Definite Markers, Phi Features and Agreement - Georgetown ...

2005, Embick and Noyer 2007, Embick and Marantz 2008). 7 For example, a verb like hammerconsists of a root √HAMMER that could theoretically be either a noun or a verb, and a functionalhead v that ‘verbalizes’ it.g(15) vP Category Neutrality: Verbal3v √P√HAMMERThis also goes for nouns, which consist of a root and the nominalizing functional head n.g(16) nP Category Neutrality: Nominal3n √P√HAMMER(16) results in the nominal hammer ‘a tool for pounding nails’ whereas (15) results in the verbhammer ‘to pound (something)’.The empirical motivation for this decomposition of words into roots and x heads is thetraditional distinction between lexical and syntactic word formation. Word formation in thelexicon is more prone to phonological and semantic irregularities (e.g., special phonologicalprocesses, idiomatic meanings), whereas syntactic word formation is morphophonologicallyregular and has semantically predictable meaning. However, in Distributed Morphology, there isno lexicon or lexical processes, so the contrast must be captured in a different way. Marantz7 Although it should be noted that the idea was not entirely new (see e.g., van Riemsdijk 1990 on n), nor doonly Distributed Morphologists subscribe to it (see e.g., Lowenstamm 2008). Cf. also Borer 2005 for asimilar approach, although Borer (2005:20-21) argues against the specific Distributed Morphology analysisadopted here.18