Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part I Comparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- Part II Comparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- 10 Words and Features
- 11 Pronouns
- 12 Functional Architecture of Nominal Phrases
- 13 Functional Architecture of Adjectival Phrases
- 14 Functional Architecture of Prepositional Phrases
- 15 Analyzing Tenselessness
- 16 Voice
- 17 Coordination
- 18 Clause Types
- Part III Comparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- Part IV Comparative Syntax: Interfaces
- Index
- References
10 - Words and Features
from Part II - Comparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2026
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part I Comparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- Part II Comparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- 10 Words and Features
- 11 Pronouns
- 12 Functional Architecture of Nominal Phrases
- 13 Functional Architecture of Adjectival Phrases
- 14 Functional Architecture of Prepositional Phrases
- 15 Analyzing Tenselessness
- 16 Voice
- 17 Coordination
- 18 Clause Types
- Part III Comparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- Part IV Comparative Syntax: Interfaces
- Index
- References
Summary
In this chapter, we address questions related to cross-linguistic variation in the organization of features and their morphological expression in words (or morphemes), focusing on implications for syntax. It tries to bring together topics pertaining to both words and features, two types of primitives that are not the same for most syntactic frameworks. The questions that guide the content of the chapter are: Is there a universal feature hierarchy? How are these features organized? How are they expressed? Even though there is no uniform answer to each of these questions, there seem to be clear tendencies in both the domains of features and word(building) in relation to syntax. However, the limits of variation, and the details of specific issues are still active areas of investigation. Topics that are discussed in relation to these questions are the status of features as binary or privative; bundling of features in one or multiple heads in the clausal spine; the expression of a morphosyntactic feature as an affix, clitic, or freestanding element; and polysynthetic languages.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax , pp. 295 - 330Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Aboh, E. O. 2016. Information structure: A cartographic perspective. In Féry, C. and Ishihara, S. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, 147–164. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aboh, E. O., and Essegbey, J.. 2010. General properties of the clause. In Aboh, E. O. and Essegbey, J. (eds.), Topics in Kwa Syntax [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 78], 39–64. Springer, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackema, P., and Neeleman, A.. 2018. Features of Person: From the Inventory of Persons to Their Morphological Realization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, F., and Stump, G.. 2004. Paradigms and periphrastic expression: A study in realization-based lexicalism. In Sadler, L. and Spencer, A. (eds.), Projecting Morphology, 111–158. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Adger, D., and Harbour, D.. 2008. Why phi? In Harbour, D., Adger, D., and Béjar, S. (eds.), Phi Theory: Phi-Features across Modules and Interfaces, 1–34. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Adger, D., Harbour, D., and Watkins, L. J.. 2009. Mirrors and Microparameters: Phrase Structure beyond Free Word Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akmajian, A., and Wasow, T.. 1975. The constituent structure of VP and AUX and the position of the verb be. Linguistic Analysis 1: 205–245.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E. 2017. The person case constraint. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arregi, K., and Nevins, A.. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque Auxiliaries and the Structure of Spellout. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, P., and Bresnan, J.. 1996. Non-configurationality in Australian Aboriginal languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 14(2): 215–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C. 1985. The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 373–415.Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett-Keach, C. N. 1986. Word-internal evidence from Swahili for AUX/INFL. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 559–564.Google Scholar
Benincà, P., and Poletto, C.. 2004. Topic, focus, and V2. In Rizzi, L. (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP (The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 2), 52–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bliss, H. 2013. The Blackfoot Configurationality Conspiracy. PhD thesis, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Blix, H., (2022) “Interface Legibility and Nominal Classification: A Nanosyntactic Account of Kipsigis Singulatives”, Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 7(1). https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5825.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J., and Thráinsson, H.. 1998. Two heads aren’t always better than one. Syntax 1: 37–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogomolets, K. 2022. Possessive prefixes across Algonquian: Evidence for two separate paradigms. In Proceedings of the 53rd Algonquian Conference. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.Google Scholar
Bogomolets, K., Fenger, P., and Stegovec, A.. 2024. Movement in disguise: Morphology as a diagnostic for verb movement in Algonquian. Syntax. https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bossi, M. 2021. *Local > local is morphological: Promiscuous agreement and a novel ditransitive person restriction in Kipsigis. Ms., University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2001. On the Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface: Cliticization and Related Phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2002. Clitics as non-branching elements and the Linear Correspondence Axiom. Linguistic Inquiry 33(2): 329–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branigan, P., and MacKenzie, M.. 2002. Altruism, A-bar-movement, and object agreement in Innu-aimûn. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 385–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brittain, J. 1999. The Distribution of the Conjunct Verb Form in Western Naskapi and Related Morpho-Syntactic Issues. PhD thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland.Google Scholar
Brittain, J. 2001. The Morphosyntax of the Algonquian Conjunct Verb. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Bruening, B. 2001. Syntax at the Edge: Cross–Clausal Phenomena and the Syntax of Passamaquoddy. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Bruening, B. 2009. Algonquian languages have A-movement and A-agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 427–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, B. 2018. The lexicalist hypothesis: Both wrong and superfluous. Language 94(1): 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béjar, S. 2011. Remarks on omnivory and complementarity: A commentary on the paper by Andrew Nevins. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(4): 973–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béjar, S., and Rezac, M.. 2009. Cyclic Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40(1): 35–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calabrese, A. 1995. A constraint-based theory of phonological markedness and simplification procedures. Linguistic Inquiry 26(3): 373–463.Google Scholar
Calabrese, A. 2011. Investigations on markedness, syncretism and zero exponence in morphology. Morphology 21(2): 283–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calabrese, A. 2019. Morphophonological Investigations: A Theory of PF. Ms., University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Campana, M. 1996. The conjunct order in Algonquian. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 3: 201–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G., and Rizzi, L.. 2009. The cartography of syntactic structures. In Heine, B. and Narrog, H. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, 1–21. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N., and Sezer, E.. 1982. Vowel and consonant disharmony in Turkish. In van der Hulst, H. and Smith, N. (eds.), The Structure of Phonological Representations, Part 2, 213–255. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Compton, R., and Pittman, C.. 2010. Word-formation by phase in Inuit. Lingua 120: 2167–2192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, C. 2008. The Syntax and Semantics of Clause-Typing in Plains Cree. PhD thesis, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Coon, J., and Keine, S.. 2021. Feature gluttony. Linguistic Inquiry 52(4): 655–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coon, J., and Preminger, O.. 2013. Transitivity in Chol: A new argument for the split-VP hypothesis. In Fainleib, L., LaCara, N., and Park, Y. (eds.), NELS 41: Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistics Society, 127–142. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Coon, J., Keine, S., and Wagner, M.. 2017. Hierarchy effects in copular constructions: The PCC corner of German. In Lamont, A. and Tetzloff, K. (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 47, 205–2014. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Cowper, E. 2010. Where auxiliary verbs come from. In Heijl, M. (ed.), Proceedings of the 2010 Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 1–16. CLA.Google Scholar
Dahlstrom, A. 1986. Weak crossover and obviation. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 234–253. Berkeley, CA: BLS.Google Scholar
Davis, C. 2018. Auxiliaries in North Azeri and some related issues. In Proceedings of Turkish, Turkic and the Languages of Turkey (Tu+1). Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Deal, A. R. 2021. Interaction, satisfaction, and the PCC. Linguistic Inquiry 55(1): 39–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Déchaine, R.-M. 1993. Predicates across Categories: Towards a Category-Neutral Syntax. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
den Besten, H. 1977. On the Interaction of Root Transformations and Lexical Deletive Rules. Ms., MIT [Published as Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 20: 1–78].Google Scholar
den Besten, H. 1989. Studies in West-Germanic Syntax. PhD thesis, University of Tilburg.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, A.-M., and Williams, E.. 1984. On the Definition of Word [Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 14]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Driemel, I., Özdemir, A. B., and Popp, M.-L.. 2021. Direction towards Person: Canonical Inverse and Reverse PCC in Adyghe. Ms., Leipzig University.Google Scholar
