Article published In:
Morphology and its interfaces: Syntax, semantics and the lexiconEdited by Dany Amiot, Delphine Tribout, Natalia Grabar, Cédric Patin and Fayssal Tayalati
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 37:2] 2014
► pp. 290–305
Edited by Dany Amiot, Delphine Tribout, Natalia Grabar, Cédric Patin and Fayssal Tayalati
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 37:2] 2014
► pp. 290–305
Morphosyntactic property sets at the interface of inflectional morphology, syntax and semantics
The morphosyntactic property set associated with the syntactic node occupied by a word form is not invariably identical to the property set determining that word form’s inflection, as evidence from Bhojpuri, Turkish, Sanskrit and Hua shows. The difference between syntactic property sets and their corresponding morphological property sets may be represented as a property mapping relating two different kinds of paradigm: a lexeme L’s content paradigm specifies the range of property sets with which L may be associated in syntax ; its form paradigm specifies the (sometimes distinct) property sets that determine L’s inflectional realization. Thus, a language’s inflectional morphology doesn’t merely specify the realization of paradigm cells: it also specifies the sometimes nontrivial linkage of content with form at the interface of syntax and semantics with morphology.
Keywords: interface properties, paradigm realization, inflection
References (14)
Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Baerman, M., Brown, D., & Corbett, G. (2005). The syntax-morphology interface: A study of syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Bonami, O., & Boyé, G. (2008). Paradigm shape is morphomic in Nepali. Paper presented at the13th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna.
Corbett, G. G. (2005). The canonical approach in typology. In Z. Frajzyngier, A. Hodges, & D. S. Rood (Eds.), Linguistic diversity and language theories (pp. 25–49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. (2009). Canonical inflectional classes. In F. Montermini, G. Boyé & J. Tseng (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 6th Décembrettes (pp. 1–11). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Corbett, G. G., & Baerman, M. (2006). Prolegomena to a typology of morphological features. Morphology, 16(2), 231–246.
Gazdar, G., Pullum, G. K., Carpenter, R., Klein, E., Hukari, T. E., & Levine, R. D. (1988). Category structures. Computational Linguistics, 141, 1–19.
Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London and New York: Routledge.
Haiman, J. (1980). Hua: A Papuan language of the eastern highlands of New Guinea. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kasper, R. T., & Rounds, W. C. (1986). A logical semantics for feature structures. In
Proceedings of the 24th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics
(pp. 257–266).
Sadler, L., & Spencer, A. (2001). Syntax as an exponent of morphosyntactic features. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2000 (pp. 71–96). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Shukla, S. (1981). Bhojpuri grammar. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Stump, G. T. (1993). On rules of referral. Language, 691, 449–479.
. (2001). Inflectional morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
O’Neill, Paul
2016. Lexicalism, the Principle of Morphology-free Syntax and the Principle of Syntax-free Morphology. In The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology, ► pp. 237 ff. 
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.