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
01
Morphological Metatheory
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
01
About the Authors
10
01
JB code
la.229.01spe
1
26
26
Article
2
01
How are words related?
1
A01
Andrew Spencer
Spencer, Andrew
Andrew
Spencer
University of Essex
01
I argue in favour of the notions ‘word (form)’, ‘lexeme’, ‘paradigm’ 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’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
01
Paradigms at the interface of a lexeme’s syntax and semantics with its inflectional morphology
1
A01
Gregory T. Stump
Stump, Gregory T.
Gregory T.
Stump
University of Kentucky
01
The interface of a language’s syntax and semantics with its inflectional morphology is quite constrained: canonically, the morphosyntactic property set that determines a word form’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’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’ inflectional morphology with their syntax and semantics; form paradigms determine the definition of word forms’ morphological realizations. In a theory of this sort, a language’s inflectional morphology must not only define patterns of inflectional exponence; it must also define the linkage between the cells of a lexeme’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
01
A postsyntactic morphome cookbook
A
postsyntactic morphome cookbook
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 & 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: “parasitic” 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
01
Discussion 1
10
01
JB code
la.229.04kra
95
120
26
Article
6
01
Syncretism in paradigm function morphology and distributed morphology
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
01
Phase domains at PF
Root suppletion and its implications
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 & 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
01
The costs of zero-derived causativity in English
The
costs of zero-derived causativity in English
Evidence from reading times and MEG
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
01
Spans and words
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 @ 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
01
Discussion 2
10
01
JB code
la.229.08ale
223
236
14
Article
11
01
Building words
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
01
Emergent morphology
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. ‘Bottom-up’ learning results in mental representations that form sets from perceived morphs but do not involve abstract ‘underlying’ 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
01
Morphology as an adaptive discriminative system
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 ‘morphological information’ developed originally in the processing models of Kostić et al. (2003), Moscoso del Prado Martín et al. (2004), and Milin et al. (2009a, b). A third strand investigates a ‘complex systems’ approach to grammatical organization (Ackerman & Blevins 2008; Ackerman et al. 2008; Beckner et al. 2009). The fourth strand develops a cohesive discriminative perspective on language learning and use (Ramscar & Yarlett 2007; Ramscar & Dye 2010; Ramscar et al. 2010, 2013; Ramscar 2013; Arnon & 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
01
Readjustment: Rejected?
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 “secondary exponence” 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’s 2013 analysis of stem form alternations Hiaki). I adopt an alternative, “amphichronic” (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
01
Towards a Restricted Realization Theory
Multimorphemic monolistemicity, portmanteaux, and post-linearization spanning
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 & 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 <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 & 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.
10
01
JB code
la.229.s3
Section header
16
01
Discussion 3
10
01
JB code
la.229.13ber
387
430
44
Article
17
01
We do not need structuralist morphemes, but we do need constituent structure
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 (Bermúdez-Otero 2013a) or spanning (Svenonius and Haugen & Siddiqi in this volume), and challenge single-terminal insertion. Embick’s (2012) alternative analysis weakens inward cyclic locality excessively. Myler’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>trànsp</i>[ə]<i>rtátion</i> preserves the argument structure of <i>trànspórt</i> but not its bipedality. However, such mismatches are not generated computationally; they arise diachronically through the interplay of computation and storage (Bermúdez-Otero 2012). Theories asserting that words lack constituent structure cannot explain this fact, <i>pace</i> Blevins, Ackerman & Malouf (this volume).
10
01
JB code
la.229.14ana
431
460
30
Article
18
01
Inner and Outer morphology in Greek adjectival participles
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’s (2003) analysis of the distribution or ‘regular’ and ‘irregular’ 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 “irregular” 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
01
Re-evaluating exocentricity in word-formation
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
01
Affix ordering in Optimal Construction Morphology
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 & 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 & Plag 2004). The study innovates in adding affix informativity to the mix.
10
01
JB code
la.229.17lie
513
536
24
Article
21
01
On the interplay of facts and theory
Revisiting synthetic compounds in English
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
01
Discussion 4
10
01
JB code
la.229.18sid
537
540
4
Article
23
01
Editors’ note
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
01
Index
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
01
Morphological Metatheory
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
01
About the Authors
10
01
JB code
la.229.01spe
1
26
26
Article
2
01
How are words related?
