Return to Answer

First, I'll point to a previous question on this SE, What meaningful distinction is there between morphology and syntax?. I'll just present one line of approach.

A seminal article is Mark Baker's 1985 The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation, wherein he defines the Mirror Principle as follows:

Morphological derivations must directly reflect syntactic derivations (and vice versa).

Subsequently, Distributed Morphology (DM) was developed by Morris Halle & Alec Marantz and colleagues. I quote from their 1993 paper, Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection (pdf):

[...] we take the phonological realization of the terminal elements in the syntax to be governed by lexical (Vocabulary) entries that relate bundles of morphosyntactic features to bundles of phonological features.

We have called our approach Distributed Morphology to highlight the fact that the machinery of what traditionally has been called morphology is not concentrated in a single component of the grammar, but rather is distributed among several different components.

Two points: first, it is in a sense the opposite of what you mention in your question, in that a morphologically derived word is claimed to have internal syntactic structure. Second, DM is not pure syntax (hence the "Distributed" label): it does have a number of post-syntactic operations that derives morphological generalizations such as syncretism (where different morphosyntactic feature bundles like first person singular and second person singular are realized by the same morpheme).

There are a number of resources for DM:

• The Wikipedia article

• Rolf Noyer's DM Frequently Asked Questions page and bibliography, both written in the late 90s

• Heidi Harley and Rolf Noyer 1999, State-of-the-Article: Distributed Morphology (pdf), another overview which also has an attached bibliography

• David Embick and Rolf Noyer 2006, Distributed Morphology and the syntax-morphology interface (pdf), a handbook article

• Andrew Nevins and Karlos Arregi 2012, Morphotactics: Basque Auxiliaries and The Structure of Spellout, a recent book that shows Distributed Morphology "in action" by using the framework to account for the morphosyntax of the Basque auxiliary system.

First, I'll point to a previous question on this SE, What meaningful distinction is there between morphology and syntax?. I'll just present one line of approach.

A seminal article is Mark Baker's 1985 The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation, wherein he defines the Mirror Principle as follows:

Morphological derivations must directly reflect syntactic derivations (and vice versa).

Subsequently, Distributed Morphology (DM) was developed by Morris Halle & Alec Marantz and colleagues. I quote from their 1993 paper, Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection (pdf):

[...] we take the phonological realization of the terminal elements in the syntax to be governed by lexical (Vocabulary) entries that relate bundles of morphosyntactic features to bundles of phonological features.

We have called our approach Distributed Morphology to highlight the fact that the machinery of what traditionally has been called morphology is not concentrated in a single component of the grammar, but rather is distributed among several different components.

Two points: first, it is in a sense the opposite of what you mention in your question, in that a morphologically derived word is claimed to have internal syntactic structure. Second, DM is not pure syntax (hence the "Distributed" label): it does have a number of post-syntactic operations that derives morphological generalizations such as syncretism (where different morphosyntactic feature bundles like first person singular and second person singular are realized by the same morpheme).

There are a number of resources for DM:

• The Wikipedia article

• Rolf Noyer's DM Frequently Asked Questions page and bibliography, both written in the late 90s

• Heidi Harley and Rolf Noyer 1999, State-of-the-Article: Distributed Morphology (pdf), another overview which also has an attached bibliography

• David Embick and Rolf Noyer 2006, Distributed Morphology and the syntax-morphology interface (pdf), a handbook article

• Andrew Nevins and Karlos Arregi 2012, Morphotactics: Basque Auxiliaries and The Structure of Spellout, a recent book that shows Distributed Morphology "in action" by using the framework to account for the morphosyntax of the Basque auxiliary system.

First, I'll point to a previous question on this SE, What meaningful distinction is there between morphology and syntax?. I'll just present one line of approach.

A seminal article is Mark Baker's 1985 The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation, wherein he defines the Mirror Principle as follows:

Morphological derivations must directly reflect syntactic derivations (and vice versa).

Subsequently, Distributed Morphology (DM) was developed by Morris Halle & Alec Marantz and colleagues. I quote from their 1993 paper, Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection (pdf):

[...] we take the phonological realization of the terminal elements in the syntax to be governed by lexical (Vocabulary) entries that relate bundles of morphosyntactic features to bundles of phonological features.

We have called our approach Distributed Morphology to highlight the fact that the machinery of what traditionally has been called morphology is not concentrated in a single component of the grammar, but rather is distributed among several different components.

Two points: first, it is in a sense the opposite of what you mention in your question, in that a morphologically derived word is claimed to have internal syntactic structure. Second, DM is not pure syntax (hence the "Distributed" label): it does have a number of post-syntactic operations that derives morphological generalizations such as syncretism (where different morphosyntactic feature bundles like first person singular and second person singular are realized by the same morpheme).

There are a number of resources for DM:

• Rolf Noyer's DM Frequently Asked Questions page and bibliography, both written in the late 90s

• Heidi Harley and Rolf Noyer 1999, State-of-the-Article: Distributed Morphology (pdf), another overview which also has an attached bibliography

• David Embick and Rolf Noyer 2006, Distributed Morphology and the syntax-morphology interface (pdf), a handbook article

• Andrew Nevins and Karlos Arregi 2012, Morphotactics: Basque Auxiliaries and The Structure of Spellout, a recent book that shows Distributed Morphology "in action" by using the framework to account for the morphosyntax of the Basque auxiliary system.

First, I'll point to a previous question on this SE, What meaningful distinction is there between morphology and syntax?. I'll just present one line of approach.

A seminal article is Mark Baker's 1985 The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation, wherein he defines the Mirror Principle as follows:

Morphological derivations must directly reflect syntactic derivations (and vice versa).

Subsequently, Distributed Morphology (DM) was developed by Morris Halle & Alec Marantz and colleagues. I quote from their 1993 paper, Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection (pdf):

[...] we take the phonological realization of the terminal elements in the syntax to be governed by lexical (Vocabulary) entries that relate bundles of morphosyntactic features to bundles of phonological features.

We have called our approach Distributed Morphology to highlight the fact that the machinery of what traditionally has been called morphology is not concentrated in a single component of the grammar, but rather is distributed among several different components.

Two points: first, it is in a sense the opposite of what you mention in your question, in that a morphologically derived word is claimed to have internal syntactic structure. Second, DM is not pure syntax (hence the "Distributed" label): it does have a number of post-syntactic operations that derives morphological generalizations such as syncretism (where different morphosyntactic feature bundles like first person singular and second person singular are realized by the same morpheme).

There are a number of resources for DM:

• The Wikipedia article

• Rolf Noyer's DM Frequently Asked Questions page and bibliography, both written in the late 90s

• Heidi Harley and Rolf Noyer 1999, State-of-the-Article: Distributed Morphology (pdf), another overview which also has an attached bibliography

• David Embick and Rolf Noyer 2006, Distributed Morphology and the syntax-morphology interface (pdf), a handbook article

• Andrew Nevins and Karlos Arregi 2012, Morphotactics: Basque Auxiliaries and The Structure of Spellout, a recent book that shows Distributed Morphology "in action" by using the framework to account for the morphosyntax of the Basque auxiliary system.

A seminal article is Mark Baker's 1985 The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation, wherein he defines the Mirror Principle as follows:

Morphological derivations must directly reflect syntactic derivations (and vice versa).

Subsequently, Distributed Morphology (DM) was developed by Morris Halle & Alec Marantz and colleagues. I quote from their 1993 paper, Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection (pdf):

[...] we take the phonological realization of the terminal elements in the syntax to be governed by lexical (Vocabulary) entries that relate bundles of morphosyntactic features to bundles of phonological features.

We have called our approach Distributed Morphology to highlight the fact that the machinery of what traditionally has been called morphology is not concentrated in a single component of the grammar, but rather is distributed among several different components.

Two points: first, it is in a sense the opposite of what you mention in your question, in that a morphologically derived word is claimed to have internal syntactic structure. Second, DM is not pure syntax: it does have a number of post-syntactic operations that derives morphological generalizations such as syncretism (where different morphosyntactic feature bundles like first person singular and second person singular are realized by the same morpheme).

There are a number of resources for DM:

• Rolf Noyer's DM Frequently Asked Questions page and bibliography, both written in the late 90s

• Heidi Harley and Rolf Noyer 1999, State-of-the-Article: Distributed Morphology (pdf), another overview which also has an attached bibliography

• David Embick and Rolf Noyer 2006, Distributed Morphology and the syntax-morphology interface (pdf), a handbook article

• Andrew Nevins and Karlos Arregi 2012, Morphotactics: Basque Auxiliaries and The Structure of Spellout, a recent book that shows Distributed Morphology "in action" by using the framework to account for the morphosyntax of the Basque auxiliary system.

First, I'll point to a previous question on this SE, What meaningful distinction is there between morphology and syntax?. I'll just present one line of approach.

A seminal article is Mark Baker's 1985 The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation, wherein he defines the Mirror Principle as follows:

Morphological derivations must directly reflect syntactic derivations (and vice versa).

Subsequently, Distributed Morphology (DM) was developed by Morris Halle & Alec Marantz and colleagues. I quote from their 1993 paper, Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection (pdf):

[...] we take the phonological realization of the terminal elements in the syntax to be governed by lexical (Vocabulary) entries that relate bundles of morphosyntactic features to bundles of phonological features.

We have called our approach Distributed Morphology to highlight the fact that the machinery of what traditionally has been called morphology is not concentrated in a single component of the grammar, but rather is distributed among several different components.

Two points: first, it is in a sense the opposite of what you mention in your question, in that a morphologically derived word is claimed to have internal syntactic structure. Second, DM is not pure syntax (hence the "Distributed" label): it does have a number of post-syntactic operations that derives morphological generalizations such as syncretism (where different morphosyntactic feature bundles like first person singular and second person singular are realized by the same morpheme).

There are a number of resources for DM:

• Rolf Noyer's DM Frequently Asked Questions page and bibliography, both written in the late 90s

• Heidi Harley and Rolf Noyer 1999, State-of-the-Article: Distributed Morphology (pdf), another overview which also has an attached bibliography

• David Embick and Rolf Noyer 2006, Distributed Morphology and the syntax-morphology interface (pdf), a handbook article

• Andrew Nevins and Karlos Arregi 2012, Morphotactics: Basque Auxiliaries and The Structure of Spellout, a recent book that shows Distributed Morphology "in action" by using the framework to account for the morphosyntax of the Basque auxiliary system.