?tekauer Pavol, Lieber Rochelle. Handbook of Word-Formation
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
THE LEXICALIST APPROACH TO WORD
-
FORMATION
17
7
o
therwise it would not be theta-marked by V and, therefore, not governed. The tree
structure (39) represents th
e
h
e
a
d
-t
o
-h
e
a
d
m
ove
m
e
nt n
eeded
t
ode
ri
ve
th
e
Nah
u
atl
example (38a) according to Baker’s proposal.
I
f the s
y
ntactic incorporation h
y
pothesis is correct, its consequences for the
t
heor
y
of morpholo
gy
are far-reachin
g
.
A
l
lowin
g
head-to-head movement in the
c
reation of words can have various effects: in a minimal settin
g
, at least some word-
formation is accomplished by syntactic pro
c
esses, while applying it fully amounts to
r
educing all morphology to syntax
.
34
Baker
p
ro
p
osed the
p
rocess of incor
p
oration to
u
nify the treatment of various
g
rammatical function changing operations (e.g.
passive, causative, reflexive, etc.) and complex inflected forms.
(
39
)
S
NP VP
ni-
V
NP
N V N
naca
i
-qua
i
t
i
D
eep Structure (DS) Surface Structure
(
SS
)
[[
…
]
NP
[
V
[
Det N
]
N
P
]
VP
]
S
=>
[[
…
]
NP
[
N
i
V[
Det
t
i
tt
]
N
P
]
V
P
]
S
F
urthermore, Baker (1985, 1988) proposes that the
g
rammar is sub
j
ect to the
Mirror Princi
p
le:
(
40
)
The Mirror Princi
p
l
e
(
Baker 1985: 375
)
Morphological derivations must directly reflect syntactic derivations
(
and vice versa
)
W
hat this principle implies is that,
g
iven a word with multiple affixes W+1+2+3,
t
he order of the morpholo
g
ical affixes ‘mirrors’ the order of the relevant s
y
ntactic
h
eads: W is required to incorporate first into 1, then the resulting W+1 incorporates
34
Syntactic incorporation has bee
n
used to explain many differ
e
nt
p
henomena since Baker’s initial
proposal. One application that has become extremely influential in morphological theory is found in
Hale & Ke
y
ser (1993), who explain denominal v
e
r
b formation in En
g
lish (i.e. derivational
m
orpholo
gy
) as an instance of incorporation/head-movement.
1
78
S
ER
G
I
OSC
ALI
S
E & EMILIAN
OGU
E
V
AR
A
i
nto 2, and so forth. The last affix is located higher in the syntactic tree than the
p
revious ones:
(
41
)
3
2
1
W
Th
e
M
irror Principl
e
predicts that syntax can explain morpheme order in a
s
ubstantial range of cases. If this is true,
i
t follows that Morphology is not a separate
c
omponent of the grammar but, instead, a subset of rules contained in the syntactic
c
omponent.
B
aker’s proposals are not uncontroversial. Other morpholo
g
ists have
successfully argued that all types of incor
poration have to be regarded as lexical
r
r
phenomena (e.g. Mithun 1984, Di Sciullo & Williams 1987
,
Rosen 1989
,
Anderson
1992: 267–270, Spencer 1995, Anderson 2000). In particular, Baker’s analyses of
applicatives, reflexives and causatives, hav
e
been challenged in numerous ways (cf.
Di Sciullo & Williams 1987: 56–58
)
. Furthermore, the Mirror Principle is not able to
deal with non-concatenative morphological phenomena (umlaut, reduplication,
i
nfixation, etc.), which simpl
y
cannot be described linearl
y
in order to ‘mirror’ the
sy
ntax
.
7.4 Word-formation as syntax
One of the most complete syntactic models of morphology is presented by
Rochelle Lieber (1992). Lieber examines a series of phenomena that a (Strong)
L
exicalist theory is not able to explain; among them we find the following cases (cf.
