A detailed study of compound words in English, which analyses all aspects of their behaviour in the language
This book makes two major contributions to our understanding of the formal grammar of ...English. One is the topic of compounding in English, and in particular the long-standing but unresolved research question of the difference between English compounds and phrases. The other is the theory of Lexicalism, the only version of Generative Grammar to have taken a serious interest in words and their structure. Bringing the two topics together, Heinz Giegerich shows that it is impossible to draw a dividing line between compounds and phrases, and therefore between the lexicon and the syntax, the two grammatical modules of Lexicalism; and he proposes a new model of grammatical modularity whereby the lexicon and the syntax overlap 'like slates on a roof'. This book will be of interest to all researchers and students with an interest in English linguistics or in morphological, syntactic or phonological theory.
This book discusses a number of approaches to charting the major developments in the syntax of English, addressing key issues of interpretation and focus for the benefit of students of the topic.
I argue in this article that adverb-forming -
ly
, unlike its adjective-forming counterpart, is an inflectional suffix, that therefore adverbs containing -
ly
are inflected adjectives and that, ...consequently, adverbs not containing -
ly
are uninflected adjectives. I demonstrate that in English, the traditional category Adverb is morphologically non-distinct from the category Adjective in that it has no morphology of its own but instead shares all relevant aspects of the morphology of adjectives. I demonstrate moreover that such an analysis explains various aspects of morphological and phonological behaviour on the part of adverbial -
ly
which differ from the behaviour of adjectival -
ly
and/or from the behaviour of derivational suffixes. And I argue that contrary to a recent claim, the syntactic behaviour of adverbs presents no obstacle to the single-category analysis of adjectives and adverbs warranted by the morphology.
This study investigates the distribution of end-stress and fore-stress among English NN and NNN compounds. It finds that end-stress in NNs is not ‘exceptional’, as many researchers have claimed, but ...confined to a reasonably well defined class of attribute-head NNs within which it is (at least optionally) grammatical and often predictable. In NNNs – NNs with embedded NNs – both fore-stress and end-stress can occur in both the embedding and the embedded NN, giving rise to eight possible stress patterns, all of which are attested. Moreover, the distribution of fore-stress and end-stress in embedding and embedded NNs follows the regularities identified in free-standing NNs. There is therefore no reason to accept the generalization whereby in NNNs, the second element is always stressed under right-branching and the first element under left-branching. While such patterns are perhaps particularly frequent, all others are also grammatical: the Compound Stress Rule known in the literature for some fifty years, deriving stress patterns from structural geometry, is wrong.
This article argues that English noun-plus-noun constructions (‘NNs’) originate both in the lexicon and in the syntax. It distinguishes between complement–head and attribute–head NNs, as well as ...between fore-stressed and end-stressed NNs. It argues that complement-head NNs are fore-stressed and originate in the lexicon while attribute–head NNs typically have end-stress and syntactic provenance. The latter are, however, potentially subject to diachronic lexicalization, which may moreover involve the adoption of fore-stress. Hence, lexical NNs may be fore-stressed or end-stressed while phrasal NNs must be end-stressed. Although further potential sources of irregularity are identified, it is demonstrated that the model's predictive power is fairly robust and that, where it fails to predict firm stress patterns, it predicts their variability.
This article argues that of English adjective–noun constructions involving associative adjectives (‘associative AdjNs’), some originate in the lexicon and others in the syntax. While in many cases ...such constructions are unambiguously and for identifiable reasons located on one side or the other of the lexicon–syntax ‘divide’, variation being possible only across speakers, a range of associative AdjNs is identified which must be simultaneously, and for the same speakers, of both lexical and syntactic provenance. There is therefore no lexicon–syntax ‘divide’: the two modules overlap.
In Lexical Strata in English, Heinz Giegerich investigates the way in which alternations in the sound patterns of words interact with the morphological processes of the language. Drawing examples ...from English and German, he uncovers and spells out in detail the principles of 'lexical morphology and phonology', a theory that has in recent years become increasingly influential in linguistics. Giegerich queries many of the assumptions made in that theory, overturning some and putting others on a principled footing. What emerges is a new, formally coherent and highly constrained theory of the lexicon - the theory of 'base-driven' stratification - which predicts the number of lexical strata from the number of base-category distinctions recognized in the morphology of the language. Finally, he offers new accounts of some central phenomena in the phonology of English (including vowel 'reduction', r-sandhi and syllabification), which both support and are uniquely facilitated by this new theory.
This is a monograph about structural entities originating in the lexicon, that is, about word structure, as well as about the structural characteristics of the lexicon as a module of formal grammar.
I argue in this article that adverb-forming -ly, unlike its adjective-forming counterpart, is an inflectional suffix, that therefore adverbs containing -ly are inflected adjectives and that, ...consequently, adverbs not containing -ly are uninflected adjectives. I demonstrate that in English, the traditional category Adverb is morphologically non-distinct from the category Adjective in that it has no morphology of its own but instead shares all relevant aspects of the morphology of adjectives. I demonstrate moreover that such an analysis explains various aspects of morphological and phonological behaviour on the part of adverbial -ly which differ from the behaviour of adjectival -ly and/or from the behaviour of derivational suffixes. And I argue that contrary to a recent claim, the syntactic behaviour of adverbs presents no obstacle to the single-category analysis of adjectives and adverbs warranted by the morphology.
In Lexical Strata in English, Heinz Giegerich investigates the way in which alternations in the sound patterns of words interact with the morphological processes of the language. Drawing examples ...from English and German, he uncovers and spells out in detail the principles of 'lexical morphology and phonology', a theory that has in recent years become increasingly influential in linguistics. Giegerich queries many of the assumptions made in that theory, overturning some and putting others on a principled footing. What emerges is a formally coherent and highly constrained theory of the lexicon - the theory of 'base-driven' stratification - which predicts the number of lexical strata from the number of base-category distinctions recognized in the morphology of the language. Finally, he offers accounts of some central phenomena in the phonology of English (including vowel 'reduction', r-sandhi and syllabification), which both support and are uniquely facilitated by this new theory.
PDF
