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

(Distributed Morphology)
(49) a. Syntactic: [X° [YP [ZP Z°] Y° → [tX° [YP [ZP Z°] Y°+X°
Example: The fire tT [vP quickly [vP diev+V+-dT]]
b. Postsyntactic: [X'ˆ[Z'ˆY'] → [tˆ[[Z'ˆX']ˆY']]
Example: [[bonīˆpuerī]ˆ[tqueˆ[bonaeˆqueˆpuellae]] (Latin)
good boys good and girls
(examples of Merger; ˆ is linear adjacency)
In Distributed Morphology then, the sharing of a computational system by
syntax and morphology leaves intact the strong modular signature of morphology:
its syntactic and interpretive inertness, its distinct information types, and the consequent
distinctive character of its applications of the shared mechanisms. The
shared computation leads to a more austere conceptualization of the systems of realization,
closer to the 'bare output conditions' of the unitary, interpretive PF of
Chomsky (1995: 4.1, 2001a: 3.1). The computational system of morphology is
part of the syntactic computation, and there are no operations or filters distinct
from those of syntax. Only the information type changes mid-stream, giving the
remainder of the computation a distinctive modular signature. Morphological operations
such as the fission, transfer, or deletion of features are consequences either
of the Vocabulary Insertion interface operation itself, or of the syntactic computation
applying to the arbitrary morphophonological properties of lexical items,
which are part of bare output conditions. The end-point is morphophonological
representations that serve as input to phonology or phonetics. Bonet's (1991, 1995)
morphology is a computational component wholly distinct from syntax, transforming
syntactic structures in a unique way. Most work on morphology belongs with
it, some going farther in the distinctiveness of the computation (Aronoff 1994),
some in its generative autonomy from syntax (Ackema and Neeleman 2005,
2007). The same issues arise on the interpretive side. 12
All the above-cited models of morphology allow it to manipulate certain syntactic
features, including phi-features, often in ways that can be thought of as displacement,
insertion, and deletion, broadly resembling syntactic mechanisms. 13
Modularity would be strengthened if a given feature-type and mechanism-type
were restricted to a single module (cf. Ackema and Neeleman 2007: 327f. citing
Starke 2002; Julien 2002: chapter 6). This guideline cannot be pressed too far. The
12 This sketch of Distributed Morphology omits essential architectural issues: whether post-LF
operations like 'dissociated' morpheme insertion and fission belong to Vocabulary Insertion in a
uniform computational system, or become available at a certain point and so partition the computation
(cf. Noyer 1992, Halle 1997, Williams 2007); whether there is a space between transfer to
LF and Vocabulary Insertion for uninterpreted phrasal syntax (Sauerland and Elbourne 2000,
Zubizarretta 1998: 3.5.2-3); whether Vocabulary Insertion cyclically replaces syntactic information
or only 'discharges' it (Bobaljik 2000, Embick and Noyer 2007).
13 More properly, morphology manipulates its translations of syntactic features. They are 'syntactic'
in the sense that the translation regularly relates elements of the syntactic alphabet to the
morphological one (a homomorphism). This is not so for the syntax-phonology translation, although
phonology too may be seen as having syntax-like mechanisms (Chomsky 2000a: 147
note 79, Frampton 2004). On phi-alphabets, see further chapter 6.
33