Advertisement

Phi-Features in Realizational Morphology

  • Milan RezacEmail author
Chapter
  • 499 Downloads
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 81)

Abstract

Chapter 2 reviews phi-feature manipulations in realizational morphology, and draws conclusions about the nature of this module. They include phi-features neutralized in syncretisms, deleted or transferred in opaque cliticization and agreement, and ineffable in arbitrary gaps. They reveal the modular signature of morphology: computation distinct from that of syntax in domains and operations, access to nonsyntactic but not some syntactic information, and strict invisibility of morphological phenomena to syntax. This signature is the touchstone for differentiating morphological and syntactic phi-agreement.

Keywords

Syntactic Information Past Participle Syntactic Dependency Modular Signature Realizational Morphology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ackema, Peter, and Ad Neeleman. 2003. Context-sensitive spell-out. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 681–735.Google Scholar
  2. Ackema, Peter, and Ad Neeleman. 2007. Morphology ≠ syntax. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, ed. Gillian Ramchand, and Charles Reiss, 325–352. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ahlborn, Gunnar. 1964. Le patois de Ruffieu-en-Valromey (Ain). Göteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri Aktiebolag.Google Scholar
  4. Albizu, Pablo. 2002. Basque verbal morphology: Redefining cases. In Erramu Boneta ed. Xabier Artiagoitia, Patxi Goenaga, and Joseba A. Lakarra, 1–19. Bilbao: UPV/EHU.Google Scholar
  5. Albright, Adam. 2006. Lexical and morphological conditioning of paradigm gaps. Cambridge, MA: Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
  6. Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Andrews, Avery D. 1990. Unification of morphological blocking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 507–557.Google Scholar
  8. Arnold, Jennifer. 1997. The inverse system in Mapudungun and other languages. Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada 34: 9–48.Google Scholar
  9. Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Arregi, Karlos, and Andrew Nevins. 2006a. A distributed morphology analysis of present tense auxiliaries in Zamudio Basque. Euskalingua 9: 146–156.Google Scholar
  11. Arregi, Karlos, and Andrew Nevins. 2006b. Obliteration vs. Impoverishment in the Basque g-/z- constraint. In Proceedings of the Penn Linguistics Colloquium 30, U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 13, 1–14. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  12. Arregi, Karlos, and Andrew Nevins. 2008. A principled order to postsyntactic operations. Ms., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Harvard University. On-line: ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000646. Accessed September 2004Google Scholar
  13. Baerman, Matthew. 2004. Directionality and (un)natural classes in syncretisms. Language 80: 807–827.Google Scholar
  14. Baerman, Matthew, Dunstan Brown and Greville G. Corbett. 2005. The syntax-morphology interface: A study of syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Baerman, Matthew, Greville G. Corbett, and Dunstan Brown. 2010. Defective paradigms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Beard, Robert. 1995. Lexeme-morpheme based morphology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  17. Belloro, Valeria A. 2004. A Role and Reference Grammar account of third person clitic clusters in Spanish. MA, State University of New York at Buffalo.Google Scholar
  18. Benincà, Paola, and Cecilia Poletto. 2005. On some descriptive generalizations in Romance. In The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, ed. Guglielmo Cinque and Richard Kayne, 221–258. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Benmamoun, Elabbas, Archna Bhatia, and Maria Polinsky. 2009. Closest conjunct agreement in head-final language. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 9: 67– 88.Google Scholar
  20. Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2000. The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. In University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 10, 35–71. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  21. Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2002. A-chains at the PF-interface: Copies and ‘covert movement'. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 197–267.Google Scholar
  22. Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Where's phi? In Phi theory, ed. Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Phillip Branigan. 2006. Eccentric agreement and multiple Case checking. In Ergativity: Emerging issues, ed. Alana Johns, Diane Massam., and Juvenal Ndayiragije, 47–77. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  24. Bonami, Olivier, and Gilles Boyé. 2006. French pronominal clitics and the design of Paradigm Function Morphology. In On-line Proceedings of the 5th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM5). University of Bologna. On-line: mmm.lingue.unibo.it/proc-mmm5.php. Accessed September 4 2010.Google Scholar
  25. Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  26. Bonet, Eulàlia. 1992. Sobre un dels uisos de hi en lloc de li. Els Marges 46: 101–110.Google Scholar
  27. Bonet, Eulàlia. 1993. 3rd person pronominal clitics in dialects of Catalan. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 85–111.Google Scholar
  28. Bonet, Eulàlia. 1995a. Feature structure of Romance clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 607–647.Google Scholar
  29. Bonet, Eulàlia. 1995b. The where and how of clitic order. Revue québecoise de linguistique 24: 61–81.Google Scholar
  30. Booij, Geert. 2002. Constructional idioms, morphology, and the Dutch lexicon. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 14: 301–329.Google Scholar
  31. Börjars, Kersti, Nigel Vincent, and Carol Chapman. 1996. Paradigms, periphrases, and pronominal inflection: A feature-based account. Yearbook of Morphology 1996, 155–180.Google Scholar
  32. Bošković, Željko. 2009. Unifying first and last conjunct agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27: 455–496.Google Scholar
  33. Bošković, Željko, and Jairo Nunes. 2007. The copy theory of movement: A view from PF. In The copy theory of movement, ed. Norbert Corver and Jairo Nunes, 13–74. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  34. Bresnan, Joan, and Tatjana Nikitina. forthcoming. On the gradience of dative alternation. In Reality exploration and discovery: Pattern interaction in language and life, ed. Linda Uyechi and Lian Hee Wee. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
  35. Bruening, Benjamin. 2010. Double object constructions disguised as prepositional datives. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 287–305.Google Scholar
  36. Bürgi, Anne. 1998. Le pronom ça en français vaudois, description et analyse. Sherbrooke, QC: MA, Université de Sherbrook.Google Scholar
  37. Cardinaletti, Anna. 2008. On different types of clitic clusters. In The Bantu-Romance connection, ed. Cécile De Cat and Katherine Demuth, 41–82. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  38. Cardinaletti, Anna, and Michael Starke. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency. In Clitics in the languages of Europe, ed. Henk van Riemsdijk, 145–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  39. Cardona, George. 1999. Recent research in Pāinian studies. Dehli: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
  40. Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1992. Current morphology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Chomsky, Noam. 2000a. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step, ed. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Chung, Sandra, and James McCloskey. 1987. Government, barriers, and small clauses in Modern Irish. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 173–237.Google Scholar
  45. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A'-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Clifton, Charles Jr., Gilbert Fanselow, and Lyn Frazier. 2006. Amnestying Superiority violations. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 51–68.Google Scholar
  48. Corbett, Greville. 2007. Canonical typology, suppletion, and possible words. Language 83: 8–42.Google Scholar
  49. Corbett, Greville, and Matthew Baerman. 2006. Prologmena to a theory of morphological features. Morphology 106: 231–246.Google Scholar
  50. Costa, João. 2003. Review of “Focus and the syntax-phonology interface”. Glot International 7: 263–8.Google Scholar
  51. De Crousaz, Isabelle, and Ur Shlonsky. 2003. The distribution of a subject clitic in a Franco-Provençal dialect and the licensing of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 413–442.Google Scholar
  52. De Cat, Cécile. 2000. Towards a unified analysis of French floating quantifiers. French Language Studies 10: 1–25.Google Scholar
  53. Dell, Gary. S, and Reich, Peter A. 1981. Stages in sentence production: An analysis of speech error data. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 20: 611–629.Google Scholar
  54. Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria, and Edwin Williams. 1986. On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. Doron, Edit. 1988. On the complementarity of subject-verb agreement. In Agreement in natural language, ed. Michael Barlow and C.A. Ferguson, 201–218. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
  56. Dowty, David. 1995. Toward a minimalist theory of syntactic structure. In Discontinuous constituency, ed. Harry Bunt and Arthur van Horck. New York: Mouton.Google Scholar
  57. Egaña ′tar, Aitzane. 1984. Bermeoko aditzaren azterketa lorratzak. Bermeo 5: 47–207.Google Scholar
  58. Embick, David. 2000. Features, syntax, and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 185–230.Google Scholar
  59. Embick, David. 2007. Blocking effects and analytic/synthetic alternations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 1–37.Google Scholar
  60. Embick, David, and Alec Marantz. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 1–53.Google Scholar
  61. Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555–595.Google Scholar
  62. Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the syntax-morphology interface. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, ed. Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Emonds, Joseph, and Rosemarie Whitney. 2005. Double object constructions. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, ed. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, vol. 2, case 21. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  64. Fernández, Beatriz. 2001. Absolutibo komunztaduradun ergatiboak, absolutibo komunztaduradun datiboak: Ergatiboaren Lekualdatzetik Datiboaren Lekualdatzera. In On Case and agreement, ed. Beatriz Fernández and Pablo Albizu, 147–165. Bilbao: UPV/EHU.Google Scholar
  65. Fodor, Jerry A. 1983. The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  66. Frampton, John. 2004. Distributed reduplication. Boston: Ms., Northeastern University.Google Scholar
  67. Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Gaminde, Iñaki. 1992. Foruko euskararen morfosintaxiaz. Forua: Foruko Udala.Google Scholar
  69. García, Erica C. 2001. The cognitive implications of unlike grammars: Variable clitic-clustering in Spanish vs. Italian. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 102: 389–417.Google Scholar
  70. Grevisse, Maurice, and André Goosse. 2008. Le bon usage. 14th edition. Bruxelles: De Boeck & Larcier.Google Scholar
  71. Griffin, Zenzi M., and Victor S. Ferreira. 2006. Properties of spoken language production. In Handbook of psycholinguistics, ed. Matthew J. Traxler, and Morton A. Gernsbacher, 21–60. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  72. Haddican, William. 2010. Theme-goal distransitives and theme passivization in British English dialects. Lingua 120: 2424–2443.Google Scholar
  73. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from building 20, ed. Kenneth Hale and Jay Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  74. Halle, Morris. 1997. Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In Papers at the interface, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30, 425–449. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  75. Harley, Heidi, and Rolf Noyer. 1999. Distributed Morphology. GLOT 4(4): 3–9.Google Scholar
  76. Harris, James. 1996. Why n'ho is pronounced [li] in Barceloní Catalan: Morphological impoverishment, merger, fusion, and fission. In Papers at the interface, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30, 451–479. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  77. Harris, Alice C. 2002. Where in the word is the Udi clitic? Language 76: 593–616.Google Scholar
  78. Harris, James, and Moris Halle. 2005. Unexpected plural inflection in Spanish: Reduplication and Metathesis. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 195–222.Google Scholar
  79. Heath, Jeffrey. 1991. Pragmatic disguise in pronominal-affix paradigms. In Paradigms: The economy of inflection, ed. Frans Plank, 75–89. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  80. Heath, Jeffrey. 1998. Pragmatic skewing in 1↔2 pronominal combinations in Native American languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 64: 83–104.Google Scholar
  81. Hualde, José Ignacio. 1992. Catalan. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  82. Hualde, José Ignacio. 2000. Bizaiko kostaldeko hizkerak atzo, gaur, eta bihar. In Dialektologia gaiak, ed. Koldo Zuazo, 13–28. UPV/EHU.Google Scholar
  83. Hualde, José Ignacio. 2001. On the loss of ergative displacement in Basque and the role of analogy in the development of morphological paradigms. In The linguist's linguist, ed. Fabrice Cavoto, 219–230. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
  84. Hualde, José Ignacio, and Jon Ortiz de Urbina. 2003. A grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  85. Inkelas, Sharon, and Draga Zec. 1990. The phonology-syntax connection. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Irurtzun, Aritz. 2007. The grammar of focus at the interfaces. Doctoral dissertation, Leioa: University of the Basque Country.Google Scholar
  87. Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  88. Jones, Michael Allan. 1997. Foundations of French syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Julien, Marit. 2002. Syntactic heads and word formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Kailuweit, Rolf. 2008. ‘Floating plurals', pro-drop and agreement - an optimality-based RRG approach. In Investigations of the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface, ed. Robert D. Van Valin Jr., 179–202. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  91. Kayne, Richard S. 1975. French syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  92. Kayne, Richard S. 2000. Parameters and universals. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  93. Kayne, Richard S. 2007. Some silent first person plurals. New York: Ms., New York University.Google Scholar
  94. Kayne, Richard S. 2008. Expletives, datives, and the tension between morphology and syntax. In The limits of syntactic variation, ed. Teresa Biberauer. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  95. Kiparsky, Paul. 2005. Blocking and periphrasis in inflectional paradigms. In Yearbook of Morphology 2004, ed. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 113–135. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  96. De Kok, Ans. 1985. La place du pronom personnel régime conjoint en français: une étude diachronique. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  97. Krifka, Manfred. 2004. Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the dative alternation. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 4: 1–32.Google Scholar
  98. Laenzlinger, Christopher. 1993. A syntactic view of Romance pronominal sequences. Probus 5: 241–270.Google Scholar
  99. Laka, Itziar. 1993a. The structure of inflection. In Generative studies in Basque linguistics, ed. José Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 21–70. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  100. Laka, Itziar. 1993b. Unergatives that assign ergative, unaccusatives that assign accusative. In Papers on Case and agreement 1, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18, 149–172. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  101. Lakämper, Renate and Dieter Wunderlich. 1998. Person marking in Quechua – A constraint-based minimalist analysis. Lingua 105: 113–148.Google Scholar
  102. Langendoen, Terence D. 2002. Linguistics at the beginning of the 21st century. Journal of Linguistics 38: 627–643.Google Scholar
  103. Lasnik, Howard, and Nicholas Sobin. 2000. The who/whom puzzle: On the preservation of an archaic feature. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 343–371.Google Scholar
  104. Legate, Julie. 1999. The morphosyntax of Irish agreement. In Papers on morphology and syntax, cycle one, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 33, 219–240. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  105. Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  106. Luís, Ana R., and Andrew Spencer. 2004. Udi clitics: A Generalized Paradigm Function Morphology approach. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 48: 47–59.Google Scholar
  107. Manzini, Maria Rita, and Leonardo M. Savoia. 2002. Clitics: Lexicalization patterns of so-called 3rd person datives. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 1: 117–155.Google Scholar
  108. Manzini Maria Rita, and Leonardo M. Savoia. 2005. I dialetti italiani e romanci: Morfosintassi generativa. 3 vols. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
  109. Manzini, Maria Rita, and Leonardo M. Savoia. 2008. A unification of morphology and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  110. Manzini, Maria Rita, and Leonardo M. Savoia. 2010. Morphology dissolves into syntax: Infixation and Doubling in Romance languages. Annali Online di Ferrara 1.Google Scholar
  111. Marantz, Alec. 2000 [1991]. Case and licensing. In Arguments and Case, ed. Eric Reuland, 11–30. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  112. McCloskey, James, and Ken Hale. 1983. On the syntax of person-number inflection in Modern Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 487–534.Google Scholar
  113. McCreight Young, Katherine. 1988. Multiple Case assignment. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  114. Miller, Philip H., Geoffrey K. Pullum, and Arnold M. Zwicky. 1997. The principle of phonology-free syntax. Journal of Linguistics 33: 67–90.Google Scholar
  115. Morin, Yves-Charles. 1978. Interprétation des pronoms et des réfléchis en français. In Syntaxe et sémantique du français, Cahier de linguistique numéro 8: 337–376.Google Scholar
  116. Morin, Yves-Charles. 1979a. More remarks on French clitic order. Linguistic Analysis 5: 293–312.Google Scholar
  117. Morin, Yves-Charles. 1979b. La morphophonologie des pronoms clitiques en français populaire. Cahier de linguistique 9: 1–36.Google Scholar
  118. Munn, Alan. 1999. First conjunct agreement: Against a clausal analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 643–668.Google Scholar
  119. Napoli, Donna Jo. 1974. The No Crossing Filter. In Proceedings of CLS 10, 482–491. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  120. Neeleman, Ad and Hans van de Koot. 2005. Syntactic haplology. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, ed. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, vol. 4, case 69. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  121. Noyer, Rolf. 1992. Features, positions, and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  122. Noyer, Rolf. 2001. Clitic sequences in Nunggubuyu and PF convergence. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 751–826.Google Scholar
  123. Nunes, Jairo. 1999. Linearization of chains and phonetic realization of chain links. In Working minimalism, ed. Samuel David Epstein and Norbert Hornstein, 217–249.Google Scholar
  124. Pescarini, Diego. 2010. Elsewhere in Romance: Evidence from clitic clusters. Lingusitic Inquiry 41(427–444).Google Scholar
  125. Phillips, Collin, and Ellen Lau. 2004. Foundational issues. Journal of Linguistics 40: 571–591.Google Scholar
  126. Piat, Louis. 1911. Grammaire générale populaire des dialectes occitaniens: Essai des syntaxe. Montpellier: Imprimerie générale du Midi.Google Scholar
  127. Polletto, Cecilia. 2000. The higher functional field. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  128. Poser, William J. 1992. Blocking of phrasal constructions by lexical items. In Lexical matters, ed. Ivan Sag and Anna Szabolcsi, 111–130. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
  129. Pranka, Paula. 1983. Syntax and word formation. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  130. Pullum, Geoffrey K., and Arnold M. Zwicky. 1986. Phonological resolution of syntactic feature conflict. Language 62: 751–773.Google Scholar
  131. Pullum, Geoffrey K., and Arnold M. Zwicky. 1988. The syntax-phonology interface. In Linguistics: The Cambridge survey, ed. Fredredick J. Newmeyer: 255–280. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  132. Rebuschi, George. 1983. Structure de l'énoncé en basque. Paris: SELAF.Google Scholar
  133. Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface strategies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  134. Rezac, Milan. 2009. On the unifiability of repairs of the Person Case Constraint. In Festschrift for Beñat Oyharçabal, ed. Ricardo Etxepare, Ricardo Gómez, and Joseba A. Lakarra, Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca Julio de Urquijo XLIII: 769–790.Google Scholar
  135. Rezac, Milan. 2010a. Ineffability through modularity: Gaps in French clitic clusters. In Defective paradigms, ed. Matthew Baerman, Greville Corbett, and Dunstan Brown, 151–180. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  136. Rezac, Milan. 2010b. Phi-Agree vs. movement: Evidence from floating quantifiers. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 496–508.Google Scholar
  137. Rezac, Milan. 2010c. Dative-locative syncretisms in Romance clitics and the relationship between syntax and morphology. Ms., UMR 7023 CNRS/Université de Paris 8.Google Scholar
  138. Rhodes, Richard. 1993. Syntax vs. morphology: A chicken and egg problem. Proceedings of BLS 19, Special session on syntactic issues in Native American languages, 139–147. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
  139. Ritter, Nancy. 1995. On the syntactic category of pronouns and agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 13: 405–443.Google Scholar
  140. Rivero, Maria Luisa. 2008. Oblique subjects and person restrictions in Spanish: A morphological approach. In Agreement restrictions, ed. Roberta D'Alessandro, Susann Fischer, and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, 215–250. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  141. Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  142. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  143. Ronjat, Jules. 1937. Grammaire istorique des parlers provençaux modernes. vol. 3. Montpellier: Société des Langues Romanes Russi, Cinzia. 2008. Italian clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  144. Russi, Cinzia. 2008. Italian clitics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  145. Sadler, Louisa, and Andrew Spencer. 2001. Syntax as an exponent of morphological features. In Yearbook of Morphology 2000: 71–96.Google Scholar
  146. Sag, Ivan A., Inbal Arnon, Bruno Estigarribia, Philip Hofmeister, T. Florian Jaeger, Jeanette Pettibone, and Neal Snider. 2006. Processing accounts for Superiority Effects. Stanford, CA: Ms., Stanford University.Google Scholar
  147. Sauerland, Uli, and Paul Elbourne. 2002. Total reconstruction, PF movement, and derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 283–319.Google Scholar
  148. Snyder, William. 2000. An experimental investigation of syntactic satiation effects. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 575–582.Google Scholar
  149. Sobin, Nicholas. 1997. Agreement, default rules, and grammatical viruses. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 318–343.Google Scholar
  150. Spencer, Andrew. 2005. Periphrasis. In Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, ed. Keith Brown, 287–294. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  151. Sproat, Richard. 1985. On deriving the lexicon. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  152. Sproat, Richard. 1998. Morphology as component or module: Mapping principles approach. In The handbook of morphology, ed. Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky, 335–348. London: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  153. Sprouse, Jon. 2009. Revisiting satiation. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 329–341.Google Scholar
  154. Staal, J.F. 1967. Word order in Sanskrit and Universal Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  155. Starke, Michal. 2002. The day that syntax ate morphology. Handout from EGG 2002, University of Novi Sad.Google Scholar
  156. Van Koppen, Marjo. 2005. One probe - Two goals: Aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects. Doctoral dissertation, Universiteit Leiden, Leiden.Google Scholar
