Home Linguistics & Semiotics Towards a Restricted Realization Theory
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Towards a Restricted Realization Theory

Multimorphemic monolistemicity, portmanteaux, and post-linearization spanning
  • Jason D. Haugen and Daniel Siddiqi
View more publications by John Benjamins Publishing Company
Morphological Metatheory
This chapter is in the book Morphological Metatheory

Abstract

In this paper we advance arguments in favor of a vocabulary-insertion-only program for non-lexicalist realizational models of morphology, Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993) in particular. We claim that this end can be achieved through relatively simple and well-motivated proposals. We suggest that the vast majority of non-syntactic mechanisms can be obviated by the adoption of non-terminal insertion (Radkevich 2010; Svenonius 2012; Merchant 2013; Starke 2009; Caha 2009; see Embick & Marantz 2008 for a contrary argument)– specifically post-linearization spanning. We restrict our discussion here to whether weak suppletion must be the output of phonological processes (see e.g. Marantz 1997; Embick & Halle 2005; Harley & Tubino Blanco 2013) or simply listed (see, e.g., Bermúdez-Otero 2013), and whether the containment prediction (Embick & Marantz 2008; Embick 2012) is indeed fatal for non-terminal insertion. We also propose here that Siddiqi’s (2009) feature blocking system can be co-opted for the tasks typical of impoverishment.

Abstract

In this paper we advance arguments in favor of a vocabulary-insertion-only program for non-lexicalist realizational models of morphology, Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993) in particular. We claim that this end can be achieved through relatively simple and well-motivated proposals. We suggest that the vast majority of non-syntactic mechanisms can be obviated by the adoption of non-terminal insertion (Radkevich 2010; Svenonius 2012; Merchant 2013; Starke 2009; Caha 2009; see Embick & Marantz 2008 for a contrary argument)– specifically post-linearization spanning. We restrict our discussion here to whether weak suppletion must be the output of phonological processes (see e.g. Marantz 1997; Embick & Halle 2005; Harley & Tubino Blanco 2013) or simply listed (see, e.g., Bermúdez-Otero 2013), and whether the containment prediction (Embick & Marantz 2008; Embick 2012) is indeed fatal for non-terminal insertion. We also propose here that Siddiqi’s (2009) feature blocking system can be co-opted for the tasks typical of impoverishment.

Downloaded on 5.3.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1075/la.229.12hau/html
Scroll to top button