2004
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Nederlandse Taalkunde
  4. Volume 27, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 27, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1384-5845
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1171
file format pdf download PDF

Abstract

Abstract

In this paper we aim to explain and illustrate the theory of Distributed Morphology for non-specialists. The goal is to take away any misunderstandings and to provide some illustrations of the workings of the theory, mainly on the basis of data from Dutch. Distributed Morphology is a theory of morphology that embraces the so-called Separation Hypothesis: derivation – the forming of a new word by some abstract operation – is separated from affixation – the realization or spell-out of the abstract operation by the addition of some phonologically specified element. The means used by DM to implement the Separation Hypothesis is by late (after syntax) insertion of affixes. Furthermore, Distributed Morphology claims that there is no separate component of the grammar where word-formation takes place. The operations that form new words are the same operations that may create syntactic phrases. Starting from these fundamental claims, we go into some detail of the way Distributed Morphology accounts for different morphological patterns. The paper also points at some cognate, but alternative, approaches to word-formation and inflection. In particular, we briefly address Borer’s so-called exo-skeletal model, and the nanosyntactic approach.

© Marijke De Belder & Jan Don
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2022.1.007.BELD
2022-07-01
2024-11-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/13845845/27/1/NEDTAA2022.1.007.BELD.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2022.1.007.BELD&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Aalberse, Suzanne & JanDon (2011). Syncretisms in Dutch. Morphology19, 3-14.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Ackema, Peter & AdNeeleman (2007). Morphology ≠ Syntax. In: RamchandGillian & ReissCharles (red.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 325-352.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Adamson, Luke (2018). Denominal verbs: Past tense allomorphy, event frames, and zero-categorizers. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics24(1), Article 2.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Alexiadou, Artemis (2009). On the role of syntactic locality in morphological processes: The case of (Greek) derived nominals. In: GiannakidouAnastasia & RathertMonika (red.), Quantification, definiteness and nominalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 253-280.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Anagnostopoulou, Elena (2003). The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Anderson, Stephen R. (1982). Where’s morphology?Linguistic Inquiry13, 571-621.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Anderson, Stephen R. (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Anoushe, Mazdak (2015). Aspect and tense projections in the complex agentive adjectives: A Distributed Morphology approach. Language Related Research6(5), 49-72.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Arad, Maya (2003). Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory21, 737-778.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Aronoff, Mark (1976). Word formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Arregi, Karlos & AndrewNevins (2012). Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of Spellout. Berlin: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Baker, Mark (1985). The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry16, 373-415.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Beard, Robert (1981). The Indo-European lexicon. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Beard, Robert (1995). Lexeme-morpheme based morphology. Albany, NY: State University of New York.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Bobaljik, Jonathan David (2012). Universals in comparative morphology: Suppletion, superlatives, and the structure of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Borer, Hagit (1984). Parametric Syntax: Case studies in Semitic and Romance. Dordrecht: Foris.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Borer, Hagit (1998). Morphology and syntax. In: SpencerAndrew & ZwickyArnold (red.), Handbook of Morphology. Londen: Basil Blackwell, 151-190.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Borer, Hagit (2013). Taking form: Structuring sense III. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Borer, Hagit (2014). The Category of Roots. In: AlexiadouArtemis, HagitBorer & Florian1Schäfer (red.), The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax (= Oxford studies in theoretical linguistics 51). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 112-148.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Borer, Hagit (2015). Wherefore roots?Theoretical Linguistics40, 343-359.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Caha, Pavel (2016). Notes on insertion in Distributed Morphology and Nanosyntax. Ms. Masarykova Univerzita Brno. <https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002855>
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Caha, Pavel (2020). Nanosyntax: Some key features. Ms. Masarykova Univerzita Brno. <https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004437>
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Calabrese, Andrea (2013). Allomorphy in the Italian passato remoto: A Distributed Morphology analysis. Language and Information Society, Sogang University, 1-75.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Choi, Jae-Hoon & HeidiHarley (2019). Locality domains and morphological rules: Phases, heads, node-sprouting and suppletion in Korean honorification. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory37, 1319-1365.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Chomsky, Noam (1972). Remarks on nominalization. In: ChomskyN., Studies on semantics in Generative Grammar. The Hague: Mouton, 11-61.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Creemers, Ava, JanDon & PaulaFenger (2018). Some affixes are roots, others are heads. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory36, 45-84.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. De Belder, Marijke & JeroenVan Craenenbroeck (2011). How to merge a root. Linguistic Inquiry46, 625-655.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. De Belder, Marijke (2011). Roots and affixes: Eliminating lexical categories from syntax. Utrecht: LOT.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. De Belder, Marijke (2014). Review of Hagit Borer, Structuring sense, vol. III: Taking form. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Journal of Linguistics50, 718-725.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. De Belder, Marijke (2018). Root allomorphy depends on head movement: Support from Breton pluralization. Snippets34, 4-5.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria & EdwinWilliams (1987). On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Don, Jan, PetraSleeman & ThomWestveer (2015). Three types of suffixes in French, discarding the learned/non-learned distinction. In: BjörnKöhnlein & JennyAudring (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2015. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 32-46.