In generative linguistics, Distributed Morphology is a theoretical framework introduced in 1993 by Morris Halle and Alec Marantz.
This approach challenges the traditional notion of the Lexicon as the unit where derived words are formed and idiosyncratic word-meaning correspondences are stored.
The Formative List in Distributed Morphology differs, thus, from the Lexicon in traditional generative grammar, which includes the lexical items (such as words and morphemes) in a language.
In Distributed Morphology, roots are proposed to be category-neutral and undergo categorization by functional elements.
Researchers adopting the Distributed Morphology approach agree that roots must be categorized by functional elements.
In Distributed Morphology, after the syntax of a given utterance is complete, the Exponent List must be consulted to provide phonological content.
For example, the first-person singular pronominal paradigm in English is exponed as follows: [+1 +sing +nom +prn] ←→ /aj/ [+1 +sing +prn] ←→ /mi/ The use of /mi/ does not seem infelicitous in a nominative context at first glance.
This is known as the Maximal Subset Condition or the Elsewhere Principle: if two items have a similar set of features, the one that is more specific will win.
[10] This list specifies interpretive operations that realize in a semantic sense the terminal nodes of a complete syntactic derivation.
The derivation of a phrase/word proceeds as follows: Distributed Morphology recognizes a number of morphology-specific operations that occur post-syntactically.
Morphological Merger is generalized as follows in Marantz 1988: 261: Morphological Merger: At any level of syntactic analysis (d-structure, s-structure, phonological structure), a relation between X and Y may be replaced by (expressed by) the affixation of the lexical head of X to the lexical head of Y.
[17] Two syntactic nodes can undergo Morphological Merger subject to morphophonological well-formedness conditions.
[18] An example can be found in Swahili, which has separate exponents for subject agreement (e.g., 1st plural tu-) and negation (ha-): tu-we-ta-will-pend-alovekiswahiliSwahilitu- ta- pend-a kiswahiliwe- will- love Swahiliha-NEG-tu-we-ta-will-pend-alovekiswahiliSwahiliha- tu- ta- pend-a kiswahiliNEG- we- will- love SwahiliHowever, 1st person singular exponent ni- and negation ha- undergo fusion and realized as si-: *ha-NEG-ni-I-tawill-pend-alovekiswahiliSwahili*ha- ni- ta pend-a kiswahiliNEG- I- will- love Swahilisi-NEG.I-ta-will-pend-aloveKiswahiliSwaihilisi- ta- pend-a KiswahiliNEG.I- will- love SwaihiliAn alternative analysis of si- exponent says that there is no fusion but rather context sensitive allomorphy: si-NEG-ØI-ta-will-pend-aloveKiswahiliSwaihilisi- Ø ta- pend-a KiswahiliNEG- I- will- love SwaihiliFission refers to the splitting of one terminal node into two distinct terminal nodes prior to Vocabulary Insertion.
Some of the most well-known cases of fission involve the imperfect conjugations of Semitic, in which agreement morphology is split into a prefixal and suffixal part, as investigated in the work of Noyer (1992).
For example, T in English (e.g. +past) lowers to be realized on the head of its complement V, as in "John [TP tT [vP play-ed piano]]."
On the other hand, a Merged Negation head will block this movement and trigger 'do insertion':" John did not play piano" (Embick & Noyer 2001:564).
[15] In Distributed Morphology, the linear order of morphemes is determined by their hierarchical position in the syntactic structure, as well as by certain post-syntactic operations.
Left adjunction and the Head Movement Constraint ensure that the Mirror Principle holds.
Notice, however, that right vs. left adjunction determines whether an affix will be realized as a prefix or a suffix: its closeness to the root will still reflect hierarchical order.
This operation is doing the work of, say, affix lowering of the past tense morpheme in English in early generative syntax.
Verbal agreement in the present tense in English takes the form /-s/ in the 3rd person singular (‘ex.
We can capture the fact that /-s/ has a much smaller distribution than /Ø/ using the following entries in the Exponent List: /-s/ will be inserted whenever its full featural specification is met.
Morphologically conditioned allomorphy may involve suppletion (as in go-Ø/wen-t) or readjustment rules that apply in the context of certain Vocabulary items (as in buy-Ø/bough-t).
The issue of whether root alternations such as buy-Ø/bough-t are better handled by suppletion or readjustment rules remains a topic of debate (Embick & Marantz 2008, Siddiqi 2009, Bonet & Harbour 2012).
The containment hypothesis is a theory under the framework of Distributed Morphology advanced by Bobaljik (2012) to account for the restrictions on the patterns of suppletion seen in language.
AAB patterns (in which the superlative is suppletive but the comparative builds off the bare adjective) are theoretically possible as well but happen to be rare in the world's languages.
By extension, the superlative form attaches the prefix nej- to horši and not to špatn- as the comparative is the only structure it can see.
For Latin, in which both the comparative and the superlative are suppleted, the following rules may be posited:[11] As an *ABA pattern would require the adjective to directly combine with the superlative node, it is theoretically impossible because of the intervening comparative node and is also unattested in the world's languages.
Thus, we can derive multiple possible meanings of ‘look’ with the following entries: (note: √ indicates square root, CAPS LOCK indicates semantic concept) The contextual specifications for √ look will ensure that it has the appropriate interpretation given the context.
Thus, the Maximal Subset Condition will choose the alloseme whose contextual specification is most completely satisfied, when there is competition among Encyclopedic List entries.