From a production/generation perspective, one can say that a realization X is the result of a collection of features (attribute-value pairs) applied to the base form of a word. For example:
1) [base=eat, number=singular, person=3, tense=present, aspect=simple, voice=active, polarity=positive] → “eats”
2) [base=eat, number=singular, person=3, tense=past, aspect=progressive, voice=active, polarity=negative] → “was not eating”
Question: Are there any theories that classify the above features (person, number, tense, etc.), when applied to English verb groups, as syntactic or morphological? And if there aren’t any, would it be because any such feature may cause both morphological and syntactical changes, so all such features are morphosyntactic by nature?
OLD QUESTION (not SE-compatible, but I left here for folks to see what I'm trying to get at.)
I know that the boundary between syntax and morphology is, in general, fuzzy. Yet I wonder if, for production/generation purposes, one can create 2 unambiguous lists of features for each, and 1 that combines both (morphosyntax).
For now I'm thinking exclusively about English verb groups (VGs), and a simplistic definition of syntax and morphology:
- Morphology: rules at and below word level.
- Syntax: rules above word level.
For example, think of the realization "eats" defined by the following set of features (i.e. attribute-value pairs):
number=plural, "eats" becomes "eat" (if all other features remain unchanged). All that happened was that a word changed, specifically its ending. With the above definition of morphology and syntax, one would classify
number as purely morphological. Conversely, if
aspect=perfect, "eats" becomes "has eaten". Now, not only the word "eats" has changed, but also another word (has) has been added, so one would classify
aspect as morphosyntactic.
With the above rationale, we would arrive at the following non-exhaustive list of features for English VGs:
futureadds "will" to the VG and
pastmay change the head verb),
voice=passive"be" is added and the head verb changes to past participle).
polarity(with values positive and negative, where negative adds "not" and positive does nothing).
My question, in sum: Do you agree with the above classification, and, if not, why?