Article published in:
Minimalism and Beyond: Radicalizing the interfaces
Edited by Peter Kosta, Steven L. Franks, Teodora Radeva-Bork and Lilia Schürcks
[Language Faculty and Beyond 11] 2014
► pp. 267–286

Minimalism and I-Morphology

I address the question of how morphology can be approached within the Minimalist program, focusing on the notion of asymmetry which has been shown to contribute to the understanding of language and other complex systems. I distinguish the Internalist from the Externalist approach to morphology. I discuss the properties of the operations deriving morphological expressions, including the structure building operation and the operation governing the relations between features. Lastly, I raise the question whether morphological and syntactic complexity is limited by the same kind of conditions stemming from other sub-systems of the mind/brain than the language faculty.
Published online: 24 September 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.11.10sci
References

References

Bane, Max
2008 “Quantifying and measuring morphological complexity.” In Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Charles B. Chang and Hannah J. Haynie (eds), 69–76. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua and Shamir, Eli
1960 “Finite-state languages: Formal representations and adequacy problems.” Bulletin of the Research Council of Israel 8(3): 155–166.Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert and Chomsky, Noam
2011 “The biolinguistic program. The current state of its development.” In The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty, Anna Maria Di Sciullo and Cedric Boeckx (eds), 19–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek
1998 “The creation and re-creation of language.” In Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology: Ideas, Issues, and Applications, Charles B. Crawford and Dennis I. Krebs (eds), 613–634. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
1990 Language and Species. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric
2006 Linguistic Minimalism. Origins, Concepts, Methods and Aims. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bok-Bennema, Reineke and Kampers-Mahne, Brigitte
2005 “Taking a closer look at Romance VN compounds.” In New Perspectives on Romance Linguistics, vol. 1: Morphology, Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics, Chiyo Nishida and Jean-Pierre Y. Montreuil (eds), 13–27. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carden, Guy
1983 “The non-finiteness of the word formation component.” Linguistic Inquiry 14: 537–547.Google Scholar
Chaitin, Gregory J.
1987 Algorithmic Information Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
2011 The Poverty of the Stimulus: Unfinished Business. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
2008 “On phases.” In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Robert Freidin, Carlos Peregrín Otero and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2005 “Three factors in language design.” Linguistic Inquiry 36(1): 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001 “Derivation by phase.” In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000 “Minimalist inquiries: The framework.” In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, D. Michaels and Juan Uriagereka (eds), 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1986 Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
1956 “Three models for the description of language.” IRE Transactions on Information Theory 2(2): 113–123. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam and Miller, George A.
1963 “Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages.” In Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Volume 2, Robert Duncan Luce, Robert R. Bush and Eugene Galanter (eds), 269–321. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa and Sybesma, Rint
1999 “Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP.” Linguistic Inquiry 30: 509–542. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
1999 Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris
2001 “Eliminating labels.” MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
2005 “Endangered numeral systems.” In Bedrohte Vielfalt: Aspekte des Sprach (en)tods [Endangered Diversity: Aspects of Language Death], Jan Wohlgemuth and Tyko Dirksmeyer (eds), 203–230. Berlin: Weißensee Verlag.Google Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio
1978 Gramática, Semántica, Universales. Estudios de Lingüística Funcional, Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Culy, Christopher
1985 “The complexity of the vocabulary of Bambara.” Linguistics and Philosophy 8: 345–351. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria
2013 “Morphology and the complement adjunct asymmetry.” In Exploring Word Structure at the Interface, Máire Noonan, Glyne Piggott and Lisa Travis (eds), Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2012 “Perspectives on morphological complexity.” In Morphology. (Ir)regularity, Frequency, Typology, Ferenc Kiefer, Mária Ladányi and Péter Siptar (eds), 105–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 “Fossils in language?” Paper presented at the 44th Annnual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europea , Logrono, September 8–11, 2011.
2009 “Why are compounds part of natural languages: A view from asymmetry theory.” In Handbook of Compounds, Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer (eds), 145–177. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2005a Asymmetry in Morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2005b “Affixes at the edge.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics.” Special edition 50th Anniversary 50: 83–117.Google Scholar
2005c “Decomposing compounds.” SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 2: 14–33.Google Scholar
(ed.) 2003 “Asymmetry in grammar, volume 1: morphology, phonology and acquisition.” Asymmetry in Grammar, Volume 2: Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1982 “Des principes généraux qui couvrent la syntaxe et la morphologie: le cas des composés syntaxiques.” Recherche de linguistique à Montréal 18: 197–210.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria and Boeckx, Cedric
