distribution on other features. I discuss two canonical methods in DM to make such features available to morphological spellout, postsyntactic rules, and decomposition of syntactic features, and show that parasitic features allow for a formalization of the classical morphome cases and for capturing restrictions imposed by morphomic categories on specific morphological systems. 10 01 JB code la.229.s1 Section header 5 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Discussion 1</TitleText> 10 01 JB code la.229.04kra 95 120 26 Article 6 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Syncretism in paradigm function morphology and distributed morphology</TitleText> 1 A01 Ruth Kramer Kramer, Ruth Ruth Kramer Georgetown University 01 In the development of morphological theory, restrictiveness and maximal empirical coverage of the facts must be carefully balanced. In this discussion chapter, I use the empirical phenomenon of syncretism to explore the restrictiveness/coverage dichotomy in two morphological theories: Distributed Morphology (DM) and Paradigm Function Morphology 2 (PFM2), drawing on Stump (this vol.) and Trommer (this vol.). As previous work has observed, the theories contrast in their approach to this dichotomy: DM tends towards restrictiveness, whereas PFM2 tends towards maximal empirical coverage. I show that syncretism is a useful tool for exploring the advantages and pitfalls of these positions, and I identify open questions for both theories whose answers would contribute to resolving this dichotomy. 10 01 JB code la.229.05kil 121 162 42 Article 7 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Phase domains at PF</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Root suppletion and its implications</Subtitle> 1 A01 Oriana Kilbourn-Ceron Kilbourn-Ceron, Oriana Oriana Kilbourn-Ceron McGill University 2 A01 Heather Newell Newell, Heather Heather Newell McGill University 3 A01 Máire B. Noonan Noonan, Máire B. Máire B. Noonan McGill University 4 A01 Lisa deMena Travis Travis, Lisa deMena Lisa deMena Travis McGill University 01 This chapter investigates some implications of Spell-Out in a phase-based, realizational derivational system. It is argued that all operations on the PF branch within a phase, specifically Vocabulary Insertion and phonological rule, application are predicted to have isomorphic domains of application. This has implications for the proposals on how to extend suppletion domains found in Embick (2010) and Bobaljik &#38; Wurmbrand (2013). Apparent mismatches in suppletive vs. phonological domains are examined in a number of languages, including English, Yiddish, Turkish, Ojibwe, Malagasy, and German. The data are argued to support modifications to both (i) certain theoretical proposals held in the literature, and (ii) the syntactic location of triggers for suppletion generally assumed. 10 01 JB code la.229.06lev 163 200 38 Article 8 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">The costs of zero-derived causativity in English</TitleText> <TitlePrefix>The </TitlePrefix> <TitleWithoutPrefix textformat="02">costs of zero-derived causativity in English</TitleWithoutPrefix> <Subtitle textformat="02">Evidence from reading times and MEG</Subtitle> 1 A01 Lisa Levinson Levinson, Lisa Lisa Levinson Oakland University 2 A01 Jonathan Brennan Brennan, Jonathan Jonathan Brennan University of Michigan 01 This paper investigates the processing of lexical causative verbs in English as a means to provide insight into long-standing debates in this domain and to explore methods for comparison of words which are phonologicallyidentical but vary at other levels of representation. Verbs such as <i>melt </i>can be used in both transitive and intransitive contexts, which have been argued to vary not only in the number of thematic arguments, but also in semantic, morphological, and syntactic representation. Hypothesizing that the transitive variants contain additional causativity, we predicted that they would induce greater processing cost that could be attributed to greater lexical semantic complexity. In order to test this prediction, we included in each study pairs of activity verbs which alternate in transitivity but not causativity. Two self-paced reading studies confirmed our prediction, demonstrating an interaction such that transitive verbs in the causative condition took significantly longer to process than intransitive verbs, a pattern that was not reflected in the activity condition. A further magnetoencephalography study tested for neural activity associated with different levels of linguistic processing and provides insight into the nature of the behavioral delay. The behavioral findings suggest that the transitive variants in the lexical causative alternation are more complex than the intransitives at some level of representation, despite their phonological identity. The MEG study provides a profile which is suggestive of a link with lexical or morphological complexity. 10 01 JB code la.229.07sve 201 222 22 Article 9 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Spans and words</TitleText> 1 A01 Peter Svenonius Svenonius, Peter Peter Svenonius CASTL, University of Tromsø – The Arctic University of Norway 01 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.<br /> 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 &#64; 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 <i>spans </i>(head-complement sequences) as the units of cyclic lexical access and storage. 