Duponceau, P. S. 1819. Report of the corresponding secretary to the committee, of his progress in the investigation committed to him of the general character and forms of the languages of the American Indians: Read, 12th Jan. 1819. In Transactions of the Historical & Literary Committee of the American Philosophical Society, xvii–xlvi.Google Scholar
Embick, D. 2000. Features, syntax, and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry 31(2): 185–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, D., and Halle, M.. 2004. The Latin Conjugation. Ms., University of Pennsylvania and MIT.Google Scholar
Embick, D., and Noyer, R.. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlewine, M. Y. 2016. Anti-locality and optimality in Kaqchikel Agent Focus. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34(2): 429–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ershova, K. 2020. Two paths to polysynthesis: Evidence from West Circassian nominalizations. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38: 425–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, N. 2002. The true status of grammatical object affixes. In Evans, N. and Sasse, H.-J. (eds.), Problems of Polysynthesis [Studia Typologica 4], 15–50. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, G. 2009. Bootstrapping verb movement and the clausal architecture of German (and other languages). In Alexiadou, A., Hankamer, J., Nuger, T. M. J., and Schäfer, F. (eds.), Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax, 85–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenger, P. 2020. Words within Words. The Internal Syntax of Verbs. PhD thesis, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Fortescue, M., Mithun, M., and Evans, N.. 2017. The Oxford Handbook of Polysynthesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giorgi, A., and Pianesi, F.. 1997. Tense and Aspect: From Semantics to Morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grafstein, A. 1984. Argument Structure and the Syntax of a Non-Configurational Language. PhD thesis, McGill University.Google Scholar
Hale, K. 1983. Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 1: 5–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, M., and Marantz, A.. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K. L. and Keyser, S. J. (eds.), The View from Building 20, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hamilton, M. D. 2015. Phrase structure in Mi’gmaq: A configurational account of a “non-configurational” language. Lingua 167: 19–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammerly, C. 2020. Person-Based Prominence in Ojibwe. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Hammerly, C. 2021a. A set-based representation of person features: Consequences for AGREE. In Farinella, A. and Hill, A. (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 51, 189–198. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Hammerly, C. 2021b. A Verb Raising Analysis of the Ojibwe VOS/VSO Alternation: Lessons for Feature Copying and Movement. Ms., University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.Google Scholar
Harbour, D. 2007. Morphosemantic Number: From Kiowa Noun Classes to UG Number Features. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harbour, D. 2011. Valence and atomic number. Linguistic Inquiry 42(4): 561–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harbour, D. 2014. Paucity, abundance, and the theory of number. Language 91(1): 185–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, H. 2013. External arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the distinctness of Voice and v. Lingua 125: 34–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, H. 2017. The “bundling” hypothesis and the disparate functions of little v. In Roberta d’Alessandro, I. F. and Gallego, Ángel (eds.), The Verbal Domain, 3–28. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harley, H., and Ritter, E.. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78: 482–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A. 2015. Verb second. In Kiss, T. and Alexiadou, A. (eds.), Syntax: Theory and Analysis, 342–383. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hsu, B. 2017. Verb second and its deviations: An argument for feature scattering in the left periphery. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1): 35. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.132.Google Scholar
