Topics in Minimalist Syntax

Lecture 4: The Syntax-

Morphology Interface
Víctor Acedo-Matellán
Overview 2

Overview
1. Phrases and words: The fundamental problem
2. Concepts and debates, from a historical perspective
1. The birth of the lexicon
2. Dissenting voices
3. A minimalist syntax-morphology model?
3. Distributed Morphology
4. Borer’s Exo-Skeletal model
5. Nanosyntax and Spanning approaches
1. Phrases and words: The
fundamental problem
1 Phrases and words: The fundamental problem 4

Pairing form and meaning

• Linguistic expressions: form and meaning
1) The student looked up “atomization”.
• Phonology, phonetics: [ðəˈstjuːdənt ˈlʊktʌp ˌætəmaɪˈzeɪʃən]
• Semantics: ∃e. Agent(s, e) & Theme(atomization, e) & LOOK_UP(e)
• In between? Pairing of form and meaning
1 Phrases and words: The fundamental problem 5

Building blocks and combinatorics

• Basics: combinatorics + building blocks
• American distributionalism (1930’s, 40’s): building block = morpheme

1) the+stud+ent+look+ed+up+atom+iz+ation
• But words are salient units: primary stress in many languages
• One combinatorial system for words and phrases: syntax
• Or one for each: syntax and morphology/lexicon
1 Phrases and words: The fundamental problem 6

Words are special...

• Anaphoric islandhood (Postal 1969)
1) *He took the teai-pot and poured iti into the cup.
Spencer (1991:42)

• Nonextractability (Lapointe 1980, Selkirk 1982, Bresnan & Mchombo 1995)

2) *Possible, it’s im-.
3) *Which school did you see the -bus?
Aronoff & Fudeman (2005:37)

2’) Impossible, it is.

3’) Which schoolbus did you see?
1 Phrases and words: The fundamental problem 7

...Or are they?

• Thematic restrictions in compounds (Roeper & Siegel 1978)
1) a. There were wolves hunting rabbits.
b. There was rabbit-hunting by wolves.
c. *There was wolf-hunting of rabbits.
• Equal status of the external argument in syntax! (Marantz 1984, Kratzer 1996)
• Can this be a coincidence?
1 Phrases and words: The fundamental problem 8

...Or are they?

• “Excorporation” of particles in German
2) a. Ute woll-te die Tür auf-machen.
Ute want-PST the door up-make.INF
‘Ute wanted to open the door.’
b. Ute (*auf-)mach-te die Tür auf.
Ute up-make-PST the door up
‘Ute opened the door.’
• aufmachen has a “special meaning”
• But syntax treats machen, and not aufmachen, as the verb...
• So, two module or just one?
1 Phrases and words: The fundamental problem 9

The syntax-morphology interface

• Connection between morphological and syntactic knowledge
• Focus when supporting two modules
• lexical integrity of words
• lack of systematicity/productivity in word formation
• special phonology of words
• special semantics of words
• Focus when supporting one module
• parallelism between morpheme order and syntactic effects
• intra- and crosslinguistic analytic paraphases of words
• locality effects on allomorphy/allosemy
• In between
• regularity of inflection, vs irregularity of derivation (or vice versa!)
• Interface: a narrow portal or an open gate
2. Concepts and debates, from
a historical perspective
2.1 The birth of the lexicon 11

The reign of morphemes under the first generativism

• American distributionalism (Harris 1946, Wells 1947): no obvious difference
• Chomsky (1957): representations in terms of morphemes (cf. Anderson 2017)

1) the+man+S+have+en+be+ing+read+the+book
Chomsky (1957:39)
• Chomsky (1957): terminal rules, rather than any lexicon

Chomsky (1957:26)

• Cf. Lees’s (1960) tranformational account of nominalizations

2) “Mary rebuts the theory”. → Mary’s rebuttal of the theory
2.1 The birth of the lexicon 12

The first lexicon: Chomsky (1965)

• Elimination of rules for terminal nodes and replacement with a lexicon
• Chomsky (1965:84): “More precisely, the lexicon is a set of lexical entries, each
lexical entry being a pair (D, C), where D is a phonological distinctive feature matrix
"spelling" a certain lexical formative and C is a collection of specified syntactic
features (a complex symbol).”

Chomsky (1965:107)

• Siddiqi (2014:347): “These matrices drove the morphological processes as much as

they drove the syntax. For example, Latinate affixes such as -ity selected for bases with
the feature [+LATINATE], etc.”
• Not generative!
2.1 The birth of the lexicon 13

The generative lexicon: Chomsky (1970)’s “Remarks”

• Productivity of gerundive nominals vs derived nominals
1) a. John is certain/eager to win the prize.
b. John’s being certain/eager to win the prize.
c. John’s eagerness/*certainty to win the prize.
• Also, idiosyncratic meanings and forms
2) transforming ‘act of transforming’ vs transformation ’theoretical device’, etc.
3) transform-ation vs rebutt-al vs marri-age, etc.
• Derived nominals are riddled with idiosyncrasies
• Must be handled via the base component: the lexicalist position
• Opened the door to the lexicon as a generative component
2.1 The birth of the lexicon 14

The Lexicalist Hypothesis: Strong version

• Words are generated in a different place: the lexicon (or morphology)
• Strong Lexicalist Hypothesis (Halle 1973, Lapointe 1980, Di Sciullo & Williams 1987):
both derivation and inflection are non-syntactic

Halle (1973:8)

• Lexical Integrity Principle (Lapointe 1980): syntactic rules cannot refer to elements of
morphological structure
2.1 The birth of the lexicon 15

The Lexicalist Hypothesis: Weak Version

• Split Morphology Hypothesis (Perlmutter 1988; Anderson 1992): the syntactic
component of the grammar is responsible for inflection while the morphological
component is responsible for derivation (Siddiqi 2014:349)
• Weak Lexicalist Hypothesis (Aronoff 1976, Anderson 1982, 1992): inflection and
maybe compounding are syntactic
• Correlation between syntactic procedures and inflectional procedures
• Order (English) vs case morphology (Hungarian)
• Prepositions (English) vs oblique cases (Hungarian)

• Inflection as a function of syntax

2.1 The birth of the lexicon 16

Item-and-arrangement and Item-and-process models

• Hocket (1954):
• Item-and-arrangement: Combination of morphemes. Pre-1973 morphology
• Item-and-process models: An input is replaced by the output word. Halle (1973), etc.
• Halle (1973) or Aronoff (1976): Word Formation Rules
1. What are morphemes’s roles here? Placeholder for phonological words

item-and-arrangement A class of morphological theories that

assumes morphemes exist (i.e., that they are listed in the lexicon)
and that they are mappings between form and meaning.

Aronoff (1976:64–65)
2.1 The birth of the lexicon 17

Lexicalist Item-and-arrangement: Word syntax

• A morphological module using syntactic rules: Selkirk (1982), Ackema (1995)
• Selkirk (1982:2): “[W]ord structure has the same general formal properties as
syntactic structure and, moreover, [...] it is generated by the same sort of rule system”

Selkirk (1982:64)
• But Selkirk confesses to non-universality: cf. non-concatenative systems (Semitic)
• Borer (2001): Selkirk’s system is substantially different from syntax
2.2 Dissenting voices 18

Baker (1985), Lieber (1992)

• The Mirror Principle: “Morphological derivations must directly reflect syntactic
derivations (and vice versa)” (Baker 1985:375)
1) a.

b.

(Quechua; Muysken 1981, apud Baker 1985: 374–375)

• Lieber (1992): no difference between syntax and morphology

• Phrasal compounds: bottom-of-a-birdcage taste, off-the-rack look
2.3 A minimalist syntax-morphology model? 19

Chomsky (1995): a SLH position

• Siddiqi (2014:346): “[W]hile some frameworks and theories within the Minimalist
Program (Chomsky 1995) are Anti-Lexicalist (notably Distributed Morphology and
Nanosyntax), the default position for Minimalism is Weak Lexicalist. Indeed, while
Minimalism is the only major model that assumes Weak Lexicalism, its dominance
among syntacticians makes Weak Lexicalism the default position in contemporary
syntactic theory.”
• But Chomsky (1995) proposes checking, for inflectional features, not concatenation

1) a. Engl.: [TP Kim T3SG [vP often [vP kisses3SG Pat]]]: abstract checking (LF/Agree/etc.)
b. Fr.: [TP Kim T3SG-embrasse3SG [vP souvent [vP ti Pat]]]: movement +checking
• No building relation between kiss and -es: they come as a unit from the lexicon
• See related discussion in Halle & Marantz (1993), Baker (2002)
2.3 A minimalist syntax-morphology model? 20

The new Item-and-arrangement models under minimalism

• Chomsky (1993, 1995): Merge replaces rule systems
• Perfect match between Item-and-arrangement approaches and syntax
• New Item-and-arrangement models, under the aegis of Minimalism
• Distributed Morphology
• Borer’s Exo-Skeletal (XS) model
• Nanosyntax and Spanning approaches
• Common traits
• morphology (at least word formation) is syntax, by default
• realizational theories: functional items are phonology-less in syntax (Late Insertion)
3. Distributed Morphology
3 Distributed Morphology 22

Motivations: Words are not special. Form

• Marantz (1995, 1997): words are not special, no special component for them
• Domains for special form/meaning do not coincide with word qua syntactic atoms (X0)
• Domains for special form larger than the syntactic atom: allomorphy in clitic groups

1) Balearic Cat. amb so/*es llapis (Acedo-Matellán 2018b)

with the pencil
• Domains for special form smaller than the syntactic atom: schwa epenthesis
2) twinkle [kəl], apple [pəl]
3) twinkling ‘moment’ [kl] (Marvin 2002), apply [pl]
4) The star is twinkling [kəl] (Marvin 2002), This pie tastes very apple-y [pəl]
3 Distributed Morphology 23

Motivations: Words are not special. Meaning

• Domains for special meaning larger than the syntactic atom: idioms
1) kick the bucket ‘die’
• No idiom including the external argument: syntactically defined (Marantz 1984)
• Domains for special meaning smaller than the syntactic atom: regular morphology

2) happiness, redness, obligatoriness, etc.

3) Robin’s twinkling [kəl], writing, sweeping, etc.
3 Distributed Morphology 24

Main tenets (Halle & Marantz 1993)

• Syntax all the way down: one generative engine
• Morphology and syntax by default isomorphic (Embick & Noyer 2007)
• Late Insertion: morphemes come into syntax without phonology
3 Distributed Morphology 25

Architecture of grammar

Harley & Noyer (1999:3)

3 Distributed Morphology 26

Vocabulary Items. The Subset Principle

• A Vocabulary Item
[F1, F2, ... Fn] ↔ /φ/ (/CONTEXT)
• Subset Principle (Halle 1997:428): “The phonological exponent of a vocabulary item
is inserted into a position if the item matches all or a subset of the features specified
in that position. Insertion does not take place if the vocabulary item contains features
not present in the morpheme. Where several vocabulary items meet the conditions
for insertion, the item matching the greatest number of features specified in the
terminal morpheme must be chosen.”
• Vocabulary Items may be underspecified, accounting for syncretism
3 Distributed Morphology 27

Vocabulary Items and Vocabulary Insertion. Syncretism

• Dutch definite article (two-gender, case-less system)
1) Paradigm 2) Vocabulary Items
Sg Pl a. [D, N, Sg] ↔ het
Non-neut de de b. [D] ↔ de
N het de
3) Terminal nodes from syntax
a. [D, N, Sg]: het is inserted, outcompeting de
b. [D, N, Pl]: de is inserted, since het is incompatible
c. [D, -N, Sg]: de is inserted, since het is incompatible
d. [D, -N, Pl]: de is inserted, since het is incompatible
3 Distributed Morphology 28

Morphological operations AFTER syntax

• Sometimes morphology is not isomorphic with syntax (Embick & Noyer 2007)
• Post-syntactic operations (Morphology)
• Impoverishment (deletes nodes)
• Fission (splits a node)
• Fusion (merges nodes)
• Lowering
• etc.

Embick & Noyer (2001:566)

3 Distributed Morphology 29

Lowering (Bobaljik 1994, Embick & Noyer 2001)

Embick & Noyer (2001:561)

1) a. [TP Mary ti [vP loudly [vP play-edi the trumpet.]]

a’. *Mary did loudly play the trumpet.
b. *[TP Mary [NegP not [vP played the trumpet.]]]
b’. Mary did not play the trumpet.

Embick & Noyer (2001:567)

3 Distributed Morphology 30

Reducing morphology to syntax: domains for form and meaning

• No morphologically defined domains. Syntax: Ross (1967), Chomsky’s (2001) phase
• The CP phase and the preposition-article contraction in European Portuguese
1) a. a ideia {do/*de o} Jairo
the idea of.the/of the Jairo
b. a ideia {de o/*do} Jairo ter sumido
the idea of the/of.the Jairo have.Inf.3Sg disappeared
‘the idea that Jairo has disappeared’
2) a. [PP de [DP o b. [PP de [CP ! [DP o
• Categorizers are phasal (Marvin 2002, Arad 2003, Embick 2010, Marantz 2013):
3) a. twinkling ‘moment’: [nP n = -ing √TWINKLE]
b. twink[ə]ling (nominalization): [nP n = -ing [vP v = ! √TWINKLE]]
• A locality domain that is however not specific to a Word Formation module
4. Borer’s Exo-Skeletal model
4 Borer’s Exo-Skeletal model 32

Borer (2003, 2005a, b, 2013)

• Structuring Sense. An Exo-Skeletal Trilogy (Borer 2005a, b, 2013)

• Structure and formal semantics sustained by functional structure, as an exoskeleton

Acedo-Matellán (2018a)

• Taking Form (Borer 2013): morphology, especially word formation

4 Borer’s Exo-Skeletal model 33

Motivations: Revisiting derived nominals (Borer 2003, 2013)

• Against Chomsky (1970): The destruction of the city does involve syntax
• R(esult)-nominals vs A(rgument)S(tructure)-nominals (cf. Grimshaw 1990)

1) a. the translationR (lies on the table.) = ‘book’ / ≠ ‘action of translating’

b. the translationAS of the Odyssey in 5 days = ‘action’ / ≠ ‘book’
c. *the translation in 5 days
• Non-derived nouns can never be AS, although they may well denote events
2) a. *The {race to the mountains / class of physics} in 2 hours
b. The race/class took place last month.
• Derived nouns must involve a V or an A at same level, with functional structure
4 Borer’s Exo-Skeletal model 34

The invisible exoskeleton of an -ation AS nominal

1) Kim’s formation of committees (in one day)

Borer (2013:139)
4 Borer’s Exo-Skeletal model 35

How Bare Phrase Structure saved syntactic Word Formation

• BPS is well suited to account for word formation and, therefore, should
• X’ theory is not well suited for word structure (Selkirk 1982, Lieber 1992)
• X’: the levels are primitives, but do not seem to make sense in word structure

Borer (2013:251)
• BPS: just Merge + projection, which is also found in words

Borer (2013:253)
4 Borer’s Exo-Skeletal model 36

Roots and categorization. Conversion

• Roots are acategorial: √BROWN, √RABBIT, √SPLASH...
• DM (Arad 2003, a. o.): category comes from categorizers (n, v, a), overt or not
1) a. formation: [nP n = -ation √FORM]
b. (the) form: [nP n = ! √FORM]
c. (to) form: [vP v = ! √FORM]
• Does not explain why only null categorizers permit conversion (Borer 2013)
2) a. to form / the form; to moan / the moan; to whitewash / the whitewash, etc.
b. *to formation, *a bemoan, *to whitewasher
• A truly exo-skeletal solution (Borer 2013): no null categorizers
3) a. formation: [N CN[V] = -ation √FORMC = V]
b. (the) form: [DP the √FORMC = N]; (to) form: [AspP Asp = ! √FORMC = V]
c. *to formation: verbal functional structure admits verbs or roots, not nouns
4 Borer’s Exo-Skeletal model 37

