Phi-features and the Modular Architecture of - UMR 7023 - CNRS

Syntax: syntactic but not properly phonological or morphological information
types (vowel height, declension class, …).
Phonology, Morphology: (a mapping of) syntactic information, and
properly phonological, morpho(phono)logical information.
c. Computation: partly distinctive mechanisms/principles
Syntax: e.g. phrase-structurally unbounded domains, c-command, etc.
Phonology, Morphology: e.g. bounded domains, adjacency, etc.
Chapter 1 has mentioned a variety of ways in which modularity might be implemented.
Among them are weaker models then the Fodorian one, and some will
come to the fore in examining the relationship of syntax and realizational morphology.
The strength of a modular signature depends on the uniqueness of
mechanisms and information types across modules, and the constraints on their interaction.
In Distributed Morphology syntax and morphology share a single computational
system. However, there is a strict segregation of information types, and
a strictly one-way syntax-to-morphology/phonology information flow, and thus a
strong modular signature (see below; cf. Ackema and Neeleman 2007 for another
modular way to share mechanisms). Lexicalist early insertion models posit distinct
computational systems but give syntax an often restricted access to the morphological
and phonological content of terminals. Provisions may be made for limited
feedback from the output of a module to its input, for instance to syntax about its
prosodic well-formedness. Each of these views and others may maintain a strong
modular signature, weaken it, or eliminate it.
In investigating the modular relationship between realizational morphology and
syntax, phonology makes for a good guide. The autonomy of syntax from phonology
in (42) is among the most robust and widely accepted aspects of the modular
architecture of language (Zwicky 1969, 1992, Zwicky and Pullum 1983, 1986,
Pullum and Zwicky 1986, 1988, Miller, Pullum and Zwicky 1997).
(42) Phonology-free syntax: Syntax and its interpretation are autonomous of phonological
properties and operations.
By this thesis, movement, selection, binding, scope, ought pay no attention to
the differences between words that begin with /w/ and those that do not, monosyllables
and polysyllables, overt and null constituents. Counterexamples have been
presented, some refuted as in the literature cited (Miller, Pullum and Zwicky
1997), some under debate, particularly the PF-LF interaction in information packaging
(topic and focus, Reinhart 2006, Zubizarretta 1998, Szendrői 2004, 2005,
Irurtzun 2007; Heavy NP Shift, Inkelas and Zec 1990, Jackendoff 2002: 121f.,
Phillips and Lau 2004, Williams 2003: 34, Bobaljik and Wurmbrand 2008). Yet
29