Morphologyassmann/teaching/WS... · b.Bresnan and Mchombo (1995, 181) Words are built out of...
Transcript of Morphologyassmann/teaching/WS... · b.Bresnan and Mchombo (1995, 181) Words are built out of...
MorphologyLexical Integrity
Anke [email protected]
Universität Leipzig, Institut für Linguistik
October 23, 2019
1 / 42
Table of Contents
1 What’s in a Word?Phonological WordSyntactic WordConflicts
2 Lexical Integrity5 Tests for Lexical Integrity and their shortcomings
3 Word FormationCompoundingDerivationInflection
4 Two Ways to Deal with Lexical Integrity
2 / 42
Table of Contents
1 What’s in a Word?Phonological WordSyntactic WordConflicts
2 Lexical Integrity5 Tests for Lexical Integrity and their shortcomings
3 Word FormationCompoundingDerivationInflection
4 Two Ways to Deal with Lexical Integrity
3 / 42
Simple or complex word?
(1) a. tableb. applec. pineappled. abusee. abstractf. foster childg. nationh. location
4 / 42
Word or phrase?
(2) a. shouldn’tb. should notc. tax payerd. cut the cheesee. babysitf. a penny for your thoughtsg. stay away fromh. Two wrongs don’t make a right
5 / 42
How to define the word “Word”
QuestionsWhat is the difference between a word and a phrase?What is the difference between a word and a morpheme?
Towards an answerphonological wordsyntactic word
6 / 42
Table of Contents
1 What’s in a Word?Phonological WordSyntactic WordConflicts
2 Lexical Integrity5 Tests for Lexical Integrity and their shortcomings
3 Word FormationCompoundingDerivationInflection
4 Two Ways to Deal with Lexical Integrity
7 / 42
Definition
DefinitionA phonological word is a unit that a phonological process refersto.
8 / 42
Example I: Define a word by stress
(3) a. swéet potato vs. sweet potátob. bláck board vs. black bóardc. gréenhouse vs. green hóuse
9 / 42
Example II: Define a word by vowel harmony
(4) a. [te:rke:p+røl] “map”b. [føld+rø:l] “land”c. [si:n+røl] “color”d. [lA:ñ+ro:l] “girl”e. [u:r+ro:l] “Mister”f. [fog+ro:l] “tooth”
(Hungarian, Spencer (2006))
10 / 42
Table of Contents
1 What’s in a Word?Phonological WordSyntactic WordConflicts
2 Lexical Integrity5 Tests for Lexical Integrity and their shortcomings
3 Word FormationCompoundingDerivationInflection
4 Two Ways to Deal with Lexical Integrity
11 / 42
Syntactic word
DefinitionA syntactic word is a unit that a syntactic process refers to.
12 / 42
Stand-Alone-Test
Haspelmath and Sims (2010) (for more tests, see section 2)
(5) a. What would you like to drink?→Water.
b. What kind of buffalo did you see?→ *Water
A good test?
(6) What kind of cake do you like?→ Chocolate.
(7) Auf-PREFIX-assemble
oderor
abbauen?disassemble
→ Auf
13 / 42
Table of Contents
1 What’s in a Word?Phonological WordSyntactic WordConflicts
2 Lexical Integrity5 Tests for Lexical Integrity and their shortcomings
3 Word FormationCompoundingDerivationInflection
4 Two Ways to Deal with Lexical Integrity
14 / 42
Syllabification vs. Stand-Alone-Test
Syllabification in German:A complex onset is preferred over a coda in a phonologicalword.
(8) a. Fabrik (‘factory’): [fa.böi:k] vs. *[fab.öi:k]b. Waldameise (‘Formica’): [walt.Pa.maI.z@] vs.
*[wal.ta.maI.z@]
Consequence: Compounds in German are not (always) onephonological words.
15 / 42
Stand-Alone-Test
(9) Waswhat
fürfor
Ameisenants
magstlike
duyou
amat.the
meisten?most
→ *Wald
Consequence: Compounds in German are syntactic words.
16 / 42
Table of Contents
1 What’s in a Word?Phonological WordSyntactic WordConflicts
2 Lexical Integrity5 Tests for Lexical Integrity and their shortcomings
3 Word FormationCompoundingDerivationInflection
4 Two Ways to Deal with Lexical Integrity
17 / 42
LIH
Lexical Integrity HypothesisWords are atoms in syntax.
