Study Questions Over Matthews Text (2d ed.)
of labour between morphology and syntax is thus perfect: morphology only operates . Arguably, the syntax alone determines the hierarchical and linear relations .. cases that appear to pose problems for the syntactic hypothesis, and see if. The very first thing on the Syntax Topics handout for my linguistics . units of syntax are considered to have a strict precedence relationship: for. questions that bear more directly on the issues discussed in the collection of One of the central issues in relation to the morphology-syntax interaction is to.
There are approaches to morphology where much of what is traditionally considered with morphology is handled with the same kind of formalism as is used in syntax, and morphology may be referred to as "word syntax" on occasion. However, I do not know of approaches to syntax that strive to account for most common syntactic phenomena using the language of morphology.
On the relation between morphology and syntax.
When word derivations have hierarchical structures, and affixes are given the status of functional heads, it may seem like it's syntax all the way down.
There are some facts about inflectional morphology, however, which make syntax-like accounts difficult to pursue to their logical end.
In affixal morphology, it is not a real problem to treat the stem and affix as constituents of a tree: When the morphology is non-affixal, there is a dilemma. But how is "men" derived?
In Distributed Morphologystem-changes are handled in the following way: Stump considers this a resort to "extraordinary means", since it seems like quite a large coincidence that so many languages should have an identical zero affix triggering stem changes. Non-concatenative morphology is a challenge for syntax-like approaches to morphology because the basic units of syntax are considered to have a strict precedence relationship: What factors may inhibit or stimulate productivity?
Is the distinction M. How does it relate to the diachronic-synchronic distinction, and to the inflection-derivation distinction? What is his own answer to the first question, as to whether that distinction is valid? Martins, show the structure of the words below?
Which of the affixes that you find in these words are in Table 4. Note that at least two or three parallel examples are needed in order for an affix to be placed in the table.
Chapter 5 - Compounds "One source of opaque compounds is the process known as 'popular etymology'.What is Morphology? - Definition of Morphology
In what sense, if any, are blackbird, greyhound, and nuthatch opaque? Give arguments for and against "the syntactic view" of compounding.
Distinguish between endocentric and exocentric compounds. Discuss minimalist and maximalist approaches to the classification of English compounds, giving examples. Clarify and gives examples of each limitation.
What meaningful distinction is there between morphology and syntax? - Linguistics Stack Exchange
Should words like policeman and postman be considered compounds or derived words? Give evidence for and against. Should words like bridegroom, hiccough, magpie, pullover, and lord be considered compounds?
Discuss these and other such problematic examples in detail. Discuss in detail criteria for distinguishing compounds from syntactic constructions, and problems that arise from relying on any single criterion: Ausmachen Consider whether or not or the extent to which each of the following words should be considered a compound, using the tests of Chapter 6 - Morphemes and allomorphs How did the view of the morpheme held by the Neo-Bloomfieldians differ from that held by Bloomfield himself?