Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Figures
Previous Analyses
Previous Analyses on Gender Assignment
Number and Case
DM Analysis of Greek Nominals
Discussion
DM Analysis of Greek Verbal Forms
Conclusion
Conclusions
The Subject Matter of the Dissertation
Future Research Directions
References
All Topics
Languages and Linguistics
Phonology

Phonological Realization of Morphosyntactic Features

Profile image of Giorgos MarkopoulosGiorgos Markopoulos

2018

Abstract
sparkles

AI

This paper explores the phonological realization of morphosyntactic features such as voice, aspect, tense, and agreement in various languages, examining how these features interact with different morphological systems. It highlights the complexities involved, particularly in fusional languages where the mapping between features and morphological items can be ambiguous, leading to instances where morphosyntactic features are not overtly expressed. Through examples from languages like German and English, the study delves into the implications of these interactions for understanding the relationship between morphology and phonology.

Figures (86)
examples from Greek (in phonemic transcription): What we observe is that the masculine gender value is present in all four inflectional forms of the noun fixos ‘wall’, as opposed to number and case values, which vary and hinge on the
examples from Greek (in phonemic transcription): What we observe is that the masculine gender value is present in all four inflectional forms of the noun fixos ‘wall’, as opposed to number and case values, which vary and hinge on the
percolate to the first branching node, as illustrated in (8) (Lieber 1980: 53): In the Latin example above, although the features of the root am percolate to the non-
percolate to the first branching node, as illustrated in (8) (Lieber 1980: 53): In the Latin example above, although the features of the root am percolate to the non-
specification. The derivation that takes place in this case is exemplified in (13a—b): nerge of mP with the functional head of Number, while verbal structures result from the
specification. The derivation that takes place in this case is exemplified in (13a—b): nerge of mP with the functional head of Number, while verbal structures result from the
The question that arises at this point is how these features are “translated” into phonological information that can be processed at the PF level. In other words, how do we get from the tree structure in (14) to the surface realization tréxo? This brings us to the discussion of Vocabulary Insertion (V1), unfolded in the following section. ‘run.ACT.IPFV.NPST.1SG’ is the output of the following derivation process:* information that can be processed at the PF level. In other words, how do we get from the heads need to be assigned specific values. So, for instance, the Greek verbal form tréxo
The question that arises at this point is how these features are “translated” into phonological information that can be processed at the PF level. In other words, how do we get from the tree structure in (14) to the surface realization tréxo? This brings us to the discussion of Vocabulary Insertion (V1), unfolded in the following section. ‘run.ACT.IPFV.NPST.1SG’ is the output of the following derivation process:* information that can be processed at the PF level. In other words, how do we get from the heads need to be assigned specific values. So, for instance, the Greek verbal form tréxo
We are now in position to see how the structures and the operations we have assumed so far are represented in a nominal form in Greek. Given the tree structure in (15b), in order to lerive the word for “humans”, namely the nominative plural form of the noun that denotes a
We are now in position to see how the structures and the operations we have assumed so far are represented in a nominal form in Greek. Given the tree structure in (15b), in order to lerive the word for “humans”, namely the nominative plural form of the noun that denotes a
of the DP, as illustrated in the examples (18-20):
of the DP, as illustrated in the examples (18-20):
Table 1. Masculine nouns in -os/-as and neuter nouns in -o/-a cannot be predicted from either the gender value (Table 1) or the form of its ending (Table 2).
Table 1. Masculine nouns in -os/-as and neuter nouns in -o/-a cannot be predicted from either the gender value (Table 1) or the form of its ending (Table 2).
Table 2. Masculine nouns in -as and feminine nouns in -a
Table 2. Masculine nouns in -as and feminine nouns in -a
Table 3. Verbs with irregular aspect forms in the stem-final consonant (z — k). Interestingly, vowel alternations are not uniform across
Table 3. Verbs with irregular aspect forms in the stem-final consonant (z — k). Interestingly, vowel alternations are not uniform across
Table 4. Masculine nouns in -as/-is and feminine nouns in -a/-i
Table 4. Masculine nouns in -as/-is and feminine nouns in -a/-i
ubject, SUBJ) in a higher position within the same TP, as illustrated in the tree structure ir Furthermore, it also bears the [+inferior] value, because there is always another DP (i.e., the
ubject, SUBJ) in a higher position within the same TP, as illustrated in the tree structure ir Furthermore, it also bears the [+inferior] value, because there is always another DP (i.e., the
structure we assume for Greek nominals is the following: According to the discussion in the previous sections, the underlying morphosyntactic
structure we assume for Greek nominals is the following: According to the discussion in the previous sections, the underlying morphosyntactic
However, this is not the whole picture. After the syntactic output depicted in (58) is sent to PF, it undergoes certain modifications driven by specific well-formedness requirements of Greek morphosyntax. To explain, in Greek the n head that merges with Number triggers the insertion of an adjacent Theme node (TH), indicated by the dashed line in (59b) (see Embick & Noyer 2007 for a similar account for Latin nominal declension). Crucially, this process takes place at a post-syntactic level and has a bearing only on the PF interpretation. akes place at a post-syntactic level and has a bearing only on the PF interpretation.
However, this is not the whole picture. After the syntactic output depicted in (58) is sent to PF, it undergoes certain modifications driven by specific well-formedness requirements of Greek morphosyntax. To explain, in Greek the n head that merges with Number triggers the insertion of an adjacent Theme node (TH), indicated by the dashed line in (59b) (see Embick & Noyer 2007 for a similar account for Latin nominal declension). Crucially, this process takes place at a post-syntactic level and has a bearing only on the PF interpretation. akes place at a post-syntactic level and has a bearing only on the PF interpretation.
However, this is not the whole picture. After the syntactic output depicted in (58) is sent to to Number, yielding a complex head (an M/-Word), as illustrated in (58): PF, it undergoes certain modifications driven by specific well-formedness requirements of
However, this is not the whole picture. After the syntactic output depicted in (58) is sent to to Number, yielding a complex head (an M/-Word), as illustrated in (58): PF, it undergoes certain modifications driven by specific well-formedness requirements of
while its number and gender features are valued via copying from the Number and the n node
while its number and gender features are valued via copying from the Number and the n node
the surface level. Finally, the candidate contains a sequence of adjacent vowels and thus violates *VV. In this case, the violation is represented by the integer number 1, as it does not
the surface level. Finally, the candidate contains a sequence of adjacent vowels and thus violates *VV. In this case, the violation is represented by the integer number 1, as it does not
movement and post-syntactic feature insertion have taken place, is illustrated in (67): ‘ollows: the n[+human] head selects the root V#FISH and then merges with the Number head
movement and post-syntactic feature insertion have taken place, is illustrated in (67): ‘ollows: the n[+human] head selects the root V#FISH and then merges with the Number head
faithful one, namely psarades, (72a). In this case the relevant constraints are the following: rom the violation of DEP and MAX, violate also the markedness constraints *VV and *C.
faithful one, namely psarades, (72a). In this case the relevant constraints are the following: rom the violation of DEP and MAX, violate also the markedness constraints *VV and *C.
complete syntactic structure we put forward for the feminine noun xipsteru (nominative proposed in (66), we need to further address two issues: first, why -ao.6d0.s is absent from the
complete syntactic structure we put forward for the feminine noun xipsteru (nominative proposed in (66), we need to further address two issues: first, why -ao.6d0.s is absent from the
What the tableaux (84-85) reveal is that the phonological processing of an underlying representation may yield a significantly different output. Despite this mismatch, all the alternations the phonological input undergoes are driven from general principles and well- formedness requirements of the phonological component, and thus can be easily captured by a grammatical model that makes use of such principles and constraints. In other words, in What the tableaux (84-85) reveal is that the phonological processing of an underlying by doing so it avoids the violation of the *VV constraint: representation may yield a significantly different output. Despite this mismatch, all the
What the tableaux (84-85) reveal is that the phonological processing of an underlying representation may yield a significantly different output. Despite this mismatch, all the alternations the phonological input undergoes are driven from general principles and well- formedness requirements of the phonological component, and thus can be easily captured by a grammatical model that makes use of such principles and constraints. In other words, in What the tableaux (84-85) reveal is that the phonological processing of an underlying by doing so it avoids the violation of the *VV constraint: representation may yield a significantly different output. Despite this mismatch, all the
n{+human] head has no THEME node; hence /i6/ is not inserted into the structure. are adjacent to Number). As a result, in the morphosyntactic structure of mandviko, (88), the surface level, but mainly because there is suprasegmental information that also needs to be
n{+human] head has no THEME node; hence /i6/ is not inserted into the structure. are adjacent to Number). As a result, in the morphosyntactic structure of mandviko, (88), the surface level, but mainly because there is suprasegmental information that also needs to be
insertion of the THEME node, the structure in (95): plural, besides the number/case exponent -a,*’ the common part in all forms is the sequence - mat-. We therefore conclude that the phonological representation of the exponent includes,
insertion of the THEME node, the structure in (95): plural, besides the number/case exponent -a,*’ the common part in all forms is the sequence - mat-. We therefore conclude that the phonological representation of the exponent includes,
The output of the insertion of the above exponents into the structure is xtipi ~ mato. >xponents for the morphosyntactic structure in (95). The full exponent list is given in (97
The output of the insertion of the above exponents into the structure is xtipi ~ mato. >xponents for the morphosyntactic structure in (95). The full exponent list is given in (97
