Lieber (1980) provided a theory of the organization of the lexicon which has been extremely influ... more Lieber (1980) provided a theory of the organization of the lexicon which has been extremely influential within current theories of morphology. However, one of her central suggestions, concerning the nature of phonological rules in the lexicon, has been largely ignored. Lieber (1980, 1982) considers allomorphic variation induced by relationships which are not true phonological rules, in that they refer to lexical or morphosyntactic features but which none the less seem to be statable in phonological terms. These constitute the bulk of morphologically conditioned alternations, particularly those which have the prime function of signalling morphological relationships. Such rules have been dubbed ‘morpholexical’ rules in the structuralist literature, and Lieber adopts this term, giving it a specialist technical interpretation within the Lexicalist theory she develops.
In order to establish a typological picture of periphrastic negation, this chapter begins from th... more In order to establish a typological picture of periphrastic negation, this chapter begins from the criteria for periphrasis established by Ackerman and Stump. These are feature intersection, non-compositionality, and distributed exponence. It is argued that while the first two work well for defining periphrasis, the third criterion is not sufficiently robust, and should therefore be substituted by the criterion of multiple exponence. Multiple exponence is a recurrent feature of morphology and therefore, when found in a syntactic construction, it signals its morphology-like status. The chapter analyses the applicability of the criteria by testing them on data from genetically and typologically diverse languages (such as Japanese, and languages within Oto-Manguean, Nilotic, Tungusic, Uralic, Nakh-Daghestanian, and Semitic languages). It shows the extent to which the existing criteria can be applied to languages of different types, and justifies the new criterion (multiple exponence) f...
... the ergative languages Chukchee and Koryak IChukotkan-Kamchatkan paleosiberian) showing that ... more ... the ergative languages Chukchee and Koryak IChukotkan-Kamchatkan paleosiberian) showing that certain aspects of the ... The first stage in the formation of a complex inflected form is syntactic ... However, since the Comp node governs everything in the word, we can presumably ...
I compare the morphomic properties of inflections with those of stems. I propose that inflections... more I compare the morphomic properties of inflections with those of stems. I propose that inflections are morphomic with respect to inflectional properties, in that inflections serve simply as pointers to the complete inflectional property set of an inflected word form (they are morphomicφ). However, I claim that some inflections (‘inherent inflections’) may add a semantic predicate (they are not morphomicσ). Indeed, inherent inflections may give rise to multiple semantic representations, including null semantics (I compare Hungarian cases to English prepositions in this regard). I investigate the hypothesis that stems are by definition morphomicφ,σ and therefore do not serve to realize inflectional properties and do not alter the semantic representation of the lexeme to which they belong (the Strictly Morphomic Stem Hypothesis, SMSH). I examine several putative cases of inflectional stems (non-morphomicφ) especially in Greek, Archi, concluding that they are best thought of as ordinary inflectional exponence and not stem selection. I leave open the theoretical possibility that a stem might be associated with a meaning (in the manner of meaning-bearing inherent inflection).
In most languages we find 'little words' which resemble a full word, but which cannot sta... more In most languages we find 'little words' which resemble a full word, but which cannot stand on their own. Instead they have to 'lean on' a neighbouring word, like the 'd, 've and unstressed 'em of Kim'd've helped'em ('Kim would have helped them'). These are clitics, and they are found in most of the world's languages. In English the clitic forms appear in the same place in the sentence that the full form of the word would appear in but in many languages clitics obey quite separate rules of placement. This book is the first introduction to clitics, providing a complete summary of their properties, their uses, the reasons why they are of interest to linguists and the various theoretical approaches that have been proposed for them. The book describes a whole host of clitic systems and presents data from over 100 languages.
1. Introduction: Words and paradigms 2. The lexical entry 3. Lexical relatedness 4. Paradigm Func... more 1. Introduction: Words and paradigms 2. The lexical entry 3. Lexical relatedness 4. Paradigm Function Morphology 5. Lexical entries and the generalized paradigm function 6. Representing lexical relatedness 7. The form and function of argument structure representations 8. Further instances of transposition 9. Lexical relatedness in Selkup 10. Conclusions References Index
... However, there may be disagreement as to what constitutes a meaning-preserving or - changing ... more ... However, there may be disagreement as to what constitutes a meaning-preserving or - changing alternation (cf the different attitudes towards the English middle construction in Sadler and Spencer, 1998, and Levin and Rappaport Hovav, 1998). ...
Programmatic proposals are presented for identifying the boundary between stem and affix in morph... more Programmatic proposals are presented for identifying the boundary between stem and affix in morphologically complex words. This is part of the wider, largely unresearched, problem of segmenting words into morphs. Two principles are proposed for expediting stem segmentation: the Strictly Morphomic Stem Hypothesis (‘all stems are morphomic’) and the Stem Maximization Principle (‘a putative inflection must unambiguously realize a coherent set of morphosyntactic properties, otherwise it is part of a morphomic stem’). It is proposed that there should be a separate stem formation component with essentially the same architecture as the inflectional component to define members of the stem space.1
... bdgmnqw I rjiu Lab + + + + Cor Son + Nas + + + Cons Voc reason for this is that it is difficu... more ... bdgmnqw I rjiu Lab + + + + Cor Son + Nas + + + Cons Voc reason for this is that it is difficult to avoid including this archiphoneme given the realization processes of 12; and we will need to be able to refer to this archiphoneme in order to describe the facts of lateral harmony ...
... (9) [[otâq-e [[room-EZ kuchik]-e small]-EZ [zir-e [under-EZ shirvuni]]-e roof]]-EZ ali ali 8S... more ... (9) [[otâq-e [[room-EZ kuchik]-e small]-EZ [zir-e [under-EZ shirvuni]]-e roof]]-EZ ali ali 8Stafford does not provide tone markings so we are obliged to ignore them. 9For extensive arguments in favour of this analysis see Samvelian (2007) 13 Page 14. ...
The interface between the lexical semantics of a predicate and its (morpho-) syntactic properties... more The interface between the lexical semantics of a predicate and its (morpho-) syntactic properties continues to be a major focus of linguistic research within a wide range of di erent frameworks. It is evident that the lexico-semantic properties of predicates largely determine the syntactic environments in which syntactic heads appear, and a variety of speci c proposals have been put forward to to account for the mapping into syntax (Bresnan and Zaenen 1990, Tenny 1994). 1 While there is agreement at this very general level, widely ...
ABSTRACT Hungarian nouns take some seventeen or so suffixal case inflections, e.g. ház ‘house (no... more ABSTRACT Hungarian nouns take some seventeen or so suffixal case inflections, e.g. ház ‘house (nominative)’ ∼ ház-ban ‘in a house (inessive)’. Personal pronouns have corresponding case-marked forms but these are not formed by means of suffixal case inflections. Instead, postposition-like stems expressing the individual cases are inflected for each pronoun’s person and number in exactly the same way that nouns inflect for possessor agreement or true postpositions inflect for a pronominal complement (inessive benn-e ‘in him’, benn-ük ‘in them; cf. könyv-e ‘his book’, könyv-ük ‘their book’ from the noun könyv; mögött-e ‘behind him’, mögött-ük ‘behind them’ from the postposition mögött). This manner of case marking embodies a highly unusual pattern of ‘functor-argument reversal’, which is problematic for many models of morphosyntax. In our account of this phenomenon, we adopt the modification of Stump’s (2001) Paradigm Function Morphology proposed by Stump (2002); this modification (‘PFM2’) distinguishes form paradigms (expressing morphological properties) from content paradigms (expressing syntactic properties). We also distinguish absolute forms from (bound) conjunct forms of the case postpositions. Pronominal case forms are built on the case postpositions’ absolute forms and a rule of paradigm linkage that effects functor-argument reversal guarantees that their person-number inflection realizes the content of each pronoun.
Lieber (1980) provided a theory of the organization of the lexicon which has been extremely influ... more Lieber (1980) provided a theory of the organization of the lexicon which has been extremely influential within current theories of morphology. However, one of her central suggestions, concerning the nature of phonological rules in the lexicon, has been largely ignored. Lieber (1980, 1982) considers allomorphic variation induced by relationships which are not true phonological rules, in that they refer to lexical or morphosyntactic features but which none the less seem to be statable in phonological terms. These constitute the bulk of morphologically conditioned alternations, particularly those which have the prime function of signalling morphological relationships. Such rules have been dubbed ‘morpholexical’ rules in the structuralist literature, and Lieber adopts this term, giving it a specialist technical interpretation within the Lexicalist theory she develops.
In order to establish a typological picture of periphrastic negation, this chapter begins from th... more In order to establish a typological picture of periphrastic negation, this chapter begins from the criteria for periphrasis established by Ackerman and Stump. These are feature intersection, non-compositionality, and distributed exponence. It is argued that while the first two work well for defining periphrasis, the third criterion is not sufficiently robust, and should therefore be substituted by the criterion of multiple exponence. Multiple exponence is a recurrent feature of morphology and therefore, when found in a syntactic construction, it signals its morphology-like status. The chapter analyses the applicability of the criteria by testing them on data from genetically and typologically diverse languages (such as Japanese, and languages within Oto-Manguean, Nilotic, Tungusic, Uralic, Nakh-Daghestanian, and Semitic languages). It shows the extent to which the existing criteria can be applied to languages of different types, and justifies the new criterion (multiple exponence) f...
... the ergative languages Chukchee and Koryak IChukotkan-Kamchatkan paleosiberian) showing that ... more ... the ergative languages Chukchee and Koryak IChukotkan-Kamchatkan paleosiberian) showing that certain aspects of the ... The first stage in the formation of a complex inflected form is syntactic ... However, since the Comp node governs everything in the word, we can presumably ...
I compare the morphomic properties of inflections with those of stems. I propose that inflections... more I compare the morphomic properties of inflections with those of stems. I propose that inflections are morphomic with respect to inflectional properties, in that inflections serve simply as pointers to the complete inflectional property set of an inflected word form (they are morphomicφ). However, I claim that some inflections (‘inherent inflections’) may add a semantic predicate (they are not morphomicσ). Indeed, inherent inflections may give rise to multiple semantic representations, including null semantics (I compare Hungarian cases to English prepositions in this regard). I investigate the hypothesis that stems are by definition morphomicφ,σ and therefore do not serve to realize inflectional properties and do not alter the semantic representation of the lexeme to which they belong (the Strictly Morphomic Stem Hypothesis, SMSH). I examine several putative cases of inflectional stems (non-morphomicφ) especially in Greek, Archi, concluding that they are best thought of as ordinary inflectional exponence and not stem selection. I leave open the theoretical possibility that a stem might be associated with a meaning (in the manner of meaning-bearing inherent inflection).
In most languages we find 'little words' which resemble a full word, but which cannot sta... more In most languages we find 'little words' which resemble a full word, but which cannot stand on their own. Instead they have to 'lean on' a neighbouring word, like the 'd, 've and unstressed 'em of Kim'd've helped'em ('Kim would have helped them'). These are clitics, and they are found in most of the world's languages. In English the clitic forms appear in the same place in the sentence that the full form of the word would appear in but in many languages clitics obey quite separate rules of placement. This book is the first introduction to clitics, providing a complete summary of their properties, their uses, the reasons why they are of interest to linguists and the various theoretical approaches that have been proposed for them. The book describes a whole host of clitic systems and presents data from over 100 languages.
1. Introduction: Words and paradigms 2. The lexical entry 3. Lexical relatedness 4. Paradigm Func... more 1. Introduction: Words and paradigms 2. The lexical entry 3. Lexical relatedness 4. Paradigm Function Morphology 5. Lexical entries and the generalized paradigm function 6. Representing lexical relatedness 7. The form and function of argument structure representations 8. Further instances of transposition 9. Lexical relatedness in Selkup 10. Conclusions References Index
... However, there may be disagreement as to what constitutes a meaning-preserving or - changing ... more ... However, there may be disagreement as to what constitutes a meaning-preserving or - changing alternation (cf the different attitudes towards the English middle construction in Sadler and Spencer, 1998, and Levin and Rappaport Hovav, 1998). ...
Programmatic proposals are presented for identifying the boundary between stem and affix in morph... more Programmatic proposals are presented for identifying the boundary between stem and affix in morphologically complex words. This is part of the wider, largely unresearched, problem of segmenting words into morphs. Two principles are proposed for expediting stem segmentation: the Strictly Morphomic Stem Hypothesis (‘all stems are morphomic’) and the Stem Maximization Principle (‘a putative inflection must unambiguously realize a coherent set of morphosyntactic properties, otherwise it is part of a morphomic stem’). It is proposed that there should be a separate stem formation component with essentially the same architecture as the inflectional component to define members of the stem space.1
... bdgmnqw I rjiu Lab + + + + Cor Son + Nas + + + Cons Voc reason for this is that it is difficu... more ... bdgmnqw I rjiu Lab + + + + Cor Son + Nas + + + Cons Voc reason for this is that it is difficult to avoid including this archiphoneme given the realization processes of 12; and we will need to be able to refer to this archiphoneme in order to describe the facts of lateral harmony ...
