We develop a theory of movement operations that occur after the syntactic derivation, in the PF component, within the framework of Distributed Morphology. The properties of syntactic movement have been studied extensively in linguistic theory, both in terms of locality conditions and in terms of the types of constituents affected (phrases, subparts of phrases, heads). Despite differences in particular analyses or frameworks, the locality conditions on movement operations are a central concern of current research. Here we address movement operations as well, but operations of a different type. In particular, we examine and analyze movement operations that occur after the syntactic derivation, in the PF component, and provide a theory that makes proposals concerning (a) the locality conditions on such movements, (b) the types of constituents they affect, and (c) the position of such operations in the sequential derivation from the output of syntax to phonologically instantiated expressions.From a somewhat abstract perspective, the fact on which we base our study is that not all structures and strings are the result of operations that occur exclusively in the syntactic component of the grammar; this observation stems from a body of prior research investigating the relationship between syntactic structure and phonological form. The observation covers two domains: one dealing with linear sequences that are syntactically opaque, the other with movement operations. In the first domain it has been demonstrated that the internal ordering of clitic clusters cannotWe would like to thank

A theory of the syntax/morphology interface is first, a theory of how 'words' and their internal structure-the traditional domain of morphology-relate to the structures generated by the syntax, and second, a theory of how the rules for deriving complex words relate to the rules for deriving syntactic structures. A prominent line of research in this area consists of approaches assuming some version of the Lexicalist Hypothesis. For present purposes, this is the claim that (at least some) words are special in ways that e.g. phrases are not, and that this 'specialness' calls for an architecture in which the derivation of words and the derivation of syntactic objects occur in different modules of the grammar (the Lexicon versus the syntax). 1 While the 'words' derived in the Lexicon serve as the terminals in the syntactic derivation, there is a sharp division between syntax and morphology according to Lexicalist approaches of this type. In this way, the interface between syntax and morphology in such a theory is opaque or indirect: there is no reason to expect the structure and composition of 'words' to relate to the structure and composition of syntactic objects in any transparent or for that matter systematic fashion. A second line of research advances the hypothesis that 'words' are assembled by rules of the syntax. Thus the 'word' is not a privileged derivational object as far as the architecture of the grammar is concerned, since all complex objects, whether words and phrases, are treated as the output of the same generative system (the syntax). According to this view, which we assume here, the theory of the syntax/morphology interface might better be said to be a theory of (1) the primitive elements of the syntactic derivation (the traditional question of the morpheme); (2) the principles governing the assembly of these primitives into complex objects (the question of what structures the syntax and perhaps PF rules can derive); and (3) the manner in which phonological forms relate to the primitives and to the complex objects constructed from the primitives. Such an approach allows for a transparent (or direct) interface between syntax and morphology, because it hypothesizes that the same generative system derives all complex objects. 2 In the default case, then, the principles that govern the composition of 'words' are the same as those that govern the composition of larger syntactic objects.

Whenever a major revision to the architecture of UG is proposed, it takes some time for sufficient work to accumulate to allow evaluation of the viability of the proposal, as well as for its broad outlines to become familiar to those not immediately involved in the investigation. The introduction of Distributed Morphology in the early 1990s, by Morris Halle and Alec Marantz, is a case in point. In the seven-year period since the first paper outlining the framework appeared, a reasonably substantial body of work has appeared, addressing some of the key issues raised by the revision. The goal of this article is to introduce the motivation and core assumptions of the framework, and at the same time provide some pointers to the recent work which revises and refines the basic DM proposal and increases DM's empirical coverage. Since the particular issues we discuss cover such a broad range of territory, we do not attempt to provide complete summaries of individual papers, nor, for the most part, do we attempt to relate the discussion of particular issues to the much broader range of work that has been done in the general arena. What we hope to do is allow some insight into (and foster some discussion of) the attitude that DM takes on specific issues, with some illustrative empirical examples.This article is organized as follows. Section 1 sketches the layout of the grammar and discusses the division of labor between its components. The "distributed" of Distributed Morphology refers to the separation of properties which in other theories are collected in the Lexicon, and in section 1 we elaborate on the motivation for this separation and its particulars. Section 2 explicates the mechanics of Spell-Out, giving examples of competition among phonological forms from Dutch, introducing the notion of "f-morpheme" and "1-morpheme" and distinguishing allomorphy from

Syntactic and lexico-semantic properties are both implicated in the study of unaccusativity. Accordingly, a persistent question in the discussion of unaccusativity as a theoretical notion has been whether or not a reduction is possible in either direction. Typically, the question has been whether the verbs that behave syntactically as unaccusatives do so as a result of their lexical semantics. In broader terms, this is part of the larger question of whether or not the syntactic behaviour of a verb is (uniquely) determinable from its semantic properties.  e association of arguments of a predicate to syntactic positions is referred to as the question of 'Linking' in theories of the interface between syntax and the lexicon; Pesetsky () and Levin and Rappaport Hovav () provide overviews of this and related issues. Similar questions apply to verbs that enter into verbal alternations, concerning whether the verbs that do and those that do not enter certain alternations are distinguishable by semantic criteria.  e focus in this chapter is not on these types of lexico-semantic question, but is instead For helpful discussion I would like to thank Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Karlos Arregi, Rajesh Bhatt, Rolf Noyer, and Alexander Williams. I would also like to thank the audience at the ZAS/ LOT Workshop on Unaccusativity for comments.