Volume 2, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2589-1588
  • E-ISSN: 2589-1596
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper offers a review of a current understanding of the content and the form of linguistic roots. It first updates and buttresses the case against semantic content of uncategorised roots and for Late Insertion of roots; then it investigates how native speakers identify roots. More specifically, the idea that roots may be polysemous or may encode the shadow of a denotation, namely the common denominator of the denotations of words derived from it, is refuted on the basis of conceptual and empirical arguments from a number of languages. Subsequently, the existence of a spectrum of content to which roots belong, with roots ranging from contentless to semantically specific and concrete, is also shown to be illusory, and to result from the actual productivity, hence diversity, of the words derived from it. Arguments for Late Insertion of roots are then reviewed and updated, divorcing roots from the forms that realise them. These arguments are systematically combined with the semantic contentlessness of roots in support of Acquaviva’s analysis of them as abstract indices, i.e. as the syntax-internal criteria of lexical identity. This account is taken to its logical conclusion in the final section: if roots are indeed abstract indices, then they cannot be identified either by the semantic content they realise within grammatical structures or by their forms. An account is therefore advanced according to which roots are identified just once by native speakers over their lexicon at a given moment and on the basis of three heuristic principles: one form-based, one based on the feature content and the exponence of the structures in which roots are embedded, and one taking care of root suppletion.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Acquaviva, P.
    (2009) Roots and Lexicality in Distributed Morphology. InA. Galani, D. Redinger, & N. Yeo (Eds.), York-Essex Morphology Meeting 5: Special Issue of York Working Papers in Linguistics, (pp.1–21). York: University of York. ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000654
    [Google Scholar]
  2. (2014) The Roots of Nominality, the Nominality of Roots. InA. Alexiadou, H. Borer, & F. Schäfer (Eds.), The Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax, (pp.33–56). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665266.003.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665266.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  3. Acquaviva, P., & Panagiotidis, P.
    (2012) Lexical Decomposition Meets Conceptual Atomism. Lingue e Linguaggio11, 105–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Alexiadou, A., & Lohndal, T.
    (2017) On the Division of Labor between Roots and Functional Structure. InR. D’Alessandro, I. Franco, & Á. GallegoThe Verbal Domain, (pp.85–102). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Anagnostopoulou, E., and Samioti, Y.
    (2014) Domains within Words and Their Meanings: A Case Study. InA. Alexiadou, H. Borer, & F. Schäfer (Eds.), The Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax, (pp.81–111). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665266.003.0005
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665266.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  6. Arad, M.
    (2003) Locality Constraints on the Interpretation of Roots: The Case of Hebrew Denominal Verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory21, 737–78. 10.1023/A:1025533719905
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025533719905 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2005) Roots and Patterns Hebrew Morpho-Syntax. Dordrecht: Springer Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Aronoff, M.
    (1994) Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 22. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (2007) In the Beginning Was the Word. Language83, 803–30. 10.1353/lan.2008.0042
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2008.0042 [Google Scholar]
  10. Beard, R.
    (1995) Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology: A General Theory of Inflection and Word Formation. SUNY Series in Linguistics. Albany: State University of New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Borer, H.
    (2005) In Name Only. Structuring Sense, volumeI. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (2009) “Roots and Categories.” Talk presented at the19th Colloquium on Generative Grammar, University of the Basque Country, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain, April.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (2013) Taking Form. First edition. Structuring Sense, volumeIII. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (2014) The Category of Roots.”InA. Alexiadou, H. Borer, & F. Schäfer (Eds.), The Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax, (pp.112–148). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665266.003.0006
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665266.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bruening, B.
    (2018) The Lexicalist Hypothesis: Both Wrong and Superfluous. Language94, 1–42. doi:  10.1353/lan.2018.0000
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2018.0000 [Google Scholar]
  16. Clark, E. V., & Clark, H. C.
    (1977) When Nouns Surface as Verbs. Language55, 767–811. 10.2307/412745
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412745 [Google Scholar]
  17. De Belder, M.
    (2011) Roots and Affixes: Eliminating Lexical Categories from Syntax. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Don, J.
    (2004) Categories in the Lexicon. Linguistics, 931–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Embick, D., & Marantz, A.
    (2008) Architecture and Blocking. Linguistic Inquiry39, 1–53. 10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  20. Emonds, J. E.
    (1985) A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories. Studies in Generative Grammar 19. Dordrecht, Holland; Cinnaminson, U.S.A: Foris Publications. 10.1515/9783110808513
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808513 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2000) Lexicon and Grammar: The English Syntacticon. Studies in Generative Grammar 50. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Fodor, J. A.
    (1998) Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong. Oxford: Clarendon. 10.1093/0198236360.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/0198236360.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  23. (2008) LOT 2: The Language of Thought Revisited. Oxford: Clarendon. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548774.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548774.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Galani, A.
    (2005) The Morphosyntax of Verbs in Modern Greek. PhD thesis, University of York.
  25. Hale, K. L., & Keyser, S. J.
    (1993) On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations. InK. L. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20. Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, (pp.53–109). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2002) Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 39. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5634.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5634.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Halle, M.
    (1997) Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and Fission. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics30, 425–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Halle, M., & Marantz, A.
    (1993) Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. InK. L. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20. Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, (pp.111–76). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Harley, H.