position; otherwise it violates *Cj-son, -sib]}o and thus reduces significantly the H value of the output (98a). Furthermore, in the plural, its realization prevents the emergence of a hiatu: environment (/aa/); therefore the output xtipimata (99a) is more harmonic compared to
position; otherwise it violates *Cj-son, -sib]}o and thus reduces significantly the H value of the output (98a). Furthermore, in the plural, its realization prevents the emergence of a hiatu: environment (/aa/); therefore the output xtipimata (99a) is more harmonic compared to
provided in (103): singular form trapézi, along with the phonological exponent of each terminal node, is
provided in (103): singular form trapézi, along with the phonological exponent of each terminal node, is
form karékla, along with the phonological exponents for each node, is as follows: that the THEME exponent /a/ is not realized. This is because the phonological exponent of
form karékla, along with the phonological exponents for each node, is as follows: that the THEME exponent /a/ is not realized. This is because the phonological exponent of
Given the underlying structure presented in (109), the phonological component has three
Given the underlying structure presented in (109), the phonological component has three
Our next move is to examine how the phonological component deals with cases where the floating stress with specific linearization properties. These properties may be of two kinds.
Our next move is to examine how the phonological component deals with cases where the floating stress with specific linearization properties. These properties may be of two kinds.
constitutes the phonologically optimal choice JUIN pnono1opiCdl COMpPUtaAtLON, UWE TediuZauOn OL WlEse WOCHNCES, WHICH NECds d U.F OL xtra activity, proves more cost-effective compared to the realization of the default yenultimate stress, which, as we saw earlier, requires an activation level equal to 0.6. This is Illustrated in the tableau in (115-116), where the outputs @dlasa (115b) and ayord (116b) *xhibit a higher H value compared to @aldsa (115c) and ayora (116c) respectively. As for the nput kareklao.s (117), the default penultimate stress in this case has no competition and thus input kareklao.s (117), the default penultimate stress in this case has no competition and thus
constitutes the phonologically optimal choice JUIN pnono1opiCdl COMpPUtaAtLON, UWE TediuZauOn OL WlEse WOCHNCES, WHICH NECds d U.F OL xtra activity, proves more cost-effective compared to the realization of the default yenultimate stress, which, as we saw earlier, requires an activation level equal to 0.6. This is Illustrated in the tableau in (115-116), where the outputs @dlasa (115b) and ayord (116b) *xhibit a higher H value compared to @aldsa (115c) and ayora (116c) respectively. As for the nput kareklao.s (117), the default penultimate stress in this case has no competition and thus input kareklao.s (117), the default penultimate stress in this case has no competition and thus
Similarly, with respect to tense and agreement, we also follow the literature in featural specification of T is based on the +/—past distinction, while for Agr we assume thi unary person features [1], [2] and [3] and the binary number feature [+plural].*”
Similarly, with respect to tense and agreement, we also follow the literature in featural specification of T is based on the +/—past distinction, while for Agr we assume thi unary person features [1], [2] and [3] and the binary number feature [+plural].*”
advocated against a separate Voice head and we subscribed to Embick’s (1998, 2004) view that voice features are inserted post-syntactically in order to signal a specific structural configuration. However, taking into account that, as we showed earlier, voice and aspect are
advocated against a separate Voice head and we subscribed to Embick’s (1998, 2004) view that voice features are inserted post-syntactically in order to signal a specific structural configuration. However, taking into account that, as we showed earlier, voice and aspect are
be identified as verbalizers, namely as categorizing heads that attribute verbal status to a roo and -ar. Some representative examples are given in (132):
be identified as verbalizers, namely as categorizing heads that attribute verbal status to a roo and -ar. Some representative examples are given in (132):
INT[F] in (148a) and MAX and *C.C in (148b). did for the root ayapVo.5-, we assume that the root-final segment has partial presence in th violation of DEP it triggers is less significant compared to the combined violation of DEP and
INT[F] in (148a) and MAX and *C.C in (148b). did for the root ayapVo.5-, we assume that the root-final segment has partial presence in th violation of DEP it triggers is less significant compared to the combined violation of DEP and
silencing, since the latter yields a cluster that is not allowed by *C.C (/xs/, 149b). presence of a zero exponent (/@/); for instance, the assumed underlying representation for the
silencing, since the latter yields a cluster that is not allowed by *C.C (/xs/, 149b). presence of a zero exponent (/@/); for instance, the assumed underlying representation for the
violates *VV. 1varmonic than dreap- (151a), because the latter not only is heavily penalized by DEP but also 6! See Revithiadou et al. (to appear); see also Spyropoulos et al. (2017a,b) for a similar hypothesis employing output resulting from the combination of the root dreo.6p- and the exponent /ao.7/ is dreo.6ao.7p
violates *VV. 1varmonic than dreap- (151a), because the latter not only is heavily penalized by DEP but also 6! See Revithiadou et al. (to appear); see also Spyropoulos et al. (2017a,b) for a similar hypothesis employing output resulting from the combination of the root dreo.6p- and the exponent /ao.7/ is dreo.6ao.7p
‘I drown’, kop-o ‘I am cut’).
‘I drown’, kop-o ‘I am cut’).
The exact computations taking place during the output evaluation are depicted in (159):
The exact computations taking place during the output evaluation are depicted in (159):
As already drawn form the examples we have reviewed so far in the present chapter,
As already drawn form the examples we have reviewed so far in the present chapter,
rather simple as it involves only strong elements with non-defective AL. phonological grammar evaluates those underlying structures. The processing of /yrafo/ is resulting structures being /yrafo/ and /ayapVo.640.20/ respectively. Let us now look at how the
rather simple as it involves only strong elements with non-defective AL. phonological grammar evaluates those underlying structures. The processing of /yrafo/ is resulting structures being /yrafo/ and /ayapVo.640.20/ respectively. Let us now look at how the
which case it is arbitrary in nature:
which case it is arbitrary in nature:
n{+human] heads and neuter for bare n heads. The emergence of masculine gender as defaul
n{+human] heads and neuter for bare n heads. The emergence of masculine gender as defaul
The major gain of our approach is that we end up having a systematic correspondence feminine noun kniga is the realization of an n[+feminine] head: between nominal endings and gender features, as summarized in (178).
The major gain of our approach is that we end up having a systematic correspondence feminine noun kniga is the realization of an n[+feminine] head: between nominal endings and gender features, as summarized in (178).
having to resort to inflection class features. The rules we assume are the following:
having to resort to inflection class features. The rules we assume are the following:
™ The underlying defectiveness of /ao.6/ explains why, contra to what would be expected according to sonority
™ The underlying defectiveness of /ao.6/ explains why, contra to what would be expected according to sonority
by doing so it avoids the occurrence of a consonantal segment in word-final position: the *VV constraint is not pertinent, the phonological grammar opts to realize /ao.6/, because center of attention shifts to systems that employ the same sex-based gender criteria found
by doing so it avoids the occurrence of a consonantal segment in word-final position: the *VV constraint is not pertinent, the phonological grammar opts to realize /ao.6/, because center of attention shifts to systems that employ the same sex-based gender criteria found
The epenthesis solution can explain not only the distribution of the endings -e and -@ in
The epenthesis solution can explain not only the distribution of the endings -e and -@ in
Under Lampitelli’s analysis, Spanish roots must be lexically specified as to whether they
Under Lampitelli’s analysis, Spanish roots must be lexically specified as to whether they
So, how do we end up with two distinct realizations (pan and xéfe), from which only one
So, how do we end up with two distinct realizations (pan and xéfe), from which only one
option for the phonological component. realization would yield a phonological word ending in a non-coronal consonant. As we have
option for the phonological component. realization would yield a phonological word ending in a non-coronal consonant. As we have
Similarly, in the environment of plural, where the Number node is realized by the exponent the tableau in (195): /s/, the pronunciation of /eo.«/ is always preferred because it prevents the occurrence of a word-final positions. The impact of the constraint on the output selection process is evident in
Similarly, in the environment of plural, where the Number node is realized by the exponent the tableau in (195): /s/, the pronunciation of /eo.«/ is always preferred because it prevents the occurrence of a word-final positions. The impact of the constraint on the output selection process is evident in
To illustrate how our analysis unfolds, let us look at the syntactic derivation and the According to the above, the complete list of the proposed functional exponents is
To illustrate how our analysis unfolds, let us look at the syntactic derivation and the According to the above, the complete list of the proposed functional exponents is
After the insertion of the vocabulary items and their linearization, the morphosyntacti
After the insertion of the vocabulary items and their linearization, the morphosyntacti
° For the ease of reading, the following morphosyntactic trees and GHG tableaux focus only on the realizatic of the segmental structure of the exponents in question and do not take into account stress computation. Al. Morphosyntactic structure
° For the ease of reading, the following morphosyntactic trees and GHG tableaux focus only on the realizatic of the segmental structure of the exponents in question and do not take into account stress computation. Al. Morphosyntactic structure
A1.2.3. N[-human] nouns (singular)
A1.2.3. N[-human] nouns (singular)
* The postulated exponent here is a [thigh] subsegmental feature, which needs to merge with a [+vocalic] merge either with /Vo./, yielding an underspecified high vowel (GeorV/+hignjome), or with /o/, forcing the latter
* The postulated exponent here is a [thigh] subsegmental feature, which needs to merge with a [+vocalic] merge either with /Vo./, yielding an underspecified high vowel (GeorV/+hignjome), or with /o/, forcing the latter
‘4 The representation /"o/ indicates that the exponent consists of the segment /o/, which is associated with the
‘4 The representation /"o/ indicates that the exponent consists of the segment /o/, which is associated with the
Underlying representation (phonological input): /afereo 686/
Underlying representation (phonological input): /afereo 686/

Related papers

Morphosyntactic variation
Anthony Kroch

30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago …, 1994

View PDFchevron_right
THEME 12: ESSENTIAL MORPHOSYNTACTICAL ELEMENTS IN ENGLISH. ELEMENTARY COMMUNICATIVE STRUCTURES AND USE OF GRAMMATICAL CATEGORIES IN ORAL AND WRITTEN PRODUCTIONS
Paco Aranda
View PDFchevron_right
Gradience in morphosyntactic features
Greville G. Corbett

CLS 43: The Main Session (2007), 47-60, 2007

It would be good to have a simple typology of the morphosyntactic features. If there could be a fixed list of available features and values, then a simple typology is an attainable goal. However, when we examine how features and their values can be established for given languages, gradience appears to be a major challenge. One common response to this challenge is to propose additional feature values; as we shall see, this response would rule out a simple typology. I argue that this approach fails: additional values cannot account for gradience. This means that we can still work towards the ideal of a simple typology. Thus for this paper, gradience looms large as a possible obstacle to a different goal. Gradience is an obstacle, which might suggest that we were heading for the ‘simpler’ situation, the one that fails to recognize the true complexity of the problem. I will show that this apparent obstacle is not directly relevant, allowing us still to work towards a typology which is indeed ‘as simple as possible’.

View PDFchevron_right
Prosodic Constraints in Morphosyntactic Domains
Tania Avgustinova

Clitics are a famous topic challenging the modularity in grammatical organisation inasmuch as they cannot be adequately interpreted as exclusively belonging to one particular level of linguistic description. Various phenomena related to cliticisation, which are observable across languages, suggest that any description of clitic placement should take into consideration the interaction between (prosodic) phonology and (morpho)syntax.

View PDFchevron_right
Seri verb classes: morphosyntactic motivation and morphological autonomy
Matthew Baerman

The verbal suffixes of Seri (a language isolate of Sonora, Mexico) divide the lexicon into classes of unparalleled complexity. The paradigm has only four forms, which mark subject number and aspect (or event number), yet there are over 250 distinct types in a corpus of just under 1000 verbs. This relation of forms to types means that by information-theoretic measures this is among the most complex inflection class system yet studied. In part this complexity is due to the sheer wealth of allomorphs and the freedom with which they combine within the paradigm; however, these properties can be found in all inflection class systems of any complexity. The unique property of Seri it that although the suffix morphology and the morphosyntactic paradigm have the same featural content, the two systems are not directly coordinated. Both suffix morphology and verbal morphosyntax are based on the concatenation of markers of plurality, and an increase in the morphological marking of plurality reflects a morphosyntactic accumulation of subject and predicate plurality (i.e. aspect). In this sense morphology is a direct exponent of featural content. But there is no consistent mapping between the two systems, and the precise calibration between morphological form and morphosyntactic function must be lexically specified; it is this specification that increases dramatically the number of inflectional types. Seri therefore represents a middle ground in between the conceptual extremes of morphosyntactically motivated and morphologically autonomous morphology that serve as a basis for much of our theory building.

View PDFchevron_right
Morpho-syntactic aspects of adjectival and verbal first conjunct agreement
Nadira Aljovic

In this paper we define and analyse morpho-syntactic properties of first conjunct agreement which arises when an adjective or verb agrees with the highest/first conjunct of a coordinate noun phrase. We derive this agreement pattern by means of the syntactic operation of Agree and a postsyntactic mechanism which acts as a filter on Vocabulary Insertion within the framework of Distributed Morphology. We call the filter Vocabulary Items Feature Harmony. It consists roughly in (phi-)feature identity between vocabulary items. Our bi-aspectual analysis, and especially the feature harmony, enables us to understand and account for gradable and variable acceptability of first conjunct agreement, as well as the distribution of this agreement pattern in relation to another agreement pattern, namely masculine plural agreement (with the coordinate phrase as a whole). The empirical domain of our investigation in this paper is confined to Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian first conjunct agreement but could be extrapolated to similiar cases in other languages.

View PDFchevron_right
Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change
Nigel Vincent

Language, 2000

The relation between changes in (inflectional) morphology and consequences thereof in the syntax has been a perennial issue in historical linguistics. The relation between the loss of inflections and the fixing word order on the one hand, and widely attested instances of change such that content words grammaticalise to morphological elements on the other, are but two instantiations that testify to the complexity of interaction between morphology and syntax. Recent theoretical developments have yielded on the one hand a surge of work on grammaticalisation phenomena, on the other an articulated theory of the relation between inflectional morphology and syntax and a consequent boost of historical work in that area. Most of the articles in this volume belong to the latter category. The framework they adopt is broadly speaking the Principles and Parameters approach to grammar sparked off by Chomsky (1981) and subsequent work, and whose application to language change was instigated by . They continue the debate on topics on which a good deal of fruitful work has been done since 1979: historical change in the position of the finite verb (e.g. Adams 1987; van Kemenade 1987; Roberts 1993a) the interaction of that change with the loss of the so-called null subject phenomenon (the papers in Hulk and van Battye and Roberts (1995)); the relation between changes in case-marking and changes in constructions such as passives and impersonals (Allen (1995)); the history of English modals in particular (Lightfoot (1979); Warner (1993)), and auxiliarisation in general (for a formal approach see Warner 1993, and from the grammaticalization perspective Heine 1993).