... (9) [[otâq-e [[room-EZ kuchik]-e small]-EZ [zir-e [under-EZ shirvuni]]-e roof]]-EZ ali ali 8S... more ... (9) [[otâq-e [[room-EZ kuchik]-e small]-EZ [zir-e [under-EZ shirvuni]]-e roof]]-EZ ali ali 8Stafford does not provide tone markings so we are obliged to ignore them. 9For extensive arguments in favour of this analysis see Samvelian (2007) 13 Page 14. ...
The interface between the lexical semantics of a predicate and its (morpho-) syntactic properties... more The interface between the lexical semantics of a predicate and its (morpho-) syntactic properties continues to be a major focus of linguistic research within a wide range of di erent frameworks. It is evident that the lexico-semantic properties of predicates largely determine the syntactic environments in which syntactic heads appear, and a variety of speci c proposals have been put forward to to account for the mapping into syntax (Bresnan and Zaenen 1990, Tenny 1994). 1 While there is agreement at this very general level, widely ...
ABSTRACT Hungarian nouns take some seventeen or so suffixal case inflections, e.g. ház ‘house (no... more ABSTRACT Hungarian nouns take some seventeen or so suffixal case inflections, e.g. ház ‘house (nominative)’ ∼ ház-ban ‘in a house (inessive)’. Personal pronouns have corresponding case-marked forms but these are not formed by means of suffixal case inflections. Instead, postposition-like stems expressing the individual cases are inflected for each pronoun’s person and number in exactly the same way that nouns inflect for possessor agreement or true postpositions inflect for a pronominal complement (inessive benn-e ‘in him’, benn-ük ‘in them; cf. könyv-e ‘his book’, könyv-ük ‘their book’ from the noun könyv; mögött-e ‘behind him’, mögött-ük ‘behind them’ from the postposition mögött). This manner of case marking embodies a highly unusual pattern of ‘functor-argument reversal’, which is problematic for many models of morphosyntax. In our account of this phenomenon, we adopt the modification of Stump’s (2001) Paradigm Function Morphology proposed by Stump (2002); this modification (‘PFM2’) distinguishes form paradigms (expressing morphological properties) from content paradigms (expressing syntactic properties). We also distinguish absolute forms from (bound) conjunct forms of the case postpositions. Pronominal case forms are built on the case postpositions’ absolute forms and a rule of paradigm linkage that effects functor-argument reversal guarantees that their person-number inflection realizes the content of each pronoun.
Bulgarian Verb Stems
Models of grammar which admit an autonomous morphology module generally a... more Bulgarian Verb Stems
Models of grammar which admit an autonomous morphology module generally assume that morphologically complex words are built from stems. Stump (2001) demonstrates that stems have two aspects, their morphophonological form and their morphological (or morphomic) distribution in infllectional paradigms, and in derivation/compounding. The form of stems can be determined in one of three ways: (i) suppletion (lexical listing) (ii) regular morphology (e.g. the Latin 1st conjugation ‘Third Stem’ in -t, amā-t-(us) (iii) (more or less regular) morphophonological alternation (usually conditioned morpholexically). This talk focusses on stems of type (iii), using Bulgarian conjugation for illustration. I fiirst summarize briefly the palatalization systems of Slavic generally, including Labial Palatalization, Coronal Palatalization, Iotation, 1st Velar Palatalization. An unusual feature of these alter- nations is that we can group them into a type hierarchy with respect to the morphological contexts which condition them. For instance, in Czech any context which would trigger Labial Palatalization on a labial-final stem (p ⇒ pj) will also trigger Coronal Palatalization on a coronal-final stem (t ⇒ ʦ), while any trigger for Coronal Palatalization (including trig- gers for Labial Palatalization) will trigger 1st Velar Palatalization on a velar stem (k ⇒ ʧ ). Bulgarian respects a simpler variant of the palatalization hierarchy. I represent the effects of the palatalizations as morphophonological functions definable over stem forms, themselves defined as m-p operations over the final segment of the stem. Thus, the Iotation alter- nant of a root such as |pis| (= IOT(Stem0(Lexeme WRITE))) will be the three morphophono- logical segments [p][i][Iot(s)], which cashes out as the stem |piʃ|.
