1.1 Welcome: Introduction: Theory and Theories in Morphology

Introduction: Theory and Theories in Morphology

Jenny Audring and Francesca Masini
The Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory
Edited by Jenny Audring and Francesca Masini
Print Publication Date: Dec 2018 Subject: Linguistics, Morphology and Syntax
Online Publication Date: Jan 2019 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199668984.013.1
Abstract and Keywords
This opening chapter provides an overview of the aims, structure, and contents of the vol
ume. It ties together the individual chapters by identifying common themes that run
through the various theories of morphology presented in the volume. These are the place
of morphology in the architecture of language, the degree to which it is independent from
other components of the grammar, the basic units of morphological analysis, and the rela
tion between morphology on the one hand and syntax, semantics, phonology, and the lexi
con on the other. A brief summary of the literature on types of morphological theories
helps the reader to become oriented to the landscape of frameworks. The chapter closes
with an overview of the three parts of the volume and the individual chapters in each
part.
Keywords: morphological theory, morphology, history of linguistics, morphosyntax, morphophonology, lexicalism,

word-based, morpheme-based, morphological units
1.1 Welcome
MORPHOLOGY, the grammar of words, has proved a rich and fertile ground for theoreti
cal research. As a result, we are faced with a bewilderingly complex landscape of mor
phological terms, concepts, hypotheses, models, and frameworks. Within this plurality,
linguists of different persuasions have often remained ignorant of each other’s work. For
malist and functionalist theories have run on mutually isolated tracks; theoretical ap
proaches have not connected to insights from typology, psycholinguistics, and other fields
—and vice versa. The research community is divided about basic matters, such as the
central units of morphological description or the nature of morphological features and
processes. Moreover, the proliferation of theories goes hand in hand with an increasing
internal diversification, sometimes to the point where foundational principles slip out of
sight.
Page 1 of 19
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 14 July 2020

This volume hopes to contribute to a greater unity in the field by providing a comprehen
sive and systematic exposition of morphological theory and theories. We have aimed to
make it a helpful resource for those working within a specific framework and looking for
a critical and up-to-date account of other models, as well as a comprehensive guide for
those wishing to acquaint themselves with theoretical work in morphology, perhaps com
ing from other domains in linguistics or from related fields such as computer science or
psychology. The book is intended to be informative and inspiring, and a lasting contribu
tion to the field. We also hope that—in times of increasing scepticism towards theory, in
morphology as in other areas of linguistics—it will serve to showcase the richness and
value of theoretical thinking and modelling, and will encourage new advances in theoreti
cal work.
1.1.1 About the volume
This volume stands in the long tradition of Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics and comple
ments other recent volumes, in particular The Oxford Handbook of Inflection (Baerman
2015), (p. 2) The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology (Lieber and Štekauer
2014), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding (Lieber and Štekauer 2009b), and The Ox
ford Handbook of the Word (Taylor 2015). It is kin to The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic
Analysis (Heine and Narrog, second edition 2015) by focusing on linguistic approaches
more than on linguistic facts, although a wide variety of data is addressed.
The closest relative to the present volume is Stewart (2016) on contemporary morphologi
cal theories. However, our book is an edited volume rather than a monograph, and the
scholars working in the various frameworks are speaking in their own voice. In addition
to the eminent contributors expected in a volume of this kind, many of our authors are
up-and-coming linguists with a fresh look on classic and novel issues.
While the field is too diverse for a reference work to be exhaustive, we have attempted to
cover a representative range of theories and have made a point of including very recent
models, such as Canonical Typology, Construction Morphology, and Relational Morpholo
gy. Moreover, Part III of the volume connects morphological theory with various linguistic
subfields, identifying the broader challenges and opening the dialogue where it is often
lacking.
1.2 Morphological theories

Despite the evident, and often drastic, differences between theoretical approaches, the
theories in this volume are united in the questions they seek to answer. This section
briefly reviews a selection of time-honoured issues that have shaped the theoretical land
scape over the years and that reappear in different guises in basically every theory.
Page 2 of 19
date: 14 July 2020

1.2.1 What is the goal of morphology theory?
Morphology is the grammar of words. This includes the form and structure of words, their
meaning, the relations between words, and the ways new (complex) words are formed.
Depending on one’s views of what a theory of grammar should accomplish, the goal of
morphological theory is either to account for all existing words or for all potential words
of a language. As Aronoff famously stated in 1976 (17–18): ‘the simplest task of a mor
phology, the least we demand of it, is the enumeration of the class of possible words of a
language’. Whether this goal has been attained by any of the theories on the market, or
can be attained at all, is a matter of debate, since the working area of morphological the
ory is not easily delimited. For one thing, the word is notoriously hard to define (Haspel
math 2011, see also Arkadiev and Klamer, Chapter 21 this volume). Moreover, the field of
morphology runs into other linguistic subfields, with fluid boundaries and shared respon
sibilities.
1.2.2 Where is morphology?
Morphology is famously called ‘the Poland of linguistics’ (Spencer and Zwicky 1998: 1),
surrounded by neighbouring fields eager to claim the territory for themselves. Many theo
ries, some of them represented in this volume, model the structure and behaviour of
words in syntax and/or in phonology (e.g. Distributed Morphology, see Siddiqi, Chapter 8
(p. 3) this volume, or Optimality Theory, see Downing, Chapter 10 this volume). The coun
termovement is gathered under the term of lexicalism (Montermini, Chapter 7 this vol
ume) and the motto ‘morphology by itself’ (Aronoff 1994), arguing that morphology needs
to be recognized as a module, layer, or level of description of its own because it has
unique, irreducible properties. Lexicalist approaches ask questions such as the following:
• What properties are unique to morphology?

