In other words: external modifiers in Georgian

Abstract

This paper addresses the issue of stranded modifiers and null heads through two otherwise unrelated constructions in Georgian. In each construction, a word in the oblique form modifies part of the complex word following it. It is shown that null modifiers in Georgian have a form different from that of the modifiers in the constructions at issue, and the latter cannot have null heads. However, Baker's [Baker, M. C. (1988). Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.] alternative approach is not easily compatible with the derivational morphology of these examples. I propose an analysis of external modifiers in terms of Beard [Beard, R. (1991). Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 9,, which addresses other bracketing paradoxes by permitting ''the semantic features of an attribute [to] subjoin with one and only one semantic feature of its head' ' (1991: 208). In this way I suggest a unified analysis of noun incorporation and derived structures, drawing on a mechanism that must be included in the grammar for non-derived words as well.

The Syntax-Morphology Interface in Ancient Greek

“…Specifically, the morphological constituents of words are lexical and sublexical categoriesstems and affixes-while the syntactic constituents of phrases have words as the minimal, unanalyzable units; and syntactic ordering principles do not apply to morphemic structures" (Bresnan and Mchombo 1995, 181). However, a great deal of empirical counterevidence as well as formal arguments were brought against these theoretical conceptions, so the strong version of the principle, at least, had to be abandoned and the validity of the whole enterprise had to be reassessed (see for example, Booij 2007, 186-190, 284, 289-293;Bruening 2018;Harris 2000Harris , 2002Harris , 2006aHarris , 2006bHaspelmath 2011, 67-69;Haspelmath and Sims 2010, 203-206;Julien 2002, 26-36;Lieber 1992, 11-19;Sadock 1980Sadock , 1986. Consequently, the principle was reexamined and reformulated in Lieber andScalise 2006 andBooij 2009, and the conclusions reached were that " [T]here is interaction between morphology and syntax, but … it is not free" (Lieber and Scalise 2006, 27) and that "[T]he principle of Lexical Integrity should be formulated in such a way as not to exclude the different modules of the grammar from ever having access to word-internal structure" (Booij 2009, 98).…”

“…This phenomenon, albeit proscribed, is quite common and occurs "with the frequency of such routine phrasal constructions as indirect questions and relative clauses" (Gillon 1994, 118). Compound members can manifest syntactic relations with external modifiers in Georgian too (Harris 2006a). Cf.…”

Lexical integrity and suspended affixation in two types of denominal predicates in Korean

“…), cast doubt on the supposition that phrasal structure cannot exist below the level of the word. If there is no ban on sub-word phrasal structure, the ill-formedness of (5a, b) must be due to a condition that bans word-internal elements from being modified by constituents outside the word, that is, (the ban on) external modification (Harris 2006a). I will therefore use the terms phrasal recursivity and external modification interchangeably in the remainder of the paper to refer to the possibility of external modification of word-internal constituents, which is allowed with transparent predicates but not with opaque predicates.…”