Is Word Structure Relevant for Stress Assignment?

Marvin, Tatjana

doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262019675.003.0005

Cited by 16 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Since both atomicity and atomicness have the same underlying structure, one cannot rely on this structure to make the distinction between stress-shifting and stress-neutral affixes. To resolve this problem, Lowenstamm replaces the assumptions of Marantz (1997Marantz ( , 2001) and Marvin (2003Marvin ( , 2013 Although Lowenstamm proposes that all affixes are roots (31a), they are different from true l-morphemes (e.g. √ DOG), because affixes always need a complement to project to the phrasal level.…”

Section: Lowenstamm's Proposalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As briefly discussed in the introduction, root-and-category proposals (Marantz 1997(Marantz , 2001Marvin 2003Marvin , 2013 take derivational affixes as the spell-out of cate-gorial heads and assume that these categorial heads introduce the domains of phasal spell-out. Moreover, the domains of phasal spell-out are the same as the cycles of SPE.…”

Section: Lowenstamm's Proposalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this paper we propose an adaptation of two influential proposals in the literature on the basis of a detailed analysis of Dutch data. One of these proposals (Marantz 1997(Marantz , 2001Marvin 2003Marvin , 2013 considers derivational affixes a type of functional morpheme that realizes a categorial head, while the other (Lowenstamm 2015;De Belder 2011) argues that derivational affixes are roots. Our proposal takes a middle position.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Some affixes are roots, others are heads

Creemers

Don

Fenger

2017

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A recent debate in the morphological literature concerns the status of derivational affixes. While some linguists (Marantz 1997(Marantz , 2001Marvin 2003) consider derivational affixes a type of functional morpheme that realizes a categorial head, others (Lowenstamm 2015; De Belder 2011) argue that derivational affixes are roots. Our proposal, which finds its empirical basis in a study of Dutch derivational affixes, takes a middle position. We argue that there are two types of derivational affixes: some that are roots (i.e. lexical morphemes) and others that are categorial heads (i.e. functional morphemes). Affixes that are roots show 'flexible' categorial behavior, are subject to 'lexical' phonological rules, and may trigger idiosyncratic meanings. Affixes that realize categorial heads, on the other hand, are categorially rigid, do not trigger 'lexical' phonological rules nor allow for idiosyncrasies in their interpretation.

show abstract

Section: Lowenstamm's Proposalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Lowenstamm's Proposalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Some affixes are roots, others are heads

Creemers

Don

Fenger

2017

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Here I discuss which syntactic approach best accounts for evaluative derivations in Russian: a hierarchical structure approach (Chomsky 2000(Chomsky , 2001 or a cyclicity approach (Marantz 2001, Embick 2010, Marvin 2013. To answer this question, I investigate Russian data where an evaluative suffix attaches to a gendered nominal, as in (41).…”

Section: Syntactic Approaches To Account For Evaluative Derivationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nominalizing evaluative suffixes in Russian: The interaction of declension class, gender, and animacy

Steriopolo

2017

Vestnik

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a study of Russian nominalizing evaluative suffixes that form nouns of the -adeclension. Such suffixes are interesting because they can consistently change the animacy, declension class, and grammatical gender of the base to which they attach. However, the resulting nominalizations belong to different grammatical genders that seem to depend on the biological gender of a discourse referent.This work investigates morphosyntactic properties of such evaluative suffixes and proposes an account for the differences in grammatical gender in the framework of Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993, Halle 1997, Marantz 1997, among many others), which provides us with formal tools for handling syntactic processes that happen inside a word -in this case, inside evaluative nominalizations.The study contributes to a number of much-debated questions in the current linguistic literature concerning the interaction between grammatical gender and declension class, mixed gender agreement, interpretability of gender features, and default gender.

show abstract

“…Not only were the Middle Ages keenly aware of the materiality or embodiment of language-the rhythm of script on the eye, taste of words in the mouth-but they also knew that selfhood depended on language and speaking." 31 The very embodiment and materiality of language that Marvin identifies is, I argue, bound up in these three letters with Eleanor' s body, in particular, with her suffering, weeping, and mourning maternal body. That is, the state of her body as that of a mother, one who has given birth, as well as one who is in danger of losing the one to whom she has given birth, gives an extraordinary power to her words.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Motherly Devotion and Fatherly Obligation: Eleanor of Aquitaine's Letters to Pope Celestine III

Stapleton

2012

MFF

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is Word Structure Relevant for Stress Assignment?

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

Some affixes are roots, others are heads

Some affixes are roots, others are heads

Nominalizing evaluative suffixes in Russian: The interaction of declension class, gender, and animacy

Motherly Devotion and Fatherly Obligation: Eleanor of Aquitaine's Letters to Pope Celestine III

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About