• How does morphology interface with other types of linguistic structure?
The issue of interfaces, of course, only arises if morphology is granted its own identity,
distinct from other areas of grammar. However, views on interfacing differ greatly de
pending on whether morphology is understood in a broad sense or a narrow sense.
In a broad sense, morphology spans the entire bottom row of Figure 1.1 (adapted from
Jackendoff and Audring, Chapter 19 this volume). This row is the domain of the word.
Morphology then contrasts and interfaces with the upper row, syntax, the phrasal domain
(cf. §1.2.4). The horizontal arrows within the bottom row—connecting morphosyntax,
morphophonology, and morphosemantics—represent morphology-internal links, since a
word contains all these types of information.
Page 3 of 19
date: 14 July 2020

Figure 1.1. Types of linguistic structure and the

place of morphology
However, morphology can also be understood in a narrower sense. Words carry sound
and meaning. In addition, they may have a third level of structure, which Figure 1.1 calls
‘morphosyntax’, marked in bold. This level of structure houses all properties that cannot
be subsumed under phonology or lexical semantics.1 This includes grammatical features,
such as case, gender, or tense, as well as properties such as inflectional class, the heart
land of ‘morphology by itself’. In some theoretical models, this layer also encodes the
building blocks of words: roots, stems, and affixes. Morphology, as understood in this nar
rower sense, contrasts and interfaces with word phonology and word meaning.
Many controversies in morphological theory follow from explicit or implicit disagree

ments about the nature and place of morphology in the grammar. While most theories ac
cept morphology in the broader sense, as the part of language that handles words, some
deny the existence of a dedicated layer of morphological structure in the narrower sense
(e.g. Cognitive Grammar, see Langacker, Chapter 17 this volume).
Additional complications arise from the various conceptions of morphological processes.

Theories differ in whether they assume different rules for the grammar of words and the
grammar of phrases. Also, a division between morphological rules on the one hand
(p. 4)
and the input/output of such rules on the other can lead theories to posit a morphology–
lexicon interface. This contrasts with theories that place morphology in the (equivalent of
the) lexicon, for example Word Grammar (Gisborne, Chapter 16 this volume), Construc
tion Morphology (Masini and Audring, Chapter 18 this volume), and Relational Morpholo
gy (Jackendoff and Audring, Chapter 19 this volume).
1.2.3 Basic units and processes
What are the units that morphological theory handles? Again, we see widespread and
fierce disagreement. Two prominent camps have arisen around the word-based and the
morpheme-based views, arguing for the word and the morpheme, respectively, as the ba
sic unit of morphological structure. The debate is often framed in principled terms (see
e.g. Anderson, Chapter 2 this volume, or Stump, Chapter 4 this volume), but sometimes
invokes more specific concerns, such as which entity comes closest to a stable and trans
parent 1:1 relation between form and meaning (see e.g. Langacker and Gaeta, Chapters
17 and 12 this volume, respectively). A complicating factor is the notorious difficulty to
define either the word or the morpheme in a consistent and cross-linguistically applicable
way. However, in view of the controversy surrounding the morpheme in particular, it is
worth noting that the term is used widely and freely in descriptive linguistics as well as in
Page 4 of 19
date: 14 July 2020

psycho- and neurolinguistics, where it is found to be of value (see e.g. Schiller and Ver
donschot, Chapter 28 this volume).
The chapters in the present volume show surprisingly little debate about the lexeme,
which is a central unit in a variety of influential theories (e.g. Stump, Chapter 14 this vol
ume). This notion is related to the difference between inflection and derivation, which it
self is not easy to draw. While most theories make a point of distinguishing inflection and
derivation/word-formation—some clearly specializing in one or the other—the nature of
the difference is disputed, especially as to whether it is gradual or categorial (sometimes
intermediate distinctions are made, such as between inherent and contextual inflection,
Booij 1996). The issues scale up to the difference between morphology and syntax, and
more generally between the grammar and the lexicon, since inflection is generally be
lieved to be more relevant to syntax and on the whole ‘more grammatical’ than deriva
tion. Within word-formation, certain types of compounds and lexicalized multi-word units
further blur the boundaries between morphological and syntactic structures (see
Arkadiev and Klamer, Chapter 21 this volume).
A further basic difference between frameworks is how they conceive of the relation be
tween the units of morphological analysis and the processes that handle them. While
units and processes are tightly wedded in many theories, with rules for specific affixes or
individual feature structures, in others they are clearly separated. An example for the lat
ter type is Minimalism (Fábregas, Chapter 9 this volume), some variants of which rely on
a single general operation, Merge.
Other differences between theories are found in the way classes, features, and other
properties are encoded. Some theories also seek to encode relations, from syntagmatic
relations such as valency or agreement to paradigmatic relations such as those found in
inflectional morphology.
(p. 5) 1.2.4 Morphology and syntax
Theories of morphology can be differentiated by the way they model the relation between
morphology and syntax. Does the grammar of words involve its own module, with rules
and representations distinct from the rules and representations of phrasal grammar? All
extremes can be found: from assuming no difference at all (e.g. in Distributed Morpholo
gy, see Siddiqi, Chapter 8 this volume) to a strictly modular view in which morphology is
encapsulated from syntax (e.g. in LFG/HPSG, see Nordlinger and Sadler, Chapter 11 this
volume). For theories such as Construction Morphology (Masini and Audring, Chapter 18
this volume) or Relational Morphology (Jackendoff and Audring, Chapter 19 this volume),
the difference lies not in the processes—morphological versus syntactic rules—but in the
categories: morphology has stems and affixes, while syntax does not, and syntax has
phrasal categories such as NPs and VPs, while morphology does not.
For those theories that do assume a split between morphology and syntax, the question
arises how the two components interface. An often-cited assumption is that X0, the syn
tactic word, serves as the interface. This view runs into difficulties with complex words
Page 5 of 19
date: 14 July 2020

containing phrases, as in do-it-yourselfer (the No Phrase Constraint is discussed in Mon

termini and Fábregas, Chapters 7 and 9 this volume, respectively).
Other related points of debate, recurring in many theories throughout the book (see
Lieber, Chapter 3 this volume, for an overview), are lexical integrity—the (in)ability of syn
tax to look into or manipulate word structure—and the issue of headedness, disputing the
equivalence of syntactic and morphological heads.
1.2.5 Morphology and semantics
Another important issue in morphological theory is the relation between meaning and
form. The canonical mapping is captured in the terms isomorphy, biuniqueness, trans
parency, compositionality, diagrammaticity (Gaeta, Chapter 12 this volume), or ‘the con
catenative ideal’ (Downing, Chapter 10 this volume): each piece of meaning should corre
spond uniquely to a piece of form, and added meaning should go hand in hand with added
form. A lot of what makes morphological theory interesting and hard has to do with diver
gences from this ideal.
The issue is pertinent to the divide between word-basedness and morpheme-basedness.

Are there privileged units in which the relation between form and function is clearest or
maximally stable? And if so, is the word or the morpheme a better candidate?
Violations of biuniqueness come in many guises. Well-studied phenomena are polysemy,

homophony, and syncretism (cases of one form with several meanings), allomorphy, pe
riphrasis, multiple or extended exponence (cases of one meaning expressed by several al
ternative or combined forms), plus a range of specifically paradigmatic mismatches, such
as suppletion, overabundance, heteroclisis, and deponency (Stump, Chapters 4 and 14;
see also Arkadiev and Klamer, Chapter 21, and Ralli, Chapter 24, all in this volume). In
addition, complex words can display semantic non-compositionality, with unpredictable
meanings showing up in individual words or as subregularities in clusters of words. While
many theories set such quirks aside as lexicalizations, others make a point of including
them, for example Construction Morphology (Masini and Audring, Chapter 18 this vol
ume).
(p. 6) 1.2.6 Morphology and phonology
The interplay of morphology and phonology is another much-debated issue. Many theo
ries in the generative tradition (e.g. Minimalism and Distributed Morphology, see Siddiqi,
Chapter 8, and Fábregas, Chapter 9) model phonology as a spell-out component at the
end of a syntactic derivational chain. This means that phonological information cannot
play a role in the morphological operations themselves. Other theories (e.g. LFG and
HPSG, see Nordlinger and Sadler, Chapter 11 this volume) argue that all information, in
cluding phonology, has to be available at the same time.
Page 6 of 19
date: 14 July 2020

The most-researched interface phenomenon between morphology and phonology, howev

er, is allomorphy, and almost every theory has something to say about it. The most press
ing question with regard to allomorphy is whether variants of stems or affixes are com
puted from some underlying form or are listed and selected from memory. This brings us
to the final major issue: the relation between morphology and the lexicon.
1.2.7 Morphology and the lexicon
Morphology is a part of grammar, and many theories make a principled distinction be
tween the grammar and the lexicon. However, morphology is the grammar of words, and
words live in the lexicon. This means that we have to ask whether morphology happens in
the lexicon or whether the lexicon and the morphology are different domains, connected
via an interface. Terminology is muddled here, and we often find different understandings
of the same term, or different terms for the same notion. For example, Distributed Mor
phology has a vocabulary, which corresponds to the lexicon in other theories. Earlier gen
erative theories distinguish a lexicon of morphemes and a dictionary of words (see ten
Hacken, Chapter 6 this volume).
The distinction between lexicon and grammar is intimately related to the division of
labour between storage and computation. This issue is especially pertinent to the chap
ters in Part III of this volume that discuss morphology in first and second language acqui
sition (Blom, Chapter 25, and Archibald and Libben, Chapter 26), in psycho- and neurolin
guistics (Gagné and Spalding, Chapter 27, and Schiller and Verdonschot, Chapter 28),
and in computational modelling (Pirrelli, Chapter 29). However, it is also relevant to mor
phological theory itself, which has to decide on the format of lexical representations and
on the kinds of items assumed to be in the mental lexicon. Again, this is an area where
word-based and morpheme-based theories clash. While the former expect the smallest en
tries in the lexicon to be word-sized (Blevins, Ackerman, and Malouf, Chapter 13 this vol
ume, and Gisborne, Chapter 16 this volume), the latter posit entries for morphemes or
even smaller structures (Siddiqi, Chapter 8 this volume). The crux is the modelling of reg
ularly inflected word forms. Such forms are predictable enough to be handled by gram
mar, yet some degree of listed knowledge is necessary to choose the right form among al
ternatives, for example if the language has inflectional classes (Blevins, Ackerman, and
Malouf, Chapter 13 this volume). Generally, models differ in the degree to which they em
brace or reject redundancy in areas that can be handled both by lexical storage and by
grammatical computation.
Last but not least, a major and problematic issue is productivity, the capacity to generate
new complex forms with a particular structure. In contrast to syntax, where full produc
tivity (p. 7) is commonly seen as the norm, morphology—especially derivational morpholo
gy—is rampant with semi-productive or unproductive patterns (see Hüning, Chapter 23
this volume). An important challenge for morphological theories lies in the modelling of
such limited productivity. Theories that emphasize the generative capacity of the system
commonly evoke constraints or filters that block non-existing forms (see e.g. Chapters 10
and 8 by Downing and by Siddiqi, respectively); others argue for built-in limitations in the
Page 7 of 19
date: 14 July 2020

system itself (Jackendoff and Audring, Chapter 19 this volume). A considerable degree of
agreement is found in the modelling of blocking, where a well-formed but non-existing
complex word (say, stealer) is impeded by an existing form with the same meaning (thief).
Almost all theories that have something to say about blocking invoke a principle by which
the specific properties of the listed form block the application of a more general rule.
1.2.8 Taxonomies of theories
In the linguistic literature we find various attempts to classify morphological theories.

Two of them are repeatedly cited in the present volume. The earliest is Hockett’s (1954)
‘Two Models of Grammatical Description’, which distinguishes Item-and-Process from
Item-and-Arrangement types of theories. Blevins, Ackerman, and Malouf (Chapter 13 this
volume) explain the difference between the two morphemic models, contrasting them
with their own Word-and-Paradigm approach.
The second classification is Stump’s (2001) well-known distinction of lexical versus infer
ential and incremental versus realizational theories, giving us a four-way taxonomy, which
is laid out in Stump’s chapter ‘Theoretical issues in inflection’ (Chapter 4 this volume).
Various theories presented in Part II of the volume explicitly position themselves on this
grid.
A very recent classification is proposed in Stewart’s (2016) book, which sorts morphologi
cal theories along each of five axes, explicitly incorporating one of Stump’s classifica
tions:
• morpheme-based vs. word-/lexeme-based

