Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T22:08:12.192Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Heads1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Arnold M. Zwicky
Arnold M. Zwicky
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recent work on morphology – Lieber, 1981; Williams, 1981; Kiparsky, 1982; and Selkirk, 1982, in particular – has extended the notion of HEAD from syntax into new areas in morphology. In particular, these writers propose that in forms with derivational affixes, like English happiness, the affix is the head of the combination; for instance, Kiparsky assumes (following Lieber) ‘that all word formation is endocentric’, meaning by this ‘that the category of a derived word is always non-distinct from the category of its head, in English usually the rightmost constituent (cf. Williams, 1981)’ (133).

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 1985, pp. 1 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. (1976). On serialization in English syntax. Ludwigsburg Studies in Language and Linguistics I. Ludwigsburg: R.O.U. Strauch.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. D. (1977). On the formal description of inflection. Chicago Linguistic Society 13. 15–44.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M. & Sridhar, S. N. (1983). Morphological levels in English and Kannada, or Atarizing Reagan. In Richardson, J. F., Marks, M. & Chukerman, A. (eds.), Papers from the parasession on the interplay of phonology, morphology, and syntax. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 3–16.Google Scholar
Bach, E. (1983). On the relationship between word-grammar and phrase-grammar. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 1.1. 65–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, E. & Partee, B. (1980). Anaphora and semantic structure. In Kreiman, J. & Ojeda, A. E. (eds.), Papers from the parasession on pronouns and anaphora. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 1–28.Google Scholar
Bartsch, R. & Vennemann, T. (1972). Semantic structures. Frankfurt: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (1983). English word formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Carlson, G. N. (1983). Marking constituents. In Heny, F. & Richards, B. (eds.), Linguistic categories: Auxiliaries and related puzzles, vol. 1. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. 69–98.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1980). A first dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. (1980). Some arguments for higher nodes in syntax: a reply to Hudson's ‘Constituency and dependency’. Linguistics 18. 485–488.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. E. (1972). Evidence that indirect object movement is a structure-preserving rule. FLang 8. 546–561.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G., Klein, E. & Pullum, G. K., (eds.). (1983). Order, concord and constituency. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G. & Pullum, G. K. (1982). Generalized phrase structure grammar: a theoretical synopsis. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G., Pullum, G. K. & Sag, I. A. (1982). Auxiliaries and related phenomena in a restrictive theory of grammar. Lg 58.3. 591–638.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. A. (1976). An overview of autosegmental phonology. Linguistic Analysis 2. 23–68.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.). Universals of language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 73–113.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. S. (1951). Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. A. (1958). A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. A. (1980a). Constituency and dependency. Linguistics 18. 179–198.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. A. (1980b). A second attack on constituency: a reply to Dahl. Linguistics 18. 489–504.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1977). X¯ syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Janda, R. D. (1983). ‘Morphemes’ aren't something that grows on trees: Morphology as more the phonology than the syntax of words. In Richardson, J. F., Marks, M. & Chukerman, A. (eds.), Papers from the parasession on the interplay of phonology, morphology, and syntax. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 79–95.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1924). Philosophy of grammar. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Joseph, B. & Wallace, R. (1984). Lexical relatedness, head of a word, and the misanalysis of Latin. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 29. 30–49.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. (1974). The functional principle: Generalizing the notion of ‘subject of’. Chicago Linguistic Society 10. 298–309.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1982). From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds.), The structure of phonological representations (Part I). Dordrecht: Foris, 131–75.Google Scholar
Klein, E. & Sag, I. A. (To appear). Type-driven translation. Linguistics and Philosophy.Google Scholar
Korhonen, J. (1977). Studien zu Dependenz, Valenz und Satzmodell. Teil I: Theorie and Praxis der Beschreibung der deutschen Gegenwartsprache. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lees, R. B. (1960). The grammar of English nominalizations. IJAL 26.3.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (1981). On the organization of the lexicon. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (1982). Re reduplication. LingI 13.3. 435–482.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1967). The main features of Modern Greek verb inflection. FLang 3. 262–284.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1972). Inflectional morphology: a theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. Cambridge: Cambridge Universtiy Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1974). Morphology: an introduction to the theory of word structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1981). Syntax. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. (1981). A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. LingI 12.3. 373–418.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. (1982). Prosodic templates, morphemic templates, and morphemic tiers. In van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds.), The structure of phonological representations (Part I). Dordrecht: Foris. 191–223.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. (1982). Parametrizing the notion ‘head’. Journal of Linguistic Research 2.3. 57–75.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. & Wilson, D. (1977). Autonomous syntax and the analysis of auxiliaries. Lg 53.4. 741–788.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. J. (1970). Dependency structures and transformational rules. Lg 46.2. 259–285.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A., Gazdar, G., Wasow, T. & Weisler, S. (1984). Coordination and how to distinguish categories. Report No. CSLI-84–3. Stanford, Calif.: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Schmerling, S. F. (1983). Montague morphophonemics. In Richardson, J. F., Marks, M. & Chukerman, A. (eds.), Papers from the parasession on the interplay of phonology, morphology, and syntax. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 222–237.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1980). On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1982). The syntax of words. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. (1975). An explanation of drift. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Word order and word order change. Austin: University of Texas Press. 269–305.Google Scholar
Wells, R. S. (1947). Immediate constituents. Lg 23. 81–177.Google Scholar
Whitney, W. D. (1889). Sanskrit grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1981). On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’. LingI 12. 245–274.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. (1977). On clitics. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. (1984). Welsh Soft Mutation and the case of object NPs. Chicago Linguistic Society 20. 387–402.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. (To appear). Cliticization vs. inflection: The Hidatsa mood markers. International Journal of American Linguistics.Google Scholar