Perhaps I am missing something here, but does Edit Doron adopt:

1) a lexicalist view of morphology (as it seems from "A Unified Approach to Reflexivization in Semitic and Romance" by Edit Doron and Malka Rappaport Hovav)in which she says "our theory, which recognizes only lexical reflexivization and anaphoric binding, is clearly superior to a system such as R&S’s, which recognizes syntactic reflexivization in addition to lexical reflexivization and anaphoric binding."


2) a syntactic one (as it seems from "Agency and Voice: The Semantics of the Semitic Templates" by Edit Doron).

  • She adopts a posture which rejects syntactic reflexivization. May 3 '17 at 20:18
  • @StoneyB How is this reconciled with identifying reflexive morphemes as functional heads in the syntax? Isn't this a syntactic approach?
    – MJM
    May 4 '17 at 19:33

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.