• formalist vs. functionalist
• in-grammar vs. in-lexicon
• phonological formalism vs. syntactic formalism
• incremental vs. realizational.
As some of the theories discussed by Stewart converge with those in the present volume,
the reader is encouraged to consult the monograph for details.
Finally, Blevins’ (2006) distinction of constructive versus abstractive models is helpful due
to its more nuanced take on the theoretical treatment of sub-word structures. The ab
stractive view, in particular, permits for a combination of word-basedness and word-inter
nal structure, which might be an opportunity for consensus.
Generally, it should be kept in mind that theoretical frameworks can have different goals
and rest on different foundational assumptions. While one theory emphasizes descriptive
coverage or psychological plausibility, others stress computational implementability and/
or architectural parsimony, that is, shorter descriptions and minimal machinery. Among
the theories that seek parsimony, we find those that strive to minimize storage (these are
clearly (p. 8) in the majority) and those that attempt to minimize computation. Such basic
Page 8 of 19
date: 14 July 2020

decisions have deep repercussions on the architecture of the model and on the items and
processes assumed.
Finally, it should be noted that not all models presented in this book are bona fide theo
ries of morphology. Some are in fact theories of syntax (e.g. Minimalism), and one (OT,
see Downing, Chapter 10 this volume) is mainly a theory of phonology. However, each
chapter illustrates the perspectives on morphology taken by these theories.
1.3 The structure of the handbook

1.3.1 Part I: Issues in morphology
Part I of the volume sets the scene. It starts with a brief foray into the history of morphol
ogy with a focus on North America (Anderson, Chapter 2). However, the journey begins
in Switzerland, with the brothers de Saussure, Ferdinand and René, and their disagree
ment on the internal structure of words. While René saw complex words as concatena
tions of simple signs, later called morphemes, Ferdinand regarded the full word as the ba
sic sign. To him, morphological structure emerged from inter-word relations. The mor
pheme-based view was perpetuated by Bloomfield (1933), who differentiated between a
lexicon of primitives, on the one hand, and the rules of grammar, on the other. Full words
came back into view with Matthews’ (1965), Aronoff’s (1976), and Anderson’s (1992)
work, which reinstated the paradigmatic, relational perspective and found its most radi
cal expression in Anderson’s ‘a-morphousness’ hypothesis, propagating morphology with
out morphemes. In addition to sketching the swing of the historical pendulum between
word-based and morpheme-based models, the chapter shows the influence of Boas, Sapir,
Harris, Chomsky, and Halle on the emergence of morphology as an independent domain
in theoretical linguistics, and introduces some of the fundamental debates that have
shaped the theoretical landscape in the following decades.
The next two chapters identify the central theoretical issues within the two morphological
domains: word-formation and inflection. Lieber’s contribution (Chapter 3) on derivation
and compounding also starts with a major historical divide, namely Item-and-Arrange
ment versus Item-and-Process types of theories (Hockett 1954). While the former makes
morphology similar to syntax in assuming a hierarchical structure of minimal meaningful
units, the latter emphasizes the importance of rules in deriving, or realizing, complex
words. Here, morphology offers a variety of challenges. Do the rules of morphology have
the same format as the rules of syntax? Can realizational rules, popular in modern theo
ries of inflection, be fruitfully applied to derivation? The chapter continues with a discus
sion of interface issues between morphology and syntax, morphology and phonology, and
morphology and semantics. It concludes with a number of hot topics such as headedness,
productivity, blocking, affix ordering, bracketing paradoxes, and derivational paradigms.
In Chapter 4, Stump discusses theoretical issues in inflection. He singles out a number of

fundamental points of disagreement between theories of morphology. These are: (a) what
Page 9 of 19
date: 14 July 2020

counts as the basic unit of morphological analysis; (b) what are the structures that
(p. 9)
belong to inflection; (c) the relation between concatenative and non-concatenative mor
phology; (d) the relation between function and form; and (e) the difference between in
flection and other types of morphology. After outlining the issues, the chapter takes a po
sition on each of them. As the general perspective of the chapter is inferential-realization
al, Stump argues for paradigms and against morphemes, for rules of exponence and im
plicative rules, and for a unified treatment of concatenative and non-concatenative mor
phology. Morphology is argued to have its own domain in the grammar, distinct from but
interfacing with syntax.
1.3.2 Part II: Morphological theories
Part II consists of concise but thorough accounts of the main theoretical approaches to
morphology, both formalist and functionalist/cognitive, developed during the twentieth
and early twenty-first centuries. Some chapters discuss clusters or families of models, but
most are dedicated to one specific approach.
The first three chapters provide an overview of three clusters of theories: those common
ly subsumed under the label Structuralism (Chapter 5), the transformational theories of
early Generative Grammar (Chapter 6), and the lexicalist models of later Generative
Grammar (Chapter 7).
Stewart (Chapter 5) identifies Structuralism as a formative period in the history of lin

guistics. It brought a re-evaluation of the theoretical and descriptive machinery inherited
from antiquity and established linguistics as an autonomous scientific discipline. The cen
tral characteristic of the movement was the understanding that each language consti
tutes a system in itself which should be investigated empirically based on the distribution
al patterns of forms. This involved overcoming the focus on Indo-European, on culturally
privileged languages, and on diachrony. The result was a flourishing of scholarly work on
both sides of the Atlantic, with—among many others—de Saussure, Hjelmslev, Jakobson,
Trubetzkoy, and Vachek in Europe and Boas, Whorf, Sapir, Bloomfield, Harris, Hockett,
and Nida in North America. Important issues for morphology were the place of morpholo
gy in the architecture of the grammar, the identification and representation of morpholog
ical units and processes, and the interaction of morphology with other linguistic domains.
The 1950s to 1970s saw the rise of Generative Grammar. Ten Hacken (Chapter 6) dis
cusses three seminal publications from this period, Chomsky (1957), Lees (1960), and
Chomsky (1970), and—more briefly—two later publications, Halle (1973) and Jackendoff
(1975), which are the focus of Chapter 7. The central innovations in early Generative
Grammar were rewrite rules, including transformational rules, that promised to make
complex grammatical structures computable. While mainly devised for syntax, the model
was also applied to morphological structure. A lexicon was added to account for idiosyn
cratic properties of words, marking the beginning of the debate between storage and
computation, still very much alive today (see Chapters 25–28). Other major issues of the
Page 10 of 19
date: 14 July 2020

time were the incorporation of constraints into the generative model and the place and
role of semantics.
The history of Generative Grammar is continued by Montermini with Chapter 7 on the

development of Lexicalism. The hallmark of lexicalist theories is the assumption that
word-internal phenomena are situated in a distinct module, independent of syntax and
phonology. For many theories, this included the belief that the grammar of words is not
(p. 10) only separated, but also substantially different from the grammar of phrases. Mon
termini discusses two foundational publications, Halle (1973) and Jackendoff (1975),
which can be seen as the first lexicalist models, although diverging fundamentally in their
assumptions about the interplay of grammar and lexicon and the nature of the lexicon it
self. The lexicalist spirit continued through Aronoff’s work on derivation and Anderson’s
work on inflection, the latter stressing not only the division between morphology and syn
tax, but also the need to distinguish between inflection and derivation. The surge of lexi
calist work from the 1970s onwards established morphology as a phenomenon ‘by itself’
and a self-respecting field of linguistic inquiry.
Chapters 8–11 describe models of a ‘formalist’ orientation. The direct inheritors of Chom
skyan Generative Grammar are Distributed Morphology and Minimalism, while Optimali
ty Theory and LFG/HPSG constitute radically different models.
Distributed Morphology (Siddiqi, Chapter 8) represents a countermovement to the Lexi

calism described in Chapter 7: it is a theory of syntax that extends into the word by ma
nipulating morphemes. The chapter motivates the general outlook as well as the more
specific choice for a lexical-realizational, morpheme-based, Item-and-Arrangement type of
model and outlines its various incarnations, depending on the syntactic theory of the
time. Some variants distinguish a separate level of Morphological Structure, later aban
doned. Complex words and phrases are built in two steps: the grammar constructs a com
plete derivation, which is then instantiated by Vocabulary Items and spelled out phonolog
ically. This architecture makes a number of classic morphological issues—among others
productivity, blocking, and allomorphy—appear in a different light, as is elaborated in the
chapter.
Another theory that is actually a family of syntactic models is Minimalism. Fábregas

explains the Minimalist views on morphology in Chapter 9. The name of the framework
advertises its emphasis on a minimal grammatical component, as most constraints on lan
guage are seen as located either in Universal Grammar or in language-external systems,
especially the Conceptual-Intentional (CI) and the sensorimotor (SM) system, or in the
variable experience of individual speakers and learners. In its most minimal form, compu
tations are done by a single operation, Merge. The chapter explains how the theory mod
els lexical restrictions, grammatical categories, Aktionsart, and argument structure and
discusses the rules of spell-out and the role of features.
Chapter 10 by Downing illustrates how Optimality Theory addresses the issues of prosod
ic morphology, specifically the non-concatenative phenomena known as reduplication,
truncation, root-and-pattern morphology, and infixation. The model employs three types
Page 11 of 19
date: 14 July 2020

of constraints—faithfulness, markedness, and alignment—to determine the optimal form

of a word or phrase. Constraint evaluation is demonstrated on a wide variety of lan
guages, among others SiSwati, Japanese, Modern Hebrew, Samoan, Diyari, and Nupe. Im
portant theoretical issues are (a) whether constraints can be stated generally or are spe
cific to a certain morphological operation, construction, or morpheme, and (b) whether
restrictions (e.g. on the size of the optimal nickname or the location of the optimal infix)
follow from other properties, such as the stress type or syllable structure of the language.
Chapter 11 presents two distinct but related theories, Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG)
and Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG). Nordlinger and Sadler briefly ex
plain the architecture and the formalism of the two models, highlighting their strong lexi
calist commitment, which states that word-internal structure is invisible to syntax. This
(p. 11) perspective implies that both theories are compatible with a variety of morphologi
cal models, as long as the lexicalist stance is maintained. In LFG, the emphasis is on the
way different formal structures across languages can map onto the same functional struc
ture. Some variants of HPSG are similar to construction-based theories (cf. Masini and
Audring, Chapter 18 this volume) by modelling derivational rules as lexical items, while
inflection is often understood as being realizational. The chapter discusses a variety of
phenomena, from case stacking to paradigms, stem space, and floating affixes, in a num
ber of typologically diverse languages. Both theories are fully formalized and imple
mentable in computational models.
In Chapter 12, Gaeta sketches Natural Morphology, a framework that strives to explain
why morphological systems are the way they are and develop in the way they do. At the
heart of the theory lies the notion of ‘naturalness’, understood as “cognitively simple, eas
ily accessible (esp. to children), elementary and therefore universally preferred” (Dressler
2005: 267). Naturalness manifests itself in preferences rather than laws. Such prefer
ences can be in conflict with each other and with other preferences—both typological and
system-specific—resulting in cross-linguistic diversity. The chapter introduces the natu
ralness parameters (i) diagrammaticity (transparency); (ii) biuniqueness (uniform cod
ing); (iii) indexicality (proximity); (iv) binarity; and (v) optimal word shape and exempli
fies how they bear on productivity, paradigm structure, and language change.
Chapters 13–15 form a loose cluster of allied models of the Word-and-Paradigm type. The
general outlook is described succinctly in the contribution by Blevins, Ackerman, and
Malouf, Chapter 13. A major cornerstone is the focus on paradigmatic relations among
words, which other models tend to neglect in favour of word-internal syntagmatics. Para
digmatic relations can take the form of inflectional paradigms or classes, but they are im
plicated whenever a word, or a cluster of words, is predictive of another. The Word-and-
Paradigm (perhaps better called Item-and-Pattern) approach involves a broadly inclusive
view on the size and granularity of morphosyntactic items, as it is “defined less by the
units it recognizes than by the relations it establishes between units” (§13.3). That said,
the word might be a privileged unit, both in its stability of form and function and the map
ping between them, and in the degree to which it predicts other words. Formalizations of
Word-and-Paradigm models use the mathematics of information theory to calculate the
Page 12 of 19
date: 14 July 2020

entropy of a given paradigm cell and the reduction of uncertainty effected by another cell
or cluster of cells. The chapter closes with the unique perspective on learnability and
cross-linguistic variation invited by the information-theoretic perspective.
In Chapter 14, Stump presents his influential Paradigm Function Morphology, an inferen
tial-realizational theory, which means that it rejects the listing of morphemes and the ac
cumulation of properties by stringing morphemes together. Instead, the model assumes a
Paradigm Function that operates on stems and cells of inflectional paradigms to induce
the realization of each cell, that is, the phonological form of the fully inflected word. The
model employs an explicit and rigorous formalism based on property sets and functions.
The chapter lays out an earlier and a later variant of the theory and illustrates the basic
functions. As the theory emphasizes its inclusive coverage, the second half of the chapter
is devoted to non-canonical inflectional morphology, as manifested in defectiveness, syn
cretism, inflection classes, and deponency. The chapter closes with a brief look at deriva
tion and the various interfaces between morphology and other domains.
Network Morphology, outlined by Brown in Chapter 15, has much in common with
(p. 12)
PFM—centrally the inferential-realizational orientation—but differs in its architecture. As