View PDFchevron_right
Phonological agreement as correspondence between nouns and agreement morphemes
Sebastian Bredemann
View PDFchevron_right
On the interplay of morphology, prosody and
Alfonso Morales

2015

View PDFchevron_right
Agreement in Kadu: Inflectional merger as morphosyntactic abstraction
Matthew Baerman

Diachronica, 2022

Krongo, a member of the Kadu family (Nuba Mountains, Sudan), has four agreement classes: feminine, masculine, neuter and plural (Reh 1985). Nominal number-marking prefixes play a key role in class assignment: productive plural prefixes trigger plural agreement, and productive singular prefixes trigger neuter agreement. In most other Kadu languages there is no distinction between the plural and neuter classes. Comparative and typological evidence shows that Krongo represents the older state of affairs. It is argued that the motivation for the merger of these two classes was a morphosyntactic abstraction over agreement rules. Two distinct rules, one for singular prefixes and one for plural prefixes, were replaced by a single rule that assigned the same agreement class to all productive number prefixes, regardless of whether they mark singular or plural. The result is the morphosyntactic mirror-image of an inverse number system, such as is found in e.g. Dagaare (Grimm 2012).

View PDFchevron_right

References (241)

  1. Acquaviva, Paolo. 2009. Roots and lexicality in Distributed Morphology. In Alexandra Galani, Daniel Redinger & Norman Yeo (eds.), York-Essex Morphology Meeting 5: 1- 21.
  2. Adams, Karen. 1986. Numeral classifiers in Austroasiatic. In Colette Craig (ed.), Noun Classes and Categorization. 241-262. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
  3. Adams, Karen L. & Nancy Faires Conklin. 1973. Toward a theory of natural classification. Papers from the 9 th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 1-10.
  4. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2000. Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization Devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  5. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2016. How Gender Shapes the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  6. Alexiadou, Artemis. 2004. Inflection class, gender and DP internal structure. In Gereon Müller, Lutz Gunkel & Gisela Zifonun (eds.), Explorations in Nominal Inflection. 21- 49. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  7. Alexiadou, Artemis. 2017. Gender and nominal ellipsis. In Nicholas LaCara, Keir Moulton & Anne-Michelle Tessier (eds.), "A Shrift to Fest Kyle Johnson". Linguistics Open Access Publications 1. 11-22. [https://doi.org/10.7275/R57D2S95]
  8. Alexiadou, Artemis & Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2004. Voice morphology in the causative- inchoative alternation: Evidence for a non-unified structural analysis of unaccusatives. In Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Martin Everaert (eds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface. 114-136. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  9. Alexiadou, Artemis, Liliane Hageman & Melita Stavrou. 2007. Noun Phrase in the Generative Perspective. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  10. Alexiadou, Artemis & Gereon Müller. 2008. Class features as probes. In Asaf Bachrach & Andrew Nevins (eds.), Inflectional Identity. 101-155. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  11. Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Florian Schäfer. 2015. External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations: A Layering Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  12. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2017. Gender and defaults. In Nicholas LaCara, Keir Moulton & Anne-Michelle Tessier (eds.), "A Shrift to Fest Kyle Johnson". Linguistics Open Access Publications 1. 11-22. [https://doi.org/10.7275/R57D2S95]
  13. Anastassiadi-Symeonidi. 2012. To neoeliniko klitiko sistima ton ousiastikon ke i tasis tou [The Modern Greek noun inflectional system and its tendencies].
  14. In Zoe Gavriilidou, Angeliki Efthymiou, Evangelia Thomadaki & Penelope Kambakis-Vougiouklis (eds.), Selected Papers of the 10 th International Conference of Greek Linguistics. 23-40. Komotini: Democritus University of Thrace.
  15. Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Apostolopoulou, Irene. 2018. I Fonologiki Anaparastasi tu Imifonu tis Kinis Neas Elinikis: Mja Prosengisi me Vasi ti Diavaθmismeni Armoniki Gramatiki [The Phonological Representation of the Standard Modern Greek Glide: A Gradient Harmonic Grammar Approach]. MA thesis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
  17. Apostolouda, Vassiliki. 2018. Sistimata Leksiku Tonismu: Piramatiki Dierevnisi ston Tono tis Elinikis [Lexical stress systems: Experimental investigation on Greek stress]. Doctoral dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
  18. Arad, Maya. 2005. Roots and Patterns: Hebrew Morpho-Syntax. Dordrecht: Springer.
  19. Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  20. Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  21. Arregi, Karlos & Andrew Nevins. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque Auxiliaries and the Structure of Spellout. Dordrecht: Springer.
  22. Babiniotis, Georgios. 1972. To Rima tis Elinikis [The Greek Verb].
  23. Athens.
  24. Baker, Mark. 2015. Case: Its Principles and its Parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  25. Baltazani, Mary & Nina Topintzi. 2012. On some phonetic and phonological properties of the Greek glide. In Zoe Gavriilidou, Angeliki Efthymiou, Evangelia Thomadaki & Penelope Kambakis-Vougiouklis (eds.), Selected Papers of the 10 th International Conference of Greek Linguistics. 153-166. Komotini: Democritus University of Thrace.
  26. Bat-El, Outi. 1989. Phonology and Word Structure in Modern Hebrew. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
  27. Beard, Robert. 1995. Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology: A General Theory of Inflection and Word Formation. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  28. Behl-Chada, Gundeep. 1996. Basic-level and superordinate-like categorical representations in early infancy. Cognition 60: 105-141.
  29. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2013. The Spanish lexicon stores stems with theme vowels, not roots with inflectional class features. Probus 25(1): 3-103.
  30. Bernstein, Judy B. 1993. Topics in the Syntax of Nominal Structure across Romance. Doctoral dissertation, The City University of New York.
  31. Bierwisch, Manfred. 1967. Syntactic features in morphology: General problems of so-called pronominal inflection in German. In To Honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of his 70 th Birthday. 239-270. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.
  32. Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1998. Where's Φ? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Daniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Béjar (eds.), Phi Theory: Phi-Features across Modules and Interfaces. 295-328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  33. Bobaljik, Jonathan David & Cynthia Levart Zocca. 2011. Gender markedness: The anatomy of a counter-example. Morphology 21: 141-166.
  34. Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
  35. Borer, Hagit. 2013. Taking Form. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  36. Bye, Patrik & Peter Svenonius. 2012. Exponence, phonology and non-concatenative morphology. In Jochen Trommer (ed.), The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence. 427-495. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  37. Calabrese, Andrea. 1998. Some remarks on the Latin case system and its development in Romance. In José Lema & Esthela Treviño (eds.), Theoretical Analyses on Romance Languages. 71-126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  38. Caramazza, Alfonso & Jennifer R. Shelton. 1998. Domain-specific knowledge systems in the brain: The animate-inanimate distinction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 10(1): 1-34.
  39. Casali, Roderic F. Hiatus resolution. In Marc van Oostendorp, Collin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. 1434-1460.
  40. Malden, MA & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
  41. Carstens, Vicki. 2010. Implications of grammatical gender for the theory of uninterpretable features. In Michael T. Putnam (ed.), Exploring Crash-Proof Grammars. 31-57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  42. Carstens, Vicki. 2011. Hyperactivity and hyperagreement in Bantu. Lingua 121: 721-741.
  43. Chao, Linda L., James V. Haxby & Alex Martin. 1999. Attribute-based neural substrates in temporal cortex for perceiving and knowing about objects. Nature Neuroscience 2(10): 919-919.
  44. Chila-Markopoulou, Despina. 2003. Genos ke simfonia sti Nea Eliniki [Gender and agreement in Modern Greek]. In Anna Anastassiadi-Symeonidi, Angela Ralli & Despina Chila-Markopoulou (eds.), To Genos [Gender]. 132-167. Athens: Patakis.
  45. Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.
  46. Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  47. Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalizations. In Roderick Jacobs & Peter Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. 184-221.
  48. Waltham, MA: Ginn.
  49. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A Minimalist Program for linguistic theory. In Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  50. Christofidou, Anastassia. 2003. Genos ke klisi stin Eliniki: Mja fisiki prosegisi [Gender and inflection in Greek: A natural approach]. In Anna Anastassiadi-Symeonidi, Angela Ralli & Despina Chila-Markopoulou (eds.), To Genos [Gender]. 100-131. Athens: Patakis.
  51. Clairis, Christos & Georgios Babiniotis. 1999. Gramatiki tis Neas Elinikis: Domolitourgiki- Epikinoniaki [Grammar of Modern Greek: Structural-Functional-Communicative].
  52. Athens: Elinika Gramata.
  53. Clements, G. N. & Samuel J. Kayser. 1983. CV Phonology: A Generative Theory of the Syllable. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  54. Coetzee, Andries W. & Joe Pater. 2006. Lexically ranked OCP-Place constraints in Muna. Ms., University of Michigan & University of Masachusetts, Amherst. [ROA-842]
  55. Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  56. Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  57. Corbett, Greville G. 2005. Sex-based and non-sex-based gender systems. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures. 130-133. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  58. Corbett, Greville G. & Norman M. Fraser. 2000. Default genders. In Gender in Grammar and Cognition. 55-98. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  59. Cubberley, Paul. 2002. Russian: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  60. Dahl, Östen. 2000a. Animacy and the notion of semantic gender. In Barbara Unterbeck, Matti Rissanen, Terttu Nevalainen & Mirja Saari (eds.), Gender in Grammar and Cognition. 99-116. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  61. Dahl, Östen. 2000b. Elementary gender distinctions. In Barbara Unterbeck, Matti Rissanen, Terttu Nevalainen & Mirja Saari (eds.), Gender in Grammar and Cognition. 577-594.
  62. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  63. Damasio, Hanna, Thomas J. Grabowksi, Daniel Tranel, Richard D. Hichwa & Antonio R. Damasio. 1996. A neural basis for lexical retrieval. Nature 380: 499-505.
  64. Dawkins, R. M. 1916. Modern Greek in Asia Minor: A Study of the Dialects of Sílli, Cappadocia and Phárasa with Grammar, Texts, Translations and Glossary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  65. Deligiorgis, Ioanna. 1987. On rules of syllabification and syllabic restructuring. CLS 23: 76- 90.
  66. Demuth, Katherine, Nicolas Faraclas & Lynell Marchese. 1986. Niger-Congo noun class and agreement systems in language acquisition and historical change. In Colette Craig (ed.), Noun Classes and Categorization. 453-471. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
  67. Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria & Edwin Williams. 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  68. Dixon, R. M. W. 1986. Noun classes and noun classification. In Colette Craig (ed.), Noun Classes and Categorization. 105-112. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
  69. Dixon, R. M. W. 1988. A Grammar of Boumaa Fijian. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
  70. Dowty, David R. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague's PTQ. Dordrecht, Boston & London: D. Reidel.
  71. Drachman, Gabriel & Angeliki Malikouti-Drachman. 1999. Greek word accent. In Harry van der Hulst (ed.), Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe. 897-945. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  72. Efstathiadis, S. 1973. An Experimental Comparison of the Phonology of English and Modern Greek. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
  73. Efthymiou, Angeliki. 2013. How many factors influence the meaning of denominal and deadjectival verbs? The case of Modern Greek verbs in -(i)azo. In Pius ten Hacken & Claire Thomas (eds.), The Semantics of Word Formation and Lexicalization. 225-246. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  74. Eimas, Peter D. & Paul C. Quinn. 1994. Studies on the formation of perceptually based basic- level categories in young infants. Child Development 65(3): 903-917.
  75. Embick, David. 1998. Voice systems and the syntax/morphology interface. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32: 41-72.
  76. Embick, David. 2004. Unaccusative syntax and verbal alternations. In Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Martin Everaert (eds.), The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface. 137-158. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  77. Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  78. Embick, David & Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32(4): 555-595.
  79. Embick, David. 2015. The Morpheme: A Theoretical Introduction. Boston & Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  80. Embick, David & Morris Halle. 2005. On the status of stems in morphological theory. In Twan Geerts, Ivo van Ginneken & Haike Jacobs (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003: Selected Papers from 'Going Romance' 2003, Nijmegen, 20- 22 November [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 270]. 37-62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  81. Embick, David & Rolf Noyer. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the Syntax-Morphology interface. In Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. 289-324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  82. Faust, Noam. 2013. Decomposing the feminine suffixes of Modern Hebrew: A morpho- syntactic analysis. Morphology 23: 409-440.
  83. Faust, Noam. 2014a. Underlying vowel length in Modern Hebrew: The many realizations of the vowel /a/. Brill's Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 6: 156-183.
  84. Faust, Noam. 2014b. Where it's [at]: A phonological effect on phasal boundaries in the construct state of Modern Hebrew. Lingua 150: 315-331.
  85. Faust, Noam & Paul Smolensky. 2017a. Activity as an alternative to autosegmental association. Paper presented at the 25 th Manchester Phonology Meeting, Manchester, 25-27 May 2017.
  86. Faust, Noam & Paul Smolensky. 2017b. Activity as an alternative to autosegmental association. Ms., Université Paris 8 & John Hopkins University.
  87. Fraser, Norman M. & Greville G. Corbett. 1995. Gender, Animacy, and Declensional Class Assignment: A unified account for Russian. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1994. 123-150. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  88. Frawley, William. 1992. Linguistic Semantics. New York & London: Routledge.
  89. Galani, Alexandra. 2005. The Morphosyntax of Verbs in Modern Greek. Doctoral dissertation, University of York.
  90. Goldsmith, John. 1976. Autosegmental Phonology. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. [Published in 1979 by Garland Press]
  91. Halle, Morris. 1973. Prolegomena on a theory of word formation. Linguistic Inquiry 4(1): 3- 16.
  92. Halle, Morris. 1997. Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and Fission. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30: 425-449.
  93. Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. 111-176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  94. Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. MIT Workin Papers in Linguistics 21: 275-288.
  95. Halle, Morris & Bert Vaux. 1998. Theoretical aspects of Indo-European nominal morphology: The nominal declensions of Latin and Armenian. In Jay Jasanoff, H. Craig Melchert & Lisi Oliver (eds.), Mír Curad. A Festschrift in Honor of Calvert Watkins. 223-240. Innsbruck: University of Innsbruck.
  96. Hammerly, Cristopher. 2017. Limiting gender. Ms., University of Massachusetts Amherst.
  97. Harley, Heidi. 2008. When is a syncretism more than a syncretism? Impoverishment, metasyncretism, and underspecification. In Daniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Béjar (eds.), Phi-Theory: Phi Features across Modules and Interfaces. 251-294. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  98. Harley, Heidi. 2009. The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP. In Anastasia Giannakidou & Monika Rathert (eds.), Quantification, Definiteness and Nominalization. 321-343. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  99. Harley, Heidi. 2014. On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics 40(3-4): 225-276.
  100. Harley, Heidi & Rolf Noyer. 1999. Distributed Morphology. Glot International 4(4): 3-9.
  101. Harris, James W. 1991. The exponence of gender in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 22(1): 27- 62.
  102. Haugen, Jason D. & Daniel Siddiqi. 2016. Towards a restricted realization theory. In Daniel Siddiqi & Heidi Harley (eds.), Morphological Metatheory, 343-386. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  103. Hayes, Bruce & Colin Wilson. 2008. A Maximum Entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry 39(3): 379-440.
  104. Holton, David, Peter Mackridge, Irene Philippaki-Warburton & Vassilios Spyropoulos. 2012. Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar. 2nd edition. London: Routledge.
  105. Householder, Fred. W. 1964. Three dreams of Modern Greek Phonology. In Robert Austerlitz (ed.), Papers in Memory of George C. Papageotes (issued as Supplement to Word 20(3)). 17-27.
  106. Greenberg, Joseph. 1966. Language Universals, with Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies. Janua Linguarum, Series Minor 59. The Hague: Mouton.
  107. Inkelas, Sharon. 2015. Confidence scales: A new approach to derived environment effects. In Yuchau E. Hsiao & Lian Hee-Wee (eds.), Capturing Phonological Shades within and across Languages. 45-75. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  108. Jakobson, Roman. 1984 [1932]. Structure of the Russian verb. In Lina R. Waugh & Morris Halle (eds.), Russian and Slavic Grammar: Studies 1931-1981. 1-14. Berlin: Mouton. English translation of "Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums" in Charisteria Gvilelmo Mathesio qvinqvagenario a discipulis et Circuli Lingvistici Pragensis sodalibus oblata. Prague, 1932.
  109. Joseph, Brian D. & Irene Philippaki-Warburton. 1987. Modern Greek. London: Croom Helm.
  110. Joseph, Brian D. & Jane C. Smirniotopoulos. 1993. The morphosyntax of Modern Greek verb as morphology and not syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 24(2): 388-398.
  111. Kanwisher, Nancy, Josh McDermott & Marvin M. Chun. 1997. The fusiform face area: A module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception. The Journal of Neuroscience 17(11): 4302-4311.
  112. Kappa, Ioanna (in press). Fonologia: Isagogi stis Themeliodis Enies [Phonology: Introduction to Basic Concepts]. Ellinika Grammata.
  113. Kihm, Alain. 2005. Noun class, gender, and the lexicon-syntax-morphology interfaces. In Guglielmo Cinque & Richard S. Kayne (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax. 459-512. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  114. Kourmoulis, Georgios I. 1965. Morfologike ekseliksis tis elinikis glosis [Morphological developments of Greek language]. Epistimoniki Epetiris tis Filosofikis Sxolis tou Panepistimiou Athinon 15: 9-22.
  115. Koutsoudas, Andreas. 1962. Verb Morphology of Modern Greek. The Hague: Mouton.
  116. Kramer, Ruth. 2015. The Morphosyntax of Gender. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  117. Kučerová, Ivona (to appear). φ-features at the syntax-semantics interface: Evidence from nominal inflection. Linguistic Inquiry. [http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003219]
  118. de Lacy, Paul. 2007. The interaction of tone, sonority, and prosodic structure. In Paul de Lacy (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology. 281-307. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  119. de Lacy, Paul. 2012. Morphophonological polarity. In Jochen Trommer (ed.), The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence. 121-159. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  120. Lampitelli, Nicola. 2014. The Romance plural isogloss and linguistic change: A comparative study of Romance nouns. Lingua 140: 158-179.
  121. Lecarme, Jacqueline. 2002. Gender "polarity": Theoretical aspects of Somali nominal morphology. In Paul Boucher & Marc Plénat (eds.), Many Morphologies. 109-141.
  122. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
  123. Legate, Julie Anne. 2008. Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry 39(1): 55-101.
  124. Legendre, Géraldine, Yoshiro Miyata & Paul Smolensky. 1990. Harmonic Grammar -A formal multi-level connectionist theory of linguistic well-formedness: Theoretical foundations. In Proceedings of the 12 th Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. 388-395. Cambridge, MA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  125. Levin, Juliette. 1985. A Metrical Theory of Syllabicity. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
  126. Lieber, Rochelle. 1980. On the Organization of the Lexicon. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. [Published in 1981 by Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.]
  127. Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing Morphology: Word Formation in Syntactic Theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  128. Löbel, Elisabeth. 1994. KP/DP-Syntax: Interaction of case-marking with referential and nominal features. Theoretical Linguistics 20(1): 37-70.
  129. Lowenstamm, Jean. 1996. CV as the only syllable type. In Jacques Durand & Bernard Laks (eds.), Current Trends in Phonology: Models and Methods. 419-442. Salford: European Studies Research Institute.
  130. Lowenstamm, Jean. 2007. On little n, root, and types of nouns. In Jutta Hartmann, Veronika Hegedus & Henk van Riemsdjik (eds.), Sounds of Silence: Empty Elements in Syntax and Phonology. 105-144. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  131. Lowenstamm, Jean. 2010. Derivational affixes as roots (Phasal Spell-out meets English stress shift). Ms., LLF.
  132. Lowenstamm, Jean. 2014. Derivational affixes as roots: Phasal Spell-out meets English stress shift. In Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer & Florian Schäfer (eds.), The Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax. 230-258. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  133. Mackridge, Peter. 1985. The Modern Greek Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  134. Malikouti, Angeliki M. 1970. Metasximatistiki Morfologia tou Neoeliniku Onomatos [Transformational Moprhology of Modern Greek Nominals]. Doctoral dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
  135. Malikouti-Drachman, Angeliki & Gabriel Drachman. 1989. Tonismos sta Elinika [Stress in Greek]. In Studies in Greek Linguistics 9. 127-143.
  136. Malikouti-Drachman, Angeliki & Gabriel Drachman. 1990. Fonologiki kivernisi ke provoli: Afomiosis, anomiosis [Phonological government and projection: Assimilations, dissimilations]. Working Papers in Greek Grammar. 1-20. University of Salzburg.
  137. Marantz, Alec. 2000 [1991]. Case and licensing. In Eric J. Reuland (ed.), Arguments and Case: Explaining Burzio's Generalization. 11-30. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Originally published in Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics 8: 234-253.
  138. Mareschal, Denis & Robert French. 2000. Mechanisms of categorization in infancy. Infancy 1: 59-76.
  139. McCarthy, John J. 1979. Formal Problems in Semitic Phonnology and Morpholosy. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
  140. McCarthy, John J. 1981. A prosodic theory of noncatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 373-418.
  141. McCarthy, John J. & Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Jill Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey & Suzanne Urbanczyk (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18. 249-384. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association. [ROA-60]
  142. McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The Position of the Morphological Case in the Derivation: A Study on the Syntax-Morphology Interface. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
  143. Merchant, Jason. 2014. Gender mismatches under nominal ellipsis. Lingua 151: 9-32.
  144. Merchant, Jason. 2015. How much context is enough? Two cases of span-conditioned stem allomorphy. Linguistic Inquiry 46(2): 273-303.
  145. Mirambel, André. 1959. La Langue Grecque Moderne: Description et Analyse [The Modern Greek Language: Description and Analysis]. Paris: Klincksieck.
  146. Mitsiaki, Maria. 2013. Fonologiki Diavathmisi ton #CC tis Neas Elinikis: Gramatiki Mondelopiisi ke Didaktikes Efarmoges gia tin Eliniki os G2 [Phonological Gradience of #CC clusters: Grammatical Modelling and Applications in Teaching Greek as L2].
  147. Doctoral dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
  148. Nevins, Andrew, 2003. The representation of third person and its consequences for person- case effects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25(2): 273-313.
  149. Nevins, Andrew. 2011. Marked targets versus marked triggers and impoverishment of the dual. Linguistic Inquiry 42(3): 413-444.
  150. Nevins, Andrew & Jeffrey K. Parrott. 2010. Variable rules meet impoverishment theory: Patterns of agreement leveling in English varieties. Lingua 120: 1135-1159.
  151. Noske, Manuela. 2000. [ATR] harmony in Turkana: A case of Faith Suffix >> Faith Root. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 771-812.
  152. Noyer, Rolf. 1997. Features, Positions and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. New York: Garland.
  153. Noyer, Rolf. 1998. Impoverishment theory and morphosyntactic markedness. In Steven G. Lapointe, Diane K. Brentari & Patrick M. Farrell (eds.), Morphology and its Relation to Phonology and Syntax. 264-285. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
  154. Nyman, Martti. 1981. Paradigms and transderivational constraints: Stress and yod in Modern Greek. Journal of Linguistics 17: 231-246.
  155. Oltra-Massuet, Isabel. 1999. On the notion of Theme Vowel: A new approach to Catalan verbal morphology. MSc thesis, MIT.
  156. Oltra-Massuet, Isabel & Karlos Arregi. 2005. Stress-by-structure in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 36(1): 43-84.
  157. van Oostendorp, Marc. 2012. Stress as a proclitic in Modern Greek. Lingua 122(11): 1165- 1181.
  158. Panagiotidis, Phoevos (to appear). (Grammatical) gender troubles and the gender of pronouns. To appear in Gender, Noun Classification, and Determination. Oxford University Press. [http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003231]
  159. Parker, Steve. 2008. Sound level protrusions as physical correlates of sonority. Journal of Phonetics 36: 55-90.
  160. Parker, Steve. 2011. Sonority. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. 1160-1184. Malden, MA & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
  161. Pater, Joe. 2009. Weighted constraints in generative linguistics. Cognitive Science 33: 999- 1035.
  162. Passer, Matthias Benjamin. 2016. The Typology and Diachrony of Nominal Classification. Utrecht: LOT.
  163. Pavlidou, Thedossia-Soula. 2003. Women, gender and Modern Greek. In Marlis Hellinger & Hadumod Bußmann (eds.), Gender Across Languages. Volume 3. 175-199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  164. Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Wendy K. Williams (eds.), Prasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  165. Picallo, Carme M. 1991. Nominals and nominalization in Catalan. Probus 3(3): 279-316.
  166. Potts, Christopher, Joe Pater, Karen Jesney, Rajesh Bhatt & Michael Baker. 2010. Harmonic Grammar with linear programming: From linear systems to linguistic typology. Phonology 27: 77-117.
  167. Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 2004 [1993]. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. [Originally circulated in 1993, TR-2, Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science; see also Rutgers Optimality Archive 537.]
  168. Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1997. Optimality Theory and features. In Diana Archangeli & D. Terence Langendoen (eds.), Optimality Theory: An Overview. 59-101. Oxford: Blackwell.
  169. Quinn, Paul C., Peter D. Eimas & Stacey L. Rosenkrantz. 1993. Evidence for representations of perceptually similar natural categories by 3-month-old and 4-month-old infants. Perception 22: 463-475.
  170. Ralli, Angela. 1988. Eléments de Morphologie du Grec Moderne: La structure du Verbe. Doctoral dissertation, University of Montreal.
  171. Ralli, Angela. 1992. I theoria ton haraktiristikon ke i domi ton kliton lekseon tis Neas Elinikis [The feature theory and the structure of inflected words in Modern Greek]. Studies in Greek Linguistics 13: 193-212.
  172. Ralli, Angela. 1994. Feature representations and feature-passing operations in Greek nominal inflection. Proceedings of the 8 th Symposium on English and Greek Linguistics: 19-46. Thessaloniki, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
  173. Ralli, Angela. 1998. On the morphological status of inflectional features: Evidence from Modern Greek. In Brian D. Joseph, Geoffrey C. Horrocks & Irene Philippaki- Warburton (eds.), Themes in Greek Linguistics II. 51-74. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  174. Ralli, Angela. 1999. Inflectional features and the morphological module hypothesis. Working Papers in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics 6: 111-141. Thessaloniki, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
  175. Ralli, Angela. 2002. The role of morphology in gender determination. Linguistics 40(3): 519- 551.
  176. Ralli, Angela. 2003. O kathorismos tou gramatikou genous sta ousiastika tis neas elinikis [Gender determination on nouns in Modern Greek]. In Anna Anastassiadi-Symeonidi, Angela Ralli & Despina Chila-Markopoulou (eds.), To Genos [Gender]. 57-99. Athens: Patakis.
