To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
I present a model of phonological representation which represents morphemes in terms of constraint violations rather than strings of segments or root nodes. The formalism allows representation to be uniform throughout the phonology, mandates permanent underspecification of unmarked structure, derives the linear order of segments within a morpheme, and allows representation and evaluation to be conflated. Marked types of morphology (infixes, circumfixes, zero affixes; subtractive, reduplicative and templatic morphology) are represented in exactly the same way as roots. The markedness of such morphology is argued to follow from the high ranking of the violated constraints in question.
The primary purpose of this study is to present evidence, based on experimental data from Western European languages, that there is orderly variation in the choice of perfective auxiliary with intransitive verbs. Specifically, auxiliary selection is sensitive to a hierarchy of aspectual/thematic verb types: some verbs require a given auxiliary categorically, whereas others allow both auxiliaries to a greater or lesser extent depending on their position on the hierarchy. It is argued that this gradience has potentially important implications for the unaccusative hypothesis, and more generally for theories of the lexicon-syntax interface.