Autolexical Syntax A Theory of Noun Inco PDF

Autolexical Syntax: A Proposal for the Treatment of Noun Incorporation and Similar Phenomena
Author(s): Jerrold M. Sadock

Source: Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, Vol. 3, No. 4 (Nov., 1985), pp. 379-439
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4047608
Accessed: 12-05-2015 03:21 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Natural Language & Linguistic Theory.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Tue, 12 May 2015 03:21:39 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JERROLD M. SADOCK
AUTOLEXICAL SYNTAX: A PROPOSAL FOR

THE TREATMENT OF NOUN INCORPORATION
AND SIMILAR PHENOMENA*
1. BACKGROUND
According to the standardpicture of the interface between syntax and

morphology, the words of well-formednatural-languageexpressionsare
attached to the leaves of the syntactic phrase structure trees. Further-
more, each word may be representedby a structuredtree whose leaves
representthe constituent morphemes,and each morphemeis a (presum-
ably structureless)list of segments. The representationof the structure
of the expression is thus a smoothly branching tree with the highest
syntactic category at the top, and individualsegments at the bottom, as
in diagram(1), where A-E representsyntacticcategories with D a lexical
category, a-d representsubwordconstituentswhere b, c and d are simple
morphemes,and SI-Sm are phonological segments.
(1) A
C D
b c
Sl .Sk Si... SISi ... sm
* I wish to thank the Spencer Foundationand the University of Chicago for financial
support that enabled me to spend a year at the Center for Advanced Studies in the
NaturalLanguageand LinguisticTheory3 (1985) 379-439. 0167-806X/85.10

? 1985 by D. Reidel PublishingCompany
380 JERROLD M. SADOCK
This set of assumptionsis ordinarilytaken as followingfrom an autonomy

hypothesis,according to which the subsystemsof grammar,in particular
the word-buildingand syntactic components, are independent - word-
formationrules and phrase-formationrules being unable to refer to one
another (Zwicky 1982).
There is an interesting irony in this conception of things. It makes
word structure a sort of fine-grained syntax. That is, it makes the
boundary between word structure and phrase structure seem arbitrary
since the whole tree has a uniformlyhierarchicalstructure.One might
just as well divide the two components somewherehigher up, say at the
one-bar level in the syntax, or somewhere furtherdown, say at the level
of the morphologywhere roots and derivationalaffixesoccur.1 The line
of demarcationmight be identifiableby noting a sharp division in the
formal nature of the principlesand units above and below it, but in the
abstract, the picture we see in (1) is not one of two completely
autonomous subsystems. I have argued (Sadock 1983) that the hier-
archical view of language structure is logically independent of the
autonomy hypothesis itself - that truly autonomous subsystems of
grammarshould not in general be expected to conform to the strictly
hierarchicalpicture of the standardmodel.
Recently the hierarchical theory of the connection between mor-
phological structure and segmental structure in phonology has been
called into question because of the artificialitythat adherence to such a
view produces in the description of languages with so-called noncon-
catenative morphology. The mapping of morphemes onto segments is
notably more intricate in some languages (the Semitic languages, for
example) than the simple view diagrammedin (1) allows for.
To handle the facts of nonconcatenative morphology, McCarthy
BehavioralSciences. Much of my knowledge of West Greenlandiccomes from research

supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Philipps Fund of the
AmericanPhilosophicalSociety, and the Divisionof the Humanities,Universityof Chicago
to all of whom I am also very grateful.
Numerousindividuals,includingno fewer than four reviewersof an earlierdraft of this
paper have had an influence on it. I would like to mention specificallythe following for
their help, advice, and encouragement,withoutsuggesting that any of them is responsible
for the failings of the text or theory: Avery Andrews,Thomas Bever, Greville Corbett,
David Dowty, Michael Fortescue, Donald Frantz,Gerald Gazdar,John Goldsmith,Jorge
Hankamer, Carolyn Jenkins, Steven Lapointe, Almerindo Ojeda, David Perlmutter,
GeoffreyPullum,John Richardson,Ivan Sag, Yoko Sugioka,and AnthonyWoodbury.
I This possibilityhas been vigorouslydenied by Selkirk(1982). While it is clear that there
are some formal differences between the two systems, the most importantones that she
mentionsdisappearwhen a nontransformational view of syntaxis adopted.
AUTOLEXICAL SYNTAX 381
(1981) exploited the 'autosegmental'model of phonology suggested in

Goldsmith(1976). In Goldsmith'stheory, phonological representationis
split into separate, simultaneous representationsand the phonology is
taken as including rules for associating the information represented
independentlyon each level. McCarthy'sinnovationwas the notion that
the morphologicalstructure and the segmental structure are also to be
represented independently and to be connected by rules other than
concatenation. In a similar vein, Aronoff and Sridhar (1983) have
suggested that the connection between the hierarchicalstructure given
by the morphologyand that given by phonological segmentation is not
strict - that, in other words, two quite separate representationsof word
structureare required.
Notice that in a real sense these suggestions make morphology and
phonology more clearly autonomous,since there is no longer a biunique
connection between items in the one representationand those in the
other. Here I would like to suggest a view of the syntax-morphology
boundary that: is quite analogous to the departure from strict hier-
archicality that the work of McCarthy, and of Aronoff and Sridhar
represents for the morphology-phonology interface. I would like to
suggest that representationsin terms of word-structureand represen-
tations in terms of phrase-structureare highly autonomous, and not in
general uniformlyhierarchical;that there are, in other words, languages
with what we might call nonconcatenative lexicalization, for which a
theory of autolexicalsyntax2naturallysuggests itself.
Of course there are language types in which the classical view of the
relationbetween morphologyand syntaxis clearlycorrect. There are, for
example, languages of an isolating character, like Thai or Classical
Chinese, in which words are generally monomorphemic.If every maxi-
mal unit of the morphologyof some lan-guageis simultaneouslya minimal
unit of the syntax, then the language conforms to the orthodox, hier-
archicalview of the relation between words and phrases. In an isolating
language, e:verylexeme is a syntactic atom and, since the morphological
component is:;nonexistent, every lexeme is necessarily also a maximal
morphologicalunit. Thus isolating languages lacking nonconcatenative
2 David Perlmutternotes that this name is inappropriatein at least two ways. First, it
suggeststhat thisis a theoryof syntax,which it is not, andsecondly,it suggests that there is
somethinglexical - in the sense of listing - about the theory, which there isn't. While I
agree with both of these nomenclaturalcomplaints,the title of this paper is by now well
enough dispersedand has become so familiarto me that I will retainit, thus following the
venerablepracticein linguisticsof misnamingtheories.
phonology are strictly, but trivially, in conformity with the picture

suggested in (1).
But there are many languages with some significantmorphologyand,
significantly, some with a great deal of morphology. Maintaining the
standardview of the morphology-syntaxrelationshipin the descriptionof
languages with important word-buildingsystems can sometimes strain
credibility.When one reaches the most morphologicallyrich languages,
those of the type often called polysynthetic,one encounters phenomena
such as noun incorporationthat seem to cry out for another view.
2. BASIC PRINCIPLES OF AUTOLEXICAL SYNTAX
Though I am mainly concerned with noun incorporationhere and will

speak only peripherallyabout other features of linguisticsystems that are
likely candidatesfor an autolexicaltreatment,it seems obvious that there
are such features. Paramount among these is surely cliticization, a
morphosyntacticphenomenonthat has received a good deal of attention
lately just because it does not seem to fit well into the smoothly
hierarchicalview of the relationshipbetween phrase building and word
buildingthat currenttheories provide.
Consider,for example, the English thirdperson singularauxiliaryclitic
's. It attaches more or less promiscuouslyto the last word of the subject
phrase that immediately precedes it (Kaisse 1983, Klavans 1980,
Zwicky 1977) as in (2), and sometimesto somethingthat is not partof the
subject phrase, as in (3). (Schachter1984).
(2) The salesmanI warnedyou about's at the door.
(3) She is the one I think'sgoing to win.
It is certainlypossible to constructa theory in which the English lexicon
provides either off-the-rack or made-to-order items like about's and
think's for direct use in syntactic rules, but doing so would necessitate
the postulationof syntactic and semantic rules that would otherwise be
unnecessary in the language. Only words containing clitics can occur
where about's or think's do in the examples above, and only words
containing clitics could possibly have the sorts of meanings that these
words would apparentlyhave to have.
At the same time, it is clearly the case that these forms are words, as
their phonology loudly announces. The clitic auxiliaryhas precisely the
same allomorphyas the third person singular, present tense verbal, and
regular nominal, plural inflectional affixes (see Lakoff 1972). It would
therefore be desirable to treat a form like about's as having the same

kind of morphologicalstatus as any product of the word-buildingcom-
ponent, while recognizing that it is syntax that is responsible for its
distribution.
Exactly this idea was clearly stated by Nida (1976). Discussing the
promiscuousChanca Quechua clitic -na he wrote:
An investigationof the structuresin which this -iia occurs reveals that it is an immediate
constituentwith entire phrasesand not necessarilywith the word immediatelypreceding.
The very fact that it is postposedto all types of words leads us to suspect that it has the
same sort of positional freedom as syntactic items have. In the inventoryof morpheme
classes we mustlist these simple types of clitic structures,but their distributionis described
in the syntax,since they form immediateconstituentswith phrases.(Nida 1976, p. 97)
The standardmethod of capturingthe morphosyntacticdualityof clitic 's

within Generative Grammarhas been to supply a postsyntacticrule of
cliticization that takes the syntactic auxiliaryand attaches it leftward to
the end of whateverword precedes it (Bissantz 1983). In effect, then, the
standardtreatmentrecognizes two kinds of words: those that are syntac-
tic atoms, and those that exist only after syntactic phrasing has been
determined. Morphology is thus split between at least two minicom-
ponents, as is explicitlyrecognized in recent work by Zwicky (1982), and
almost explicitly recognized in work by Kiparsky (1982), Anderson
(1982), and Pranka (1983). Taking into account other aspects of mor-
phology such as compoundingand inflection, the numberof these tiny
modules will actually have to be at least four, and maybe even more.
Thus the hierarchical view, supposedly a corollary of the thesis that
word-buildingis the responsibilityof an autonomouscomponent,actually
leads to a fragmentation of the morphology into small components
scattered throughoutthe grammar.
Here I wish to propounda very differenttreatmentof cliticizationand
related phenomena such as noun incorporation. Suppose we assume
that the syntactic and morphological modules of grammar are truly
autonomous, each assigning to any expression in a language a separate
representation,so every expressionwill have two distinctrepresentations,
one morphological, and the other syntactic. Further suppose that the
lexemes of a language bear independent lexical specifications of their
morphologicaland syntactic properties,as I have argued that they must
independently of the facts of noun incorporation and cliticization
(Sadock 1984).
Now in any theory of grammar, an expression must meet both the
morphologicaland the syntacticdemandsof a language'inorder to count
as well-formed. Suppose that the characterof the English auxiliaryclitic
is just what a prose description would make it, an element with the
morphological character of an affix but the syntax of a complement-
taking verb. In an autolexicalmodel we may assign 's two quite separate
structuralpositions in the morphology and the syntax and thereby des-
cribe directly some of its properties without recourse to postsyntactic
rules of cliticization or the like. From a syntactic perspective, 's in
English figures in structureslike (4), but from a morphologicalpoint of
view, it occurs in structureslike (5).
(4) S
NP VP
N V ADV
John 's here
(5) W
N CL
John s
The well-formednessof the sentence John's heredependspartiallyon the

fact that the syntactic characterof the clitic 's viz., that of a copula, is
observed in the syntacticdescriptionof the sentence, and partiallyon the
fact that its morphologicalcharacter,viz., that of a suffix,is observed in
the morphological description of the word of which it is a part. By
contrast, an expression like *John's that his brothervisited me, though
morphologically impeccable, would be ill-formed in terms of syntax,
since the syntax of the clitic does not allow it to take clauses as
complements, and the expression *'S John comirrg,3 which has un-
3There is a grammaticalsentences 'S John coming but it is clear that this is the productof
a rapidspeech rule and not the cliticizationprocessthat I am talkingaboutwhichcan occur
in careful,slow styles of speech.
remarkable syntax, would be ill-formed in that the morphological

requirementthat 's be a suffixis not satisfiedwithin any word.
I will representthe dual structureof naturallanguage expressionsby
means of two-sided diagrams such as (6), in which the upper trees
describe the internal structure of each word, and the lower tree the
syntacticstructureof the example.4 The dashed lines connecting the two
structuresdo not indicate structuralrelationships,but rather the asso-
ciation of elements of the structuresgiven by quite separate systems, in
this case a simple and allowableassociation.
(6) W
N v ADV
John here
John s here
N ~~~V ADV.
NP VP
S
Note that by separatingthe morphologicaland syntacticdescriptionsof a
sentence we not only make it unnecessary to assume a special cliti-
cizationcomponent(Zwicky 1982), we also obviate the need to separate
inflectional morphology from derivational morphology, as Anderson
(1982) does in assigning inflectionalmorphologyto the syntax. Suppose'
that purely inflectionalmaterialis representedin the morphologyalone,
where it arguably belongs (Lapointe 1980, 1983). Separating syntactic
4 Two-sideddiagramslike (13) have in fact been employed by Anderson (1984) in his

