Phrasal Spell Out: An Argument From Haplology
Antonio Fábregas
University of Tromsø
Abstract. One of the ways in which theories that use
Late Insertion differ is with respect to whether exponents can be associated with complex syntactic phrases
(Phrasal Spell Out) or not. In this article we provide
evidence for Phrasal Spell Out taken from morphological
haplology phenomena in Spanish. We argue that some
nominal affixes, like -idad ‘-ity’, spell out a phrase [FP
[NP]]. The adjectival version of the structure involves
projecting AP between FP and NP ([FP[AP[NP]]]). In
this structure, an exponent like -idad cannot be used
because the features it spells out do not form a single
constituent; another exponent, -ist(a) ‘ist’, has to be used.
The surface result is that -idad is haplologised when
-ist(a) is introduced, even though the morphosyntactic
features of -idad are still present in the structure.
1. Spell out: a controversy
In neo-constructionist theories (Halle & Marantz 1993; Marantz
1997; Julien 2002; Borer 2005a, 2005b, 2013; Ramchand 2008;
Embick 2010; Panagiotidis 2011; Arregi & Nevins 2012) the lexicon
is a repository of morphological exponents associated with morphosyntactic features (1). These exponents encode morphophonological
information, and the morphosyntactic features they are associated
with determine their context of insertion. Such theories presuppose
some form of Late Insertion (see Marantz 2013: 154); once the computational system has defined a particular structure, a post-syntactic
component—where the lexicon is placed—scans the syntactic information and selects specific exponents from its repertoire.
(1) /EXPONENT/ <—>[X, Y]
Beyond these common assumptions, there are lots of different
theories about the particular format lexical entries should have. One
Linguistic Analysis, 39, 1-2
2014 Linguistic Analysis
P.O. Box 2418, Vashon, WA 98070
Antonio Fábregas
2
of the points of disagreement, and the one we will concentrate on
in this article, is whether an exponent has to be linked to a terminal
node—a head—or is it possible to link it also to a complex syntactic
constituent—a phrase–, in what has been called ‘Phrasal spell out’
(eg., Caha 2009)? In other words: is a lexical entry like (2), where a
single exponent spells out a whole phrase, possible?
(2) /EXPONENT/
<—>
XP
XY
Distributed Morphology (Bonet 1991, Halle & Marantz 1993,
Noyer 1997) assumes (2) is not possible. When a single exponent
produces features that are independently shown to belong to different syntactic heads—cumulative exponence (Stump 1998), a postsyntactic operation called Fusion is assumed. That operation maps
two syntactic heads (X0) into one single morphological node (M0).
In contrast, other theories—significantly Nanosyntax (Svenonius,
Ramchand, Starke & Taraldsen 2009)—accept an entry like (2),
where the insertion of the exponent in the non-terminal node XP
spells out the features contained under that node, which in (2) are
X and Y. This procedure, with some technical differences we will
remain neutral about, has been used by Weerman & Evers-Vermeul
(2002) to analyze the expression of case in pronouns, by Neeleman
& Szendrői (2007) to explain the lack of competition between pro
and an overt pronoun, by Ramchand (2008) to account for the different aspectual behaviour of verbs, and by Caha (2009) to restrict
the syncretism patterns in case exponence.
It is extremely difficult to argue in favour or against Phrasal Spell
Out on theoretical grounds. The idiosyncratic nature of the lexicon
makes it difficult to impose plausible restrictions on the shape of
lexical entries; claims about whether it is more or less parsimonious to stipulate a post-syntactic level with operations like Fusion or
whether it is better to introduce a complication in the format of lexical entries generally come hand in hand with different assumptions
about modularity and complexity which are sometimes difficult to
compare with each other. For this reason, the domain where we will
try to find arguments to support one theory over the other is the set
of empirical phenomena predicted by each one of them.
Phrasal Spell Out: An Argument from Haplology
3
1.1. A distinct empirical prediction
In this article we will focus on one domain where the two theories
make a different prediction: what are the possible outcomes when
another head is projected between two heads that are spelled out by a
single exponent? Imagine a situation like (3a), and assume that there
is one single exponent, /blah/, that lexicalises both X and Y—either
by Phrasal Spell Out or by Fusion. Then consider (3b). Both theories
predict that the same exponent should not be used in (3b). In Phrasal
Spell Out, (3b) cannot be lexicalised by /blah/ because there is no
single node that contains both X and Y without containing H (Caha
2009). With Fusion, on the other hand, /blah/ is equally unavailable,
but the reason is that X and Y cannot undergo Fusion because X and
Y are not sisters (Bobaljik 1994).
(3)a.XPb.XP
X Y X HP
HY
Where the two theories differ is in what the spell out of (3b) should
be. In Phrasal Spell Out, given that lexical items can be associated
with complex constituents, there could be a single exponent /don/
(4a) that spells out the tree in (3b). If (3a) and (3b) correspond to affixes, the surface result would be a seemingly paradoxical one: even
though (3b) has the morphosyntactic features of /blah/, and there has
been an increase in the structural complexity of the syntactic tree,
there will not be an increase in the complexity of the morphological
marking. /blah/ will not emerge, and it will be replaced by the single
exponent /don/ (4b). In other words: the morphosyntactic features
associated with /blah/ are still in the tree and will be interpreted by
syntax and semantics, but /blah/ will not be spelled out in the phonology.
(4)a. /don/<—>XP
X HP
HY
Antonio Fábregas
4
b. [[base]-blah] + H —> [[base]-don]
An account where Fusion is necessary to allow the spell out of
features distributed among different heads makes a different prediction. Given that Fusion is not recursive,1 adding another head will
necessarily imply an increase in the morphological complexity of
the word. Several specific outcomes are possible, depending on
the fusion operations one assumes are triggered by H and whether
one assumes that the exponent /blah/ can be inserted in heads that
carry a subset of its features. If H and X fuse as /don/ and /blah/ is
introduced in Y, (5a) emerges. If H and Y fuse as /don/ and /blah/ is
introduced in X, (5b) emerges. If there is no fusion, one expects each
head to be spelled out by a different exponent, whether /blah/ is one
of them (5c) or not (5d). In all cases, adding a new head implies an
increase in morphological marking with respect to the version that
lacked that head.
(5)
a.base-blah-don
b.base-don-blah
c. base-bluh-don-blih
d. base-blah-don-blih
In this article, we will examine haplology—the situation where
seemingly a whole exponent is cancelled when the word is further
derived—in Spanish. Building on this empirical phenomenon, our
main goal will be to argue that one kind of haplology in Spanish
illustrates the situation described in (4), and therefore provides
evidence that supports Phrasal Spell Out. The secondary goal of the
discussion is to show that there are no reasons to treat haplology as
a purely morphological phenomenon, and that a syntactic explanation can successfully account for a wide set of patterns which are
not necessarily covered by lexicalist analyses.
1
Fusion cannot be recursive for the following reason: it is an operation that takes
two syntactic sisters (X0) depending from the same category node and maps them
into a single position of morphological exponence (M0) (cf. Halle & Marantz 1993,
Noyer 1997). Thus, once two heads have been fused together, we obtain one M0, not
another X0. If we try to fuse a third head, the operation would involve one X0 and
one M0; as X and M are objects belonging to different levels of the grammar, and
modularity states that no operation can refer to both at the same time (see Scheer
2011). See also §5 for a discussion of why an account that uses head movement and
impoverishment / obliteraton misses some crucial generalisations.
Phrasal Spell Out: An Argument from Haplology
5
The article is structured as follows. In §2 we will introduce the
relevant data, which have to do with two haplologies caused by the
affix -ist(a). In §3, we will address one kind of haplology which is
successfully analysable as an alternation of two derivations from the
same root (Marantz 2001), and we will explain why the other kind
noted in §2 is not amenable to that analysis. In §4 we analyse this
second haplology, arguing for a Phrasal Spell Out analysis of the
affixes involved. In §5 we present our conclusions.
2. Haplology in Spanish
There is a relatively abundant literature on haplology2 (Aronoff
1976, Wurzel 1976, Dressler 1977, Stemberger 1981, Plénat 1991,
Corbin & Plénat 1992, Plag 1998, de Lacy 1999, Ortmann & Popescu
2001, McBride 2004, Volpe 2005, Fradin, Montermini & Plénat 2007,
Xu 2007). In Spanish, the phenomenon is not so widely studied. Here
we will concentrate specifically on a case of haplology which involves
the suffix -idad, roughly translated as ‘-ity’ in English, in contexts
where -ist(a),3 roughly equivalent to English ‘-ist’, is inserted.4
2
We leave aside the so-called syntactic haplology effects or OCP-in-syntax
effects, situations where derivations involving identical heads or heads containing
quasi-identical sets of features are banned. See Neeleman & Van de Koot (2006),
Van Riemsdijk (2008), Richards (2010) or Grohmann (2011) for such cases. We
remain grateful to an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out to us. Note that the
Phrasal spell out-related haplology is not equivalent to these syntactic cases, as it does
not involve truncation (or any other modification, for that matter) of the syntactic
structure underlying the exponents.
3
When representing affixes, we show between parentheses ‘(...)’ the noun marker,
which, as we will see, is always absent from the morphophonological representation
when the word is further derived.
4
In part of the literature (e.g., Aronoff 1976, and Marantz 2001 when discussing
Aronoff’s analysis) this situation is referred to as “truncation.” We will use the term
“haplology” in order to avoid confusion with the phonological operation that takes a
whole word and cancels one of its segments without contact with another affix, which
is more commonly referred to as truncation in the literature. Note that whether the
word is morphologically complex (ia) or not does not play a role for this operation.
(i) a. universidad
>
uni
‘university’
b. Federico
>
Fede
‘Frederick, proper name’
c. profesor
>
profe
‘teacher’
This phenomenon has been analysed mainly from a phonological perspective;
see Roca & Felíu (2003), Piñeros (2000) and Alber & Arndt-Lappe (2012) for some
recent proposals. Antonio Fábregas
6
2.1. Haplologies triggered by -ist(a).
The suffix -ist(a) triggers two kinds of haplology that we will
analyse differently. The first kind of haplology is the one that it
triggers when the base, a noun, ends in the sequence -is (6). When
a word in -ist(a) is derived from it, the expected sequence /isis/ is
simplified to /is/.
(6)a.tenis> ten-ist(a)*tenis-ist(a)
‘tennis’ ‘tennis player’
b.tesis>tes-ist(a)*tesis-ist(a)
‘dissertation’ ‘graduate student’
c.
mímesis>mimet-ist(a)*mimesis-ist(a)
‘mimesis’ ‘mimetist’
In one case there is a “double” haplology of sorts: the base noun
contains a sequence of two /is/, and both disappear in contact with
-ist(a).
(7) análisis>anal-ist(a)
*analisisista, *analisista
‘analysis’ ‘analist’
Although we will not adopt this analysis (cf. §3), it is conceivable
that this particular haplology is phonologically-induced; given the
phonological identity between the last segment of the base and the first
segment of the affix that is adjacent to it, the sequence gets simplified and the repetition is avoided. This would imply a phonological
analysis of haplology, one that in Nevins’ (2012) classification would
be a “vocabulary-insertion-level dissimilation” (Nevins 2012:105)
which is sensitive to (a) adjacency and (b) segmental non-distinctness
at a phonological level. As such, this haplology would have the same
status as the examples in (8), where haplology is not sensitive to
whether the segment that gets simplified is a morphological unit or
just a phonological sequence inside the stem. Note that sometimes the
result is ineffability (8a, b), sometimes the sequence gets simplified
(8c, d, e), and sometimes two versions, one with haplology and one
without it, coexist (8f).
Phrasal Spell Out: An Argument from Haplology
7
(8)a.
Honig + ig>*honig-ig
honey + ish ‘honey-ish’
[German, Dressler 1977]
b. fish + ish > ??fish-ish
[English, Nevins 2012]
c.
nutri + trix> nutrix*nutritrix
feed + er ‘woman that feeds’
[Latin, Dressler 1977]
d. edel + eling > edeling *edeleling
noble + man nobleman
[Dutch, de Lacy 1999]
e. trágico + cómico > tragicómico *tragicocómico
tragic + comic tragicomic
[Spanish, Corbin & Plénat 1992]
f. morpho + phonologie > morphonologie morphophonologie
morpho + phonology morphonology morphophonology
[French, Corbin & Plénat 1992]
The cases illustrated in (8) have received a phonological analysis
which concentrates on how to explain the impossibility of repeating
a sequence in these combinations while at the same time not predicting that in general languages will reject any case of phonological
repetition under adjacency, as it happens internally to some roots (cf.
French venénéux ‘poisonous’) and generally in cases of reduplication.
Phonological analyses typically discuss whether this haplology is a
case of deletion or coalescence, with the current consensus being
more inclined to the latter (de Lacy 1999, McBride 2004, Xu 2007).
Note however that if the phonological analysis of truncation in the
above cases is potentially tenable, the following case of truncation is
not easily amenable to a phonological analysis. In the following cases,
a word ending in the suffix -idad in Spanish is further derived with
the suffix -ist(a). In these cases, only -ist(a) emerges, although—as
witnessed by the gloss—the meaning of the complex word presupposes the meaning of the word derived by -idad. This phenomenon is
noted in some descriptive grammars, such as RAE & ASALE (2009:
8
Antonio Fábregas
§6.9e); the examples in (9) are taken from this source.
(9)a.
public-idad>
public-ist(a)*public-idad-ist(a)
publicity, ad-man
advertisement
b.
electr-ic-idad>
electr-ic-ist(a) *electr-ic-idad-ist(a)
electricityelectrician
The semantics of the form shows us that in these cases we have
real haplology and not simply an alternation between two affixes taking the same base. In (9a) the base public- can be used as a noun in
Spanish: it means ‘audience,’ and as an adjective ‘public.’ At least in
the first meaning, it would not be impossible for it to combine directly
with the affix -ist(a), and we can even imagine the meaning the word
would have: ‘someone that works with an audience.’ However, this
is not the meaning that publicista has. Its meaning ‘someone that
works in the advertising industry’ is built over a non-compositional
meaning that the word public-idad has, but not its base públic(o):
‘advertising industry.’ Thus, the semantic interpretation shows us
that at a structural level we do not have an alternation between two
morphemes, which clashes with the surface result, where the two
exponents alternate.5
As always when there are few examples documented in dictionaries and grammars, one wonders whether this haplology is a
lexical accident or a really systematic phenomenon that speakers
have intuitions about. In the first case, when confronted with new
lexical formations that are not established in the standard Spanish
varieties, we expect speakers not to have haplology, and will allow
forms which contain the sequence -idad-ist(a). In the second case,
5
One anonymous reviewer notes that there is a second interpretation of these
data that should be discussed: assume a theory like Arad (2003), where roots can
get special meanings under lexical categorisers. It could be argued that public- gets
assigned a special meaning under -idad, and the same special meaning would be
assigned under -ist(a), making haplology unnecessary. However, there are reasons
to reject this account. Note, first, that in the words used in the experiment reported in
(10) the base is not a root, so Arad’s theory could not be used here in its literal form.
It is true that a version of the analysis like Borer’s (2012), where non compositional
meanings can be assigned provided no functional head intervenes, could still be
used. However, the crucial problem would be that in this case we would have to
guarantee that two unrelated derivations, public-idad and public-ist(a), get assigned
the same non compositional meaning, which is unexpected to the extent that non
compositional meanings are unpredictable.
Phrasal Spell Out: An Argument from Haplology
9
we expect that, even if they have not heard the word before, speakers
will reject that sequence.
In order to determine which status this haplology has, I conducted
an experiment. 25 native speakers of European Spanish received a
questionnaire, and were asked to give their judgements about some
new words in Spanish. In each question I described the situation
where a new formation that involved the suffixes -idad and -ist(a)
could be used, and then gave the speaker three options. (10) is an
example of the kind of question posed, with the options.
(10) A group of fools creates a new political movement called
pasividad [‘passivity’], which claims that all problems in the
modern world are caused by people who try to be proactive, and
recommends that its followers approach all possible problems
by not acting, and by letting things happen. The followers of
this movement are called:
a)
pasivistas [‘passivists’, with haplology]
b)
pasividadistas [‘passivitists’, without haplology]
c)
pasistas [‘passists’]
Ten questions had this shape and were oriented towards determining
whether native speakers allow -idad-ist(a) sequences. The options
were randomized, so that the version with haplology did not always
appear in the first place.
An overwhelming majority of answers chose the version with
haplology, and no speaker ever chose the version where the sequence
-idad-ist(a) was documented. In total, out of 250 answers, we obtained 243 where the version with haplology was preferred, which
is an unusually high result.6
Consider now why a phonological analysis of the haplology is
unlikely. It could not be the kind of phonological haplology that is
sensitive to the shape of the vocabulary items introduced in spell
out, simply because there is no phonological identity between the
two affixes, -idad and -ist(a). However, it could still be some kind
6
The unexpected answers always involved the choice of the third, shorter, form
of the base. For instance, in one of the questions, the movement was called caloricidad ‘caloricity,’ and the proponents recommended consuming highly caloric food.
Although 23 speakers opted for the expected form calor-ic-ist(a)s to name the followers, two speakers preferred the form calor-ist(a)s. These speakers did not show
a systematic preference for the shorter forms in their answers.
10
Antonio Fábregas
of phonologically-based haplology that takes place through prosodic
phrasing (Nevins 2012: 94), and which is sensitive to more abstract
notions, such as stress placement. It could also be that haplology
is the result of a phonological process that, even without identity,
cancels part of the sequence for other phonological reasons that are
sensitive to the segmental content of the exponents. In the next few
paragraphs I will show why this kind of analysis is unlikely.
The sequence that we would obtain if both affixes co-occurred
is shown in (11).
(11)-idadista
Note that the syllabification of this sequence is unproblematic,
and almost perfectly complies with a CV pattern where the only coda
consonant is a coronal. Syllabification is not a likely candidate to
trigger the haplology, i.e.:
(12)i.da.dis.ta
Considering now stress, the affix -idad is oxytone. In Spanish,
when the base is oxytone, adding to it the suffix -ist(a) does not
generally imply cancelling (part of) the syllable that carries stress.
Note in (13) that this is so even if the non-cancellation implies having a syllable without onset.
(13)maná>mana-íst(a)
*man-ist(a)
‘manna’
Finally, if we consider metrical feet, note that each affix—before
and after resyllabification—contains two syllables, so no degenerate
foot will arise either.
(14) a.(i.dad)
b.(is.ta)
There is a second affix that has been systematically claimed to be
cancelled by -ist(a), and that is -ism(o), which is historically related
to it. Consider the example in (15).
(15)
andaluc-ism(o)> andaluc-ist(a)
*andaluc-ism-ist(a)
Andalusian-ism ‘supporter of Andalusism’
Phrasal Spell Out: An Argument from Haplology
11
Although subtle, the interpretation of andalucista shows that the
word presupposes the meaning of the word with -ism(o). If andalucista was directly derived from Andalucía, a region in Spain, the
meaning that we would expect is ‘supporter of Andalusia’ or ‘person
that works in something related to Andalusia.’7 This is not the meaning of the word; it means ‘supporter of Andalucism.’ Andalucism is
a specific political movement which is exclusive to Andalusia, but
someone that supports Andalusia is not necessarily an andalucista.
Although conceptually more difficult, it is also possible to conceive
of a person who is andalucista, supports the movement, but is not a
supporter of Andalusia. That person might think, for instance, that
the political leaders of Andalusism deserve respect, while Andalusia
itself does not.
One could also ask how it is possible to know that -ist(a) triggers
haplology of -ism(o), and not vice versa. That is, how do we know
that the ordering of the derivation is not the one in (16), where -ism(o)
would trigger haplology of -ist(a)?
(16)Andalucía >andaluc-ist(a)
> andaluc-(ist)-ism(o)
‘Andalusia’
Several arguments show that this derivation is wrong. The first
has just been given: if (16) were right, we would expect andalucista
to mean ‘supporter of Andalusiam,’ which is wrong. The second is
that there is independent evidence that when -ism(o) combines with
a word derived by -ist(a) there is no haplology. For the acceptance
of -ist-ism(o) sequences, it seems to be necessary that the movement
described is not widely known, and therefore that the words are not
used frequently. For instance, in CREA—the corpus of contemporary
Spanish hosted by the Royal Academy—we find (17).
7
Indeed, this meaning is available for some speakers, independently of whether
they also have the one presented in (15). In fact, as an anonymous reviewer notes,
in the Dictionary of the Royal Academy (21st edition), the first entry of andalucista
is ‘specialist in topics related to Andalucía.’ This is not problematic for our account
if we assume that andalucista, on the surface, can correspond to two different
derivations: the one with haplology, where the base is andaluc-ismo, and a second
derivation where the base is Andaluc-ía ‘Andalusia’ and there is no haplology of
-ismo, corresponding to the meaning of the first entry. Anticipating the analysis a
bit, in this second derivation the base would have the structure [NP -ía [AP andaluz
‘Andalusian’]]. Andalucista would be obtained by adding over it AP and FP layers,
as in [FP [AP [NP -ía [AP andaluz]]]]. -ista would lexicalise the chunk between FP
and NP, making -ía unavailable for spell out. The surface result would be identical,
but the derivational history of the word would be different.
Antonio Fábregas
12
(17) ...caer en el lud-ist-ism(o) médico
...fall in the ludd-ist-ism medical
‘...to fall into medical Luddistism’ [e-mail, 1999]
Here we see that the speaker forms the word lud-ist(a) ‘Luddite,’
to describe a supporter of Ned Ludd, the fictional hero who argued
against the use of machines to replace people in industrial production.
The movement related to these followers is lud-ist-ism(o), where
both affixes appear in a sequence and neither one haplologises the
other. Along the same lines, we contrasted data with native speakers
to see if they would accept the sequence -ist-ism(o) when the base
is a non-existent item. In order to do that, we made up the name of
several fictional historical figures who advocated for different ideals.
Speakers accepted to a high degree formations like (18).
(18)gronf-ist-ism(o)
Gronf-ist-ism
A third and final affix which has been claimed to haplologise in
presence of -idad is -í(a). The examples in (19) are taken from RAE
& ASALE (2009: §6.9e).
(19)
a.
utop-í(a)> utop-ist(a)%utop-i-ísta
‘utopy’ ‘supporter of utopy’
b. regal-í(a)> regal-ist(a)%regal-i-ísta
‘royalty’ ‘supporter of the payment of royalties’
As in the previous cases, we conducted an experiment, and here
the results where more mixed than in the case of -idad. Out of 25
speakers, 7 systematically preferred the forms where -í(a) did not
undergo haplology in the presence of -ist(a), while 14 of respondents
preferred the form with haplology. When confronted with a movement called entrop-ía ‘entropy,’ the first group preferred the form in
(20a), without haplology, while the second group preferred the form
with haplology (20b).
(20) a.entrop-i-íst(a)
entrop-y-ist
Phrasal Spell Out: An Argument from Haplology
13
b.entrop-ist(a)
entrop-ist
The remaining speakers gave mixed judgements.
If we focus now on the group of speakers that have haplology
with -í(a), note that the reason for the haplology does not seem to
be phonological either. A sequence -ií- can be created by combining
-ist(a) with a base. All speakers consulted accepted the derived forms
in (21), where the sequence is present, coming from bases ending in
tonic /i/. None accepted the form without the diphthong.
(21)
a.
PRI>pri-íst(a)*pr-ist(a)
‘certain political party’
‘supporter of PRI’
b.
Martí>marti-íst(a)*mart-ist(a)
‘certain soccer player’ ‘supporter of Martí’
The situation with the sequence -ería ‘-ery’ is similar. Although
treated as a single morpheme by some authors (e.g., RAE & ASALE
2009: §6.3m-6.3p), other authors have suggested that at least in one
of its meanings—the place where a particular action is performed,
as in (22)—it should be understood as the combination of the suffix
-er(o) ‘-er, maker’ and the suffix -í(a) (see Bustos & Santiago 1999:
4551 for discussion).
(22)zapat-er-ía
shoe- er-y
‘shoe shop’
This second segmentation is consistent with the results obtained in
our study. Speakers where asked to name the person whose job is to
work in some shop—for example, a helad-er-ía ‘ice cream shop’­— as
opposed to the person whose job it is to make the merchandise that
is sold in that shop—in our example, helad-er(o) ‘ice-cream maker.’
Speakers divided almost perfectly in the two classes noted before: one
group used the word with haplology in (23a), and the other group,
the word with haplology of -í(a) (23b). No speaker went for the form
where also the -er(o) part of the sequence is haplologised (23c).
Antonio Fábregas
14
(23) a. helad-er-i-íst(a)
b. helad-er-ist(a)
c.*helad-ist(a)
The following points summarise the empirical results:
i.
ii.
iii.
Speakers systematically reject sequences -idad-ist(a)
Speakers systematically reject sequences -ism-ist(a)
(but not ist-ism(o))
S
peakers divide in two groups with respect to -i-ísta
sequences: some haplologise systematically, some do
not haplologise, also in a systematic way.
The generalisation is not that -ist(a) systematically triggers the
haplology of adjacent nominal affixes. (24) shows that other affixes
different from -idad, -ism(o) (and -í(a)) are perfectly fine combined
with -ist(a).8
(24) a. cens-ur-ist(a)
censor-ship-ist
‘related to censorship’
8
The exponent -idad apparently undergoes a second kind of haplology in Spanish, in contact with -eño.
(i) Navidad
>
Navid-eño
*Navidad-eño
‘Christmas’
‘Christmas-like’
However, there are reasons to think that this is not a systematic haplology that
has to be somehow captured through operations of any kind. First, note that it is not
the affix, but a segment of it (/ad/) what is cancelled in contact with -eñ(o). Second,
the word Navidad is very lexicalised, and if it is indeed derived with -idad in contemporary Spanish, it is not easy to recognise the base (Nav-, historically related to
Latin nascior ‘to be born’). Second, combinations of -idad (or -id-) with—eñ(o) are
otherwise absent from dictionaries. Third, speakers consulted do not accept -eñ(o)
after -idad forms when the base is clearly derived, as in sant-idad ‘sanct-ity.’ Fourth,
we ran a test where we offered speakers the choice between sets of words like (ii).
(ii) a. orfan-dad-eño [without haplology]
orphan-ity-ish
b. orfan-d-eño [with partial haplology]
c. orfan-eño [with total haplology]
Speakers did not show any systematic preference for any of these forms. Some
would pick the form with haplology in one case (iic), but with comparable examples
they would pick either the one without haplology (iia) or the one with partial
haplology (iib). What these seemingly chaotic results suggest is precisely what is
expected if the form in (i) is not the result of any grammatical rule—phonological
or otherwise— but a stored irregular form.
