Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T08:24:42.260Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The end of lexicalism as we know it?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Stefan Müller
Stefan Müller*
Affiliation:
Humboldt Universität zu Berlin
*
Sprach- und literaturwissenschaftliche Fakultät, Institut für deutsche Sprache und Linguistik, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany, [St.Mueller@hu-berlin.de]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper is a reply to Benjamin Bruening's article ‘The lexicalist hypothesis: Both wrong and superfluous’, which appears in this volume of Language. Bruening claims that all phenomena that have been explained with reference to the notion word should be explained with reference to the X0/XP distinction. He claims that only phrases can be extracted, which would explain the island status of words (his X0). He also claims that coordination always affects full XPs, countering an earlier argument by Steve Wechsler and me. He argues for a phrasal analysis of resultative constructions and tries to support it by the claim that all arguments of nouns are optional, and hence a lexical analysis of resultative constructions that assumes that the result predicate is selected by the verb would make wrong claims when it comes to nominalizations, since one would expect that the result predicate can be omitted like other arguments in nominalizations can be.

I argue that Bruening's X0/XP distinction cannot explain extraction differences since X0 can be extracted, that some arguments are indeed not optional in nominalizations, and that coordination may affect lexical items. I furthermore point out that morphological phenomena in languages other than English may need more machinery and different tools and that in the end it may be reasonable to assume that there is a morphology that is indeed different from syntax.

Keywords

lexicalismfrontingGermansyntaxmorphology

Information

Type
Replies
Information
Language , Volume 94 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. e54 - e66
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

Bierwisch, Manfred. 1987. A structural paradox in lexical knowledge. Knowledge aided information processing, ed. by van, Elke Meer, der and Hoffmann, Joachim, 141-72. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert E. 2009. Lexical integrity as a formal universal: A constructionist view. Universals of language today (Studies in natural language and linguistic theory 76), ed. by Scalise, Sergio, Magni, Elisabetta, and Bisetto, Antonietta, 83–100. Berlin: Springer.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
Bruening, Benjamin. 2017. Word formation is syntactic: Raising in nominalizations. Newark: University of Delaware, ms. Online: http://udel.edu/~bruening/Downloads/RaisingNominal2.pdf.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2018. The lexicalist hypothesis: Both wrong and superfluous. Language 94(1). 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. by Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos P., and Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa, 133-66. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Copestake, Ann, and Briscoe, Ted J.. 1992. Lexical operations in a unification based framework. Lexical semantics and knowledge representation (Lecture notes in artificial intelligence 627), ed. by Pustejovsky, James and Bergler, Sabine, 101-19. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
De Kuthy, Kordula, and Meurers, W. Detmar. 2001. On partial constituent fronting in German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3(3). 143–205. DOI: 10.1023/A:1011926510300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2002. Against remnant VP-movement. Dimensions of movement: From features to remnants (Linguistik aktuell/Linguistics today 48), ed. by Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Barbiers, Sjef, and Gärtner, Hans-Martin, 91–127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A., Bever, Thomas G.; and Garrett, Merrill F.. 1974. The psychology of language: An introduction to psycholinguistics and generative grammar. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1993. Deutsche Syntax—generativ: Vorstudien zur Theorie einer projektiven Grammatik. (Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 325.) Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45(1). 31–80. DOI: 10.1515/flin.2011.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, Caroline, and Zamparelli, Roberto. 2005. Friends and colleagues: Plurality, coordination, and the structure of DP. Natural Language Semantics 13(3). 201-70. DOI: 10.1007/s11050-004-2442-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 2011. Grammatik ohne Wörter. Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik (Jahrbuch des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache 2010), ed. by Engelberg, Stefan, Holler, Anke, and Proost, Kristel, 345-74. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 2001. Positional effects in a monostratal grammar of German. Journal of Linguistics 37(1). 35–66. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226701008805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul, Sag, Ivan A.; and Flickinger, Daniel P.. 2015. A lexical theory of phrasal idioms. Stanford, CA: CSLI, Stanford University, ms.Google Scholar
Kubota, Yusuke, and Levine, Robert. 2013. Coordination in hybrid type-logical categorial grammar. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 60. 21–50. Online: https://linguistics.osu.edu/sites/linguistics.osu.edu/files/wpl-vol60-3-KubotaLevine_0.pdf.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Jonas. 2007. Interfaces in constraint-based theories of grammar. The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, ed. by Ramchand, Gillian and Reiss, Charles, 613-50. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 2003. Complex predicates and predicate raising. Lingua 113. 447-80. DOI: 10.1016/S0024-3841(02)00082-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labelle, Marie. 2007. Biolinguistics, the minimalist program, and psycholinguistic reality. Snippets 14. 6–7. Online: http://www.ledonline.it/snippets/allegati/snippets14002.pdf.Google Scholar
Lüdeling, Anke. 2001. On particle verbs and similar constructions in German. (Dissertations in linguistics.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William. 1975. Sentence perception as an interactive parallel process. Science 189(4198). 226-28. DOI: 10.1126/science.189.4198.226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meurers, W. Detmar. 1999. German partial-VP fronting revisited. Lexical and constructional aspects of linguistic explanation (Studies in constraint-based lexicalism 1), ed. by Webelhuth, Gert, Koenig, Jean-Pierre, and Kathol, Andreas, 129-44. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Meurers, W. Detmar. 2001. On expressing lexical generalizations in HPSG. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 24(2). 161–217. DOI: 10.1080/033258601753358605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 1998. Incomplete category fronting: A derivational approach to remnant movement in German. (Studies in natural language and linguistic theory 42.) Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 1999. Deutsche Syntax deklarativ: Head-driven phrase structure grammar für das Deutsche. (Linguistische Arbeiten 394.) Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2002. Complex predicates: Verbal complexes, resultative constructions, and particle verbs in German. (Studies in constraint-based lexicalism 13.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2003. Solving the bracketing paradox: An analysis of the morphology of German particle verbs. Journal of Linguistics 39(2). 275–325. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226703002032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2006. Phrasal or lexical constructions? Language 82(4). 850-83. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2006.0213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan, and Wechsler, Stephen. 2014. Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theoretical Linguistics 40(1–2). 1–76. DOI: 10.1515/tl-2014-0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20(3). 365–424. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178634.Google Scholar
Richards, Marc. 2015. Minimalism. Syntax—theory and analysis: An international handbook (Handbooks of linguistics and communication science 42), 2nd edn., ed. by Kiss, Tibor and Alexiadou, Artemis, 803-39. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Riehemann, Susanne Z. 1993. Word formation in lexical type hierarchies: A case study of bar-adjectives in German. Tübingen: Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen master's thesis. [Also published as SfS-Report-02-93, Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft, University of Tübingen.].Google Scholar
Riehemann, Susanne Z. 1998. Type-based derivational morphology. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2(1). 49–77. DOI: 10.1023/A:1009746617055.CrossRefGoogle 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., Boas, Hans C.; and Kay, Paul. 2012. Introducing sign-based construction grammar. Sign-based construction grammar (CSLI lecture notes 193), ed. by Boas, Hans C. and Sag, Ivan A., 1–29. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., and Wasow, Thomas. 2011. Performance-compatible competence grammar. Non-transformational syntax: Formal and explicit models of grammar: A guide to current models, ed. by Borsley, Robert D. and Börjars, Kersti, 359-77. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stiebels, Barbara, and Wunderlich, Dieter. 1994. Morphology feeds syntax: The case of particle verbs. Linguistics 32(6). 913-68. DOI: 10.1515/ling.1994.32.6.913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanenhaus, Michael K., Spivey-Knowlton, Michael J., Eberhard, Kathleen M.; and Sedivy, Julie C.. 1996. Using eye movements to study spoken language comprehension: Evidence for visually mediated incremental interpretation. Information integration in perception and communication (Attention and performance 16), ed. by Inui, Toshio and McClelland, James L., 457-78. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2008. 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, and Noh, Bokyung. 2001. On resultative predicates and clauses: Parallels between Korean and English. Language Sciences 23(4). 391–423. DOI: 10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00031-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 1996. Phrasal compounds and the theory of word syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 27(1). 183-93. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178931.Google Scholar
Williams, Alexander. 2015. Arguments in syntax and semantics. (Key topics in syntax.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar