* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *
LINGUIST List 16.2232

Fri Jul 22 2005

Review: Morphology/Syntax: Ackema & Neeleman (2005)

Editor for this issue: Naomi Ogasawara <naomilinguistlist.org>


What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley at collberglinguistlist.org.
Directory
        1.    Joost Kremers, Beyond Morphology


Message 1: Beyond Morphology
Date: 19-Jul-2005
From: Joost Kremers <j.kremersem.uni-frankfurt>
Subject: Beyond Morphology


AUTHORS: Ackema, Peter; Neeleman, Ad
TITLE: Beyond Morphology
SUBTITLE: Interface Conditions on Word Formation
SERIES: Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 6
PUBLISHER: Oxford University Press
YEAR: 2005
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-1342.html


Joost Kremers, Graduiertenkolleg "Satzarten", J.W. Goethe University,
Frankfurt am Main, Germany

OUTLINE

Although the subtitle of "Beyond Morphology" suggests that this book
is mainly about morphology, the title itself represents the contents
better. While the data in the book are indeed primarily word formation
phenomena, the theoretical coverage does indeed go much beyond
that. In essence, Ackema and Neeleman (A&N) argue for a specific
grammar model, and then show how this grammar model can be used
to account for a wide range of data.

The book is divided into seven chapters. In the first
chapter, "Morphology and Modularity", A&N outline the grammar
model that they assume, and how morphology has its place in it. The
second chapter, "Arguments for Word Syntax", discusses the question
whether morphology is part of syntax or whether there is a separate
morphological module with its own principles. Having reached the
conclusion that "word syntax" is indeed separate from phrasal syntax,
chapters three and four ("Competition between Syntax and
Morphology" and "Generalized Insertion", respectively) discuss how
syntax and morphology interact.

These first four chapters in a way form the theoretical part of the book.
Although much data has already been discussed, it is mostly chapters
five "Distributed Selection", six "Context-sensitive Spell-Out and
Adjacency" and seven "PF Feature Checking" that show how the
model can account for word formation data.

The grammar model presented in the book is very attractive, and A&N
cover an impressive range of data. The analysis is well thought
through, carefully executed and often convincing. I believe it should
prove a worthwhile read for anyone interested in morphology, but also
for those interested in theoretical linguistics, and for syntacticians
interested in knowing more about the relation of the syntactic module
to other modules of grammar.

OVERVIEW

Chapter One
Morphological data being the main focus of the book, A&N start out
with the question what the place of morphology in the grammar is.
Perhaps surprisingly, they argue that there is no separate morphology
module in the grammar. Instead, they propose a grammar model that
consists of three so-called macromodules: semantics, syntax and
phonology (cf. Jackendoff 1997). Each of these macromodules has
two submodules: a generative system for phrasal structures and a
generative system for word structures. The syntax macromodule
therefore has a module for phrasal syntax and one for word syntax.
(A&N adopt the habit of calling the former "syntax" and the
latter "morphology", and I will do the same, though it should be kept in
mind that they are just convenient shorthands.)

The central point of A&N is that the interaction between different
modules and the mapping between the outputs of different modules
have a large impact on linguistic forms. Most of the book is therefore
dedicated to exploring the ways in which this interaction and mapping
takes place.

Chapter Two
Chapter two argues extensively for the point that syntax and
morphology are separate from each other, and against a view of
morphology where words are formed in syntax, for example through
head-movement. The main point is basically that any syntactic account
of morphology must assume extensions to the syntactic theory in order
to account for the different behaviour of word formation processes and
phrase formation processes. Such a qualitative extension to syntax,
A&N argue, is tantamount to separating morphology and syntax.
Furthermore, if morphology were syntactic, one would expect that one
could condition the other. That is, one would expect rules such
as 'compound verbs are right-headed when they occur in C, but left-
headed when they occur in situ', or 'the object is placed after the verb
when it is underived, but before it when it is morphologically complex'.

Syntax and morphology being separate modules, A&N then pose the
question how these two modules interact. They argue that there are
two forms of interaction between the two: competition and insertion.
Chapter three discusses competition, while insertion is the topic of
chapter four.

Chapter Three
In A&N's model, when the syntactic macromodule combines two
elements, it can do so both in syntax and in morphology. Which of the
two is actually used, is determined by competition. In principle, all else
being equal, syntax wins out, at least in the languages under
discussion (mainly English and Dutch; A&N suggest that in
polysynthetic languages, the situation may be reversed, morphology
being the default choice). Therefore, when a verb combines with an
object, the structure that will be built will be a syntactic one (1a), rather
than a morphological one (1b):

(1)
a. [_VP [_V drive] [_N trucks]]
b. [_V truck drive]

However, syntax will only win when there are no special further
requirements. Specific requirements imposed by elements in the
structure may lead to morphology being preferred. This is for example
the case when a V is merged with an object, and the resuling V+N
structure is to be embedded under an affix. Since (the morphological
form of) an affix requires a word to attach to, the V+N structure cannot
be merged in syntax but must instead be merged in morphology. This
derives for example so-called synthetic compounds such as 'truck
driver'. Here, it is the affix -er that requires a word, and as a
result, 'drive' and 'truck' are merged in morphology, not in syntax.
Thus, competition accounts for the fact that although English does not
have verbal compounds with incorporated objects (*to truck-drive), it
does have derived nouns with incorporated objects (truck driver).

Chapter Four
As mentioned, chapter four deals with another kind of interaction
between morphology and syntax, insertion. The term "insertion" is not
to be understood in its traditional sense of taking an element and
using it as a building block in a larger structure. Rather, A&N argue,
insertion is to be seen as a form of feature matching. Features in a
node in one structure, either syntactic or morphological, are matched
to features of a node in another structure, also either syntactic or
morphological. When the host structure is eventually spelled out, the
morphological material associated with the inserted material is placed
in the linear string at the corresponding position.

Other than that, however, the inserted structure is not visible for the
host structure. This derives, among other things, the lexical integrity
effect. But insertion is not limited to lexical insertion. A&N argue that
insertion is not sensitive to the types of structures that are matched,
nor to the nodes that are matched. Hence it is possible to insert a
phrase into a morphological terminal position (deriving such complex
words as '[animal to human] transplant experiments', '[go anywhere
anytime] access', etc.), and also to insert phrases into non-terminal
positions of other phrases, which, A&N argue, is what parentheticals
are. (Note that because insertion is not really insertion but rather
feature matching, this proces does not derive a ternary branching
node.)

Chapter Five
Chapters three and four deal with so-called intramodular interaction,
i.e., interaction between the two submodules of the syntactic
macromodule. Chapter five deals with so-called intermodular
interaction, specifically between the syntactic and the phonological
macromodules. As stated above, in a modular grammar model such as
the one A&N develop, there is no single module responsible for
morphology. Rather, there are several modules that deal with aspects
of morphology, i.e., the syntactic, the semantic and the phonological
word-level submodules. Therefore, such a typically morphological
phenomenon as selection must also be distributed over these three
modules. Structures generated in the three submodules must then be
mapped onto each other.

This mapping is partially idiosyncratic, in that it simply states that a
semantic predicate such as READ is mapped onto a syntactic structure
[<+V,-N>, (Th1, Th2)] and onto a morphological structure /ri:d/. At the
same time, however, there are general mapping principles that govern
the realization of complex words. A&N recognize three general
mapping principles: Linear Correspondence, Input Correspondence,
and Quantificational Correspondence (note that AFFIX denotes a
morphosyntactic element, while /affix/ denotes its corresponding
morphophonological form):

(2) Linear Correspondence: If X is structurally external to Y, then /x/
is linearly external to /y/.
(3) Input Correspondence: If an AFFIX selects (a category headed by)
X, then /affix/ takes /x/ as its host
(4) Quantitative Correspondence: No element in the morphosyntax is
spelled out more than once.

The distinction between an AFFIX and an /affix/ is of course a direct
consequence of the assumption that morphosyntax and
morphophonology are submodules of different macromodules. Note
that it is not necessary that one AFFIX is always mapped onto the
same /affix/ whenever it occurs. For example, the English agentive
suffix ER is normally mapped onto the suffix /-er/, but it can
idiosyncratically be spelled out differently:

(5) DRIVE + ER <--> /drive/ /er/ ('driver')
(6) TYPE + ER <--> /type/ /ist/ ('typist')

The form 'typist' is accounted for by assuming that there is an
idiosyncratic mapping rule that maps TYPE+ER onto /type/+/ist/, rather
than /type/+/er/.

Furthermore, the mapping of the suffix ER can be changed when one
of the three general mapping principles would otherwise be violated.
For example, in the morphosyntactic structure [[STAND IN] ER], which
derives the agentive noun from the particle verb '(to) stand in', spelling
out ER as /er/ would violate one of the mapping principles. In theory,
there are three ways to realize [[STAND IN] ER] morphophonologically:

(7)
a. /stander in/
b. /stand inner/
c. /stander inner/

(7a) would violate Linear Correspondence, because ER is external to
the particle IN. (7b) would violate Input Correspondence, because ER
selects for a category [+V,-N], and hence should not attach to the
morphophonological spell-out of a [-V,-N] category. Finally, (7c)
violates Quantitative Correspondence, because ER is spelled out twice.

The only way to realize [[STAND IN] ER] phonologically without
violating one of the mapping principles is to spell out ER as a
phonologically null element, on the assumption that the mapping
principles refer to overt material, and that covert phonological material
will satisfy them vacuously. Hence, the mapping principles can be
adhered to when there is an idiosyncratic mapping rule that maps ER
to // when it takes [STAND IN] as complement, yielding the
phonological form /stand in/.

Traditionally, affixes are thought to attach to words. This is a
morphophonological selection requirement, however, and therefore
only holds in the morphophonological submodule, i.e., for /affix/es.
There is no reason to assume that it also holds in the morphosyntactic
module. Rather, AFFIXes have another selectional restriction: they
require a host of a specific category. There is no restriction on the
projection level of this host, however.

In other words, AFFIXes can attach to any syntactic structure of the
right category. It is irrelevant whether this structure is a head or a
phrase. (Though it is possible that additional requirements restrict this
freedom; e.g., an affix such as ER satisfies the external theta role of a
verbal predicate, and can therefore not attach to verbal projections in
which the external role has already been assigned.)

This assumption, virtually inescapable in A&N's model, allows for a
straight-forward account of so-called mixed categories. Mixed
categories are for example deverbal nouns that retain verbal
characteristics internally. Examples are nominal infinitives in Dutch,
and gerunds in English. It is well-known that these categories can
occur in constructions in which they assign accusative case to their
objects, and be modified by adverbs. However, they can also occur in
constructions in which objects are licensed through a preposition, and
in which only adjectives can modified them:

(8)
a. John's constant singing of the Marseillaise
b. John's constantly singing the Marseillaise

The idea is that the nominalizing suffix simply attaches to projections
of different levels. (Essentially an insight developed by Abney 1987.)
Note that this nominalizing /suffix/ is not /ing/, because /ing/ does not
derive nominal categories: it also derives participles, which are not
nominal. Therefore, the actual nominalizing /suffix/ must be a
null /suffix/.

This assumption is essential for A&N, because if /ing/ were the
nominalizing /affix/, Linear Correspondence would be violated: the
object '(of) the Marseillaise' is structurally internal to the AFFIX, and
hence the /affix/ must be linearly external to it, which /ing/ in (8) is not.

This means that languages in which the nominalizing /affix/ is overt,
mixed categories are not possible. This seems indeed to be the case
for Norwegian, which has an affix /ing/ which, unlike its English
homophone, does not derive any non-nominal categories, and can
therefore be assumed to be the nominalizing affix. Interestingly, a
verbal structure similar to (8b) is not possible with this affix:

(9)
den ulovlige kopieringen *(av) populaere sanger
that illegal-DEF copying-DEF *(of) popular-PL songs-PL

That is, Norwegian has no way to map [[COPY POPULAR SONGS]
ING] to a morphophonological structure, because attaching /ing/
to /kopier-/ violates Linear Correspondence: [POPULAR SONGS] is
structurally internal to ING, but in /kopieringen populaere sanger/ it
would be linearly external to it. Therefore, Norwegian must attach ING
at a lower level, yielding a morphosyntactic structure of [_N COPY
ING], forming a nominal category, which can only license an object
with a marker such as OF.

Another way to maintain Linear Correspondence is to have a head-
final VP to which the /suffix/ attaches to. This is seen in one Quechua
nominalizing /affix/, /sqa/. In main clauses, Quechua allows OV and
VO, but when a VP is nominalized with /sqa/, the VP must obligatorily
be OV. This creates a syntactic structure [[OBJ V] SQA], which can be
mapped onto a phonological structure /obj/ /v/ /sqa/. The
corresponding VO structure [[V OBJ] SQA] would have to be mapped
onto /v/ /obj/ /sqa/, which again violates Linear Correspondence.

Chapters Six and Seven
In chapters six and seven A&N discuss another kind of interaction
between syntax and phonology. There are many phenomena in syntax
that are subject to adjacency. Typical examples are case assignment
in e.g. English, agreement weakening under subject-verb inversion in
Dutch and Standard Arabic, certain types of cliticization and pro-drop,
complementizer agreement, that-trace effects, etc. A&N argue that
such phenomena are best analyzed as PF phenomena, subject to
rules that are sensitive to phonological rather than syntactic domains.
(A&N base themselves on Selkirk 1986 and similar work for defining
the phonological domains they assume.)

Two types of processes can take place in phonological domains, A&N
argue. One is feature suppression, where features of an element are
reduced when it appears in a phonological domain with an agreeing
element that has full feature specification, and feature checking, where
features on an element are checked against identical features on
another element in the same phonological phrase.

As an example of feature weakening, take agreement weakening in
Arabic. It is well-known that Arabic has both SVO and VSO structures,
and that only SVO shows full agreement. VSO, in contrast, only shows
gender agreement, but not number agreement. Many attempts have
been made to analyze this phenomenon syntactically, but none has
really been satisfying. A&N argue that the phenomenon should not be
seen as purely syntactic. Instead, in VSO structures, the verb and the
subject form a single phonological domain (an observation known from
the literature) and this configuration allows feature weakening on the
verb at PF ({} indicate phonological phrases):

(10) {[V Plr...] [D Plr...]} --> {[V...] [D Plr...]}

So if a verb with a plural feature appears in the same phonological
phrase as its subject, the plural feature of the verb may be elided.

PF feature checking, A&N argue, can account for the phenomenon of
complementizer agreement seen in certain Germanic languages:

(11) Hellendoorn Dutch
dat-te wij speul-t
that-1pl we play-1pl

Here, A&N argue, agreement between the complementizer 'dat' and
the subject 'wij' takes place at PF, and is made possible by the fact
that the complementizer and the subject are in the same phonological
phrase.

DISCUSSION

It must be said that the short description given above hardly does
justice to the analysis that A&N propose. They discuss all of the
phenomena mentioned here in much more detail, and many others
that I haven't mentioned. The breadth of the data covered is
impressive, and on the basis of their model, A&N offer many different
and new solutions to well-known problems in morphology. Some of
their solutions are truly novel, some are reinterpretations of existing
solutions, but invariably they offer interesting new perspectives, new
ways of thinking about about them.

This is of course not to say that there are no comments to be made. I
will first mention some empirical problems, and then go on to discuss
some aspects of the theoretical model.

First, one of the arguments given to support the idea that syntax and
morphology are not a single component of the grammar is that the two
do not condition each other. As mentioned above, there are no rules
such as 'compound verbs are right-headed when they occur in C, but
left-headed when they occur in situ', or 'the object is placed after the
verb when it is underived, but before it when it is morphologically
complex'.

While generally true, there are possible exceptions. In Dutch, most
(though not all) preposition do not allow non-human pronouns as their
complement. When a preposition takes a non-human pronoun as
complement, the pronoun must raise, attaching as a proclitic to the
pronoun:

(12) a.
*in het -- er-in
in it -- there-in

(12) b.
*op dit -- hier-op
on this -- here-on

This happens with personal pronouns, but equally with demonstrative,
interrogative, and relative pronouns. The crucial point is that when this
happens, the pronoun changes form: it takes what might be called an r-
form (due to the fact that all these forms end in -r). One
preposition, 'met' (with) even changes form itself, to 'mee':

(13)
?met het -- er-mee /*er-met
with it -- there-with

Prepositions that do not require (or even allow) the complement to be
extracted, or prepositions that (marginally; they improve with
demonstratives) allow the complement to stay in situ, require the
original, non-r-form of the pronoun:

(14)
a. zonder dat -- *daar-zonder -- *zonder daar
b. met dat -- daar-mee -- *met daar

The change is a purely morphological one, in that the form change
does not entail semantic change, and seems conditioned by pure
syntax, in that the r-form occurs when the complement is extracted.
Note that this morphological change cannot be accounted for in terms
of some PF adjacency rule as discussed in chapters six and seven,
because the r-pronoun can be extracted further (e.g. to the CP
domain), stranding the preposition. The phenomenon, therefore,
seems to contradict A&N's assumption that morphology and syntax do
not condition each other.

Other empirical problems are found with Standard Arabic. A&N argue
that agreement weakening in Arabic (the fact that VSO structures do
not allow plural marking on the verb) is PF conditioned, because it
takes place under adjacency. As A&N note themselves in a footnote
on page 205, this is in fact not entirely true. Agreement weakening
also takes place in VOS structures, which are rare but grammatical in
Arabic. A&N tentatively assume that in VOS structures the weak
agreement has another source, but that is hardly a satisfying situation.
A uniform analysis of the phenomenon would seem to require a
syntactic analysis after all.

Arabic also poses a problem for the analysis of mixed categories,
discussed above. Arabic has deverbal noun structures headed by a
nominal form, the so-called masdar (see, e.g. Fassi Fehri 1993,
Kremers 2003). Like English gerunds and Dutch nominal infinitives,
masdars can have an internal verb-like structure, assigning accusative
case and licensing adverbials, but can also appear in purely nominal
constructions, where the object is licensed through a preposition and
adjectives modify the masdar.

The problem is that the masdar form is a purely nominal form, (it is not
a form that can also have non-nominal meanings, such as English ing-
forms), and more importantly, that it is formed non-concatinatively.
Depending on the verbal base, the masdar form can be irregular or
regular, but it is *always* formed by inserting a vocalic pattern into a
consonantal stem. E.g., in the masdar form '(i)ntiqaad' (criticizing), the
verbal consonantal stem is N-T-Q-D, while the vocalic pattern is
CCiCaaC.

It is not clear how A&N would deal with such non-concatinative
morphology. The fact that Arabic masdars are nominal forms suggests
that the masdar affix is itself the nominalizer. It must be the case, then,
that the mapping principles are met, but it is not clear how, exactly.
Especially Linear Correspondence seems problematic.

Nonetheless, in my opinion, the success in accounting for a large set
of varied data far outweighs the empirical problems that do still exist.
Still, a few points about the theory itself can be made.

First, the argument for a modular grammar is very strong. It has
already been clear from other work (Jackendoff 1997, for example)
that we do indeed need separate modules for semantics, phonology
and syntax, that these generate structures independently and that
these structures must be mapped onto each other. Yet, mapping is not
the only interaction that A&N allow in their theory. Insertion, the
matching of features in one structure with those in another, is also a
form of interaction between modules. It must be said that given the
grammar model, assuming insertion is inevitable, but I believe it does
raise some questions.

The same, I believe, is true of kind of PF rules that A&N propose. They
appear to require a qualitative addition to the theory that is not clearly
empirically motivated.

Taking insertion first, A&N argue that insertion is not sensitive to the
kinds of structures it applies to. Hence, it can insert morphological
material in syntactic structures, but also syntactic material into
morphological structures. At the same time, insertion is not sensitive to
which nodes of the insertee or the host are involved.

That is, under a traditional view of insertion, what happens is that the
*root* node of a structure A is inserted into a *terminal* node of
structure B. But in A&N's view, insertion is no more than feature match,
and therefore not restricted to root and terminal nodes. It is equally
possible to associate the root node of e.g. a phrase with a non-
terminal node of another phrase (which accounts for parentheticals, as
A&N argue), or the non-root node of a phrase to a terminal node of
another phrase (which, A&N suggest in a footnote, may account for
graft structures (van Riemsdijk 2000, 2001), and similarly, of a
morphological structure into non-terminal nodes of another
morphological structure, which may account for "expletive insertion"
such as 'un-fucking-believable' (McCarthy 1982), a suggestion that
A&N somewhat optimistically introduce with the remark that "[t]here
should in fact be a fourth type of insertion (...)" (p. 131 fn.)

Things are not so easy, however. There are four variables: 1) the
insertee can either be morphological or syntactic; 2) the host can
either be morphological or syntactic; 3) the inserted node can be a
root or not; 4) the target node can be terminal or not. Given that there
are four binary variables, we expect not four but sixteen possible
forms of insertion. A&N only discuss two (plus what they
call 'simultaneous insertion', in which multiple insertions take place at
the same time, thus accounting for syntactic idioms), and mention two
others in footnotes. Most of the other theoretically possible types of
insertion, however, are not mentioned at all. Yet, A&N's model predicts
that they can occur. The question then becomes, do they occur, and if
not, why not?

A fifth type, insertion of the root a syntactic structure into a syntactic
terminal, is mentioned, but A&N argue that this yields a structure that
will always have an equivalent identical structure that is formed
through merge alone, and therefore cannot be distinguished.
However, an inserted structure is not visible in the host structure, while
structures formed by merge are expected to be fully transparent. One
would, therefore, expect empirical differences that would allow us to
distinguish the two types. In fact, it might be interesting to see if such
an account is feasible for the so-called Condition on Extraction
Domains effects (Huang 1982), or whether phase theory could be
linked to it.

Secondly, in their chapters on PF rules (six and seven), A&N first
present their analysis as a derivation from syntax to phonology, a
process during which a certain mixed syntactic/phonological
representation is formed that they call PF. However, in a modular
theory, there shouldn't be such a one-way derivation. Rather, we
expect mapping principles that are non-directional (or bi-directional).
A&N notice this, of course, and argue that PF should be seen as an
independently built representation, linked to syntax and phonology
through mapping principles.

This solution raises a few questions, however. If PF is a separate
representation, just like the semantic, syntactic and phonological
representations of a clause, it should be a macromodule, on a par with
semantics, syntax and phonology. That would mean that it should
have two submodules as well, one for word-level PF and one for
phrasal PF. Yet, in their final representation of the grammar module,
A&N do not present it as such. Rather, they give PF a box below the
three macromodules, rather than next to them, without submodules but
with mapping principles linking it to all three. (In fact, the lexicon is
represented in exactly the same way, except that it is placed above
the three macromodules.)

So, what is the exact nature of the PF representation? It is obvious
from the discussion that it is partly phonological, in that it
represents "initial prosodic phrasing". At the same time, it has syntactic
features, because the rules operating at PF are sensitive to
agreement and to traces. It is a representation that is halfway between
syntax and phonology, combining features of both of them.

I also miss an empirical motivation for PF, in the sense that we cannot
directly observe the representation it builds. The semantic, syntactic
and phonological representations of a phrase are observable in
linguistic utterances, and it is to a large extent possible to research
each of them independently from the others. For PF, however, this is
not the case.

The question then is, do we really need a PF representation? Wouldn't
it be better to eliminate it, and describe its properties as part of the
mapping from syntax to phonology?

Obviously, I have no direct answer to these questions myself. The fact
that the book raises such questions in the reader, is a positive point:
A&N present a very well thought-out theory, which I believe will prove
a fruitful base for further research.

REFERENCES

Fassi Fehri, A. 1993. Issues in the structure of Arabic clauses and
words. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers

Huang, C-T. J. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of
Grammar. MIT Phd Dissertation

Jackendoff, R. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Kremers, J. 2003. The Arabic Noun Phrase: a Minimalist Perspective.
PhD Dissertation, University of Nijmegen.

McCarthy, J. 1982. 'Prosodic Structure and Expletive Infixation'.
Language 58: 574-590

Riemsdijk, H. van, 2000. 'Free Relatives Inside Out: Transparent Free
Relatives as Grafts'. In: B. Rozwadowska (ed.) Proceedings of the
1999 PASE Conference. University of Wroclaw, 223-233.

Riemsdijk, H. van, 2001. 'A Far from Simple Matter'. In: I. Kenesei and
R. Harnish (eds). Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics and
Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 21-41.

Selkirk, E. 1986. 'On Derived Domains in Sentence Phonology'.
Phonology Yearbook 3: 371-405.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Joost Kremers studied Arabic and linguistics at the University of
Nijmegen, The Netherlands, and received his PhD there in 2003
(thesis title: "The Arabic noun phrase: a minimalist analysis). Apart
from Arabic syntax, his main research focus is linearisation. His central
idea is that linear structure is not determined in narrow syntax. Rather,
it is the modality in which language is expressed (speech, sign) that
imposes linear order. Hence, linearisation should be part of the
derivation or mapping from syntax to phonology. Future research will
focus more on synchronicity, i.e. the mutual spell-out of multiple
syntactic elements. He is currently a post-doc at the Graduate
College "Sentence Types" of the University of Frankfurt, Germany.


Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue




Please report any bad links or misclassified data

LINGUIST Homepage | Read LINGUIST | Contact us

NSF Logo

While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.