Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T08:23:49.543Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The lexicalist hypothesis: Both wrong and superfluous

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Benjamin Bruening
Benjamin Bruening*
Affiliation:
University of Delaware
*
[bruening@udel.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The lexicalist hypothesis, which says that the component of grammar that produces words is distinct and strictly separate from the component that produces phrases, is both wrong and superfluous. It is wrong because (i) there are numerous instances where phrasal syntax feeds word formation; (ii) there are cases where phrasal syntax can access subword parts; and (iii) claims that word formation and phrasal syntax obey different principles are not correct. The lexicalist hypothesis is superfluous because where there are facts that it is supposed to account for, those facts have independent explanations. The model of grammar that we are led to is then the most parsimonious one: there is only one combinatorial component of grammar that puts together both words and phrases.

Keywords

lexicalist hypothesisword formationphrasal syntaxsubword unitsparsimonysingle grammatical component

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 94 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 1 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Linguistic Society of America

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

Abeillé, Anne. 2006. In defense of lexical coordination. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 6. 7–36. Online: http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss6/abeille-eiss6.pdf.Google Scholar
Abels, Klaus, and Martí, Luisa. 2010. A unified approach to split scope. Natural Language Semantics 18. 435-70. DOI: 10.1007/s11050-010-9060-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abney, Steven Paul. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Ackema, Peter. 2014. Japanese causatives are not relevant to lexical integrity. Studia Linguistica 68. 169-97. DOI: 10.1111/stul.12017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackema, Peter, and Neeleman, Ad. 2002. Syntactic atomicity. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 6. 93–128. DOI: 10.1023/A:1023602928159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackema, Peter, and Neeleman, Ad. 2004. Beyond morphology: Interface conditions on word formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Artstein, Ron. 2004. Focus below the word level. Natural Language Semantics 12. 1–22. DOI: 10.1023/B:NALS.0000011145.76954.0b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1985. The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16. 373–415. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178442.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988a. Theta theory and the syntax of applicatives in Chichewa. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6. 353-89. DOI: 10.1007/BF00133903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988b. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Beavers, John, and Sag, Ivan A.. 2004. Coordinate ellipsis and apparent non-constituent coordination. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2004), 48–69. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2004/abstr-beavers-sag.shtml.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Thomas. 1993. Back-formation, cross-formation, and ‘bracketing paradoxes’ in paradigmatic morphology. Yearbook of Morphology 1993. 1–25. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-3712-8_1.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert E. 1985. Coordination reduction in complex words: A case for prosodic phonology. Advances in nonlinear phonology, ed. by van, Harry Hulst, der and Smith, Neil, 143-60. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense, vol. 1: In name only. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. 2005. Against ConjP. Lingua 115. 461-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botha, Rudolf P. 1981. A base rule theory of Afrikaans synthetic compounding. The scope of lexical rules, ed. by Moortgat, Michael, van, Harry Hulst, der, and Hoekstra, Teun, 1–77. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1973. Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4. 275–343. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177775.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The passive in lexical theory. The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. by Bresnan, Joan, 3–86. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Mchombo, Sam A.. 1995. The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13. 181–254. DOI: 10.1007/BF00992782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Moshi, Lioba. 1990. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 147-85. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178668.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Mugane, John. 2006. Agentive nominalizations in Gĩkũyũ and the theory of mixed categories. Intelligent linguistic architectures: Variation on themes by Ronald M. Kaplan, ed. by Butt, Miriam, Dalrymple, Mary, and King, Tracy Holloway, 201-34. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2006. The morphosyntax and semantics of verbal reciprocals. Newark: University of Delaware, ms.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2010. Ditransitive asymmetries and a theory of idiom formation. Linguistic Inquiry 41. 519-62. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2013. By phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax 16. 1–41. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9612.2012.00171.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2014. Word formation is syntactic: Adjectival passives in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32. 363–422. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-014-9227-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caha, Pavel. 2013. Explaining the structure of case paradigms by the mechanisms of nanosyntax: The Classical Armenian nominal declension. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31. 1015-66. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-013-9206-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelen, Herman, and Lepore, Ernie. 2007. Language turned on itself: The semantics and pragmatics of metalinguistic discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N., and Roeper, Thomas. 1980. Morphology and subcategorization: Case and the unmarked complex verb. Lexical grammar, ed. by Hoekstra, Teun, van, Harry Hulst, der, and Moortgat, Michael, 123-64. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Carnie, Andrew. 2000. On the definition of X0 and XP. Syntax 3. 59–106. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9612.00026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaves, Rui P. 2008. Linearization-based word-part ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 31. 261–307. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-008-9040-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaves, Rui P. 2014. On the disunity of right-node raising phenomena: Extraposition, ellipsis, and deletion. Language 90. 834-86. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2014.0081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. by Jacobs, Roderick A. and Rosenbaum, Peter S., 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. Bare phrase structure. Government and binding theory and the minimalist program: Principles and parameters in syntactic theory, ed. by Webelhuth, Gert, 383–439. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cipollone, Domenic. 2001. Morphologically complex predicates in Japanese and what they tell us about grammar architecture. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 56. 1–52.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Gerrig, Richard J.. 1990. Quotations as demonstrations. Language 66. 764–805. DOI: 10.2307/414729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cram, D. F. 1978. The syntax of direct quotation. Cahiers de Lexicologie 33. 41–52.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W., and Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1984. Quotation. Inquiries into truth and interpretation, ed. by Davidson, Donald, 79–92. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
De Kuthy, Kordula. 2002. Discontinuous NPs in German: A case study of the interaction of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles: On the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria, and Williams, Edwin. 1987. On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1978. Governed transformations as lexical rules in a Montague grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 9. 393–426. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178070.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1988. Type raising, functional composition, and non-constituent conjunction. Categorial grammars and natural language structures, ed. by Oehrle, Richard T., Bach, Emmon, and Wheeler, Deirdre, 153-97. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Embick, David, and Marantz, Alec. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39. 1–53. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet, and Vallduví, Enric. 1996. Edinburgh Working Papers in Cognitive Science (Studies in HPSG) 12. 1–32.Google Scholar
Fabb, Fabb Nigel Alexander. 1984. Syntactic affixation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Farrell, Patrick. 2005. English verb-preposition constructions: Constituency and order. Language 81. 96–137. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2005.0017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fu, Jingqi, Roeper, Thomas; and Borer, Hagit. 2001. The VP within process nominals: Evidence from adverbs and the VP anaphor do so. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19. 549-82. DOI: 10.1023/A:1010654105760.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan, and Sag, Ivan A.. 2000. Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning, and use of English interrogatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1976. Some constraints on Bantu causativization. Syntax and semantics, vol. 6: The grammar of causative constructions, ed. by Shibatani, Masayoshi, 325-51. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goddard, Ives. 1988. Post-transformational stem derivation in Fox. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 22. 59–72.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1984. On the grammar and semantics of sentence accent. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. by Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1978. Formal versus functional considerations in phonology. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. by Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 111-76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2008. On the causative construction. The Oxford handbook of Japanese linguistics, ed. by Miyagawa, Shigeru and Saito, Mamoru, 20–53. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 2006. Revisiting anaphoric islands. Language 82. 114-30. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2006.0037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45. 31–80. DOI: 10.1515/flin.2011.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A., and Cutler, Anne. 1988. Psycholinguistic factors in morphological asymmetry. Explaining language universals, ed. by Hawkins, John A., 280–317. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A., and Gilligan, Gary. 1988. Prefixing and suffixing universals in relation to basic word order. Lingua 74. 219-59. DOI: 10.1016/0024-3841(88)90060-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hohenhaus, Peter. 1998. Non-lexicalizability as a characteristic feature of nonce word-formation in English and German. Lexicology 4. 237-80.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1980. Affixation and the unaccusative hypothesis. Chicago Linguistic Society 16. 134-46.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1977. X̅ syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1997. The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 2002. English particle constructions, the lexicon, and the autonomy of syntax. Verb-particle explorations, ed. by Dehé, Nicole, Jackendoff, Ray, McIntyre, Andrew, and Urban, Silke, 67–94. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kabak, Bariş. 2007. Turkish suspended affixation. Linguistics 45. 311-47. DOI: 10.1515/LING.2007.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982a. From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. The structure of phonological representations (Part 1), ed. by van, Harry Hulst, der and Smith, Norval, 131-75. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982b. Lexical phonology and morphology. Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. by Yang, Seok, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. The representation of focus. Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. by Stechow, Arnim von and Wunderlich, Dieter, 825-34. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1996. Frameworks for the representation of focus. ESSLLI 96: Formal grammar, ed. by Kruijff, Geert-Jan M., Oehrle, Richard T., and Morrill, Glyn, 99–112. Universität des Saarlandes: Department of Computational Linguistics and Phonetics.Google Scholar
Kubota, Yusuke, and Levine, Robert. 2016. The syntax-semantics interface of ‘respective’ predication: A unified analysis in hybrid type-logical categorial grammar. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34. 911-73. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-015-9315-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 2003. Complex predicates and predicate raising. Lingua 113. 447-80. DOI: 10.1016/S0024-3841(02)00082-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapointe, Steven G. 1980. A theory of grammatical agreement. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Larsen, Darrell. 2014. Particles and particle-verb constructions in English and other Germanic languages. Newark: University of Delaware dissertation.Google Scholar
Le Bruyn, Bert, and de Swart, Henriëtte. 2014. Bare coordination: The semantic shift. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32. 1205-46. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-014-9237-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefebvre, Claire, and Muysken, Pieter. 1988. Mixed categories: Nominalizations in Quechua. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Rappaport, Malka. 1986. The formation of adjectival passives. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 623-61. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178511.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1988. Phrasal compounds in English and the morphology-syntax interface. Chicago Linguistic Society (Parasession on agreement in grammatical theory) 24(2). 202-22.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing morphology: Word formation in syntactic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle, and Scalise, Sergio. 2007. The lexical integrity hypothesis in a new theoretical universe. Proceedings of the Mediterranean Morphology Meeting 5. 1–24. Online: http://mmm.lis.upatras.gr/index.php/mmm/article/view/2380/2639.Google Scholar
Malouf, Rob. 2000. Verbal gerunds as mixed categories in head-driven phrase structure grammar. Syntax and semantics, vol. 32: The nature and function of syntactic categories, ed. by Borsley, Robert D., 133-66. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher D., Sag, Ivan A.; and Iida, Masayo. 1999. The lexical integrity of Japanese causatives. Studies in contemporary phrase structure grammar, ed. by Levine, Robert D. and Green, Georgia M., 39–79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics (Proceedings of the 21st annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium) 4(2). 201-25. Online: http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol4/iss2/14.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2009. Resultatives and re-resultatives: Direct objects may construct events by themselves. Paper presented at the Penn Linguistics Colloquium.Google Scholar
Mascaró, Joan. 1976. Catalan phonology and the phonological cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg. 2007. How marginal are phrasal compounds? Generalized insertion, expressivity, and I/Q-interaction. Morphology 17. 233-59. DOI: 10.1007/s11525-008-9118-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. 1986. The theory of lexical phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 1996. Yet another paper about partial verb phrase fronting in German. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING '96) 16. 800–805. DOI: 10.3115/993268.993307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2006. Phrasal or lexical constructions? Language 82. 850-83. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2006.0213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2013. Unifying everything: Some remarks on simpler syntax, construction grammar, minimalism, and HPSG. Language 89. 920-50. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2013.0061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan, and Wechsler, Stephen. 2014. Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theoretical Linguistics 40. 1–76. DOI: 10.1515/tl-2014-0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina. 1985. The phonological word in Italian. Advances in nonlinear phonology, ed. by van, Harry Hulst, der and Smith, Neil, 193–204. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2009. Current challenges to the lexicalist hypothesis: An overview and a critique. Time and again: Theoretical perspectives on formal linguistics in honor of D. Terence Langendoen, ed. by Lewis, William D., Karimi, Simin, Harley, Heidi, and Farrar, Scott O., 91–117. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pafel, Jürgen. 2011. Two dogmas on quotation. Understanding quotation, ed. by Brendel, Elke, Meibauer, Jörg, and Steinbach, Markus, 249-76. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pafel, Jürgen. 2015. Phrasal compounds are compatible with lexical integrity. Sprach-typologie und Universalienforschung 68. 263-80. DOI: 10.1515/stuf-2015-0014.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1973. The syntax and semantics of quotation. A festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Anderson, Stephen R. and Kiparsky, Paul, 410-18. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.Google Scholar
Penka, Doris. 2012. Split scope of negative indefinites. Language and Linguistics Compass 6. 517-32. DOI: 10.1002/lnc3.349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. The representation of (in)definiteness, ed. by Reuland, Eric and Meulen, Alice ter, 98–129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan. 1992. Anaphors in English and the scope of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 261–303. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178768.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1969. Anaphoric islands. Chicago Linguistic Society 5. 205-39.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 2004. Skeptical linguistic essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulleyblank, Douglas, and Akinlabi, Akinbiyi. 1988. Phrasal morphology in Yoruba. Lingua 74. 141-66. DOI: 10.1016/0024-3841(88)90057-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rainer, Franz, and Varela, Soledad. 1992. Compounding in Spanish. Rivista di Linguistica 4. 117-42.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya, and Reuland, Eric. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 657–720. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178836.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya, and Siloni, Tal. 2005. The lexicon-syntax parameter: Reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 389–436. DOI: 10.1162/0024389054396881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rochemont, Michael S. 1986. Focus in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, James. 1998. A descriptive approach to language-theoretic complexity. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1. 75–116. DOI: 10.1007/BF02342617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1980. Noun incorporation in Greenlandic: A case of syntactic word formation. Language 56. 300–319. DOI: 10.2307/413758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1991. Autolexical syntax: A theory of parallel grammatical representations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2007. Remarks on locality. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2007), 394–414. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2007/abstr-sag.shtml.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2010. English filler-gap constructions. Language 86. 486–545. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2010.0002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., Baldwin, Timothy, Bond, Francis, Copestake, Ann; and Flickinger, Dan. 2002. Multiword expressions: A pain in the neck for NLP. Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing: Third International Conference, CICLing 2002 (Lecture notes in computer science 2276), 1–15.Google Scholar
Sato, Yosuke. 2010. Complex phrase structures within morphological words: Evidence from English and Indonesian. Lingua 120. 379–407. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1982. The syntax of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth O. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1990. The languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi, and Kageyama, Taro. 1988. Word formation in a modular theory of grammar: Postsyntactic compounds in Japanese. Language 64. 451-84. DOI: 10.2307/414529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, Dorothy. 1978. The adjacency constraint and the theory of morphology. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 8. 189-97.Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane. 1983. Aspects of Warlpiri morphology and syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1988. Bracketing paradoxes and the English lexicon. Language 64. 663-82. DOI: 10.2307/414563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological theory: An introduction to word structure in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2005. Word-formation and syntax. Handbook of word-formation, ed. by Štekauer, Pavol and Lieber, Rochelle, 73–97. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sproat, Richard. 1985. On deriving the lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Sproat, Richard. 1988. On anaphoric islandhood. Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics, ed. by Hammond, Michael and Noonan, Michael, 291–301. Orlando: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subramanian, Uma M. 1988. Subcategorization and derivation: Evidence from Tamil. Chicago Linguistic Society 24. 353-61.Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory L., Sproat, Richard; and McKoon, Gail. 1991. A pragmatic analysis of so-called anaphoric islands. Language 67. 439-74. DOI: 10.2307/415034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1977. Transformations and the lexicon. Formal syntax, ed. by Culicover, Peter, Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian, 327-60. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 1990. Accomplishments and the prefix re-. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 19. 419-34.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2008a. A diachronic account of English deverbal nominals. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 26. 498–506. Online: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/26/abstract1707.html.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2008b. Dualist syntax. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2008), 274-93. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2008/abstr-wechsler.shtml.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wennerstrom, Ann. 1993. Focus on the prefix: Evidence for word-internal prosodic words. Phonology 10. 309-24. DOI: 10.1017/S0952675700000075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 1996. Phrasal compounds and the theory of word syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 27. 183-93. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178931.Google Scholar
Williams, Alexander. 2015. Arguments in syntax and semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 245-74. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178218.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 2007. Dumping lexicalism. The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, ed. by Ramchand, Gillian and Reiss, Charles, 353-81. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar