Kornfeld L. y A. Saab (2003). Actas del THIRD MEDITERRANEAN MEETING ON MORPHOLOGY, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, 20 al 23 de septiembre de 2001
Morphology and Syntax: Prepositional Prefixes in Spanish Laura Kornfeld (
[email protected]) CONICET – UNComa – UBA
Andrés L. Saab (
[email protected]) UNComa – UBA ARGENTINA
Key words: prepositional prefixes, Spanish, merge of heads, word syntax, sentential syntax
0. Introduction It is our purpose in this paper to account for the nature of prepositional prefixes in Spanish. There is no agreement on the status of prefixes in the bibliography on Spanish morphology. They have been considered involved either in compounding processes (RAE 1931) or in derivational ones (Lang 1990, Varela Ortega 1990), as well as a morphological process independent of them both (cf. Varela & García 1999 for a review of these positions). Basing their analysis on the proposals found in Di Sciullo (1996), Varela & García (1999) divide prefixes into prepositional (antesala, ‘anteroom’, enjaular, ‘put in a cage’) and adverbial ones (deshonesto, ‘dishonest’, precocinar, ‘precook’). Prepositional prefixes are attached productively to nouns and verbs. When attached to the former, the result can be either an endocentric construction (contraorden, ‘countermand’) or an exocentric one ([crema] antiarrugas, ‘anti-wrinkle’ [cream]). When attached to the latter, they always give rise to an endocentric construction (circunnavegar la isla, ‘to sail around an island’). Varela & García note that in the case of prepositional prefixes that seem to be attached to adjectival bases, it is easy to realize that those bases are in fact adjectives derived from nouns and that the prefix modifies the noun (intramuscular, ‘intramuscular’ = ‘that lies or is inserted inside muscle’). In this paper we will focus our attention on prepositional prefixes, devoting section 1 to constructions of the type prefix + noun (P+N), which, due to syntactic transparency, appear to have the internal structure of prepositional phrases. On the contrary, constructions of the type prepositional prefix + adjective (P+A) and prepositional prefix + verb (P+V) have and internal structure unlike any phrase in Spanish. We will present an analysis for each of those types of constructions in sections 2 and 3. As we will show, despite seeming to belong to the same pattern (P+X), P+N, P+A and P+V are in fact the result of three different syntactic and morphological processes. Our research is based on certain theoretical assumptions. First of all, we do not conceive of syntax and morphology as different sets of principles, and we consider morphological rules as included within syntactic principles (Lieber 1992). As a matter of fact, we prefer to use terms such as “word syntax” and “sentential syntax”, that make clear that the former works on the argument structure of a lexical entry while the latter operates on the numeration.
Thus, we agree with Di Sciullo & Williams (1987) and Lieber (1992) that all (bound or free) morphemes which are listed in the lexicon have their own lexical entry with phonological, syntactic and semantic information. Argument structure (in the sense of Hale & Keyser 1998) is part of the syntactic information specified in each entry and it is projected directly onto sentential syntax. We will also assume, again following Di Sciullo & Williams (1987), that lexical units can be not only the output of morphological processes, for there are mechanisms transforming syntactic objects into syntactic atoms (syntactic words), and that lexicalization of morphological and syntactic objects depends on semantic-pragmatic factors, thus being a marginal phenomenon for grammar. According to these general assumptions, we will have as one of our theoretical aims to prove that traditional notions such as derivation and compounding are not primitive but derived concepts in that they reflect the more basic distinction between morphological (word syntax) and properly syntactic (sentential syntax) word formation. 1. Two proposals for the analysis of P+Ns In this section we will analyze two hypotheses for the origin of the internal structure of P+N constructions, i.e. those made up of a prepositional prefix and a noun. Prepositional prefixes include prepositions that can appear as free elements, taking part in syntactic processes, as well as prepositions of Greek and Latin origin (inter, pro, anti). In the case of free prepositions, the most productive ones for word formation are sin and contra, although some of the words formed with contra seem to belong to a different pattern, as will be shown in section 3: (1) P+N: sinvergüenza, ‘rascal’, sinrazón, ‘injustice’, sinsentido, ‘nonsense’, interzonas, ‘inter-zonal’, interfacultades, ‘inter-faculty’, interescuelas, ‘inter-school’, interrelación, ‘interrelationship’, contrapeso, ‘counterweight’, contrafrente, ‘back front (of a building)’, contraorden, ‘countermand’, contraargumento, ‘opposite argument’, contraejemplo, ‘counterexample’, bajomesada, ‘cupboard under the worktop’, antebrazo, ‘forearm’, anteojos, ‘glasses’, (máscara) antigas, ‘gas mask’, antiarrugas, ‘anti-wrinkle’
We will assume that words in (1) are quite transparent syntactically, i.e. that their internal structure can be analyzed with the “vocabulary” of syntax. Therefore, both of the analyses presented in this section are syntactic explanations for the origin of words with the structure P+N in Spanish. On the contrary, our analyses cannot account for the lexicalization of those structures, inasmuch as that is an issue not to be tackled by a theory of general grammar. Having a look at the examples shown in (2), we will notice that the surface form of P+N constructions can be similar to, or even identical with, that of PPs: (2) [Xº sinvergüenza]
[SX sin [sal]]
[Xº contrarreloj]
‘rascal’
‘without salt’
‘timed’
[SX contra [el reloj]] ‘against the clock’
[Xº sinsentido]
[SX sin [amor]]
[Xº contraluz]
[SX contra [la luz]]
‘nonsense’
‘without love’
‘back light’
‘through the light’
[Xº sinrazón]
[SX sin [vida]]
[Xº bajomesada]
[SX bajo [la mesada]]
‘injustice’
‘without life’
‘cupboard’
‘under the worktop’
[Xº sin techo]
[SX sin [sexo]]
[Xº antecámara]
[SX ante [la cámara]]
‘homeless’
‘without sex’
‘anteroom’
‘in front of the camera’
However, it is quite clear from examples in (3) that the structure of P+N does not allow for the occurrence of determiners or quantifiers. (3) [Xº sin (*la/ una/ mucha/ tanta) vergüenza] lit. ‘without (*the/ one/ a-lot –of) shame’
[XP sin la/ tanta/ mucha sal] ‘without the/ so much/ much salt’
[Xº sin (*el/ mucho/ un/ tanto) sentido]
[XP sin el/ un/ tanto/ mucho amor]
lit. ‘without (*the/ much/ a/ so much) sense’
‘without the/ a/ so much/ much love’
It should be noted that the agrammaticality of the phrases where those elements are included is related to the perception of the constructions as one word. In fact, phrasal interpretations of sin la/una/mucha vergüenza, ‘without the/ one/ a lot of shame’, are perfectly grammatical. Thus, the nominal element that is part of these constructions has to be, of necessity, a nominal head without determiners or quantifiers (N°). This does not mean that inflectional morphemes should not occur: (4) interclaustros / interescuelas / interclubes ‘inter-senate’/ ‘inter-school’/ ‘inter-club’
antidrogas / antimisiles / antimotines ‘antidrug’/ ‘antimissile’/ ‘anti-riot’
It should be remembered that this is not the only case of inflectional morphemes within compounds (we could take into consideration words such as lavaplatos, ‘dishwasher’, chupamedias, ‘apple-polisher’, etc.). In all these cases, inflection is required by the predicate selecting the noun (P or V) and it depends on the semantic features of the noun involved (cf. guardapolvo ‘overall, coat protecting from dust’ –mass noun– vs. tirabombas ‘someone who drops bombs’ –count noun–, sinvergüenza ‘shameless’ – mass noun– vs. sin papeles, ‘without documents’ –count noun–). Thus, we believe there is no functional projection AgrP here (such as proposed in Masullo 1996), but that the plural suffix is required by semantic selection. The first hypothesis we will analyze in the following section, which we will call “incorporationist” (following Masullo 1996), accounts for the structure P+N in terms of head movement or incorporation at LF. On the other hand, the second proposal explains this structure by means of a specific syntactic process: merge of heads. In the next two sections we will have a detailed look at the motivations for each proposal. Nevertheless, it should be warned that choosing one of the proposed analysis depends on the theoretical perspective adopted within the general framework of Generative Grammar (Principles and Parameters or the Minimalist Program). However, we would like to emphasize that in both cases the problem of how P+N constructions are generated is solved on strictly syntactic terms. This is why we are not concerned with the morphological component at all. 1.1 Analysis by incorporation The fact that nouns intervening in P+N constructions have to be N°s, as has already been mentioned, allows for the adoption of a similar analysis to that presented by Masullo (1996) when trying to account for those Spanish idioms made up of preposition or light verb + NPND (noun phrase with no determiner) such as en llamas, ‘burning’, tener miedo, ‘be afraid’, dar pena, ‘be miserable’, de traje, ‘wearing a suit’, from an incorporationist perspective (following Baker 1988). The author assumes that the Visibility Condition only has to be satisfied by the assignment of structural case to DPs. Bare noun phrases, on the other hand, given that they are defective, have to meet this requirement by incorporation to a predicate that theta-marks them or to a light predicate at Logical Form. A parallel analysis for constructions of the type light preposition + NPND can be extended to constructions with full prepositions (sin, ‘without’, con, ‘with’, contra, ‘against’) + NPND, if we assume that these prepositions theta –mark their complement, a bare noun, so that it can be incorporated at LF. Thus, phrases such as sin sal, ‘without