treatmentof the determinerclitics of Kwakwala.Though Andersondoesn't commenton his
use of such symbolism,it seems clear that it implies a theory in which morphologyand
syntaxare trulyseparate,a theorysuch as the one I am arguingfor here.
structure from morphologicalstructure,we might represent a sentence

such as John sees the dog as in (7).
(7) V
N V Af DET N
John see s the dog
John see the dog
DET N
V ~~NP
NP ~~~VP
Here the inflectional affix -s is represented in the morphology of the

word sees, but not directly in the syntax of the sentence at all. While
inflectional morphemes on this view are not necessarily representedby
lexemes in the syntax, features of nodes in the syntactic tree will
characteristicallyplay a role in the determinationof the presence and
identity of inflectionalmaterial.How this takes place will be discussedin
more detail below.
Autolexical representationsare thus powerful enough to handle the
facts of clitics, inflectional morphology, and as I shall show, the highly
syntheticphenomenonof noun incorporation,while recognizingonly two
internally consistent modules - the syntax, in which all syntax and
nothing else is done, and the morphology, which is responsible for all
word building and for nothing else.
At the same time autolexicalrepresentationsare constrainedenough to
be compatible with a highly restrictive frameworkof grammarsuch as
GPSG, a theory that would otherwisehave enormousdifficultieshandling

the facts of either cliticizationor noun incorporationwith any degree of
generality.In order to demonstratethis claim, I will assumea monostratal
syntactic description throughout the remainder of this paper and will
borrow freely from the techniques and insights of the extended phrase
structureframework(Gazdarand Pullum 1982, Gazdaret al. 1985, and
the works cited therein). I will also adopt a phrase structure theory of
morphology similar in spirit to that propounded in Williams (1981),
Selkirk (1982), and Spencer (1984), but rather different in detail from
any of these.
There appearto be advantagesto the assumptionof a phrasestructure
frameworkfor both componentsof the grammar,but I wish to stress that
the theory I am advocatinghere is neither a theoryof syntaxnor a theory
of morphology. It is rather a theory of the fit between representations
governed by these two components and thus should in principle be
compatible with whatever theory of syntax and whatever theory of
morphology turn out to be independently justifiable. The aim of this
paper is to suggest that morphologicalstructureand syntactic structure
are independentto the extent that the leaves of syntactic trees need not
correspond to the roots of morphological trees. The particular im-
plementation of this basic idea that I will be exploring includes a
grammar consisting of a context-free phrase structure syntax and a
context-free phrasestructuremorphology.
An area of considerable interest that I will be forced to skirt is the
position of semantics in a grammar organized like the one I will be
exploring. In all the phenomenathat I will deal with, it appearsto be the
case that semanticsis sensitive only to the syntactictree and hence to the
lexemes that are represented in it. Morphologicalrules will often have
semantic effects of a predictable sort, but the informationthey add will
always be represented in a syntactic constituent, typically the leaf of a
syntactic tree. The importantpoint is that when there is a discrepancy
between the bracketings given by the syntax and those given by the
morphology, the compositional meaning will always be read off the
syntactic configuration.There are several ways of achieving this result,
but I do not see that there are any interesting questions that their
differences suggest, and will therefore not assume any one particular
view of the semantics-syntaxinterface.
It should be borne in mind that the kinds of phenomenafor which the
theory I am suggesting is appropriateare, while frequent enough, cer-
tainly rather peripheral.In the 'normal' case, a unit of a language will
have relevance only at the syntactic or only at the morphologicallevel.
Any unit that relates to only a single component can be understood in

terms of the strictly hierarchicalview of the relationshipbetween phrase
and word structure that was discussed at the outset. Thus a standard
inflectional affix like English -s in example (7) above would have no
representationwhatsoever in the syntax, and likewise, a typical deriva-
tional affix like English -ize in (8) would be inside a syntactic terminal
node, invisible to the syntax but analyzed in the morphology. Higher-
order units of the syntax, like N and V would in the ordinarycase appear
only in the syntax and not at all in the morphology.'
(8) V
V INF
NP N V N
They American ize d Belgium
They Americanize Belgium
V NP
NP VP
I We may wish to recognize higher-ordersyntactic categories in morphologyin

dealing
with examples like devil-may-care and jack-in-the-pulpit, examples of a type that
Bloomfield(1933) called 'phrasewords'.
In cases like these, the morphological trees can be included in the

syntactic tree as expansions of the syntactic terminal nodes, as in stan-
dardpractice.The informationin diagram(8), for example, could just as
well be presented as in (9).
(9) S
VP
V NP
V INF
NP N V N
They American -ize d Belgium
The smooth transitionfrom syntaxto word structuremight in some sense

be the normal relation, but nonconcatenative morphology of the kind
representedby English cliticizationand by noun incorporationin various
languages is clearly a fact of linguistic life and deserves appropriate
recognition in any fully general theory of nagural language. Similarly,
nonconcatenative morphology is perhaps both less frequent and less
'normal' than the concatenative variety, but it exists quite happily in
stable language systems and must therefore be provided for in any
adequatetheory of naturallanguage.
An autolexical model, in which all morphology is dealt with at one
level, is more constrained that any model that provides several entry
points into syntax for lexical items, but in terms of its formal properties
alone, it is undoubtedlymuch too permissive, allowing in principle for
kinds of phenomenathat never characterizeany naturallanguage system.

We would not expect discrepanciesbetween word structureand phrase
structure like the one illustratedin (10), where the morphology is the
mirrorimage of the syntax.
(10) g
B C D
, 2 ,- D
D- C B A
More realistically,the distributionof the clitic auxiliaryin English is not

entirely explained just by stating that it is morphologicallya suffix to
words and syntacticallya copula. Given the independence of syntactic
and morphologicalstructuresthat I am advocating here, there would be
nothing in those statementsalone or the frameworksketched so far that
would mark *John a good linguist's as ungrammatical,for it could
receive the morphologicaland syntactic analyses given in (11) in which
both the morphologicaland syntactic requirementsof every element are
met at the appropriatelevel of representation.
(11) W
N DET A N V
John a good linguist 's

I I4
j --
John 's a good linguist
N A N
DET N
V x NP
NP VP
What is wrong with (11) can not be localized in either the syntax or
morphology,but rather must be sought in the manner in which the two
structuresare associated. Therefore in what follows I will seek to tighten
the frameworkin both substantive and formal ways. I will be especially
concerned with seeking general correlations that govern the possible
relationshipsbetween syntactic and morphologicalrepresentationsand to
state these as universalpfinciples of autolexicalsyntax.These rules of the
interface have much the same status in the present context that Gold-
smith's (1976) association principles have in autosegmental phonology.
The interactionof these principleswill account for the ungrammaticality
of *John a good linguist's without requiringany further language parti-
cular statementeither in the grammarof English or in its lexicon.
The data with which I am mainly concerned are the facts of noun
incorporationin West GreenlandicEskimo and SouthernTiwa, a Tanoan
language of New Mexico. In the next section I provide a fairly detailed

account of the West Greenlandicfacts withinan autolexicaltheoryof the
morphology/syntaxinterface, presenting first a sketch of the ordinary
syntax and morphology of this language, followed by an account of its
noun incorporation.I then offer a less detailed account of the facts of
SouthernTiwa. In subsequentsections I will examinefurtherexamplesof
incorporation that either corroborate the principles developed on the
basis of the earlier investigation, or suggest refinementsof them. In the
last section I summarizewhat I have done and speculate on the prospects
for grammarsconsisting of highly autonomous modules that deal with
constituentsthat are not necessarilyhierarchicallyrelated.
3. WEST GREENLANDIC
3.1. A Simple Syntax
Matters such as noun incorporationaside, the surface syntax of single

clauses in Greenlandicis really quite simple and restricted.The Green-
landic sentence contains one or two direct-case (absolutiveand ergative)
argumentsand a verb that agrees with the direct-case arguments.In an
intransitive sentence, the single argument is absolutive in case; in a
transitive the two argumentsare ergative and absolutive. The order of
these major elements of the clause is quite free.6
(12)a. Kaalip Hansi takuaa.
Karl-ERG Hans(ABS) see-INDIC/3 s/3 s
Karl sees Hans.
b. Kaali pisuppoq.
Karl(ABS) walk-INDIC/3s
Karl is walking.
In the verb phrase we find one or more subcategorizednominalswhich
6
I use the following abbreviationsin morphemeglosses: ABS = absolutivecase, ERG
ergative case, ALLAT = allative case, INST = instrumentalcase, PERL= perlative case,
EQUAL = equalis case, and INDIC indicative mood. A slash separating two such
abbreviationsindicates that there is one morphemethat representsboth categories. For
transitiveverb inflections,the feature complex preceding the slash is taken as referencing
the ergative argument, and the one following the slash is taken as referencing the
absolutiveargument.
I use upper case letters, sometimesprecededby '+', in the text in talking aboutfeatures
representingthese categories.
can be in any case but the ergative, and the verb itself. The order of
these elements is once again quite free.
(13) Nuummut ingerlavoq.
Nuuk-ALLAT go-INDICI3s
He is going to Nuuk.
(14) Majuarput majuartarfitigut.

ascent-INDIC/3p stairs-PERL
They go up the stairs.
(15) Qallunaatut ippoq.

Dane-EQUAL be-INDIC/3s
He is like a Dane.
The only categorialorderingconstraintwithin the verb phraseis that the
verb must precede an absolutive-casecomplement.Verbs of naming, for
example, take either an instrumentalor an absolutive-casecomplement.
For some speakersthe instrumentaland absolutiveare in complementary
distribution,but for others the former can precede or follow the verb
while the latter must follow it.
(16) Kaalimik ateqarpunga.
Karl-INST named-INDICIls
I am named Karl.
(17) %Ateqarpunga Kaalimik

named-INDIC/ls Karl-INST
I am named Karl.
(18) Ateqarpunga Kaali.

named-INDICI/s Karl(ABS)
I am called Karl.
(19) *Kaali ateqarpunga

Karl(ABS) named-INDIC/ls
I am called Karl.
A noun phrase in Greenlandic must have a head noun, and may ad-
ditionally have a possessor in the ergative case with which the head
agrees in much the same manner that verbs agree with their ergative
arguments,and/or a modifieragreeing in case and numberwith the head
noun. The modifieris formallya nominal. As opposed to the freedom of

constituent order that we find in clauses and verb phrases, the order of
elements in the noun phrase is quite rigid, possessors preceding, and
modifiersfollowing their heads.
(20) Kaalip illua
Karl-ERG house-3s/(ABS)
Karl's house
(21) Kaalip illuanut
Karl-ERG house-3s/ALLAT/s
to Karl'shouse
(22) Kaalip illuanutmikisumut

Karl-ERG house-3s/ALLAT small-ALLATIs
to Karl'ssmall house
These basic facts of Greenlandicsyntax can be handled by means of the
following very simple phrase-structuregrammar.7Here the rules in (Gl)
represent immediate dominance principles, those in (G2) linear prece-
dence principles,and those in (G3) agreementprinciples.8
(Gl)a. V2-NN2[+ABS], V1[-TRANS]
b. V2-NN2 [+ABS], N2 [+ERG], V1 [+TRANS]
c. V1 N 2[-ERG],V0
d. N2-(N 2[+ERG]), N1
e. N1- No, (MOD)
fI MOD-+N2
7 These rules are intended to conform to the principlesoutlined in Gazdar and Pullum
(1982) and Gazdaret al. (1985), though the notation is different.In particular,the linear
precedence rules are to be interpretedas implyinga set of phrase structurerules derived
from a set of immediatedominanceprinciples.Thus the ordering statementsnecessarily
refer only to sisters generatedby a single phrasestructurerule. For present purposesit is
importantto note that (G2c) will constrainthe orderingof a verb of being or namingand its
absolutivecomplementintroducedby one varietyof (Glc), but will not constrainthe order
of an absolutivesubjector object with respect to a verb, since these are introducedby Gla
or Glb and are not sisters of the verb. This produces exactly the right result for West
Greenlandic.(In these rules, superscriptsare used, in the standardmanner,to indicate bar
level. So NOrepresentslexical N, N' is the notationused for N, N2 is N and so on.)
8 I will assume in section 4.3 below that these agreement rules are the Greenlandic
instantiationsof a grammaticaluniversal that falls under some version of the Control
Agreement Principleof Gazdarand Pullum (1982) (cf. (I) below), and thus need not be
stated in the particulargrammarof this language at all. They are includedat this point in
the text for the sake of clarity.
(G2)a. No< MOD