10 01 JB code la.229.s2 Section header 10 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Discussion 2</TitleText> 10 01 JB code la.229.08ale 223 236 14 Article 11 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Building words</TitleText> 1 A01 Artemis Alexiadou Alexiadou, Artemis Artemis Alexiadou Humboldt University of Berlin 01 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. 10 01 JB code la.229.09arc 237 270 34 Article 12 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Emergent morphology</TitleText> 1 A01 Diana Archangeli Archangeli, Diana Diana Archangeli University of Arizona 2 A01 Douglas Pulleyblank Pulleyblank, Douglas Douglas Pulleyblank University of British Columbia 01 This paper examines implications for morpho-phonology of a model that minimizes the role of an innate linguistic endowment in grammar formation. &#8216;Bottom-up&#8217; learning results in mental representations that form sets from perceived morphs but do not involve abstract &#8216;underlying&#8217; representations. For production, syntactic/semantic features (S-features) identify morphs to be compiled into words. When multiple morphs bear the same S-feature, the grammar must select among the possible contenders. Selection involves phonological regularities or sub-regularities and morpho-phonological as well as idiosyncratic choice; when all else fails the default morph is selected. The model unifies the formal characterization of suppletion, sub-regularities, allophonic patterns, as well as unifying suppletion and zero morphs. Examples come from English, Southern Min, Yoruba, and Kinande, and other languages. 10 01 JB code la.229.10ble 271 302 32 Article 13 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Morphology as an adaptive discriminative system</TitleText> 1 A01 James P. Blevins Blevins, James P. James P. Blevins University of Cambridge 2 A01 Farrell Ackerman Ackerman, Farrell Farrell Ackerman UCSD 3 A01 Robert Malouf Malouf, Robert Robert Malouf San Diego State University 01 The past decade has witnessed a productive convergence of a number of historically separate research strands. One strand explores the implicational models that grew out of classical WP approaches to inflection (e.g., Wurzel 1984; Maiden 2005; Blevins 2006; Ackerman et al. 2009). A second strand extends the information-theoretic perspectives on &#8216;morphological information&#8217; developed originally in the processing models of Kosti&#263; et al. (2003), Moscoso del Prado Mart&#237;n et al. (2004), and Milin et al. (2009a, b). A third strand investigates a &#8216;complex systems&#8217; approach to grammatical organization (Ackerman &#38; Blevins 2008; Ackerman et al. 2008; Beckner et al. 2009). The fourth strand develops a cohesive discriminative perspective on language learning and use (Ramscar &#38; Yarlett 2007; Ramscar &#38; Dye 2010; Ramscar et al. 2010, 2013; Ramscar 2013; Arnon &#38; Ramscar 2012; Baayen et al. 2011). This chapter considers how the interaction of these distinct components has produced a general conception of the structure and function of morphological systems which opens significant points of contact with research in other domains. 10 01 JB code la.229.11hau 303 342 40 Article 14 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Readjustment: Rejected&#63;</TitleText> 1 A01 Jason D. Haugen Haugen, Jason D. Jason D. Haugen Oberlin College 01 This paper raises the metatheoretical question of whether readjustment (i.e. the alteration of stem or affix phonology after lexical insertion) is needed for morphological theory. Domains investigated include: (i) the employment of readjustment rules as &#8220;secondary exponence&#8221; in Distributed Morphology; (ii) verb stem allomorphy in the Uto-Aztecan languages Hiaki (Yaqui) and Classical Nahuatl; and (iii) verb stem allomorphy concurrent with reduplication in the Oceanic language Sye (Erromangan). A cogent argument in favor of readjustment rules over stem-listing approaches invokes frequent phonological regularity of stem alternants (e.g., Harley and Tubino Blanco&#8217;s 2013 analysis of stem form alternations Hiaki). I adopt an alternative, &#8220;amphichronic&#8221; (Kiparsky 2006) approach whereby such regularities can be just as felicitously explained by appealing to historical linguistic processes. 10 01 JB code la.229.12hau 343 386 44 Article 15 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Towards a Restricted Realization Theory</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Multimorphemic monolistemicity, portmanteaux, and post-linearization spanning</Subtitle> 1 A01 Jason D. Haugen Haugen, Jason D. Jason D. Haugen Oberlin College 2 A01 Daniel Siddiqi Siddiqi, Daniel Daniel Siddiqi Carleton University 01 In this paper we advance arguments in favor of a vocabulary-insertion-only program for non-lexicalist realizational models of morphology, Distributed Morphology (Halle &#38; 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 &#38; Marantz 2008 for a contrary argument)&#8211; specifically <i>post-linearization spanning</i>. We restrict our discussion here to whether weak suppletion must be the output of phonological processes (see e.g. Marantz 1997; Embick &#38; Halle 2005; Harley &#38; Tubino Blanco 2013) or simply listed (see, e.g., Berm&#250;dez-Otero 2013), and whether the containment prediction (Embick &#38; Marantz 2008; Embick 2012) is indeed fatal for non-terminal insertion. We also propose here that Siddiqi&#8217;s (2009) feature blocking system can be co-opted for the tasks typical of impoverishment. 