salt’, con amor, ‘with love’, sin sentido, ‘without sense, nonsensical’, con onda, ‘fashionable, trendy’, sin vida, ‘without life, dead’, would have the following analysis, with non phrasal (lexical) interpretation: (5) PP P’ P
NP
P
N
N’ N
sin ‘without’
sali
ti
‘salt’
Incorporation occurs at LF, i.e. it is a case of reanalysis in terms of Baker (1988). The resulting complex heads are interpreted non phrasally, the preposition being a kind of functor transforming one category into another (Masullo 1996). As a result, con amor ‘with love’, and con sal, ‘with salt’, are semantically equivalent to amorosamente, ‘lovely’, and salado, ‘salty’, respectively. Therefore, the result of the process is a complex head formed at LF that can then be listed in the lexicon (as in the case of sinsentido or sinvergüenza) or not. 1.2 Analysis in terms of merge The guidelines of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995) provide an alternative explanation for the same phenomenon. In this section we will analyze the hypothesis that P+N constructions are formally similar to some instances of PPs and are generated by a similar syntactic process. The difference between [Xº sinvergüenza], ‘shameless’, and [XP sin [vergüenza]], ‘without shame’, is that in the first case, the syntactic operation responsible for the formation of sinvergüenza is merge of heads (Contreras & Masullo 2000) or set-merger of heads (Roeper, Snyder & Hiramatsu 2001), whereas in the second case, the operation is that of merge of head-complement. The basic definition of merge states that, given an ordered pair (α, β), it is replaced by a new object K as a result of merge. K is nothing but the set {α, β} plus a label γ (projection of either α or β) that specifies the category of the set, i.e.: K= { γ {α, β}} (Chomsky 1995). The difference between head and nonhead merge would lie in the status of γ, α, β, because in the first case we would have γº, αº y βº and in the second one there would be at least one maximal projection (γmax). (6) sin (γº)
sin (αº) ‘without’ ‘-less’
vergüenza (βº) ‘shame’
Thus, after numeration {sin, vergüenza}, there would be two possible outputs, depending on the syntactic operation at work. In one of the outputs, the merge of both elements results in a PP: [PP sin [N vergüenza]], ‘without shame’. This structure allows for the insertion of lexical material: sin mucha/ tanta/ un poco de vergüenza, ‘without much/ so much/ a little shame’ (or sin la vergüenza de haber firmado el ajuste, ‘without the disgrace of having signed the adjustment’). The second possible output is the result of merge of two heads (X°), and therefore it is a complex head, syntactically opaque: [Pº[P sin] [N vergüenza]] (*[Pº[P sin] [SD tanta/ mucha/ un poco de/ la vergüenza]], lit. ‘without the/ one/ a-lot-of shame’). When in the numeration we have Pº and Nº, both outputs are theoretically possible. Then, P+N strings would be identical to sequences such as hacer uso, ‘make use’, o poner en práctica, ‘put into practice’, dealt with by Contreras & Masullo (2000), which can be analyzed either as phrases or as complex heads (cf. [Pablo [hizo [uso de sus herramientas]]], [Pablo [made [use of his tools]]] vs. [Pablo [[hizo uso] [de sus herramientas]], [Pablo [[made use] [of his tools]]). Merge of heads takes place when one of the heads’ subcategorization features are cancelled as a result of its merging with another head. In the case of the constructions we are analyzing, the bare noun satisfies the subcategorization requirements of the preposition. Merge of heads is motivated by the lack of a determiner, which makes the noun defective. This means that if the noun cannot be associated to a determiner at the numeration, so as to be made visible for case assignment, it must merge with the head that selects it. We can conclude, then, that in a general model of the lexicon, sin or contra would not have an extra lexical entry, independent of their entry as prepositions, when they are considered as prefixes. We believe that, given that this so-called prefixes have the same syntactic properties as their prepositional counterparts and they project the same structure (and also that both prefixes and prepositions are equally