LINGUIST List 10.1934

Tue Dec 14 1999

Review: Rohrbacher: Morphology-Driven Syntax

Editor for this issue: Andrew Carnie <carnielinguistlist.org>



What follows is another discussion note contributed to our Book Discussion Forum. We expect these 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 discussion." (This means that the publisher has sent us a review copy.) Then contact Andrew Carnie at carnielinguistlist.org

Directory

  • Michael Moss, Rohrbacher Review

    Message 1: Rohrbacher Review

     Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:36:51 +0100
    From: Michael Moss <mmossdab.microsun.com.pl>
    Subject: Rohrbacher Review


    Rohrbacher, Bernhard Wolfgang, (1999) Morphology-Driven Syntax, A Theory of V to I raising and pro-drop, Volume 15 of the Linguistik Aktuell Series, Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company, 296 pages.

    Reviewed by: Michael Moss, University of Gdansk, Poland.

    Synopsis This book, which is a revised and expanded version of the author's 1994 Ph.D. dissertation presents a theory which relates the presence of morphological features (1st and 2nd person singular verbal endings) in a given language to the presence of syntactic processes (V to I raising and pro-drop). The main evidence presented to support his arguments is taken from the Germanic languages. Other language groups are also cited such as Italian, French, European and Brazilian Portuguese. Interestingly, the book also uses a fair amount of diachronic evidence showing how syntactic patterns change as the result of morphological changes. That is, in the change from middle English to early modern English, the phasing out of 1st and 2nd singular verbal endings coincides with the phasing out of V to I movement. Such patterns are also shown to occur in the history of the development of other Germanic languages.

    Critical Evaluation

    The borders between morphology and syntax have been disputed since the early days of generative linguistics. Chomsky (1970) is cited as the moment when derivational morphology was 'born' by relegating it to the lexicon: "This paper presents a new theory of syntax, in which all of derivational morphology is isolated and removed from the syntax; it is instead dealt with in an expanded lexicon, by a separate component of the grammar. This distinction legitimizes the field of morphology as an independent entity" (Aronoff 1976:6). Placing all of the morphological information in the lexicon came to be known as the "strong lexicalist" position.

    In this work, Rohrbacher rejects the 'strong lexicalist' approach, saying that while inflectional information (when present) is listed in the lexicon, it is dealt with by the syntax. This is quite different to the 'traditional' approach which assumed that even if 'syntactic' information such as agreement features were stored in the lexicon, that they would be dealt with by the morphology, supplying the syntax with complete morphological words. In this book, agreement features are separate lexical items which are 'visible' to the syntax and which are capable of projecting their own structures. Rohrbacher uses this argument to support the existence of AgrP projections in syntactic derivation. The presence of inflectional affixes, specifically distinct affixes for the 1st and 2nd person plural, determines whether or not a AgrP will be projected in the derivation of a sentence. The presence of AgrP, in turn, makes certain syntactic events to take place such as V to I movement by providing a landing site for the verb to move to. If the language does not have distinct inflectional features, then no AgrP will be projected and the verb will remain in situ. Furthermore, if agreement is not taken care of by the use of affixes independently listed in the lexicon, then it is taken care of by post-syntactic spell out rules in the PF component. Such an approach in which overt inflection (such as -s in English) is introduced post-syntactically resembles Anderson's 'interpretavist' model of inflectional morphology. Other evidence of traditionally 'syntactic' information being stored independently in the lexicon is also found in works such as Baker, Johnson and Roberts (1989).

    Rohrbacher's account of pro-drop phenomena is also quite convincing. Taking evidence form, Faroese, Icelandic and other Germanic languages as well as non-Germanic languages such as European and Brazilian Portuguese, he argues again that AgrP projected by verbal affixes for 1st and 2nd person (when present and distinct) provides a structure in which 'pro' can occupy the specifier position. If no AgrP is projected, 'pro' cannot appear in the specifier position and V does not raise for agreement feature checking, forcing an NP to occupy the specifier position of the matrix VP. Furthermore, he expands this hypothesis to include explanations of clitic placement in French and Italian and other romance languages.

    One very interesting aspect of the book is Rohrbacher's use of diachronic analysis to support his thesis. Using data from the period during the passage from Middle English to Modern English, the author shows how the syntactic V to I raising structures diminish with the elimination of 1st and 2nd person singular verbal agreement affixes. This is important evidence supporting the 'parameter' approach to language structure. If syntactic structures change over the course of a language's history due to language-internal modifications (such as the loss of agreement features), then we have evidence of linguistic elements 'triggering' necessary results. Syntactic structures are thus not simply the result of training or social conditioning, but can be shown to have an independent internal and hopefully universal structure.

    This work is important not only to people interested in Germanic linguistics, but also to those interested in morphology and and the lexicalist theory in generative linguistics, as well as syntacticians interested in V to I movement and pro-drop phenomena.



    References Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press Baker. M, K. Johnson and I. Roberts. 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 219-251. Chomsky, Noam. 1970. "Remarks on nominalization." in Chomsky. 1973. 11-61. Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Studies on semantics in generative grammar. The Hague:Mouton.

    The reviewer: My name is Michael Moss, I am currently writing a doctorate at the University of Gdansk. My intersts research interests include: theta-role and case assignment, agreement phenomena, and subcategorization frames in generative grammar.