An unsuspected WLH in a syntactic framework

• Derivation: idiosyncrasies in meaning and some allomorphy, but morphemic form
1) a. transmission = action/part of a car, etc.
b. form-ation, allow-ance, arriv-al, etc.
• Inflection: regularity of meaning, but total idiosyncrasy in form (non-morphemicity)
2) a. talked, ate, sang, readPST, etc.: ‘a past event’
b. boys, teeth, oxen, algae, sheepPL, etc.: ‘a collection of entities’
c. non-concatenative systems (e.g., Semitic)
• A kind of WLH in a strongly syntactic framework
• Derivation: morphemic (as in DM, NS; unlike, i.e., Beard 1995)
• Inflection is a-morphous (as in Anderson 1992, Beard 1995, partly NS; unlike DM)
3) a. [#P √TOOTHC=N.PL √TOOTHC=N]; √TOOTH.PL = stored (monomorphemic) teeth
b. [#P √BOYC=N.PL √BOYC=N]; √BOY.PL = stored (monomorphemic) boys
5. Nanosyntax and Spanning
approaches
5 Nanosyntax and Spanning approaches 39

The cartographic project

• Cartography (Cinque 2002 and subsequent work)
• Mapping the functional sequence (cf. Pollock 1989 on IP)

Cinque (1999:106, apud Baunaz & Lander 2018:4)

• As the trees grow larger, the terminal nodes grow smaller
5 Nanosyntax and Spanning approaches 40

One node, one feature. One feature, one node

• All terminal nodes consist of only one feature
• A corollary from “Syntax is the only generative engine”
• No feature bundles à la DM, sourced from List 1, but not created by syntax

Pylkkänen (2008:100)
• Nanosyntax takes “Syntax all the way down” all the way down
5 Nanosyntax and Spanning approaches 41

No pre-syntactic lexicon. And one single interface

Baunaz & Lander (2018:11)

5 Nanosyntax and Spanning approaches 42

Phrasal spellout. Lexical entries

• The number of (structuralist) morphemes smaller than the number of feature-nodes
1) a. (Kim) read (for hours).
b. [ T (PST) [ Asp [ Voice [ v ]]]] (conservative, un-Cinque-like version)
• Phrasal spellout: phonological representations of lexical entries target whole XPs
2) Structure generated by syntax: [TP T (PST) [AspP Asp [VoiceP Voice [vP v ]]]]
/ɹɛd/
• A lexical entry:

Baunaz & Lander (2018:26)

5 Nanosyntax and Spanning approaches 43

The Superset Principle and syncretism. The Elsewhere Principle

• Lexicalization: Assignment of lexical entries to chunks of the syntactic representation
• Superset Principle: “A lexical tree L can match a syntactic tree S if L is a superset
(proper or not) of S. L matches S if L contains a node that is identical to a node in S
and all the nodes below are also identical”. (Baunaz & Lander 2018:27)
• A syncretic form: A lexical entry with a big L-tree, insertable in different S-trees
• Syntax: [xP [yP [zP]]]
• Lexical entry: <a ↔ [xP [yP [zP]]] ↔ A>
• Insertable at xP, yP, or zP
• Elsewhere Principle: The L- tree with the least amount of superfluous material is
chosen
• Lexical entry: <b ↔ [yP [zP]] ↔ B>
• Insertable at yP or zP. It blocks insertion of a into these phrases
5 Nanosyntax and Spanning approaches 44

Routes and sources in Catalan and Modern Greek

1) Cat. Vaig venir per / d(e) aquí. = ‘I came via/from here.’
Pst.1Sg come.Inf via from here

2) Mod. Gr. Irtha apo edho. = ‘I came via/from here.’

come.Pst.1Sg via/from here
• Syntax (Pantcheva 2011): [Route [Source [Goal [Place]]]]
• Lexical entries:

1’) a. <per ↔ [Route [Source [Goal [Place]]]]>

b. <de ↔ [Source [Goal [Place]]]>
2’) <apo ↔ [Route [Source [Goal [Place]]]]>
• Elsewhere Principle: de wins over per in Catalan, because it is more specific
5 Nanosyntax and Spanning approaches 45

*ABA: Predicting patterns of syncretism

• Bobaljik (2012): A DM approach to suppletion in comparatives and superlatives
1) a. AAA: smart, smart-er, smart-est b. ABB: good, bett-er, be-st
c. ABC: bon-us, mel-ior, opt-imus (Lat. ‘good’) d. *ABA: *glip, zidd-er, glipp-est
• Syntax: [SuperlP [CompP [AP ]]] + principles of locality at Vocabulary Insertion
• Universal Case Contiguity (Caha 2009:49): “Nonaccidental Case syncretism targets
contiguous regions in a sequence invariant across languages”
• Caha (2009): Superset + Elsewhere Principles predict *ABA syncretism
a includes detailed of b, but b is more fit into a subset of properties YP

Baunaz & Lander 2018:31–32)

• Both b and a are fit for XP (Superset P.), but b outcompetes a (Elsewhere P.)
5 Nanosyntax and Spanning approaches 46

No morphology, but a lot of syntax: Spellout-driven movement

• Syntax can be run after accessing the lexicon (see schema on slide 41)
• NS: No morphology (after syntax); all movement to take place before
• Phrasal Spellout, the Superset Principle and the problem of embedded trees
1) a. puell-as (Lat.) b. <-as ↔ [AccP [PlP ]]>
girl-Acc.Pl
-as can lexicalize KP, but not if it embeds NP

Baunaz & Lander (2018:18)

• Spellout-driven movement: If no tree can lexicalize KP, NP is raised out of the way
and the lexicon is accessed again
5 Nanosyntax and Spanning approaches 47

Phrasal Spell-Out vs Spanning

• Spanning: Bye & Svenonius (2012), Merchant (2015), Svenonius (2016)
• Based on Brody’s (2000:29) Mirror hypothesis: “[I]n syntactic representations
complementation expresses morphological structure: X is the complement of Y only
if Y-X form a morphological unit—a word”
• Spanning: Lexical representations are matched with spans (rather than XPs)
• “A span is a contiguous sequence of heads in a head-complement relation”
(Svenonius 2016:205)
1) [T [Asp [v [V]]]] and all substrings: T-Asp, Asp-v-V, Asp-v, v, etc.
• Spellout can target any span (within the same phasal domain)
2) a. rats: <s> → Pl, <rat> → n-N b. mice: <mice> → Pl-n-N
• Linearization just reverses the order: V-v-Asp-T; no need for head movement
• Circumvents the “embedded tree” problem and spellout-driven movement
References 48

Acedo-Matellán, Víctor. 2018a. Exoskeletal Versus Endoskeletal Approaches in Morphology. In Mark Aronoff (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of
Linguistics. Online resource
Acedo-Matellán, Víctor. 2018b. (M-)Words Matter: Constraining Allomorphy in Its Possible Contexts. In Wm. G. Bennett, Lindsay Hracs & Dennis R.
Storoshenko (eds.), Proceedings of the 35th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 41-48. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Proceedings
Project
Ackema, Peter. 1995. Syntax below zero. Utrecht: Utrecht University, OTS Research Institute for Language and Speech
Anderson, Stephen. 1982. Where’s morphology?. Linguistic Inquiry 13. 571–612
Anderson, Stephen. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Anderson. 2017. The role of morphology in Transformational Grammar. In Andrew Hippisley & Gregory Stump (eds), The Cambridge handbook of
morphology, 588–608. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Arad, Maya. 2003. Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory
21(4). 737–778
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass : MIT Press
Aronoff, Mark & Kirsten Fudeman. 2005. What is Morphology?. Oxford: Blackwell
Baker, Mark C. 1985. The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16(3). 373–415
Baker, Mark C. 2002. Building and merging, not checking: The nonexistence of (Aux)-SVO languages. Linguistic Inquiry 33(2). 321–328
Baunaz, Lena & Eric Lander. 2018. Nanosyntax. The basics. In Lena Baunaz, Liliane Haegeman, Karen De Clercq & Eric Lander (eds), Exploring
Nanosyntax, 3–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beard, Robert E. 1995. Lexeme-morpheme base morphology. Albany: Suny Press
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 1994. What does adjacency do?. In Heidi Harley and Colin Phillips (eds), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 21: The
morphology-syntax connection, 1–32. Cambridge, Mass: MITWPL, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 2012. Universals in comparative morphology: Suppletion, superlatives, and the structure of words. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press
Borer, Hagit. 2001. Morphology and syntax. In Andrew Spencer & Arnold Zwicky (eds), Handbook of Morphology, 151–90. London: Blackwell
References 49

Borer, Hagit. 2003. Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: Syntactic projections and the lexicon. In John C. Moore & Maria Polinsky (eds.), The
nature of explanation in linguistic theory, 31–67. Stanford, Cal.: CSLI Publications
Borer, Hagit. 2005a. Structuring sense, vol. i: In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Borer, Hagit. 2005a. Structuring sense, vol. ii: The normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Borer, Hagit. 2013. Structuring sense, vol. iii: Taking form. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Bresnan, Joan & Sam M. Mchombo. 1995. The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 13. 181–254
Brody, Michael. 2000. Mirror Theory: Syntactic Representation in Perfect Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 31(1). 29–56
Bye, Patrick, and Peter Svenonius. 2012. Nonconcatenative morphology as epiphenomenon. In Jochen Trommer (ed.), The Morphology and
Phonology of Exponence, 427–495. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Caha, Pavel. 2009. The Nanosyntax of Case. PhD thesis. University of Tromsø
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. Den Haag: Mouton
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds), Readings in English Transformational Grammar,
184-221. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn & co
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A Minimalist Program for linguistic theory. In Kenneth L. Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in
honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 1–52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Chomsky 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale. A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Cinque, Guglielmo (ed.). 2002. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. i: Functional Structure in DP and IP. New York: Oxford University Press
Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria, and Edwin Williams. 1987. On the definition of word. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
References 50

Embick, David & Ralph Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic inquiry 32(4). 555–595
Embick, David & Ralph Noyer. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the syntax-morphology interface. In Gillian C. Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds),
Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Halle, Morris. 1973. Prolegomena to a theory of word formation. Linguistic inquiry 4(1). 3–16
Halle, Morris. 1997. Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and Fission. In Benjamin Bruening, Yoonjung Kang & Martha McGinnis (eds), MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 30, 425–449. Cambridge, Mass: MITWPL, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT
Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), The View from
Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Harley, Heidi & Ralph Noyer. 1999. Distributed Morphology. Glot International 4(4). 3–9
Harris, Zellig. 1946. From Morpheme to Utterance. Language 22(3). 161–18
Hockett, Charles. 1954. Two models of grammatical description. Word 10. 210–234
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from the verb. In Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring (eds), Phrase structure and the Lexicon,
109-137. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Lapointe, Steven G. 1980. A theory of grammatical agreement. PhD thesis. Amherst: University of Massachusetts
Lees, Robert. 1960. The Grammar of English Nominalization. Bloomington: Indiana University Press
Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing Morphology: Word Formation in Syntactic Theory. Chicago, Illin.: University of Chicago Press.
Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Marantz, Alec. 1995. Cat as a phrasal idiom (unpublished ms). Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
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 Linguistics 4. 201–225.
References 51

Marantz, Alec. 2013. Locality domains for contextual allomorphy across the interfaces. In Ora Matushansky & Alec Marantz (eds), Distributed
morphology today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, 95–115. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Marvin, Tatjana. 2002. Topics in the Stress and Syntax of Words. PhD thesis. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Merchant, Jason. 2015. How much context is enough? Two cases of span-conditioned stem allomorphy. Linguistic Inquiry 46(2). 273–303
Muysken, Pieter C. 1981. Quechua Word Structure. In F. Heny (ed.), Binding and Filtering. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Pantcheva, Marina. 2011. Decomposing Path: The Nanosyntax of Directional Expressions. PhD thesis. University of Tromsø
Perlmutter, David. 1988. The Split-morphology Hypothesis: evidence from Yiddish. In Michael Hammond & Michael Noonan (eds), Theoretical
Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics, 79–100. San Diego/London: Academic Press
Pollock, Jean- Yves. 1989. Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20(3). 365– 424
Postal, Paul. 1969. Anaphoric islands. Chicago Linguistic Society 5: 205–239
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Roeper, Thomas & Muffy E. A. Siegel. 1978. A Lexical Transformation for Verbal Compounds. Linguistic Inquiry 9. 199–260
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD thesis. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1982. The syntax of words. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Siddiqi, Daniel. 2014. The morphology-syntax interface. In Andrew Carnie, Daniel Siddiqi & Yosuke Sato (eds), The Routledge handbook of syntax, 345-
364. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge
Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological theory: An introduction to word structure in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell
Svenonius, Peter A. 2016. Spans and words. In Daniel Siddiqi & Heidi Harley (eds), Morphological Metatheory, 201–222. John Benjamins.
Wells, Rulon S. 1947. Immediate constituents. Language 23(2). 81–117