its name suggests, the model assumes an inheritance network containing lexemes and
generalizations over their properties. Its aim is to model inflectional systems by develop
ing the most parsimonious network that contains all information necessary for inferring
the correct form for each inflected word. This means determining the right level for every
generalization (e.g. about patterns of syncretism or stem allomorphy) and ordering prop
erties such as number or case in such a way that queries about a particular inflected form
are guided to the place in the network where the answer is encoded. The model is formal
ized and computationally implemented with the help of the DATR notation (Evans and
Gazdar 1996). The chapter explains central notions such as default inheritance, under
specification, and generalized referral and shows the application of the model in a num
ber of case studies, including a diachronic case.
Word Grammar, discussed by Gisborne in Chapter 16, shares many traits of realizational
models like PFM and is network-based like Network Morphology, but differs radically in
the entities it models. In line with the cognitive orientation of the theory, nodes in a Word
Grammar network encode linguistic knowledge directly and declaratively, requiring no
procedures or algorithms. The network encodes three types of information: linguistic
structure of various kinds (the nodes), the relations between nodes, and certain attributes
that specify the relations (e.g. realization, base, variant, or part). Inflected and derived
forms are represented in full. Morphemic structure is encoded indirectly via relations be
tween forms that share parts. Generalizations, including those normally expressed as fea
tures, are captured by means of default inheritance. The chapter also discusses the differ
ence between inflection and derivation, the interfaces between morphology and the lexi
con and morphology and syntax, and comments on phenomena like productivity and syn
cretism.
Page 13 of 19
date: 14 July 2020

Word Grammar forms a bridge to the more cognitively oriented models in Chapters 17–19.
The first and most venerable is Cognitive Grammar by Langacker (Chapter 17). Includ
ing this theory in the volume might seem surprising, as it only recognizes two types of
structure—semantic and phonological—and excludes morphological structure. Yet, the
model allows for the expression of morphological units and patterns, both in individual
words and as generalized constructional schemas. The perspective is explicitly usage-
based: any unit of structure is abstracted from production or perception events and en
trenched through recurrent use. Larger structures appear as composites if their parts
correspond to (parts of) other structures. Stems can be distinguished from affixes in that
affixes are dependent items that need other structures to be manifested. However,
analysability of complex items is a matter of degree and can change over time. The theory
provides a unified account of language structure, within which morphology is not highly
differentiated, but seamlessly integrated.
Construction Morphology (Masini and Audring, Chapter 18) is the morphological theo
ry within the framework of Construction Grammar. It shares a number of properties with
Cognitive Grammar, especially its usage-basedness and the notion of constructional
schemas. However, it assumes morphological structure as an independent layer of infor
mation. The central unit of analysis is the construction, intended as a sign, a form–mean
ing pairing. Constructions can be fully specified, in which case they correspond to words,
or (p. 13) they can be partly or fully schematic. Schematic or semi-schematic construc
tions are the counterpart of rules in more procedural models, since they serve as tem
plates for the creation of new words. All constructions are situated in a network which
combines the lexicon and the grammar into a continuous and highly structured environ
ment. As the same basic architecture is assumed for morphological and syntactic con
structions, the model has a specific affinity with in-between phenomena such as multi-
word units.
The newest theory in the volume is Relational Morphology (Jackendoff and Audring,
Chapter 19), an account of morphology set in the framework of the Parallel Architecture
(Jackendoff 2002). The model is a sister theory of Construction Morphology, but differs by
virtue of its radical focus on lexical relations, its inclusion of non-symbolic structures, and
its formalism. Special theoretical attention is paid to unproductive patterns, which are re
garded as more basic: productive patterns are patterns ‘gone viral’. Like all construction-
based theories, but more explicitly so, the model is a theory both of morphology and of
the rich internal structure of the lexicon. Moreover, it aspires to a graceful integration of
morphology within a general and cognitively plausible model of language, and of lan
guage within other areas of cognition.
The survey of theories concludes with Canonical Typology (Bond, Chapter 20), which is
special in not being a theory in the usual sense, but providing a methodological frame
work for a typologically informed understanding of linguistic phenomena and a better
comparability of theoretical terms and concepts. Most of the work in Canonical Typology
is on morphology and morphosyntax, especially inflection, with the closest ties to inferen
tial-realizational models like PFM (Chapter 14). The method consists in the identification
Page 14 of 19
date: 14 July 2020

of a canonical core for a phenomenon and the possibility space of less canonical variants
around it. Both the core and the possibility space are defined logically; establishing the
actual population of the space by real-life examples is an independent, later step. The
chapter outlines the method in detail and provides a wealth of references on the canoni
cal approach as applied to a wide variety of phenomena.
1.3.3 Part III: Morphological theory and other fields
Part III of the volume is devoted to the interdisciplinary dimension. It presents observa
tions and insights from other linguistic fields relevant for morphological theory, namely
language typology (including creole languages), dialectal and sociolectal variation, di
achrony, first and second language acquisition, psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics, com
putational linguistics, and sign languages. The chapters in this part do not discuss what
the different theories of morphology have to say about the various fields (this should
emerge—where relevant—from Part II), but illustrate how each field informs and chal
lenges morphological theory.
Chapter 21 by Arkadiev and Klamer on morphological theory and language typology

discusses the challenges that languages around the world pose for common theoretical
concepts and terminology. This is especially true for morphology, since it is the domain
where languages differ most, which stands in the way of cross-linguistic generalizations.
Richly illustrated with examples and supported by a wealth of references, the chapter
shows the difficulties associated with the notion of the word, the distinction between in
flection and (p. 14) derivation, the deviations from biuniqueness in form–meaning map
ping, the ordering of affixes, and various paradigmatic phenomena such as inflectional
classes and morphomic allomorphy in stems and affixes. The authors conclude by arguing
for greater collaborative efforts among typologists, theoreticians, and descriptive lin
guists in order to arrive at theoretically informed descriptions, dictionaries, and corpora,
on the one hand, and typologically informed theories, on the other.
In Chapter 22, Luís carries on the typological theme with a survey of the morphology in
creole languages. Creoles are often neglected in theoretical morphology, as their morpho
logical systems are said to be poorly developed. The chapter refutes this assumption,
showing the interesting diversity of morphological, especially derivational, patterns found
in creole languages. These include affixes from both the superstrate and the substrate
language, as well as novel morphological formatives, which gives interesting insights into
the genesis of affixal morphology. While inflectional systems in creoles are indeed often
simpler, languages do show complexities such as portmanteau morphemes, extended ex
ponence, syncretism, allomorphy (including morphomic stem allomorphy), and inflection
al classes. The chapter demonstrates that creole morphology is as interesting to analyse
formally and discuss theoretically as is the morphology of non-creole languages.
The issue of diachronic change, pertinent to the creole languages discussed in Chapter
22, is addressed more broadly in Chapter 23 by Hüning. The chapter focuses on word-
formation and discusses three major types of change: (a) the rise of new word-formation
Page 15 of 19
date: 14 July 2020

patterns by way of reanalysis, for example ‘affix telescoping’ or resegmentation; (b) the
development of new affixes from lexical words through grammaticalization; and (c) the in
crease or decrease of productivity. Productivity proves especially problematic, being hard
to establish synchronically, but even harder to assess diachronically. A general problem is
the gradience that the ever-changing nature of language imposes on all entities, proper
ties, and behaviour, making them difficult to capture in fixed theoretical categories and
terms. The chapter closes with a plea for interdisciplinary, data-driven research, and a us
age-based approach that is better suited to the emergent nature of language.
Variation from a synchronic perspective—with some additional discussion of pathways of

change to complement Chapter 23—is addressed by Ralli in Chapter 24. The chapter
identifies certain recurrent types of morphological variation in inflection, derivation, and
compounding, with illustrative analyses of modern Greek dialect data. For inflection, pat
terns of special interest are overabundance, heteroclisis, and allomorphic variation in
paradigms. In derivation, we find affix synonymy and affix competition. In the realm of
compounding, the Greek data show puzzling doublets of left-headed (and exocentric) and
right-headed (and endocentric) compounds with the same meaning. For all three domains
of morphology the chapter stresses the importance of language contact as a trigger of
variation and change, and as an explanatory factor in view of the often surprising varia
tional patterns.
The volume continues with four loosely connected chapters on morphological theory and
first and second language acquisition, psycholinguistics, and neurolinguistics. All four
chapters share a common fundamental theme: the division of labour between storage and
computation in complex words.
In Chapter 25, Blom outlines how data from first language acquisition can inform mor
phological theory. A central topic is the ‘past tense debate’ inquiring whether irregularly
and regularly inflected English verbs are treated differently in processing, with full-form
(p. 15) lookup for the former and computation from their parts for the latter.2 While the
evidence is not conclusive, analyses of child language indicate a gradual acquisition curve
with frequency effects both in acquisition order and in overgeneralization patterns, which
suggests that lexical storage also matters for regularly inflected words. Results from lan
guage development in children with Specific Language Impairment or Williams syn
drome, by contrast, do support a difference between the regular and irregular words. To
date, the past tense debate remains unresolved. Deeper understanding can only be ex
pected if individual and cross-linguistic variation is considered, as well as the interplay of
morphology, phonology, and syntax and wider cognitive factors.
Archibald and Libben in Chapter 26 move the spotlight of attention to morphological

theory and second language acquisition. The issues in this field are partly the same as in
first language acquisition. What do error patterns tell us about linguistic knowledge?
Which deficits are betrayed by a particular error? What makes certain structures difficult
to acquire? Additional questions in second language acquisition concern the influence of
the L1, the typical cognitive strategies of adult learners, and the representation of the
Page 16 of 19
date: 14 July 2020

bilingual lexicon and grammar in the brain. An important insight, also mentioned in Chap
ter 25, is that morphological errors need not represent morphological deficits. Instead,
they may be caused by incorrect mappings of morphological knowledge to other aspects
of linguistic competence, for example phonology. The chapter also problematizes the
question of what constitutes morphological ability and presses the point that morphologi
cal knowledge cannot be investigated in isolation from other kinds of knowledge. In addi
tion, scientific results are highly task- and methodology-dependent and may differ
markedly for production and comprehension.
Chapter 27 by Gagné and Spalding broadens the view from language acquisition to psy
cholinguistics in general, focusing on the key question for morphology: the representa
tion and processing of complex words in the mental lexicon. The central debate is
whether complex words are stored in full or computed from their parts, or indeed both—
in succession or in parallel. The chapter reviews a wide variety of psycholinguistic re
search from different experimental paradigms and concludes that there is strong overall
evidence for the involvement of sub-word units in the processing of multi-morphemic
words. However, the effects differ depending on frequency, on semantic transparency,
and on whether the complex word is inflected, derived, or a compound. Sub-word units
may have a facilitatory or inhibitory effect depending, again, on frequency and on the
time window in the processing event. The chapter closes with an agenda for future work,
emphasizing the need for a closer integration of experimental and theoretical morpholo
gy.
The fourth chapter in the cluster, Chapter 28, is Schiller and Verdonschot’s contribu
tion on morphological theory and neurolinguistics. Neurolinguistics differs from psy
cholinguistics primarily in its methods: most of the evidence cited in the chapter comes
from brain imaging (p. 16) studies using ERP or fMRI. Again, the main issue is the role of
sub-word structure in the processing of complex words. The chapter provides a broad and
detailed overview of recent research on language comprehension, that is, parsing, and
language production, the less-studied perspective. Evidence from healthy speakers is dis
cussed as well as studies on individuals with aphasia or other language disorders. The
chapter presents a variety of experimental paradigms, from priming and grammatical vio
lation experiments to lexical decision tasks and picture naming. Drawing especially on
compound processing, the chapter argues for an important role of morphemic con
stituents, indicating morphological decomposition in both comprehension and production.
The volume continues with Pirrelli (Chapter 29) on morphological theory, computational
linguistics, and word processing. The chapter reviews computational models of language
processing such as finite state automata and finite state transducers, hierarchical lexica,
artificial neural networks, and dynamic memories. Illustrations are given with the help of
Italian verbal paradigms. A substantial part of the chapter is devoted to machine learn
ing, both supervised and unsupervised. Each section concludes with a critical assessment
of theoretical issues, pointing out ties to individual theoretical frameworks or to problem
areas such as the interplay of storage and computation, the nature of representations, the
encoding of general versus specific information, and notions such as entropy and econo
Page 17 of 19
date: 14 July 2020

my. The chapter argues for an inclusive modelling of lexical and grammatical knowledge
and highlights the mutual interdependence of word structure and word processing.
The final Chapter 30 by Napoli broadens the view from spoken language to sign lan
guage. The particular affordances and restrictions of sign languages pose considerable
challenges to morphological theory. For example, signs can be uttered in parallel, adding
a vertical structural dimension not found in speech. Moreover, sign phonology, in particu
lar non-manual parameters, can be meaningful, which obscures the boundary between
phonology and morphology. Other special properties can be attributed to the relative
youth of sign languages, which limits the amount of grammaticalized morphology. Estab
lished theoretical notions are often hard to apply to sign, for example in identifying roots
and affixes or distinguishing lexical categories. Compounding and affixation are notori
ously hard to tell apart. On the other hand, there are morphological entities unique to
sign, such as ion morphs: partially complete morphemes that need to be accompanied by
a particular phonological parameter to yield a full lexical meaning. The chapter offers a
broad overview of the issues and a wealth of references.
1.4 Conclusion
In conclusion, we hope that this handbook will serve as a guide through the jungle of the
ories in today’s linguistic morphology, and the phenomena they seek to account for. At the
same time, we intend the volume to be helpful in fostering the dialogue among sub-disci
plines that is much needed for a graceful integration of linguistic thinking. We hope that
the book will be inspiring and useful to graduate students in linguistics as well as to
scholars of various disciplines, from morphologists wishing to acquaint themselves with
neighbouring or competing models to specialists from other subfields of linguistics.
Notes:
(1) Note that the term ‘morphosyntax’ is used differently here than it is used in the typo
logical literature, where it denotes morphological structure relevant to syntax (e.g. in
agreement).
(2) The terms ‘single route’ and ‘dual route’ are used in this connection; these terms also
appear in Chapters 27 and 28. However, the reader should be aware that they are not al
ways used in the same sense. Dual route is often associated with different processing
mechanisms for different types of word (e.g. in Blom, Chapter 25, and Schiller and Ver
donschot, Chapter 28). However, the term can also mean different processing strategies
for the same type of word (e.g. in Gagné and Spalding, Chapter 27). Evidence in favour of
parallel lookup and computation for various types of complex word would support a dual
route theory in the latter sense, but not in the former.
Jenny Audring
Page 18 of 19
date: 14 July 2020

Jenny Audring is Lecturer at Leiden University, the Netherlands. She has worked on
Germanic morphology and morphosyntax, from a typological perspective.
Francesca Masini
Francesca Masini is Assistant Professor of General Linguistics at the University of

Bologna, Italy. Her research interests include morphology and the lexicon, semantics
and constructionist approaches to language.
Page 19 of 19
date: 14 July 2020

1.1 Welcome: Introduction: Theory and Theories in Morphology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.1 Welcome: Introduction: Theory and Theories in Morphology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction: Theory and Theories in Morphology

Introduction: Theory and Theories in Morphology

Abstract and Keywords

Keywords: morphological theory, morphology, history of linguistics, morphosyntax, morphophonology, lexicalism,

date: 14 July 2020

1.1.1 About the volume

1.2 Morphological theories

date: 14 July 2020

1.2.1 What is the goal of morphology theory?

1.2.2 Where is morphology?

• What properties are unique to morphology?

date: 14 July 2020

Figure 1.1. Types of linguistic structure and the

Many controversies in morphological theory follow from explicit or implicit disagree­

Additional complications arise from the various conceptions of morphological processes.

1.2.3 Basic units and processes

date: 14 July 2020

(p. 5) 1.2.4 Morphology and syntax

date: 14 July 2020

containing phrases, as in do-it-yourselfer (the No Phrase Constraint is discussed in Mon­

1.2.5 Morphology and semantics

The issue is pertinent to the divide between word-basedness and morpheme-basedness.

Violations of biuniqueness come in many guises. Well-studied phenomena are polysemy,

(p. 6) 1.2.6 Morphology and phonology

date: 14 July 2020

The most-researched interface phenomenon between morphology and phonology, howev­

1.2.7 Morphology and the lexicon

date: 14 July 2020

1.2.8 Taxonomies of theories

In the linguistic literature we find various attempts to classify morphological theories.

• morpheme-based vs. word-/lexeme-based

date: 14 July 2020

1.3 The structure of the handbook

In Chapter 4, Stump discusses theoretical issues in inflection. He singles out a number of

date: 14 July 2020

1.3.2 Part II: Morphological theories

Stewart (Chapter 5) identifies Structuralism as a formative period in the history of lin­

date: 14 July 2020

The history of Generative Grammar is continued by Montermini with Chapter 7 on the

Distributed Morphology (Siddiqi, Chapter 8) represents a countermovement to the Lexi­

Another theory that is actually a family of syntactic models is Minimalism. Fábregas

date: 14 July 2020

of constraints—faithfulness, markedness, and alignment—to determine the optimal form

date: 14 July 2020

PFM—centrally the inferential-realizational orientation—but differs in its architecture. As

date: 14 July 2020

date: 14 July 2020

1.3.3 Part III: Morphological theory and other fields

Chapter 21 by Arkadiev and Klamer on morphological theory and language typology

date: 14 July 2020

Variation from a synchronic perspective—with some additional discussion of pathways of

Archibald and Libben in Chapter 26 move the spotlight of attention to morphological

date: 14 July 2020

date: 14 July 2020

date: 14 July 2020

Francesca Masini is Assistant Professor of General Linguistics at the University of

date: 14 July 2020

You might also like

Many controversies in morphological theory follow from explicit or implicit disagree

containing phrases, as in do-it-yourselfer (the No Phrase Constraint is discussed in Mon

The most-researched interface phenomenon between morphology and phonology, howev

Stewart (Chapter 5) identifies Structuralism as a formative period in the history of lin

Distributed Morphology (Siddiqi, Chapter 8) represents a countermovement to the Lexi