1
A01
Andrew Spencer
Spencer, Andrew
Andrew
Spencer
University of Essex
01
I argue in favour of the notions ‘word (form)’, ‘lexeme’, ‘paradigm’ 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’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
01
Paradigms at the interface of a lexeme’s syntax and semantics with its inflectional morphology
1
A01
Gregory T. Stump
Stump, Gregory T.
Gregory T.
Stump
University of Kentucky
01
The interface of a language’s syntax and semantics with its inflectional morphology is quite constrained: canonically, the morphosyntactic property set that determines a word form’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’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’ inflectional morphology with their syntax and semantics; form paradigms determine the definition of word forms’ morphological realizations. In a theory of this sort, a language’s inflectional morphology must not only define patterns of inflectional exponence; it must also define the linkage between the cells of a lexeme’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
01
A postsyntactic morphome cookbook
A
postsyntactic morphome cookbook
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 & 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: “parasitic” 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
01
Discussion 1
10
01
JB code
la.229.04kra
95
120
26
Article
6
01
Syncretism in paradigm function morphology and distributed morphology
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
01
Phase domains at PF
Root suppletion and its implications
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 & 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
01
The costs of zero-derived causativity in English
The
costs of zero-derived causativity in English
Evidence from reading times and MEG
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
01
Spans and words
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 @ 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
01
Discussion 2
10
01
JB code
la.229.08ale
223
236
14
Article
11
01
Building words
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
01
Emergent morphology
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. ‘Bottom-up’ learning results in mental representations that form sets from perceived morphs but do not involve abstract ‘underlying’ 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
01
Morphology as an adaptive discriminative system
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 ‘morphological information’ developed originally in the processing models of Kostić et al. (2003), Moscoso del Prado Martín et al. (2004), and Milin et al. (2009a, b). A third strand investigates a ‘complex systems’ approach to grammatical organization (Ackerman & Blevins 2008; Ackerman et al. 2008; Beckner et al. 2009). The fourth strand develops a cohesive discriminative perspective on language learning and use (Ramscar & Yarlett 2007; Ramscar & Dye 2010; Ramscar et al. 2010, 2013; Ramscar 2013; Arnon & 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
01
Readjustment: Rejected?
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 “secondary exponence” 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’s 2013 analysis of stem form alternations Hiaki). I adopt an alternative, “amphichronic” (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
01
Towards a Restricted Realization Theory
Multimorphemic monolistemicity, portmanteaux, and post-linearization spanning
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 & 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 <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 & 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.
10
01
JB code
la.229.s3
Section header
16
01
Discussion 3
10
01
JB code
la.229.13ber
387
430
44
Article
17
01
We do not need structuralist morphemes, but we do need constituent structure
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 (Bermúdez-Otero 2013a) or spanning (Svenonius and Haugen & Siddiqi in this volume), and challenge single-terminal insertion. Embick’s (2012) alternative analysis weakens inward cyclic locality excessively. Myler’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>trànsp</i>[ə]<i>rtátion</i> preserves the argument structure of <i>trànspórt</i> but not its bipedality. However, such mismatches are not generated computationally; they arise diachronically through the interplay of computation and storage (Bermúdez-Otero 2012). Theories asserting that words lack constituent structure cannot explain this fact, <i>pace</i> Blevins, Ackerman & Malouf (this volume).
10
01
JB code
la.229.14ana
431
460
30
Article
18
01
Inner and Outer morphology in Greek adjectival participles
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’s (2003) analysis of the distribution or ‘regular’ and ‘irregular’ 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 “irregular” 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
01
Re-evaluating exocentricity in word-formation
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
01
Affix ordering in Optimal Construction Morphology
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 & 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 & Plag 2004). The study innovates in adding affix informativity to the mix.
10
01
JB code
la.229.17lie
513
536
24
Article
21
01
On the interplay of facts and theory
Revisiting synthetic compounds in English
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
01
Discussion 4
10
01
JB code
la.229.18sid
537
540
4
Article
23
01
Editors’ note
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
01
Index
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