10 01 JB code la.229.s3 Section header 16 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Discussion 3</TitleText> 10 01 JB code la.229.13ber 387 430 44 Article 17 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">We do not need structuralist morphemes, but we do need constituent structure</TitleText> 1 A01 Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero University of Manchester 01 In the prethematic high~mid alternation of Spanish third-conjugation verbs, allomorph selection by phonological subcategorization in the morphology interacts with allomorph selection by phonotactic optimization in the phonology, <i>pace</i> Paster (2015). The cyclic locality conditions on this alternation support frameworks with stem storage (Berm&#250;dez-Otero 2013a) or spanning (Svenonius and Haugen &#38; Siddiqi in this volume), and challenge single-terminal insertion. Embick&#8217;s (2012) alternative analysis weakens inward cyclic locality excessively. Myler&#8217;s (2015) counterproposal overgenerates and undermines the explanation of the parallel cyclic transmission of allomorphy and allosemy. Allomorphy-allosemy mismatches do occur: e.g. when English <i>tr&#224;nsp</i>[&#601;]<i>rt&#225;tion</i> preserves the argument structure of <i>tr&#224;nsp&#243;rt</i> but not its bipedality. However, such mismatches are not generated computationally; they arise diachronically through the interplay of computation and storage (Berm&#250;dez-Otero 2012). Theories asserting that words lack constituent structure cannot explain this fact, <i>pace</i> Blevins, Ackerman &#38; Malouf (this volume). 10 01 JB code la.229.14ana 431 460 30 Article 18 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Inner and Outer morphology in Greek adjectival participles</TitleText> 1 A01 Elena Anagnostopoulou Anagnostopoulou, Elena Elena Anagnostopoulou University of Crete 01 I discuss the distribution of the suffixes -<i>tos </i>and -<i>menos </i>in Greek adjectival participles, and I propose that -<i>tos</i> is the default realization of the stativizing head Asp attaching at the root level (<i>inner cycle</i>) and -<i>menos</i> the default realization of Asp attaching above the little v head (<i>outer cycle</i>), following Embick&#8217;s (2003) analysis of the distribution or &#8216;regular&#8217; and &#8216;irregular&#8217; participial morphology in English. However, particular roots are never listed for -<i>tos </i>vs. -<i>menos </i>in the outer cycle in Greek, unlike English which has &#8220;irregular&#8221; participial morphology for specific roots in this cycle. I propose that this difference relates to the fact that root irregularity in Greek is systematically dependent on properties of <i>Viewpoint Aspect</i>, while root irregularity in English is dependent on the higher head <i>Tense</i>. 10 01 JB code la.229.15bau 461 478 18 Article 19 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Re-evaluating exocentricity in word-formation</TitleText> 1 A01 Laurie Bauer Bauer, Laurie Laurie Bauer Victoria University of Wellington 01 The distinction between endocentric and exocentric is usually taken as an important semantic factor in classifying compounds. But the same division does not appear to be used in classifying derivatives. This may be because exocentricity has no obvious correlates in derivation; but it is argued here that its correlates in compounding are illusory, and that there are alternative, and probably more explanatory, ways of dealing with exocentrics. 10 01 JB code la.229.16ink 479 512 34 Article 20 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Affix ordering in Optimal Construction Morphology</TitleText> 1 A01 Sharon Inkelas Inkelas, Sharon Sharon Inkelas University of California, Berkeley 01 This paper sketches an integrated approach to affix ordering within Optimal Construction Morphology, a bottom-up, competition based model of word production in which each step of affixation is the optimal choice among competing possibilities (Caballero &#38; Inkelas 2013). Optimalitytheoretic models are natural fits for affix ordering, a complex phenomenon governed by a mix of conflicting universal and language-specific factors which interact differently in every language. This study covers familiar, global cross-linguistic principles such as semantic relevance (e.g., Bybee 1985) and scope (e.g., Baker 1988; Rice 2000), integrating them with local lexical selectional restrictions (e.g., Fabb 1988); it also incorporates usage-based factors such as Complexity-Based Ordering (e.g., Hay &#38; Plag 2004). The study innovates in adding affix informativity to the mix. 10 01 JB code la.229.17lie 513 536 24 Article 21 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">On the interplay of facts and theory</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Revisiting synthetic compounds in English</Subtitle> 1 A01 Rochelle Lieber Lieber, Rochelle Rochelle Lieber University of New Hampshire 01 This paper examines the data on which theoretical treatments of synthetic compounding in English have typically been based against data culled from the Corpus of Contemporary American English and argues that many claims made in the literature are inaccurate. Claims about the unacceptability of external arguments as the first elements of synthetic compounds, the obligatory transitive interpretation of compounds like <i>tomato growing</i>, the absence of achievement verbs in -<i>ing</i> synthetic compounds, the inability of -<i>ing</i> synthetics to be pluralized, the absence of eventive readings in synthetics, among others are falsified. The paper then proposes a set of generalizations more consistent with the corpus data and shows that the lexical semantic framework of Lieber (2004) is capable of accounting for the facts. 