Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Dziubalska-Kolaczyk, Katarzyna

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.250
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.259

CiteScore 2017: 0.36

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.151
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.485

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 44, Issue 3


Linearization in Bare Prosodic Structure

Martin Haiden
Published Online: 2009-01-23 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10010-008-0020-0

Linearization in Bare Prosodic Structure

This paper defends the claim that the linear order of morphemes in words is determined by templates. Templates are defined as parametrized parsing rules over sets of CV syllables. The article addresses three potential challenges for this view: (i) templatic order may violate a certain interpretation of the Mirror Principle, (ii) templates (viewed as parametrized rules) are not immediately compatible with the view that parameters are set in the lexicon, and (iii) templates (viewed as phonological structure constraining the distribution of syntactic terminals) constitute a case of systematic look-ahead from syntax into phonology. With respect to (i) the paper argues that the Mirror Principle is a generalization over hierarchical, rather than linear order; concerning (ii), it presents inter-species comparative evidence suggesting that templatic ordering rules are learnable. (iii) is identified as a general property of morphological structure that needs to be addressed by any theory of the phonology-syntax interface. The paper presents a theory of parallel derivation that appears to be particularly well suited to this end.

Keywords: PF interface; template; bare prosodic structure

  • Anderson, S. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Baker, M. 1985. "The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation". Linguistic Inquiry 16. 373-415.Google Scholar

  • Bendjaballah, S. 1999. Trois figures de la structure interne des gabarits. [Unpublished PhD dissertation, Université Paris 7.]Google Scholar

  • Bendjaballah, S. 2006. "Positions and markers in templates". Paper presented at XXXII Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, Florence.Google Scholar

  • Bendjaballah, S. and M. Haiden. 2002. "Templatic architecture and German strong verbs". Paper presented at 4èmes journées internationales du GDR CNRS 1954 ≪ phonologies ≫, Grenoble.Google Scholar

  • Bendjaballah, S. and M. Haiden. 2003. "Templatic architecture". Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 32. 157-168.Google Scholar

  • Bendjaballah, S., and M. Haiden. 2008. "A typology of emptiness in templates". In: Hartmann, J., V. Hegedus and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), Sounds of silence. Empty elements in syntax and phonology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

  • Borer, H. 1984. Parametric syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

  • Borer, H. 2003. "Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: Syntactic projections and the lexicon". In: Polinsky, M. and J. Moore (eds.), Explanation in linguistic theory. Stanford: CSLI. 31-67.Google Scholar

  • Bródy, M. 2000. "Mirror theory: Syntactic representation in perfect syntax". Linguistic Inquiry 31. 29-56.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, N. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, N. 2004. "Beyond explanatory adequacy". In: Belletti, A. (ed.), Structures and beyond. The cartography of syntactic structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 104-131.Google Scholar

  • Fitch, W.T. and M. Hauser. 2004. "Computational constraints on syntactic processing in a nonhuman primate". Science 303. 377-380.Google Scholar

  • Grimm, J. 1819. Deutsche Grammatik. (4 Theile.) Göttingen. [Reprinted 1837].Google Scholar

  • Grohmann, K. 2007. "The road to PF". In: Agathopoulou, E., M. Dimitrikapoulkou and D. Papadopoulou (eds.), Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. Thessaloniki: Monochromia. 94-104.Google Scholar

  • Guerssel, M. and J. Lowenstamm. 1990. The derivational morphology of the Classical Arabic verbal system. [Ms., Université Paris 7.]Google Scholar

  • Guerssel, M. and J. Lowenstamm. 1996. "Ablaut in Classical Arabic measure I active verbal forms". In: Lecarme, J., J. Lowenstamm and U. Shlonsky (eds.), Studies in Afroasiatic grammar. The Hague: HAG. 123-134.Google Scholar

  • Haiden, M. 2005. Theta theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Haiden, M. to appear. "On bare prosodic structure and the spell-out of features". In: Grohmann, K. (ed.), Phase theory: Features, interpretation at the interfaces. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Halle, M. 1953. "The German conjugation". Word 9. 45-53.Google Scholar

  • Halle, M. and J.R. Vergnaud. 1987. An essay on stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Halle, M. and A. Marantz. 1994. "Some key features of distributed morphology". MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21. 275-288.Google Scholar

  • Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kiparsky, P. 1982. "From Cyclic Phonology to Lexical Phonology". In: van der Hulst, H. and N. Smith (eds.), The structure of phonological representations. Dordrecht: Foris. 131-175.Google Scholar

  • Lowenstamm, J. and J. Kaye. 1986. "Compensatory lengthening in Tiberian Hebrew". In: Wetzels, L. and E. Sezer (eds.), Studies in compensatory lengthening. Dordrecht: Foris. 97-132.Google Scholar

  • Lowenstamm, J. 1996. "CV as the only syllable type". In: Durand, J. and B. Laks (eds.), Current trends in phonology. Manchester: ESRI. 419-441.Google Scholar

  • Lowenstamm, J. 2003a. "À propos des gabarits". Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 32. 7-30.Google Scholar

  • Lowenstamm, J. 2003b. "Remarks on mutae cum liquida and branching onsets". In: Ploch, S. (ed.), Living on the edge: 28 Papers in Honor of Jonathan Kaye. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 339-363.Google Scholar

  • Manzini, M.R. and K. Wexler. 1987. "Parameters, binding theory, and learnability". Linguistic Inquiry 18. 413-444.Google Scholar

  • McCarthy, J. 1979. Formal problems in Semitic phonology and morphology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

  • Nespor, M. and I. Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

  • Phillips, C. 2003. "Linear order and constituency". Linguistic Inquiry 34. 37-90.Google Scholar

  • Pléh, C., A. Lukacs and M. Racsmany. 2003. "Morphological patterns in Hungarian children with Williams syndrome and the rule debates". Brain and Language 86. 377-383.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Ségéral, P. 1995. Une théorie généralisée de l'apophonie. [Unpublished PhD dissertation, Université Paris 7.]Google Scholar

  • Ségéral, P. and T. Scheer. 1998. "A generalized theory of Ablaut: The case of Modern German strong verbs". In: Parodi, T. (ed.), Models of inflection. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 28-59.Google Scholar

  • Vergnaud, J.-R. 2003. "On a certain notion of ‘occurrence’: The source of metrical structure, and of much more". In: Ploch, S. (ed.), Living on the edge: 28 Papers in Honor of Jonathan Kaye. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 599-632.Google Scholar

  • Wexler, K. 1998. "Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage". Lingua 106. 23-79.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2009-01-23

Published in Print: 2008-09-01

Citation Information: Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, Volume 44, Issue 3, Pages 401–421, ISSN (Online) 1897-7499, ISSN (Print) 0137-2459, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10010-008-0020-0.

Export Citation

This content is open access.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in