    (2005) How Do Verbs Get Their Names? Denominal Verbs, Manner Incorporation and the Ontology of Verb Roots in English. InN. Erteschik-Shir & T. Rapoport (Eds.), The Syntax of Aspect: Deriving Thematic and Aspectual Interpretation (pp.42–64). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280445.003.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280445.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2014) On the Identity of Roots. Theoretical Linguistics40, 225–76. 10.1515/tl‑2014‑0010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2014-0010 [Google Scholar]
  31. Harley, H., & Noyer, R.
    (1999) State-of-the-Article: Distributed Morphology. GLOT International4, 3–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Haugen, J.
    (2009) Hyponymous Objects and Late Insertion. Lingua119, 242–62. 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.10.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.10.008 [Google Scholar]
  33. Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M.
    (2005) Argument Realization. Research Surveys in Linguistics. Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610479
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610479 [Google Scholar]
  34. Levinson, L.
    (2007) The Roots of Verbs. PhD thesis, NYU.
  35. Marantz, A.
    (1997) No Escape from Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon. U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics4, 201–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. (2006) Phases and Words. Unpublished ms.MIT. https://files.nyu.edu/ma988/public/Phase_in_Words_Final.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  37. (2012) Locality Domains for Contextual Allosemy in Words. Unpublished ms.New York University.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Mitrović, M., & Panagiotidis, P.
    (2018) The Categorial Anatomy of Adjectives. Submitted ms.Nicosia. ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003887
  39. (2020) “Adjectives Exist, Adjectivisers Do Not: A Bicategorial Typology.” Glossa. 10.5334/gjgl.940
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.940 [Google Scholar]
  40. Nóbrega, V.
    (2018) Isomorphic Approach: Articulating the Lexicon and Syntax in the Emergence of Language. Unpublished PhD thesis, São Paulo: São Paulo.
  41. Oostendorp, M. van
    (2012) Stress as a Proclitic in Modern Greek. Lingua122, 1165–81. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2012.05.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  42. Panagiotidis, P.
    (2011) Categorial Features and Categorizers. The Linguistic Review28, 325–46. 10.1515/tlir.2011.010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2011.010 [Google Scholar]
  43. (2014a) A Minimalist Approach to Roots. InP. Kosta, S. Franks, L. Schürcks, & T. Radeva-Bork (Eds.), Minimalism and Beyond: Radicalizing the Interfaces, (pp.287–303). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  44. (2014b) Indices, Domains and Homophonous Forms. Theoretical Linguistics40, 415–27. 10.1515/tl‑2014‑0021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2014-0021 [Google Scholar]
  45. (2015) Categorial Features: A Generative Theory of Word Class Categories. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 145. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. (2019) “Ρίζες: Μεταξύ Λέξεων Και Γραμματικής.” InA. Archakis, N. Koutsoukos, G. Xydopoulos, & D. Papazachariou (Eds.), Γλωσσική Ποικιλία: Μελέτες Αφιερωμένες Στην Αγγελική Ράλλη (pp.437–51). Athens: Kapa Ekdotiki.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Panagiotidis, P., Revithiadou, A., & Spyropoulos, V.
    (2017) Little v as a Categorizing Verbal Head: Evidence from Greek.” InR. D’Alessandro, I. Franco, & Á. Gallego (Eds.), The Verbal Domain (pp.29–48). Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Preminger, O.
    (in progress). Non-Semiotic Grammar: A Symmetric, Distributed Model for Syntax and Its Interfaces. Unpublished ms.University of Maryland.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Pullum, G.
    (2010) Isms, Gasms, Etc. The Language Log (blog). February 8, 2010. languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2108
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Ralli, A.
    (1988) Eléments de La Morphologie Du Grec Moderne: La Structure Du Verbe. Montreal: Université du Montréal.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. (2003) Morphology in Greek Linguistics: The State of the Art. Journal of Greek Linguistics4, 77–129. 10.1075/jgl.4.09ral
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jgl.4.09ral [Google Scholar]
  52. (2005) Μορφολογία [Morphology]. Athens: Patakis.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B.
    (1998) Building Verb Meanings. InM. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors (pp.97–134). Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Saab, A.
    (2016) No Name: The Allosemy View. Unpublished ms.National Scientific and Technical Research Council, Buenos Aires, Argentina. ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003154
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Siddiqi, D.
    (2006) Minimize Exponence: Economy Effects on a Model of the Morphosyntactic Component of the Grammar. PhD thesis, University of Arizona.
  56. Spyropoulos, V., & Revithiadou, A.
    (2009) The Morphology of Past in Greek. Studies in Greek Linguistics29, 108–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Spyropoulos, V., Revithiadou, A., & Panagiotidis, P.
    (2015) Verbalizers Leave Marks: Evidence from Greek. Morphology25, 299–325. doi:  10.1007/s11525‑015‑9260‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-015-9260-5 [Google Scholar]
  58. Veselinova, L. N.
    (2006) Suppletion in Verb Paradigms: Bits and Pieces of the Puzzle. Typological Studies in Language, v. 67. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.67
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.67 [Google Scholar]
  59. Yang, C. D.
    (2016) The Price of Linguistic Productivity: How Children Learn to Break the Rules of Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262035323.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262035323.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  60. Αναστασιάδη-Συμεωνίδη, Ά.
    (1994) Το Τεμάχιο -Τος Στα Ρηματικά Επίθετα Της Νεοελληνικής. Studies in Greek Linguistics15, 473–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): denotation; index; Late Insertion; root; root learning; suppletion
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error