Editing Distributed morphology (section)

==Morphological operations==

Distributed Morphology recognizes a number of morphology-specific operations that occur post-syntactically. There is no consensus about the order of application of these morphological operations with respect to vocabulary insertion, and it is generally believed that certain operations apply before vocabulary insertion, while others apply to the vocabulary items themselves.<ref name=McGinnis/> For example, Embick and Noyer (2001)<ref name=Embick>Embick, David, & Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic inquiry 32.4: 555–595.</ref> argue that Lowering applies before Vocabulary insertion, while Local Dislocation applies afterwards.

Apart from the operations described above, some researchers (Embick 1997 among others)<ref>Embick, David. 1997. Voice and the interfaces of syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.</ref> have suggested that there are morphemes that represent purely formal features and are inserted post-syntactically but before spell-out: these morphemes are called "dissociated morphemes".

===Morphological merger===

Morphological Merger is generalized as follows in Marantz 1988: 261:

'''Morphological Merger:'''

''At any level of syntactic analysis (d-structure, s-structure, phonological structure), a relation between X and Y may be replaced by (expressed by) the affixation of the lexical head of X to the lexical head of Y.''<ref>Marantz, Alec. "Clitics, morphological merger, and the mapping to phonological structure." Theoretical morphology (1988): 253–270.</ref>

Two syntactic nodes can undergo Morphological Merger subject to morphophonological well-formedness conditions.<ref name=McGinnis/>

====Many-to-one mapping between syntax and morphology: feature fusion====

Two nodes that have undergone Morphological Merger or that have been adjoined through syntactic head movement can undergo Fusion, yielding one single node for Vocabulary insertion.<ref name=McGinnis/> Many-to-one relation where two syntactic terminals are realized as a single exponent ([[portmanteau]]).<ref>{{cite web|last1=Nevins|first1=Andrew|title=Lectures on Postsyntactic Morphology|url=http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002587|website=LingBuzz|access-date=15 July 2015}}</ref>

An example can be found in [[Swahili language|Swahili]], which has separate exponents for subject agreement (e.g., 1st plural ''tu-'') and negation (''ha-''):

{{interlinear|indent=3
|'''tu-''' ta- pend-a kiswahili
|'''we-''' will- love Swahili
|}}

{{interlinear|indent=3
|'''ha-''' '''tu-''' ta- pend-a kiswahili
|'''NEG-''' '''we-''' will- love Swahili
|}}

However, 1st person singular exponent ''ni-'' and negation ''ha-'' undergo fusion and realized as ''si-'':

{{interlinear|indent=3
|'''*ha-''' '''ni-''' ta pend-a kiswahili
|'''NEG-''' '''I-''' will- love Swahili
|}}

{{interlinear|indent=3
|'''si-''' ta- pend-a Kiswahili
|'''NEG.I-''' will- love Swaihili
|}}

An alternative analysis of ''si-'' exponent says that there is no fusion but rather context sensitive allomorphy:

{{interlinear|indent=3
|'''si-''' '''Ø''' ta- pend-a Kiswahili
|'''NEG-''' '''I-''' will- love Swaihili
|}}

===Fission===

Fission refers to the splitting of one terminal node into two distinct terminal nodes prior to Vocabulary Insertion. Some of the most well-known cases of fission involve the imperfect conjugations of [[Semitic languages|Semitic]], in which agreement morphology is split into a prefixal and suffixal part, as investigated in the work of Noyer (1992).<ref>Noyer, Rolf. (1992). Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure (Doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.</ref>  Fission may also occur where insertion of a Vocabulary item discharges the intrinsic features of the Vocabulary item from the terminal node, leaving others features available for possible insertion; if fission applies, then other Vocabulary items can be inserted to discharge the remaining features.  When Fission occurs, the order of morphemes is influenced by the featural complexity of Vocabulary items.<ref>McGinnis, Martha. (2013). Agree and Fission in Georgian Plurals. In Ora Matushansky & Alec Marantz (Eds.), Distributed Morphology Today (pp. 39–58). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.</ref>

===Feature impoverishment===
Impoverishment (a term introduced into the theory in Bonet 1991) refers to a change in the feature content on a terminal node prior to Vocabulary Insertion, resulting in a less marked feature content.
* Feature deletion: This is accomplished by deleting a feature or by changing it from a marked to an unmarked value (e.g. [+plural] to [-plural]). Impoverishment accounts for cases in which spell-out of a terminal node by a featurally specific Vocabulary Item is blocked by a less specific Vocabulary Item.
* Feature obliteration: Impoverishment can  target an entire terminal node (rather than just one of its features), in which case it is referred to as 'obliteration'.<ref>Arregi, Karlos & Andrew Nevins. 2007. Obliteration vs. Impoverishment in the Basque g-/z- Constraint, in Proceedings of the 26th Penn Linguistics Colloquium, Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 13.1, 1{14. Penn Linguistics Club, Philadelphia.</ref> This results in the complete absence of the morpheme from the structure of the word.

===Lowering===

Lowering is sensitive to syntactic headedness and operates on abstract feature bundles, after syntactic movement but prior to vocabulary insertion.<ref name=Embick/>  Lowering takes place when a head X lowers to the head of its complement, Y.  For example, T in English (e.g. +past) lowers to be realized on the head of its complement V, as in "John [<sub>TP</sub> t<sub>T</sub> [<sub>vP</sub> play-ed piano]]."  An adjoined adverb will not block this syntactic movement, since it is sensitive to syntactic headedness rather than linear adjacency: "John skillfully play-ed piano."  On the other hand, a Merged Negation head will block this movement and trigger 'do insertion':" John did not play piano" (Embick & Noyer 2001:564).<ref name=Embick/>

===Local dislocation===

String-adjacent Vocabulary items may undergo Local Dislocation, in which the two items form a unit, with reversed linear order.  Embick and Noyer (2001) <ref name=Embick/> suggest that linearization takes place at Vocabulary Insertion.  At this point it is possible to reorder linearly adjacent vocabulary items.  This reordering must respect the relationship between the constituents, however.  In a linearization [X [Z*Y]], X can undergo Local Dislocation to give the linearization: [[<sub>Z°</sub>Z+X]*Y]], since Z is still left-adjacent to Y though Z is now an internally complex head (Embick & Noyer 2001:563).<ref name=Embick/>  The relationship between X and Z has been properly converted through Local Dislocation.  Since the relationships between the constituents have been respected or properly converted, the derivation is well-formed. Local Dislocation applies after Vocabulary insertion to reorder two linearly adjacent elements, such as the comparative feature and an adjective in ''John is smarter than Mary.'', which contrasts with ''John is more intelligent than Mary.''; in this case the movement makes reference to the phonological features of the moved items, moving ''-er'' after an adjective of one syllable, while leaving ''more'' in a position dominating the adjective  (Embick & Noyer 2001:564).<ref name=Embick/>