Cover not available
Part of
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. 287–303

A minimalist approach to roots

 | University of Cyprus
The necessity for roots to be categorized in syntax is recast as an interface condition, resulting from the SEM-deficient character of free acategorial roots. The question of how much descriptive content roots (may) bear is linked to the idiomatic, non-compositional interpretation of the First Phase. The consequences of such a version of syntactic decomposition of words for the morphological realization of roots are outlined, as well as this account’s compatibility with conceptual atomism.
Published online: 24 September 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.11.11pan
References (55)
References
Acquaviva, Paolo. 2008. Roots and Lexicality in Distributed Morphology. Paper given at the Fifth York-Essex Morphology Meeting , [URL].Google Scholar
. 2009. “The roots of nominality, the nominality of roots.” Unpublished Ms., University College Dublin.Google Scholar
Acquaviva, Paolo and Panagiotidis, Phoevos. 2012. “Lexical decomposition meets conceptual atomism.” Lingue e Linguaggio XI(2): 105–120.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2001. Functional Structure in Nominals: Nominalization and Ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis and Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2008. “Structuring participles.” In Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Charles B. Chang and Hannah J. Haynie (eds), 33–41. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena and Samioti, Yota. 2009. Domains for Idioms. Paper presented at the Roots II Workshop, University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Arad, Maya. 2003. “Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 737–778. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Roots and Patterns: Hebrew Morpho-syntax. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1994. Morphology by Itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. “In the Beginning was the Word.” Language 83: 803–830. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark. 2003. Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns and Adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Basilico, D. 2008. “Particle verbs and benefactive double objects in English: High and low attachments.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 731–729. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2010. “Defeating lexicocentrism.” Unpublished Ms., ICREA, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2003. “Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: syntactic projections and the lexicon.” In The Nature of Explanation in Linguistic Theory, John Moore and Maria Polinsky (eds), 31–67. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 2005. Structuring Sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Roots and Categories. Paper presented at the 19th Colloquium on Generative Grammar . University of the Basque Country, Vitoria-Gasteiz.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. “Remarks on nominalization.” In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Roderick Jacobs and Peter Rosenbaum (eds), 184–221. Waltham, MA.: Ginn & Company.Google Scholar
Cruse, D.A. 1982. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Belder, Marijke. 2011. Roots and Affixes: Eliminating Lexical Categories from Syntax. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Embick, David. 2000. “Features, syntax, and categories in the Latin perfect.” Linguistic Inquiry 31: 185–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David and Marantz, Alec. 2008. “Architecture and blocking.” Linguistic Inquiry 39: 1–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1985. A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
. 2001. Lexicon and Grammar: the English Syntacticon. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raffaella, Folli, Harley, Heidi and Karimi, Simin. 2003. “Determinants of event type in Persian complex predicates.” In Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics, Luisa Astruc and Marc Richards (eds), 1: 100–120. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry. 1970. “Three reasons for not deriving ‘kill’ from ‘cause to die’.” Linguistic Inquiry 1: 429–438.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry and Lepore, Ernest. 1996. “The red herring and the pet fish: why concepts still can’t be prototypes.” Cognition 58: 253–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. “The emptiness of the lexicon, critical reflections on James Pustejovsky’s ‘The generative Lexicon’.” Linguistic Inquiry 29: 269–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galani, Alexandra. 2005. “The morphosyntax of verbs in Modern Greek.” Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of York.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1993. “On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations.” In The View from Building 20, Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2005a. “How do verbs get their names? Denominal verbs, Manner Incorporation and the ontology of verb roots in English.” In The Syntax of Aspect: Deriving Thematic and Aspectual Interpretation, Nomi Erteschik-Shir and Tova Rapoport (eds), 42–64. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2005b. “Bare phrase structure, a-categorial roots, one-replacement and unaccusativity.” In Harvard Working Papers on Linguistics 9, Slava Gorbachov and Andrew Nevins (eds), 1–19. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. The Bipartite Structure of Verbs Cross-Linguistically, or Why Mary Can’t Exhibit John her Paintings. Talk presented at the 2007 ABRALIN Congres in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, March 2007.Google Scholar
. 2009. “The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP.” In Quantification, Definiteness, and Nominalization, Anastasia Giannakidou and Monika Rathert (eds), 320–342. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. On the Identity of Roots. Unpublished Ms., University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi and Noyer, Rolf. 2000. “Formal versus encyclopedic properties of vocabulary: Evidence from nominalisations.” In The Lexicon-Encyclopedia Interface, Bert Peeters (ed.), 349–374. Current Research in the Semantics/pragmatics Interface v. 5. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Haugen, Jason. 2009. “Hyponymous objects and late insertion.” Lingua 119: 242–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. “Word-formation and the lexicon.” In Proceedings of the Mid-America Linguistics Conference, F. Ingemann (ed.). Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth and Hovav, M. Rappaport. 1995. Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lowenstamm, Jean. 2008. “On n, √, and types of nouns.” In Sounds of silence: empty elements in syntax and phonology. [North Holland Linguistic Series, Linguistic Variations Volume 63]. 107–144. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. “No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon.” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4: 201–225.Google Scholar
Marantz Alec. 2000. “Words.” Unpublished Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Rederived generalizations.” Unpublished Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
. 2006. “Phases and words.” Unpublished Ms., NYU.Google Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 2002. “On the systematic aspect of idioms.” Linguistic Inquiry 33: 665–672. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geoffrey, Nunberg, Sag, Ivan and Wasow, Thomas. 1994. “Idioms.” Language 70: 491–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panagiotidis, Phoevos. 2005. “Against category-less roots in syntax and word learning: objections to Barner and Bale (2002).” Lingua 115: 1181–1194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “Categorial features and categorizers.” The Linguistic Review 28: 325–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Categorial Features: A generative theory of word class categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey. 2010. “Pullum 2010. Isms, gasms, etc.” The Language Log. [URL].Google Scholar
Siddiqi, Daniel. 2006. “Minimize Exponence: Economy Effects on a Model of the Morphosyntactic Component of the Grammar.” Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2005. “Idioms and domain boundaries.” Unpublished Ms., CASTL, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Volpe, Mark. 2009. “Root and deverbal nominalizations: Lexical flexibility in Japanese.” Unpublished Ms., available from [URL].
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Carston, Robyn
2021. Polysemy: Pragmatics and sense conventions. Mind & Language 36:1 ► pp. 108 ff. DOI logo
Carston, Robyn
2023. The relevance of words and the language/communication divide. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo
Carston, Robyn
2024. Words and Roots – Polysemy and Allosemy – Communication and Language. Review of Philosophy and Psychology DOI logo
Steriopolo, Olga, Giorgos Markopoulos & Vassilios Spyropoulos
2021. A morphosyntactic analysis of nominal expressive suffixes in Russian and Greek. The Linguistic Review 38:4 ► pp. 645 ff. DOI logo
Nóbrega, Vitor A. & Phoevos Panagiotidis
2020. Headedness and exocentric compounding. Word Structure 13:2 ► pp. 211 ff. DOI logo
Saab, Andrés & Nicolás Lo Guercio
2020. No Name: The Allosemy View. Studia Linguistica 74:1 ► pp. 60 ff. DOI logo
Revithiadou, Anthi, Giorgos Markopoulos & Vassilios Spyropoulos
2019. Changing shape according to strength: Evidence from root allomorphy in Greek. The Linguistic Review 36:3 ► pp. 553 ff. DOI logo
Murphy, Elliot
2016. Evolutionary monkey oscillomics: Generating linking hypotheses from preserved brain rhythms. Theoretical Linguistics 42:1-2 ► pp. 117 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.