10 01 JB code la.229.s4 Section header 22 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Discussion 4</TitleText> 10 01 JB code la.229.18sid 537 540 4 Article 23 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Editors&#8217; note</TitleText> 1 A01 Daniel Siddiqi Siddiqi, Daniel Daniel Siddiqi Carleton University 2 A01 Heidi Harley Harley, Heidi Heidi Harley University of Arizona 10 01 JB code la.229.19ind 541 548 8 Article 24 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Index</TitleText> 02 JBENJAMINS John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia NL 04 20160629 2016 John Benjamins B.V. 02 WORLD 13 15 9789027257123 01 JB 3 John Benjamins e-Platform 03 jbe-platform.com 09 WORLD 21 01 00 105.00 EUR R 01 00 88.00 GBP Z 01 gen 00 158.00 USD S 149011341 03 01 01 JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 JB code LA 229 Hb 15 9789027257123 13 2016003593 BB 01 LA 02 0166-0829 Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 229 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Morphological Metatheory</TitleText> 01 la.229 01 https://benjamins.com 02 https://benjamins.com/catalog/la.229 1 B01 Daniel Siddiqi Siddiqi, Daniel Daniel Siddiqi Carleton University 2 B01 Heidi Harley Harley, Heidi Heidi Harley University of Arizona 01 eng 560 xiii 547 LAN009000 v.2006 CFK 2 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.MORPH Morphology 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.SEMAN Semantics 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.SYNTAX Syntax 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.THEOR Theoretical linguistics 06 01 The field of morphology is particularly heterogeneous. Investigators differ on key points at every level of theory. These divisions are not minor issues about technical implementation, but rather are foundational issues that mold the underlying anatomy of any theory. The field has developed very rapidly both theoretically and methodologically, giving rise to many competing theories and varied hypotheses. Many drastically different and often contradictory models and foundational hypotheses have been proposed. Theories diverge with respect to everything from foundational architectural assumptions to the specific combinatorial mechanisms used to derive complex words. Today these distinct models of word-formation largely exist in parallel, mostly without proponents confronting or discussing these differences in any major forum. After forty years of fast-paced growth in the field, morphologists are in need of a moment to take a breath and survey the drastically different points of view within the field. This volume provides such a moment. 05 If you're looking for an antidote to theoretical myopia in morphology: look no further! This impressive volume provides a wide range of current perspectives on morphological theory, with penetrating discussions engaging the high-level questions that delineate frameworks. The scope of debate and array of views make this collection not only a must-read for morphologists across the spectrum, but also an excellent focal point for the future debates that will advance the field. Jonathan David Bobaljik, University of Connecticut 05 The editors have done the field a great service in bringing this project to fruition. The result is a volume in which morphologists with very different agendas and perspectives debate their assumptions and goals. There is plenty here to agree with, disagree with and debate further. Let’s hope this interesting book will be the start of greater engagement across the different approaches to morphology. Greville G. Corbett, Surrey Morphology Group 05 This book is a trove of tantalizing morsels for the morphological gourmet. Whatever your taste, you are sure to find something here to stimulate your linguistic appetite. Guaranteed, though, you won’t be able to stop at one. Mark Aronoff, Stony Brook University 05 A masterful assembly of current reflections on modeling syncretism, suppletion, affix-ordering, and other cornerstones of morphological theory. With extensive cross-framework comparison and a rich tapestry of empirical coverage, it provides ample resources for new evaluation and syntheses of the state of the art and the way forward. Andrew Nevins, University College London 04 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475/la.229.png 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_jpg/9789027257123.jpg 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_tif/9789027257123.tif 06 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_front/la.229.hb.png 07 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/125/la.229.png 25 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_back/la.229.hb.png 27 