Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-27T22:59:03.328Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - Distributed Morphology

from Part IV - Morphological Frameworks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2017

By
Martha McGinnis-Archibald
Edited by
Andrew Hippisley  and
Gregory Stump
Andrew Hippisley
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Gregory Stump
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology , pp. 390 - 423
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aissen, Judith, and Perlmutter, David. 1976. Clause reduction in Spanish. In Thompson, Henry, Whistler, Kenneth, Edge, Vicki, Jaeger, Jeri, Javkin, Ronya, Petruck, Miriam, Smeall, Christopher, and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (eds.), Proceedings of the Second Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society (BLS 2), 1–30. Berkeley Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena, and Samioti, Yota. 2014. Domains within words and their meanings: A case study. In Alexiadou, Artemis, Borer, Hagit, and Schäfer, Florian (eds.), The Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax, 81–111. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1984. On representations in morphology: Case marking, agreement and inversion in Georgian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2, 157–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Avery. 1990. Unification and morphological blocking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8, 507–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arad, Maya. 2003. Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 737–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by Itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Arregi, Karlos. 2001. Person and number inflection in Basque. In Fernández, Beatriz and Albizu, Pablo (eds.), On Case and Agreement, 71–111. Bilbo: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.Google Scholar
Arregi, Karlos, and Nevins, Andrew. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque Auxiliaries and the Structure of Spellout. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, and Renouf, Antoinette. 1996. Chronicling the Times: Productive lexical innovations in an English newspaper. Language 72, 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1985. The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16.3, 373–415.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beard, Robert. 1995. Lexeme-Morpheme Based Morphology: A General Theory of Inflection and Word Formation. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Béjar, Susana. 2003. Phi-syntax: A Theory of Agreement. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2000. The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. In Grohmann, Kleanthes K. and Struijke, Caro (eds.), University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 10, 35–71. College Park: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2002a. Syncretism without paradigms: Remarks on Williams 1981, 1994. Yearbook of Morphology 2002, 53–85.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2002b. Realizing Germanic inflection: Why morphology does not drive syntax. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 6, 129–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2008. Paradigms, optimal and otherwise: A case for skepticism. In Bachrach, Asaf and Nevins, Andrew Ira (eds.), Inflectional Identity, 29–54. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2012. Universals in Comparative Morphology: Suppletion, Superlatives, and the Structure of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Jonas, Dianne. 1996. Subject positions and the roles of TP. Linguistic Inquiry 27, 195–236.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1998. Two heads aren’t always better than one. Syntax 1, 37–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia 1991. Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia, and Harbour, Daniel. 2012. Contextual allomorphy. In Trommer, Jochen (ed.), The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence, 195−235. Studies in Theoretical Linguistics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2013. Taking Form: Structuring Sense, vol. 3. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Explaining morphosyntactic competition. In Baltin, Mark and Collins, Chris (eds.), Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 1–44. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2010. Ditransitive asymmetries and a theory of idiom formation. Linguistic Inquiry 41, 519–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caha, Pavel. 2009. The Nanosyntax of Case. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1987. Allomorphy in Inflection. Croom Helm Linguistics Series. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1994. Inflection classes, gender and the Principle of Contrast. Language 70, 737–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, Roderick and Rosenbaum, Peter (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth. 2005. A note on number. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 441–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David. 2000. Features, syntax, and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 185–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David, and Halle, Morris. 2005. On the status of stems in morphological theory. In Geerts, Twan, van Ginneken, Ivo, and Jacobs, Haike (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003, 59–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Embick, David, and Marantz, Alec. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39, 1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David, and Noyer, Rolf. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 555–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabb, Nigel. 1988. English suffixation is constrained only by selectional restrictions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 527–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1976. Some constraints on Bantu causativization. In Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions, 325–51. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
González-Poot, Antonio, and McGinnis, Martha. 2006. Local versus long-distance Fission in Distributed Morphology. In Claire Gurski (ed.), Proceedings of the 2005 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. Available online at http://westernlinguistics.ca/Publications/CLA-ACL/CLA-ACL2005.htm (accessed on April 11, 2016).Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The View from Building 20, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 2000. Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In Lecarme, Jacqueline, Lowenstamm, Jean, and Shlonsky, Ur (eds.), Research in Afroasiatic Grammar: Papers from the Third Conference on Afroasiatic Languages, Sophia Antipolis, 1996, 125–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The View from Building 20, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In Carnie, Andrew, Harley, Heidi, and Bures, Tony (eds.), MITWPL 21: Papers on Phonology and Morphology, 275–88. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 2008. Clarifying ‘blur’: Paradigms, defaults, and inflectional classes. In Bachrach, Asaf and Nevins, Andrew Ira (eds.), Inflectional Identity, 55–72. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge, and Mikkelsen, Line. 2002. A morphological analysis of definite nouns in Danish. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 14, 137–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge, and Mikkelsen, Line. 2005. When movement must be blocked: A response to Embick and Noyer. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 85–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 1994. Hug a tree: Deriving the morphosyntactic feature hierarchy. In Carnie, Andrew and Harley, Heidi (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21: Papers on Phonology and Morphology, Working Papers in Linguistics, 289–320. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2013. External arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the distinctness of Voice and v. Lingua 125, 34–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2014. On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics 40, 225–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi, and Ritter, Elizabeth. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78, 482–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi, and Tubino Blanco, Mercedes. 2013. Cycles, vocabulary items, and stem forms in Hiaki. In Matushansky, Ora and Marantz, Alec (eds.), Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, 117–34. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.Google Scholar
Harris, James. 1996. The morphology of Spanish clitics. In Campos, Hector and Kempchinsky, Paula (eds.), Evolution and Revolution in Linguistic Theory: Studies in Honor of Carlos P. Otero, 168–97. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Haugen, Jason D., and Siddiqi, Daniel. 2013. Roots and the derivation. Linguistic Inquiry 44, 493–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Kenneth C., and Black, Mary E.. 1998. A sketch of Hopi grammar. In The Hopi Dictionary Project (ed.), Hopi Dictionary/Hopìikwa Lavàytutuveni: A Hopi-English Dictionary of the Third Mesa Dialect, 861–900. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 2003. Suffix ordering in Bantu: A morphocentric approach. Yearbook of Morphology 2002, 245–281.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, Wesley M. 1992. The Transitive Structure of Events in Japanese. Tokyo: Kurioso.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo, and Hyams, Nina M.. 1993. On the independence and interdependence of syntactic and morphological properties: English aspectual come and go. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11, 313–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Kyumin. 2011. High applicatives in Korean causatives and passives. Lingua 121, 487–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2005. Blocking and periphrasis in inflectional paradigms. Yearbook of Morphology 2004, 113–35.Google Scholar
Krämer, Martin, and Wunderlich, Dieter. 1999. Transitivity alternations in Yucatec, and the correlation between aspect and argument roles. Linguistics 37, 431–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, Johan and Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, 109–37. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Kula, Nancy Chongo. 2002. The Phonology of Verbal Derivation in Bemba. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Libben, Gary. 2006. Why study compounds?: An overview of the issues. In Libben, Gary and Jarema, Gonia (eds.), The Representation and Processing of Compound Words, 1–2. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing Morphology: Word Formation in Syntactic Theory. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lomashvili, Leila, and Harley, Heidi. 2011. Phases and templates in Georgian agreement. Studia Linguistica 65, 233–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1988. Clitics, morphological merger, and the mapping to phonological structure. In Hammond, Michael and Noonan, Michael (eds.), Theoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics, 253–70. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1989. Clitics and phrase structure. In Baltin, Mark and Kroch, Anthony (eds.), Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, 99–116. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1995. A late note on late insertion. In Kim, Young–Sun, Lee, Byung-Choon, Lee, Kyoung-Jae, Yang, Kyun-Kwon, and Yoon, Jong-Kuri (eds.), Explorations in Generative Grammar, 396–413. Seoul: Hankuk.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Dimitriadis, Alexis, Siegel, Laura, Surek-Clark, Clarissa, and Williams, Alexander (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, 201–25. Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2001. Words. Handout of a talk, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2013. Locality domains for contextual allomorphy across the interfaces. In Matushansky, Ora and Marantz, Alec (eds.), Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, 95–115. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2013. More or better: On the derivation of synthetic comparatives and superlatives in English. In Matushansky, Ora and Marantz, Alec (eds.), Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, 59–78. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2005. Optimal paradigms. In Downing, Laura, Hall, Tracy Alan, and Raffeleisen, Renate (eds.), Paradigms in Phonological Theory, 170–210. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 2002. On the systematic aspect of idioms. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 665–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 2005. On markedness asymmetries in person and number. Language 81.3, 699–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 2008a. Phi-feature competition in morphology and syntax. In Harbour, Daniel, Adger, David, and Béjar, Susana (eds.), Phi-feature competition: Phi-features across Modules and Interfaces, 155–84. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 2008b. Applicatives. Language and Linguistic Compass 2, 1225–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 2013. Agree and fission in Georgian plurals. In Matushansky, Ora and Marantz, Alec (eds.), Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, 39–58. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2007. Notes on paradigm economy. Morphology 17, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevins, Andrew, and Sandalo, Filomena. 2011. Markedness and morphotactics in Kadiwéu [+participant] agreement. Morphology 21, 351–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noyer, Robert Rolf. 1992. Features, Positions and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Revised version published by Garland, New York, 1997.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Poser, William J. 1992. Blocking of phrasal constructions by lexical items. In Sag, Ivan and Szabolcsi, Anna (eds.), Lexical Matters, 111–30. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L. 2008. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohrbacher, Bernhard. 1999. Morphology-driven Syntax: A Theory of V to I Raising and Pro-drop. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruwet, Nicolas. 1991. On the use and abuse of idioms. In Goldsmith, John (trans.), Syntax and Human Experience, 171–251. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Siddiqi, Daniel. 2009. Syntax within the Word: Economy, Allomorphy, and Argument Selection in Distributed Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starke, Michal. 2009. Nanosyntax: A short primer on a new approach to language. In Svenonius, Peter, Ramchand, Gillian, Starke, Michal, and Taraldsen, Tarald (eds.), Nordlyd, Tromsø University Working Papers on Language and Linguistics 36, 1–6. University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 1997. Template morphology and inflectional morphology. Yearbook of Morphology 1996, 217–41.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2012. Look both ways: Outward-looking allomorphy in Icelandic participles. Ling Buzz. Available online at http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001519 (accessed April 30, 2016).Google Scholar
Tourabi, Abderrezzak. 2002. Arabic subject-verb agreement affixes: Morphology, specification and spell-out. In Csirmaz, Aniko, Li, Zhiqiang, Nevins, Andrew, Vaysman, Olga, and Wagner, Michael (eds.), MITWPL 42: Phonological Answers, 329–56. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.Google Scholar
Volpe, Mark. 2005. Japanese Morphology and Its Theoretical Consequences: Derivational Morphology in Distributed Morphology. Ph.D. dissertation, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1994. Remarks on lexical knowledge. Lingua 92, 7–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×