Hsu, B. 2021. Coalescence: A unification of bundling operations in syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 52(1): 39–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jelinek, E. 1984. Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2(1): 39–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johns, A. 2007. Restricting noun incorporation: root movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25: 535–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Julien, M. 2002. Syntactic Heads and Word Formation: A Study of Verbal Inflection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kabak, B., and Vogel, I.. 2001. The phonological word and stress assignment in Turkish. Phonology 18: 315–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalin, L., and Weisser, P.. 2024. Minimalism and morphology. In Grohmann, K. and Leivada, E. (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kastner, I. 2020. Voice at the Interfaces: The Syntax, Semantics and Morphology of the Hebrew Verb. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Kastner, I., and Zu, V.. 2017. Blocking and paradigm gaps. Morphology 27(4): 643–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. 2005. A note on the syntax of quantity in English. In Movement and Silence, 176–214. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keine, S., Wagner, M., and Coon, J.. 2019. Hierarchy effects in copula constructions. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 64: 617–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, G. 2013. The Morphosyntax of the Turkish Causative Construction. PhD thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 2005. Blocking and periphrasis in inflectional paradigms. Yearbook of Morphology 204: 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koeneman, O. 2000. The Flexible Nature of Verb Movement. PhD thesis, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Koopman, H., and Szabolcsi, A.. 2000. Verbal Complexes [Current Studies in Linguistics 34]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornfilt, J. 1996. On copular clitic forms in Turkish. In Alexiadou, A., Fuhrkop, N., Law, P., and Löhken, S. (eds.), ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 96–114. Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
Kouneli, M. 2021. Number-based noun classification: The view from Kipsigis. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 39(4): 1195–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, J. and Zaring, L. (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, H. 1995. Verbal morphology: Syntactic structures meets the Minimalist Program. In Campos, H. and Kempchinsky, P. (eds.), Evolution and Revolution in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Carlos Otero, 251–275. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Lees, R. 1961. The Phonology of Modern Standard Turkish. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Legate, J. A. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, J. A. 2001. The configurational structure of a nonconfigurational language. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 1: 63–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leman, E. M. 1999. Cheyenne Major Constituent Order. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lochbihler, B., and Mathieu, E.. 2016. Clause typing and feature inheritance of discourse features. Syntax 19(4): 354–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohitare, L., Lohammarimoi, D., Peter, D. T., and Joseph, P.. 2012. Didinga Grammar Book. Juba: SIL Publications.Google Scholar
Manzini, R., and Savoia, L.. 2005. I dialetti italiani e romanci.: Morfosintassi generativa. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso [3 volumes].Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 1988. Clitics, morphological merger, and the mapping to phonological structure. In Hammond, M. T. and Noonan, M. P. (eds.), Theoretical Morphology, 253–270. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, A. 2013. Verbal argument structure: Events and participants. Lingua 124: 152–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinović, M. 2017. Wolof wh-movement at the syntax–morphology interface. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 35: 205–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattizen, J. 2017. Sub-types of polysynthesis. In The Oxford Handbook of Polysynthesis, 70–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murasugi, K. 2014. Noun incorporation, non-configurationality and polysynthesis. In Carnie, A., Siddiqi, D., and Sato, Y. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Syntax, 283–303. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. 1981. Quechua word structure. In Heny, F. (ed.), Binding and Filtering, 279–327. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Myler, N. 2021. Three Approaches to Mirror Principle Violations and Their Typological Predictions. Handout from talk given at the General Linguistics Seminar at Oxford University.Google Scholar
Nevins, A. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25(2): 273–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevins, A. 2008. Cross-modular parallels in the study of phon and phi. In Harbour, D., Adger, D., and Béjar, S. (eds.), Phi Theory: Phi-Features across Modules and Interfaces, 329–367. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevins, A. 2011. Multiple agree with clitics: Person complementarity vs. omnivorous number. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(4): 939–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newell, H., and Piggott, G.. 2014. Interactions at the syntax–phonology interface: Evidence from Ojibwe. Lingua 150: 332–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62(1): 56–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsen, , 2003. Eliminating Positions: Syntax and Semantics of Sentence Modification. PhD thesis, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Oxford, W. 2019. Inverse marking and multiple agree in Algonquin. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37(3): 955–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pescarini, D. 2010. Elsewhere in Romance: Evidence from clitic clusters. Linguistic Inquiry 41(3): 427–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pietraszko, A. 2017. Inflectional Dependencies: A Study of Complex Verbal Expressions in Ndebele. Ph D thesis, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Pietraszko, A. 2023. Cyclic selection: Auxiliaries are merged, not inserted. Linguistic Inquiry 54(2): 350–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20(3): 365–424.Google Scholar
Rhodes, R. A. 1979. Some aspects of Ojibwa discourse. In Cowan, W. (ed.), Papers of the Tenth Algonquian Conference, 102–117. Ottawa: Carleton University Press.Google Scholar
Richards, N. 2004. The syntax of the conjunct and independent orders in Wampanoag. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 70(4): 327–368.Google Scholar
Richards, N. 2009. Maliseet VP-ellipsis and the syntax of polysynthesis. In Walkow, M., Schardl, A., and Abdurrahman, M. (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 38. Amherst, MA: North Eastern Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Ritter, E. 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. In Rothstein, S. D. (ed.), Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing, 37–62. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 1998. Have/be raising, Move F, and procrastinate. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 113–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1969. Auxiliaries as main verbs. Studies in Philosophical Linguistics 1: 77–102.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Shwayder, K. 2015. Words and Subwords: Phonology in a Piece-Based Syntactic Morphology. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. 1991. Warlpiri Morpho-Syntax. A LEXICALIST Approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starke, M. 2018. Complex left branches, spellout, and prefixes. In Baunaz, L., de Clercq, K., Haegeman, L., and Lander, E. (eds.), Exploring Nanosyntax, 239–249. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stegovec, A. 2020. Taking case out of the Person-Case Constraint. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38(1): 261–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugioka, Y. 1984. Interaction of Derivational Morphology and Syntax in Japanese and English. PhD thesis, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Sundaresan, S., and McFadden, T.. 2017. The articulated v layer: Evidence from Tamil. In Roberta d’Alessandro, I. F. and Gallego, Ángel (eds.), The Verbal Domain, 153–178. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swenson, A. 2017. The Morphosemantics and Morphosyntax of the Malayalam Verb. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, K. T., Medová, L. T., and Langa, D.. 2018. Class prefixes as specifiers in Southern Bantu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36(4): 1339–1394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomlin, R., and Rhodes, R. A.. 1979. An introduction to information distribution in Ojibwa. In Clyne, P. R., Hanks, W. F., and Hofbauer, C. L. (eds.), Papers from the Fifteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 234–253. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. 1969. Principles of Phonology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, M. 2020. Argument Structure and Argument-Marking in Choctaw. PhD thesis, Yale University.Google Scholar
Valentine, R. J. 2001. Nishnaabemwin Reference Grammar. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, H. 1999. Clitics in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
van Urk, C. 2015. A Uniform Syntax for Phrasal Movement: A Case Study of Dinka Bor. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
von Humboldt, W. 1836. Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluß auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts. Berlin: Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Wood, J. 2015. Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Structure. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, J., and Marantz, A.. 2017. The interpretation of external arguments. In Roberta d’Alessandro, I. F. and Gallego, Ángel (eds.), The Verbal Domain, 255–278. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Woolford, E. 2017. Mainland Scandinavian object shift and the puzzling ergative pattern in Aleut. In Bailey, L. R. and Sheehan, M. (eds.), Order and Structure in Syntax, 117–134. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Yuan, M. 2022. Ergativity and object movement across Inuit. Language 98(3): 510–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeijlstra, H. 2008. On the syntactic flexibility of formal features. In Biberauer, T. (ed.), On the Syntactic Flexibility of Formal Features, 143–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, H. 2014. On the uninterpretability of interpretable features. In Kosta, P., Franks, S. L., Radeva-Bork, T., and Schürcks, L. (eds.), Minimalism and Beyond, 109–129. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A. M., and Pullum, G. K.. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t. Language 59(3): 502–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter
complies with version 2.2 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range
of users and attains the highest
(AAA)
level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive
accessibility guidelines.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
Visual Accessibility
Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.