LING 341, 2006
DISTRIBUTED MORPHOLOGY
LING 341 – MORPHOLOGY (2006)
1. UNDERSPECIFICATION
Segmentation problem (English present tense)
(2)
I like trucks.
You like trucks.
Leo likes trucks.
We like trucks.
You like trucks.
They like trucks.
What’s the distribution of bare verb form (Ø)?
(3)
(4)
Analysis 1
! correlates w/, expresses, exponent of (morpho-synt feats)
-s ! [3,SG]
Ø
no context, “elsewhere” / “default”
Analysis 2
Ø ! 1 SG
Ø ! 2 SG
-s ! 3 SG
Ø ! 1 PL
Ø ! 2 PL
Ø ! 3 PL
equivalent:
Ø ! {1SG or 2 SG or …}
Analysis 1 invokes a default, and underspecification.
(5)
-en ! PL /
-Ø ! PL /
-ta ! PL /
…
-/z/ ! PL /
Notation:
(6)
cf. English plurals.
{OX, CHILD}___
{DEER, FISH, …}___
{SCHEMA, STIGMA, …}___
(Context free)
The list is discjunctive, read top-to-bottom, and only one may apply.
The order between the default and all others is crucial (and automatic), other
orders in this example are not.
Subset Principle (Elsewhere Condition, etc…)
The most highly specified exponent (rule) consistent with the context must apply.
A rule R is consistent with a context C if the features of R are a subset of the features of
C.
(7)
* Leo like trucks.
* deers
context:
context:
[3 SG]
DEER-PL
The default, by definition, is compatible with all environments.
Why is it excluded here?
Underspecification invokes a competition.
1
2
LING 341, 2006
(8)
Rule Schema (standard DM notation)
exponent
“vocabulary item”
!
aside
syntactic features
“syntactic context”
/
contextual restrictions
lexical, phonological?
Underspecification in a Realizational approach:
(14)
compare “rules of exponence ” (in DM: Halle, Bobaljik, Trommer)
"
"
Features
PL
Exponent
/-en/
/
/
MSR: Leo [3SG] [LIKE, 3 SG ] trucks.
PF:
Context
{OX,CHILD}__
(15)
We [1PL] [LIKE, 1PL ] trucks.
like – s
*Leo like trucks:
like - Ø
Ø is blocked by –s
vocabulary insertion
Note: Blocking depends on full specification of MSR.
An additional example:
(9)
(16)
1st person
2nd person
3rd person
(10)
singular
sagt!
sagt!st
sagt!
plural
sagt!n
sagt!t
sagt!n
-PL.
+PL
German Agreement (Past):
a.
b.
c.
d.
•
•
Syncretism via underspecification:
German (weak) Past Tense: sag!n ‘to say’
-t
-n
-st
Ø
(17)
! [2 PLURAL]
! [PLURAL]
! [2]
!
<=elsewhere>
underspecification " unspecified !
(11)
(12)
___ _____
_________
The data regularly underdetermines the analysis.
(Many analysis, all descriptively adequate)
(18)
(19)
4
4
[AGR: 2 PL]
|
[TNS: PAST]
V [SAY]
sag
t!
(20)
-n
Exponents can be underspecified.
Terminal nodes (morphemes) can be be fully specified.
3
Cross-linguistic generalizations
Acquisition, Psycho-neuro evidence
English forms of the verb be:
1ST PERSON
2ND PERSON
3RD PERSON
(see (1); we’ll come back to this)
Realization; Late-Insertion; Separation
(13)
Other sources of evidence:
competition makes reference to MSR
In D.M., the MSR = (the output of the) syntax.
+Oblique
Genitive
his
hire
his
hira
hira
hira
The finite space problem
MSR: SAY [TENSE: PAST; AGR: 2 PL]
Exponents:
Dative
him
hire
him
heom
heom
heom
Hypotheses make predictions about un-encountered data.
In inflection, we (often) have all the data.
Note that underspecification is a relative notion.
The context must be independent of the vocabulary item that expresses the context!
The context, relative to which v.i.s are underspecified, is the MORPHO-SYNTACTIC
REPRESNTATION (MSR) of the sentence.
Masculine
Feminine
Neuter
Masculine
Feminine
Neuter
Old English third person pronouns
-Oblique
Nominative Accusative
he:
hine
he:o
he:o
hit
hit
hi:e
hi:e
hi:e
hi:e
hi:e
hi:e
SINGULAR
am
are
is
a.
am ! [1, SG.]
is ! [3, SG.]
are ! <elsewhere>
b.
are ! [ PLURAL]
am ! [1, SG.]
is ! elsewhere
PLURAL
are
are
are
+Rule of referral: (2.SG " 2.PL)
It is … " Isn’t it ?
You/they are … " Aren’t you/they ?
I am … " * Amn’t I ?
instead: % Aren’t I ?
How do you get “are” with a first person subject, given: *I are …
4
cf. pronouns
LING 341, 2006
2.1 Gender agreement (French, Russian)
2. ALTERNATIVES TO REALIZATION (LEXICALISM / PROJECTIONISM)
(26)
Two approaches to the Morphology-Syntax Interface.
(21)
a.
Projectionist/Incremental
(prominent in syntax)
b.
Morpho-Syntax
(22)
a.
[ [ [ Root ]
Realizational
(prominent in morphology)
Morpho-Syntax
!
Phonological Form
Phonological Form
[LIKE, 3 SG PRES]
b.
like - s
[3, SG, PRES] " -S
Underspecification in a Projectionist approach (first version):
(23)
MSR: Leo [3SG] [LIKE, 3 SG ] trucks.
PF:
(24)
*Leo like trucks:
(27)
[LIKE, 3 SG PRES]
like - s
-s [3, SG, PRES]
like – s
[LIKE,
(28)
b.
(Marie) elle
est
(Maria) she
is
‘Maria is intelligent.’
intelligent-e
/ *intelligent
intelligent-[FEM] / intelligent-[Ø]
Russian gender inflection (short adjectives, nominative case)
–GND/NUM/CASE
-i/y ! [PLURAL]
-a ! [FEM]
-o ! [NEUT]
-Ø ! [ ]
(29)
• like is blocked by likes, since likes is a better fit to syntactic context (agreement)
Projection (LGB et seq; HPSG, LFG,
Andrews 1990)
Agreement can be copying/matching Agreement via unification
Subset Princ regulates competition
Subset Princ regulates competition for
for exponence (very local: X˚)
agreement (less local)
*risk of infinite complexity; see
Andrews
competition defined over vocabulary competition defined over (possible)
items (finite)
words (may or may not be finite)
French
Unmarked form blocked in b. by marked (FEM) form, which is a better fit for the context.
•
like - Ø
Realization
-s ! [PLURAL]
-Ø ! [ ]
intelligent.
intelligent-[Ø]
] trucks.
] trucks.
–Number ]
-e ! [FEM]
-Ø ! [ ]
(Jean)
il
est
(John)
he
is
‘John is intelligent.’
like - Ø
Leo [3SG]
–Gender ]
a.
[ [ Root ]
We [1PL] [LIKE,
PF:
(25)
French adjectival inflection (partial)
NB. gender never marked in PL
NB., more precisely /#/ < *$
a.
(Vanja) on
(John)
he
‘John is sick.’
bolen.
sick-[Ø]
Russian
b.
(Masha) ona
(Maria) she
‘Maria is sick.’
bol’n-a
sick-[FEM]
/ *bolen
/ SICK-[Ø]
Analysis as above: agreement + underspecification
•
(30)
-PL
Pronominal paradigms (nominative)
1
2
3
+PL 1
2
3
French
FEM
je
tu
il
elle
nous
vous
ils
elles
MASC
“je” ! [1 sg] …
MASC
on
Russian
FEM
ja
ty
ona
my
vy
oni
NEUT
ono
underspecified for gender
NB. like Russian PL, ignores issue of meta-syncretism, to which we return
5
6
LING 341, 2006
•
Gender agreement when the subject nominal does not mark gender (1st and 2nd person):
(31)
a.
b.
Je
suis intelligent.
(speaker is male)
Je
suis intelligent-e.