Phrasal Spell Out: An Argument from Haplology
15
b. adop-cion-ist(a)
adopt-ion-ist
‘supporter of adopting children’
c. arma-ment-ist(a)
weapon-ment-ist
‘supporter of weapons’
3. Marantzian haplology
In this section we will show that the type of haplology that involves -idad and -ism(o) in combination with -ist(a) is different in
significant respects from the one discussed first by Aronoff (1976)
and later analysed, from a syntactic perspective, in Marantz (2001)
and Volpe (2005).
The kind of haplology studied by Aronoff (1976:88-98) refers
to cases like (25)—for expository convenience, we segment the
internal structure of the word, although obviously Aronoff does not
do so in the original.
(25)
a.
releg-ate >releg-able
*releg-at-able
b.
nomin-ate>nomin-ee*nomin-at-ee
Marantz (2001) discusses these cases, and notes that a haplology
analysis only holds on one assumption: affixes that trigger haplology
must attach to constituents that have a full grammatical category, in
this particular case “verbs.” If we give up this assumption, there is
a second, unproblematic analysis: that these words in -able and -ee
are not derived from verbs in -ate, but from roots. Then the haplology stops being necessary; in the first forms of each pair, the root
is categorised as a verb by a projection which is spelled out as -ate.
In the second forms, the roots are nominalised or adjectivised by a
different projection. Departing from Marantz’ notation, and siding
with Borer’s (2012), we will use the labels V, N and A for the heads
that categorise the root.
Antonio Fábregas
16
(26)
a.VPb.APc.NP
V √ A
√ N
√
-ate
releg- -able
releg- -ee
nomin
nominThe procedure used to analyse these cases is similar to the one
used in conversion, the situation where the same base, without any
phonological change, manifests in two distinct grammatical categories
(e.g., (to) dance and (a) dance); the two forms are not derived one
from another, but both of them are derived from a common source,
a root without grammatical category. The difference with this kind
of haplology is that in cases of conversion, the head that categorises
the root is null.
(27)
a.VPb.AP
V √ A
ø
clear ø
√
clear
If this analysis of haplology is right, we expect that in at least
some cases haplology should show non-directionality problems, like
conversion does (Clark & Clark 1979)—which word is the basic
form and which one is derived from it should not be clear. Indeed,
as Marantz (2001) shows, this is borne out. Of the two words in
(28), which one is derived from the other? We can interpret (28b)
as the name that we give to the property in (28a), or (28a) as the
property of causing the abstract concept in (28b). The problem, as
in conversion, is solved if we assume that both words are derived
from the same root (29).
(28) a.atroc-ious
b.atroc-ity
(29)
a. APb.NP
A
-ious
√ N
√
atroc- -ity atroc-
See Volpe (2005: 26-33) for further evidence of this analysis.
Phrasal Spell Out: An Argument from Haplology
17
3.1. Why this analysis does not work for our cases
Note, however, that there are three reasons why the haplology of
-idad by -ist(a) does not comply with what we have called Marantzian haplology.
Marantzian haplology reduces to affix alternation from the same
root. Real affix alternation implies that the morphosyntactic features
of one affix should not be present when the other one appears, as
there is no directionality between the two complex forms. However,
in the case of -idad, we have seen evidence that there is directionality; in a form like public-ist(a) ‘advertising agent,’ the meaning
of the base is the one denoted by public-idad ‘advertisement,’ not
públic-o ‘audience.’
Secondly, Marantzian haplology predicts that in some cases the
haplology will not be compulsory: the same affix, like -ble, might be
able to combine both with a root and with a complex base. Aronoff
(1976) noted minimal pairs like navig-at-able vs. navig-able, where
Volpe (2005) argues that the first is a case of derivation from a verb,
while the second is a case of derivation from a root. We see, however, no cases where -idad remains under -ist(a). This haplology is
obligatory.
Third, Marantzian haplology crucially requires that the base with
which the relevant affixes combine be a root, as the effect is claimed
to be an epiphenomenon of the fact that a root can alternatively
combine with different categorisers. However, in the case of -idad,
the haplology is not restricted to cases where the base is a root. Several of the examples that we provided in the questionnaire involved
morphologically complex bases to which -idad attached (30). Also
in these cases, speakers haplologised -idad in the presence of -ist(a).
(30) a. tono > tón-ico > ton-ic-idad > ton-ic-ist(a) *ton-ic-idad-ist(a)
tone tonic
tonicity
tonicist
b. calor > calór-ico > calor-ic-idad > calor-ic-ist(a) *calor-ic-idad-ist(a)
heat caloric caloricity
caloricist
We conclude, therefore, that Marantz’ analysis cannot be adopted
for these examples.
Antonio Fábregas
18
3.2. Haplology of -is
Recall that -ist(a) intervenes in a second kind of haplology, namely
the one which apparently deletes a segment -is which is part of the
root (tenis ‘tennis’ > ten-ist(a) ‘tennis player’, *tenis-ist(a); mímesis
‘mimesis’ > mimet-ist(a) ‘mimetist’, *mimesis-ist(a)). In this section
we will show that rather than being phonologically induced, this case
is likely to be an instance of Marantzian haplology. We will shortly
argue that the ending -is is not part of the root but an idiosyncratic
nominal marker (NM), along the lines originally proposed in Harris
(1991). As is the case with all nominal markers, it has to be cancelled
when the noun is used in derivation as the base for another category.
(31)[[ten]N is]NM
Consider the evidence that -is can be analysed as a noun class
marker. This means that -is forms a class with -a (cas-a, ‘house’), -o
(perr-o, ‘dog’), -e (clas-e, ‘class’), and -ø (papel-ø, ‘paper’), which
are the more regular markers of noun class in Spanish. Like these
other four markers, -is is compulsorily unstressed (32).
(32)
a. c/á/s-a b. p/é/rr-o c. cl/á/s-e d. t/é/n-is vs. vs. vs. vs.
*cas-/á/
*perr-/ó/
*clas-/é/
*ten-/í/s
In fact, the stress pattern of words ending in -is can be explained
following Oltra-Massuet & Arregi’s (2005) analysis of the mapping
between prosody and morphological structure. These authors argue
that in the nominal domain stress is assigned defining the right boundary of an iamb to the right of the highest nominal head (2005: 65-66),
which in their analysis is n. Technical details aside, this always leaves
noun markers to the right of the iamb, and therefore unstressed.
This is evidence that -is is an idiosyncratic noun marker which
is selected by the root. Words that exhibit this marker are generally
nouns of Greek origin, occasionally Latin (33).
(33) acrópol-is ‘acropolis’, apocalips-is ‘apocalypse’, apódos-is
‘apodosis’, bil-is ‘bile’, cox-is ‘coccyx’, cut-is ‘skin’, éxtasis
‘ecstasy’, epiderm-is ‘epidermis’, fimos-is ‘fimo’, narcos-is
Phrasal Spell Out: An Argument from Haplology
19
‘narcosis’, parális-is ‘paralysis’, perífras-is ‘periphrasis’, pub-is
‘pubis’, sintax-is ‘syntax’
Note that as expected from an exponent that is idiosyncratically
selected by a set of roots, the noun marker must be immediately
adjacent to the root. All the words in (36) show that the marker -is
combines with bases that are roots, and no overt nominalisers—like
-ción ‘-ation’ or -ment- ‘-ment’—can be present. Idiosyncratic insertion of vocabulary items can only take place when there is no other
exponent intervening between the selector and the selectee (Embick
2010). If -is is an idiosyncratic noun marker selected by the root,
we expect that in the presence of the diminutive affix, -is should be
impossible. The diminutive affix is a constituent that is merged between the root and the noun marker (see Harris 1991, Eguren 2001,
Bermúdez-Otero 2007, Fábregas 2013), so its presence would block
the idiosyncratic selection between the root and the marker.
This prediction is borne out. The diminutive of the noun in (34)
cannot contain -is. The exponent -is is substituted by a noun marker
-a, reflecting feminine gender.
(34)
tes-is>tes-it-a*tes-it-is
thesis-NMthesis-dim-NM
Note that this change in the exponent would be unexpected if -is
were part of the root. When the root finishes in an unstressed syllable
and mere concatenation would give odd phonological results, the
diminutive acts as an infix (Bermúdez-Otero 2007).
(35)
Carlos>Carl-it-os
CharlesCharles-dim
Given an analysis where -is is a noun marker, its disappearance in
front of -ist(a) is expected. Noun markers are systematically absent
when the noun produces another grammatical category. Consider
(36): the noun marker disappears when the noun is turned into a
verb, and also when it is turned into an adjective.
(36)
a. tabac-o>tabac-al*tabac-o-al
tobacco-NMtobacco-adj ‘tobacco related’
Antonio Fábregas
20
b. clas-e > clas-ifica *clas-e-ifica
class-NM class-ify
The explanation of why noun markers must be absent from the
base when the noun is further derived is orthogonal to our purposes;
we can provisionally suggest a principle like the one in (37). Given a
hierarchy as the one in (38), this would mean that whenever the word
changes grammatical category, the noun marker is not included in the
base because operations that introduce a lexical categoriser like A or
V always target a node below the noun marker position (represented
in 38 as NMP, “Noun marker phrase”). We will not attempt to find
a deeper reason why this should be so in this article.
(37) Lexical categorisers always select a constituent lower than the
noun marker.
(38)NMP
NM
DimP
Dim
NP
N √
Once we adopt a principle like (37) the explanation of why -is
disappears in the presence of -ist(a) does not need to be phonological:
-ist(a) combines with a constituent that excludes the noun marker.
If this explanation is on the right track and the reason for the
haplology is not phonological, then we expect affixes with a different phonological shape to produce the same haplology with -is. This
prediction is borne out.
(39)
a.
pub-is>púb-ico
*pub-ís-ico
pubis-NMpub-ic
b.
apocalips-is>apocalípt-ico
*aplocalips-ís-ico
apocalypse-NM apocalipt-ic
c. éxtas-is>extát-ico*extas-ís-ico
ecstasy-NM ecstat-ic
Phrasal Spell Out: An Argument from Haplology
21
Thus, in such cases an exponent disappears because the head it is
associated with (NM) is absent from the derived word. Let us now
move to the haplology of -idad, which we will argue shows evidence
for Phrasal Spell Out, because the exponent disappears even though
the syntactic structure that underlies it is still included in the derived
word.
4. Haplology and phrasal spell out
What we will argue for in this section is the following. The nominaliser -idad is an exponent that spells out a phrasal constituent that
includes a hierarchically low head (N) and a high head (which we
will label FP9), as shown in (40). When the computational system
generates a complex syntactic constituent where FP directly dominates
NP, -idad is introduced to spell out that phrase.
(40)FP
FNP
N
-idad
...√
The adjectival version of (40), however, does not imply merging A over (40). Given the hierarchy of domains in the functional
sequence (Cinque 2005, 2010), A is introduced above NP. Thus, to
obtain a structure where a noun is adjectivalised and FP is present,
the computational system generates a structure like (41).
9
The proper characterisation of the functional head here identified as FP remains
to be developed. The evidence gathered here suggests that it is a head which directly
relates to the activation of a rich qualia structure in a nominal domain, defining
the situations which can be associated with the denotation of the noun; as such, it
could be related to the structures that define the syncategorematic readings of some
adjectives, like easy, and could even be considered parallel to the heads that define
situations in the verbal domain.
Antonio Fábregas
22
(41)
FP
F AP
ANP
N
√
Here, although the morphosyntactic features associated with
the exponent -idad are present (N and F), -idad cannot be inserted,
because N and F do not form a single syntactic constituent to the
exclusion of AP (no node contains both F and N without dominating
A). Instead, -ist(a) is introduced, because -ist(a) is the spell out of
a complex constituent [F [A [N]]]. Haplology follows, thus, as an
expected effect of Phrasal spell out: if the morphosyntactic features
associated with an exponent are present, but do not form a syntactic
constituent, another exponent must be used (42).
(42)
FP
F AP
A NP
-ist(a)
N √
*-idad
4.1. Motivating the projections and their hierarchy
One important part of our analysis is that -idad and -ism(o) (and,
for some speakers, -í(a)) spell out two heads, one that is below A
and another one that is above it. The evidence that these affixes spell
out N can be provided easily: data like (43) show that it produces
words belonging to the noun category, as witnessed by the fact that
they can combine with determiners of all kinds.
(43) a. la tranquil-idad
the tranquil-ity
Phrasal Spell Out: An Argument from Haplology
23
b. esta opac-idad
this opac-ity
Evidence that the designated position for adjectives inside the
nominal domain is higher than nouns has been provided elsewhere.
Cinque (2005) shows that the universally attested orderings of demonstratives, numerals, adjectives and nouns follow if one assumes
that adjectives are introduced as specifiers of functional heads which
are higher than N and lower than numerals. Cinque (2010) further
elaborates the proposal, showing that the relative ordering of adjectives and the semantic interpretations that come associated with each
adjectival position can be explained on the assumption that adjectives
are base generated in positions higher than N.
(44) XP
APX
X NP
There is evidence that X must enter into a checking relation with
its specifier. First, X is sensitive to the lexical category hosted by its
specifier. For this reason, prepositional modifiers must be external to
adjectival modifiers. See (45) for an illustration in Spanish.
(45) a. la casa blanca enorme de ladrillo
the house white huge
of brick
‘the huge white brick house’
b. ??la casa de ladrillo blanca enorme
the house of brick white huge
The semantic ordering of a series of adjectives (e.g., Sproat &
Shih 1991), which implies that X selects a class of adjectives, is also
evidence for a checking relation. We assume, thus, that X gets adjectival features in the course of the derivation. Given this scenario, the
assumption that A dominates N also in cases of category derivation
is the default one. The difference with the cases in which the adjective is introduced as a modifier is that in those cases, the functional
projections of the adjective (significantly, degree) are introduced in
Antonio Fábregas
24
the specifier of the head (46a). When the noun is turned into an adjective, A is the head position and—assuming the lexical derivation
stops there—Degree and other functional heads dominate N (46b).
(46)
a.XPb.DegP
DegP XDeg AP
Deg ...AP X
NPA NP
From here, the differences between a noun modified by an adjective and a noun turned into an adjective follow naturally. In (46a),
the noun is not in a gradable constituent, and the rest of the nominal
functional projections (Num and D) can be projected above XP. In
(46b), the noun is in a gradable structure, and Num and D cannot
be projected because Deg, an adjectival functional head, has been
projected.
For this reason, the syntactic distribution of (47a), corresponding
to (46a), is different from (47b), which corresponds to (46b). In the
first, a DP can be merged above XP because the adjectival lexical
head did not dominate NP; in the second, AP and DegP dominate
NP, so DP cannot be merged.
(47) a. the very big house
b. (*the) very child-ish
Let us see now evidence for the existence of a high F projection
which dominates both A and N. We would like to suggest that this
functional head is the locus, among other things, of the expression of
Qualia semantic information (Pustejovsky 1995). Inside Pustejovsky’s
theory, a quale is a conceptual notion that gives the relational force
of an item (1995:76)—it provides information about the constituent
parts of an entity (Constitutive quale), its function (Telic quale), the
conditions about how it was created (Agentive quale), or the properties that distinguish it inside a wider domain (Formal quale). The
notion of quale has proved descriptively useful to deal with cases
of coercion and semantic type shifts. For instance, a phase verb like
begin must take as direct object constituents that denote events.
Object-denoting nouns are only allowed if they have an agentive or
a telic quale which relates the origin or the function of the object
Phrasal Spell Out: An Argument from Haplology
25
to some event (48). In the first interpretation (48a), the reading is
licensed by the agentive quale, which relates the book with the action
of writing that creates it. In the second interpretation (48b), the telic
quale is relevant, relating the book to its function (reading). Nouns
which do not contain telic or agentive quale produce unacceptable
results in this context (49).
(48) I began the book.
a. ‘I began writing the book’
b. ‘I began reading the book’
(49) #I began the grass.
Even though in its original formulation qualia structure is a lexical notion, there are reasons to think that it can be at least partially
syntactised and codified as a syntactic head that dominates the
nominal constituent. First, there is evidence that some exponents
spell out this F layer expressing quale. Johnston & Busa (1999)
make a convincing case that prepositions like da and a in Italian
play this role. Da (50) is used to denote the telic quale, and a (51)
identifies the constitutive quale. Note that the noun they introduce
can be modified by adjectives.
(50) a. coltello da pane
knife DA bread
‘bread knife’
b. bicchiere da vino (rosso)
glass
DA wine red
‘(red) wine glass’
(51) a. porta a vetri (rossi)
door A glass
‘(red) glass door’
b. seni al silicone
breasts A-the silicon
‘silicon breasts’
See also Lin & Liu (2005) for the idea that qualia structure can be
expressed syntactically.
Antonio Fábregas
26
There is also evidence that qualia cannot be defined at a lexical
level, because one noun might lack qualia, while a complex constituent including the same noun and an adjective has it. Consider (52).
Normally, nouns denoting natural objects lack telic and agentive quale,
which makes them weird as a complement of a phase verb like begin.
(52) a. #Empecé el agua.
I.began the water
b. #Empecé la piedra.
I.began the stone
However, some sets of N+A with the same nouns do have qualia
structure and are thus acceptable in the same context. For instance,
agua angélica, lit. ‘angelic water’ is a type of concoction, and piedra
afiladera, lit. ‘sharpening stone,’ ‘whetstone,’ is a mixture of rocks
and other substances used in construction. These sets of N+A contain
agentive quale, and as such they can be used as direct objects of begin.
(53) a. Empecé el agua angélica.
I.began the water angelic, ‘I began the concoction’
b. Empecé la piedra afiladera.
I.began the stone sharpening, ‘I began the whetstone’
Similar examples are arena ‘sand’ vs. arena de moldeo ‘moulding sand,’ aire ‘air’ vs. aire acondicionado ‘air conditioning,’ or
tierra ‘ground’ vs. tierra de Siena, lit. ‘ground of Siena,’ a type of
clay treated with rust used for dying clothes. These contrasts are
consistent with a theory where qualia is not defined lexically in
individual items, but has as its locus a syntactic projection that can
dominate complex syntactic constituents, including at least the noun
with adjectives and prepositional modifiers.
4.2. Evidence that -idad contains qualia
Now we will show that there is evidence that -idad should be
treated as a nominaliser that contains this FP layer which codifies
qualia structure.
Phrasal Spell Out: An Argument from Haplology
27
The traditional description of -idad (e.g., Alemany Bolúfer 1920:
40) is that it is a quality nominaliser, making abstract nouns from
adjectives, and as such it would form a natural class with affixes like
-ur(a), -ez(a) or -itud, which are used to create quality nominalisations. However, this description encounters one problem: -idad is
also used to make collective nouns. The nouns in (54) are ambiguous
between two readings: in one, they denote the quality expressed by
the base adjective. In the second, they denote the group of all people
characterised by the property denoted by the adjective.
(54) a.cristian-dad
Christian-ity
‘being Christian’ or ‘group of all Christians’
b.vecin-dad
neighbour-ity
‘being neighbour to something / someone’ or ‘group of all neighbours’
c.human-idad
human-ity
‘being human’ or ‘group of all humans’
d.herman-dad
brother-ity
‘being brotherly’ or ‘group of all brothers or brethren’
The affixes -ur(a), -ez(a) or -itud never have this collective meaning. The problem caused by this ambiguity is not likely to emerge
from accidental homophony; note that the collective reading emerges
with both the allomorphs -idad and -dad, which means that the two
homophonous affixes would have exactly the same allomorphs,
something completely unexpected.
Instead, if we assume that -idad contains a layer where constitutive quale can be expressed, the ambiguity can be explained. In both
uses, the affix states that one must form a concept which denotes
something whose constituent parts are expressed by the base. In the
collective reading, the parts are the individuals that are characterised
by a property. In the apparent quality nominalisation reading, in
contrast, the constituent element is the property itself.
Antonio Fábregas
28
For explicitness, the two readings can be differentiated by the
presence of a [mass] or [count] feature in the N layer of the affix.10
The quality reading is associated to a mass noun (55a), and the
concept expressed is simply the kind defined by the property of the
adjectival base, without any individuation; the structure would be
the one in (55b). In contrast, the collective reading is a count noun
(56a), and the constituent parts would be the individuals defined by
that property, with a structure like (56b).
(55) a. *la-s hermandad-es entre Juan y María
the-pl brotherhood-pl between Juan and María
b.FP
FNP
N ...√
[mass]
(56) a. las hermandad-es religiosa-s de España
the-pl brotherhood-pl religious-pl of Spain
‘the religious brotherhoods in Spain’
b. FP
F NP
N ...√
[count]
If this analysis is on the right line, we are claiming that while
-ur(a), -ez(a) or -itud spell out single N heads, that of -idad includes
a high functional projection, as shown in (57).
10
Alternatively, following Borer (2005a), we could assume a layer DivP over NP
for count nouns. DivP, in Borer’s system, is a nominal functional head responsible
for turning a mass—denoted by N or the root—into a bounded entity that can be
combined with numerals; its presence is associated, then, with count readings. Our
explanation is orthogonal to this aspect.
Phrasal Spell Out: An Argument from Haplology
29
(57)
a. NPb.FP
N ... F NP
ura
-idad N...
A straightforward prediction about affix ordering emerges from
here. As -idad involves a high functional head, but -ur(a) does not,
we expect that there will be a whole set of affixes that can follow
-ur(a) but will be unable to follow -idad. These affixes would be
those whose position in the functional hierarchy is higher than NP
but lower than FP—for instance, adjectival affixes. This prediction
is borne out. In (58) we illustrate it with four of the most productive
adjectival affixes in contemporary Spanish.
(58)
a.
cult-ur-alvs.*herman-dad-al
cult-ur-al brother-ity-al
b.
escrit-ur-ariovs.*herman-dad-ario
write-ing-ary
brother-ity-ary
‘related to writing’
c. caricat-ur-esco vs. *herman-dad-esco
caricat-ur-ish
brother-ity-ish
‘similar to a caricature’
d.
prem-ur-osovs. *herman-dad-oso11
urgent-nom-ous
‘with urgency’
11
In the dictionaries, there is only one word where apparently,(i)dad is followed
by -oso (i).
(i) bon-dad-oso
good-ness-ous
’kind-hearted’
However, speakers systematically reject new coinages where -idad is followed by
this affix, which suggests that the sequence is not allowed, at least in contemporary
Spanish, and that bondad- should be analysed as a single root which is further derived
by -oso (ii). It is unclear that bondadoso ‘nice, kind-hearted’ has to be related in
meaning to bueno ‘good,’ given its high semantic specialisation—it can only refer
to humans, unlike bueno. See Embick & Marantz (2008) for other cases where a
sequence that could be claimed to be historically derived has been reinterpreted as
one single exponent.
(ii)bondad-oso
kind.heart-ed
Antonio Fábregas
30
Similar observations can be made about -ism(o), but in this case
its association to qualia structure is more straightforward: -ism(o) is
used to form names of political, social and artistic movements which
follow some particular set of principles, and it is typical to derive
them from proper names, as in (59).
(59)
Marx>marx-ism(o)
MarxMarx-ism
The interpretation is that there is a movement that was set in
motion by Marx or Marx’ ideals, which means that -ism(o) must
be able to identify the base as its agentive quale. The restriction of
the affix is, thus, that the base must be interpretable conceptually as
something associated with a set of principles that can originate some
movement. In a second reading, the affix identifies the telic quale,
and the base describes the activity that members of a group perform.
This is typical with names of sports and other hobbies.
(60) piragü-ism(o) ‘canoeing,’ cicl-ism(o) ‘cycling,’ ajedrec-ism(o)
‘chess playing’
As expected, if -ism(o) also includes a FP layer, it cannot be followed easily by adjectivisers. Sequences like *-ism-al, *-ism-ario,
*-ism-esco and *-ism-oso are unattested and rejected by native
speakers when they correspond to affixes.
4.3. The structure of -ist(a)
Let us now move to the structure of -ist(a). We propose that this
exponent lexicalises the complex set of heads in (61); that is, the
same structure as -idad or -ism(o), but with an A layer intervening
between F and N.
(61)FP
F AP
A NP
N
…
Phrasal Spell Out: An Argument from Haplology
31
This is the same thing as saying that -ist(a) is the spell out of the
structure where a noun is adjectivised and the whole structure is
dominated by FP. Consider first evidence that the main use of -ist(a)
is as an adjectiviser. This aspect is potentially controversial, as many
of the words derived with -ist(a) can be used both as adjectives and as
nouns—and some are actually more frequent as nouns. For instance,
ajedrec-ist(a) can be used as a noun ‘chess player’ (62a) or as an
adjective ‘related to chess playing’ (62b).
(62) a. un ajedrec-ist(a)
a chess-ist
b. el mundo ajedrec-ist(a)
the world chess-ist
‘the world related to chess’
The reason to consider words derived in -ist(a) as adjectives is
that some of the forms can only be used as adjectives, while we are
unaware of cases where the word can only be used as a noun. A
relevant example is precios-ist(a) ‘affected,’ which rejects nominal
uses (63a); another one, for many speakers, is arma-ment-ist(a)
‘related to weapons’ (63b).12
(63) a. ??Ha venido un preciosista.
has come an affected
Intended: ‘Someone affected has come.’
b. ??Ha venido un armamentista.
has come a related-to-weapons
Intended: ‘Someone related to weapons has come.’
Evidence that -ist(a) contains the layer FP is straightforward. As
FP is the locus of qualia, evidence comes from the semantic interpretation of the words derived by -ist(a). As can be seen from the
previous examples, -ist(a) tends to impose on its base a telic quale
12
An independent question which we will not develop here is how adjectives in
-ist(a) get converted to nouns. Note that -ist(a) is by no means the only affix that does
this; this is particularly frequent with relational adjective affixes (-al, -ario ‘-ary’,
-ico ‘-ic’...) and other adjectives. A suggestive solution is the one proposed in Borer
& Roy (2010), where nominalisation is a surface effect of an empty pronominal
introduced as the subject of the adjective.
Antonio Fábregas
32
interpretation: the base does not just denote an object, but it has to
be an activity performed by someone.
Consider now how this proposal about the structure of -ist(a)
explains the haplology of -idad and -ism(o). When building a noun
with a high FP projection, the computational system merges N with
F, and FP projects (64). Here, -idad or -ism(o) can be introduced.
(64)
FP
F
NP
N
√
-idadpublic-ismociclIn contrast, the adjectival version of (64) involves projecting AP
between F and NP, a movement forced by the functional hierarchy:
AP is higher than NP, and FP is higher than both. Thus, (65) is built.
Here, -idad and -ism(o) are impossible because FP and NP do not
form a syntactic constituent to the exclusion of AP. It is in such cases
that apparent haplology takes place; the morphosyntactic features
associated to -idad or -ism(o) are present—which explains that the
structure is not interpreted just as the adjectivisation of a root, but
the exponent is unavailable, given the presence of AP, and instead
-ist(a) has to be used.
(65)FP
F AP
ANP
N √
-ist(a) publicConsider now why -ist(a) does not produce haplology of suffixes like -ura. Unlike -idad, -ur(a) is the spell out of N, not an FP
that contains NP. The projection of AP over NP will not make the
exponent -ur(a) unavailable, because this projection does not break
the syntactic constituent which -ur(a) spells out, as it is trivially one
Phrasal Spell Out: An Argument from Haplology
33
single head. In (66), -ur(a) spells out N.
(66) caricat-ur-ist(a)
caricat-ur-ist
‘person who draws caricatures’
In order to derive (66), above the NP that is spelled out by -ur(a),
the structure of -ist(a) is introduced. The lowest head of -ist(a), N,
subordinates the N spelled out by -ur(a).
(67) FP
F AP
A NP
-ist(a)
NNP
N √
-ur- caricatMore about this subordination will be said in §4.4.
Let us, finally, address the affix -í(a). Remember that speakers
fell into two classes: some of them systematically haplologised it
in the presence of -ist(a), and some of them systematically kept it
before the same affix. These two alternative grammars can be dealt
with if each group of speakers associates this item with different
constituents. The group that does not haplologise it treats it basically
as -ur(a); in their grammar, the affix is associated with N (68a). In
contrast, speakers who haplologise it treat it like -idad, associating
the affix with FP and NP (68b).
(68)
a.NPb.FP
N ... F NP
-í(a)
-í(a)N ...
What this means, if the analysis is right, is that speakers who
haplologise -í(a) should at the same time reject that it is followed
Antonio Fábregas
34
by affixes like -esc(o), -ari(o), -os(o) or -al, while speakers who do
not haplologise it, should accept those combinations. There are some
data that suggest this is on the right track. When confronted with new
formations like (69), the speakers who did not haplologise the affix
found them more acceptable that those that did not.
(69) a. filo-log-í(a) > filo-log-i-esco
philo-log-yphilo-log-y-esque
‘typical of philology’
b.
agon-í(a)>agon-i-oso
agon-y agon-y-ous
‘that causes agony’
c.
cardenal-í(a)>cardenal-i-ario
cardinal-ate cardinal-ate-ary
‘cardinalate’‘related to a cardinalate’
4.4. An assumption that needs to be made: an asymmetry
between adjectivalisation and nominalisation
The attentive reader will have noticed by now that in order to
explain the data we had to make an implicit assumption that we will
now make explicit: i.e., that nominalisation can be obtained through
subordination, but adjectivalisation is always a result of projecting
A over N, as the functional sequence dictates.
If adjectivisation could subordinate structures, then affix ordering
data like (58) would be unexplained, as they could in principle correspond to a structure like (70). Now, if A is unable to subordinate,
they follow from the proposal.
(70)
*AP
A
FP
F NP...
In contrast, nominalisation must be able to subordinate other
structures, as an example like (18)—lud-ist-ismo ‘Luddistism’—
shows. These words must correspond to a structure where over the
Phrasal Spell Out: An Argument from Haplology
35
derivation corresponding to an -ist(a) adjective, a noun is defined
and the functional sequence is restarted.
(71)FP
F NP
Subordination
N FP
-ism
FAP
A NP
-ist N ...
Note that as -ist(a) contains at its lowest element an N projection, it is also expected to be in principle at least able to subordinate
other structures. This is what we suggest happens in caricat-ur-ist(a)
‘person who draws caricatures’ (72), and this is the reason why the
lowest N is still spelled out by -ur(a) in this context, as opposed to
instances, such as the one discussed in footnote 6, where the base’s
N layer is also spelled out by -ist(a).
(72)FP
F AP
Subordination
ANP
-ist(a)
N NP
N
√
-ur(a) caricatNote, in any case, that (72) is not the adjectivisation of the base
noun caricat-ur(a) ‘caricature,’ unlike what happens when there is
haplology of -idad or -ism(o). (72) is the adjectivisation of a noun
related to the noun caricat-ur(a). Hence the semantics of the word,
‘related to the entity that does something with caricatures.’
Antonio Fábregas
36
We do not have a fully-fledged proposal about the deep reasons
why A should be unable to subordinate structures, but we can offer
some speculations. Baker (2003: 190-264) has argued that adjectives,
as grammatical categories, are not defined by positive properties, but
rather by the absence of the properties that nouns and verbs have.
Unlike nouns, they do not carry an index of identity, and unlike verbs,
they are unable to introduce their own subject (see also Baker 2008).
Perhaps this inability to subordinate other structures is related to the
absence of positive properties; if subordination implies resetting the
functional hierarchy, a head without any substantive features will be
unable to reset it because it will be unable to redefine the properties
of its complement.
Note also that, in contrast to traditional analyses, as the field
evolves there are fewer and fewer constructions where an A head is
used to subordinate other constituents. In syntax, of course, relative
clauses are analysed essentially as nominal subordination with an
operator-variable structure which allows it to act as a noun modifier.
Embick’s (2004) analysis of participles—the primary example of
alleged adjectival derivation of a verb—analyses the adjectivisation process as absence of verbal functional heads, not presence of
adjectival heads. Oltra-Massuet (2010), in her analysis of Spanish
-ble, another traditional example of subordination of V by A, convincingly argues that when the base is verbal an aspectual head and
a modal head can do the work of what seems to be adjectivisation.
Obviously, a complete argumentation that A cannot subordinate
structures higher than NP must address the remaining cases where
there is apparent adjectivisation from verbs, which goes beyond the
goals of this paper. Here, therefore, this claim has the status of an
assumption, but one that is consistent with the data and one that we
believe to have some plausible independent motivations.
5. Conclusions
In this paper we have argued that the haplology of -idad, -ism(o)
and -í(a), when the word seems to be derived by -ist(a), is the kind of
phenomenon that illustrates one of the predictions of a Phrasal Spell
Out theory of Late Insertion. We have argued that given the functional
hierarchy, the adjectival equivalent of a nominal structure involves
a head A which intervenes between N and a higher projection F. If
Phrasal Spell Out: An Argument from Haplology
37
the affix lexicalises a phrasal constituent including F and N, but not
A, we predict that that affix will not be used when the structure appears in the adjectival version, but instead another exponent, which
lexicalises F, A and N, will be introduced. An approach with Fusion
does not make this prediction. Fusion, as an operation, would have
to be redefined either to allow the simultaneous mapping of three
or more heads, or to allow somehow that it makes reference to both
morphological and syntactic terminals in order to make the same
kind of prediction. Additionally, we have argued that the haplology
of -is in front of -ist(a) is, against what has been assumed, not a
phonological phenomenon, given that -is can be plausibly segmented
as a noun marker.
Globally, and beyond the specific problems discussed here, this
article provides indirect evidence in favour of a neo-constructionist
theory.
First, the analyses that we have argued for in this article support a
theory where two things are unnecessary: (a) an operation of haplology that would be applied at a morphological level; in our account,
haplology is either phonological or motivated by independent syntactic
principles having to do with the size of the complement of a lexical
head or with the functional hierarchy; (b) idiosyncratic and arbitrary
statements in specific lexical entries stating which other exponents
undergo haplology in adjacency with that exponent. In this latter
account, the fact that -ist(a) triggers haplology of precisely -ism(o),
-idad and -í(a), but not -ur(a) or others, is purely accidental. It could
have been these affixes as much as any others. In our account, the
reason why some affixes undergo haplology, but not others, has to
do with their internal complexity, and is matched by their semantics
and affix-ordering phenomena.
The generalisation that affixes that undergo haplology form a
natural class can also be used to argue against an alternative set of
operations that theories with Fusion, like Distributed Morphology,
might propose to explain haplology. As an anonymous reviewer
correctly points out, the same surface result could be obtained in
Distributed Morphology through a combination of head movement
and a statement that forces a(n intermediate) head to be spelled out
as a default ø. Given (76), if for some reason the lowest head Z has
to head-move to the highest head X, strict locality dictates that it
must displace first to the intermediate head Y.
38
Antonio Fábregas
(76)XP
X YP
Y ZP
Z...
Assume now that the morphology of the language has an idiosyncratic morphological rule—e.g., with the format that Bonet (1991)
proposed for feature impoverishment in clitic sequences—that
dictates that when Z and Y bundle together, Y has to be spelled out
as ø. This would indeed capture haplology, but note that it requires
positing an additional idiosyncratic operation which does not follow
from head movement or any other property of the structure. Perhaps
more importantly, as morphological rules in DM are idiosyncratic in
nature, the rule could make reference to any set of affixes. It remains
a mystery, under this account, why the affixes that haplologise are
those, and only those, that contain an FP layer and a nominal head.
Finally, another potential problem of this theory is that the reason
why Z has to move to X is not clear; if it is a formal property that
has to be checked by X, the question is what satisfies that property
when X is not present (that is, when there is no haplology). Let us
be clear at this point, however, that we do not mean to imply that
standard DM cannot capture the effect of this kind of haplology: our
critique is that it would miss the generalisations having to do with
the feature composition of the affixes involved.
Secondly, to the extent that we provide evidence for Phrasal Spell
Out in lexical entries, we provide evidence for a system where exponents are introduced after the syntactic structure is complete, in
line with the claims of the neo-constructionist approach. Insertion in
terminal nodes is compatible both with a Late Insertion approach and
with a lexicalist view where elements from the lexicon are present
from the beginning of the syntactic derivation. However, if at least
some exponents are associated with non terminal nodes, insertion
of lexical items must necessarily happen after the structure is built,
otherwise the context of insertion of exponents is not yet defined.
Therefore, a way to interpret this article is also as an argument in
favour of not allowing lexical information to be accessed until the
computational system has built some structure.
Phrasal Spell Out: An Argument from Haplology
39
Works Cited
1. Alber, Birgit & Sabine Arndt-Lappe. 2012. Templatic and substractive truncation. In Jochen Trommer (ed.), The morphology
and phonology of exponence. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp. 289-325.
2. Alemany Bolúfer, José. 1920. Tratado de la formación de palabras
en la lengua castellana. Madrid: Librería General de Victoriano
Suárez.
3. Arad, Maya. 2003. Locality constraints in the interpretation of
roots: the case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural language
and linguistic theory 21, pp. 737-778.
4. Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar,
Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
5. Arregi, Karlos & Andrew Nevins. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque
auxiliaries and the structure of spell out. Dordrecht: Springer.
6. Baker, Mark. 2003. Lexical categories. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
7. ––. 2008. The Syntax of Agreement and Concord, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
8. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2007. Morphological structure and
phonological domains in Spanish denominal derivation. In F.
Martínez-Gil & S. Colina (eds), Optimality-Theoretic Studies in
Spanish Phonology, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 278-311.
9. Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after Syntax, Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge (Mass.): MIT.
10. Borer, Hagit. 2005a. In Name Only, Volume 1 from the ‘Exoskeletal Trilogy.’ Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. ––. 2005b. The Natural Course of Events, Volume 2 from the
‘Exoskeletal Trilogy.’ Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. ––. 2012. In the event of a nominal. In Martin Everaert, Marijana
Marelj & Tal Siloni (eds.), The Theta System. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp. 103-150.
13. ––. 2013. Structuring sense: taking form. Volume 3 from the
‘Exoskeletal Trilogy.’ Oxford, Oxford University Press.
14. Caha, Pavel. 2009. The nanosyntax of case. PhD dissertation,
Tromsø: University of Tromsø.
15. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2005. Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20
and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36, pp. 315-332.
16. ––. 2010. The syntax of adjectives. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT
Press.
40
Antonio Fábregas
17. Clark, Eve V. & Herbert H. Clark. 1979. When nouns surface as
verbs. Language, 55, 767-811.
18. Corbin, Danielle & Marc Plénat. 1992. Note sur l’haplologie
des mots construits. Langue Française 96, pp. 101-112.
19. De Lacy, Paul. 1999. Morphological haplology and correspondence. In Paul de Lacy & Anita Nowak (eds.), Papers from the
25th Anniversary. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers.
Amherst: GSLA, pp. 51-88.
20. Dressler, Wolfgang. 1977. Phono-morphological dissimilation.
In Wolfgang Dressler & Oskar Pfeiffer (eds.), Phonologica 1976.
Innsbruck: Universität Innsbruck, pp. 41-48.
21. Eguren, Luis. 2001. Evaluative suffixation in Spanish and the
syntax of derivational processes. In Julia Herschensohn, Enrique
Mallén & Karen Zagona (eds.), Features and Interfaces in Romance. 71-85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
22. Embick, David. 2004. On the structure of resultative participles
in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35, pp. 355-392.
23. ––. 2010. Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology, Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
24. Embick, David & Alec Marantz. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39, 1-53.
25. Fábregas, Antonio. 2013. Diminutives as heads or specifiers: the
mapping between syntax and phonology. Iberia, in press.
26.Fradin, Bernard, Fabio Montermini & Marc Plénat. 2007.
Morphologie grammaticale et morphologie extragrammaticale.
In Bernard Fradin, Françoise Kerleroux & Marc Plénat (eds.),
Aperçus de morphologie du français. Saint-Denis: Puv, pp. 2145.
27. Grohmann, Kleanthes. 2011. Anti-locality: too-close relations
in grammar. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of
Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.
260-290.
28. Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology
and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds),
The View from Building 20, Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press, pp.
111-176.
29. Harris, James W. 1991. The Exponence of Gender in Spanish.
Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 27-62.
30. Johnston, Michael & Federica Busa. 1999. Qualia structure and
the compositional interpretation of compounds. In E. Viegas (ed.),
Breadth and depth of semantic lexicons, 167-188. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Phrasal Spell Out: An Argument from Haplology
41
31.Julien, Marit. 2002. Syntactic Heads and Word Formation,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32. Lin, T.-H. Jonah & C.-Y. Cecilia Liu. 2005. Coercion, event
structure and syntax. Nanzan Linguistics 2, pp. 9-31.
33. Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In A.
Dimitriadis, L. Siegel et al. (eds), UPenn Working Papers in
Linguistics 4, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania, pp.
201-225.
34. ––. 2001. Words, Unpublished ms., Cambridge (Mass.), MIT.
35. ––. 2013. Verbal argument structure: events and participants.
Lingua 130, pp. 152-168.
36.McBride, Alexander I. 2004. A constraint-based approach
to morphology. PhD dissertation, Los Angeles: University of
California.
37. Neeleman, Ad & Kriszta Szendrői. 2007. Radical pro drop and
the morphology of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 38, pp. 671-714.
38. Neeleman, Ad & Hans van de Koot. 2006. Syntactic haplology.
In Martin Everaert, Rob Goedemans, Bart Hollebrandse & Henk
van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax.
Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 685-710.
39. Nevins, Andrew. 2012. Haplological dissimilation at distinct
stages of exponence. In Jochen Trommer (ed.), The morphology
and phonology of exponence. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp. 84-117.
40. Noyer, Rolf. 1997. Features, Positions and Affixes in Autonomous
Morphological Structure. New York: Garland Publishing.
41. Oltra-Massuet, Isabel. 2010. On the morphology of complex
adjectives. PhD dissertation, Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma
de Barcelona.
42. Ortmann, Albert & Alexandra Popescu. 2001. Haplology involving morphologically bound and free elements: evidence from
Romanian. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook
of Morphology 2000. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 43-70.
43. Panagiotidis, E. Phoevos. 2011. Categorial features and categorizers. The Linguistic Review 28, pp. 365-386.
44. Piñeros, Carlos Eduardo. 2000. Prosodic and segmental unmarkedness in Spanish truncation. Linguistics 38, p. 63-98.
45. Plénat, Marc. 1991. Le javanais: concurrence et haplologie.
Languages 101, pp. 95-117.
46. Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge
(Mass.): MIT Press.
42
Antonio Fábregas
47.RAE [Real Academia Española] & ASALE [Asociación de
Academias de la Lengua Española]. 2009. Nueva gramática de
la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa.
48.Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. First Phase Syntax. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
49. Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering trees. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT
Press.
50. Roca, Iggy & Elena Felíu. 2003. Morphology in truncation: the
role of the Spanish desinence. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle
(eds), Yearbok of Morphology 2002, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp.
187-243.
51. Scheer, Tobias. 2011. A guide to Morphosyntax-Phonology Interface theories. How extramorphological information is treated
in Phonology since Trubetzkoy’s Grenzsignale. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
52. Sproat, Richard & Chilin Shih. 1991. The cross-linguistic distribution of adjective ordering restrictions. In Carol Georgopoulos &
Roberta Ishihara (eds.), Interdisciplinary approaches to language.
Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 565-593.
53. Stemberger, Joseph P. 1981. Morphological haplology. Language
57, pp. 791-817.
54. Stump, Gregory. 1998. Inflection. In Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds), The Handbook of Morphology, Oxford:
Blackwell, pp. 13-43.
55. Svenonius, Peter, Gillian Ramchand, Michal Starke & Tarald
Taraldsen (eds.). 2009. Nordlyd 36.1. Special issue on Nanosyntax. Tromsø: Septentrio Press.
56. Van Riemsdijk, Henk. 2008. Identity avoidance. In Robert Freidin,
Carlos P. Otero & María Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational
issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger
Vergnaud. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press, pp. 227-250.
57. Volpe, Marc J. 2005. Japanese morphology and its theoretical
consequences: derivational morphology in Distributed Morphology. PhD dissertation: Stony Brook University.
58. Weerman, Fred & Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul. 2002. Pronouns
and case. Lingua 112, pp. 301-338.
59. Wurzel, Wolfgang Ulrich. 1976. Zur Haplologie. Linguistische
Berichte 41, pp. 50-57.
60. Xu, Zheng. 2007. Inflectional morphology in Optimality Theory.
PhD dissertation: Stony Brook University.