Distributed morphology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In generative linguistics, Distributed Morphology is a framework for theories of morphology introduced in 1993 by Morris Halle and Alec Marantz. The central claim of Distributed Morphology is that there is no unified Lexicon as in earlier generative treatments of word-formation. Rather, the functions that other theories ascribe to the Lexcion are distributed among other components of the grammar.
In Distributed Morphology, the abstract morphemes that comprise words are held to be completely empty of phonological information until after the syntactic component has finished manipulating them. That is, the structure of the sentence is worked out before there are any actual words present. The pieces of words that best match the syntactic structure are then inserted into the sentence.
Contents |
[edit] Core properties
There are three main properties which distinguish Distributed Morphology from other theories[1]:
- Late Insertion
- Phonological information is inserted into syntactic structure only after all syntactic operations have applied.
- Underspecification of Vocabulary items
- The phonological string inserted in a given syntactic position does not necessarily have to be specified for all of the morphosyntactic features of that position.
- Syntactic Hierarchical Structure All the Way Down
- The relationships among elements within words are structurally identical to those relationships that hold among words.
[edit] Vocabulary items
Distributed Morphology makes a distinction between the notion of a morpheme, which refers to a syntactic terminal element, and that of a Vocabulary item, which is defined as a relation between a string of phonological information and the context in which this string may be inserted. The standard schema for the representation of a Vocabulary item is as follows[2]:
- signal ↔ context of insertion
An example Vocabulary item, from English[3]:
- /-d/ ↔ [+past]
[edit] The functional vs. lexical distinction
The division between closed and open word classes is recast in Distributed Morphology [4] as the distinction between f-morphemes (traditional closed classes) and l-morphemes (traditional open classes), which are defined as follows:
- f-morpheme
- A Vocabulary item whose context of insertion is sufficient to determine its phonological form.
- l-morpheme
- A Vocabulary item whose phonological form cannot be determined solely by its context of insertion. This includes the traditional classes of nouns, adjectives, and verbs.
[edit] Spell-Out
[edit] Competition
For example, to create the sentence, The dogs ate the meat, the word dogs is inserted after a noun root with the meaning [DOG] combines with a feature [plural]. At the end of the derivation, the English word dogs is inserted in the appropriate spot - that is, where the syntax decides to place the subject. Also, a verbal root meaning [EAT] combines with a [past tense] feature and [3rd person plural] feature. The closest matching word in English is ate, which is inserted wherever the syntax has determined that the verb should go. We should note that the [3rd person plural] feature is not actually matched in English, because there is a total lack of person/number agreement in the past tense in English:
| I ate | we ate |
| you ate | you ate |
| s/he ate | they ate |
Of course, many other languages do have active person/number agreement that must be matched. Consider the same verb conjugated in the past tense in Portuguese:
| eu comi | nós comemos |
| tu comeste | vós comestes |
| ele/ela comeu | eles/elas comeram |
Thus, the same sentence in Portuguese would enter the verb comeram, since it is the best match for the combination [EAT] [past tense] [3rd person plural]. The words cannot be entered until the features are combined in the right way.
[edit] Allomorphy
[edit] Morphological operations
[edit] Notes
[edit] References
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec (1993), “Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection”, The View from Building 20 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press): 111-176
Harley, Heidi & Noyer, Rolf (1998), “Licensing in the non-lexicalist lexicon: nominalizations, vocabulary items and the Encyclopedia”, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32 (4): 119-137
Harley, Heidi & Noyer, Rolf (1999), “State-of-the-Article: Distributed Morphology”, GLOT International 4 (4): 3-9
