Morphology

(Term Paper)
On

Interface between syntax

and morphology

Krishan Chaursiya
(MA Linguistics, 1st year)

We have known in general that morphology is concerned with ways in which words
are formed in the languages of the world. Syntax, in contrast, is concerned with
identifying the rules that allows us to combine words into phrases and phrases into
sentences. Morphology and syntax, then, are generally concerned with different
levels of linguistic organization. Nevertheless, there are many ways in which
morphology and syntax interact.
Inflectional morphology is defined as morphology that carries grammatical
meaning; as such it is relevant to syntactic processes. Case-marking, for example,
serves to identify the syntactic function of an NP in a sentence. Inflectional markers
like tense-and aspect-affixes identify clauses of certain types, for example, finite or
infinitive, conditional or subjunctive. Person and number markers often figure in
agreement between adjectives and the nouns they modify, or between verbs and
their subjects or objects. In some sense, inflection can be viewed as part of the glue
that holds sentences together.
Argument structure interface:
It is important to know about valency beforehand instead of directly going to define
the argument structure. Valency of a verb as the number of arguments it takes.
Arguments, in turn, are defined as those phrases that are semantically necessary
for a verb. The arguments of a verb are often, but not always, obligatory. For
example, the verb eat must have a subject, and it can have an object, but the
object is not necessary.
a. My goat eats apples.
b. My goat eats.
Here, it is optional we still consider the object apples to be an argument of the verb
because the verb eat implies something eaten, even if that something is not overtly
stated.
Valency-changing morphology alters the number of arguments that occur with a
verb, either adding or subtracting an argument, making an intransitive verb
transitive or a transitive verb intransitive, for example. English has some
morphology that changes argument structure, but other languages have far more
morphology of this sort.

1. Passive and anti-passive:

The most obvious example of valency-changing morphology in English is the
passive voice. Example (3) shows a pair of active and passive sentences in English:
a Meena ate an apple

b. An apple was eaten by Meena.

In the active sentence, the verb has two arguments, its agent (the one who does
the action) and the patient or theme (what gets affected or moved by the action);
the agent functions as the subject of the action, and the patient as the object. In the
passive sentence, an agent is unnecessary. If, it occurs, it appears in a prepositional
phrase with the preposition by. The patient is the subject of the passive sentence. In
effect there is no longer any object, and the passive form of the verb therefore has
one fewer argument than the active form.
Part of what signals the passive voice in English is passive morphology on the verb.
Other languages also have morphological means to signal the change in argument
structure in passive sentences. Passive sentences are relatively familiar to speakers
of English, but English has nothing like what is called the anti-passive. Like the
passive, the anti-passive takes a transitive verb and makes it intransitive by
reducing the number of its arguments. What's different, though, is which argument
gets eliminated. For the passive, its the transitive subject that disappears, whereas
for the anti-passive, it's the transitive object that disappears, as the example shows:

Yidin :
buga-:di yigu bupa this.ABSOLUTIvE woman.ABSOLUTIVE eat-ANTIPAssivE 'This
woman is eating.'
In Yidin, the anti-passive is marked on the verb by adding the suffix. Since Yidin is
an ergative case-marking language, the subject of a transitive verb is in the
ergative case. The subject of an intransitive verb is in the absolutive case. So while
'eat' is normally transitive in Yidin, you can see that it has become intransitive here.

2. Causative and applicative:

Passive and anti-passive morphology signal a reduction in the number of arguments
that a verb has. There are other sorts of morphology that signal that arguments
have been added to a verb. Causatives signal the addition of a new subject
argument, which semantically is the causer of the action. If the verb has only one
argument to begin with, the causative- sentence has two, and if it has two, to begin
with, the causative sentence has three arguments.
Eg:
Swahili sentences:
Vitale (1981: 158)

a. maji ya-m e-cl-Lemka, water it-PER-boil `The water boiled' .

b. Badru a-li-chem-sh-a tnaji Badru lie-PST-boil-CAUSE water `Badru boiled the
water' (literal: caused thewater to boil)

3. Noun incorporation:
It is one more way in which morphology interacts with the argument structure of
verbs. Consider the data given of Mapudungun Language:
Baker and Fasola (2009: 595)
a. Ni chao kintu-le-y to chi pu waka my father seek-PROG-IND.3SG.SBJ the cOLL cow
'My father is looking for the cows'
b. Ni chao kintu-waka-le-y. my father seek- cow-PROG-IND.3SG.SBJ 'My father is
looking for the cows'
Sentences a and b mean precisely the same thing in Mapudungun. In (a), the direct
object 'cow is an independent noun phrase in the sentence, but in (b), it forms a
single compound-like word with the verb root 'seek'. This sort of structure where the
object or another argument of the verb forms a single complex word with the verb is
called noun incorporation. Noun incorporation tends to occur in languages with
polysynthetic morphology.

Other interfaces:
As we saw in the last section, one point of tangency between morphology and
syntax occurs where morphology has an effect on the argument structure of verbs.
There, it was clear that affixes - clearly morphological elements can reduce or
increase the number of arguments that a verb takes - clearly a matter of syntax.
Lets look into some cases where it is not so clear whether they belongs to
morphology.
1. Clitics:
One of these obscure cases is something that linguists call a clitic. Clitics are small
grammatical elements that cannot occur independently and therefore cannot really
be called free morphemes. But they are not exactly like affixes either. In terms of
their phonology, they do not bear stress, and they form a single phonological word
with a neighboring word, which we will call the host of the clitic. However, they are
not as closely bound to their host as inflectional affixes are; frequently they are not
very selective about the category of their hosts. Those clitics that come before their
hosts are called proclitics, those that come after their hosts enclitics.

Simple clitics are unaccented variants of free morphemes, which may be

phonologically reduced and subordinated to a neighboring word. In terms of their
syntax, though, they appear in the same position as one that can be occupied by
the corresponding free word. In English, forms like the given examples are simple
clitics:
a. I'll take the pastrami, please.
b. I'd like the pastrami, please.
In these sentences, -ll and -d are contracted forms of the auxiliaries will and would,
and they occur just where the independent words would occur following the subject
I and before the main verb. Like affixes, they are pronounced as part of the
preceding word. Unlike affixes, they do not select a specific category of base and
change its category or add grammatical information to it. Contracted forms like -ii or
-d in English will attach to any sort of word that precedes them, regardless of
category.
2. Phrasal verbs and verbs with separable affixes:
Also inhabiting the borderland between morphology and syntax are phrasal verbs in
English and verbs with separable prefixes in German and Dutch. Phrasal verbs are
verbs like those in given exapmles that consist of a verb and a preposition or
particle:
English:
call up: 'telephone'
chew out: 'scold'
put down: 'insult'
Frequently, phrasal verbs have idiomatic meanings, as the examples show, and in
that sense they are like words. In terms of structure, the combination of verb and
particle/preposition might seem like another sort of compound in English.
Remember, however, that one of the criteria for distinguishing a compound from a
phrase in English was that the two elements making up compounds could not be
separated from one another. We cannot take a compound like dog bed and insert a
word to modify bed (for example, dogs comfortable bed). In contrast, however, two
parts of the phrasal verb can be, and sometimes must be, separated:
Eg:
a. I called up a.friend.
b. I called a friend up..

c. I called her up.

When the object of the verb is a full noun phrase, the particle can precede or follow
it. In the former case it is adjacent to its verb, but in the latter Case it is -separated
from the verb. And when the object is a pronoun, the particle must be separated
from the verb.
3. Phrasal compounds:
Our final example of a phenomenon that is neither clearly syntactic nor
morphological is called a phrasal compound. A phrasal compound is a-word that is
made up of phrase as its first element, anda non as its second element. Phrasal
compounds can be found in many Germanic Languages, such as English, Dutch and
German.
Lets take some English examples
Eg:
Stuff-blowing-up effects
Bikini-girls-in-trouble genre
These phrasal compounds pass one of the acid tests for compounding: impossibility
to insert a modifying word in-between the phrase and the head of the compound.
We have at length investigated the relationship between morphology and syntax.
We have seen that there are ways in which morphology affects the syntax of
sentences, by either reducing or increasing the number of arguments a verb may
appear with. Also looked at cases where it is not entirely clear whether a
phenomenon is a matter of morphology or of syntax or of both. Among these
phenomena, we find clitics, phrasal verbs, separable prefix verbs and phrasal
compounds. What such phenomena really show us is that morphology and syntax
are often intimately intertwined, and often morphologists must investigate both
levels of syntactic organization to really understand how a language works.