Abstract
This manuscript examines various types of bracketing paradoxes: classical “personal noun” constructions, parasynthetic compounds, agentive deverbal nouns, compound denominal adjectives, plural nouns with lexicalized modifiers, multiple auxiliary constructions, and German particle verb constructions. We argue that given a dependency-based view of both sentence and word structure, these bracketing puzzles become non-paradoxical. The morph catena is taken to be the fundamental unit of morphosyntax. A morph catena is A MORPH OR A COMBINATION OF MORPHS THAT ARE CONTINUOUS WITH RESPECT TO DOMINANCE. This notion is derived from its syntactic equivalent, the catena, which is defined as a word or a combination of words that are continuous with respect to dominance. Given an understanding of morphosyntax that acknowledges morph catenae, bracketing paradoxes are resolved by the ability of morph catenae to reach across words to include parts of words.
References
Adams, V. 2001. Complex words in English. Harlow: Pearson Education/ Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Anderson, J. 2011. The substance of language, Volume I: The domain of syntax. Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199608317.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511586262Search in Google Scholar
Bauer, L. 2017. Compounds and compounding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108235679Search in Google Scholar
Bauer, L. 2019. “Compounds and multi-word expressions in English”. In: B. Schlücker (ed.), Complex lexical units: Compounds and multi-word expressions. Mannheim: IDS/ Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 4545–4568.Search in Google Scholar
Baumgärtner, K. 1970. “Konstituenz und Dependenz”. In: Steger, H. (ed.), Vorschläge für eine strukturale Grammatik des Deutschen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. 52–77.Search in Google Scholar
Beard, R. 1991. “Decompositional composition: The semantics of scope ambiguities and bracketing paradoxes”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9. 195–229.10.1007/BF00134676Search in Google Scholar
Beard, R. 1998. “Derivation”. In: Spencer, A. and A. M. Zwicky (eds), The Handbook of Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. 44–65.Search in Google Scholar
Becker, T. 1993. “Back-formation, cross-formation, and ‘bracketing paradoxes’ in Paradigmatic Morphology”. In: Booij, G. and J. van Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology (vol. 6). Dordrecht: Foris Publications. 1–25.10.1007/978-94-017-3712-8_1Search in Google Scholar
Bisetto, A. and C. Melloni. 2008. Parasynthetic compounding. Lingue e Linguaggio 7. 233–260.Search in Google Scholar
Carnie, A. 2010. Constituent structure, 2nd edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton & Co.10.1515/9783112316009Search in Google Scholar
Embick, D. and P. Noyer. 2001. “Movement operations after syntax”. Linguistic Inquiry 32(4). 555–595.10.1162/002438901753373005Search in Google Scholar
Embick, D. and R. Noyer. 2007. “Distributed Morphology and the syntax/morphology interface”. In: Gillian, R. and R. Charles (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces. Oxford University Press. 289–324.Search in Google Scholar
Embick, D. 2003. “Linearization and local dislocation: Derivational mechanics and interactions”. Linguistic Analysis 33(3-4). 303-336.Search in Google Scholar
Fromkin, V. A. (ed.). 2000. An introduction to linguistic theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Groß, T. 2010. “Chains in syntax and morphology”. In Otoguro, R., K. Ishikawa, H. Uemoto, K. Yoshimoto and Y. Harada (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation at Tohoku University. Tokyo: Waseda University. 143–152.Search in Google Scholar
Groß, T. 2011a. “Catenae in morphology”. In Gerdes, K., E. Hajičová and L. Wanner (eds.), Depling 2011. Barcelona: Pompeu Fabra University. 47–57.Search in Google Scholar
Groß, T. 2011b. “Transformational grammarians and other paradoxes”. In Boguslavsky, I and L. Wanner (eds.), MTT 2011. Barcelona: Pompeu Fabra University. 88– 97.Search in Google Scholar
Groß, T. 2014a. “Clitics in dependency morphology”. In: Gerdes, K., E. Hajičová and L. Wanner (eds.), Dependency linguistics: Recent advances in linguistic theory using dependency structures. Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins. 229–252.Search in Google Scholar
Groß, T. 2014b. “Some observations on the Hebrew desiderative construction – A dependency-based account in terms of catenae”. SKY Journal of Linguistics 27. 7– 41.Search in Google Scholar
Groß, T. and T. Osborne. 2009. “Toward a practical dependency grammar theory of discontinuities”. SKY Journal of Linguistics 22. 43–90.Search in Google Scholar
Groß, T. and T. Osborne. 2013. “Katena und Konstruktion: Ein Vorschlag zu einer dependenziellen Konstruktionsgrammatik”. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 32(1). 41–73.10.1515/zfs-2013-0002Search in Google Scholar
Halle, M. and A. Marantz. 1993. “Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection.” In: K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20. Cambridge: MIT Press. 111-176.Search in Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. and J. Guéron. 1999. English grammar: A generative Introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.Search in Google Scholar
Harley, H. and R. Noyer. 2003. “Distributed Morphology”. In: The Second GLOT International State-of-the-Article Book. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 463–496.10.1515/9783110890952.463Search in Google Scholar
Hays, D. 1960. “Grouping and dependency theories”. In: Proceedings of the National Symposium on Machine Translation. UCLA, February 1960. 257–266.Search in Google Scholar
Hays, D. 1964. “Dependency theory: A formalism and some observations”. Language 40. 511–525.10.2307/411934Search in Google Scholar
Hellwig, P. 2003. “Dependency Unification Grammar”. In: Ágel, V., L. Eichinger, H.W. Eroms, P. Hellwig, H.-J. Heringer and H. Lobin (eds.), Dependency and valency: An international handbook of contemporary research, vol. 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 593–635.Search in Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. and G. K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530Search in Google Scholar
Heringer, H. 1996. Deutsche Syntax: Dependentiell. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Search in Google Scholar
Hudson, R. 1984. Word Grammar. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Hudson, R. 2010. An introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511781964Search in Google Scholar
Jung, W.-Y. 1995. Syntaktische Relationen im Rahmen der Dependenzgrammatik. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Kroeger, P. 2005. Analyzing grammar: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511801679Search in Google Scholar
Kunze, J. 1975. Abhängigkeitsgrammatik. Studia Grammatika XII. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. 1972. Inflectional morphology: A theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Matthews, P. 1981. Syntax. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Mel'čuk, I. 1988. Dependency syntax: Theory and practice. Albany: State University of New York Press.Search in Google Scholar
Müller, S. 2003. “Solving the bracketing paradox: An analysis of the morphology of German particle verbs”. Journal of Linguistics 39. 275–325.10.1017/S0022226703002032Search in Google Scholar
Nevins, A. and N. Myler. 2014. “A brown-eyed girl”. In: Schütze, C. T. and L. Stockall (eds.), Connectedness: Papers by and for Sarah Van Wagenen, UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 18. 243–257.Search in Google Scholar
Olsen, S. 1997. “Prädikative Argumente syntaktischer und lexikalischer Köpfe: Zum Status der Partikelverben im Deutschen und Englischen”. Folia Linguistica 31. 301–329.10.1515/flin.1997.31.3-4.301Search in Google Scholar
Osborne, T. 2005. “Beyond the constituent: A dependency grammar analysis of chains”. Folia Linguistica 39(3–4). 251–297.10.1515/flin.2006.39.3-4.251Search in Google Scholar
Osborne, T. 2019. Dependency Grammar: An introduction and beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.224Search in Google Scholar
Osborne, T. and T. Groß. 2012. “Constructions are catenae: Construction Grammar meets Dependency Grammar”. Cognitive Linguistics 23(1). 163–214.10.1515/cog-2012-0006Search in Google Scholar
Osborne, T., M. Putnam and T. Groß. 2012. “Catenae: Introducing a novel unit of syntactic analysis”. Syntax 15(4). 354–396.10.1111/j.1467-9612.2012.00172.xSearch in Google Scholar
Osborne, T. and T. Groß. 2016. “The do-so-diagnostic: Against finite VPs and for flat non-finite VPs”. Folia Linguistica 50(1). 97–135.10.1515/flin-2016-0004Search in Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 1985. “Morphology and logical form”. Linguistic Inquiry 16. 193–246.Search in Google Scholar
Poole, G. 2002. Syntactic theory. New York: Palgrave.Search in Google Scholar
Robins, R. H. 1959. “In defense of WP”. Transactions of the Royal Philological Society. 116-140.10.1111/j.1467-968X.1959.tb00301.xSearch in Google Scholar
Schubert, K. 1987. Metataxis: Contrastive dependency syntax for machine translation. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.10.1515/9783110876062Search in Google Scholar
Spencer, A. 1988. “Bracketing paradoxes and the English lexicon”. Language 64. 663682.10.2307/414563Search in Google Scholar
Sportiche, D., H. Koopman and E. Stabler. 2014. An introduction to syntactic analysis. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Sproat, R. 1988. “Bracketing paradoxes, cliticization, and other topics: The mapping between syntactic and phonological structure”. In: Everaert et al. (eds.), Morphology and modularity. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 339–360.10.1515/9783110882674-018Search in Google Scholar
Starosta, S. 1988. The case for Lexicase: An outline of Lexicase grammatical theory. London: Pinter Publishers.Search in Google Scholar
Sternefeld, W. 2009. Syntax: Eine morphologisch motivierte generative Beschreibung des Deutschen. Band 2. Third Edition. Tübingen: Stauffenberg.Search in Google Scholar
Stiebels, B. and D. Wunderlich. 1994. “Morphology feeds syntax: The case of particle verbs”. Linguistics 32(6). 913–968.10.1515/ling.1994.32.6.913Search in Google Scholar
Stump, G. T. 1991. “A paradigm-based theory of morphosemantic mismatches”. Language 67(4). 675–725.10.2307/415074Search in Google Scholar
Stump, G. T. 1998. “Inflection”. In: Spencer, A. and A. M. Zwicky (eds.), The handbook of morphology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. 13-43.Search in Google Scholar
Stump, G. T. 2001. Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486333Search in Google Scholar
Tallerman, M. 2005. Understanding syntax, 2nd edition. London: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Tarvainen, K. 1981. Einführung in die Dependenzgrammatik. 2. unveränderte Auflage. Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 35. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
van Valin, R. 2001. An introduction to syntax. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139164320Search in Google Scholar
Uzonyi, P. 2003. “Dependenzstruktur und Konstituenzstruktur”. In: Ágel, V., L. Eichinger, H.-W. Eroms, P. Hellwig, H.-J. Heringer, and H. Lobin (eds.), Dependency and valency: An international handbook of contemporary research, vol. 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 230–247.Search in Google Scholar
Williams, E. 1981. “On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’”. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 245-274.Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
