1887
Volume 19, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1606-822X
  • E-ISSN: 2309-5067
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper discusses some data of Arabic synthetic compounds in which regular plural inflection is included inside compounds. These data pose problems to Kiparsky’s (1982) level-ordering lexical morphology model and Li’s (1990) generalization on verb incorporation. I argue that such compounds are lexically formed based on some pieces of evidence. To support the analysis, I compare the compounds and the construct state constructions in Arabic and Hebrew. Then I show that the lexical analysis explains the morphological, syntactic properties, and the semantics of Arabic synthetic compounds. More specifically, I explain how the lexical analysis applies to theta-role assignment inside the compound and then discuss the number specification of the non-head in the compound of Arabic and English.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00002.ald
2018-01-05
2019-10-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Al-Dobaian, Abdullah
    2014 Towards a morphological theory: The case of Arabic broken and sound plurals. Journal of Arts26(3). 19–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alħalawaani, Mohammed
    1987AlWaadiħ fiiilm alSarf [ Explaining morphology clearly ]. Damascus: Dar alMamuun lilturaath [Almamuun Heritage Publishing Company].
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Alegre, Maria A. & Gordon, Peter
    1996 Red rats eater exposes recursion in children’s word formation. Cognition60. 65–82. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(95)00703‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(95)00703-2 [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker, Mark C.
    1988Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Berent, Iris & Pinker, Steven
    2007 The dislike of regular plurals in compounds: Phonological familiarity or morphological constraint?The Mental Lexicon2(2). 129–181. doi: 10.1075/ml.2.2.03ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.2.2.03ber [Google Scholar]
  6. 2008 Compound formation is constrained by morphology: A reply to Seidenberg, MacDonald & Haskell. The Mental Lexicon3(2). 176–187. doi: 10.1075/ml.3.2.02ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.3.2.02ber [Google Scholar]
  7. Booij, Geert
    2016 Construction morphology. In Hippisley, Andrew & Stump, Gregory (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of morphology, 390–423. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781139814720.016
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.016 [Google Scholar]
  8. Borer, Hagit
    1988 On the morphological parallelism between compounds and constructs. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology, 45–65. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2009 Afro-Asiatic, semitic: Hebrew. In Lieber, Rochelle & Štekauer, Pavol (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 491–511. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chomsky, Noam
    1970 Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, Roderick A. & Rosenbaum, Peter S. (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar, 184–221. Boston: Ginn.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 1986Barriers. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Clahsen, Harald & Almazan, Mayella
    2001 Compounding and inflection in language impairment: Evidence from Williams Syndrome (and SLI). Lingua111(10). 729–757. doi: 10.1016/S0024‑3841(00)00047‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(00)00047-4 [Google Scholar]
  13. Clahsen, Harald & Marcus, Gary & Bartke, Susanne & Wiese, Richard
    1995 Compounding and inflection in German child language. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology, 115–142. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria & Williams, Edwin
    1987On the definition of word. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Doron, Edit & Meir, Irit
    2013 Construct state: Modern Hebrew. In Khan, Geoffrey (ed.), Encyclopedia of Hebrew language and linguistics, 581–589. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gordon, Peter
    1985 Level-ordering in lexical development. Cognition21(1985). 73–93. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(85)90046‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(85)90046-0 [Google Scholar]
  17. Halle, Morris
    1973 Prolegomena to a theory of word formation. Linguistic Inquiry4(1). 3–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec
    1993 Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The view from building 20, 111–176. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Jackendoff, Ray
    2002Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2007Language, consciousness, culture: Essays on mental structure. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2009 Compounding in the parallel architecture and conceptual semantics. In Lieber, Rochelle & Štekauer, Pavol (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 105–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kelly, Justin Robert
    2013The syntax-semantics interface in distributed morphology. Washington, DC: Georgetown University. (Doctoral dissertation.) Retrieved fromhttps://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/558391/Kelly_georgetown_0076D_12290.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kiparsky, Paul
    1982 From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In Hulst, Harry van der & Smith, Norval (eds.), The structure of phonological representations (Part 1), 131–175. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Li, Yafei
    1990 X°-binding and verb incorporation. Linguistic Inquiry21. 399–426.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2005X°: A theory of the morphology-syntax interface. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Lieber, Rochelle
    1983 Argument-linking and compounds in English. Linguistics Inquiry14(2). 251–285.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. McCarthy, John J.
    1993 Template form in prosodic morphology. In Staven, Laurel Smith (ed.), Papers from the Third Annual Formal Linguistics Society of Midamerica Conference, 187–218. Bloomington: IULC.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Allan S.
    1990 Foot and word in prosodic morphology: The Arabic broken plural. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory8(2). 209–283. doi: 10.1007/BF00208524
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00208524 [Google Scholar]
  29. Pinker, Steven
    1999Words and rules: the ingredients of language. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Ratcliffe, Robert R.
    1990 Arabic broken plurals: Arguments for a two-fold classification of morphology. In Eid, Mushira & McCarthy, John (eds.), Perspectives on Arabic linguistics: Papers from the Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics. Volume II: Salt Lake City, Utah 1988, 94–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.72.07rat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.72.07rat [Google Scholar]
  31. 1997 Prosodic templates in a word-based morphological analysis of Arabic. In Eid, Mushira & Ratcliffe, Robert R. (eds.), Perspectives on Arabic linguistics: Papers from the Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics. Volume X: Salt Lake City, 1996, 147–172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.153.10rat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.153.10rat [Google Scholar]
  32. 2003 Toward a universal theory of shape-invariant (templatic) morphology: Classical Arabic reconsidered. In Singh, Rajendra & Starosta, Stanley (eds.), Explorations in seamless morphology, 212–269. London: SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Sadock, Jerrold
    2000 Decomposing the construct. Chicago: University of Chicago. (Manuscript.)
  34. Selkirk, Elisabeth O.
    1982The syntax of words. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Siddiqi, Daniel
    2006Minimize exponence: economy effects on a model of the morphosyntactic component of the grammar. Tucson: University of Arizona. (Doctoral dissertation.) Retrieved fromling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000514/current.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Siegel, Dorothy C.
    1974Topics in English morphology. Cambridge: MIT. (Doctoral dissertation.) Retrieved fromwww.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/theses/siegel74.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Sneed, Elisa
    2002 The acceptability of regular plurals in compounds. In Andronis, Mary & Debenport, Erin & Pycha, Anne & Yoshimura, Keiko (eds.), Chicago Linguistic Society 38: The main session, 617–631. Chicago: The Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Sproat, Richard William
    1985On deriving the lexicon. Cambridge: MIT. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Webelhuth, Gert
    1995Government and binding theory and the minimalist program: Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Williams, Edwin
    1981 On the notions “lexically related” and the “head of a word”. Linguistic Inquiry12(2). 245–274.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Wright, William
    1971A grammar of the Arabic language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Translated with amendments and additions from the German of Caspari.)
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Wunderlich, Dieter
    2008 When morphology comes in. (Paper presented atMorphology Workshop, Grooßbothen, 21 June 2008.)
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00002.ald
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00002.ald
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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