(eds) 2011 The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria and Tomioka, Naoko
2011 “Compound representation at the interface.” Proceedings of Generative Linguistics in Poland: GLiP-6. Cambridge Scholar.
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, Piattelli-Palmarini, Massimo, Wexler, Kenneth, Berwick, Robert C., Boeckx, Cedric, Jenkins, Lyle, Uriagereka, Juan, Stromswold, Karin, Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, Harley, Heidi, Wedel, Andrew, McGilvray, James, van Gelderen, Elly and Bever, Thomas G.
2010 “The biological nature of human language.” Biolinguistics 4: 4–34.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria and Isac, Dana
2008 “The asymmetry of merge.” Biolinguistics 2(4): 260–290.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria and Williams, Edwin
1987 On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A., Thomas G. Bever and Merrill F. Garrett
1974 The Psychology of Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics and Generative Grammar. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Franco, Ludovico
2010 A nanosyntactic account of Romance VN compounds. Universit‡ Ca’ Foscari, Venezia.Google Scholar
Gil, David
2011 Where Does Predication Come From? Ms., Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris and Marantz, Alec
1993 “Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection.” In The View from Building 20, Kenneth Hale and S. Jay Keyser (eds), 111–176, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hauser, Marc D., Chomsky, Noam and Fitch, W. Tecumseh
2002 “The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?” Science 298: 1569–1579. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hurford, James, Studdert-Kennedy, Michael and Knight, Chris
1998 Approaches to the Evolution of Language: Social and Cognitive Bases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
2011 The Human Language Faculty. Ms. Tufts University.Google Scholar
2009 “Compounding in the parallel architecture and conceptual semantics.” In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer (eds), 105–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2002 Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1990 Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1999 “Possible stages in the evolution of the language capacity.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3(7): 272–279. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard
2011 “Why are there no directionality parameters?” In Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Mary Byram Washburn, Katherine McKinney-Bock, Erika Varis, Ann Sawyer and Barbara Tomaszewicz (eds), 1–23, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Kimball, John
1973 “Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural Language.” Cognition 2: 15–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kolmogorov, Andrey N.
1965 “Three approaches to the quantitative definition of information.” Problems in Information Transmission 1: 1–7.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard, Deprez, Viviane and Yamakido, Hiroko
2010 The Evolution of Language: Biolinguistic Perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langendoen, D. Terence
1981 “The generative capacity of word-formation component.” Linguistic Inquiry 12(2): 320–322.Google Scholar
Milin, Petar, Kuperman, Victor, Kostic, Aleksandar and Baayen, R. Harald
2009 “Paradigms bit by bit: An information theoretic approach to the processing of paradigmatic structure in inflection and derivation.” In Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition, James P. Blevins and Juliette Blevins (eds), 214–252. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moro, Andrea
2000 Dynamic Antisymmetry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Moscoso Del Prado Martín, Fermín, Kostic, Aleksandar and Baayen, R. Harald
2004 “An information-theoretical perspective on morphological processing.” Cognition 94(1): 1–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David and Torrego, Esther
2001 “T–to–C: Causes and consequences.” In Ken Hale: A Life in Language (Current Studies in Linguistics 36), Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 355–426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Piattelli-Palmarini, Massimo, Uriagereka, Juan and Salaburu, Pello
(eds) 2009 Of Minds and Language: A Dialogue with Noam Chomsky in the Basque Country. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana and Locke, John L.
2009 “The urge to merge: Ritual insult and the evolution of syntax.” Biolinguistics 3(2): 337–354.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky (James)
1995 The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shieber, Stuart
1985 “Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language.” Linguistics and Philosophy 8: 333–343. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tollemache, Federico
1945 Le parole composte nella lingua italiana. Roma: Rores.Google Scholar
Tsapini, Kyrana, Jarema, Gonia and Di Sciullo, Anna Maria
2004 “The role of configurational asymmetry in the lexical access of prefixed verbs: Evidence from French.” Brain and Language 90: 143–150. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter
2011 “Structure and order: Asymmetric merge.” In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism, Cedric Boeckx (ed.), 96–118. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Di Sciullo, Anna Maria & Calixto Aguero-Bautista
2016.  In Biolinguistic Investigations on the Language Faculty [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 235], ► pp. 3 ff. Crossref logo
Kosta, Peter
2015. On the Causative/Anti-Causative Alternation as Principle of Affix Ordering in the Light of the Mirror Principle, the Lexical Integrity Principle and the Distributed Morphology. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 60:4 ► pp. 570 ff. Crossref logo
Nóbrega, Vitor A. & Shigeru Miyagawa
2015. The precedence of syntax in the rapid emergence of human language in evolution as defined by the integration hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology 6 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 october 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.