Cover not available
Part of
Morphological Metatheory
Edited by Daniel Siddiqi and Heidi Harley
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 229] 2016
► pp. 343–386

Towards a Restricted Realization Theory

Multimorphemic monolistemicity, portmanteaux, and post-linearization spanning

| Oberlin College
| Carleton University
In this paper we advance arguments in favor of a vocabulary-insertion-only program for non-lexicalist realizational models of morphology, Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993) in particular. We claim that this end can be achieved through relatively simple and well-motivated proposals. We suggest that the vast majority of non-syntactic mechanisms can be obviated by the adoption of non-terminal insertion (Radkevich 2010; Svenonius 2012; Merchant 2013; Starke 2009; Caha 2009; see Embick & Marantz 2008 for a contrary argument)– specifically post-linearization spanning. We restrict our discussion here to whether weak suppletion must be the output of phonological processes (see e.g. Marantz 1997; Embick & Halle 2005; Harley & Tubino Blanco 2013) or simply listed (see, e.g., Bermúdez-Otero 2013), and whether the containment prediction (Embick & Marantz 2008; Embick 2012) is indeed fatal for non-terminal insertion. We also propose here that Siddiqi’s (2009) feature blocking system can be co-opted for the tasks typical of impoverishment.
Published online: 29 June 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.229.12hau
References (86)
References
Arregi, Karlos & Nevins, Andrew. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque Auxiliaries and the Structure of Spellout. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. Morphological stems: What William of Ockham really said. Word Structure 5(1): 28–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, Harald R. 1992. Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In Yearbook of Morphology 1991, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 109–150. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. On frequency, transparency, and productivity. In Yearbook of Morphology 1992, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 181–208. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Productivity in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes 9: 447–469. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald & Lieber, Rochelle. 1991. Productivity and English derivation: A corpus based study. Linguistics 29: 801–843. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald & Renouf, Antoinette. 1996. Chronicling the Times: Productive innovations in an English newspaper. Language 29: 801–843. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Alan, 2011. Simplicity. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2011 edn, Edward N. Zalta (ed.). <[URL]>Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2013. The Spanish lexicon stores stems with theme vowels, not roots with inflectional class features. Probus 25(1): 3–103.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2000. The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. In University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 10, Kleanthes Grohmann & Caro Struijke (eds), 35–71. College Park MD: University of Maryland, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2012. Universals in Comparative Morphology: Suppletion, Superlatives, and the Structure of Words. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulalia. 2013. Agreement in two steps (at least). In Distributed Morphology Today, Ora Matushansky & Alec Marantz (eds). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form [Typological Studies in Language 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bye, Patrik & Svenonius, Peter. 2012. Non-concatenative morphology as epiphenomenon. In The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence, Jochen Trommer (ed.), 427–495. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caha, Pavel. 2009. The Nanosyntax of Case. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø.
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in Transformational Grammar, Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds), 184–221. Waltham MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Chung, Inkie. 2007. Suppletive negation in Korean and Distributed Morphology. Lingua 117: 95–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dakin, Karen & Wichmann, Søren. 2000. Cacao and chocolate: A Uto-Aztecan perspective. Ancient Mesoamerica 11: 55–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria & Williams, Edwin. 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Embick, David. 2007a. Blocking effects and analytic/synthetic alternations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25(1): 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007b. Linearization and local dislocation: Derivational mechanics and interactions. Linguistic Analysis 33(3–4): 303–336.Google Scholar
. 2010a. Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. On the targets of phonological realization. Talk given to the MSPI Workshop at Stanford University, 13 October 2012.
. 2013. Morphemes and morphophonological loci. In Distributed Morphology Today, Ora Matushansky & Alec Marantz (eds). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David & Halle, Morris. 2005. On the status of stems in morphological theory. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 270], Twan Geerts, Ivo van Ginneken & Haike Jacobs (eds), 37–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David & Marantz, Alec. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39(1): 1–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf. 2007. Distributed morphology and the syntax-morphology interface. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds), 289–324. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 2000. Locality and extended projection. In Lexical Specification and Insertion [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 197], Peter Coopmans, Martin Everaert & Jane Grimshaw (eds), 115–133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1997. Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In Papers at the Interface [MIT Working Papers in Linguistcs 30], Benjamin Bruening, Yoonyung Kang & Martha McGinnis (eds), 425–450. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In Papers on Phonology and Morphology [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21], Andrew Carnie & Heidi Harley, 275–288. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2009. A morphosyntactic account of the ‘Latinate’ ban on dative shiftin English. Ms, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
. 2014. On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics 40(3–4): 225–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Tubino Blanco, Mercedes. 2013. Cycles, vocabulary items, and stem forms in Hiaki. In Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, Ora Matushansky & Alec Marantz (eds), 117–134. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Noyer, Rolf. 1999. State-of-the-Article: Distributed Morphology. Glot International 4: 3–9.Google Scholar
Haugen, Jason D. 2008. Morphology at the Interfaces: Reduplication and Noun Incorporation in Uto-Aztecan [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 117]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Borrowed borrowings: Nahuatl loanwords in English. Lexis 3: 63–106.Google Scholar
