No escape from categorization: an insider’s view of compounds

There has been a surge of syntactic research on compounding, joining a large literature on the nature of roots and phase theory. In an attempt to probe into the syntactic domain for idiosyncratic interpretation and to account for lexical integrity effects, some recent studies on compounding have argued that root compounds are made up of two free acategorial roots directly merged in syntax, without undergoing categorization. The main goal of such an approach is to extend the phase domain in order to maintain two uncategorized roots awaiting further Merge operations. When a category head is merged on the top of this compounded structure, it will trigger its Spell-Out, and as a result, both roots will be identified as a single syntactic object for the purposes of movement and binding, and will be assigned a fixed, non-compositional interpretation. In this article, we argue that categorially non-individuated roots are not legitimate LF and PF objects, alongside Panagiotidis (2011, 2014, 2015). Consequently, any syntactic object made up of two or more uncategorized roots will induce formal crashing at the interfaces. We claim that root categorization cannot be analyzed neither as a matter of parametric variation, nor as an optional derivational step. Additionally, we propose that lexical integrity effects can be straightforwardly accounted if we assume that the unifying characteristic of compounds is the presence of a category head merged on the top of two categorized roots. Finally, we claim that non-compositional domains are not determined by categorization. Rather, non-compositionality is assigned at LF, through a set of LF instructions associated with roots in a particular syntactic environment.

VN Phrasal Compounds in Cinyanja

This article aims at discussing verb-noun compounds with a locative prefix in the nominal part of the compounds in Cinyanja. The singular and plural forms of the compounds have been presented to show that the complex forms are nouns. With regard to the internal structure, the compounds show that they have a phrasal structure. Since verb-noun compounds in this study resemble the structure of synthetic compounds in English, the analysis of these words followed the syntactic approach. The results show that internally, the compounds with a locative have a verb phrase internal structure, and follow the verb-argument word order. In the syntactic context, it is shown that the compounds with the phrasal internal structure function as determiner phrases because they can appear in the subject and object positions in simple sentences and relative clauses. Further, the entire compound word can be modified by adjectives, and be coordinated with simple nouns, which suggests that the compounds with a locative are indeed determiner phrases. Finally, with the application of the lexical integrity hypothesis, the results reveal that the compounds with the locative in the nominal part are genuine compounds because they adhere to the lexical integrity principle.

Macro-events in Verb–verb Compounds from the Perspective of Baseline and Elaboration: Iconicity in Typology and Grammaticalization

In Talmy’s typology of event integration, macro-events are classified into five types (motion, temporal contouring, state change, action correlating, and realization) by the framing event. Examining compound verbs representing macro-events cross-linguistically, this paper argues that macro-events can be classified into two types from the viewpoint of “elaboration” (Langacker 2016): augmentation (motion, state change, and realization) and adaptation (temporal contouring and action correlating). Based on iconicity, compound verbs can be said to be the best candidates for encoding conceptually integrated complex events considering their high lexical integrity. This paper shows that the two types of macro-events in compound verbs are distinct in the order of the framing event and the co-event, the representation of the framing event, and their lexical integrity. These results suggest that the differences in baseline/elaboration organization iconically emerge as explicit differences in linguistic forms, indicating the validity of the “iconicity of structured mapping in compounds”.

Dephrasal adjectives in Polish – A case of syntax-inside-morphology

The present paper is part of a larger project which investigates the issue of “syntax-inside-morphology” in the domain of Polish word-formation. In what follows, we explore the thus far unstudied territory of dephrasal adjectives, such as tużpopołudniowy ‘right-after-noon’ and ponadstustronicowy ‘over-one-hundred-page’ built on phrasal bases subjected to suffixation. It is generally acknowledged that the Polish word-formation system is not designed to comprise phrasal compounding – a word-formation type which has come to be considered a flagship representative of the morphology-syntax interface (see Szymanek 2017 and Pafel 2017). Nevertheless, one may come across a number of Polish word-formation patterns, such as the class of nouns derived from PPs (e.g. nausznik ‘earmuff’ [[naP uszyN]PP -nik]N) or synthetic compound words (e.g. bydłobójnia ‘abattoir’ [[bydłN-o-bójV]VP -nia]N) which should clearly be considered legitimate members of the global “syntax-inside-morphology” community (see Kolbusz-Buda 2019a). In what follows, we want to argue that Polish dephrasal adjectives should be recognised as a case of morphology-syntax interplay on a par with the already attested cross-linguistic material. The phrasal character of the Polish data to be discussed in this study is so strong that researching this sui generis type of derivation seems not only a valid linguistic undertaking but also one with important implications. The study may have far-reaching consequences for the descriptive adequacy of the Polish word-formation system and point to new directions in the discussion on the morphology-syntax interface. The morphological structure of the adjectives to be discussed will be juxtaposed with the class of Polish compounds proper, in particular, synthetic compounds – a word-formation type which can be considered the closest in its morphological make-up to the presented material. Offering such a comparative perspective seems necessary as the adjectives to which we choose to refer as products of dephrasal suffixation are casually classified as compounds. Moreover, although Polish does not note any cases of phrasal compounding, the morphological structure of the adjectives in question will be additionally examined to discover potential parallels between the two word-formation types. The reason behind this undertaking is two-fold. Firstly, as has already been mentioned, dephrasal adjectives are classified as compounds; secondly, they contain a phrasal unit. In our analysis, we draw on a revised version of the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis, i.e. Lieber and Scalise’s (2007) Firewall Theory, which belongs to the current of the so-called mixed models of word-formation advanced in the recent years by, for instance, Ackema and Neeleman 2004 and Pafel 2017, allowing for a limited intermodular interaction between morphological and syntactic domains.

Lexical Integrity in Morphology

The Lexical Integrity Hypothesis (LIH) holds that words are syntactic atoms, implying that syntactic processes and principles do not have access to word segments. Interestingly, when this widespread “negative characterization” is turned into its positive version, a standard picture of the Morphology-Syntax borderline is obtained. The LIH is both a fundamental principle of Morphology and a test bench for morphological theories. As a matter of fact, the LIH is problematic for both lexicalist and anti-lexicalist frameworks, which radically differ in accepting or rejecting Morphology as a component of grammar different from Syntax. Lexicalist theories predict no exceptions to LIH, contrary to fact. From anti-lexicalist theories one might expect a large set of counterexamples to this hypothesis, but the truth is that attested potential exceptions are restricted, as well as confined to very specific grammatical areas. Most of the phenomena taken to be crucial for evaluating the LIH are briefly addressed in this article: argument structure, scope, prefixes, compounds, pronouns, elliptical segments, bracketing paradoxes, and coordinated structures. It is argued that both lexicalist and anti-lexicalist positions crucially depend on the specific interpretations that their proponents are willing to attribute to the very notion of Syntax: a broad one, which basically encompasses constituent structure, binary branching, scope, and compositionality, and a narrow one, which also coverts movement, recursion, deletion, coordination, and other aspects of phrase structure. The objective differences between these conceptions of Syntax are shown to be determinant in the evaluation of LIH’s predictions.

Syntactic correspondences

LFG hypothesizes that constituent structure (c-structure) and functional structure (f-structure) are mutually constraining structures and that the relation between these structures is governed by constraints associated with words and phrasal configurations. This chapter explores universally valid generalizations regarding the correlation between phrasal positions and grammatical functions. Section 4.1 discusses the formal representation of the relation between c-structure and f-structure. Section 4.2 explores the relation between c-structure and f-structure: how c-structure phrases and their heads relate to f-structure, and the c-structure/f-structure realization of arguments and modifiers. Next, the chapter examines apparent mismatches between units at c-structure and those at f-structure; Section 4.3 shows that these cases have a natural explanation within LFG. Section 4.4 discusses the Lexical Integrity Principle, the concept of wordhood and the possibly complex contribution of words to functional structure, and Section 4.5 discusses the principle of Economy of Expression.

If everything is syntax, why are words so important? An a-morphous but non-lexicalist approach

This paper presents the hypothesis that words (and not morphemes) are the minimal units of connection between sound and meaning in human languages. Such a proposal implies the definition of the word as a categorized syntactic derivation that is linked in memory to a representation in the sensorimotor system. The main implications of the hypothesis are the following: (i) A non-lexicalist model is compatible with the phenomena of lexical integrity and lack of productivity that motivate lexicalist models. (ii) It can be concluded that bound morphemes (roots and affixes) are neither syntactic nor conceptual entities, but purely morphophonological ones. Morphemes are side effects of linguistic change operating as resources to optimize the processing and memorization of words. And (iii) a neo-constructionist conception of words is made compatible with a paradigmatic morphology.

The interaction between morphology and syntax

This chapter discusses how morphology and syntax interact in the grammar of Dutch in various ways. The principle of Lexical Integrity is used to distinguish words from phrases. Syntax selects the appropriate inflectional forms of words, and word formation processes determine the syntactic valency of derived words. Syntactic constructions may require the use of specific morphological constructions (construction-dependent morphology). Morphological and phrasal coining of lexical units with the same meaning may compete or complement each other.

Root and semi-phrasal compounds: A syntactic approach

We present a syntactic account of the derivation of two types of attributivenominal compounds in Spanish, Russian and Greek. These include right-headed “root” compounds, which exhibit more “word”-like properties and single stress domains, and left-headed “semi-phrasal” compounds with more phrasal properties and independent stress domains for the two compound members. We propose that both compound structures are formed on a small clause predicate phrase, with their different properties derived from the merger of the predicate member of the small clause as a root or as a larger nominal unit with additional functional projections. The proposed structures provide an explanation of observed lexical integrity effects, as well as specific predictions of patterns of compound formation crosslinguistically.

Replication of R-pronouns in German dialects

A considerable number of German dialects exhibit doubled R-pronouns with pronominal adverbs (dadamit, dadafür, dadagegen). At first sight, this type of in situ replication seems to be completely redundant since its occurrence is independent of R-pronoun extraction/movement. The main purpose of this paper is to account for (i) the difference between dialects with regard to replication of R-pronouns and (ii) why an (apparently redundant) process of replication occurs. Following Müller (2000a), who considers R-pronouns to be a repair phenomenon, we present an analysis in the framework of Optimality Theory. We argue that replication of R-pronouns is a consequence of different rankings of universal requirements like e.g. the Inclusiveness Condition, the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis and Antilocality and that the interaction of these constraints results in the occurrence of replication.