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/3d_web/la.229.hb.png 10 01 JB code la.229.001abo ix xiv 6 Article 1 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">About the Authors</TitleText> 10 01 JB code la.229.01spe 1 26 26 Article 2 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">How are words related&#63;</TitleText> 1 A01 Andrew Spencer Spencer, Andrew Andrew Spencer University of Essex 01 I argue in favour of the notions &#8216;word (form)&#8217;, &#8216;lexeme&#8217;, &#8216;paradigm&#8217; against Distributed Morphology claims that lexical roots are indexed only by their form. That approach entails there can be no suppletion in lexical items. In addition to the obvious counterexamples I point out more subtle cases such as Russian prefixed verbs. Following Spencer (2013) I propose that a lexical entry is identified with a unique lexemic index. Transpositions, such as participles, preserve their base verb&#8217;s lexemic index (cf inflected forms). They contrast with transpositional lexemes such as <i>prepositional</i> or participle-form adjectives such as <i>interesting</i>. They share their semantic content with their base verb yet they are distinct lexemes, hence, are furnished with a distinct lexemic index. 10 01 JB code la.229.02stu 27 58 32 Article 3 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paradigms at the interface of a lexeme&#8217;s syntax and semantics with its inflectional morphology</TitleText> 1 A01 Gregory T. Stump Stump, Gregory T. Gregory T. Stump University of Kentucky 01 The interface of a language&#8217;s syntax and semantics with its inflectional morphology is quite constrained: canonically, the morphosyntactic property set that determines a word form&#8217;s use and interpretation in a particular syntactic context also determines its inflectional shape in that context. There are, however, frequent deviations from this canonical congruence. Deviations of this sort favor a theory of morphology in which the definition of a word form&#8217;s syntactico-semantic content is in principle separate from that of its morphological realization. Such a theory necessitates the postulation of two sorts of paradigms: content paradigms constitute the interface of word forms&#8217; inflectional morphology with their syntax and semantics; form paradigms determine the definition of word forms&#8217; morphological realizations. In a theory of this sort, a language&#8217;s inflectional morphology must not only define patterns of inflectional exponence; it must also define the linkage between the cells of a lexeme&#8217;s content paradigm and the cells of the form paradigm through whose mediation they are realized morphologically. The Old English conjugational system provides a rich basis for exemplifying a theory of this sort. 10 01 JB code la.229.03tro 59 94 36 Article 4 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">A postsyntactic morphome cookbook</TitleText> <TitlePrefix>A </TitlePrefix> <TitleWithoutPrefix textformat="02">postsyntactic morphome cookbook</TitleWithoutPrefix> 1 A01 Jochen Trommer Trommer, Jochen Jochen Trommer University of Leipzig 01 In this tutorial, I introduce methods to implement morphomes (i.e., systematisc patterns of unnatural syncretism, Aronoff 1994) in Distributed Morphology (DM, Halle &#38; Marantz 1993). Whereas proponents of DM have virtually completely ignored the morphome concept, I show that the theory provides a crucial formal mechanism to transfer morphomes into a postsyntactic setting: &#8220;parasitic&#8221; morphological features which are not interpretable by syntax, but depend in their distribution on other features. I discuss two canonical methods in DM to make such features available to morphological spellout, postsyntactic rules, and decomposition of syntactic features, and show that parasitic features allow for a formalization of the classical morphome cases and for capturing restrictions imposed by morphomic categories on specific morphological systems. 10 01 JB code la.229.s1 Section header 5 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Discussion 1</TitleText> 10 01 JB code la.229.04kra 95 120 26 Article 6 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Syncretism in paradigm function morphology and distributed morphology</TitleText> 1 A01 Ruth Kramer Kramer, Ruth Ruth Kramer Georgetown University 01 In the development of morphological theory, restrictiveness and maximal empirical coverage of the facts must be carefully balanced. In this discussion chapter, I use the empirical phenomenon of syncretism to explore the restrictiveness/coverage dichotomy in two morphological theories: Distributed Morphology (DM) and Paradigm Function Morphology 2 (PFM2), drawing on Stump (this vol.) and Trommer (this vol.). As previous work has observed, the theories contrast in their approach to this dichotomy: DM tends towards restrictiveness, whereas PFM2 tends towards maximal empirical coverage. I show that syncretism is a useful tool for exploring the advantages and pitfalls of these positions, and I identify open questions for both theories whose answers would contribute to resolving this dichotomy. 