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Embick, David. (2000). Features, syntax, and categories in the Latin perfect, Linguistic Inquiry31, 185-230.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Embick, David & RolfNoyer (2001). Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry32, 555-595.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Embick, David (2010). Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Embick, David (2015). The morpheme: A theoretical introduction. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Fabb, Nigel (1988). English suffixation is constrained only by selectional restrictions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory6, 527-539.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Folli, Raffaella & HeidiHarley (2004). Flavors of v: Consuming results in Italian and English. In: SlabakovaRoumyana & KempchinskyPaula (red.), Aspectual inquiries. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 95-120.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Franchetto, Bruna (2006). Are Kuikuro roots lexical categories? In: LoisXimena & VapnarskyValentina (red.) Lexical categories and root classes in Amerindian languages. Bern: Peter Lang, 33–68.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Halle, Morris & AlecMarantz (1993). Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In: HaleKen & Jay KeyserSamuel (red.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 111-176.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Halle, Morris & AlecMarantz (1994). Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In: CarnieAndrew & HarleyH. (red.), Papers on Phonology and Morphology (= MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21), 275-288.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Halle, Morris (1997). Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In: BrueningBenjamin, YoonjungKang & MarthaMcGinnis (red.), Papers at the interface (= MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30), 425-449.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Harley, Heidi (2009). Compounding in DM. In: LieberRochelle & PavolŠtekauer (red.), The Oxford handbook of compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 129-144.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Harley, Heidi (2014). On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics40, 225-276.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Harley, Heidi & RolfNoyer (1999). State-of-the-article: Distributed Morphology. Glot International4, 3-9.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Harley, Heidi, MercedesTubino & JasonD. Haugen (2017). Locality conditions on suppletive verbs in Hiaki. In: GribanovaVera & StephanieS. Shih (red.), The morphosyntax-phonology connection: Locality and directionality at the interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 91-111.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Haugen, Jason D. & DanielSiddiqi (2013). On double marking and containment in Realization Theory. Ms., Oberlin College, Oberlin, OH, and Carleton University, Ottawa, ON.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Iatridou, Sabine (1990). About Agr(P). Linguistic Inquiry21, 551-577.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Jensen, John & MargaretStong-Jensen (1984). Morphology is in the lexicon!Linguistic Inquiry15, 474-498.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Kramer, Ruth (2016). A split analysis of plurality: Number in Amharic. Linguistic Inquiry47, 527-559.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Levin, Beth & MalkaRappaport Hovav (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface (= Linguistic Inquiry Monograph, 26). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Lieber, Rochelle (1980). On the organization of the lexicon. PhD dissertation, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Lowenstamm, Jean (2015). Derivational affixes as roots: Phasal spell-out meets English stress shift. In: AlexiadouArtemis, HagitBorer, & FlorianSchäfer (red.), The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 230-259.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Marantz, Alec (1997). No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics4(2), Article 14.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Marantz, Alec (2008). Phases and words. In: ChoeSook-Hee (red.), Phases in the theory of grammar. Seoul: Dong, 191-222.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. McGinnis, Martha (2002). On the systematic aspect of idioms. Linguistic Inquiry33, 665-672.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Nevins, Andrew (2011). Marked targets versus marked triggers and impoverishment of the dual. Linguistic Inquiry42, 413-444.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Noyer, Rolf (1997). Features, positions, and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. New York: Garland.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Oltra-Massuet, Isabel (2013). Variability and allomorphy in the morphosyntax of Catalan past perfective. In: MarantzAlec & MatushanskyOra (red.), Distributed Morphology today. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1-20.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Panagiotidis, Phoevos (2014). Categorial features: A generative theory of word class categories (= Cambridge studies in Linguistics 145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Pfau, Roland (2000). Features and categories in language production. PhD dissertation, Dept. of German Language & Literature, University of Frankfurt/Main.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Pfau, Roland (2009). Grammar as processor: A Distributed Morphology account of spontaneous speech errors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Roberts, Ian (1997). Restructuring, Head Movement, and Locality. Linguistic Inquiry28, 423-460.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Starke, Michal (2009). Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language. Nordlyd36, 1-6.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Starke, Michal (2014). Cleaning up the lexicon. Linguistic Analysis, 245–256.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Travis, Lisa deMena (1984). Parameters and effects of word order variation. PhD dissertation, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Volpe, Mark J. (2005). Japanese Morphology and its theoretical consequences: Derivational morphology in Distributed Morphology. PhD dissertation, Stoney Brook.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Wolf, Matthew A. (2008). Optimal interleaving: Serial phonology-morphology interaction in a constraint-based model. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Wood, Jim (2012). Icelandic morphosyntax and argument structure. PhD dissertation, New York University.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Zhang, Niina N. (2013). Classifier structures in Mandarin Chinese. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2022.1.007.BELD
Loading
Distributed Morphology
NedTaal 27, 75 (2022); https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2022.1.007.BELD
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2022.1.007.BELD
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2022.1.007.BELD
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Keyword(s): distributed morphology; lexicon-syntax interface; morphology; roots

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error