b. N2<N1
c. V?<N2 [abs]
(G3)a. In v2 the head agrees with its sisters.
b. In N' the modifieragrees with the head.
c. In N2 the possessumagrees with the possessor
In the spirit of GPSG, I assume that the syntactic propertiesof lexical
items are encoded in their lexical entries in terms of features specifying
which rules introduce them. Since the rules above are in some cases
schemataabbreviatingseveral rules, the lexical representationsthat I will
employ here will also need to include informationas to which of the
subparts of the rule is actually intended. For example, the verb root
ingerla-, which can be found in (13), is one that subcategorizes an
allative case nominal complement. It will therefore be introduced by
Glc), where N2 [-ERG] is [+ALLAT].
3.2. A SimpleMorphology
Though very productive and very rich, the basics of West Greenlandic
morphology are also quite simple. A word must consist of stem and
inflection, in that order. In the vast majority of cases, a stem is either
basic, or consists of another stem followed by a derivational affix, the
class of the resulting stem being in general a function of lexical proper-
ties of the affix.For the most part, the semanticeffect of such affixationis
quite predictable,the affixhaving semantic scope over the stem that it is
attached to. (But see Fortescue 1980 for a discussion of exceptions to
this principle.)
(23) illorsuaqarfimmut
((((illu) rsuaq)qar) fik) -mut
house big have place ALLAT
to the place with big houses
(24) illogarfissuarmut
((((illu) gar) fik) rsuaq)-mut
house have place big ALLAT
to the big town
A few derivational affixes can productively derive a stem from an
inflected word. This stem requiresits own inflectionto be complete. The
incorporation of inflected forms will be discussed in more detail in

section 6.3 below.
(25) Illuanukarpugut.
illu -anut- kar-pugut
house 3s/ALLAT/s go INDIC/lp
We are going to his house.
(26) Illuminiippoq
ilMu -mini- it -poq
house 4sfLOC/s be INDICI3s
He is in his own house.
Finally, there is a class of true clitics, such as -aasiit 'as usual' and -gooq
'it is said' illustratedin (27) and (28) below. These attach to fully formed
words, and words formed with this class of affix can take only other true
clitics as furtheraffixes.
(27) Ajorporaasiit.
ajor-poq -aasiit
bad INDIC/3s as-usual
It's bad, as usual.
(28) Ajorporaasiinngooq.
ajor-poq -aasiit -gooq
bad INDIC/3s as-usual it-is-said
They say that as usual, it's bad.
These rudimentaryprinciplesof Greenlandicmorphologyare formalized
in (G4)-(G8), where (G4) is a general rule for forming a new stem from
another stem, (G5) forms stems from inflected words, (G6).is a rule for
inflectinga stem, and (G7) forms a word of unspecifiedgrammaticalclass
by attachinga clitic to a word of any class. The firstfour rules specify the
hierarchical structure of words. The only linear ordering principle
needed in this entirely suffixinglanguage, is (G8), which places an affix9
after all its sisters.
In this microgrammar,I have adopted the convention'0 that syntax is
9 The term symbolized'Af' in (G4)-(G7) is a complex of categorialfeatures includinga

feature indicatingthat an item so markedmust be attached to some other morphological
entity in any well-formedword. I will leave the mechanics of this vague in the present
work.
10Note that this use of negative bar levels for morphologyis just the opposite of Selkirk's
built upwardin terms of bar level and morphology is built downward.

Thus the maximallycomplemented[+N, -V] entity in the syntax will be
writtenas N2, while the maximallycomplementedmemberof that family
in the morphologywill be written N2. Under this convention a lexical
item can be representedin terms of exactly the same feature complex in
both morphological structure and syntactic structure. For instance, a
form such as Latin dom- will be representedas 'N', in the syntax, where
it thereforecounts as a lexical head of phrasesof the N family (N1, N2),
and also as 'N' in the morphology,where it counts as a lexical noun root
upon which more complex morphologicalforms (e.g., N-') can be built.
(G4) X--> Y, Af
(G5) X > y-1 Af
(G6) X'-X, Af
(G7) X-2_ Y, Af, where n > 0
(G8) X<Af
Just as is the case with roots and free-standingwords in the syntax, each
bound lexeme will be specified as to which rules it is introducedby. For
affixes, however, these are morphological rules. Since these rules are
highly schematic, an affix will be specified not only for the schema in
which it participates,but also for finer features of the frame in-which it
can be found. Thus -qar from examples (23) and (24) is specified as being
introducedby (G4), where X = [-N, +V, -TRANS] and Y = [+N, -V];
-fik in (23) and (24) is also introduced by (G4), but in this instance
X = [+N, -V] and Y = [-N, +V, -TRANS]; -kar will be introducedby
(G5), and X will be [-N, +V], Y will be [+N, -V, +ALLAT], and so on.
Notice that these four morphologicalrules may be appliedwithout the
need for extrinsic ordering. The output of (G6) can never serve as the
(1982). For Selkirkthe 0-bar level in the morphologyrepresentsa maximalmorphological

structure(a word), and smallerconstituentsare assignedprogressivelylarger negative bar
levels.
" The need to specify that n in (G7) may be 1 or 2 followsfrom the fact that clitics in West
Greenlandicmay apply to simple inflectedforms as in (36), or to forms which themselves
contain a clitic, as in (37). It will not do to say that the bar level of wordswith clitics is the
same as inflected words because affixeslike -kar, which are introducedby (G5) and thus
recycle inflectedforms back into the derivationaland inflectionalsystems never apply to
wordswith clitics. In addition,the fact that at least some English clitics cannot themselves
apply to other clitics (I've, haven't, but *I'ven't) might be interpretedas furtherevidence
that wordsformedwith the aid of clitics belong to a higherlevel of complementationthan
inflectedwords.
input to (G4) since the bar level of the result of applying (G6) is not
suitable as Y in (G4), and the output of (G7) cannot be the input to any
of the rules (G4-G6) because of a similar bar-level discrepancy. Fur-
thermore, since the segmental phonology of all of the morphology of
West Greenlandicis highly concatenative, we automaticallyaccount for
the commonplace observation that derivational affixes generally occur
inside inflectional affixes, and inflectional affixes inside of clitic mor-
phemes.
Were it not for the existence of (G5), a kind of morphologicalrule that
is almost without parallel in more widely studied languages, it would be
the case that all inflectionalmorphemeswould have to occur outside all
derivationalmorphemes,and all clitics would have to occur outside all
inflectional morphemes.These results follow from the phrase-structure
frameworkof the morphology suggested above and do not require the
postulation of either separate levels of morphology or separate small-
scale modules of grammar.12
3.3. A Treatmentof WestGreenlandicNoun Incorporation

I will call a construction NOUN INCORPORATION if it involves a word
containing a nominal subpartand that nominal subpartcan be shown to
have syntacticreality.On this definitionboth the English compoundverb
span-fryand the English denominalverb dust fail to count as examplesof
the sort of phenomenonI am consideringin this paper, since there is no
particularevidence that I am aware of in either case that the nominal
element has any syntacticrealitywhatsoever.On the other hand, English
synthetic compoundslike long legged might well count as incorporation
since the stem leg- inside the word legged would appear to be syntactic-
ally modifiedby the adjective long (Bloomfield 1933).
Jorgen Rischel (1971, 1972) and I (Sadock 1980) have elsewhere
given a good deal of evidence for the syntactic nature of noun in-
corporationin West Greenlandic.Though the syntactic relevance of the
incorporated nominal has lately been called into question for other
languages (Mithun 1984), the facts of West Greenlandic still compel a
syntactic analysis(Sadock to appearb).
In West Greenlandic, the incorporatednominal is highly referential,
and indeed may be definite. Modifiers external to the incorporated
12 This system alone will not, however, account for the bracketingfacts concerning so
called Level I and Level II affixationthat have been so much discussedin the frameworkof
'lexical'phonology(Mohanan1982, Kiparsky1982).
nominal are possible, and the incorporatednominal triggers agreement

phenomena in the same way that an external argument would. And
finally,the process is perfectlyproductive in West Greenlandic,a kind of
alternative to the productive joining of meaning-bearingelements by
syntactic means. Sometimes, indeed, the incorporation is effectively
obligatory, since the available periphrastic constructions either have
special meanings or are significantly less idiomatic so that their use
pragmaticallyimplies something extra.
In West Greenlandic(and Eskimo in general) noun incorporationtakes
place via, the addition of a verb-forming derivational suffix to a noun
stem. For the most part, the suffixesin question have exactly the same
morphological and phonological status as other derivational suffixes in
the language, and in particularcan never be used as independentroots.
Where a root with a meaning similar to that of an incorporatingsuffix
exists, it is never connected etymologicallywith the incorporatingform.
In Eskimo, lexical features of the derivational affix determine its
applicability.For some, the incorporatednominalmust be indefiniteand
unpossessed,for others it may be definite and/or possessed. Subjects and
direct objects are never incorporated,at least if we take direct objects in
West Greenlandic to be defined as absolutive-case argumentsof tran-
sitive sentences. Instead, only subcategorizedargumentswithin the verb
phrase (which would generally appear in an oblique case if expressed
independently)can be incorporated.But Greenlandic has an important
syntactic pattern (the antipassive) in which the object of a transitive
clause appears as an instrumental-casecomplement in an intransitive
verb phrase. It is these instrumental-casepatients that correspond to
direct objects of transitive sentences that are most frequently incor-
porated.
When a modifierin Greenlandicis strandedby the incorporationof its
head, it continues to agree with the head, and when a possessor is
stranded, the incorporated possessum will show agreement if this is
morphologicallyallowed. The strandedpossessor constructionis unique
to noun incorporation,no comparablepattern existing otherwise in the
language. The examples below will illustratethese phenomena.
Suppose we take the rules above as characterizinga reasonablefrag-
ment of West Greenlandicgrammar.What must we assumein additionto
get the facts of West Greenlandic noun incorporation to work out?
Within an autolexicalsystem such as I am suggesting, the only additional
assumption that is needed is that certain morphemes of the language
have lexical specification both for their syntax (i.e., how they combine
with the units above the X-zero level) and for their morphology (i.e.,
how they combine with the units at or below the X-zero level), as I
argued in Sadock (1983, 1984) that lexical items in general must. The
'strange' facts of noun incorporationthen fall out as the only possible
results for the case where the syntax and morphology of a lexical form
disagree.
Consider the case of the object-incorporatingaffix-qar 'to have '.
Morphologically,it has just the properties of an ordinary, derivational
suffixthat participatesin (G4) above. Unlike run-of-the-millderivational
morphemesin other languages,which do not have any syntacticfunction
at all, this particularmorphemeis subject to syntactic subcategorization
requirements,indeed the very same requirementsas those of an ordinary
independent, formally intransitive verb of West Greenlandic like
sanavoq 'to build'. As with any formally intransitive verb in this lan-
guage that is semanticallyassociatedwith a patient thematic role, it may
take an instrumental-case argument in the syntax, representing an
indefinite patient. Let us then take its lexical representationto include
specificationsalong the lines of (29). In the notation I have adoptedhere,
the first term of the bracketedexpressionfollowing the equal sign refers
to the rule that introducesthe lexeme, and the matrices that follow give
furtherfeature requirementsof the variablesin that rule, startingwith the
symbol to the left of the arrow,in the order in which they occur.
(29) qar: semantics= 'have'
morphology= [G4, [-N, +V], [+N, -V]]
syntax= [Glc, [-TRANS], [INST]]
For the simplest sort of sentence presenting an example of noun in-
corporation,such as Hansi illoqarpoq'Hans has a house', we would have
the two-partrepresentationin (30), where, as in section 2, the trees in the
upper part of the diagramrepresent the morphology of the expression,
and the tree in the lower part representsits syntax. The well-formedness
of this example consists in the fact that the morphologicaltree satisfies
the morphologicalrequirementsof every lexeme, and the syntactic tree
satisfies all of their syntactic requirements.In particular,the syntactic
frame of the crucial lexeme -qar is satisfied by the existence of an
instrumental N2 complement in the syntax, and the morphological
requirement that it be attached to a noun stem is satisfied in the
morphologicalrepresentation.'3
13 Strictly, we should have the subtree Hansi-N-NI-N2here, as required by (Gld) and
(Gle). I will often suppresssome of the nonbranchingnodes in syntactic trees to save

space. Note also that in (30) and subsequenttrees, the symbol '0' is used to representa
phonologicallyempty morpheme.
(30)
N-1 V INFL
N INFL N V
Hansi 0 illu qar poq
Hansi illu qar
N42
[INST] V
N2 VI
v2
I thus take the sentence analyzedin (30) to be syntacticallyidentical to

(31), which has a free verb, and morphologicallysimilarto (32), which is
not an example of noun incorporation and would therefore have a
syntacticallysimple, though morphologicallycomplex intransitiveverb in
its syntax. Indeed, close syntactic and morphological parallels can be
found in English. On this view, the big difference between English and
Greenlandicis neither in the syntax nor in the morphologyas such, but
ratherin the degree of match between the two that is requiredin the two
languages.
(31) Hansi illumik sanavoq
Hansi illu -mik sana -voq
Hans(ABS) house INST build INDIC/3s
Hans built a house.
(32) Hansi inororpoq

