We develop a theory of movement operations that occur after the syntactic derivation, in the PF component, within the framework of Distributed Morphology. The properties of syntactic movement have been studied extensively in linguistic theory, both in terms of locality conditions and in terms of the types of constituents affected (phrases, subparts of phrases, heads). Despite differences in particular analyses or frameworks, the locality conditions on movement operations are a central concern of current research. Here we address movement operations as well, but operations of a different type. In particular, we examine and analyze movement operations that occur after the syntactic derivation, in the PF component, and provide a theory that makes proposals concerning (a) the locality conditions on such movements, (b) the types of constituents they affect, and (c) the position of such operations in the sequential derivation from the output of syntax to phonologically instantiated expressions.From a somewhat abstract perspective, the fact on which we base our study is that not all structures and strings are the result of operations that occur exclusively in the syntactic component of the grammar; this observation stems from a body of prior research investigating the relationship between syntactic structure and phonological form. The observation covers two domains: one dealing with linear sequences that are syntactically opaque, the other with movement operations. In the first domain it has been demonstrated that the internal ordering of clitic clusters cannotWe would like to thank

An argument that patterns of allomorphy reveal that morphology and phonology behave in a way that provides evidence for a Localist theory of grammar. In Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology, David Embick offers the first detailed examination of morphology and phonology from a phase-cyclic point of view (that is, one that takes into account recent developments in Distributed Morphology and the Minimalist program) and the only recent detailed treatment of allomorphy, a phenomenon that is central to understanding how the grammar of human language works. In addition to making new theoretical proposals about morphology and phonology in terms of a cyclic theory, Embick addresses a schism in the field between phonological theories such as Optimality Theory and other (mostly syntactic) theories such as those associated with the Minimalist program. He presents sustained empirical arguments that the Localist view of grammar associated with the Minimalist program (and Distributed Morphology in particular) is correct, and that the Globalism espoused by many forms of Optimality Theory is incorrect. In the “derivational versus nonderivational” debate in linguistic theory, Embick's arguments come down squarely on the derivational side. Determining how to make empirical comparisons between such large positions, and the different frameworks that embody them, is at the heart of the book. Embick argues that patterns of allomorphy implicate general questions about locality and specific questions about the manner in which (morpho)syntax relates to (morpho)phonology. Allomorphy thus provides a crucial test case for comparing Localist and Globalist approaches to grammar.

The article examines the structure of resultative participles in English: participles that denote a state resulting from a prior event, such as The cake is flattened or The metal is hammered. The analysis identifies distinct stative participles that derive from the different heights at which aspectual morphemes attach in a verbalizing structure. The Aspect head involved in resultative participles is shown to attach to a vP that is also found in (a) the formation of deadjectival verbs and (b) verb phrases with resultative secondary predicates, like John hammered the metal flat. These distinct constructions are shown to have a shared structural subcomponent. The analysis proposed here is compared with Lexicalist approaches employing the verbal versus adjectival passive distinction. It is shown that a uniformly syntactic analysis of the participles is superior to the Lexicalist alternative.

A theory of the syntax/morphology interface is first, a theory of how 'words' and their internal structure-the traditional domain of morphology-relate to the structures generated by the syntax, and second, a theory of how the rules for deriving complex words relate to the rules for deriving syntactic structures. A prominent line of research in this area consists of approaches assuming some version of the Lexicalist Hypothesis. For present purposes, this is the claim that (at least some) words are special in ways that e.g. phrases are not, and that this 'specialness' calls for an architecture in which the derivation of words and the derivation of syntactic objects occur in different modules of the grammar (the Lexicon versus the syntax). 1 While the 'words' derived in the Lexicon serve as the terminals in the syntactic derivation, there is a sharp division between syntax and morphology according to Lexicalist approaches of this type. In this way, the interface between syntax and morphology in such a theory is opaque or indirect: there is no reason to expect the structure and composition of 'words' to relate to the structure and composition of syntactic objects in any transparent or for that matter systematic fashion. A second line of research advances the hypothesis that 'words' are assembled by rules of the syntax. Thus the 'word' is not a privileged derivational object as far as the architecture of the grammar is concerned, since all complex objects, whether words and phrases, are treated as the output of the same generative system (the syntax). According to this view, which we assume here, the theory of the syntax/morphology interface might better be said to be a theory of (1) the primitive elements of the syntactic derivation (the traditional question of the morpheme); (2) the principles governing the assembly of these primitives into complex objects (the question of what structures the syntax and perhaps PF rules can derive); and (3) the manner in which phonological forms relate to the primitives and to the complex objects constructed from the primitives. Such an approach allows for a transparent (or direct) interface between syntax and morphology, because it hypothesizes that the same generative system derives all complex objects. 2 In the default case, then, the principles that govern the composition of 'words' are the same as those that govern the composition of larger syntactic objects.