morphologyassmann/teaching/ws... · b.bresnan and mchombo (1995, 181) words are built out of...

MorphologyLexical Integrity

Anke [email protected]

Universität Leipzig, Institut für Linguistik

October 23, 2019

1 / 42

Table of Contents

1 What’s in a Word?Phonological WordSyntactic WordConflicts

2 Lexical Integrity5 Tests for Lexical Integrity and their shortcomings

3 Word FormationCompoundingDerivationInflection

4 Two Ways to Deal with Lexical Integrity

2 / 42

Table of Contents





3 / 42

Simple or complex word?

(1) a. tableb. applec. pineappled. abusee. abstractf. foster childg. nationh. location

4 / 42

Word or phrase?

(2) a. shouldn’tb. should notc. tax payerd. cut the cheesee. babysitf. a penny for your thoughtsg. stay away fromh. Two wrongs don’t make a right

5 / 42

How to define the word “Word”

QuestionsWhat is the difference between a word and a phrase?What is the difference between a word and a morpheme?

Towards an answerphonological wordsyntactic word

6 / 42

Table of Contents





7 / 42

Definition

DefinitionA phonological word is a unit that a phonological process refersto.

8 / 42

Example I: Define a word by stress

(3) a. swéet potato vs. sweet potátob. bláck board vs. black bóardc. gréenhouse vs. green hóuse

9 / 42

Example II: Define a word by vowel harmony

(4) a. [te:rke:p+røl] “map”b. [føld+rø:l] “land”c. [si:n+røl] “color”d. [lA:ñ+ro:l] “girl”e. [u:r+ro:l] “Mister”f. [fog+ro:l] “tooth”

(Hungarian, Spencer (2006))

10 / 42

Table of Contents





11 / 42

Syntactic word

DefinitionA syntactic word is a unit that a syntactic process refers to.

12 / 42

Stand-Alone-Test

Haspelmath and Sims (2010) (for more tests, see section 2)

(5) a. What would you like to drink?→Water.

b. What kind of buffalo did you see?→ *Water

A good test?

(6) What kind of cake do you like?→ Chocolate.

(7) Auf-PREFIX-assemble

oderor

abbauen?disassemble

→ Auf

13 / 42

Table of Contents





14 / 42

Syllabification vs. Stand-Alone-Test

Syllabification in German:A complex onset is preferred over a coda in a phonologicalword.

(8) a. Fabrik (‘factory’): [fa.böi:k] vs. *[fab.öi:k]b. Waldameise (‘Formica’): [walt.Pa.maI.z@] vs.

*[wal.ta.maI.z@]

Consequence: Compounds in German are not (always) onephonological words.

15 / 42

Stand-Alone-Test

(9) Waswhat

fürfor

Ameisenants

magstlike

duyou

amat.the

meisten?most

→ *Wald

Consequence: Compounds in German are syntactic words.

16 / 42

Table of Contents





17 / 42

LIH

Lexical Integrity HypothesisWords are atoms in syntax.

(10) Principle of Lexical Integritya. Anderson (1992, 84)

The syntax neither manipulates nor has access tothe internal structure of words.

b. Bresnan and Mchombo (1995, 181)Words are built out of different structural elementsand by different principles of composition thansyntactic phrases.

c. Fábregas et al. (2006, 83)The last step of the process of derivation is theonly one that syntax can see.

18 / 42

Interim conclusion

There are grammatical processes that applywithin words (a.k.a. word formation)

and there are grammatical processes that applyto words.

QuestionHow do these processes differ?

19 / 42

Table of Contents





20 / 42

Extraction

(all tests in Bresnan and Mchombo (1995))

(11) a. Gekanntiknown

habehave

ichI

nuronly

Treibhausgasegreehouse.gases

ti

b. *Gaseigases

habehave

ichI

nuronly

Treibhaus-tigreenhouse

gekannt.known

(12) a. dassthat

ichI

meinmy

Buchbook

aufschlageopen

b. IchI

schlageiopen

meinmy

Buchbook

auf-ti .up

c. *Interessanteiinteresting

habehave

ichI

nuronly

ti Bücherbooks

gekanntknown

21 / 42

Conjoinability

(13) a. IchI

leseread

interessanteinteresting

Bücherbooks

undand

− Magazine.magazines

b. *IchI

überstehewithstand

diethe

meistenmost

Problemeproblems

undand

−-lebesurvive

diethe

schwierigstenmost.difficult

Situationen.situations

(14) a. Wirwe

verkaufensell

Herrengürtelmen-belts

undand

−-schuhe.(men)-shoes

b. *IchI

maglike

jedenevery

italienischenItalian

Rotweinred.wine

undand

jedenevery

−(Italian)