(speaker is female)
I
am
intelligent-[Ø]/-[FEM]
‘I am intelligent.’
(32)
a.
b.
Ja — bolen.
Ja — bol’n-a.
I
sick-[Ø]/-[FEM]
‘I am sick.’
(speaker is male)
(speaker is female)
2.2 Underspecification: Agreement with no grammatical source
Russian:
like French (29), (32), but
third person (singular) pronouns: same gender exponents as adjectives
(37)
pronouns
past tense
‘be’
short adjectives
‘sick’
‘closed’
on-i
on-o
on-a
on
byl-i
byl-o
byl-a
byl
bol’n-y
bol’n-o
bol’n-a
bolen
If “masculine” is unmarked, why can’t (31a)/(32a) be used by a female speaker?
•
A real(izational) answer:
Full Specification of MSR / Underspecification is property of VIs / exponents
(33)
MSR:
[1SG FEM] BE [INTEL, FEM ].
PF:
•
je
[1SG (M)] BE [INTEL, (M) ].
intelligent – e
je
•
•
a.
On-a
bol’n-a.
SG-FEM
sick-FEM
‘She/it was closed.’
c.
On-a
byl-a
zakryt-a.
SG-FEM was-FEM closed-FEM
‘She/it was closed.’ (door)
b.
On
bolen.
SG-Ø
sick-Ø
‘He/it was closed.’
d.
On
byl
zakryt
SG-Ø
was-Ø
closed-Ø
‘He/it was closed.’ (drawer)
A projectionist answer (HPSG, Pollard & Sag 1994):
(34)
MSR:
[1SG ]
PF:
je
BE [INTEL, FEM ].
[
intelligent – e
1SG ] BE [INTEL
je
].
intelligent – Ø
•
There is no syntactic source for the gender, to define the context for “best fit”
•
Syntactic agreement cannot resolve this competition.
•
Hypothesis: Predicate adjective agreement is “semantic” agreement (not syntactic or
morphological) and is resolved by choosing the sentence that best fits the discourse context
(i.e., natural gender of speaker). FEM as presupposition.
(35)
Realization
Agreement is copying/matching
Subset Princ regulates competition
for exponence (very local: X˚)
competition defined over morphemes
(finite)
(36)
Projection
Agreement is non-clash / unification
Subset Princ regulates competition for
syntactic or semantic agreement (not
local) (complexity?)
competition defined over (possible)
words and sentences
•
Like French je, Russian ja:
competition cannot be resolved morpho-syntactically.
•
semantic agreement?
OK for (38a-b) [humans can be sick]
But inanimates (38c-d) grammatical gender
•
Facts are even more complex; see Corbett 1991, Wechsler & Zlati% 2003, etc.
•
Grammatical gender must come from the word (root), and can’t come from the semantics.
o Where natural gender " grammatical gender " optionality + trends
Conclusion
Underspecification # Separation
MSR is independent of morpho-phonological representation.
Underspecification # Realization / Late Insertion
Morphology interprets, rather than feeding, syntax.
Projection/Unification: two sources for resolving competition / underspecification.
(i)
(ii)
(inherent) grammatical features of other words in the expression
(natural) semantic features of referents [speaker, hearer]
7
[pl]
[neut]
[fem]
default
Gender exponents in pronoun and predicate are subject to underspecification.
Both pairs of sentences in (38a-b, c-d) will unify, with neither blocking the other.
(38)
intelligent – Ø
zakryt-y
zakryt-o
zakryt-a
zakryt
8
LING 341, 2006
(46)
Aside: Merger (word-hood) is hard to detect when word-internal and external syntax have
same headedness (recall Cynthia’s ?: what’s a word?, Miguel’s ? re: circumfixes)
(47)
a.
Taroo-ga
Taro-NOM
b.
Taroo-ga
Tanaka sensee-o
Taro-NOM
Tanaka Professor-ACC
‘Taro helped Prof. Tanaka.’
3. SYNTAX ALL THE WAY DOWN
DM:
The MSR is (determined by) the syntax.
“Single Generative Engine”
Isolating languages: UG contains the mechanisms needed to combine morphemes.
(Chomsky’s MERGE) creates labelled (headed) constituent structures
Agglutinating languages:
(39)
a.
b.
c.
Is there any reason to think that MERGE is insufficient?
Is the internal structure of words different from the internal
structure of phrases? (cf. Swadesh 1939, Pike 1949)
John cried.
John is smarter.
John leapt.
Did John cry.
John is more intelligent.
John took/made a leap.
Syntax composes, morphology determines (in part) word vs. phrase status
(41)
Syntax:
DegP
4
|
AdjP
-ER
ROOT
Spell-Out:
(42)
(43)
Uniform syntax/semantics
(50)
[XP -ER [YP SMART+M ]] b. [ [ -ER [ INTELLIGENT ]
[Y˚ [ SMART ] –ER ]
-----merger
smarter
mo-re intelligent
b.
[Tanaka-sensee-o
o-tasuke]-sae
Tanaka-Prof.-ACC
HP-help-even
Taro even helped Prof. Tanaka.
Taro-ga
Taro-NOM
a.
b.
(see (39))
Latin –que ‘and’; occurs after first word of its complement.
NP
q|p
NP
and
NP
Open question:
[ [ bon-i puer-i ] & [ bon-ae
puell-ae] ]
[ [ bon-i puer-i ]
[ bon-ae –que puell-ae] ]
how much ordering is PF and how much syntax?
9
tasuke]-sae
help-even
Kai-ga
Kai-NOM
tVP
si-ta.
do-PAST
si-ta.
do-PAST
tVP
-ta.
-PAST
Yamada sensee-ga
kono ronbun-o kak-are-ta
Yamada Professor-NOM
this article-ACC write-PASS-PAST
Prof. Yamada wrote this article. (passive as subject honorification)
*[kono ronbun-o kaki]-sae Yamada sensee-ga
tVP
this article-ACC write-even Yamada Professor-NOM
Prof. Yamada even wrote this article.
(r)are-ta
PASS-PAST
See (1)
Syntax all the way down :
+ Morphological Operations (like Merger) that blur this
Intuition:
Isomorphism between syntactic structure (and thus semantics) and morphology
should ‘come for free’ (cf. Muysken 1981,
Baker 1985); Morpheme
order/structure is essentially syntax, deviations are minor and local.
Differences between syntax and morphology:
Thus, Merger routinely creates suffixation in English
Light verb si-ta (PAST) su-ru (PRES)
Kai-ga
Kai-NOM
*[Lina-o
Lina-ACC
(normal)
o-tasuke(-)si-ta (honorific object)
HP-help(-)“su”-PAST
[Lina-o
tasuke]-sae
Lina-ACC
help-even
‘Kai even helped Lina’
Merger
Idiosyncratic conditions on Merger, partly phonological.
tasuke-ta
help-PAST
a.
(49)
Headedness (English: rigidly head-initial syntax, but dominant head-final inside X˚)
Assumption: linear order is part of the Spell-Out component (Morphology).
(45)
(48)
Morphological Merger (Marantz 1984, 1988: 261) At any level of syntactic analysis (dstructure, s-structure, phonological structure), a relation between X and Y may be
replaced by (expressed by) the affixation of the lexical head of X to the lexical head of Y.
a.
(44)
Is o-tasuke(-)si-ta one word or two?
[Past tense]
[comparative]
[simple actions]
(40)
Tanaka sensee-o
Tanaka Professor-ACC
Morphology, like syntax and semantics, is compositional: piece-based
Why might one be tempted to an alternative? (Matthews, Anderson, Stump)
Process Morphology (see Hockett 1954).
Somali
non-segmental morphs: tones, ablaut, mutations
gender
ínan "boy"
number
díbi "ox"
case
UNMARKED
bull/ox
Fatima
díbi
Faadúmo
10
inán "girl"
(LH vs. HL)
dibí "oxen"
(gndr polarity)
NOMINATIVE
dibi
Faadumo
GENITIVE
dibí
Faadumó
VOCATIVE
(suff)
Fàadumo
LING 341, 2006
(51)
Reduplication in Tagalog (from Andrea’s handout)
present
bili
kuha
punta
sulat
buy
get
go
write
(52)
Syntax:
future
bi-bili
ku-kuha
pu-punta
su-sulat
TP
4
|
VP
FUT
Verb
Clitics in Slavic (mostly syntactic): Q>AUX>DAT>ACC/GEN>REFL(se)>je
Bo&kovi% 2001
" me &
$
$" &
$$ te $$$ le $" lui &
Clitics in Romance (templates):
French
# se '# la '#
' y,en
$ nous$$ les$% leur(
%
(
$
$
$% vous $(
Head Movement or Merger
Vocabulary item for “FUT” CV•
Templatic Ordering:
1,2,se 3acc
(or minimal syllable, McCarthy)
(53)
The feasibility of such analyses relies on the plausibility of having a theory of association in
the (morpho-)phonology.
3dat
s- > 2 > 1 > 3!> gen > {oblique/neuter}
se te m’enfadaré
se te m’enfadarás
Piece-Based analysis and morpheme order:
obl…
Barceloní (Bonet 1991, 1995)
‘I’ll get angry at you’
‘You’ll get angry at me’
Hierarchies, inverses, and the like:
(54)
Nishnaabemwin (Algonqiuan)
a.
Subj
(55)
g-waabm-i
g-waabm-in
2-see-DIRECT 2-see-INVERSE
‘You see me ‘I see you.’
Obj
2
2
1
3
g-waabm-in
g-waabm-igw
g!2
n- ! 1
w-
Béjar 2003 < Valentine 2001
b. n-waabm-aa
1-see-TH
‘I see him’
1
g-waab-am
n-waabm-igw
n-waabm-igw
1-see-TH
‘He sees me’
3
g-waabm-aa
n-waabm-aa
w-waabm-aa-n
regardless of GF
For a syntactic analysis of inverse in one Algonquian language, see Bruening 2001.
4. MORPHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS: AN INVENTORY OF TWEAKS
Recall:
•
Quite generally, the ‘slots’ in a template have internal and external coherence.
DM:
o Internal:
Slot 13 = Aspect, Slot 16 = Tense, Slot 17 = Object Agreement
o External:
The order of affixes often mirrors syntactic hierarchy.
The affixes are (in the general case) heads in the syntax (MSR)
But there are deviations:
theme vowels, augments etc.
11
1:1 mapping morphological structure:syntactic structure is basic case
Deviations abound, and are the core area of theoretical inquiry
NOTE: IDENTIFYING MORPHO-SYNTAX ISOMORPHISM OR MISMTACHES
REQUIRES DOING SYNTAX (AND PHONOLOGY)! Conversely, we know that mismatches
exist, and thus any syntactic analysis relying on overt morphological cues for structure (affix
order, possibly word order) is making implicit commitments about morphology. Analyses are
significantly incomplete until those are cashed out.
DM leading idea:
deviations are constrained by linguistic (morphological) principles
12
LING 341, 2006
All of these are areas of active inquiry within DM
Syntax
Morphology
" Feat1%
[X˚ $
']
#Feat2&
FISSION:
•
•
MERGER (above)
[XP X [YP Y ]]
[X˚ X [Y˚ Y ]]
cf. head mvmt
Syntax: Agr
•
FUSION
[X˚ X [Y˚ Y ]]
2 v.i.s
[XY˚ X"Y]
1 v.i.
cumulative exponence
(61)
(56)
Italian:
‘boy’ ragazz-o
‘girl’ ragazz-a
ragazz-i
ragazz-e
BUNDLING (Bobaljik 1995 et seq., Pylkkänen 1999, in press)
(57)
F
[FL]
Lex
CHL
Spell-Out:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
a.
b.
(59)
L1 (Lex)
L2 (Lex)
[INFL TNS, AGR ]
[T TNS ]
[AGR AGR]
a.
b.
IP
3
3
Infl
VP
[T,Agr]
@
V…
(60)
a.
b.
c.
AgrP
3
3
Agr
TP
3
3
Tns
VP
@
V…
More specifier positions (subject positions) in (59a) than (59b)
More syntactic terminal nodes (heads) in (59a) than (59b)
Non-local relations among “Infl-type” heads in (59b)
Syntactic variation:
In the absence of any variation in the Syntax (grammar, CHL), the points in
(60) could very well turn out to be manifest as differences in the syntax
(descriptive) of the languages.
Syntax AGR; Fission “2pl” (polite)
my
po-id-em(*-te)
we
ASP-go-1PL-2PL
‘We will go.’
Could there be an additional syntactic node in hortatives to host double agr?
IMPOVERISHMENT:
•
(62)
Macedonian
deletion/suppression of features prior to vocabulary insertion
padn- ‘fall’
present
(63)
-am
-e -&
-e
-e -me
-e -te
-at
(from Stump 1993:452)
past (imperf)
past (aorist)
padn
padn
padn
padn
padn
padn
padn
padn
padn
padn
padn
padn
1sg.
2sg.
3sg.
1pl.
2pl.
3pl.
padn
padn
padn
padn
padn
padn
-e -v
-e
-&e
-e
-&e
-e -v -me
-e -v -te
-e
-a
a.
In the past tenses, the second person singular has the same form as the third
person singular (p. 452)
b.
Person:2 " Person:__ / [sg, past]
Meta-Paradigmatic Syncretism:
(64)
-PL.
Practical limit:
+PL
13
po-id-em-te
ASP-go-1PL-2PL
‘Let’s go (polite)’
Requirement for evaluation: Independent evidence for syntactic structure.
Morphological var.: If the terminal nodes of the syntax (X˚) are the locus of vocabulary
insertion (realization), then (59b) allows for separate Tns and Agr
“morphemes”, but (59a) does not.
Underspecification—no requirement that all heads have overt exponents.
Russian:!
not in “inclusive” contexts:
Set of functional features. UG
(after: Chomsky 2000: 101)
One-time selection: the features active in L
Assembly of [FL] into LIs — “the Lexicon of L” [Bundling]
Syntax
Interpretation of the output of CHL
[Fusion]
The “Free AGR” / “Split Infl” Parameter (Thráinsson 1996, Bobaljik & Thráinsson 1998)
Morphological form: Separate Person and number
doubly-inflected form (61) only in hortative (1 psn imperative):
Refer to (1)—relationship of morphological to syntactic variation…
(58)
[X˚ Feat 1 ] [X˚ Feat 2]
An alternative to FISSION: Feature Movement (McGinnis)
IF the syntax has separate number and gender nodes, then this is fusion.
Alternative:
"
Russian (cf. Ole Eng: (16), Greenberg’s U 37 and 45)
Masculine
Feminine
Neuter
Masculine
Feminine
Neuter
Pronouns
Nominative Dative
on
emu
on-a
ej
on-o
emu
on-i
im
on-i
im
on-i
im
Adjectives
Nom (Long)
-yj
-aja
-oje
-ye
-ye
-ye
14
-a -v
-a
-a
-a -v -me
-a -v -te
-a
-a
LING 341, 2006
Underspecification misses a significant generalization.
(65)
a.
-i
-a
-o
Ø
! [PLURAL] b.
! [FEM]
! [NEUT]
! [__]
im
ej
! [DAT.PLURAL]
! [DAT.FEM]
emu
! [DAT]
Such a treatment leaves the lack of gender in the plural as a series of accidental
statements about individual vocabulary items.
GENDER "
(66)
or:
Ø / [ __ PLURAL]
* [GENDER, PLURAL] (cf. Noyer, Calabrese)
Where’s impoverishment? (cf Bundling)
(67)
List 1
Syntax
MS
< Impoverishment (suppresses features that are in the syntax)
Same effect could be achieved if the features are never combined in the first place.
Is there reason to think [gender, plural] co-occur in Russian?
(68)
Mama,
vy
ste
taká
dobrá!
Mama
you.PL be.2PL so.FEM.SG kind.FEM.SG
‘Mother, you are so kind.’ (Corbett, 1988, 40)
Slovak
Predicate Hierarchy (Comrie 1975), Agreement Hierarchy (Corbett 1983, 2006)
Syntactic number + semantic gender?
