Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Foundations of Morphological Theory
- Part II Issues in Morphological Theory
- Part III Morphological Principles
- 10 Lexicalism, the Principle of Morphology-free Syntax and the Principle of Syntax-free Morphology
- 11 Defaults and Overrides in Morphological Description
- 12 Implicative Relations in Word-based Morphological Systems
- Part IV Morphological Frameworks
- Part V The Role of Morphology in Theories of Phonology and Syntax
- Part VI Domains for the Evaluation of Morphological Theories
- Index of languages
- Index of names
- Index of subjects
- References
10 - Lexicalism, the Principle of Morphology-free Syntax and the Principle of Syntax-free Morphology
from Part III - Morphological Principles
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 January 2017
By
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Foundations of Morphological Theory
- Part II Issues in Morphological Theory
- Part III Morphological Principles
- 10 Lexicalism, the Principle of Morphology-free Syntax and the Principle of Syntax-free Morphology
- 11 Defaults and Overrides in Morphological Description
- 12 Implicative Relations in Word-based Morphological Systems
- Part IV Morphological Frameworks
- Part V The Role of Morphology in Theories of Phonology and Syntax
- Part VI Domains for the Evaluation of Morphological Theories
- Index of languages
- Index of names
- Index of subjects
- References
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.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology , pp. 237 - 271Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
Ackema, P., and Neeleman, A.. 2002. Syntactic atomicity. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 10 6.2, 93–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackema, P., and Neeleman, A.. 2004. Beyond Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackema, P., and Neeleman, A.. 2007. Morphology, syntax. In Ramchand, G. and Reiss, C. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, 325–52. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Álvarez Álvarez, G. 1949. El habla de Babia y Laciana. Revista de filología española, Anejo 49.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. 2015. Dimensions of morphological complexity. In Baerman, Matthew, Brown, Dunstan, and Corbett, Greville G. (eds.), Understanding and Measuring Morphological Complexity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arad, M. 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, M. 2012. Morphological stems: What William of Ockham really said. Word Structure 5: 28–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, M. 2004. Directionality and (un)natural classes in syncretism. Language 80, 807–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, M., Brown, D., and Corbett, G.. 2005. The Syntax-morphology Interface: A Study of Syncretism. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bağrıaçık, M., and Ralli, A.. forthcoming. Phrasal vs. Morphological Compounds: Insights from Modern Greek and Turkish. In C. Trips and J. Kornfilt (eds.), Special issue of STUFGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 1985. The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 373–416.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. 2001. Compounding. In Haspelmath, Martin, König, Ekkehard, Oesterreicher, Wulf, and Raible, Wolfgang (eds.), Language Universals and Language Typology, Vol. 1, 695–707. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Booij, G. 1985. Coordination reduction in complex words: A case for prosodic phonology. In van der Hulst, Harry and Smith, Neil (eds.), Advances in Nonlinear Phonology, 143–60. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Booij, G. 2005a. Compounding and derivation: Evidence for Construction Morphology. In Dressler, Wolfgang, Rainer, Franz, Kastovsky, Dieter, and Pfeiffer, Oskar (eds.), Morphology and Its Demarcations, 109–32. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Booij, G. 2009. Lexical integrity as a formal universal: A constructionist view. Universals of Language Today Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 76: 83–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. 1998. Morphology and syntax. In Spencer, A. and Zwicky, M. (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology, 151–90. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bosque, I. 2012. On the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis and its inaccurate predictions. Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 4: 140–73.Google Scholar
Bourciez, J. 1927. Recherches historiques et géographiques sur le parfait en gascon. Bordeaux: Peret.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. 1997. Mixed categories as head sharing constructions. In Butt, Miriam and King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG97 conference. Stanford: CSLI. available at http://web.stanford.edu/~bresnan/mixed-rev.ps (accessed April 10, 2016).Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. W., and Mchombo, S. A.. 1995. The lexical integrity principle. Evidence from Bantu: Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 181–254.Google Scholar
Brown, D., and Hippisley, A.. 2012. Network Morphology: A Defaults-based Theory of Word Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, W. 1993. Serbo-Croat. In Comrie, B. and Corbett, G. G. (eds.), The Slavonic Languages, 306–87. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bruening, B. 2015. The Lexicalist Hypothesis: Both Wrong and Superfluous. Draft version of article, available online at http://udel.edu/~bruening/Downloads/LexicalismSuperfluous1.pdf (accessed April 10, 2016).Google Scholar
Butt, M., and King, T. Holloway. 2005. The status of case. In Dayal, V. and Mahajan, A. (eds.), Clause Structure in South Asian Languages, 153–98. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10: 425–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., and Brewer, M.. 1980. Explanation in morphophonemics: Changes in Provençal and Spanish preterite forms. Lingua 52: 201–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cano González, A. 1981. El habla de Somiedo. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Chaves, R. P. 2008. Linearization-based word-part ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 261–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. and Rosenbaum, P. (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell.Google Scholar
Corbett, G., and Baerman, M.. 2006. Prolegomena to a typology of morphological features. Morphology 16.2, 231–46.Google Scholar
Díaz Castañón, M. 1966. El habla del Cabo de Peñas. Oviedo: Instituto de estudios asturianos.Google Scholar
Díaz González, O. 1986. El habla de Candamo: aspectos morfosintácticos y vocabulario . Universidad de Oviedo.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, A. M., and Williams, E.. 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Embick, D., and Halle, M.. 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, 37–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, D., and Noyer, R.. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In Ramchand, Gillian and Reiss, Charles (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, 289–324. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. 2002. A common basis for syntax and morphology: Tri-level lexical insertion. In Boucher, P. (ed.), Many Morphologies, 235–62. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Esher, L. 2012. Les conditionnels temporels et modaux des parlers occitans modernes. Faits de langues 40, 101–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esher, L. 2013. Future and conditional in Occitan: A non-canonical morphome. In Cruschina, S., Maiden, M., and Smith, J. C. (eds.), The Boundaries of Pure Morphology, 95–115. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández Vior, J. A. 1997. El habla de Vegadeo a Veiga y su concejo. Oviedo: Academia de la Llingua Asturiana.Google Scholar
Grossi Fernández, M. 1962. Breve estudio de un bable central: El de Meres. Archivum 12, 445–65.Google Scholar
García Valdés, C. 1979. El habla de Santianes de Pravia. Mieres: Instituto Bernaldo de Quirós.Google Scholar
Halle, M. 1973. Prolegomena to a theory of word formation. Linguistic Enquiry 4, 3–16.Google Scholar
Halle, M., and Marantz, A.. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, S. Jay (eds.), The View from Building 20, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Henrichsen, A. J. 1955. Les Phrases hypothétiques en ancien occitan: Étude syntaxique. Bergen: John Griegs Boktrykkeri.Google Scholar
Holvoet, A. 2012. Vocative agreement in Latvian and the principle of morphology-free syntax. Baltic Linguistics 3, 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iatriadou, S., Anagnostopulou, E., and Izvorski, R.. 2001. Observations about the form and meaning of the perfect. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 189–239. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. 1975. Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language 51, 639–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S., 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, J. T., and Stong-Jensen, M.. 1984. Morphology is in the lexicon! Linguistic Inquiry 15, 474–98.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1982a. Lexical morphology and phonology. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm: Selected Papers from SICOL-1981, vol. 1, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1982b. From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In van der Hulst, H. and Smith, N. (eds.), The Structure of Phonological Representations, vol. 1, 131–75. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1983. Word formation and the lexicon. In Ingeman, F. (ed.), Proceedings of the 1982 MidAmerica Linguistics Conference, 3–32. Lawrence: University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J., and Whitman, J.. 2011. Afterword: Nominalizations in syntactic theory. Lingua 121, 1297–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapointe, S. 1980. A Theory of Grammatical Agreement. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Leite de Vasconcellos, J. 1900. Estudos de philologia mirandesa, I. Lisbon: Imprensa nacional.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. 1992. Deconstructing Morphology: Word Formation in Syntactic Theory. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, R., and Scalise, S.. 2006. The Lexical Integrity Hypothesis in a new theoretical universe. Lingue e linguaggio 6, 7–32.Google Scholar
Lopocarro, M. 2008. Variation and change in morphology and syntax: Romance object agreement. In Rainer, Franz, Dressler, Wolfgang U., Kastovsky, Dieter, and Luschützky, Hans Christian (eds.), Variation and Change in Morphology: Selected Papers from the 13th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2008, 167–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Luís, A., and Otoguro, R.. 2004. Proclitic contexts in European Portuguese and their effect on clitic placement. In Butt, Miriam and Holloway King, Tracy (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG04 Conference. University of Canterbury.Google Scholar
Luís, A., and Spencer, A.. 2005. A Paradigm Function account of “mesoclisis” in European Portuguese EP. Yearbook of Morphology 2005, 177–228.Google Scholar
Luís, A., and Spencer, A.. 2006. Udi clitics: A generalised paradigm function approach. In Otoguro, Ryo, Popova, Gergana, and Spencer, Andrew (eds.), Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, vol. 48. Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Maiden, M. 2001. A strange affinity: “perfecto y tiempos afines.” Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 78, 441–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maiden, M. 2004. Morphological autonomy and diachrony. Yearbook of Morphology 2003, 137–75.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Dimitriadis, Alexis, Siegel, Laura, Sureki Clark, Clarissa, and Williams, Alexander (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium: Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2, 201–25.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 2001. Words. Unpublished paper given at the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Santa Barbara. Available online at http://babel.ucsc.edu/~hank/mrg.readings/Phases_and_Words_Final.pdf (accessed April 10, 2016).Google Scholar
Meibauer, J. 2003. Phrasenkomposita zwischen Wortsyntax und Lexikon. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 22.2, 153–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meibauer, J. 2007. How marginal are phrasal compounds? Generalized insertion, expressivity, and I/Q- interaction. Morphology 17: 233–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menéndez García, M. 1963. El cuarto de los valles un habla del occidente asturiano. Oviedo: Instituto de estudios asturianos.Google Scholar
Millán Urdiales, J. 1966. El habla de Villacidayo León. Revista de filología española. Anejo 13.Google Scholar
Moura Santos, M. 1967. Os falares fronteriços de Trás-os-Montes. Fueyes dixerbraes de Revista Portuguesa de Filologia 12–14.Google Scholar
Muñiz, C. 1978. El habla del Valledor: Estudio descriptivo del gallego de Allande. Amsterdam: Academische.Google Scholar
Nespor, M. 1985. The phonological word in Italian. In van der Hulst, Harry and Smith, Neil (eds.), Advances in Nonlinear Phonology, 193–204. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. 2009. Current challenges to the Lexicalist Hypothesis: An overview and a critique. In Lewis, William D., Karimi, Simin, Harley, Heidi, and Farrar, Scott O. (eds.), Time and Again: Theoretical Perspectives on Formal Linguistics. In Honor of D. Terence Langendoen, 91–117. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, J. J. 1930. Compêndio de gramática histórica portuguesa: Fonética e morfologia. Lisbon: Livraria Clásica.Google Scholar
Olivier-Hinzelin, M. 2012. Verb morphology gone astray: Syncretism patterns in Gallo-Romance. In Gaglia, Sascha and Hinzelin, Marc-Olivier (eds.), Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages, 55-81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, P. 2011a. El morfoma en el asturiano: Diacronía y sincronía. In Homenaxe al profesor García Arias, vol. 1, 319–48. Oviedo: Academia de la Llingua Asturiana.Google Scholar
O’Neill, P. 2011b. The evolution of “el pretérito y tiempos afines” in Ibero-Romance. Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 88, 851–78.Google Scholar
O’Neill, P. 2014. The morphome in constructive and abstractive theories of morphology. Morphology 24, 25–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plank, F. 1991. Of abundance and scantiness in inflection: A typological prelude. In Plank, Frans (ed.), Paradigms: The Economy of Inflection, 1–39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quint, N. 1997. L’emploi du conditionnel deuxième forme dans la deuxième partie de la canso de la crozada. Estudis Occitans 21, 2–12.Google Scholar
Ralli, A. 2010: Compounding versus derivation. In Sergio, Scalise and Irene, Vogel (eds.), Cross Disciplinary Issues in Compounding, 57–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez Castellano, L. 1952. La variedad dialectal del Alto Aller. Oviedo: Instituto de estudios asturianos.Google Scholar
Romieu, M., and Bianchi, A.. 1995. Gramatica de l’occitan gascon contemporanèu. Pessac: Presses universitaires de Bordeaux.Google Scholar
Scalise, S., and Guevara, E.. 2005. The lexicalist approach to word-formation and the notion of lexicon. In Štekauer, P. and Lieber, R. (eds.), Handbook of Word-formation, 147–87. Amsterdam: Springer.Google Scholar
Scalise, S., and Vogel, I.. 2010. Why compounding?, in Scalise, S. and Vogel, I. (eds.), Cross Disciplinary Issues in Compounding, 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, A. 1988. “Bracketing paradoxes” and the English lexicon. Language 64, 663–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, A. 2005. Word-formation and syntax. In Štekauer, P. and Lieber, R. (eds.), Handbook of Word-formation, 73–97. Amsterdam: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, G. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, G. 2014. Morphosyntactic property sets at the interface of inflectional morphology, syntax and semantics. Lingvisticæ Investigationes 37.2, 290–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory. 2015. Inflectional Paradigms: Content and Form at the Syntax-morphology Interface. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trips, C. 2012. Empirical and theoretical aspects of phrasal compounds: against the “syntax explains it all” attitude. In Ralli, Angela, Booij, Geert, Scalise, Sergio, and Karasimos, Athanasios (eds.), On-line Proceedings of the 8th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting. 322–46.Google Scholar
Urtel, H. 1902. Lothringische Studien. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 26, 670–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallina Alonso, C. 1985. El habla del Sudeste de Parres: desde el Sella hasta El Mampodre. Gráficas Oviedo.Google Scholar
Wheeler, M. 2012. Vies d’analogia i d’explicació en l’evolució del pretèrit feble de la conjugació romànica. Estudis Romànics 34, 7–36.Google Scholar
Wiese, R. 1996. Phrasal compounds and the theory of word syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 27, 183–93.Google Scholar
Williams, E. 2007. Dumping lexicalism. In Ramchand, Gillian and Reiss, Charles (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, 353–82. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985a. The general case: Basic form versus default form. Berkeley Linguistic Society 12, 305–14.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985b. Rules of allomorphy and phonology-syntax interactions. Journal of Linguistics 21.2, 431–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A. 1990. Syntactic representations and phonological shapes. In Inkelas, Sharon and Zec, Draga (eds.), The Phonology-syntax Connection, 379–97. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. 1991. Systematic versus accidental phonological identity. In Plank, Frans (eds.), Paradigms: The Economy of Inflection, 113–31. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A. 1992. Some choices in the theory of morphology. In Levine, Robert (ed.), Formal Grammar: Theory and Implementation, 327–71. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by