Hansi inuk-ror -poq
Hans(ABS) man develop-intoINDIC/3sg
Hans grew up.
Let me now take a somewhat more complicated case, that of sentence
(33) which has an incorporated object and a stranded modifier, an
example also discussed in Sadock (1980). The peculiarityof this type of
sentence is that the modifier still agrees grammaticallywith the in-
corporated nominal which in the case is the pluraliumtantum qamutit
(pl.) 'sled'. Note that the meaning of the external modifierhere makes it
impossibleto analyze the form as actually (semantically)plural.
(33) Hansi ataatsinik qamuteqarpoq.
Hansi-0 ataaseq-nik qamut-qar -poq
ABS one INSTIpl sled have INDICI3s
Hans has one sled.
Suppose this is representedas follows:
v-l
(34)
N-1 N-1V \
N INFL N INFL N V INFL
Hansi 0 ataaseq nik qamut qar poq
Hansi qamut ataaseq qar
N
</MOD
N2
[INST] V
N2 V1
v2
Several comments are in order at this point. For the moment I will
concentrate on the principles that govern feature distributionsin and
between the two diagrams,neglecting the very importantquestion of the
crossing association lines that are found in (34), a subject that I will
investigate in detail below.
I assume that the distributionof features of nodes in the syntacticpart
of this diagramconforms to the following well-establishedprinciples:
(I) The Head Feature Convention of Gazdaret al. (1985) applies
to the syntactic tree: the features of a phrasal node must be
the same as those of the head of that phrase.14
(II) The Control Agreement principle of Gazdar et al. (1985)
applies to the syntactic tree: roughly, functions take on the
agreement features of their arguments.In West Greenlandic,
in particular
a. The head agrees with its sisters in V2
b. The modifieragrees with the head in N1
c. The possessumagrees with the possessorin N2
(III) Lexical subcategorizationfeaturesof,a lexeme must be met in
the syntactic tree.
Thus the N2 complement of -qar must be instrumentalby (III) because
-qar lexically subcategorizes a syntactic complement with that feature;
the noun qamut must be instrumentalby (I) because it is the head of an
instrumentalN2, and ataaseq is instrumentalby (Ilb) because it modifies
(i.e., is a function of) an instrumental noun. Furthermore,qamut is
intrinsically(lexically)plural, so both the mother node N2, of which it is
the head, and its modifierataaseq must also be pluralaccordingto (I) and
(JIb), respectively. Finally, V1 must be third person singular by (11a)
(assumingVs to be functionsand subjects to be arguments),and V must
be third person singularby (I).
The second point is that I have assumedthat purelyinflectionalaffixes
are not mentioned in syntactic structureat all: they are entities that find
their properplace in the morphologyalone. The inflectionof a word may
well reflect features determinedin the syntax by principles (I)-(III), but
'4 The HFC as stated in Gazdaret al. (1985) does not requirestrict identitybetween the
featuresof the mothernode and the featuresof the head, but only identityinsofaras it is
not overridenby other feature specificationdevices. This detail is irrelevantas far as the
phenomenadealt with in this paperare concernedand has consequentlybeen suppressedin
the statementof (I).
the ending or other morphologicalindicatorof these featuresis not taken

as having any lexemic representationin the syntax.
Thirdly, I will take the following as the most natural assumption
concerning the relationshipbetween the lowest levels of the syntax and
morphology.It will, in fact, sufficefor the examplesthat I shall consider.
(IV) Any lexeme which is independentlyrepresented in both the
syntax and morphologyis immediatelydominatedby the same
complex symbol in both the syntacticand morphologicaltrees.
In this way features that are distributed through the syntactic tree
according to (I)-(III) are 'passed'to the lexemes (qua morphemes)in the
morphologicaltree. As pointed out to me by Gerald Gazdar (p.c.), this
principle could, and probably should be built into the formalism of
autolexicalsyntax,ratherthan having to be stipulatedexternally.Perhaps
the most obvious way of doing this would be to eliminate the lexemes
themselves from syntactic structures, which would then stop with
preterminal nodes. The morphological structures would contain the
actual lexemes, replete with a full set of features. The basic association
principle would then be that every syntactic preterminalbe associated
with some featurallycompatiblemorphologicalelement. I will, however,
continue to refer to (IV) in the remainderof this paper for expository
purposes.
I will assume without much argumentthat the distributionof features
in morphologicalrepresentationsis governed by analogous constraints.
Here things are somewhat murkierthan they are in the syntax, the main
problem being that headship is not a particularly clear notion in
morphology (see Zwicky 1984 for interesting discussion). Nevertheless,
let me call that morpheme in a two-part morphologicalunit that deter-
mines the inflectionalpropertiesof the unit the head. Inflections do not
determine, but rather reflect the features that they encode, so they can
never be consideredmorphologicalheads underthis definition.The head
will ordinarilybe the affix in a stem formed derivationallyfrom another
stem (though there are some exceptions), and in English, at least, the
head will be the right member of a compound (Williams1981). Thus a
generalizedversion of (I) seems to operate in both components.
(I') The Head Feature Convention applies in both morphology
and syntax: the features of a constituentmust be the same as
those of the head of that constituent.
Looking at things this way allows us also to treat inflectionalmorphology
under a generalizedversion of the Control Agreement Principle (II). To
AUTOLEXICAL SYNTAX 405.
do so we need to take inflections as identity functions of the stems to

which they apply, an assumption which, while pretty ad hoc, is not
obviously incorrect.15 I stress again the fact that this paper is not
principallyconcerned with the inner workings of the morphology or of
the syntax, but with the fit between representationsgiven by the two
components.
To complete the picture of feature distribution in morphological
representation,then, (II) may be replaced by (II'), and analogously, (III)
by (III').
(II') The Control Agreement Principleapplies to the syntactic and

morphological trees: Functions take on the agreement fea-
tures of their arguments.In West Greenlandic,in particular:
a. The head agrees with its sisters in V2
b. The modifieragrees with the head in N'
c. The possessumagrees with the possessor in N2
d. Af agrees with X in X1
(III') Lexical subcategorizationfeaturesof a lexeme must be met in
the syntactic tree and in the morphologicaltrees.
In the simplest cases, such as-that of the proper noun Hansi in (34),
where there are no derivationalaffixes,the featuresof the root are spread
through the word to its inflection (in this case 0, the inflection of
unpossessed,third singular, absolutive nouns). But consider the case of
the word qamuteqarpoqin (34). The incorporatednominal qamut must
be instrumentalplural according to (IV). But by (I'), the features of the
derived stem qamuteqarreflect only the features of the head (here the
affix-qar), namely third person, singular,which have been passed to -qar
from the syntax by (IV). These are also the features of the inflection,
-poq, the third singularindicative suffix,as predicted by (II'd).
Let us now consider examples which reveal some importantfactors
concerningthe order of words and morphemes.
l5 We may actually distinguishtwo types of inflection, one where the features that are
spreadin accordancewith (II'd) are passed to the stem from the syntax (e.g., agreement
features on adjectives and verbs), and one where they reflect either intrinsic,or freely
instantiatedfeatures (e.g., conjugational,and declensional class features, and tense and
numberfeatures,respectively).The firstclass generallymeets Anderson's(1982) suggested
definitionof inflection, while the second class - as emphasizedrecently by Jensen and
Stong-Jensen(1984) does not. This latter class may well include semanticallymeaningful
expressionsand thus correspondto semanticfunctionsother than identity.
(35)a. Hansi nukappiaraavoq

Hans-0 nukappiaraq- u -voq
ABS boy be INDIC/3s
Hans is a boy.
Hansi nukappiaraavoq mikisoq.

Hans-0 nukappiaraq-u-voq miki -soq -0
ABS boy be INDIC/3s little NOM ABS
Hans is a little boy.
I will suppose that the predicate nominal incorporatingsuffix -u has a
lexical entry along the lines of (36), allowing for dual representationsof
(35a,b) along the lines of (37a,b).
(36) u: semantics='be'
morphology= [G4, [-N, +V], [+N, -V]]
syntax= [Glc, [-TRANS], [+ABS]]
(37)a.
N-1 V INFL
N INFL N V
Hansi 0 nukappiaraq u voq
Hansi u' nukappiaraq
V N2[+ABS]
2 ,, V V1
v2
(37)b. V-1
N-1 V INFL N-
N INFL N V N INFL
Hansi 0 nukappiaraq u voq mikisoq 0
Hansi u
nunuippiaraq mikisoq
N MOD
N'
vt N2 [+ABS]
N2
V2
In (37a) the entire complement of the affix -u has been incorporated.

This complementis absolutivein case and must thereforefollow the verb
by G2c. But -u is morphologicallyan affix, and since affixes are always
suffixesin West Greenlandic(as specified in G8), it must follow the stem
to which it is attached. There is thus a direct clash between a mor-
phological ordering principle and a syntactic ordering principle in this
example. If -u were attached as a prefix in (37a), then an association
between elements of the morphological representationand elements of
the syntactic representationcould be made without crossing association
-lines. But of course this isn't possible: morpheme ordering is generally
completely rigid and in any case is much stricter than phrasalordering.
Thus where there is a conflict between the two, it will be the principlesof
morpheme ordering that win out. This observation is expressed in (V).
(V) Constraintson morphemeorderingare inviolable.
Consider again example (33), the tree for which was given in (34). Here
again there are crossing lines of association because -qar is mor-
phologically a suffix, a requirementfrom which the language allows no
deviation. The modifier ataatsinik can also occur after the verb in a
grammatical sentence: Hansi qamuteqarpoq ataatsinik. When the
modifier follows, there is once again one pair of crossing association
lines, this time the lines associating-qar and ataaseq is the two structures.
But there is no grammaticalexample related to (35b) with the modifier
preceding the verb: *Hansimikisoq nukappiaraavoq.16
This cannot be because of the rule requiringmodifiersto follow their
heads, as (33) shows, but can only be a function of (G2c), the rule
ordering absolutive complements after the verb that subcategorizes
them. If the modifier mikisoq were to precede the verb in the mor-
phological representation,then all of the lines associating nukappiaraq,
-u, and mikisoq would cross. The structurein (37b) is thus the closest to
one without crossing branches that is consistent with the morphological
and syntactic requirementsof the various lexemes in it.
Finally,consider the case of a possessorstrandedby incorporation,17 as
in (38), whose autolexical structureis (39).
(38) Kunngip paneqarpoq.

kunngi-p panik- qar -poq
king ERG daughterhave INDIC/3s
There is a king's daughter(i.e., a princess).
16 This sentence is grammatical on the irrelevant reading 'Little Hans is a boy.'

17 Stranded possessors seem to be allowed only where the noun phrase containing the
possessor is lexicalized. Yet the noun phrase consists of two words as evidenced by the fact
that clitics can follow the possessor as in
(i) ... puissillu neqitorlutik
puissi -p -lu neqi- tor -Ilutik
seal ERG and meat eat CONTEMPI4p
and they eat seal meat
This suggests that a phrase such as puissip neqaa is a word in the morphology but is also
analyzed in the syntax, a possibility that an autolexical treatment makes available.
(39) V-1
N-1 V INEL
N INFL N v
kunngi p panik qar poq
kunngi panik qar
N2[ERG] N
N2 V
V1
Here also the ordering is fixed, *Paneqarpoqkunngip being ungram-

matical. Note that if the possessor,which must precede the possessumin
the syntaxaccordingto (G2p), followed the verb in the morphology,then
association lines would cross, whereas in (39) they do not. Thus in all
these cases, a single principlerestrictingthe crossing of associationlines
as much as possible seems to hold. Where a legal morphemeordering is
available that involves no crossing lines, that is the only allowable
structure. Where the only legal morpheme ordering involves crossing
lines, then the structure with the fewest crossing lines is the only
permissibleone. If two structuresinvolve the same degree of crossing,
they are equally grammatical.This principleis stated in (VI).
(VI) Elements of morphologicalstructuremust be associated one-
for-one with correspondingelements of syntactic structureto
the maximumextent possible.
4. NOUN INCORPORATION IN SOUTHERN TIWA
Recently, a rich and fascinating paper by Allen, Gardiner, and Frantz

(1984) has appeared detailing the syntactic features of noun incor-
poration in SouthernTiwa. All examples from SouthernTiwa that I will
cite are drawn from that paper or from Frantz (1985). The facts that
Allen, Gardiner,and Frantzpresent are in many ways quite reminiscent
of what is found in Eskimo, despite the radicallydifferentmorphological
technique that the language employs. As in West Greenlandic the
incorporated nominal may be highly referential or even definite,
modifiers external to the incorporated nominal are possible, and the
incorporatednominal triggers agreement phenomena in the same way
that an externalargumentwould.
Noun incorporationin Tiwa involves the kind of compounding of a
noun and verb stem that Sapir (1911) took as the sole defining property
of the phenomenon.The resulting complex verb stem occurs inside the
verbal element in the same place as a simple verb root would: for
example, alongside the verb ak'arhi 'you will eat it', which consists of a
personal prefix a-, a verbal root -k'ar-, and a tense suffix -hi, we find
verbs of the form a-N-k'ar-hi,e.g., adiruk'arhi'You will eat the chicken',
(diru-de 'chicken').
SouthernTiwa noun incorporationis sometimes grammaticallyobliga-
tory (unlike Eskimo) sometimes optional, and sometimes inapplicable.
The circumstances controlling this have to do with the grammatical
relation that is incorporated,the animacyclass of the incorporateditem,
and whetheror not it is modified."8Roughly speaking, the more patient-
like the argument, the easier it is to incorporate it. For the most
patient-like arguments, direct objects that contain an inanimate head
noun or consist of an unmodified, animate, common noun, the in-
corporationis obligatory:
(40) *Yede shut ti- pe - ban

that shirt PREF make PAST
I made that shirt.
(41) Yede ti- shut- pe -ban

that PREF shirt make PAST
I made that shirt.
18 See Allen, Gardiner,and Frantz(1984) and Sadock (to appeara) for details.
(42) *Diru-de a- k'ar-hi.

chicken PREF eat FUTURE
You will eat the chicken.
(43) A- diru- k'ar-hi.
PREF chicken eat FUTURE
You will eat the chicken.
Modified,nonhuman,animate,direct objects are optionallyincorporated,
while other sorts of NPs are largely unincorporable.
(44) Yede diru-de a- k'ar-hi.
that chicken PREF eat FUTURE
You will eat that chicken.
(45) Yede a- diru- k'ar-hi.

that PREF chicken eat FUTURE
In general, only subjects and direct objects may be incorporated in
SouthernTiwa. Some deviations from this principleoccur, and relation-
changing operations affect incorporabilityin interesting ways, as dis-
cussed in Allen, Gardiner,and Frantz(1984), but the principleis clearly
the majorfeature of the process. The most easily incorporablearguments
are direct objects. Since the verb in Southern Tiwa agrees with both
subjects and objects, it usually agrees with an internalnominal.
(46) Te- pan- tuwi-ban
is/C bread buy PAST
I bought the bread.
(47) Ti- seuan-mu-ban
is/A man see PAST
I saw the man.
Here te and ti both indicate a firstperson subject, but reference different
featuresof the object, exactly as they would if the object were externalto
the verb.
Let us consider these facts in relation to the treatment of noun
incorporationoutlined above. We can immediatelynotice an important
similarity with West Greenlandic. In an example such as (48a), the
incorporatednominal is the head of complement(here the object) of the
verbal element that does the incorporating,as can be seen from the
412 JERROLD M. SASDOCK
autolexical diagram of the sentence in (49a).19When the incorporation

involves the subject, which it can in Southern Tiwa, the incorporated
element is still the head of a phrase, as shown in (48b) and (49b).
(48)a. Yede a- diru- k'ar-hi.
that PREF chicken eat FUTURE
b. Wisi u- k'uru-k'euwe-m20
two PREF dipperold PRESENT
The two dippersare old.
(49)a.
v-I
DET INFL N V INFL
yede a diru kar hi
0 yed diru k'ar
DET N
V2l
N2 V
N2 V
'9 Several importantfeaturesof SouthernTiwa morphologyand syntaxare glossed over in

this discussiondue to the fact that my knowledgeof this language comes entirelyfrom the
data presentedin Allen, Gardiner,and Frantz(1984) and Frantz(1985). In particular,it is
not obvious to me that the tense morphemein the Tiwa verb should not be represented(as
an auxiliary,say) in the syntaxand it is not clear to me what the constituentstructureof the
verb with its personal prefix and temporalsuffix ought to be. None of these questions,
though, is crucial to the point of this paper.
20 This example (with modifier last) is from
Frantz (1985). All other Southern Tiwa
examplesare from Allen, Gardiner,and Frantz(1984).
b.
DET INFL N V INFL
wisi u k'uru k'euwe m
wisi k'uru k'euwe
DET N
N2 V
V2
In both SouthernTiwa and West Greenlandic,then, it is the head of a

nominal phrase which is in some sense governed21by the incorporating
element that is incorporated. I will temporarilyassume then that the
following principleholds in general of the relationbetween syntactic and
morphologicalstructure,though as it stands it is too strong, eliminating
certain kinds of cases.to which I will returnin section 6.2.
(VII) If a lexeme L combines syntactically with X" to form a
phrase, but morphologicallywith y-n to form a word, then
y-n must be the syntactic head of a phrase P that is governed
by L.
Allen, Gardiner,and Frantz(1984) say that they have found no examples
of the incorporationof a transitive subject. Further, a language might
21What is required here is something very like the traditionalnotion of government

according to which lexical items govern the categories that they subcategorizeand in
addition,verbs govern their subjects.
have neither subject nor object incorporation,(as in English, modulo

synthetic compounds), object incorporationalone (as in West Green-
landic), or both subject and object incorporation, with object incor-
poration having priority over subject incorporation (as in Southern
Tiwa). However I know of no example of a language in which there is
only subject incorporation,and no object incorporation.The application
of (VII) is thus governed by something like a transmodularanalogue of
the A-over-A principlesuch that it is the deepest governed phrase from
which an incorporatedelement must be drawn.
Let us assume that the form of the inflected verb of SouthernTiwa is
specified by Ti, and that the morphologyof SouthernTiwa includes the
common morphologicalrule schema for deriving new stems from existing
ones given in (G4) for West Greenlandic,which I repeat here as (T2).
(T 1) V-l -> PREF-V-TNS
(T2) X -Y, Af
The striking morphological difference between West Greenlandic and
Southern Tiwa is that the latter has perfectly productive noun-verb
compoundingwhile the former has no compoundingof any kind. In the
morphologicalscheme that I am using, this means that Southern Tiwa
also has a morphologicalrule that allows any verb to count as Af in (T2),
where Y is [+N, -V]:
(T) [-N, +V]? _ [T2, [-N, +V], [+N7 -V]]
Let us also assume that the syntax of Southern Tiwa includes the
run-of-the-millrules (T4), (T5), and (T6) and that basic transitive and
intransitiveverbs have lexical specificationsalong the lines of (50) and
(51).
(T4) V2 N2, V1
(T5) V'IN2,V
(T6) VI-V
(50) k'ar: semantics='eat'
syntax = [T5]
(51) k'euwe: semantics='be old'
syntax = [T6]
Rule (T3) can then convert the strictlysyntactic lexical specificationsof
SouthernTiwa verbs into 'mixed', incorporatingspecifications (52) and
(53), which are quite similar to the basic, lexical specifications of the
incorporatingaffixes of West Greenlandic. Since (T3) is a rule, rather
than a feature default or cooccurrence restriction, this conversion is
optional.
(52) k'ar: semantics='eat'
syntax = [T5]
morphology= [T2, [-N, +V], [+N, -V]]
(53) k'euwe: semantics='be old'
syntax = [T6]
morphology= [T2, [-N, +V], [+N, -V]]
It is these derived lexical forms that figure in the diagrams (49a) and
(49b). These structuressatisfy both the morphologicaland the syntactic
requirementsof the derived, incorporatingverb forms, and also meet the
requirementson goodness of fit between the morphologyand syntaxof a
naturallanguage expressionembodied in (IV)-(VII).
Note also that under this autolexicaltreatmentnothing special needs to
be said about the agreementfacts of SouthernTiwa. As Allen, Gardiner,
and Frantzpoint out, the verb agrees with its subject and object whether
or not that element is incorporated.Since agreement is determined by
the syntax in the theory I am advocating, and since in this theory the
syntax of incorporated and unincorporatedexpressions is exactly the
same, then the agreement facts are accounted for without further
specification.
5. ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES OF INCORPORATION
The principles developed so far extend to incorporative processes in

other languages besides noun incorporation in West Greenlandic and
SouthernTiwa. In a great many languages, includingWest Greenlandic,
principle(VII) governs what we may, by analogy, call verb incorporation
- the derivation or compoundingof a verb and what is syntacticallyan
auxiliaryelement. Consider the following West Greenlandicexample,for
which the autolexical tree in (55) would seem to be a reasonable
description.
(54) Kaalip qajaq takunnguatsiarpaa

Kaali-p qajaq-0 taku-nnguatsiar-paa
ERG kayakABS see certainly INDIC/3s/3s
Karl certainlysaw the kayak.
1
(55)
N-1 N-1 ~~~V INFL
N INFL N INFL V V
Kaali p qajaq- 0 taku nnguatsiar paa
Kaali qajaq taku~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ngtia
N N ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I
N2N2 VI
v2 ~ ~ V
Here, just as in the case of noun incorporation',a lexeme combines

morphologicallywith the head of a phrase that it governs in the syntax.
Whether such phenomena demand a syntactic treatment or not, it is
intriguing that the principles developed so far are enough to sanction
such a treatment,should it be necessary.
Consider next the following data discussed in Corbett (ins). In Upper
and Lower Sorbian,West Slavonic languages spoken in Lusatia in East
Germany, there are adjective-forming suffixes that can be added to
nouns denoting persons, forming from them adjectives with a meaning
roughly equivalent to the adnominalgenitive of the noun. These derived
adjectives agree with the noun that they modify in just the way ordinary
adjectives do:
(56) (UpperSorbian)
zonina drasta
woman-ADJ-NOMIFEMIsg dress-NOMIFEMIsg
a woman'sdress
But remarkably,the noun from which the adjective is formed retains its
referentiality,and can be modified,possessed,or subsequentlyreferredto
with personalpronouns:
(57) (UpperSorbian)
stareje zonina
old-GENIFEMIsg woman-ADJ-NOMIFEM/sg
drasta
dress-NOMIFEMIsg
dress of an old woman
(58) (UpperSorbian)
mojeho bratrowe dzeci
my-GENIMASCIsg brother-ADJ-NOM/plchild-NOMIpl
my brother'schildren
(59) (LowerSorbian)
to su nasogo nanowe
thoseare our-GENIMASCIsg fatheri-ADJ-NOMIpl
crejeje, won jo je zabyl
shoes hei is them forgotten
Note the agreement pattern in these examples. The derived adjective

agreeswith the noun that it modifiesin case, gender and number,but the
modifierof the internalnoun agrees with the internalnoun in gender and
number22and is always in the genitive case. Syntactically, then, the
incorporatednoun forms a phrase with its modifier,while morphologic-
ally it is the root of an adjective. Suppose the Sorbian denominal
adjective suffixes have the following lexical representations,where [F]
means 'feminine'and [M] means 'masculine':
22 GrevilleCorbett(p.c) informsme that the internalnominalis probablyalwayssingular.
(60)a. -in: morphology:[AN [F]]

syntax: [A' N2[GEN] ]
b. -ow: morphology:[A N [M]-]
syntax: [A' N2 [GEN] ]
Then example (57) above could be analyzedin terms of the double tree
below:
(61) A-'
A-' A INF N-1
Al INF A2 N2 INF
N1
star eje zon in a drast a
star zon in drast
A [XFSG]]
[GEN]] A
2 N
A [F,SG]]
[NOM]
Both nouns are feminine singular, the whole N2 is nominative in this

example, and the internal N2 must be genitive because of the sub-
categorizationrequirementsof the adjective-formingsuffixA2 and prin-
ciple (III). These features are distributedthroughout the syntactic and
morphologicaltrees in the following manner:drast is nominativeand N2
is feminine and singular by (I). A2 is nominative, feminine, singular by
(II), and these featuresare all inheritedby the adjective formingsuffix-in

by (I). The noun stem zon and the N2 that immediatelydominatesit must
share the features genitive, feminine and singularby (I), and so must the
adjective stem star, by (II). The individuallexemes thus bear the follow-
ing features in the morphological tree, matching those in the syntax
according to (IV).
(62) A-'
A-' A / N-1
A A\AA
A1 INF N1 A2 INF N2 INF

GEN TEN] NOM NOM
star eje zon in a drast 'a
The inflectionson A1 and N2 are obviously determinedby the featuresof

the stems, and since A2 is the head of the word zonina, its features
determine the featuresof the derived stem by the generalizedHFC, (I').
Note also that these data conformperfectly to (VII), the majorconstraint
on incorporation.Thus the principles arrived at from considerationsof
noun incorporationin West Greenlandic and Southern Tiwa correctly
account for the inflectionalpropertiesof these apparentlyunusualstruc-
tures of Sorbian.
A very different kind of a case has been brought to my attention by
John Goldsmith (p.c.). He points out that in Kirundi, the future tense
markerhas propertiesof both a morphemein the verbal complex and of
an independentcomplement-takingverb.
In Kirundi,as in other Bantu languages, the verb consists of a number
of morphemes in a fixed order. For our purposes it will be sufficientto
consider the verb as consistingof a subject prefix,a tense prefix,a verbal
stem, and an aspectual suffix.For the most part, the tense morphemesin
this verbal complex have no particularrelevance to the syntax and may
be given lexical specificationthat mentions their morphologicalproper-
ties alone. But the future-tense marker-zoo- is different in at least the
following three ways: (1) unlike all other tense markers,which occur with
the bare stem of the verb, -zoo- requiresan infinitiveform of the verb if
the verb-stembegins in a vowel; (2) the aspect markermust be -a, just as
it must in an independentinfinitive;and (3) if the verb-stem is defective
and lacks an infinitive, it also lacks a future form. Yet it is clear that
-zoo- is morphologicallypart of the verb, not just because it fills the
tense-morphemeslot in the canonical verb template,but also for various
phonological reasons. For one thing, no word of Kirundi can end in a
long vowel as -zoo- does..
These facts indicate that the syntaxof the marker-zoo- is just that of a
verb that takes an infinitivecomplement,while its morphologyis just that
of an ordinaryverb-internalmorpheme. Therefore Goldsmith suggests
an autolexical representationfor a word like bazookuandika 'they will
write' as in (63).
(63) V-1
SUBJ TNS INF V ASP
ba zoo ku andik a
zoo andik a
V ASP
' '.~VI
V [TNS] 1NF]1
This case also falls under (VII), so that -zoo-, which has distinct syntax
and morphologyis requiredto combine with the head of its complement,
which it clearly does in this example and even more clearly does in
correspondingtransitivesentences.
The last example I wish to offer is a case of nominalization.In a careful
and insightful recent treatment of morphological and syntactic inter-
actions, Sugioka (1984) argues that several derivational suffixes of
Japanesetake phrasesas complementsin the syntax.The clearest exam-
ple is perhapsthe deverbal nominalizer-sa.
The syntax of noun phrases in Japanese is in general extremely
restricted,complementsof the head noun being confinedto genitive-case
N2s. But just in case -sa nominalizes a verb of strong desire, the full
syntax of the verb-phrase is preserved as the following two examples
from Sugioka (1984, p. 138) show.
(64) Taroo-wa kane -o hosi-sa-ni nusumi-o sita.

TOP money ACC want because theft ACC did
Taro committedthe robberyout of the desire for money.
(65) Hanako-ni ai -ta-sa -ga tunoru bakarida

DAT meet want NOM increaseever is
My desire to meet Hanako grows ever stronger.
In (64), the phrasekane-o hosi-sa is nominalas indicatedby the fact that

it is the object of the postposition ni and in (65), the phrase Hanako-ni
ai-ta-sa is clearly nominal since it is in the nominative case. But the
subcategorizationrequirementsof the incorporatedverbs hosi and ai-ta
are perfectly preserved, the former requiring an accusative object and
the latter a dative object. We may thereforeassumethat the lexical entry
for -sa includes independent specifications for its morphology and its
syntax like the following, where the ad hoc feature [DES] indicates that
the incorporatedverb phrase must express a desire:
(66) -sa: morphology: [NV ]

syntax: [N' V2 [DES] ]
Note that due to the existence of (I) (the HFC), (IV) (the principle
requiring identity of lexical categories in the syntax and morphology),
and (VII), (the principlethat only heads are incorporated)there is some
redundancy between these two specifications. Since the verb inSthe
morphologicalspecificationmust be the head ot the complement phrase
in the syntactic specification(by VII), that phrase must be a verb phrase

(by I).23 In a similar way, the fact that the phrase that -sa forms in the
syntax is a nominal phrase is related to the morphologicalfact that the
word that is created is a nominal, the connection with the syntax being
provided by (IV).
But should the syntactic redundancy be suppressed in favor of the
morphologicalinformationor vice versa, or should one of these redun-
dancies perhapsbe eliminatedin the syntax and one in the morphology?
I do not have a general answer to these questions, but in the present
case, it is clear that the correct lexical entry for -sa should be as follows.
(67) -sa morphology:[N V ]
(syntax: [XI Y2[DES] ])

Here the syntactic categorial informationis made redundantupon the
morphological specification, the redundant information to be filled in
with the aid of the principlesof autolexicalsyntax.The evidence for this
is that -sa can be affixedto any verb, not just those that express a desire.
When it is affixedto a non-desiderativeverb, however, the derived noun
has just the ordinarysyntax of a noun and can take only genitive-case
adjuncts; that is, it has default (null) syntax in such cases, while its
morphologicalrequirementsremain unchanged. We might indicate this
conveniently by parenthesizingthe syntactic specification as has been
done above.
6. NON-HEAD INCORPORATION
All of the examples of incorporationthat have been dealt with so far

conform strictly to principle(VII).,In West Greenlandic,however, there
are some examples that do not, and if the suggestion of section 2 - that
cliticization ought to be dealt with in an autolexicalfashion - is correct,
then that phenomenon will also typically present counterexamples to
(VII). In (68) we see an example in West Greenlandic of the in-
corporationof a modifierrather than a head, and in (69)-(71), we have
examples of cliticizationfrom English, Latin, and Frenchwhere it is also
the case that a morphemeattaches to somethingother than the head of a
governed phrase.
23
Other generalprinciplesof syntaxwill presumablypredict at least part of the bar level
facts involved here too, but I neglect this refinementhere.
(68) Illumut angisuumukarpoq

illu -mut angisuu -mut -kar-poq
house ALLAT big ALLAT go INDIC/3sg
He went to the big house.
(69) the Queen of England'scrown

(70) boni pueri bellae -que puellae
good boys beautiful CONJ girls
good boys and beautifulgirls
(71) 1' ancienne ville
the old town
But in contrast to the previous examples that obey (VII), (68)-(71) all
involve the affixationof a morphemeto a fully-formedword, not a stem;
or to put it somewhatmore technically, they involve affixationto X-1 as
opposed to X?. Furthermorein (68)-(7 1), the affix is attached to a
peripheralword in the phrase,an initial in (70) and (71), and a finalword
in (68) and (69).
I take it to be the normal state of affairs that affixationto more fully
complemented morphological entities than stems does not conform to
(VII), and suggest that the principle must be made more specific,
requiringsyntactic head incorporationonly when a stem is involved in
the morphologicaloperation:
(VII') If a lexeme L combines syntactically with X' to form a
phrase, but morphologicallywith Y? to form a word, then Y?
must be the syntactic head of a phrase that L governs.
Cliticization, that is, the incorporationof an inflected word, is governed
by a differentprinciplewhich I will state preliminarilyas (VIII):
(VIII) If a lexeme L combines syntactically with X' to form a
phrase, but morphologicallywith Y` (m = 1 or 2) to form a
word, then ym must be syntacticallyadjacent to L.
As an example of the operation of (VIII), consider the well-known case
of the Latin clitic-conjunction que. Let us assume that this lexeme has
just the syntactic propertiesof an ordinaryconjunctionin Latin, but that
it is also subject to the independent morphologicalrequirementthat it
attach as a suffixto a fully inflected word. Then for a phrase such as (70)
above, we would have the dual tree given in (72). Note that here there is
a direct conflict between the orderingrequirementsof the syntax and the
morphology.As in previous cases of such a clash, it is the morphological

requirementthat wins out, as specified by principle (V).
(72) A-2
A-' N-' Al CONJ N-
A INF N INF A INF N INF
bon i puer i bell ae que puell ae
bon puer que bell pull
A N A N
CONJ _
N2 N2
N2
Since que combines morphologicallywith a Y', (VII') does not apply,

but (VIII) does, requiring the form that que combines with mor-
phologically to be adjacent to it in the syntax, which belI(ae) is.
Thus *boni pueri bellae puellaeque is ungrammatical.
Latin -que is added to a peripheralword of its syntactic complement.
But this is not always so. In English auxiliary cliticization, the host
word is in a precedingphrase, not in the VI complementof the auxiliary.
In Kwakwala, case adpositions and demonstrative lexemes (among
others) attach with spectacular abandon to whatever word precedes
them, as in the following example drawnfrom Anderson (1984). In (74),
I borrow Anderson'sessentiallyautolexical analysisand present it in the
notation of the present paper, some details aside.
(73) la- i ax?ed-ida ts'2daqa-x -a 4u?olqw?i

AUX pro takes the woman OBJ the dishes
The woman takes the dishes.
(74) W W W W
la i Wxed ida ts'adaqa x a +u?-2lqw?i
la i ax?ed ida ts'odaqa x a +u?olqw?i
I
DEM '
I
OBJ DEM
\ ~~~DET N DET N
V pro V D N N2
In both English and Kwakwalathere is a general tendency throughout

the language for leftward cliticization. (Think of examples like wanna,
would'ya, lookit). With no firmer evidence than this at hand, I will
nevertheless speculate that this tendency is an option that some lan-
guages exercise, the general constraintbeing that an incorporatednon-
head must still be in a phrase governed by the incorporatingelement.
Consequently,I revise (VIII) as follows.
(VIII') If a lexeme L combines syntactically with X' to form a
phrase, but morphologicallywith Y` (m = 1 or 2) to form a
word, then either
a. the language does all cliticization to the left and Ym is to
the left of L or
b. Y"m is in a phrase governed by L.
Note that in this reformulationI have not mentionedthe adjacencyof the
host word, as I did in the earlier formulation.Let us returnto the Latin
example (70) and consider what the principles developed so far imply
about the order of elements under non-head incorporation.Latin -que is,
by assumption,lexically listed as an enclitic, that is, as an element that
must attach to the end of some fully inflected word; furthermore,Latin is
not a language that evinces the tendency toward leftward attachment
mentioned in (VIII'a). Therefore the position of -que ought to be gov-

erned by (VIII'b). While this correctly requires -que to appear on some
word of the phrase it is associated with syntactically,it does not specify
which word of that phrase the host will be. That it must be an adjacent
word will follow from principles(V) and (VI), which together imply that
the ordering of lexemes is determined by the syntax in all cases where
there is no conflict with morphologicalorderingrequirements.
Clitics in general will then attach to peripheralwords, as emphasized
by Klavans (1980), since they are not required to have heads as hosts,
since, ceteris paribus,syntactic ordering requirementsmust be satisfied,
and since complement-takingsyntactic elements will occur either before
or after their syntactic complementsin a phrase-structuregrammar.The
null hypothesis about the syntax of -que is that it is identical to other
conjunctions which in Latin precede the conjuncts they introduce. We
therefore predict with no special additional assumptionsthe attachment
of -que to the end of the leftmost word of the phrasebellae puellae. -
There is in West Greenlandic,however, at least one counterexampleto
(VII') and (VIII'). This is the morpheme -mioq 'dweller in .', which
attaches to a right-peripheralword of a locative-case N2, as requiredby
(VIII'b), but attaches morphologicallyto a stem rather than a word, and
should thus fall under (VII').
(75) illumi sungaartumioq
illu -mi sungaartoq-mioq
house LOC yellow dweller
one who dwells in the yellow house
(76) N-1 N
N INFL N N
illu mi sungaartoq mioq
illu sungaartoq mioq
N MOD
N2[Ioc] N
Though -mioq is derived historicallyfrom the locative case ending -mi,

and the incorporatingsuffix-u 'to be a __' it is clear both phonologic-
ally and semanticallythat the suffixcannot be synchronicallyso analyzed.
(See Sadock ms. for details.) At the stage at which this etymology was
synchronicallyjustified,the process fit perfectlywith (VIII'), since at that
time -u would have attached to an inflected, locative-case, adjacent N.
Even today there are cases where -mioq attaches to a full-fledged word
and not to a stem, namely where the last word of the locative N2 is a
demonstrative like tassani 'that one (locative)', as in the following
example:
(77) illumi tassanimiut
illu -mi tassa -ni -mioq -t
house LOC that LOC dweller pl
those who live in that house
So -mioq is only sometimes an exception to (VIII') and is at any rate
probablyunique among the 300-400 productive affixes of West Green-
landic in not fully conformingto either (VII') or (VIII').
7. CONJOINABILITY
Principles (VII') and (VIII') are useful in accounting for facts concern-
ing the incorporationof conjuncts. This is possible to some extent in
SouthernTiwa, but not at all in West Greenlandicexcept for a sporad-
ic phenomenonthat appearsto be the polysyntheticanalogue of gapping
(Sadock to appear b). On the face of it, where (VII') applies, it ought to
bar the incorporationof conjuncts altogether,at least if we interpret'the
syntactic head' to mean 'the unique syntactic head', and if we assume
that conjoined phrases are multiply headed. It is therefore of no little
interestthat an incorporatedconjunct in SouthernTiwa behaves as if it is
the unique head of the noun-phraseobject.
The evidence for the incorporatedconjunct'sbeing the unique head in
SouthernTiwa is quite clear. The verb in SouthernTiwa must agree with
both its subject and object phrases, whether these are incorporatedor
not. When a conjoined object is external to the verb, it forces plural
(here type B) agreement on the verb, but when one of the conjuncts is
incorporated,the agreement is only with the incorporatedentity (here
singular,type A agreement).
(78) Kanide-'an bakade-'an bi- tuwi-ban

horse with cow with 1s/B buy PAST
I bought a horse and a cow.
(79) Ba bakade-'an ti- kan- tuwi-ban24

and cow with is/A horse buy PAST
I bought a horse and a cow.
I take it, then, that the syntactic and morphological structures of the
example with the incorporation,(79) is as in (80), which is in full accord
with principle(VII'), whereasthe true coordinatestructureis (81). In the
coordinate structure,(81), there is no unique head of the object phrase
and incorporationis impossible.In (80), the incorporatedN is the lexical
head of its syntactic phrase, the apparentconjunct actually being subor-
dinated (by ba?) to it. The incorporationof a conjunct in Tiwa is thus
governed by Principle(VII') despite first appearances.
(80) N-2 v-1
N1 CL V
? N INF INF N V INF
.ba baka de 'an ti kan tuwi ban
ba baka 'an kan tuwi
N P
P2
N2 V
VI
24
This exampleoccurs in Allen, Gardiner,and Frantz(1984) as
(i) Tikantawibanba bakade'an.
Given the freedom of word order that Southern Tiwa displays, I believe (79) to be
grammaticalas well.
(81) W-2 W-2V1
N-'
N INFL P N INFL P INFL V INFL
Kani de 'an baka de 'an bi tuwi ban

, ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I
Kani 'an baka 'an tuwi
N P N P
P2 P
p2 pV
p2V
VI
West Greenlandicwould appearto offer some counterevidenceto (VII'),

for, as Kleinschmidt (1968) observed, the scope of an auxiliary-like
verbal derivationalaffix can cover another conjunct verb. Thus in (82)
the interpretationof the future auxiliary -umaar has scope over both
conjuncts if it is to be analyzed autolexically as suggested for other
auxiliary-likeaffixesin section 5.
(82) Takullugulu tusarumaarpat.

takur-ugu -lu tusar
see CONTEMP/(2s)13s and hear
-umaar -pat
FUTURE INDIC/2s/4s
You will see it and hear it.
If this example must be assigned the partialrepresentation(83) then it is
a clear counter case to principle (VII'), for tusar would then not be the
unique head of the phrase that -umaarsyntacticallycombines with.
(83)
V
V V
taku lu tusar umaar
V1 CONJ V1
vi ~V
v V
However there is very persuasive evidence that (83) is not the correct
structurefor (82), and that in the appropriatestructure,tusar is in fact
the unique head of the VI that -umaar combines with. The evidence is
that the contemporative mood ('CONTEMP' in the gloss in (82)) is
otherwise a subordinate clause form. It requires that its subject be
coreferent with the subject of the clause to which it is subordinate.This
is a reflection of a general feature of West Greenlandicsyntax, namely
the fact that the straightforwardconjunction of verb phrases or clauses
with like subjects is generally avoided. What is found instead is that one
of the verb phrasesmust appearin the contemporativemood, a formally
subordinateform of the verb. Thus the correct structurefor (82) actually
includes somethinglike (84), which does conform to principle (VII').
(84) V-2
V1 ' CON V-1
V INF V INF
V COMP V V
taku llu gu lu tusar umaar pat
0 0 taku Ilu lu tusar umaar
N2' 2'
S COMP
s / CON
VI V
VI V
vi
Since headshipis irrelevantto (VIII') it should be the case that lexemes

with properties that fall under it ought to be able to combine directly
with one member of a conjunct, in contradistinctionto those that are
governed by (VII'). This seems to be clearly borne out for the English
clitics in (85) and (86).
(85) Bob or Bill's house
(86) Either Bob or Bill's going to do it.
However, the West Greenlandicsuffix -karpoq, discussed in connection
with example (68) above, does not seem to attach to only one memberof
a conjunct (CarolynJenkinsp.c.):
(87) *Nuummullu Sisimiunukassaanga.
Nuuk -mut -lu Sisimiut-mut -kar -ssa -vunga
ALLAT and ALLAT go FUT INDIC/ls
I am going to Nuuk and to Sisimiut.
This is probablybecause its status as an affixthat attaches to an inflected

word is somewhat uncertain. A competing analysis with much to
recommend it would take the affix to be -mukarpoq/-nukarpoq,a
derivational affix that attaches to stems (see Fortescue 1984). The
behaviorof this affixis thus governed by (VII') for some purposes,and by
(VIII') for others.
8. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND PROSPECTS
Noun incorporationis a phenomenon that straddles the boundary be-

tween syntax and morphology.Rather than deal with it by interspersing
rules of the two components, a technique that gravely weakens the
frameworkof grammar,I have argued that in fact a complete separation
of the two structuralsystems is what is desired. I have put forward a
view of the organization of grammar in which all and only syntactic
phenomena are the responsibilityof one component and all and only
morphologicalphenomena are the responsibilityof another. As soon as
we assume that morphological and syntactic parsings are independent
and can in principle fail to coincide, we are in a position to formulate
universal rules governing the types of discrepanciesbetween syntax and
morphologythat naturallanguages actuallyseem to tolerate; to develop,
in other words,a grammarof the interfacebetween two fully autonomous
components of grammarthat serves the function of coordinatingthem.
The resultingsystem is superiorto existing treatmentsof transmodular
processes in several respects. One distinct advantage of an autolexical
treatment of a polysynthetic language is that it allows a cross-com-
ponential analysis of phenomena such as noun incorporationwhile not
requiring the mingling of syntax and morphology where there is no
evidence for it. CarolynJenkinsin ongoing work has shown that accord-
ing to usual methodological practices, the fact that some Greenlandic
morphology requires a syntactic treatmentmeans that virtually all of it
does. The reason relates to Wasow's (1977) criterion for distinguishing
morphology and syntax according to which no syntactic rule may feed
any morphologicalrule.
Suppose incorporationis syntactic, as by now I hope it is clear that it

is. Then according to Wasow's criterion, so must the rule be that affixes
'modal' elements like -uma, 'to want to ', since such elements may
apply to stems derived by incorporation,deriving new stems from old
ones according to (G4) above. In fact, absolutely any of the 300-400
productiveaffixesof the language can follow an incorporatingelement,
so every one of them must be dealt with in the syntax, given the
methodological commitment that Wasow described, regardless of
whether there is any independentevidence for their syntactic character.
Now I am somewhatof an agnostic as to the status of fully productive
affixesthat do not show any direct signs of their syntactic nature. At any
rate, it is bothersometo consign any morpheme,no matterhow typically
morphological,to the syntax just because it happens to apply to forms
that clearly are complex in the syntax. It is thereforean advantageof an
autolexicalview of the relationshipbetween morphologyand syntax that
it allowsboth a syntacticallyrelevant theoryof noun incorporation- such
as the one outlined above - and at the same time a not-implausible
theory of productivemorphemessuch as -uma that makes no reference
to syntax at all. (See Grimshawand Mester (1985) for one such theory
developed in the frameworkof Lexical-FunctionalGrammar.)
An autolexicaltheory of the interface between syntax and morphology
allows us to stop this methodological snowball before it starts rolling.
Considerthe following West Greenlandicexample in which a modal affix
appliesto a stem that is constructedby noun incorporation.
(88) Kaali illoqarumavoq.

Kaali illu- qar- uma -voq
Karl(ABS) house have want INDIC/3s
Karl wants to have a house.
Supposewe can somehow or another prove that -uma is invisible to the

syntax while at the same time agreeing that -qar is to be treated as
suggested above. In an autolexicaltheory this is not a paradox,since the
quite believable double tree (89) can provide an analysis for the sen-
tence. Note that according to the upper part of this diagram, -uma
applies to the (derived, incorporating)affix -qar, a possibility suggested
by the fact that -qar is lexically a verbal element. If we assume that the
presyntacticallyderived affix -qaruma inherits the syntactic and mor-
phologicalpropertiesof -qar, then it will itself be an incorporator,though
not one that needs to be listed separatelyin the lexicon.
(89) X
V Af
N-' V V
N Af N V
Kaali 0 illu q'ar lia voq
Kaali illu qar-uma
N2 V
N2 V1
There are several other advantagesto the system of grammarthat I have

argued for here. First it is considerablymore constrainedand constrain-
able than alternative treatmentswhich might be invoked, such as word
building in the midst of syntactic processing (Sadock 1980, Schmerling
1983), powerful semantic techniques (Bach 1983, Moortgaat ms.), ad-
ditional componentsof grammar(Zwicky 1982, Bissantz 1983), complex
recyclings between two components (Kiparsky 1982, Mohanan 1982,
Pranka1983), and so forth.
Secondly, an autolexical system of syntax is more general in terms of
the range of phenomena that it covers than the specific modificationsof
grammarthat each of these phenomenawould otherwiserequire.While I
have mainly been concerned with the treatmentof incorporation,I have
shown that the basic facts of one very common sort of cliticization in
natural language fall out as the unspecifiedtype of autolexical process,
and have suggested how aspects of derivational and inflectional mor-
phology in several very different languages might also receive a natural
and empiricallysuccessful treatmentin an autolexicalframework.
Thirdly,it seems to me that a grammarconsistingof a numberof fully
autonomousstructuralsubsystemsrelatedto each other by principlesthat
universally require a certain degree of conformitybetween them has a
great deal of psychological plausibility as compared with competing
models for dealing with transmodularphenomena. This plausibilitylies
partiallyin the great simplificationof the individualcomponents-that an
autolexicalsyntaxis capable of achieving, and partiallyin the naturalness
of the principlesof the interface grammarthat makes that simplification
possible.
In the case of West Greenlandic,the language that I have discussed
most carefullyhere, the normalizationthat resultsfrom the separationof
syntax and morphologyis striking. Not only are several special rules of
both syntax and morphology that would otherwise be required to deal
with noun incorporationentirely eliminated, but the language comes to
resemble more familiarlanguages in the details of these two systems to
an extent that is remarkable in view of the typological extremity of
Eskimo. The syntactic and semantic properties of lexemes of West
Greenlandic also turn out to be not very different from those of their
counterparts in English (or Southern Tiwa or Upper Sorbian). What
distinguishesWest Greenlandicfrom less 'exotic' languages is only the
relatively trivial fact that there are more lexemes in West Greenlandic
with independent syntax and morphology than we are accustomed to
finding.
Several of the principles that serve to limit the degree of mismatch
between syntactic and morphologicaltrees need to be in place anyway,
and are simply generalizationsto both componientsof the grammarof
principles suggested independently by syntacticians (I', II', and III').
Principle (IV) merely requires that lexemes be representedin the same
way undersyntacticor morphologicalanalysis,an assumptionthat figures
tacitly in every system of grammar.The remainingprinciples,(V), (VI),
(VII') and (VIII') are unique to autolexicalsyntax,but each has a ring of
empirical and psychological plausibility.It is not only true that mor-
pheme ordering is more rigid than phrasal ordering, it is also quite
reasonablethat this be the case since words are often learnedindividually
and hence characterizedby great internalfixity.Principle(VI) insuresthe
maximumdegree of conformity between the independentsyntactic and
morphologicalrepresentationsthat is consistent with the strong ordering

requirementsof the word formationrules.
Clearly the crux of this paper is to be found in principles (VII') and
(VIII'), two very specific constraintson the kind of incorporativepro-
cesses that are manifested in such diverse languages as West Green-
landic, SouthernTiwa, Kirundi,and Japanese.Though the statusof these
principles is unclear, it seems that something like them are almost
certainly operative constraints on the structure of natural language
grammars. Principle (VII') for example, is quite similar in spirit to
Hoeksema's (1984) suggestion of a class of 'Head Operations' and to
certain observationsmade in Carlson (1983), though it is very different
in implementation.Principle (VIII') is foreshadowedin Klavans (1980)
and Schmerling (1983). It sanctions what might be called, extending
Hoeksema's terminology,a set of 'Edge Operations'.
A great deal obviously remainsto be done both in terms of the search
for further constraints on the interactions of autonomous systems of
syntax and morphology and in terms of the range of phenomena that
deserve treatmentin this transmodularfashion. Though I have few clear
ideas as to where the first of these quests might lead, several kinds of
naturallanguage phenomenathat I have not dealt with spring to mind as
naturalcandidatesfor investigationin an autolexicalframework.
First of all, there are other sorts of clitics represented in natural
languages besides those that have been specifically described here, in-
cluding the inflection-likepronominalclitics of Romance and other lan-
guages, and the particle clitics that obey Wackernagel's(1982) law like
those of Ngiyambaa(Klavans 1983). It remainsto be seen whetherthese
can be accommodatedin a naturalway in the frameworksuggested here.
Next, there are portmanteaulexical items like English won't and wanna,
French du and Spanish del, German zum, and so forth. There are
indicationsthat these sometimesretain behaviorreflectingtheir historical
origins as forms containing clitics, and that sometimes they don't. Thus
Hinrichs(1984) has providedpersuasiveevidence that Germanzum, zur,
vom, etc., are unanalyzed forms quite unrelated to their historical
parents. In French and Spanish, however, examples like l'auteur du
Rouge et le Noire 'the authorof 'Le Rouge et le Noire" (Grevisse 1980)
and el autor del Coronel no Tiene Quien le Escribe 'the author of 'El
Coronel no Tiene Quien le Escribe" (ElmerOjeda, p.c.) stronglysuggest
an autolexical treatment constrained by the same rules that govern
productive cliticization.25
25In unpublished work, Steven Lapointe (ms.) has quite independently suggested a treat-
ment of French du that is strikingly similar to the general style of autolexical syntax.
Finally synthetic compounds and phonological readjustment would

seem amenableto autolexicaltreatment,though their detailed properties
remainto be investigated.
If a view of grammarin which morphology and syntax operate in a
completelyautonomousway and are held together by universalprinciples
relating possible pairings of analyses sanctioned by each turns out to
have the kind of empirical success with respect to these disparate
phenomenathat I hope to have shown it has for incorporation,one can-
not help but wonder whether a similarkind of separationshould not be
seriouslyentertainedin the case of other partiallyoverlappingmodulesof
grammar.I am thinkinghere particularlyof syntaxand semantics,largely
redundantsubsystemswhich neverthelesscannot be collapsed into one. It
is worthwhileconsidering whether the similaritiesand discrepanciesof
analyses provided by these two systems of grammar cannot be ap-
propriately dealt with in terms of what we might call autosyntactic
semantics.
REFERENCES
Allen, BarbaraJ., Donna B. Gardiner,and Donald G. Frantz:1984, 'Noun Incorporationin

SouthernTiwa', IJAL 50, 292-311.
Anderson,StephenR.: 1982, 'Where's-Morphology?', LinguisticInquiry13, 571-612.
1984, 'KwakwalaSyntax and the Government-BindingTheory', in Cook and
Gerdts(eds.), pp. 21-76.
Aronoff, Mark,and S. N. Sridhar:1983, 'MorphologicalLevels in English and Kannada;
or, AtarizingReagan', in Richardson,Marks,and Chukerman(eds.), pp. 3-16.
Bach, Emmon: 1983, 'On the Relationshipbetween Word-Grammarand Phrase-Gram-
mar',NLLT 1, 65-89.
Bissantz, Annette: 1983, 'The Syntactic Conditions on be Reduction in GPSG', in
Richardson,Marks,and Chukerman(eds.), pp. 28-37.
Bloomfield,Leonard:1933, Language, Holt, Rinehartand Winston,New York. Reprinted
1984, Universityof Chicago Press, Chicago.
Carlson, Greg N.: 1983, 'Marking Constituents',in F. Heny and B. Richards (eds.),
LinguisticCategories:Auxiliariesand RelatedPuzzles, Vol. 1, D. Reidel, Dordrecht,pp.
69-98.
Cook, Eung-Do and Donna B. Gerdts(eds): 1984, Syntaxand SemanticsVolume16: The
Syntaxof NativeAmericanLanguages,Academic Press, New York.
Corbett, Greville: 'Agreement: A Partial Specification Based on Slavonic Data',
unpublishedmanuscript,Universityof Surrey.
Fortescue,M. D.: 1980, 'AffixOrderingin West GreenlandicDerivationalProcesses',IJAL
46, 259-78.
1984, WestGreenlandic,Croom Helm, London.
Frantz,Donald G.: 1985, 'SyntacticConstraintson Noun Incorporationin SouthernTiwa',
BerkeleyLinguisticSocietyProceedings11.
Gazdar,Gerald, Ewan Klein, Geoffrey K. Pullum, and Ivan A. Sag: 1985, Generalized
PhraseStructureGrammar,Blackwell,Oxford.
and Geoffrey K. Pullum: 1982, 'Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar:A
TheoreticalSynopsis',IndianaUniversityLinguisticsClub, Bloomington.
Goldsmith, John: 1976, 'An Overview of Autosegmental Phonology', Linguistic Analysis 2,

23-68.
Grevisse, Maurice:1980, Le Bon Usage: GrammaireFrancaiseavec des Remarquessur la
Langue Francaised'Aujourd'hui,Duculot, Paris.
Grimshaw, Jane and Armin Mester: 1985, 'Complex Verb Formation in Eskimo', NLLT 3,
1-20.
Hinrichs, Erhard W.: 1984, 'Attachment of Articles and Prepositions in German: Simple
Cliticization or Inflected Prepositions', Papers on Morphology: Ohio State Working Papers
in Linguistics 29, in A. Zwicky and R. Wallace (eds.), Ohio State University, Columbus,
pp. 127-38.
Hoeksema, Jacob: 1984, Categorial Morphology, Van Denderen, Groningen.
Jensen John T. and Margaret Stong-Jensen: 1984, 'Morphology Is in the Lexicon!',
LinguisticInquiry15, 474-498.
Kaisse, Ellen M.: 1983, 'The Syntax of Auxiliary Reduction in English', Language 59,
93-122.
Kiefer, Ferenc (ed.): 1972, Derivational Processes, KVAL PM Ref. No. 729, Stockholm.
Kiparsky, Paul: 1982, 'Lexical Morphology and Phonology', Linguistics in the Moming
Calm, edited by the LinguisticSociety of Korea, Hanshin,Seoul, pp. 3-91.
Klavans, Judith L.: 1980, 'Some Problems in a Theory of Clitics', unpublishedPh.D.
thesis, University College, London. Distributed 1982, Indiana University Linguistics
Club, Bloomington.
: 1983, 'The Morphology of Cliticization', in Richardson, Marks, and Chukerman
(eds.), pp. 103-121.
Kleinschmidt,S.: 1968, GrammatikdergronlandischenSprachemit teilweisemEinschlussdes
Labradordialekts, Georg Olms, Hildesheim.
Lakoff, George: 1972, 'The Arbitrary Basis of Transformational Grammar', Language 48,
76-87.
Lapointe, Steven G.: 1980, A Theory of Grammatical Agreement, unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
: 1983, 'A Comparison of Two Recent Theories of Agreement', in Richardson,
Marks, and Chukerman (eds.), pp. 122-34.
: 'An Autosegmental Approach to the Problem of du', unpublished manu-
script.
McCarthy, John J.: 1981, 'A Prosodic Theory of Nonconcatenative Morphology', Lin-
guistic Inquiry 12, 373-418.
Mithun, Marianne: 1984, 'The Evolution of Noun Incorporation', Language 60, 847-93.
Mohanan, K. P.: 1981, Lexical Phonology, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge.
Moortgat, Michael: 'A Fregean Restriction on Metarules', unpublished manuscript.
Nida, Eugene A.: 1976, Morphology:The DescriptiveAnalysis of Words(SecondEdition),
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Pranka, Paula M.: 1983, Syntax and Word Formation, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, MIT,
Cambridge.
Richardson, John F., Mitchell Marks, and Amy Chukerman (eds.): 1983, Papers from the
Parasessionon the Interplayof Phonology,Morphology,and Syntax, Chicago Linguistic
Society, Chicago.
Rischel, J0rgen: 1971, 'Some Characteristics of Noun Phrases in West Greenlandic', Acta
LinguisticaHafniensia12, 213-45.
: 1972, 'Derivation as a Syntactic Process in Greenlandic', in Kiefer (ed.), pp. 60-73.
Roeper, T. and M. Siegel: 1978, 'A Lexical Transformation for Verbal Compounds',
Sadock, Jerrold M.: 1980, 'Noun Incorporation in Greenlandic: A Case of Syntactic Word
Formation',Language 56, 300-319.
: 1983, 'The Necessary Overlapping of Grammatical Components', in Richardson,
Marks, and Chukerman (eds.), pp. 198-222.
:1984, 'The PolyredundantLexicon', in David Testen, Veena Mishra,and Joseph

Drogo (eds.), Papers from the Parasessionon Lexical Semantics, Chicago Linguistic
Society, Chicago, pp. 250-269.
: to appeara, 'The SouthernTiwa IncorporabilityHierarchy',to appearin IJAL 51.
: to appearb, 'Some Remarkson Noun Incorporation',to appearin Language.
'The West GreenlandicClitic Cline', unpublishedmanuscript.
Sapir, Edward: 1911, 'The Problem of Noun Incorporationin American Languages',
nAmerican Anthropologist13, 250-82.
Schachter,Paul: 1984, 'AuxiliaryReduction:An Argumentfor GPSG', LinguisticInquiry
15, 514-23.
Schmerling,Susan F.: 1983, 'Montague Morphophonemics',in Richardson,Marks, and
Chukerman(eds.), pp. 222-38.
Selkirk, Elisabeth O.: 1982, The Syntaxof Words,LinguisticInquiryMonographSeries,
MIT Press, Cambridge.
Spencer, Andrew: 1984, 'Towardsa Unified Theory of InflectionalMorphology',unpub-
lished, CentralSchool of Speech and Drama,London.
Sugioka, Yoko: 1984, Interactionof DerivationalMorphologyand Syntax in Japaneseand
English, unpublishedPh.D. thesis, Universityof Chicago, Chicago.
Wackernagel,Jacob: 1892, 'Uber ein Gesetz der indo-germanischenWortstellung',In-
dogermanischeForschungen1, 333-436.
Wasow,Thomas: 1977, 'Transformations and the Lexicon',in Peter W. Culicover,Thomas
Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian(eds.), FormalSyntax, Academic Press, New York, pp.
327-360.
Williams, Edwin: 1981, '9n the Notions 'Lexically Related' and 'Head of a Word",
Zwicky, Arnold M.: 1977, 'On Clitics', IndianaUniversityLinguisticsClub, Bloomington.
1982, 'An Expanded View of Morphologyin the Syntax-PhonologyInterface',
preprintfor the 13th InternationalCongressof Linguists,Tokyo.
: 1984, 'Heads', in A. Zwicky and R. Wallace (eds.), Paperson Morphology:Ohio
State WorkingPapersin Linguistics29, Ohio State University,Columbus,pp. 50-69.
Received 20 December 1984

Revised 6 June 1985
Departmentof Linguistics
Universityof Chicago
Chicago, IL 60637
U.S.A.

Autolexical Syntax A Theory of Noun Inco PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Autolexical Syntax A Theory of Noun Inco PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Autolexical Syntax: A Proposal for the Treatment of Noun Incorporation and Similar Phenomena

Author(s): Jerrold M. Sadock

AUTOLEXICAL SYNTAX: A PROPOSAL FOR

According to the standardpicture of the interface between syntax and

Sl .Sk Si... SISi ... sm

NaturalLanguageand LinguisticTheory3 (1985) 379-439. 0167-806X/85.10

This set of assumptionsis ordinarilytaken as followingfrom an autonomy

BehavioralSciences. Much of my knowledge of West Greenlandiccomes from research

(1981) exploited the 'autosegmental'model of phonology suggested in

phonology are strictly, but trivially, in conformity with the picture

2. BASIC PRINCIPLES OF AUTOLEXICAL SYNTAX

Though I am mainly concerned with noun incorporationhere and will

therefore be desirable to treat a form like about's as having the same

The standardmethod of capturingthe morphosyntacticdualityof clitic 's

John 's here

The well-formednessof the sentence John's heredependspartiallyon the

remarkable syntax, would be ill-formed in that the morphological

4 Two-sideddiagramslike (13) have in fact been employed by Anderson (1984) in his

structure from morphologicalstructure,we might represent a sentence

John see s the dog

John see the dog

Here the inflectional affix -s is represented in the morphology of the

GPSG, a theory that would otherwisehave enormousdifficultieshandling

Any unit that relates to only a single component can be understood in

They American ize d Belgium

They Americanize Belgium

I We may wish to recognize higher-ordersyntactic categories in morphologyin

In cases like these, the morphological trees can be included in the

They American -ize d Belgium

The smooth transitionfrom syntaxto word structuremight in some sense

kinds of phenomenathat never characterizeany naturallanguage system.

More realistically,the distributionof the clitic auxiliaryin English is not

John a good linguist 's

John 's a good linguist

language of New Mexico. In the next section I provide a fairly detailed

3.1. A Simple Syntax

Matters such as noun incorporationaside, the surface syntax of single

(14) Majuarput majuartarfitigut.

(15) Qallunaatut ippoq.

(17) %Ateqarpunga Kaalimik

(18) Ateqarpunga Kaali.

(19) *Kaali ateqarpunga

noun. The modifieris formallya nominal. As opposed to the freedom of

(22) Kaalip illuanutmikisumut

(G2)a. No< MOD

incorporation of inflected forms will be discussed in more detail in

9 The term symbolized'Af' in (G4)-(G7) is a complex of categorialfeatures includinga

built upwardin terms of bar level and morphology is built downward.

(1982). For Selkirkthe 0-bar level in the morphologyrepresentsa maximalmorphological

3.3. A Treatmentof WestGreenlandicNoun Incorporation

nominal are possible, and the incorporatednominal triggers agreement

13 Strictly, we should have the subtree Hansi-N-NI-N2here, as required by (Gld) and

(Gle). I will often suppresssome of the nonbranchingnodes in syntactic trees to save

Hansi 0 illu qar poq

Hansi illu qar

I thus take the sentence analyzedin (30) to be syntacticallyidentical to

(32) Hansi inororpoq

N INFL N INFL N V INFL

Hansi 0 ataaseq nik qamut qar poq

Hansi qamut ataaseq qar

the ending or other morphologicalindicatorof these featuresis not taken

do so we need to take inflections as identity functions of the stems to

(II') The Control Agreement Principleapplies to the syntactic and