Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle

11. Suspension across Domains

11 11.1 Shifting Domains The notion of a cyclic derivation, defining (sub)domains in a grammatical derivation to which rules apply, dates from some of the earliest work in modern linguistics and is a recurring theme in the work of Morris Halle (see, famously, Chomsky and Halle 1968). In phonology, it is recognized that not all morpheme concatenation triggers cyclic rule application, but that certain morphemes are designated triggers of cyclic rules (see, e.g., Halle and Vergnaud 1987 for one approach). A related idea pervades the history of syntax, holding that there are cyclic domains defined (at least in part) with reference to particular heads/projections, and that these cycles enforce locality conditions on syntactic dependencies (see, e.g., Ross 1967; Chomsky 1973, 1986). Within the intermodular perspective of Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993) various authors have raised the question of how the domains (e.g., cycles, phases) of one module (syntax, morphology, semantics) interact with those of others (see also Scheer 2008 and related work). In this short chapter, we explore one small aspect of this large puzzle. Specifically , we propose a general rubric that allows for some slippage in otherwise well-established locality domains—cases in which a well-motivated cyclic domain appears to be suspended, allowing dependencies to span a larger structure than they normally may. To the extent that this is on the right track, it bolsters arguments that cyclic domains constrain the locality of operations across modules and thus constitute a deep property of grammar. Specifically, we suggest that the following Domain Suspension principle holds across modules, and present two applications, one from suppletion in morphology, the other from quantifier raising (QR), suggesting the potentially broad applicability of the principle.1 Suspension across Domains Jonathan David Bobaljik Susi Wurmbrand 186 Chapter 11 (1) In the following configuration (linear order irrelevant), where the projection of Y would normally close off a domain, formation of such a domain is suspended just in case Y depends on X for its interpretation. [ X [Y n Y]] Although (1) could be implemented in various ways, we conceive of suspension not as an operation, but as a condition restricting (or defining exceptions to) the algorithm(s) that determine(s) derivationally whether a given maximal projection will or will not constitute (or close off) a domain. Various terms in this general scheme (notably domain, interpretation) are relativized to some extent, to the module under consideration, accounting for a slight difference in the ways in which (1) plays out in the different components of grammar. For the cases considered here, the algorithms subject to Domain Suspension in the structure in (1) include: (2) a. Morphology: If X is a cyclic head, then Yn is a spell-out domain, unless Y depends on X for its interpretation. b. Syntax: If Yn is the highest projection of a (potential) cyclic domain, then Yn constitutes a phase, unless Y depends on X for its interpretation. We illustrate these in turn. 11.2 Optimal Suspension: Superlative Suppletion The first case of (1) that we consider is in the morphology, and is drawn from the study of adjectival suppletion in Bobaljik 2012. We limit ourselves to a brief presentation here and refer the reader to the work cited for additional detail and important qualifications. In a comprehensive survey of suppletion in adjectival gradation (good– better–best), encompassing some 116 distinct suppletive cognate triples (positive –comparative–superlative) from more than 70 languages, Bobaljik reports the following patterns. (3) Regular A A A big–bigger–biggest Suppletive A B B good–better–best Doubly suppletive A B C bonus–melior–optimus Unattested A B A *good–better–goodest A A B *good–gooder–best Bobaljik argues that the (relative) superlative is universally built from the comparative, hence the underlying structure is (hierarchically) [[[ root] cmpr] sprl]. The structure is transparent in many languages, illustrated in (4), but Suspension across Domains 187 obscured by a null comparative allomorph in the superlative in some (such as English). That is, we assume that even in English, the superlative has the structure [[[ big] ØER] est] (Bobaljik 2012 constitutes an extended defense of this analysis; see also Stateva 2002).2 (4) pos cmpr sprl gloss a. Persian bozorg bozorg-tar bozorg-tar-in ‘big’ b. Cimbrian šüa šüan-ar šüan-ar-ste ‘pretty’ c. Czech: mlad-ý mlad-ší nej-mlad-ší ‘young’ d. Hungarian: nagy nagy-obb leg-nagy-obb ‘big’ e. Latvian...