10 01 JB code la.229.05kil 121 162 42 Article 7 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Phase domains at PF</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Root suppletion and its implications</Subtitle> 1 A01 Oriana Kilbourn-Ceron Kilbourn-Ceron, Oriana Oriana Kilbourn-Ceron McGill University 2 A01 Heather Newell Newell, Heather Heather Newell McGill University 3 A01 Máire B. Noonan Noonan, Máire B. Máire B. Noonan McGill University 4 A01 Lisa deMena Travis Travis, Lisa deMena Lisa deMena Travis McGill University 01 This chapter investigates some implications of Spell-Out in a phase-based, realizational derivational system. It is argued that all operations on the PF branch within a phase, specifically Vocabulary Insertion and phonological rule, application are predicted to have isomorphic domains of application. This has implications for the proposals on how to extend suppletion domains found in Embick (2010) and Bobaljik &#38; Wurmbrand (2013). Apparent mismatches in suppletive vs. phonological domains are examined in a number of languages, including English, Yiddish, Turkish, Ojibwe, Malagasy, and German. The data are argued to support modifications to both (i) certain theoretical proposals held in the literature, and (ii) the syntactic location of triggers for suppletion generally assumed. 10 01 JB code la.229.06lev 163 200 38 Article 8 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">The costs of zero-derived causativity in English</TitleText> <TitlePrefix>The </TitlePrefix> <TitleWithoutPrefix textformat="02">costs of zero-derived causativity in English</TitleWithoutPrefix> <Subtitle textformat="02">Evidence from reading times and MEG</Subtitle> 1 A01 Lisa Levinson Levinson, Lisa Lisa Levinson Oakland University 2 A01 Jonathan Brennan Brennan, Jonathan Jonathan Brennan University of Michigan 01 This paper investigates the processing of lexical causative verbs in English as a means to provide insight into long-standing debates in this domain and to explore methods for comparison of words which are phonologicallyidentical but vary at other levels of representation. Verbs such as <i>melt </i>can be used in both transitive and intransitive contexts, which have been argued to vary not only in the number of thematic arguments, but also in semantic, morphological, and syntactic representation. Hypothesizing that the transitive variants contain additional causativity, we predicted that they would induce greater processing cost that could be attributed to greater lexical semantic complexity. In order to test this prediction, we included in each study pairs of activity verbs which alternate in transitivity but not causativity. Two self-paced reading studies confirmed our prediction, demonstrating an interaction such that transitive verbs in the causative condition took significantly longer to process than intransitive verbs, a pattern that was not reflected in the activity condition. A further magnetoencephalography study tested for neural activity associated with different levels of linguistic processing and provides insight into the nature of the behavioral delay. The behavioral findings suggest that the transitive variants in the lexical causative alternation are more complex than the intransitives at some level of representation, despite their phonological identity. The MEG study provides a profile which is suggestive of a link with lexical or morphological complexity. 10 01 JB code la.229.07sve 201 222 22 Article 9 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Spans and words</TitleText> 1 A01 Peter Svenonius Svenonius, Peter Peter Svenonius CASTL, University of Tromsø – The Arctic University of Norway 01 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.<br /> 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 &#64; 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 <i>spans </i>(head-complement sequences) as the units of cyclic lexical access and storage. 10 01 JB code la.229.s2 Section header 10 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Discussion 2</TitleText> 10 01 JB code la.229.08ale 223 236 14 Article 11 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Building words</TitleText> 1 A01 Artemis Alexiadou Alexiadou, Artemis Artemis Alexiadou Humboldt University of Berlin 01 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. 10 01 JB code la.229.09arc 237 270 34 Article 12 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Emergent morphology</TitleText> 1 A01 Diana Archangeli Archangeli, Diana Diana Archangeli University of Arizona 2 A01 Douglas Pulleyblank Pulleyblank, Douglas Douglas Pulleyblank University of British Columbia 01 This paper examines implications for morpho-phonology of a model that minimizes the role of an innate linguistic endowment in grammar formation. &#8216;Bottom-up&#8217; learning results in mental representations that form sets from perceived morphs but do not involve abstract &#8216;underlying&#8217; representations. For production, syntactic/semantic features (S-features) identify morphs to be compiled into words. When multiple morphs bear the same S-feature, the grammar must select among the possible contenders. Selection involves phonological regularities or sub-regularities and morpho-phonological as well as idiosyncratic choice; when all else fails the default morph is selected. The model unifies the formal characterization of suppletion, sub-regularities, allophonic patterns, as well as unifying suppletion and zero morphs. Examples come from English, Southern Min, Yoruba, and Kinande, and other languages. 