  177. Ralli, Angela. 2005. Morfologia [Morphology]. Athens: Patakis.
  178. Revithiadou, Anthi. 1999. Headmost Accent Wins: Head Dominance and Ideal Prosodic Form in Lexical Accent Systems. Doctoral dissertation, LOT Dissertation Series 15 (HIL/Leiden University). The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
  179. Revithiadou, Anthi, Giorgos Markopoulos & Vassilios Spyropoulos (to appear). Changing shape according to strength: Evidence from root allomorphy in Greek. The Linguistic Review.
  180. Revithiadou, Anthi & Vassilios Spyropoulos. 2016. Stress at the interface: Phases, accents and dominance. Linguistic Analysis 41(1-2): 3-74.
  181. Ritter, Elizabeth. 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 26. 37-62. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  182. Ritter, Elizabeth. 1993. Where's gender?. Linguistic Inquiry 24(4): 795-803.
  183. Rivero, María-Luisa. 1990. The location of nonactive voice in Albanian and Modern Greek. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 135-146.
  184. Roca, I. M. 1989. The organisation of grammatical gender. Transactions of the Philological Society 87(1): 1-32.
  185. Rothstein, Susan. 2004. Structuring Events: A Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  186. Rothstein, Susan. 2008. Telicity, atomicity and the Vendler classification of verbs. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect. 43-77. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  187. Rostad, Kristin, Jessica Yott & Diane Poulin-Dubois. 2012. Development of categorization in infancy: Advancing forward to the animate/inanimate level. Infant Behavior & Development 35: 584-595.
  188. Ruge, Hans. 1997 [1986]. Grammatik des Neugriechischen [Modern Greek Grammar]. Cologne: Romiosini.
  189. Scalise, Sergio. 1984. Generative Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris.
  190. Scheer, Tobias. 2016. Melody-free syntax and phonologically conditioned allomorphy. Morphology 26: 341-378.
  191. Seiler, Hansjakob. 1958. Zur Systematik und Enticklungsgeschichte der griechischen Nominaldeklination [On the systematicity and evolutional history of Greek nominal inflection]. Glotta 37(1-2): 41-67.
  192. Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1982. The Syntax of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  193. Senft, Gunter. 2000. What do we really know about nominal classification systems?. In Gunter Senft (ed.), Systems of Nominal Classification. 11-49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  194. Setatos, Michalis. 1974. Fonologia tis Kinis Neoelinikis [Phonology of Standard Modern Greek]. Athens: Papazisis.
  195. Setatos, Michalis. 1987. Apo ta archea sta nea elinika: Fonologikes alages [From Ancient to Modern Greek: Phonological changes]. Studies in Greek Linguistics 7: 187-193.
  196. Siddiqi, Daniel. 2010. Distributed Morphology. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(7): 524-542.
  197. Smolensky, Paul & Géraldine Legendre. 2006. The Harmonic Mind: From Neural Computation to Optimality-Theoretic Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  198. Smolensky, Paul & Matthew Goldrick. 2016. Gradient symbolic representations in grammar: The case of French liaison. [ROA-1286]
  199. Spyropoulos, Vassilios. 2011a. Some remarks on conjunction and agreement in Greek: Implications for the theory of agreement. In Proceedings of the 7 th International [http://83.212.19.218/icgl7/Spyropoulos.pdf]
  200. Spyropoulos, Vassilios. 2011b. Case conflict in Greek free relatives: Case in syntax and morphology. In Alexandra Galani, Glyn Hicks & George Tsoulas (eds.), Morphology and its Interfaces. 21-55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  201. Spyropoulos, Vassilios & Anthi Revithiadou. 2009. The morphology of past in Greek. Studies in Greek Linguistics 29: 108-122.
  202. Spyropoulos, Vassilios & Konstantinos Kakarikos. 2009. Aspects of dialectal variation in the Greek declension: A feature-based approach. In Geert Booij, Angela Ralli & Sergio Scalise (eds.), Morphology and Dialectology: On-line Proceedings of the 6th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM6). 49-62. University of Patras.
  203. Spyropoulos, Vassilios & Konstantinos Kakarikos. 2011. A feature-based analysis of Cappadocian Greek nominal inflection. In Mark Janse, Brian Joseph, Pavlos Pavlou, Angela Ralli & Spyros Armosti (eds.), Studies in Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory. 203-213. Nicosia: Research Centre of Kykkos Monastery.
  204. Spyropoulos, Vassilios, Anthi Revithiadou & Phoevos Panagiotidis. 2015. Verbalizers leave marks: Evidence from Greek. Morphology 25(3): 299-325.
  205. Spyropoulos, Vassilios, Anthi Revithiadou & Giorgos Markopoulos. 2017a. Root allomorphy in Greek: Readjustment rules as exponents. Paper presented at Roots V, London, 17-18 June 2017.
  206. Spyropoulos, Vassilios, Anthi Revithiadou & Giorgos Markopoulos. 2017b. Root strength as (under)specification: Evidence from root allomorphy in Greek. Paper presented at the Strength in Grammar Workshop, Leipzig, 10-11 November 2017.
  207. Sotiropoulos, Dimitri. 1972. Noun Morphology of Modern Demotic Greek. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.
  208. Soultatis, Thanassis. 2013. The status of the glide in Modern Greek. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 25: 271-288.
  209. Spelke, Elizabeth S., Ann Philips & Amanda L. Woodward. 1995. Infants' knowledge of object motion and human action. In Dan Sperber, David Premack & Ann James Premack (eds.), Causal Cognition: A Multidisciplinary Debate. 44-78. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  210. Steriopolo, Olga. 2017. Nominalizing evaluative suffixes in Russian: The interaction of declension class, gender, and animacy. Polarnyj vestnik: Norwegian Journal of Slavic Languages 20: 18-44. Symposium on the Description and/or Comparison of English and Greek. 89-105. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
  211. Tsopanakis, Agapitos G. 1948. Simvoli sti rithmisi tou neoelinikou klitikou sistimatos [A Contribution to the regulation of the Modern Greek inflectional system]. Epistimoniki Epetiris tis Filosofikis Sxolis tou Panepistimiou Thessalonikis 6: 244-287.
  212. Tsopanakis, Agapitos G. 1994. Neoeliniki Gramatiki [Modern Greek Grammar]. Thessaloniki: Adelfi Kiriakidi.
  213. Philippaki-)Warburton, Irene. 1970. On the Verb of Modern Greek. The Hague: Mouton. (Philippaki-)Warburton, Irene. 1973. Modern Greek verb conjugation: Inflectional morphology in a transformational grammar. Lingua 32: 193-226.
  214. Uffmann, Christian. 2007. Intrusive [r] and optimal epenthetic consonants. Language Sciences 29: 451-476.
  215. Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press.
  216. Wade, Terrence. 2011. A Comprehensive Russian Grammar. 3 rd ed. Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell.
  217. Willer-Gold, Jana, Boban Arsenijević, Mia Batinić, Nermina Čordalija, Marijana Kresič, Nedžad Leko, Frank Lanko Marušič, Tanja Milićev, Nataša Milićević, Ivana Mitić, Andrew Nevins, Anita Peti-Stantić, Branimir Stanković, Tina Šuligoj and Jelena Tušek. 2016. Conjunct agreement and gender in South Slavic: From theory to experiments to theory. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 24(1): 187-224.
  218. Woodward, Amanda L. 1998. Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor's reach. Cognition 69: 1-34.
  219. Yip, Moira, Joan Maling & Ray Jackendoff. 1987. Case in tiers. Language 63(2): 217-250.
  220. Younger, Barbara A. The segregation of items into categories by ten-month-old infants. Child Development 56(6): 1574-1583.
  221. Zimmermann, Eva. 2017. Morphological Length and Prosodically Defective Morphemes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  222. Zimmermann, Eva. 2018a. Being exceptional is being weak: Tonal exceptions in San Miguel el Grande Mixtec. In Gillian Gallagher, Maria Gouskova & Sora Yin (eds.), Proceedings of the 2017 Annual Meeting on Phonology. [https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/amphonology/article/view/ 4240/3904]
  223. Zimmermann, Eva. 2018b. The gradience of ghosts: An account of unstable segments. Paper presented at the 26 th Manchester Phonology Meeting, Manchester, 26-28 May 2018.
  224. Zimmermann, Eva (to appear). Gradient Symbolic Representations in the Output: A case study from Moses Columbian Salishan stress. In Proceedings of NELS 48.
  225. Zwicky, Arnold. 1990. Inflectional morphology as a (sub)component of grammar. In Wolfgang U. Dressler, Hans C. Luschützky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, John R. Rennison (eds.), Contemporary Morphology. 217-236. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  226. Asp T/Agr[-past, 1, -pl]
  227. /éme/ v Asp[-pfv, +pass] /j/ √ v[-change of state, +agent] /aɣapV0.6/ /Ø/ Linearization: aɣapV0.6 ͡ j ͡ éme Underlying representation (phonological input): /aɣapV0.6jéme/ (19) ksexnjéme 'I am forgotten' T/Agr
  228. Asp T/Agr[-past, 1, -pl]
  229. √ v[+change of state, +agent] /ksexa0.6/ /Ø/ Linearization: ksexa0.6 ͡ n Å j ͡ éme Underlying representation (phonological input): /ksexna0.6jéme/ B1.2.
  230. Non-active perfective (non-past)
  231. Asp T/Agr[-past, 1, -pl]
  232. /ɣraf/ /Ø/ Linearization: ɣraf ͡ θ ͡ ó Underlying representation (phonological input): /ɣrafθó/
  233. Asp T/Agr[-past, 1, -pl]
  234. /ó/ v Asp[+pfv, +pass] /θ/ √ v[-change of state, +agent] /si0.6r/ /Ø/ Linearization: si0.6r ͡ θ ͡ ó Underlying representation (phonological input): /si0.6rθó/
  235. Asp T/Agr[-past, 1, -pl]
  236. /ó/ v Asp[+pfv, +pass] /θ/ √ v[-change of state, +agent] /aɣapV0.6/ /Ø/ Linearization: aɣapV0.6 ͡ θ ͡ ó Underlying representation (phonological input): /aɣapV0.6θó/ (25) ksexastó 'I am forgotten' T/Agr
  237. Asp T/Agr[-past, 1, -pl]
  238. /ó/ v Asp[+pfv, +pass] /s/ Å /θ/ √ v[+change of state, +agent] /ksexa0.6/ /Ø/ Linearization: ksexa0.6 ͡ s Å θ ͡ ó Underlying representation (phonological input): /ksexa0.6sθó/ (26) θeoriθó 'I am considered' T/Agr
  239. Asp T/Agr[-past, 1, -pl]
  240. /ó/ v Asp[+pfv, +pass] /θ/ √ v[-change of state, +agent] /θeorV0.4/ /Ø/ Linearization: θeorV0.4 ͡ θ ͡ ó Underlying representation (phonological input): /θeorV0.4θó/ (27) afereθó 'I am subtracted' T/Agr
  241. Asp T/Agr[-past, 1, -pl]

Related papers

Morphological Paradigms and the Role of Tense
Mihaela Pirvulescu

Revue québécoise de linguistique, 2002

View PDFchevron_right
Morphosyntactic Interface of Agreement and Tense features
Odingowei Kwokwo
View PDFchevron_right
Root, Thematic Vowels and Inflectional Exponents in Verbs: A Morpho-Syntactic Analysis
LEONARDO MARIA SAVOIA

Languages

A long-time generative tradition treats the functional domains of the verb and noun as a result of motion and affixing; however, assuming a close correspondence between the order in syntax and morphology, as in the Mirror Principle proposed by Baker seems to be too strong a hypothesis and empirically unsustainable. Distributed Morphology (DM) incorporates this idea by translating it into rules manipulating syntactic nodes. The morphological phenomena we will investigate essentially concerns the thematic vowel (TV) and its interaction with agreement morphology. A complex micro-variation emerges, which provides us with a test bench in order to account for the word-internal morphological organization. We question the idea that morphology is an auxiliary and expensive post-syntactic component, DM, that conveys information separated from its original locus as assumed by Embick and Noyer. On the contrary, we think that a more adequate account is reached assuming that the morphology is gov...

View PDFchevron_right
The algebraic structure of morphosyntactic features
Sebastian Bank

Nordlyd 41.2, special issue on Features, edited by Martin Krämer, Sandra Ronai and Peter Svenonius, 2014

The most common way of separating homophony from syncretism – which is a basic challenge for any inflectional analysis: to distinguish between accidental and systematic form-identity – is attributing only the latter to a coherent feature combination instantiating a natural class. Features predetermine which formidentities can or cannot be analyzed as natural-class syncretism. Hence, they are crucial for the restrictiveness and predictions of morphological grammar. However, most current theoretical frameworks (e.g. Anderson 1992, Corbett and Fraser 1993, Halle and Marantz 1993, Stump 2001) do not make explicit their assumptions regarding the formal status of features. They miss out on state-of-the-art formalisms to introduce feature notations like Formal Concept Analysis (FCA, going back to Wille 1982, Ganter and Wille 1999) which provides a formal model of conceptualization in general. In this paper, I will show how FCA provides an all-embracing terminology to reproduce, visualize, and compare feature systems from different morphological frameworks, enables more precise and consistent morphological analyses, and crucially serves to rule out excessively powerful notations where the feature combinatorics are decoupled from the distributional facts they represent.

View PDFchevron_right
Morphophonological influences on the construction of subject-verb agreement
Gerdien Kikstra

Memory & Cognition, 2003

In three experiments, we investigated whether the production of subject-verb number agreement is affected by the phonological realizationof grammaticalinformation. Speakers repeated and completed German or Dutch noun phrases along the lines of The position against the demonstrations. We varied the number of the subject noun (position) and the local noun (demonstrations), as well as the number ambiguity of the subject noun's determiner and the case ambiguity of the local noun phrase. Sentence completions more often contained a verb of the wrong number if the subject and the local nouns mismatched in number than if they matched. Experiments 1 and 2, in German, showed a stronger number mismatch effect if the local noun phrase was ambiguous between the nominative and the accusative cases. Experiment 3, in Dutch, showed a stronger mismatch effect if the subject noun's determiner was ambiguous in number. We conclude that morphophonol ogical factors affect the implementation of agreement during grammatical encoding.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Phonology
  • Distributed Morphology
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved