Abstract
Recent work in Distributed Morphology, most prominently Harley (2014), argues for roots being able to take syntactic complements, which opens the door for the possibility of having syntactic features within a root’s representation – something most DM literature rejects (Embick 2015). Upon a closer inspection of the arguments presented in the literature, it is not clear whether the disagreement has an empirical underpinning, or whether it stems from the lack of methodological clarity as far as the identification of the precise nature of what constitutes a syntactic feature. This paper takes this methodological question seriously and investigates a type of derivational behavior that, in our view, provides a decisive argument for the presence of syntactic features on roots. We argue that the presence of a syntactic feature on the root can be conclusively established based on a feature’s impact on specific properties within a larger syntactic structure. Based on empirical evidence form gender agreement phenomena, we introduce a model of grammar that distinguishes roots with syntactic features from those which do not have them. We propose that such a distinction between roots will manifest itself in the timing of root insertion – roots without syntactic features are late inserted, while roots with syntactic features must be early inserted.
Funding statement: This research would not have been possible without funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Insight Grants #435-2016-1034 (PI: I. Kučerová).
Acknowledgements
We thank to anonymous reviewers and the audiences in the DP60 workshop at MIT, WCCFL 35 at University of Calgary, and Roots V at QMUL for their helpful comments and suggestions and Dorota Wojtaś for her Polish judgments.
References
Acquaviva, Paolo. 2008. Lexical plurals: A morphosemantic approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2014. Roots don’t take complement. Theoretical Linguistics 40(3/4). 287–297.10.1515/tl-2014-0012Search in Google Scholar
Arad, Maya. 2003. Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21(4). 737–778.10.1023/A:1025533719905Search in Google Scholar
Arregi, Karlos & Andrew Nevins. 2008. Agreement and clitic restrictions in Basque. In Roberta D’Alessandro, Susann Fischer & Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson (eds.), Agreement restrictions, 49–86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110207835.49Search in Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulalia. 1995. Feature structure of Romance clitics. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 13(4). 607–647.10.1007/BF00992853Search in Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense: An exo-skeletal trilogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263929.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2014. Wherefore roots? Theoretical Linguistics 40(3/4). 343–359.10.1515/tl-2014-0016Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
DeBelder, Marijke & Jeroen Van Craenenbroeck. 2015. How to merge a root. Linguistic Inquiry 46(4). 625–655.10.1162/LING_a_00196Search in Google Scholar
Embick, David. 2015. The morpheme: A theoretical introduction. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & CoKG.10.1515/9781501502569Search in Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1991. Extended projections. Ms., University of Brandeis.Search in Google Scholar
Halle, Morris 2000 Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and fission. Research in Afroasiatic grammar: Papers from the third conference on Afroasiatic languages, Sophia Antipolis, 1996, 125–149. New York: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/cilt.202.07halSearch in Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2014. On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics 40(3/4). 225–276.10.1515/tl-2014-0010Search in Google Scholar
Heim, Irene & Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Kramer, Ruth. 2009. Definite markers, phi-features, and agreement: A morphosyntactic investigation of the Amharic DP. Santa Cruz: University of California Santa Cruz dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Kramer, Ruth. 2015. The morphosyntax of gender. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679935.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Kučerová, Ivona. 2018. φ-features at the syntax-semantics interface: Evidence from nominal inflection. Linguistic Inquiry. 49. 813–845.10.1162/ling_a_00290Search in Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2015. DP-internal semantic agreement: A configurational analysis. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 1–46.10.1007/s11049-015-9319-3Search in Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2007. Phases and words. In Sook-Hee Choe, Dong-Wee Yang, Yang-Soon Kim, Sung-Hun Kim & Alec Marantz (eds.), Phases in theory of grammar, 191–222. Seoul: Dong-In Publishing Co.Search in Google Scholar
Norris, Mark. 2014. A theory of nominal concord. Santa Cruz: University of California Santa Cruz dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 2013. Russian case morphology and the syntactic categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262019729.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth. 1993. Where’s gender? Linguistic Inquiry 24(4). 795–803.10.1016/0026-2692(93)90078-SSearch in Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth. 1995. On the syntactic category of pronouns and agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13(3). 405–443.10.1007/BF00992737Search in Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 2008. Implicated presuppositions. In Anita Steube (ed.), The discourse potential of underspecified structures, 581–600. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Steriopolo, Olga & Martina Wiltschko. 2010. Distributed GENDER hypothesis. In Gerhild Zybatow, Philip Dudchuk, Serge Minor & Ekaterina Pshehotskaya (eds.), Formal studies in slavic linguistics: Proceedings of the formal description of slavic languages 7.5, 155–172. New York: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2014. Generalized applicatives: Reassessing the lexical–Functional divide. Theoretical Linguistics 40(3/4). 439–446.10.1515/tl-2014-0023Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