. 2011. Reduplication in Distributed Morphology. In Proceedings of the 4th Arizona Linguistics Circle Conference (ALC 4). Coyote Papers, Vol. 18. Tucson, AZ: Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona. <[URL]>
Haugen, Jason D. & Everdell, Michael. 2015. ‘To kill’ and ‘to die’ (and other suppletive verbs) in Uto-Aztecan. Language Dynamics and Change 5: 227–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugen, Jason D. & Siddiqi, Daniel. 2013a. Roots and the derivation. Linguistic Inquiry 44(3): 493–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013b. On double marking and containment in Realization Theory. Ms. <[URL]>
Hay, Jennifer & Baayen, R. Harald. 2002. Parsing and productivity. In Yearbook of Morphology 2001, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 203–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Phonotactics, parsing, and productivity. Rivista di Linguistica 15(1): 99–130.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer & Plag, Ingo. 2004. What constrains possible suffix combinations? On the interaction of grammatical and processing restrictions in derivational morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 565–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1954. Two models of grammatical description. Word 10: 210–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopi Dictionary Project. 1998. Hopi Dictionary/Hopìikwa Lavàytutuveni: A Hopi-English Dictionary of the Third Mesa Dialect. Tucson AZ: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Izvorski, Roumi. 2002. Some observations about the form and meaning of the perfect. In Perfect Explorations, Artemis Alexiadou, Monika Rathert & Armin von Stechow (eds), 153–204. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1992. Languages of the Mind: Essays on Mental Representation. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. Douglas 1972. Formal Aspects of Phonological Description. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kandybowicz, Jason. 2007. On fusion and multiple copy spellout. In The Copy Theory of Movement [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 107], Norbert Corver & Jairo Nunes (eds), 119–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald. 1987. Three seductions of computational psycholinguistics. In Linguistic Theory and Computer Applications, Peter J. Whitelock, Mary McGee Wood, Harold L. Somers, Rod Johnson & Paul Bennett (eds), 149–188. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1997. The English complementizer of. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1: 43–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm: Selected Papers from SICOL 1981, Linguistic Society of Korea (eds), 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin.
. 1983. Word formation and the lexicon. In Proceedings of the 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference, Francis Ingemann (ed.), 3–29. Lawrence KS: University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing Morphology: Word Formation in Syntactic Theory. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. Stem suppletion, or the arbitrariness of the sign. Talk given at the Universite’ de Paris VIII.
. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. U.Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2): 201–225.Google Scholar
. 2013. Locality domains for contextual allomorphy across the interfaces. In Distributed Morphology Today, Ora Matushansky & Alec Marantz (eds). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Melnar, Lynette. 2004. Caddo Verb Morphology. Lincoln NB: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2013. How much context is enough? Two cases of span-conditioned stem allomorphy. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 77–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moskal, Baeta. 2013. Limits on Noun-suppletion. GLOW 36, Lund University, Sweden.
Muriungi, Peter Kinyua. 2009. The union spell-out mechanism. In Nanosyntax, Peter Svenonius, Gillian Ramchand, Michal Starke & Knut Tarald Taraldsen (eds). Special issue of Tromsø Working Papers on Language and Linguistics: Nordlyd 36(1): 191–205.Google Scholar
Newell, Heather. 2008. Aspects of the Morphology and Phonology of Phases. Ph.D. dissertation. McGill University.
Noyer, Rolf. 1992. Features, Positions and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Pancheva, Roumyana. 2003. The aspectual makeup of perfect participles and the interpretation of perfect. In Perfect Explorations, Artemis Alexiadou, Monika Rathert & Armin von Stechow (eds), 277–306. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul M. & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1978. Traces and the description of English complementizer contraction. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 1–29.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar [Technical Reports of the Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science, RuCCS-TR-2]. New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science. Published 2004, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Radkevich, Nina. 2010. On Location: The Structure of Case and Adpositiona. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raimy, Eric. 2000. The Phonology and Morphology of Reduplication [Studies in Generative Grammar 52]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schultnik, Henk. 1961. Produktiviteit als morfologisch fenomeen. Forum der Letteren 33: 110–125.Google Scholar
Siddiqi, Daniel. 2009. Syntax within the Word: Economy, Allomorphy, and Argument Selection in Distributed Morphology [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 138]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Distributed Morphology. Language and Linguistics Compass. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Starke, Michal. 2009. Nanosyntax: A short primer on a new approach to language. In Nanosyntax, Peter Svenonius, Gillian Ramchand, Michal Starke & Knut Tarald Taraldsen (eds). Special issue of Tromsø Working Papers on Language and Linguistics: Nordlyd 36(1): 1–6.Google Scholar
Stemberger, Joseph Paul & MacWhinney, Brian. 1986. Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms. Memory and Cognition 14: 17–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988. Are inflected forms stored in the lexicon? In Theoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics, Michael T. Hammond & Michael T. Noonan (eds), 101–116. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2012. Spanning. Ms, CASTL, University of Tromsø. <[URL]>
Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 2010. The nanosyntax of Nguni noun class prefixes and concords. Lingua 120: 1522–1548. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trommer, Jochen. 1999. Morphology consuming syntax’s resources: Generation and parsing in a minimalist version of Distributed Morphology. In Proceedings of the ESSLI Workshop on Resource Logics and Minimalist Grammars.
. 2001. Distributed Optimality. Ph.D. dissertation, Universität Potsdam.
Williams, Edwin. 2003. Representation Theory. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1990. Inflectional morphology as a (sub)component of grammar. In Contemporary Morphology, Wolfgang U. Dressler, Hans C. Luschützky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer & John R. Rennison (eds), 217–236. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold & Pullum, Geoffrey. 1986. The principle of phonology-free syntax: Introductory remarks. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 32: 63–91.Google Scholar
Cited by (12)

