Late Insertion

26 - Late Insertion

from Part IV - Structural Concerns

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 October 2026

Faruk Akkuş

Edited by

Kleanthes K. Grohmann and

Evelina Leivada

Show author details

Kleanthes K. Grohmann: Affiliation:
University of Cyprus
Evelina Leivada: Affiliation:
Arctic University of Norway

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This vignette looks at properties of Late Insertion (LI) from the Minimalist Program (MP) point of view. Whereas LI is not a tenet of the MP, and is largely motivated by morphological realizational theories, its effects are derivative of syntactic effects in a way that connects with different parts of Minimalist syntax. LI severs the projection of structures determined by a lexical item’s properties from processes that produce its form and meaning. This is compatible with the MP, which aims for a simple, “minimal,” and abstract syntax, placing the burden on interfaces. LI hypothesizes the presence of two domains in the formation of complex objects, which exhibit systematic sets of interactions and contextual effects on both form and meaning sides. The vignette focuses on the form side, concerning conditions under which morphemes may interact to determine each other’s form: allomorphy. This idea of contextual effects is derivative of syntactic locality effects that connect with the MP’s phase theory. The vignette touches on the issue of LI for functional morphemes versus Root, and how insertion of certain features after syntax in the PF component enriches the output of the syntax.

Keywords

Late Insertion Minimalism allomorphy locality form-meaning

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of the Minimalist Program , pp. 504 - 517
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108864152 [Opens in a new window]
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2026

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, S. (1992). A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511586262CrossRef Google Scholar

Arad, M. (2003). Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 737–778.10.1023/A:1025533719905CrossRef Google Scholar

Arad, M. (2005). Roots and Patterns: Hebrew Morphosyntax. Springer.Google Scholar

Aronoff, M. (1976). Word Formation in Generative Grammar. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Aronoff, M. (1992). Morphology by Itself. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Beard, R. (1966). The suffixation of adjectives in contemporary literary Serbo-Croatian. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan].Google Scholar

Bobaljik, J. D. (2012). Universals in Comparative Morphology: Suppletion, Superlatives, and the Structure of Words. MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9069.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Bobaljik, J. D. (2017). Distributed Morphology. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Borer, H. (2004). Structuring Sense. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-Functional Syntax. Blackwell.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783112316009CrossRef Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 1–52). MIT Press; reprinted 1995: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., & Uriagereka, J. (eds,), Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–156). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language (pp. 1–52). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2013). Problems of projection. Lingua, 130, 33–49; reprinted 2005: John Benjamins.10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003CrossRef Google Scholar

Di Sciullo, A. M., & Williams, E. (1987). On the Definition of Word. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Embick, D. (1997). Voice and the interfaces of syntax. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania].Google Scholar

Embick, D. (2000). Features, syntax, and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 185–230.10.1162/002438900554343CrossRef Google Scholar

Embick, D. (2007). Blocking effects and analytic/synthetic alternations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25, 1–37.10.1007/s11049-006-9002-9CrossRef Google Scholar

Embick, D. (2010). Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262014229.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Embick, D. (2015). The Morpheme: A Theoretical Introduction. De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781501502569CrossRef Google Scholar

Embick, D. (2021). The motivation for roots in Distributed Morphology. Annual Review of Linguistics, 7, 69–88.10.1146/annurev-linguistics-040620-061341CrossRef Google Scholar

Embick, D., & Halle, M. (2005). On the status of stems in morphological theory. In Geerts, T., Ginneken, I., & Jacobs, H. (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003 (pp. 59–88). John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Embick, D., & Marantz, A. (2008). Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry, 39, 1–53.10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.1CrossRef Google Scholar

Embick, D., & Noyer, R. (2001). Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 555–595.10.1162/002438901753373005CrossRef Google Scholar

Embick, D., & Noyer, R. (2007). Distributed Morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In Ramchand, G. & Reiss, C. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces (pp. 289–324). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Halle, M. (1991). The Latvian declension. In Booij, G. & van Marie, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1991 (pp. 33–47). Kluwer.Google Scholar

Halle, M. (1997). Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and fission. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 30, 425–449.Google Scholar

Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K. & Keiser, S. J. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Linguistics Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 111–176). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1994). Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In Carnie, A. & Harley, H. (eds.), Papers on Phonology and Morphology (pp. 275–288). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (2008). Clarifying “blur”: Paradigms, defaults, and inflectional classes. In Bachrach, A. & Nevins, A. (eds.), Inflectional Identity (pp. 55–72). Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199219254.003.0003CrossRef Google Scholar

Halle, M., & Vaux, B. (1998). Theoretical aspects of Indo-European nominal morphology: The nominal declensions of Latin and Armenian. In Jasanoff, J., Melchert, H. C., & Oliver, L. (eds.), Mír Curad: Studies in Honor of Calvert Watkins (pp. 223–241). Sonderdruck.Google Scholar

Harbour, D. (2003). The Kiowa case for feature insertion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 543–578.10.1023/A:1024196621352CrossRef Google Scholar

Harley, H. (2014). On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics, 40(3–4), 225–276.10.1515/tl-2014-0010CrossRef Google Scholar

Harley, H., & Noyer, R. (1999). State-of-the-article: Distributed Morphology. GLOT International, 3–9.Google Scholar

Harley, H., & Noyer, R. (2000). Licensing in the non-lexicalist lexicon. In Peeters, B. (ed.), The Lexicon/Encyclopaedia Interface (pp. 349–374). Elsevier.Google Scholar

Haugen, J. D., & Siddiqi, D. (2013). Roots and the derivation. Linguistic Inquiry, 44(3), 493–517.10.1162/LING_a_00136CrossRef Google Scholar

Kalin, L. (2020). Morphology before phonology: A case study of Turoyo (Neo-Aramaic). Morphology, 30(3), 135–184.10.1007/s11525-020-09365-3CrossRef Google Scholar

Kayne, R. (2010). Toward a syntactic reinterpretation of Harris & Halle (2005). In Bok-Bennema, R., Kampers-Manhe, B., & Hollebrandese, B. (eds.), Selected Papers from “Going Romance” (pp. 145–170). John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, P. (1973). “Elsewhere” in phonology. In Anderson, S. R. & Kiparsky, P. (eds.), Festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 93–106). Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Lieber, R. (1980). On the organization of the lexicon. [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology].Google Scholar

Lieber, R., & Scalise, S. (2006). The lexical integrity hypothesis in a new theoretical universe. Lingue e Linguaggio, 1, 7–32.Google Scholar

Marantz, A. (1995). A late note on late insertion. In Kim, S., Lee, B., Lee, K., Yang, K., & Yoon, J. (eds.), Explorations in Generative Grammar (pp. 396–413). Hankuk.Google Scholar

Marantz, A. (1997). No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Dimitriadis, A., Siegel, L., Surek-Clark, C., & Williams, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium (pp. 201–225). Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar

Marantz, A. (2000). Roots: The universality of root and pattern morphology. [Paper presentation]. Conference on Afro-Asiatic languages, Paris, France.Google Scholar

Marantz, A. (2010). Locality domains for contextual allosemy in words. [Handout of a talk given at the University of California, Santa Cruz, 30].Google Scholar

Marantz, A. (2013). Locality domains for contextual allomorphy across the interfaces. In Matushansky, O. & Marantz, A. (eds.), Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle (pp. 95–115). MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9701.003.0008CrossRef Google Scholar

Mitrović, M. (2018). First-phase semantics. In Panagiotidis, P. & Mitrović, M. (eds.), A0: The Lexical Status of Adjectives (pp. 257–292). John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Moskal, B. (2015). A case study in nominal suppletion. Linguistic Inquiry, 46, 376–387.10.1162/LING_a_00185CrossRef Google Scholar

Noyer, R. (1997). Features, Positions and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. Garland.Google Scholar

Noyer, R. (1998). Impoverishment theory and morphosyntactic markedness. In Lapointe, D. B. & Farrell, P. (eds.), Morphology and Its Relation to Phonology and Syntax (pp. 264–285). CSLI.Google Scholar

Panagiotidis, P. (2011). Categorial features and categorizers. Linguistic Review, 28, 325–346.10.1515/tlir.2011.010CrossRef Google Scholar

Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero Syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Pollock, J. (1989). Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20(3), 365–424.Google Scholar

Sag, I., & Wasow, T. (1999). Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction. CSLI.Google Scholar

Siddiqi, D. (2009). Syntax within the Word: Economy, Allomorphy, and Argument Selection in Distributed Morphology. John Benjamins.10.1075/la.138CrossRef Google Scholar

Starke, M. (2002). The day syntax ate morphology. [Lecture, EGG Summer School, University of Novi Sad, Serbia].Google Scholar

Starke, M. (2009). Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language. In Svenonius, P., Ramchand, G., Starke, M., & Taraldsen, K. T. (eds.), Tromsø Working Papers on Language and Linguistics. Special Issue on Nanosyntax (pp. 1–6). University of Tromsø.Google Scholar

van Koppen, M. (2017). Complementizer agreement. In Everaert, M. & Riemsdijk, H. C. (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed. (pp. 1–40). Wiley.Google Scholar

Williams, E. (1981). On the notions “lexically related” and “head of a word.” Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 245–274.Google Scholar

Wunderlich, D. (1993). Funktionale Kategorien im Lexikon. In Beckmann, F. & Heyer, G. (eds.), Theorie und Praxis des Lexikons (pp. 54–73). De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110884630.54CrossRef Google Scholar

Zwicky, A. (1985). How to describe inflection. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 11, 372–386.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Inaccessible, or known limited accessibility

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 is known to have missing or limited accessibility features. We may be reviewing its accessibility for future improvement, but final compliance is not yet assured and may be subject to legal exceptions. If you have any questions, please contact accessibility@cambridge.org.

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.

Index navigation
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

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

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.

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.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.