L
ieber 1992: 11–23
)
:
(42) a. Phrasal compounds
En
g
. a [[floor of a birdca
g
e] taste]
an [[ate too much
]
headache
]
Afrik. [[God is dood] theologie] ‘god is dead theology’
Du. [[lach of ik schiet] humor] ‘laugh or I shoot humor’
Ger. die
[[
Wer w
a
r
das] Frage] ‘the who was that question’
b. English possessive
’s
Mar
y
’s e
y
es
[
a friend of mine
]
’s boo
k
THE LEXICALIST APPROACH TO WOR
D
-
F
ORMATION
179
Phrasal compounds are formed by
j
oining a phrase (NP, VP, etc.) and a noun;
t
hey are productively created in English and other Germanic languages. The fact that
the constituents of phrasal compounds cannot
be separated or modified (cf. *
t
a floor
o
f
a birdca
g
e salt
y
tast
e
) su
gg
ests that the
y
are to be considered words (obe
y
in
g
the
L
exical Inte
g
rit
y
H
y
pothesis). However, the
y
clearl
y
undermine the validit
y
of the
Stron
g
Lexicalist H
y
pothesis, for some interaction between morpholo
gy
and s
y
ntax
m
ust be allowed to explain their productivity.
The
p
ossessive
’s
marking in English can attach not only to words, but also to
NPs. This fact, too, poses a serious case against Strong Lexicalism: if syntax and
m
orphology cannot interact, then it is impossible to formulate a morphological rule
t
hat adds affixes to a phrasal category.
Lieber draws the following conclusions which illustrate her research program in
v
er
y
clear terms:
T
he Lexicalist Hypothesis is clearly too strong. Some measure of interaction between
m
orphology and syntax must be allowed […] (p. 18).
I
n order for phrasal categories to be t
h
e input to processes of derivation and
c
ompounding, at least some construction of words must be done in the syntax. The
c
onceptually simplest possible theory would then be one in which all morphology is
done as a part of a theory of syntax […] on
e
in which nothing at all needed to be added
t
o the theory of syntax in order to acc
o
unt for the construction of words (p. 21).
Furthermore
,
Lieber notes that formal
d
evices such as head, subcate
g
orization
and pro
j
ection that are used to explain morpholo
g
ical processes parallel the formal
m
ethods developed in syntax. She claims that only the syntactic computational
c
om
p
onent is res
p
onsible for the creation of well-formed sentences and words. The
L
exicon is thus emptied of all its contents, except idiosyncratic morphemes, bound
and free
(
i.e. listemes as in Di Sciullo
&
Williams 1987). The theoretical apparatus
u
sed in syntax is applied also to word-formation, although with some
mod
ifi
c
ati
o
n
s.
35
The architecture of Lieber’s model is as follows
(
details omitted
)
:
Phonology
Lexical
Insertion
Fi
g
ure 6
35
Lieber’s a
pp
roach makes use of a variant of X-bar theory that has not gone without criticism. Cf.
A
ckema
(
1995: 5-8
)
and Borer
(
1998
:
162-164) who point out that Lieb
e
r’
s
m
od
ifi
c
ati
o
n
o
f th
e
X-
b
a
r
schema is not motivated by facts independent of
word-formation and this would undermine Lieber’s
f
attempt to reduce all morpholo
gy
to s
y
ntax.
Le
xi
co
n
S
y
nta
x
(
word-
f
o
rmati
o
n an
d
p
hras
e
s
tructure
)
1
80
S
ER
G
I
OSC
ALI
S
E
&
EMILIAN
OGU
E
V
AR
A
A similar approach to Lieber’s is presented by Ackema (1995) who claims that
t
he same set of principles govern syntactic and morphological phenomena, though
t
he separation of a syntactic and a morphol
o
gical component can still be maintained:
“
morphology is syntax below zero, not […] a byproduct of syntax above zero”
(
1995: 87
)
. B
elow
z
e
r
o
an
d
above
z
e
r
o
r
e
f
e
r t
o
th
e
X-
b
ar
s
tat
us o
f
wo
r
ds w
hi
c
h
co
n
s
tit
u
t
e
th
e
int
e
rfa
ce be
t
w
een the two components: X
0
is simultaneously the basis
o
f s
y
ntax (whose maximal pro
j
ection is
X
2
) and the maximal pro
j
ection of
m
orpholo
gy
(whose basis is
X
-
2
)
. For exam
p
le, happ
y
as a
p
hrasal head is A
0
,
as
h
ead of a morpholo
g
ical structure it is A
-2
.