10 01 JB code la.229.10ble 271 302 32 Article 13 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Morphology as an adaptive discriminative system</TitleText> 1 A01 James P. Blevins Blevins, James P. James P. Blevins University of Cambridge 2 A01 Farrell Ackerman Ackerman, Farrell Farrell Ackerman UCSD 3 A01 Robert Malouf Malouf, Robert Robert Malouf San Diego State University 01 The past decade has witnessed a productive convergence of a number of historically separate research strands. One strand explores the implicational models that grew out of classical WP approaches to inflection (e.g., Wurzel 1984; Maiden 2005; Blevins 2006; Ackerman et al. 2009). A second strand extends the information-theoretic perspectives on &#8216;morphological information&#8217; developed originally in the processing models of Kosti&#263; et al. (2003), Moscoso del Prado Mart&#237;n et al. (2004), and Milin et al. (2009a, b). A third strand investigates a &#8216;complex systems&#8217; approach to grammatical organization (Ackerman &#38; Blevins 2008; Ackerman et al. 2008; Beckner et al. 2009). The fourth strand develops a cohesive discriminative perspective on language learning and use (Ramscar &#38; Yarlett 2007; Ramscar &#38; Dye 2010; Ramscar et al. 2010, 2013; Ramscar 2013; Arnon &#38; Ramscar 2012; Baayen et al. 2011). This chapter considers how the interaction of these distinct components has produced a general conception of the structure and function of morphological systems which opens significant points of contact with research in other domains. 10 01 JB code la.229.11hau 303 342 40 Article 14 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Readjustment: Rejected&#63;</TitleText> 1 A01 Jason D. Haugen Haugen, Jason D. Jason D. Haugen Oberlin College 01 This paper raises the metatheoretical question of whether readjustment (i.e. the alteration of stem or affix phonology after lexical insertion) is needed for morphological theory. Domains investigated include: (i) the employment of readjustment rules as &#8220;secondary exponence&#8221; in Distributed Morphology; (ii) verb stem allomorphy in the Uto-Aztecan languages Hiaki (Yaqui) and Classical Nahuatl; and (iii) verb stem allomorphy concurrent with reduplication in the Oceanic language Sye (Erromangan). A cogent argument in favor of readjustment rules over stem-listing approaches invokes frequent phonological regularity of stem alternants (e.g., Harley and Tubino Blanco&#8217;s 2013 analysis of stem form alternations Hiaki). I adopt an alternative, &#8220;amphichronic&#8221; (Kiparsky 2006) approach whereby such regularities can be just as felicitously explained by appealing to historical linguistic processes. 10 01 JB code la.229.12hau 343 386 44 Article 15 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Towards a Restricted Realization Theory</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Multimorphemic monolistemicity, portmanteaux, and post-linearization spanning</Subtitle> 1 A01 Jason D. Haugen Haugen, Jason D. Jason D. Haugen Oberlin College 2 A01 Daniel Siddiqi Siddiqi, Daniel Daniel Siddiqi Carleton University 01 In this paper we advance arguments in favor of a vocabulary-insertion-only program for non-lexicalist realizational models of morphology, Distributed Morphology (Halle &#38; 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 &#38; Marantz 2008 for a contrary argument)&#8211; specifically <i>post-linearization spanning</i>. We restrict our discussion here to whether weak suppletion must be the output of phonological processes (see e.g. Marantz 1997; Embick &#38; Halle 2005; Harley &#38; Tubino Blanco 2013) or simply listed (see, e.g., Berm&#250;dez-Otero 2013), and whether the containment prediction (Embick &#38; Marantz 2008; Embick 2012) is indeed fatal for non-terminal insertion. We also propose here that Siddiqi&#8217;s (2009) feature blocking system can be co-opted for the tasks typical of impoverishment. 10 01 JB code la.229.s3 Section header 16 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Discussion 3</TitleText> 10 01 JB code la.229.13ber 387 430 44 Article 17 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">We do not need structuralist morphemes, but we do need constituent structure</TitleText> 1 A01 Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero University of Manchester 01 In the prethematic high~mid alternation of Spanish third-conjugation verbs, allomorph selection by phonological subcategorization in the morphology interacts with allomorph selection by phonotactic optimization in the phonology, <i>pace</i> Paster (2015). The cyclic locality conditions on this alternation support frameworks with stem storage (Berm&#250;dez-Otero 2013a) or spanning (Svenonius and Haugen &#38; Siddiqi in this volume), and challenge single-terminal insertion. Embick&#8217;s (2012) alternative analysis weakens inward cyclic locality excessively. Myler&#8217;s (2015) counterproposal overgenerates and undermines the explanation of the parallel cyclic transmission of allomorphy and allosemy. Allomorphy-allosemy mismatches do occur: e.g. when English <i>tr&#224;nsp</i>[&#601;]<i>rt&#225;tion</i> preserves the argument structure of <i>tr&#224;nsp&#243;rt</i> but not its bipedality. However, such mismatches are not generated computationally; they arise diachronically through the interplay of computation and storage (Berm&#250;dez-Otero 2012). Theories asserting that words lack constituent structure cannot explain this fact, <i>pace</i> Blevins, Ackerman &#38; Malouf (this volume). 