Cited by 12 other publications

Paparounas, Lefteris
2024. Visibility and Intervention in Allomorphy: Lessons from Modern Greek. Linguistic Inquiry 55:3 ► pp. 537 ff. DOI logo
Toquero-Pérez, Luis Miguel
2024. There is only one más: Spanish que/de comparative alternation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 42:2 ► pp. 701 ff. DOI logo
DOLATIAN, HOSSEP
2023. Fluctuations in allomorphy domains: Applying Stump 2010 to Armenian ordinal numerals. Journal of Linguistics ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Bembridge, Gavin
2022. ASL negative incorporation as negative suppletion. Sign Language & Linguistics 25:2 ► pp. 135 ff. DOI logo
Rolle, Nicholas & Lee Bickmore
2022. Outward-sensitive phonologically-conditioned suppletive allomorphy vs. first-last tone harmony in Cilungu. Morphology 32:2 ► pp. 197 ff. DOI logo
Carlson, Matthew T., Antonio Fábregas & Michael T. Putnam
2021. How Wide the Divide? – Theorizing ‘Constructions’ in Generative and Usage-Based Frameworks. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo
Newell, Heather
2021. Deriving Level 1/Level 2 affix classes in English: Floating vowels, cyclic syntax. Acta Linguistica Academica 68:1-2 ► pp. 31 ff. DOI logo
Newell, Heather
2021. Bracketing Paradoxes resolved. The Linguistic Review 38:3 ► pp. 443 ff. DOI logo
Schreiner, Sylvia L. R.
2021. Span–conditioned allomorphy and late linearization: Evidence from the Classical Greek perfect. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 6:1 DOI logo
Caha, Pavel, Karen De Clercq & Guido Vanden Wyngaerd
2019. The Fine Structure of the Comparative. Studia Linguistica 73:3 ► pp. 470 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
Kilbourn-Ceron, Oriana, Heather Newell, Máire B. Noonan & Lisa deMena Travis
2016. Phase domains at PF. In Morphological Metatheory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 229], ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 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.