(10) Principle of Lexical Integritya. Anderson (1992, 84)
The syntax neither manipulates nor has access tothe internal structure of words.
b. Bresnan and Mchombo (1995, 181)Words are built out of different structural elementsand by different principles of composition thansyntactic phrases.
c. Fábregas et al. (2006, 83)The last step of the process of derivation is theonly one that syntax can see.
18 / 42
Interim conclusion
There are grammatical processes that applywithin words (a.k.a. word formation)
and there are grammatical processes that applyto words.
QuestionHow do these processes differ?
19 / 42
Table of Contents
1 What’s in a Word?Phonological WordSyntactic WordConflicts
2 Lexical Integrity5 Tests for Lexical Integrity and their shortcomings
3 Word FormationCompoundingDerivationInflection
4 Two Ways to Deal with Lexical Integrity
20 / 42
Extraction
(all tests in Bresnan and Mchombo (1995))
(11) a. Gekanntiknown
habehave
ichI
nuronly
Treibhausgasegreehouse.gases
ti
b. *Gaseigases
habehave
ichI
nuronly
Treibhaus-tigreenhouse
gekannt.known
(12) a. dassthat
ichI
meinmy
Buchbook
aufschlageopen
b. IchI
schlageiopen
meinmy
Buchbook
auf-ti .up
c. *Interessanteiinteresting
habehave
ichI
nuronly
ti Bücherbooks
gekanntknown
21 / 42
Conjoinability
(13) a. IchI
leseread
interessanteinteresting
Bücherbooks
undand
− Magazine.magazines
b. *IchI
überstehewithstand
diethe
meistenmost
Problemeproblems
undand
−-lebesurvive
diethe
schwierigstenmost.difficult
Situationen.situations
(14) a. Wirwe
verkaufensell
Herrengürtelmen-belts
undand
−-schuhe.(men)-shoes
b. *IchI
maglike
jedenevery
italienischenItalian
Rotweinred.wine
undand
jedenevery
−(Italian)
Weißwein.white.wine
22 / 42
Gapping
(15) a. ErHe
maglike
dasthe
Buchbook
undand
sieshe
−(like)
dasthe
Magazin.magazine
b. *ErHe
be-lädtloads
denthe
LKWtruck
undand
sieshe
ent-un-(loads)
denthe
LKWtruck
(16) a. ?ErHe
bautbuilds
diethe
Bühnestage
aufup
undand
sieshe
diethe
Bühnestage
ab.down
b. *ErHe
liestreads
eina
Buchbook
undand
sieshe
−(reads)
inin
derthe
Schule.school
23 / 42
Inbound anaphoric islands
(17) a. IchI
nahmtook
diethe
Tassemug
fürfor
denthe
Kaffeei .coffee
EriIt
warwas
heiß.hot
b. IchI
nahmtook
diethe
Kaffeei tasse.coffee.mug
*EriIt
warwas
heiß.still hot
(18) a. DieThe
BuddhaistatueBuddha
iststatue
wunderschön.is
Eribeautiful
inspiriertHe
vieleinspires
Menschenmany
nochpeople
heute.still today
b. ErHe
bissbit
inin.the
Grasi .gras
*EsiIt
warwas
überausoverly
grün.green
24 / 42
Phrasal Recursivity
(19) a. IchI
leseread
eina
dickesthick
Kinderbuch.children’s.book
b. #IchI
leseread
eina
schulfähigesready.for.school
Kinderbuch.children’s.book
(20) a. IchI
sehesee
einea
Rote-Kreuz-Schwester.red.cross.nurse
b. #DasThat
istis
dasthe
fauligerotten
Eiegg
desof
Kolumbus.Columbus
25 / 42
Table of Contents
1 What’s in a Word?Phonological WordSyntactic WordConflicts
2 Lexical Integrity5 Tests for Lexical Integrity and their shortcomings
3 Word FormationCompoundingDerivationInflection
4 Two Ways to Deal with Lexical Integrity
26 / 42
Something must be different
Processes that refer to words (the LIH-tests) may not be gooddiagnostics for wordhood.
But maybe process that build words are good diagnostics.
QuestionsWhat are special word formation processes?Are they different from phrase “formation” processes?
27 / 42
Table of Contents
1 What’s in a Word?Phonological WordSyntactic WordConflicts
2 Lexical Integrity5 Tests for Lexical Integrity and their shortcomings
3 Word FormationCompoundingDerivationInflection
4 Two Ways to Deal with Lexical Integrity
28 / 42
Compounding
(A rough) DefinitionCompounding joins two free morphemes to a new word:M1 ⊕ M2 → M1M2
(21) a. black ⊕ board→ a chalk board (not necessarilyblack)
b. Merge(black,board)→ a black board (notnecessarily a chalk board)
29 / 42
Table of Contents
1 What’s in a Word?Phonological WordSyntactic WordConflicts
2 Lexical Integrity5 Tests for Lexical Integrity and their shortcomings
3 Word FormationCompoundingDerivationInflection
4 Two Ways to Deal with Lexical Integrity
30 / 42
Derivation
(A rough) DefinitionDerivation joins a free morphemes with a bound morpheme toa new word that has a new meaning and possibly belongs to adifferent part of speech.M1 + M2 → M1M2
(22) careN + -less→ carelessA
31 / 42
Table of Contents
1 What’s in a Word?Phonological WordSyntactic WordConflicts
2 Lexical Integrity5 Tests for Lexical Integrity and their shortcomings
3 Word FormationCompoundingDerivationInflection
4 Two Ways to Deal with Lexical Integrity
32 / 42
Inflection
(A rough) DefinitionInflection does not necessarily join something, it does notchange the part of speech and not the lexical meaning, butsimply changes the form so that the word can fulfill its syntacticfunction.M1 → M′1
(23) sleep→ slept
33 / 42
Excercise: Special processes?
Similarity to syntactic combination processes?Difference to syntactic combination processes?
34 / 42
Table of Contents
1 What’s in a Word?Phonological WordSyntactic WordConflicts
2 Lexical Integrity5 Tests for Lexical Integrity and their shortcomings
3 Word FormationCompoundingDerivationInflection
4 Two Ways to Deal with Lexical Integrity
35 / 42
LIH to classify morphological theories
The Lexical Integrity Hypothesis can be used to definedifferences between morphological theories:
1 Theories that adopt the LIH2 Theories that reject the LIH
36 / 42
Two Architectures I
(24) Adopt the LIH⇒Morphology and Syntax are two different modules
Morphology
Syntax
Phonological Form Logical Form
Articulatory-Perceptual System Conceptual Intentional System
37 / 42
Two Architectures II
(25) Reject the LIH⇒Morphology and Syntax are in one module
Morphosyntax
Phonological Form Logical Form
Articulatory-Perceptual System Conceptual Intentional System
38 / 42
Excercise
How do we get to the following sentence in each of the twoarchitectures?
(26) I hated these incomprehensibilities.
How can we rule out the following sentences in each of thesearchitectures?
(27) a. *I hated and loved this incomprehensibilities.b. *I hate- and loved these incomprehensibilities.
39 / 42
Examples of morphological theories
Adopt the LIHMinimalist Morphology (Wunderlich (1992))Paradigm Function Morphology (Stump (2001))A-Morphous Morphology (Anderson (1992))
Reject the LIHDistributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz (1993), morenext week)Nanosyntax (Starke (2002, 2009))
40 / 42
References I
Anderson, Stephen R. (1992): A-morphous Morphology.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Bresnan, Joan and Sam A. Mchombo (1995): ‘The lexicalintegrity principle: Evidence from Bantu’, Natural Languageand Linguistic Theory 13, 181–254.
Fábregas, Antonio, Elena Feliu Arquiola and Soledad. Varela(2006): ‘The lexical integrity hypothesis and morphologicallocal domains’, Lingue e Linguaggio 1, 83–104.
Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz (1993): Distributed Morphologyand the Pieces of Inflection. In: K. Hale and S. J. Keyser, eds,The View from Building 20. MIT Press, CambridgeMassachusetts, pp. 111–176.
Haspelmath, Martin and Andrea D. Sims (2010): UnderstandingMorphology. Hodder Education, London.
41 / 42
References II
Spencer, Andrew (2006): Phonology. Blackwell, Oxford.
Starke, Michal (2002): The day syntax ate morphology. Classtaught at the EGG summer school, Novi Sad.
Starke, Michal (2009): Nanosyntax: A short primer to a newapproach to language. Ms., University of Tromso.lingbuzz/001230.
Stump, Gregory T. (2001): Inflectional Morphology. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.
Wunderlich, Dieter (1992): A minimalist analysis of Germanverb morphology. Working papers SFB 282 ‘Theorie desLexikons’ 21. University of Düsseldorf.
42 / 42