Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part I Comparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- Part II Comparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- Part III Comparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- Part IV Comparative Syntax: Interfaces
- 26 Syntax Semantics
- 27 Comparative Syntax, Morphology, and “Externalization”
- 28 Syntax and Externalization
- 29 Cross-Modal Comparative Syntax
- 30 Syntax and Information Structure
- 31 Syntactic Dependency Formation in Sentence Processing
- Index
- References
27 - Comparative Syntax, Morphology, and “Externalization”
(What Happens at PF?)
from Part IV - Comparative Syntax: Interfaces
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2026
By
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part I Comparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- Part II Comparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- Part III Comparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- Part IV Comparative Syntax: Interfaces
- 26 Syntax Semantics
- 27 Comparative Syntax, Morphology, and “Externalization”
- 28 Syntax and Externalization
- 29 Cross-Modal Comparative Syntax
- 30 Syntax and Information Structure
- 31 Syntactic Dependency Formation in Sentence Processing
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter examines how morphology has been implicated in studies of comparative syntax. A major theme is how different theories define morphology and how such definitions relate to research in morphological theory. I first look at what it might mean to reduce syntactic variation to morphology or the lexicon. While some well-known approaches have relatively little to do with morphology as understood in morphological theory, one of them provides a plausible way of encoding variation in the features of syntactic terminals. I then ask what Distributed Morphology adds to the study of universals and variation, focusing on the PF interface and showing that there are possible universals in this part of the grammar, but they must be sought at an appropriate level of abstraction. Finally, I examine a conception of PF that arises in some Minimalist discussions where it is posited that apparent syntactic variation is driven by the need to have syntactic structures connect with language-external systems. If correct, this would mean much of what has been analyzed as part of the syntax is actually part of the PF component. However, how this can be investigated empirically is an open topic.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax , pp. 906 - 937Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Adger, D., Béjar, S., and Harbour, D.. 2001. Allomorphy: Adjacency and Agree. Paper presented at the 23rd Glow Colloquium, Braga, Portugal.Google Scholar
Adger, D., Béjar, S., and Harbour, D.. 2003. Directionality of allomorphy: A reply to Carstairs-McCarthy. Transactions of the Philological Society 101(1): 109–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Kramer, R., Marantz, A., and Oltra-Massuet, I. (eds.). To appear. The Cambridge Handbook of Distributed Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Andersen, T. 1992. Morphological stratification in Dinka. Studies in African Linguistics 23(1): 1–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, T. 1993. Vowel quality alternation in Dinka verb inflection. Phonology 10(1): 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S. 1992. Amorphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, M. 1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Arregi, K., and Pietraszko, A.. 2021. The ups and downs of head displacement. Linguistic Inquiry 52(2): 241–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, M., and Palancar, E. L.. 2014. The organization of Chinantec tone paradigms. In Carnets de Grammaire 22: Proceedings of Les Décembrettes, 8th International Conference on Morphology, 46–59. Toulouse: CLLE-ERSS.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1985. The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 373–416.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 2008. The macroparameter in a microparameter world. In Biberauer, T. (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation, 351–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bennett, R., Elfner, E., and McCloskey, J.. 2016. Lightest to the right: An apparently anomalous displacement in Irish. Linguistic Inquiry 47(2): 169–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R., and Chomsky, N.. 2011. The biolinguistic program: The current state of its evolution and development. In di Sciullo, A. and Boeckx, C. (eds.), The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of Human Language, 19–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bjorkman, B. M. To appear. Verbal inflection in Distributed Morphology. In Alexiadou, et al. (eds.).Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D. 2002. Realizing Germanic inflection: Why morphology does not drive syntax. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 6(2): 129–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. 1984. Parametric Syntax: Case Studies in Semitic and Romance Languages. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. 2013. Structuring Sense: vol. III: Taking Form. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bye, P., and Svenonius, P.. 2012. Non-concatenative morphology as epiphenomenon. In Trommer, J. (ed.), The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence 427–495. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. and Rosenbaum, P. (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184–221. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1992. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca “Julio de Urquijo”: 53–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2011. Language and other cognitive systems: What is special about language? Language Learning and Development 7(4): 263–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N., and Halle, M.. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Embick, D. 2000. Features, syntax and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry 31(2): 185–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, D. 2007. Linearization and local dislocation: Derivational mechanics and interactions. Linguistic Analysis 33(3–4): 303–336.Google Scholar
Embick, D. 2010a. Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, D. 2010b. Stem Alternations and Stem Distributions. Ms., University of Pennsylvania. www.ling.upenn.edu/~embick/stem-ms-10.pdf.Google Scholar
Embick, D. 2015. The Morpheme: A Theoretical Introduction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, D. 2016. On the targets of phonological realization. In Gribanova, V. and Shih, S. (eds.), The Morphosyntax/Phonology Connection, 255–283. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Embick, D. 2021. The motivation for Roots in Distributed Morphology. Annual Review of Linguistics 7(1): 69–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, D. To appear. Abstract morphemes and local contexts. In Alexiadou, et al. (eds.).Google Scholar
Embick, D., and Marantz, A.. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39(1): 1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, D., and Noyer, R.. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32(4): 555–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, D., and Shwayder, K.. 2018. Deriving morphophonological (mis)applications. In Petrosino, R., Cerrone, P., and van der Hulst, H. (eds.), From Sounds to Structures: Beyond the Veil of Maya, 194–248. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fenger, P. 2020. Words within Words: The Internal Syntax of Verbs. PhD thesis, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Halle, M., and Marantz, A.. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harbour, D. 2008. Morphosemantic Number: From Kiowa Noun Classes to UG Number Features. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Haugen, J. D., and Siddiqi, D.. 2016. Toward a restricted realizational theory. In Siddiqi, D. and Harley, H. (eds.), Morphological Metatheory, 343–386. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoberman, R. D., and Aronoff, M.. 2003. The verbal morphology of Maltese. In Shimron, J. (ed.), Language Processing and Acquisition in Languages of Semitic, Root-Based, Morphology, 61–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. 2018. The Minimalist Program after 25 years. Annual Review of Linguistics 4: 49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. 2019. The stupendous success of the Minimalist Program. In Kertész, A., Moravcsik, E., and Rákosi, C. (eds.), Current Approaches to Syntax: a Comparative Handbook [Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics], 187–214. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingason, A. K. 2016. Realizing Morphemes in the Icelandic Noun Phrase. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Kalin, L., and Weisser, P.. To appear. Minimalism and morphology. In Grohmann, K. and Leivada, E. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm: Selected Essays from SICOL-1981, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Koeneman, O., and Zeijlstra, H.. 2014. The rich agreement hypothesis rehabilitated. Linguistic Inquiry 45(4): 571–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leumann, M., Hofmann, J. B., and Szantyr, A.. 1963. Lateinische Grammatik, auf der Grundlage des Werkes von Friedrich Stolz und Joseph Hermann Schmalz; 1. Band lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre. Munich: Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. 1987. An Integrated Theory of Autosegmental Processes. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 1988. Clitics, morphological merger, and the mapping to phonological structure. In Hammond, M., and Noonan, M. (eds.), Theoretical Morphology, 253–270. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, A. 1995. The Minimalist Program. In Webelhuth, G. (ed.), Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program, 4349–4382. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 2001. Words and things. Ms., MIT. https://babel.ucsc.edu/~hank/mrg.readings/Marantz_words.pdf.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 2007. Phases and words. In Choe, S. H. (ed.), Phases in the Theory of Grammar, 199–222. Seoul: Dong-In Publishing.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 2013. Locality domains for contextual allomorphy across the interfaces. In Matushansky, O. and Marantz, A. (eds.), Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, 95–116. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newell, H., and Ulfsbjorninn, S.. 2021. Phonological solutions to morphological problems. The Linguistic Review 38(3): 321–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noyer, R. 1992. Features, Affixes, and Positions in Autonomous Morphological Structure. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
Rohrbacher, B. 1999. Morphology-Driven Syntax: A Theory of V to I Raising and Pro-Drop. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saab, A. 2022. Bleeding Restructuring by Ellipsis: New Hopes for a Motivated Verbal Ellipsis Parameter. Ms., Universidad de Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Wood, J. 2015. Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Structure. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The PDF of this book
complies with version 2.2 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range
of users and attains the highest
(AAA)
level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive
accessibility guidelines.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
Visual Accessibility
Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.