Traditionally, Slavic verbs are said to be defined over two stems, the present stem (Stem- Pres) and the aorist, past, or infinitive stem (for Bulgarian StemAor). In general, we need to define just these two stem forms to define the stem system as a whole (for instance, the aorist l-participle stem is built on the StemAor and the present participle stem is built on the StemPres). However, some descriptions require a three stem analysis for Bulgarian: 2nd conjugation verbs distinguish a common StemPres and StemAor form in -i (del-i ‘share’) distinct from the imperfect stem (del-ja). Yet the StemImpf is systematically derivable from the StemPres form, cf Lexeme WRITE StemPres piʃ- (piʃə ‘I write’), imperfect l-participle piʃ- e(-l), where the StemImpf piʃ-e is derived by suffixing -e/ja to the StemPres form.
I argue that both analyses are correct. The morphomic stem hierarchy requires the three stems StemPres, StemAor, StemImpf (as well as several others), but the stem formation rules operate over a system of two stems (Stem1 vs. Stem2) together with the lexical root (‘Stem0’). The morphomic stem and form stem sets are defined by different hierarchies and the complete system is found by combining these two hierarchies.
Modern research into inflection almost unanimously adopts a paradigm-driven, realizational approa... more Modern research into inflection almost unanimously adopts a paradigm-driven, realizational approach, but this presupposes an inflection-derivation distinction, which is notoriously difficult to draw, and derivation is hard to capture in such models. The current model cuts through the impasse by adopting the Principle of Representational Independence, which states that the morphological, syntactic and semantic aspects of lexical representations can be factorized and related independently of each other. Inflection and derivation are then just two extreme types of relatedness. The book includes copious illustration of a whole host of intermediate types of relatedness with particular focus on transposition. The model extends Stump’s (2001) model by introducing a Generalized Paradigm Function, which allows us to define all types of relatedness with the same formal machinery, including regular (paradigm-driven) derivation. The book develops a novel approach to describing lexical entries and morphosyntactic categories, and implements this using a version of LFG. It pays particular attention to the nature of transpositions (such as deverbal nominalizations or denominal relational adjectives) and concludes with a detailed summary of lexical relatedness in the Samoyedic language Selkup, in which almost any category can be transposed into almost any other.
A summary of the conceptual issues surrounding the notion 'clitic' and of the recent research on ... more A summary of the conceptual issues surrounding the notion 'clitic' and of the recent research on the topic. Examples from about 100 languages are discussed. This is the first full-scale monograph treatment of clitics as a whole.
... A variety of specialists have an interest in morphology and I hope this book will therefore p... more ... A variety of specialists have an interest in morphology and I hope this book will therefore prove useful to phonologists, syntacticians, historical linguists, descriptive linguists and others whose main interests lie outside morphological theory as such. ... imperative imperf. ...
... 1 Andrew Spencer 2 John I. Saeed 3 Barbara Johnstone 4 Andrew Carnie Phonology Semantics, Sec... more ... 1 Andrew Spencer 2 John I. Saeed 3 Barbara Johnstone 4 Andrew Carnie Phonology Semantics, Second Edition Discourse Analysis Syntax Praise for Andrew Spencer's Phonology 'Andrew Spencer's textbook provides an excellent introduction to the field. ...
"In this paper I argue that the familiar lexical category labels, N, V, A, P or equivalently the ... more "In this paper I argue that the familiar lexical category labels, N, V, A, P or equivalently the features such as [±N, ±V] are redundant in a theory which admits a level of argument structure. I modify Zwart’s (1992) conception of a-structure by arguing that major class members always include a ‘referential role’: <R> for nouns, <E> (for ‘eventuality’) for verbs and <A> (‘attribute’) for adjectives. <A> is coindexed with the <R> role of the modificand. A-structures are canonically associated with sets of F(unctional) features, but ‘mixed’ a-structure types may be associated with ‘mixed’ F-features, without the need to postulate ‘mixed’ lexical categories. Categorial information can thus be read off a-structure representations without the need for purely syntactic category features.
I first develop a (constructional) semantics for compound nouns (N N) in which the a-structure of the modifying noun receives a new r(eferential) role <A> with demotion of the original <R> role. The new <A> role is coindexed with the <R> role of the modificand and the attributive relationship interpreted as some pragmatically characterized relationship, ρ. Relational adjectives are given a similar argument structure representation with the same semantic interpretation, but in their lexical representation. I sketch an analysis of participles in which the <E> role of the verb is demoted by introduction of an <A> role. Deverbal nominals are obtained by demoting the <E> role and adding an <R> role (essentially naming an event). By assuming that a-structure is articulated we can account for the typologically observed patterns of argument realization in nominalizations."
I present an analysis of verbal agreement in the ergative languages Chukchi and Koryak (Chukotkan... more I present an analysis of verbal agreement in the ergative languages Chukchi and Koryak (Chukotkan-Kamchatkan paleosiberian) showing that certain aspects of the system pose problems for current versions of Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993). First, the agreement prefixes and suffixes exhibit a type of ‘split ergativity’: the suffixes seem to operate on an essentially absolutive patterning, while the prefixes make reference principally to subject functions. This seems to require reference to subject and object (or nominative and accusative case) as well as ergative and absolutive functions. More seriously, the agreement paradigms for 1st person object show syncretisms with the antipassive paradigms. This is an instance of the take-over of a marked category by an unmarked one, and hence cannot be handled in terms of DM’s Impoverishment rules. I conclude that the data support a realizational conception of inflection and sketch an analysis along the lines of Stump (1993) 'On rules of referral' Language 69, 449--479.
Uploads
Papers by Andrew Spencer
Models of grammar which admit an autonomous morphology module generally assume that morphologically complex words are built from stems. Stump (2001) demonstrates that stems have two aspects, their morphophonological form and their morphological (or morphomic) distribution in infllectional paradigms, and in derivation/compounding. The form of stems can be determined in one of three ways: (i) suppletion (lexical listing) (ii) regular morphology (e.g. the Latin 1st conjugation ‘Third Stem’ in -t, amā-t-(us) (iii) (more or less regular) morphophonological alternation (usually conditioned morpholexically). This talk focusses on stems of type (iii), using Bulgarian conjugation for illustration. I fiirst summarize briefly the palatalization systems of Slavic generally, including Labial Palatalization, Coronal Palatalization, Iotation, 1st Velar Palatalization. An unusual feature of these alter- nations is that we can group them into a type hierarchy with respect to the morphological contexts which condition them. For instance, in Czech any context which would trigger Labial Palatalization on a labial-final stem (p ⇒ pj) will also trigger Coronal Palatalization on a coronal-final stem (t ⇒ ʦ), while any trigger for Coronal Palatalization (including trig- gers for Labial Palatalization) will trigger 1st Velar Palatalization on a velar stem (k ⇒ ʧ ). Bulgarian respects a simpler variant of the palatalization hierarchy. I represent the effects of the palatalizations as morphophonological functions definable over stem forms, themselves defined as m-p operations over the final segment of the stem. Thus, the Iotation alter- nant of a root such as |pis| (= IOT(Stem0(Lexeme WRITE))) will be the three morphophono- logical segments [p][i][Iot(s)], which cashes out as the stem |piʃ|.
Traditionally, Slavic verbs are said to be defined over two stems, the present stem (Stem- Pres) and the aorist, past, or infinitive stem (for Bulgarian StemAor). In general, we need to define just these two stem forms to define the stem system as a whole (for instance, the aorist l-participle stem is built on the StemAor and the present participle stem is built on the StemPres). However, some descriptions require a three stem analysis for Bulgarian: 2nd conjugation verbs distinguish a common StemPres and StemAor form in -i (del-i ‘share’) distinct from the imperfect stem (del-ja). Yet the StemImpf is systematically derivable from the StemPres form, cf Lexeme WRITE StemPres piʃ- (piʃə ‘I write’), imperfect l-participle piʃ- e(-l), where the StemImpf piʃ-e is derived by suffixing -e/ja to the StemPres form.
I argue that both analyses are correct. The morphomic stem hierarchy requires the three stems StemPres, StemAor, StemImpf (as well as several others), but the stem formation rules operate over a system of two stems (Stem1 vs. Stem2) together with the lexical root (‘Stem0’). The morphomic stem and form stem sets are defined by different hierarchies and the complete system is found by combining these two hierarchies.
I first develop a (constructional) semantics for compound nouns (N N) in which the a-structure of the modifying noun receives a new r(eferential) role <A> with demotion of the original <R> role. The new <A> role is coindexed with the <R> role of the modificand and the attributive relationship interpreted as some pragmatically characterized relationship, ρ. Relational adjectives are given a similar argument structure representation with the same semantic interpretation, but in their lexical representation. I sketch an analysis of participles in which the <E> role of the verb is demoted by introduction of an <A> role. Deverbal nominals are obtained by demoting the <E> role and adding an <R> role (essentially naming an event). By assuming that a-structure is articulated we can account for the typologically observed patterns of argument realization in nominalizations."