(69)
(U menja)
dv-e
At me
two-FEM.SG.NOM
‘I have two younger sisters.’
mlad&-ix
younger.-PL.GEN
sestr-'.
sister-FEM.SG.GEN
NP [PL]
plural agreement
3
3
[FEM] young
N
[PL]
|
sister [FEM]
two
5. SOME REMAINING TOPICS
•
ROOTS (Late or Early Insertion) ?
Key issues:
•
LOCALITY (Contextual allomorphy / Bobaljik v. Carstairs-McCarthy)
•
PARADIGMS (closely intertwiend with impoverishment)
15
Does interpretation “see” PF?
Root allomorphy / suppletion?
Baker, Mark. 1985. The Mirror Principle and Morphosyntactic Explanation, Linguistic Inquiry 16, 373-415.
Béjar, Susana. 2003. Phi-Syntax. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Toronto.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1995. Morphosyntax: the syntax of verbal inflection, MIT: Ph.D. Dissertation.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2002. Syncretism without paradigms: Remarks on Williams 1981, 1994. In
Yearbook of Morphology 2001, eds. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 53-85. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1998. Two heads aren't always better than one.
Syntax 1:37-71.
Bonet, Eulalia. 1991. Morphology after syntax, MIT: Ph.D. Dissertation.
Bonet, Eulàlia. 1995. Feature structure of Romance clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
13:607-647.
Bo!kovi", #eljko. 2001. On the nature of the syntax-phonology interface: cliticization and related
phenomena. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. Syntax at the Edge: Cross-Clausal Phenomena and the Syntax of
Passamaquoddy, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, M.I.T.
Calabrese 1994. 'Syncretism phenomena in the clitic systems of Italian and Sardinian dialects and the
notion or morphological change.' In J.N. Beckman, ed., Proceedings of NELS 25: 2. GLSA,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 151-174.
Calabrese, Andrea. 1998. 'Some remarks on the Latin case system and its development in Romance'.
Theoretical Analysis ofRomance Languages, ed. Estela Trevin~o and Jose Lema. John
Benjamins, Amsterdam, 71-126.
Carstairs, Andrew. 1987. Allomorphy in Inflexion: Croom Helm Linguistics Series. London: Croom Helm.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In Step by step. Essays on Minimalist
syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka, 89155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Corbett, Greville. 1983. Hierarchies, targets and controllers: agreement patterns in Slavic. University
Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. CUP
Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. CUP
Hockett, C.F. 1954. Two models of grammatical description, Word 10, 210-231.
Marantz, Alec. 1982. Re Reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry 13:483-545.
Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Marantz, Alec. 1988. Clitics, morphological merger, and the mapping to phonologcial structure, in Michael
Hammond and Michael Noonan (eds.)Theoretical Morphology. San Deigo: Academic Press, 253270.
McCarthy, John, and Prince, Alan. 1986. Prosodic Morphology. Ms. Waltham, Mass: Brandeis University.
Muysken, Pieter. 1981. Quechua Word Structure, in Frank Heny (ed.). Binding and Filtering, MIT Press,
Cambridge, pp. 279-327.
Noyer, Rolf. 1997. Features, positions and affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. New York:
Garland Press.
Pike, Kenneth L. 1949. "A problem in morphology-syntax division." Acta Linguistica 5: 125-38.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 1999. Causation and External Arguments. In Papers from UPenn/MIT Roundtable on
the Lexicon, 161-183. Cambridge: MIT.
Pylkkänen, Liina. In press. Introducing Arguments. MIT Press.
Saeed, John. 1999. Somali. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Stump, Gregory T. 1993. On rules of referral. Language 69:449-479.
Swadesh, Morris. 1939. Nootka internal syntax, International Journal of American Linguistics 9, 77-102.
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1996. On the (non)-universality of functional projections. In Minimal Ideas:
Syntactic Studies in the Minimalist Framework, eds. Werner Abraham, Samuel David Epstein,
Höskuldur Thráinsson and C. Jan-Wouter Zwart, 253-281. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Valentine, J. Randolph. 2001. Nishnaabemwin. University of Toronto Press.
Wechsler, Stephen & Larisa Zlati". 2003. The many faces of agreement, CSLI, Stanford, CA.
Further information and references:
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~rnoyer/dm
16