Syntactic Atomicity

Ackema, Peter; Neeleman, Ad

doi:10.1023/a:1023602928159

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This lapse of attention has not gone unnoticed. Lieber & Scalise (2007) point to it, while Ackema & Neeleman (2003; use lexical integrity (syntactic atomicity) as an argument against theories like DM. The reason for the communal silence, we suspect, is that this straightforward prediction is not upheld in most cases, and the case of Korean transparent suffixes constitutes the exception rather than the norm.…”

Section: Lexical Integrity Reduxmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The differences boil down to the number of theta-roles in a movement chain. In the case of the differences between complex heads created by morphological operations and the analytic structures that underlie them-the Lexical Integrity facts-there is, first of all, almost no account of the The following, adapted from Ackema & Neeleman (2003;, shows that lexical integrity constrains English word-formation. Stranding of dependents that are intended to be construed with a word-internal constituent (in violation of phrasal recursivity)-that is, external modifiers-is strictly banned for the bases of the words formed with -hood, -able, and -ize, as seen below.…”

Section: Lexical Integrity Reduxmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A second point about phrasal recursivity is the following, brought up by another reviewer. While B&M took phrasal recursitivity to be a valid diagnostic separating word-internal and phrasal structure, the existence of phrasal compounds (as in [[sit on the sidelines] policy]), where non-lexicalized syntactic phrases occur productively as part of words (Ackema & Neeleman 2003;Sato 2010, etc. ), cast doubt on the supposition that phrasal structure cannot exist below the level of the word.…”

Section: Introduction: Lexical Integrity and The Lexicalist Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Yoon

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Central to the debate on the demarcation of morphology and syntax is the position staked out by the Lexicalist Hypothesis, which holds that morphology and syntax are distinct systems which interface with each other in a particular way. Proponents of the Lexicalist Hypothesis point to a suite of diagnostics collectively known as lexical integrity tests (Bresnan and Mchombo 1995) as evidence pointing to the fundamental difference between morphology and syntax. The tests revolve around the apparent failure of principles of phrasal syntax at the threshold of words. If morphology and syntax constitute a unified rule system, as assumed in current approaches such as Distributed Morphology, such failure is not predicted. It is surprising therefore that lexical integrity has not played a significant role in arguments for Distributed Morphology (Lieber and Scalise 2007). The purpose of this paper is to introduce two types of denominal predicates in Korean, which are distinguished by the fact that lexical integrity is observed in one but not the other type. I explore how the behaviors of the two classes of denominal predicates can be modeled using the theoretical and empirical machinery of current DM, in particular, the distinction between roots and words. While this is a welcome result, it turns out that DM predicts that more languages should behave like Korean in allowing massive violations of lexical integrity. I provide an analysis of the differences between languages like Korean that allow selective access of word-internal structure by syntactic principles and languages like English where such access is prohibited by focusing on the mechanics of Vocabulary Insertion and complex head formation. The paper concludes with the implications of the analysis of the two types of predicates in Korean for both lexicalist and DM architectures of morphology and syntax interaction.

show abstract

Section: Lexical Integrity Reduxmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Lexical Integrity Reduxmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introduction: Lexical Integrity and The Lexicalist Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Yoon

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In some models this is accepted at face value, and syntactic affixation and word formation is accepted in general. However, this might leave unexplained other lexical integrity effects, which do seem to exist (see for instance Ackema and Neeleman for an overview). Therefore, other models of grammar have an architecture from which lexical integrity effects are expected to follow – but in such models the Japanese productive causative is problematic for the reason just given.…”

Section: Syntactic Causatives In Japanese: Bi‐clausality and Predicatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is because, if sase is a proper affix, it should not have the semantic raising capabilities it is endowed with in (16): other bona fide affixes do not allow this, and this may well be precisely because of lexical integrity. This issue is discussed in Ackema and Neeleman (:104–107), who note that affixes are unlike, say, quantifiers in syntax in not being able to undergo covert (LF) raising. For example, in syntax the scope ambiguity between an indefinite and the negation in a case like (17) can perhaps be understood in terms of possible LF raising of the indefinite quantifier:…”

Section: Syntactic Causatives In Japanese: Bi‐clausality and Predicatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Japanese Causatives are Not Relevant To Lexical Integrity

Ackema

2013

Studia Linguistica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Productive Japanese causative verbs appear to form a problem for the idea that the relation between morphology and syntax is characterised by lexical integrity, meaning that the internal structure of complex words is opaque to syntax. This is because such causatives show behaviour that indicates the verb and the causative morpheme head separate syntactic clauses underlyingly, so their structure must be syntactically transparent, but nevertheless the combination of verb and causative morpheme seems to be a morphological complex. In this paper I argue that, given a modular architecture of grammar, the module in which verb and causative morpheme might be argued to be a complex word is morphophonology, which is not the module to which lexical integrity pertains. In the module to which this does pertain, morpho-syntax, the productive causative morpheme is a free morpheme, rather than an affix, at all levels of representation. The construction is therefore not relevant to the question of whether or not lexical integrity holds. The paper concludes with a discussion of the relationship between the productive causative and the 'lexical' causative, which arguably does involve a morphological complex in morpho-syntax as well as morpho-phonology. It is argued that the occurrence of the same morpheme in syntactic causatives and some lexical causatives does not imperil its status as a free morpheme in the syntactic causative. Sciullo and Williams 1987, Bresnan and Mchombo 1995and Ackema and Neeleman 2004, and I will not further discuss the motivation for it here.Nevertheless, all along in the debate about the phenomenon, empirical data have been put forward that appear to challenge the principle (see Lieber and Scalise 2005 for recent discussion). In this paper I will discuss one construction that might be regarded as a 'classic' in this respect, namely the case of Japanese causatives. I will argue that the violation of lexical integrity that these appear to display at first sight is only apparent and that they are in fact not relevant to lexical integrity at all. Syntactic causatives in Japanese: bi-clausality and predicate raisingJapanese has two types of causatives, a 'lexical' one (with an idiosyncratic, unpredictable, meaning for the derived verb) and a 'syntactic' one. The latter is formed by attaching the morpheme sase to the verb, and always has transparent causative semantics. This is a fully productive process; hence, the terms 'syntactic causative' and 'productive causative' will be used interchangeably below.The syntactic causative has properties that indicate that, at least underlyingly, it is a bi-clausal structure. Causative sase is the independent head of a main clause, which takes an embedded clause headed by the verb that is causativised as complement:(4) [ Clause Subj [ Clause Subj (Obj) V] sase]

show abstract

Suspended Affixation

Yoon

2023

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Syntactic Atomicity

Cited by 13 publications

References 43 publications

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

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

Japanese Causatives are Not Relevant To Lexical Integrity

Suspended Affixation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About