  157. Stump, Gregory T. 1991. A paradigm-based theory of morphosemantic mismatches. Language 67: 675–725.Google Scholar
  158. Stump, Gregory T. 1993. On rules of referral. Language 69: 449–479.Google Scholar
  159. Stump, Gregory T. 1998. Inflection. In The handbook of morphology, ed. Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky, 13–43. London: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  160. Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  161. Svenson, Lars-Owe. 1959. Les parlers du Marais Vendéen. vol. 1. Göteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri Aktiebolag.Google Scholar
  162. Szendrői, Kriszta. 2004. Focus and the interaction between syntax and pragmatics. Lingua 114: 229–254.Google Scholar
  163. Szendrői, Kriszta. 2005. Focus movement (with special reference to Hungarian). In The Blackwell companion to syntax, ed. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, vol. 2, case 26. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  164. Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 2010. The nanosyntax of Nguni noun class prefixes and concords. Lingua 120: 1522–1548.Google Scholar
  165. Trommer, Jochen. 2002. Modularity in OT-Morphosyntax. In Resolving conflicts in grammar, Linguistische Berichte 11: 83–117.Google Scholar
  166. Tseng, Jesse. 2005. Prepositions and complement selection. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACL-SIGSEM Workshop on the linguistic dimensions of prepositions and their use in computational linguistics formalisms and applications, ed. Aline Villavicencio and Valia Kordoni, 11–19. Essex: University of Essex.Google Scholar
  167. Ussishkin, Adam. 2007. Morpheme position. In The Cambridge handbook of phonology, ed. Paul de Lacy, 457–472. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  168. Whitney, William Dwight. 1896. A Sanskrit grammar. Leipzig: Breitkopp and Härtl.Google Scholar
  169. Williams, Edwin. 1974. Rule ordering in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  170. Williams, Edwin. 1997. Blocking and anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 577–628.Google Scholar
  171. Williams, Edwin. 2003. Representation theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  172. Williams, Edwin. 2007. Dumping lexicalism. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, ed. Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss, 353–382. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  173. Wiltschko, Martina. 2008. Person-hierarchy effects without a person hierarchy. In Agreement restrictions, ed. Roberta D'Alessandro, Susann Fischer, and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, 281–314. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  174. Yrizar, Pedro de. 1992. Morfología del verbo auxiliar vizcaino, vols. I, II, Bilbao: Euskaltzaindia.Google Scholar
  175. Zink, Gaston. 1997. Morphosyntaxe du pronom personnel (non réfléchi) en moyen français (XIVe-XVe siècles). Droz: Genève.Google Scholar
  176. Zribi-Hertz, Anne, and Lamine Diagne. 2002. Clitic placement after syntax: Evidence from Wolof person and locative markers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 823–884.Google Scholar
  177. Zribi-Hertz, Anne, and Liliane Mbolatianavalona. 1999. Towards a modular theory of linguistic deficiency: Evidence from Malagasy personal pronouns. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 161–218.Google Scholar
  178. Zubizarretta, Maria-Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus, and word-order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  179. Zwicky, Arnold M. 1969. Phonological constraints in syntactic descriptions. Papers in Linguistics 1: 411–63.Google Scholar
  180. Zwicky, Arnold M. 1986. The Unaccented Pronoun Constraint in English. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 32, 100–113. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  181. Zwicky, Arnold. 1991. Systematic versus accidental phonological identity. In Paradigms: the economy of inflection, ed. Frans Plank, 113–131. Berlin: Moutan de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  182. Zwicky, Arnold M. 1992. Some choices in the theory of morphology. In Formal grammar: Theory and implementation, ed. Robert D. Levine, 327–371. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  183. Zwicky, Arnold M. 1996. Syntax and phonology. In Concise encyclopedia of syntactic theories, ed. Keith Brown and Jim Miller, 300–305. Oxford: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  184. Zwicky, Arnold M. and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 1983. Phonology in syntax: the Somali optional agreement rule. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 385–402.Google Scholar
  185. Zwicky, Arnold M. and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 1986. The principle of phonology-free syntax. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 32, 63–91. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de Paris 8Saint Denis CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations