Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Text, Speech and Language Technology ((TLTB,volume 6))

  • 153 Accesses

Abstract

This paper discusses the nature and scope of the relation between morphology and (phrasal) syntax. I propose two dimensions along which the “space” of lexical argument structure might be partitioned, and then I illustrate how these dimensions can be exploited to address puzzles presented by various morphosyntactic phenomena in English. The direction of the argument will be toward support for a conception of the relation between morphology and syntax in which the rules of one differ in interesting ways from the rules of the other—a “lexicalist” conception—and away from a “syntactic” conception of that relation, in which the rules of morphology are the rules of syntax.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Baker, M., The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation, Linguistic Inquiry 16, 373–415, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M., Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresnan, J., The passive in lexical theory, in Bresnan (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 3–86, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N., The logical structure of lintuistic theory,University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1955/75).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N., Syntactic structures, Mouton, The Hague, 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N., Lectures on government and binding, Foris, Dordrecht, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N., Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R., Thematic theory in syntax and interpretation, Croom Helm, London, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Sciullo, A.-M., Williams, E., On the definition of word, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale, K., Keyser, S.J., On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations, in Hale and Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA., 53–109, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hantson, A., Towards an analysis of retroactive nominals, inW. de Geest and Y Putseys (eds.), Sentential complementation, Foris, Dordrecht, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, J., Logical Form, binding, and nominals, Linguistic Inquiry 14, 395–420, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, J., On semantics, Linguistic Inquiry 16, 547–593, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C., `Anti-internalization’: Suppression and projection of external 0-roles, in G. Westphal, J. Dai, and B. Ao (eds.), ESCOI `91 Proceedings, Linguistics Department, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieber, R., Deconstructing morphology: Word formation in syntactic theory, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, B., Rappaport, M., The formation of the adjectival passive, Linguistic Inquiry 17, 623–661, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, A., On the nature of grammatical relations. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milsark, G. L. Singl-ing. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 611–634, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pustejovsky, J., The generative lexicon, MIT Press Cambridge, Mass., 1995

    Google Scholar 

  • Selkirk, E., The syntax of words, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, E., Rule ordering in syntax, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass., 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, E., Predication, Linguistic Inquiry 11, 203–238, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, E., Argument structure and morphology, Linguistic Review 1, 81–114, 1981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, E., Implicit arguments, the Binding Theory, and Control, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5, 151–180, 1987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, E., The anaphoric nature of 0-roles, Linguistic Inquiry 20, 425–456, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, E., Thematic structure in syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1994.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jones, C. (1999). Some Syntactic Consequences of Argument Structure Dimensions. In: Saint-Dizier, P. (eds) Predicative Forms in Natural Language and in Lexical Knowledge Bases. Text, Speech and Language Technology, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2746-4_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2746-4_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5146-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-2746-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics