Endangered Distinction Between Morphology and Syntax
2
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper raises a question whether we can still draw a dichotomy between morphology and syntax as an autonomous component of grammar. Words are the output of a morphological component, so a syntactic component cannot access to the internal structure of words. Insomuch as two distinct components of morphology and syntax co-exist in grammar, morphologically formed elements are expected to behave as an atomic entity in syntax and hence syntactic operations cannot look at their internal structure. To the contrary, syntactically formed elements are expected to be visible to syntactic operations. However, under the scrutiny, the standard distinction between morphology and syntax can hardly hold. In particular, causative constructions and deverbal nominalizations weaken the morphology and syntax distinction since they display ambiguous properties of morphological (lexical) and syntactic properties
Abstract
This paper raises a question whether we can still draw a dichotomy between morphology and syntax as an autonomous component of grammar. Words are the output of a morphological component, so a syntactic component cannot access to the internal structure of words. Insomuch as two distinct components of morphology and syntax co-exist in grammar, morphologically formed elements are expected to behave as an atomic entity in syntax and hence syntactic operations cannot look at their internal structure. To the contrary, syntactically formed elements are expected to be visible to syntactic operations. However, under the scrutiny, the standard distinction between morphology and syntax can hardly hold. In particular, causative constructions and deverbal nominalizations weaken the morphology and syntax distinction since they display ambiguous properties of morphological (lexical) and syntactic properties
참고문헌 (23)
- Baker, M., "Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing" (1988), The University of Chicago Press
- Borer, H., "The causative-inchoative alternation", The Linguistic Review, 8, pp.119~ (1991)
- Chomsky, N., "Syntactic structure" (1957), Mouton
- Chomsky, N., "Readings in Transformational Grammar", pp.184~221 (1970), Ginn and co., Waltham
- Chomsky, N., "Lectures on Government and Binding" (1981), Foris
- Chomsky, N., "Barriers" (1986), MIT Press
- Chomsky, N., "Bare phrase structure. In: Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program" (1995), Blackwell
- Di Sciullo, A. M., "On the Definition of Word" (1987), MIT Press
- Dubinsky, S., "Predicate union and the syntax of Japanese causatives", Journal of Linguistics, 30, pp.43~79 (1994)
- Harley, H., "On the causative construction" (2006), University of Arizona
- Hoshi, H., "Relations between thematic structure and syntax: a study on the nature of predicates in Japanese", SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics, 1, pp.203~247 (2001)
- Jung, Y., "A Morpho-Functional Analysis of Nominalizations and the Category Preserving Principle", Journal of Language Sciences, 5, pp.175~213 (1998)
- Kornai, A., "A theory of command relations", Language, 66, pp.24~50 (1990)
- Kuroda, S. Y., "Causatives forms in Japanese", Foundations of Language, 1, pp.30~50 (1965)
- Lapointe, S., "A theory of grammatical agreement", 박사, pp.1980
- 이 두 원, "Two Kinds of Causee in the Periphrastic Causative: ACC and DAT Causees", 언어과학, 14(2), pp.217~238 (2007), 한국언어과학회
- Pollock. J. Y., "Verb movement, universal grammar and structure of IP", Linguistic Inquiry, 20, pp.365~424 (1989)
- Rizzi, L., "Relativized Minimality" (1990), MIT Press
- Shibatani. M., "Languages in Japan" (1990), Camridge University Press
- Sproat, R., "On deriving the lexicon", pp.1985
- Sugioka, Y., "Interaction of Derivational Morphology and Syntax in Japanese and English" (1986), Garland Publishing
- Terada, M., "Incorporation and argument structure in Japanese", 박사, pp.1991
- Travis, L, "Parameters and effect of word variation", 박사, pp.1984