Such syntactic accounts of morphology, however, have failed to follow
r
igorously the research guidelines that gave rise to them: in both the cases unde
r
c
onsideration here
,
some modification of the X-bar schema is sti
p
ulated in order to
account for strictly morphological phenomena. It is not clear, however, whether the
t
heory of syntax has anything to gain from these stipulations
.
36
7.5 Distributed Morpholo
gy
Halle & Marantz (1993) introduced the theor
y
of Distributed Morpholo
gy
(
DM
)
,
which proposes a radical departure from previous morphological models: all the
o
perations attributed to morphology a
r
e distributed among several different
c
omponents and do not belong to a single module. According to this theory, all
word- and phrase-formation occur within a unified computational model as a result
of the syntactic combination of
heads: the internal struct
f
ure of words is visible to
tt
sy
ntactic operations. In DM, the Lexicon does not exist as such: it is split into three
l
ists that enter the computation at different points of the derivation:
(a) A pre-syntactic list of roots and bundles of
functional features (e.g. Det, [plural],
f
[
past], etc.)
(
b) A post-s
y
ntactic Vocabular
y
suppl
y
in
g
phonolo
g
ical representations to the
t
e
rminal n
odes
in th
ede
ri
ved s
tr
uc
t
u
r
e.
(
c) An Encyclopedia, which lists idiosyncr
a
t
ic meanings associated with Vocabulary
i
tems or idioms. Its content is ‘non-linguistic knowledge’ (cf. Harley & Noye
r
1999
).
DM is designed to reflect directly the fact that words are often non-isomorphic
with respect to their phonological and semantic realizations (cf. Marantz 1997):
r
ejecting Lexicalism and somewhat is
o
lating morphosyntax, morphophonology and
m
orphosemantics allows various mismatches to fall within the expectations of the
theory.
It is beyond the ob
j
ectives of this chapter to present a reasonable description of
DM
,
which has rather the characteristics o
f
a research-program than those of a
f
definitive theor
y
(much like the case with the Minimalist Pro
g
ram in s
y
ntax). We
will onl
y
draw attention to the DM treatment of idioms, which seems to pose a
s
trong case against Lexicalism.
36
On the distinction of s
y
ntactic and
m
orpholo
g
ical phenomena, cf. Zwick
y
(1990).
THE LEXICALIST APPROACH TO WOR
D
-
F
ORMATION
181
C
rucially for DM, words have no special status with respect to the idiomatization
process: linguistic expressions of any size may be part of the Encyclopedia,
m
orphemes smaller than word-size and phrases can be equally idiomatized.
However, the process of idiomatization in DM departs from what is traditionall
y
assumed: the term idiom is used for an
y
expression whose meanin
g
is not wholl
y
predictable from its structural description (cf. Marantz 1997); this claim entails, on
o
ne hand, that atomic elements are always
i
dioms (i.e. arbitrary) and, on the other,
that complex structures are never fully id
i
omatic. Only structural meaning, but not
i
diosyncratic meaning, is composed in the syntax; tendentially, all structural
c
ombinations of morphemes are interpreted regularly. For instance,
kick the bucket
or
depart
cannot exactly mean ‘die’ (which is demonstrated by aspectual
t
differences
,
cf.
h
e was dying/*kicking the bucket/*departing for three weeks
).
W
ithin this framework, the idea of Lexicalism that the meanin
g
of s
y
ntactic and
m
orpholo
g
ical structures is composed differentl
y
(in the s
y
ntax and in the Lexicon)
i
s seriousl
y
undermined.
8. CONCL
U
SION
The develo
p
ment of the Lexicalist a
pp
r
o
ach to morphology outlined in this
c
hapter can be summarized in the following phases:
1. Lexicalism originated by subtracting
c
omputational space in the grammar to both
phonolo
gy
and s
y
ntax:
Phonolo
gy
S
y
ntax
Morphology
Figure 7
2. The lexicalist approach developed into a theory of morphology as a separate
c
omponent with its own set of principles (crucially, different from the principles
o
f s
y
ntax).
1
82
S
ER
G
I
OSC
ALI
S
E & EMILIAN
OGU
E
V
AR
A
Figure 8
3. The discovery of new data, deeper analyses, research on boundary phenomena
and the study of unrelated languages brought to light facts that could not be
answered in a strictly separationist setting, putting under scrutiny the autonomy
o
f morphology in the architecture of the grammar (specially with respect to
sy
ntax)
.
4
. Under this li
g
ht, various reactions emer
g
ed: amon
g
them, the intermediate
r
eformulation of the Lexicalist H
y
pothesis known as Weak Lexicalism,
Figure 9
and the extreme opposite of Lexicalism, that is, the reabsorption of all
m
orphological phenomena in the domain of syntactic theory.
W
e believe that a step back to the sta
g
e of ‘all-s
y
ntax-no-morpholo
gy
’ is not a
v
iable possibilit
y
, for there
e
xist phenomena that resist bein
g
accounted for b
y
the
i
nstruments of s
y
ntactic theor
y
. This does not impl
y
an uncritical approval of the
m
ain assum
p
tions of the Lexicalist tr
e
n
d in the 1970s and 1980s
,
which could be
s
ummarized as in
(
43
)
:
(43) a. the computational space
i
n the grammar for morphological
o
perations constitutes a separate component
b. the division between s
y
ntax and morpholo
gy
is absolute
c. predominance of strictly formal over semantic analysis
These assumptions were not equally made explicit in the theory, yet they were
the driving force behind most research in the Lexicalist framework. Nowadays, we
k
now for certain that they are all open to question but, in the beginnings of
Morphology
Principle
s
γ
,
γγ
δ
Synta
x
Principle
s
α
,
β
I
nfl
ec
ti
o
nal
Morpholog
y
Principle
s
π
,
ω
Morpholo
gy
Princi
p
les
γ
,
γ
γ
δ
Synta
x
Principle
s
α
,
β
THE LEXICALIST APPROACH TO WORD
-
FORMATION
183
Lexicalism, they certainly played an important role in defining a homogeneous
approach to a wide range of phenomena.
C
onsider for instance
(
43b
)
. In order to maintain a clear distinction between
m
orpholo
gy
and s
y
ntax, two principles were devised: the No Phrase Constrain
t
(
NPC
)
and the Lexical Inte
g
rit
y
H
y
pothesis (LIH). These principles had the effect of
blockin
g
ever
y
possible interaction: NPC denies morpholo
g
ical processes access to
syntactic constructs (cf. (44)), while LIH
m
akes sure that syntactic operations do not
apply within morphological structures (cf. (45)):
(
44
)
*[ [ ]
XP
+ Suf
]
, *
[
Pref +
[]
XP
]
(
45) a. Maria taglia carte
ĺ
Cosa taglia Maria t
?
3
7
‘Maria cuts
p
a
p
ers’ ‘lit. what cuts Maria?’
c. *M. ha un ta
g
lia *
g
randi carte
‘lit. Maria has a cut bi
g
papers’
A
s it clearly emerges from our preceding discussion, there is today a general
agreement that morphology and syntax must be allowed to interact with, rather than
i
gnore, each other. Current theories are mu
c
h m
o
r
e
fl
e
xi
b
l
ew
i
th respect to this
i
nteraction than the Lexicalist proposals of the past.
F
igure 10
The de
g
ree of ‘communication’ between morpholo
gy
and s
y
ntax that must
absolutely be accounted for, however, is not
total. There are some clear areas of
t
i
nteraction, in particular, morpholo
g
ical phenomena that can take s
y
ntactic ob
j
ects
a
sb
a
se
38
(thus demanding revision of the NPC), but not vice versa. This is a sign o
f
s
ome degree of independence of morphology and syntax as separate modules of the
grammar.
S
ergio Scalise Emiliano Guevara
Lin
g
uistica Generale Lin
g
uistica Generale
37
Example adapted from Di Sciullo (1992).
38
Though restrictedly, as pointed out by Lieber 1992.
Morpholo
g
y
Principle
s
γ
,
γγ
δ
S
y
nta
x
Princi
p
les
α
,
β
b. Maria ha un tagliacarte
ĺ
*Cosa ha Maria un taglia t?
‘lit. Maria has a cut-papers’ ‘lit. what has Maria a cut?’
184
S
ER
G
I
OSC
ALI
S
E
&
EMILIAN
OGU
E
V
ARA
D
ipartimento di Lingue e Letterature Dipartimento di Lingue e Letterature
S
traniere Moderne
S
traniere Moderne
V
ia
C
artoleria 5
V
ia
C
artoleria 5
4
0124 Bologna 40124 Bologna
Italia
I
talia
e
-mail: scalise@lingue.unibo.it e-mail: emiliano@lingue.unibo.i
t
R
EFEREN
C
E
S
A
ckema
,
Peter. 1995.
Sy
ntax below zer
o
.U
trecht:
O
T
S
/Led.
Allen, Margaret R. 1978.
M
orphological investigations. Ph.D. dissertation.
U
niv
e
rsity of Connecticut:
S
torrs.
Anderson, Ste
p
hen R. 1977. “Comments on the paper b
y
Wasow.” In: P.H. Culicover, T. Wasow and A.
A
kmajian (eds.), Formal synta
x
.
New York: Academic Press, 361–377.
A
nderson Ste
p
hen R. 1982.
“
Where's Morphology.” Linguistic Inquir
y
13
,
571–612.
A
nderson, Stephen R. 1988. “Morphological theory.” In: F. J. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics
.
The
Cambridge Surve
y
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 146–191.
A
nderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-Morphous Morpholog
y
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
A
nderson, Stephen R. 2000. “Some Lexicalist Remarks on Incorporation Phenomena.” In: B. Stiebels and
D
. Wunderlich
(
eds.
)
, L
exicon in
F
ocus
(
Studia Grammatica 45
)
, 123–142.
A
ronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambrid
g
e (Mass.): MIT Press.
A
ronoff
,
Mark. 1989. “Two Senses of Lexical.” In:
P
roceedin
g
s o
f
ESCOL ’88
.
Ohio State Universit
y
,
C
LC Publications
,
1-11.
B
aker, Mark. 1985. “The Mirror Princi
p
le and Morphosyntactic Explanation.” Linguistic Inquiry 16/3
,
373–415.
B
aker
,
Mark. 1988.
I
ncorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changin
g
.
Chicago: University of
C
hicago Press.
B
auer, Laurie. 1990. “Be-heading the Word.”
J
ournal of Linguistics 26, 1-31.
B
auer, Laurie. 2001.
M
orphological Productivit
y
.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
B
ierwisch
,
Manfred and Heidolph, Karl Erich (eds.) 1970. Progress in Linguistics. The Hague - Paris:
Mouton de Gruyter.
B
loomfield
,
Leonard. 1933. Lan
g
ua
ge
. New York: Holt
,
B
ooi
j
, Geert E. 1977. Dutch Morpholo
gy
: A Stud
y
o
f
Word Formation in
G
enerative
G
rammar
.
Do
r
d
r
ec
ht
:
F
o
ri
s.
B
ooij, Geert E. 1988. “The Relation between inh
e
r
itance and argument linking: Deverbal nouns in
D
utch.” In: M. Evaraert, A. Evers, R. Huybregts, and M. Trommelen (eds.),
M
orphology and
m
odularity: to Honour Henk Schultin
k
.
Dordrecht: Foris
,
57–73.
B
ooij, Geert E. 1996. “Inherent ver
s
us co
nt
e
xt
u
al infl
ec
ti
o
n an
d
th
e
split morphology hypothesis.” In: G.
E. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.),
Y
earbook of Morphology 1995. Dordrecht: Kluwer
,
1-16.
B
ooi
j
, Geert E. 2002. The Morpholo
gy
o
f
Dutch
.O
xford:
O
xford
U
n
i
versit
y
Press.
B
ooi
j
, Geert E. and Rubach, Jerz
y
. 1984. “Morphol
og
ical and prosodic domains in lexical phonolo
gy
.”
I
n
:
Phonology Yearbook
1, 1
–
2
7.
k
B
ooi
j
, Geert E. and Rubach, Jerz
y
. 1987. “Postc
y
c
l
ic versus postlexical rules in lexical phonolo
gy
.”
Lin
g
uistic Inquir
y
18
,
1–44.
B
o
pp
, Franz. 1816.
Über das Konjugationssystem der Sanskrits
p
rache in Ver
g
leichun
g
mit
j
enem der
s
g
riechischen, lateinischen persischen und
g
ermanischen S
p
rache. Nebs
t
E
pisoden des Rama
y
an und
M
ahabharat in genauen metrischen
Ü
bersetzungen aus dem Originaltext und einigen Abschnitten
aus den Vedas
.
Herausgegeben und mit einer Vorerinner
ung begleitet von K. J. Windischmann,
rr
F
rankf
u
rt
.
B
orer, Hagit. 1991. “The causative-inchoative alter
n
ation: A case study in parallel morphology.” In:
The
Linguistic Review 8
,
119–158.
T
HE LEXICALIST APPROACH TO WOR
D
-
F
ORMATION
185
B
orer, Hagit.1998. “Morphology and Syntax.” In: A. Spencer and M. Zwicky (eds.),
T
he Handbook of
M
orpholo
gy
.
Oxford: Blackwell
,
151–190.
Botha, Rudolph P. 1981. “A base rule theory of
Africaans synthetic compounding.” In: M. Mortgaat,
f
H.van der Hulst and T. Hoekstra
(
eds.
)
,
T
he scope of lexical rules
.
Dordrecht: Foris
,
1–77.
C
arstairs McCarth
y
, Andrew. 1987.
A
llomorph
y
in in
f
lection. London:
C
room Helm.
C
arstairs McCarth
y
, Andrew. 1992. Current Morpholo
gy
.
New York: Routled
g
e.
C
homsk
y
, Noam. 1957.
Sy
ntactic Structures
.
Den Haa
g
: Mouton.
C
homsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Synta
x
.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
C
homsky, Noam. 1970. “Remarks on nominalization.” In: R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum (eds.),
R
eadings
i
n English transformational grammar
.
Ginn, Waltham
(
MA
)
: Ginn, 184–221.
C
homsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding
.
B
e
rlin
:
M
ou
t
o
n
.
C
homsky, Noam and Halle, Morris. 1968.
T
he sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.
C
orbin
,
Danielle. 1987.
Morphologie dérivationnelle et
structuration du lexique
t
.
Th
èse de
D
oc
t
o
rat
d
'État
présentée à ParisVIII. 2 vols. Tübin
g
en : Max Nieme
y
er Verla
g
.
D
e Saussure
,
Ferdinand. 1916.
C
ours de lin
g
uistique
g
énérale
.
Paris: Pa
y
ot.
D
i Sciullo, Anna-Maria. 1992. “Deverbal Compounds and the External Ar
g
ument.” In: I. Roca (ed.),
Thematic
S
tructure:
i
ts role in
G
rammar
.
Dordrecht: Foris
,
65–78.
D
i Sciullo
,
Anna-Maria. 1995. “X-bar selecti
o
n.” In: J. Roor
y
ck and L. Zarin
g
(eds.),
Ph
r
ase st
r
uctu
r
e
and the lexicon
. Dordrecht: Kluwer
,
77–107.
D
i Sciullo, Anna-Maria and Williams, Edwin. 1987.
On the definition of word
.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Pr
ess.
D
ressler, Wolfgang U.; Mayerthaler, Willi; Panagl
,
Oskar; and Wurzel, Wolfgang U. (eds.). 1987.
Leitmotifs in Natural Morpholog
y
.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
F
odor Jerry R. and Katz, Jerrold J. (eds.) 1964. The structure of language: Reading in the philosophy o
f
l
anguag
e
.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
F
radin Bernard and Kerleroux, Françoise. “I
n
troduction a Quoi de neuf en morphologie?” Langages
1
5
2,
3–11
.
Gross Maurice; Halle, Morris; and Schuetzenber
g
er, Marcel-Paul (eds.). 1973.
T
he
f
ormal anal
y
sis o
f
n
atural lan
g
ua
g
es. Den Haa
g
: Mouton.
H
ale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel J. 1993. “On A
r
gument Structure and the Lexical Expression of
Syntactic Relations.” In: K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in
Lin
g
uistics in honor o
f
S
y
lvain Bromber
g
er
.
Cambrid
g
e, MA: MIT Press, 53-110.
H
alle, Morris. 1973. “Prolegomena to a Theory of Word Formation.” Linguistic Inquir
y
4
,
3–16.
H
alle, Morris. and Marantz, Alec P. 1993. “Distribute
d
Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection.” In: K.
d
Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in honor of Sylvain
B
romberger
.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
H
alle
,
Morris. and Mohanan
,
K. P. 1985. “Segmental phonology of Modern English.” In: Linguisti
c
I
nquir
y
16,
57–
116
.
H
arle
y
, Heidi and No
y
er, Rolf. 1999. “Stat
e
-
of-the Article: Distributed Morpholo
gy
.”
G
L
OT
Inte
r
national
4/4, 3-9.
l
H
ockett , Charles F. 1954. “Two models of
g
rammatical description.”
Word
10, 210–31.
d
I
acobini, Claudio and Scalise, Sergio (to appear). Contraintes sur la catégorie de la base et de l'outpu
t
d
ans la dérivation, Hommage à Danielle Corbin
.
I
turrioz Leza, José Luis. 2001. “Inkorpor
a
t
ion.” In: M. Haspelmath et al. (eds.), Lan
g
ua
g
e T
y
polo
gy
and
Language Universals: an International Handboo
k
,
Vol.1.
B
erlin – New Yor
k
:
Walter De Gruyter.
J
ackendoff, Ray S. 1972.
S
emantic Inter
p
retation
i
n
G
enerative
G
rammar. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
J
ackendoff, Ray S. 1975. “Morphological and Semantic Regularieties in the Lexicon.” Language 51
,
639
–7
1
.
J
ackendoff, Ray S. 1990.
S
emantic Structures
.
Current Studies in Linguistics 18. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Pr
ess.
J
ackendoff, Ray S. 1997.
T
he Architecture of the language facult
y
.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
J
acobs, Roderick A. and Rosenbaum, Peter S.
(
eds.
)
. 197
0
.
Readin
g
s in En
g
lish Trans
f
ormational
G
rammar
.
Waltham
,
MA: Ginn.
J
oos, Martin
(
ed.
)
. 1957. Readings in linguistics. Chicago University of Chicago Press.
Kiefer, Ferenc.1973. „Morpholo
gy
in
g
enerative
g
rammar.“ In M. Gross, M. Halle, and M. P.
Schuetzenber
g
er (eds.), 265–280.
1
86
S
ER
G
I
OSC
ALI
S
E
&
EMILIAN
OGU
E
V
AR
A
Kiparsk
y
, Paul. 1982. “From C
y
clic Phonolo
gy
to Lexical Phonolo
gy
.” In: H. van der Hulst and N. Smith
(
eds.
)
, The Structure of Phonological Representations
I,
131–175.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1983. “Word formation and
t
he lexicon.” In: F. Ingemann (ed.),
P
roceedings of the 1982
M
idAmerica Linguistics Conferenc
e
. University of Kansas, 3–32.
L
apointe, Steven. 1980.
T
he Theory of Gra
m
matical Agreemen
t
.
PhD. diss.
U
niv. of Mass.: Amherst.
L
apointe, Steven. 1981. “The representation of
i
nflectional morphology within the lexicon.” North Eas
t
Linguistic Conference 11
,
190–204.
L
ees
,
Robert B. 1960. The grammar of English nominalizations
.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
L
ehrer
,
Adrienne. 1996. How lexeme-like are affixes
?
University of Arizona, manusript.
L
ieber
,
Rochelle. 1980.
O
n the Organization of the Lexicon
.
PhD Diss. MIT (distributed by IULC, 1981).
L
ieber
,
Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructin
g
Morpholo
gy
. Chica
g
o: Universit
y
of Chica
g
o Press.
L
i
g
htfoot, David W. 1991.
H
ow to set Parameters: Ar
g
uments
f
rom Lan
g
ua
g
e Chan
ge
.
Cambrid
g
e, MA:
MIT Pr
ess.
Marantz, Alec. 1997. “No Escape from Syntax.” In A. Dimitriadis et al., (eds.), University o
f
Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4/2
,
201–225.
Marchand
,
Hans. 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation: A
S
ynchronic-Diachronic Approach
,
2nd. ed. München: Beck.
Mascar
ó,
Joan. 1976. Catalan Phonology and the Phonological Cycl
e
. PhD dissertation MIT, Cambridge,
Mass. (Distr. by IULC, Bloomington Indiana,1978).
McCarthy, John J. 1982. Formal problems in S
e
mitic phonology and morpholog
y
.
Bloomington (IN):
I
ndiana University Linguistics Club.
Mithun
,
Marianne. 1984. “The Evolution of Noun Incorporation.” Languag
e
60, 84
7–
894
.
Mithun
,
Marianne. 1996.
T
he meanin
g
o
f
roots and a
ff
ixes
.
Department of Lin
g
uistics, Universit
y
of
C
alifornia, Santa Barbara, manuscript.
Mithun, Marianne. 2000. “Incorporation.” In: G. Booi
j
, Ch. Lehmann, and J. Mu
g
dan (eds.), Morpholo
g
ie
/ Morpholo
gy
: an international handbook on inflecti
o
n and word-formation
,
vol. 1. Berlin – New
Y
ork, Walter De Gruyter, 916-928.
Mohanan
,
K.P. 1986.
T
he theory of lexical phonolog
y
.
D
o
r
d
r
ec
ht
:
R
e
i
de
l
.
Perlmutter, David M. 1988. “The split morphology
h
ypothesis: evidence from Yiddish.” In: M.
H
ammond and M. Noonan
(
eds.
)
, Theoretical Morphology: Approa
c
h
es in Modern Linguistics
.
A
cademic Press
,
79-100.
Pesetsky, David. 1979. Russian morphology and lexical theor
y
.
Unpublished manuscript.
Peters, Stanle
y
(ed.). 1972. Goals o
f
lin
g
uistic theor
y
. Prentice Hall: En
g
lewood Cliffs N.J.
R
ainer
,
Franz. 1988. “Towards a Theory of Blocking: the case of Italian and German quality nouns.” In:
G. Booi
j
and J. van Marle (eds.),
Y
earbook of Morphology
1988.
D
ordrecht: Foris
,
155-185.
R
ainer
,
Franz. 1989.
I
nomi di
q
ualità nell'italiano contem
p
oraneo
.W
iener romanistische Arbeiten 16.
W
ien: Braumüller.
R
eibel, David A. and Sanford, Shane
(
eds.
)
. 1969.
M
odern Studies in En
g
lish. Prentice Hall: En
g
lewood
C
liffs N.J.
R
osen, Sara T. 1989. “Two Types o
f
N
o
un Incorporation: A Lexical Analysis.” Languag
e
65
,
294-317.
Saciuk
,
Bohdan. 1969. “The Stra
t
al Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f th
e
L
e
xi
co
n
.
”
P
apers in Linguistics 1
,
464-532
Sadock
,
Jerrold M. 1991.
Autolexical syntax: A theory of
parallel grammatical representations
f
f
. Chicago:
U
niversity of Chicago Press.
Scalise, Sergio. 1980. “Towards an
‘
Extended’ Italian Morphology.” In: Journal of Italian Linguistics
1/2
,
197–244.
Scalise, Sergio. 1984. Generative Morpholog
y
.
F
o
ri
s:
D
o
r
d
r
ec
ht
.
Scalise, Ser
g
io. 1988. “Inflection and Derivation.” Lin
g
uistics
26,
5
61
–5
81
.
Scalise, Ser
g
io; Ceresa, Marco; Dri
g
o, Marina; Gotta
r
do
,
Maria
;
and Zannier
,
I
rene. 1983. “
S
ulla nozione
di “blockin
g
” in morfolo
g
ia derivazionale.” Lin
g
ua e Stile
2, 243
-
269
.
Selkirk
,
Elizabeth O. 1982.
T
he syntax of words
.
Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
Sie
g
el, Doroth
y
. 1974.
T
opics in En
g
lish Morpholo
gy
.
New York:
G
arland.
Sie
g
el, Doroth
y
. 1978. “The Ad
j
acenc
y
Condition and
t
he Theor
y
of Morpholo
gy
.” In: M. J. Stein (ed.),
Proceedin
g
s o
f
the
8
th
Annual Meeting of the North-Eastern Linguistic Societ
y
, University of
Massachusetts
,
Amherst
,
189-197.
Spencer, Andrew. 1988. “Bracketin
g
pa
r
adoxes and the En
g
lish lexicon.” Lan
g
ua
g
e
64, 663
–
682
.
Spencer, Andrew. 1991.
M
orpholo
g
ical Theor
y
.O
xford: Blackwell.
S
p
encer, Andrew. 1995. “Incor
p
oration in Chukchi.” Languag
e
71
,
439–489.