10 01 JB code la.229.14ana 431 460 30 Article 18 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Inner and Outer morphology in Greek adjectival participles</TitleText> 1 A01 Elena Anagnostopoulou Anagnostopoulou, Elena Elena Anagnostopoulou University of Crete 01 I discuss the distribution of the suffixes -<i>tos </i>and -<i>menos </i>in Greek adjectival participles, and I propose that -<i>tos</i> is the default realization of the stativizing head Asp attaching at the root level (<i>inner cycle</i>) and -<i>menos</i> the default realization of Asp attaching above the little v head (<i>outer cycle</i>), following Embick&#8217;s (2003) analysis of the distribution or &#8216;regular&#8217; and &#8216;irregular&#8217; participial morphology in English. However, particular roots are never listed for -<i>tos </i>vs. -<i>menos </i>in the outer cycle in Greek, unlike English which has &#8220;irregular&#8221; participial morphology for specific roots in this cycle. I propose that this difference relates to the fact that root irregularity in Greek is systematically dependent on properties of <i>Viewpoint Aspect</i>, while root irregularity in English is dependent on the higher head <i>Tense</i>. 10 01 JB code la.229.15bau 461 478 18 Article 19 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Re-evaluating exocentricity in word-formation</TitleText> 1 A01 Laurie Bauer Bauer, Laurie Laurie Bauer Victoria University of Wellington 01 The distinction between endocentric and exocentric is usually taken as an important semantic factor in classifying compounds. But the same division does not appear to be used in classifying derivatives. This may be because exocentricity has no obvious correlates in derivation; but it is argued here that its correlates in compounding are illusory, and that there are alternative, and probably more explanatory, ways of dealing with exocentrics. 10 01 JB code la.229.16ink 479 512 34 Article 20 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Affix ordering in Optimal Construction Morphology</TitleText> 1 A01 Sharon Inkelas Inkelas, Sharon Sharon Inkelas University of California, Berkeley 01 This paper sketches an integrated approach to affix ordering within Optimal Construction Morphology, a bottom-up, competition based model of word production in which each step of affixation is the optimal choice among competing possibilities (Caballero &#38; Inkelas 2013). Optimalitytheoretic models are natural fits for affix ordering, a complex phenomenon governed by a mix of conflicting universal and language-specific factors which interact differently in every language. This study covers familiar, global cross-linguistic principles such as semantic relevance (e.g., Bybee 1985) and scope (e.g., Baker 1988; Rice 2000), integrating them with local lexical selectional restrictions (e.g., Fabb 1988); it also incorporates usage-based factors such as Complexity-Based Ordering (e.g., Hay &#38; Plag 2004). The study innovates in adding affix informativity to the mix. 10 01 JB code la.229.17lie 513 536 24 Article 21 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">On the interplay of facts and theory</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Revisiting synthetic compounds in English</Subtitle> 1 A01 Rochelle Lieber Lieber, Rochelle Rochelle Lieber University of New Hampshire 01 This paper examines the data on which theoretical treatments of synthetic compounding in English have typically been based against data culled from the Corpus of Contemporary American English and argues that many claims made in the literature are inaccurate. Claims about the unacceptability of external arguments as the first elements of synthetic compounds, the obligatory transitive interpretation of compounds like <i>tomato growing</i>, the absence of achievement verbs in -<i>ing</i> synthetic compounds, the inability of -<i>ing</i> synthetics to be pluralized, the absence of eventive readings in synthetics, among others are falsified. The paper then proposes a set of generalizations more consistent with the corpus data and shows that the lexical semantic framework of Lieber (2004) is capable of accounting for the facts. 10 01 JB code la.229.s4 Section header 22 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Discussion 4</TitleText> 10 01 JB code la.229.18sid 537 540 4 Article 23 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Editors&#8217; note</TitleText> 1 A01 Daniel Siddiqi Siddiqi, Daniel Daniel Siddiqi Carleton University 2 A01 Heidi Harley Harley, Heidi Heidi Harley University of Arizona 10 01 JB code la.229.19ind 541 548 8 Article 24 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Index</TitleText> 02 JBENJAMINS John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia NL 04 20160629 2016 John Benjamins B.V. 02 WORLD 08 1120 gr 01 JB 1 John Benjamins Publishing Company +31 20 6304747 +31 20 6739773 bookorder@benjamins.nl 01 https://benjamins.com 01 WORLD US CA MX 21 24 14 01 02 JB 1 00 105.00 EUR R 02 02 JB 1 00 111.30 EUR R 01 JB 10 bebc +44 1202 712 934 +44 1202 712 913 sales@bebc.co.uk 03 GB 21 14 02 02 JB 1 00 88.00 GBP Z 01 JB 2 John Benjamins North America +1 800 562-5666 +1 703 661-1501 benjamins@presswarehouse.com 01 https://benjamins.com 01 US CA MX 21 14 01 gen 02 JB 1 00 158.00 USD