Weißwein.white.wine

22 / 42

Gapping

(15) a. ErHe

maglike

dasthe

Buchbook

undand

sieshe

−(like)

dasthe

Magazin.magazine

b. *ErHe

be-lädtloads

denthe

LKWtruck

undand

sieshe

ent-un-(loads)

denthe

LKWtruck

(16) a. ?ErHe

bautbuilds

diethe

Bühnestage

aufup

undand

sieshe

diethe

Bühnestage

ab.down

b. *ErHe

liestreads

eina

Buchbook

undand

sieshe

−(reads)

inin

derthe

Schule.school

23 / 42

Inbound anaphoric islands

(17) a. IchI

nahmtook

diethe

Tassemug

fürfor

denthe

Kaffeei .coffee

EriIt

warwas

heiß.hot

b. IchI

nahmtook

diethe

Kaffeei tasse.coffee.mug

*EriIt

warwas

heiß.still hot

(18) a. DieThe

BuddhaistatueBuddha

iststatue

wunderschön.is

Eribeautiful

inspiriertHe

vieleinspires

Menschenmany

nochpeople

heute.still today

b. ErHe

bissbit

inin.the

Grasi .gras

*EsiIt

warwas

überausoverly

grün.green

24 / 42

Phrasal Recursivity

(19) a. IchI

leseread

eina

dickesthick

Kinderbuch.children’s.book

b. #IchI

leseread

eina

schulfähigesready.for.school

Kinderbuch.children’s.book

(20) a. IchI

sehesee

einea

Rote-Kreuz-Schwester.red.cross.nurse

b. #DasThat

istis

dasthe

fauligerotten

Eiegg

desof

Kolumbus.Columbus

25 / 42

Table of Contents





26 / 42

Something must be different

Processes that refer to words (the LIH-tests) may not be gooddiagnostics for wordhood.

But maybe process that build words are good diagnostics.

QuestionsWhat are special word formation processes?Are they different from phrase “formation” processes?

27 / 42

Table of Contents





28 / 42

Compounding

(A rough) DefinitionCompounding joins two free morphemes to a new word:M1 ⊕ M2 → M1M2

(21) a. black ⊕ board→ a chalk board (not necessarilyblack)

b. Merge(black,board)→ a black board (notnecessarily a chalk board)

29 / 42

Table of Contents





30 / 42

Derivation

(A rough) DefinitionDerivation joins a free morphemes with a bound morpheme toa new word that has a new meaning and possibly belongs to adifferent part of speech.M1 + M2 → M1M2

(22) careN + -less→ carelessA

31 / 42

Table of Contents





32 / 42

Inflection

(A rough) DefinitionInflection does not necessarily join something, it does notchange the part of speech and not the lexical meaning, butsimply changes the form so that the word can fulfill its syntacticfunction.M1 → M′1

(23) sleep→ slept

33 / 42

Excercise: Special processes?

Similarity to syntactic combination processes?Difference to syntactic combination processes?

34 / 42

Table of Contents





35 / 42

LIH to classify morphological theories

The Lexical Integrity Hypothesis can be used to definedifferences between morphological theories:

1 Theories that adopt the LIH2 Theories that reject the LIH

36 / 42

Two Architectures I

(24) Adopt the LIH⇒Morphology and Syntax are two different modules

Morphology

Syntax

Phonological Form Logical Form

Articulatory-Perceptual System Conceptual Intentional System

37 / 42

Two Architectures II

(25) Reject the LIH⇒Morphology and Syntax are in one module

Morphosyntax

Phonological Form Logical Form

Articulatory-Perceptual System Conceptual Intentional System

38 / 42

Excercise

How do we get to the following sentence in each of the twoarchitectures?

(26) I hated these incomprehensibilities.

How can we rule out the following sentences in each of thesearchitectures?

(27) a. *I hated and loved this incomprehensibilities.b. *I hate- and loved these incomprehensibilities.

39 / 42

Examples of morphological theories

Adopt the LIHMinimalist Morphology (Wunderlich (1992))Paradigm Function Morphology (Stump (2001))A-Morphous Morphology (Anderson (1992))

Reject the LIHDistributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz (1993), morenext week)Nanosyntax (Starke (2002, 2009))

40 / 42

References I

Anderson, Stephen R. (1992): A-morphous Morphology.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Bresnan, Joan and Sam A. Mchombo (1995): ‘The lexicalintegrity principle: Evidence from Bantu’, Natural Languageand Linguistic Theory 13, 181–254.

Fábregas, Antonio, Elena Feliu Arquiola and Soledad. Varela(2006): ‘The lexical integrity hypothesis and morphologicallocal domains’, Lingue e Linguaggio 1, 83–104.

Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz (1993): Distributed Morphologyand the Pieces of Inflection. In: K. Hale and S. J. Keyser, eds,The View from Building 20. MIT Press, CambridgeMassachusetts, pp. 111–176.

Haspelmath, Martin and Andrea D. Sims (2010): UnderstandingMorphology. Hodder Education, London.

41 / 42

References II

Spencer, Andrew (2006): Phonology. Blackwell, Oxford.

Starke, Michal (2002): The day syntax ate morphology. Classtaught at the EGG summer school, Novi Sad.

Starke, Michal (2009): Nanosyntax: A short primer to a newapproach to language. Ms., University of Tromso.lingbuzz/001230.

Stump, Gregory T. (2001): Inflectional Morphology. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Wunderlich, Dieter (1992): A minimalist analysis of Germanverb morphology. Working papers SFB 282 ‘Theorie desLexikons’ 21. University of Düsseldorf.

42 / 42

morphologyassmann/teaching/ws... · b.bresnan and mchombo (1995, 181) words are built out of...

Documents