defective from the phonological point of view), it cannot be postulated that there is any significant theoretical difference between sinvergüenza, ‘shameless’, and sin sal, ‘without salt’. It would be costly for any theoretical framework to state that these two strings are analyzed differently, being the outputs of different rules and/ or derived in different modules of the grammar. Thus, the same argument structure of the preposition can be used to account for new word formation. Sin, ‘without’, for instance, can have a DP (sin la sal de la vida, ‘without the salt of life, without joy’) as well as a NPND or an Nº (sin sal, ‘without salt’) as its complement. As their meaning becomes less transparent, some P+N constructions come to be listed in the lexicon. 1.3 The problem of the category of P+N constructions In the previous section we suggested that P+N constructions such as sinvergüenza can be treated as cases of prepositions fulfilling their subcategorization requirements in a particular way. Analyzing P+Ns as outputs of syntax generated by merge of heads brings about an apparent problem: when deriving a lexical item such as sinvergüenza, an extra operation holds which is not strictly syntactic. The item is labeled as Noun, which is not the category expected for the string P+N. Instead of postulating that this label is the result of the derivation of the word itself (as would be the case with the rule stating that prefix + noun = noun), we will try to account for this recategorization in terms of the general properties of the grammar. Our suggestion is that merge of heads between two predicates (a preposition and a bare noun, in this case) will result in a new predicate, labeled as P (a complex and therefore intransitive preposition, with a saturated argument structure) and functioning in fact as
an adjective (i.e. the lexical counterpart of the preposition considered as a functional category, as stated in Baker 2000): (7) un político sin vergüenza ‘a shameless politician’
un juicio sin sentido ‘a nonsensical opinion’
The fact that sinvergüenza or sinsentido are lexicalized as nouns is due to a special property of Spanish and other languages with rich nominal morphology: the possibility to omit the noun in noun phrases (noun-drop property). The following are examples of noun phrases with noun omission which have not been lexicalized: (8) Dame el plato amarillo y agarrá el verde. ‘Give me the yellow plate and get the green (one).’
Los de arriba me molestan todas las mañanas. ‘The (people) upstairs bother me every morning.’
The underlined DPs have no noun heading the determiner’s complement. Several explanations have been put forward for this syntactic phenomenon particular to Spanish and other Romanic languages. Hernanz & Brucart (1987) postulate an empty category to appear in place of the omitted noun. Luján (2001) suggests that definite DPs are in fact instances of personal pronouns taking small clauses (predicative structures without IP) as their complements. In any case, the solution chosen to explain the noun-drop property can be used to account for the following pairs of expressions, where a complex preposition such as those exemplified in (7) is transformed into a noun: (9) Un tipo sin vergüenza
Los hombres sin techo
‘a shameless guy’
‘homeless people’
Un sinvergüenza
Los sin techo
‘a rascal’
‘the homeless’
Un juicio sin sentido
Los hombres sin tierra
‘a nonsensical opinion’
‘landless peasants’
Un sinsentido
Los sin tierra
‘nonsense’
‘the landless’
2. Anti-, pro- and inter-: the case of Greek and Latin prefixes One of the most interesting issues that result from the analysis of P+N strings is the peculiar behavior of Greek and Latin prefixes. This section will be specially devoted to prepositional prefixes pro, inter and anti. Greek and Latin prefixes can select Nºs, but also NPs including modifiers or coordinated heads: (10) jornadas inter [NP escuelas y Departamentos de Historia] ‘inter- [NP school and History Department] workshop’
manifestación anti [NP legalización de las drogas] ‘anti-[NP drug legalization] demonstration’
comisión pro [NP esclarecimiento de las coimas en el Senado] ‘pro-[NP Senate bribes solution] committee’
The structures in (10) are the result of merge of head-complement and, therefore, are interpreted phrasally. Thus, they are not instances of syntactic atoms for they are not syntactically opaque like P+N strings in (1), (2) and (3). This can be corroborated by referring externally to an element embedded in the NP complement to the preposition: (11) Se reunió la comisión pro [SN esclarecimiento de las coimasi en el Senado], quei habían sido denunciadas por Chacho Alvarez en el 2000. ‘The pro-[NP Senate bribesi solution] committee met, (bribes) whichi had been denounced in 2000 by Chacho Alvarez.’
However, unlike true prepositions such as sin, ‘without’, contra, ‘against’ or ante, ‘before’, Greek and Latin prefixes can never select DPs or QPs: (12) inter (*las/ varias) naciones inter- (*the/ several) nations
anti (*el) gobierno/ anti (*todos los) gobiernos anti- (*the/ every) governement
pro (*el) aborto/ pro (*mucha) democracia pro-(*the) abortion/ pro-(*a lot of) democracy
Consequently, these prefixes behave like prepositions with special subcategorization features, in that they can only select an Nº or a NPND as their complement. Another characteristic of Greek and Latin prefixes is that they can be attached to adjectives as well as nouns, unlike true prepositions, which can only become prefixes with noun phrases: (13)
P+A: interdisciplinario, ‘interdisciplinary’, interhospitalario, ‘inter-hospital’, interurbano, ‘inter-city’, internacional, ‘international’, intercolegial, ‘intercollegiate’, intergubernamental, ‘integovernmental’, promilitar, ‘pro-army, pro-military’, progubernamental, ‘pro-government’, antigubernamental, ‘anti-governement’, antimilitary, ‘anti-army, anti-military’
It should be noted that P+A strings are considered in specialized bibliography as cases of “bracketing paradoxes”, i.e. cases where the meaning of the complex word or phrase suggests a way to bracket the construction which does not coincide with the one indicated by grammatical structure. Well known examples of this paradox are macroeconomist o unhappier, where the “literal” semantic interpretation would be ‘a big economist’ and ‘not happier’, respectively (cf. Spencer 1991 for a thorough discussion). Likewise, in the case of interdisciplinario, ‘interdisciplinary’, or antigubernamental, ‘anti-governement’, semantic interpretations resulting directly from their morphological structure would be ‘between relative to a discipline’ ([inter[[disciplin]ario]]) and ‘against relative to the government’ ([anti[[gubernament]al]]), with the prefix having scope over the relational adjective, whereas the bracketing that really accounts for the meaning of these words would be [[inter [disciplin]]ario] (‘relative to more than one discipline’) and [[anti [gubernament]]al] (‘contrary to the government’), with the relational suffix having scope over the compound P+N (cf. also Piera & Varela 1999). Whereas when combined with nouns, anti, inter and pro are prepositions with special subcategorization features which in some cases generate complex heads (listed or not), when attached to relational adjectives they behave like affixes. Therefore, we maintain that in the case of P+A constructions, Greek and Latin prefixes follow a pattern of word formation which is different from the one that generates complex heads: affixation by conflation (cf. Kornfeld 2001 for a proposal of subcategorization properties of affixes in terms of Hale & Keyser 1999). (14) P N (reunión) ‘meeting’
P P interpro-
A A -al
N nacióngubernament-
So, for instance, internacional, ‘international’, would be generated by conflation of –al with nación, ‘nation’, and of nacional, ‘national’, with inter–. In this case, Greek and Latin prefixes select a denominal adjective and still somehow “read” the feature [+ N] in the base, as suggested in Varela & García (1999). Evidently, there is a relationship between the etymology of the prefix and that of the suffix (in general, –al o –ario), and this relationship is responsible for some of the “exotic” formal and semantic properties of the output. Besides, as both affixes are etymologically “cultivated”, their productivity is relatively low, so that most P+A strings are listed1. Summing up, anti, pro and inter have only one lexical entry, but with two different subcategorization frames and argument structures. This is why they can be active both at word syntax (when combined with denominal adjectives) and at sentential syntax (when combined with nouns). Thus, anti, pro and inter can function as affixes in word syntax (unlike prepositions such as sin, ‘without’, or bajo, ‘under’) and, unlike affixes such as –al o –ble, as autonomous elements in sentential syntax (see example 11). 3. The case of P+V constructions In this section we will make some remarks concerning the nature of verbs with the structure P+V (such as sobrevolar, ‘overfly’, contradecir, ‘contradict’, convalidar, ‘validate’), given the fact that the same generative processes seem to be involved in some cases of P+N strings (like contraataque, ‘counterattack’, contraprueba, ‘counterproof’, contraejemplo, ‘counterexample’). As it is already known, P+V verbs appear not to follow syntactic rules. This has led to the idea that they are cases of prefix addition taking place at the morphological component. Another possible explanation for their structure is to consider that they are generated in the lexicon by conflation (Masullo, in personal communication, according to Hale & Keyser 1993). Thus, sobrepasar ‘exceed, surpass’, would have the following argument structure: (15) VP DP (Juan)
V’ V pasar
PP
‘exceed, pass’
P’
P sobre
DP (los límites)
‘over’
‘the limits’
The preposition and the verb conflate, thus generating the complex sobrepasar, ‘surpass’. The DP complement of the preposition is often inherited by the complex and marked with accusative case by the syntactic component (as in contradecir, ‘contradict’, sobrevolar, ‘overfly’, sobrepasar, ‘exceed, surpass’) or with oblique case by a new preposition (as in anteponer, ‘put before’). Sometimes the argument is implicit (as in sobrevenir, ‘strike, came over’, convalidar, ‘validate’, entreabrir, ‘half-open’). The same process seems to occur in some cases of contra + noun, such as contraejemplo, ‘counterexample’, contraprueba, ‘counterproof’, contraataque, ‘counterattack’, contraorden, ‘countermand’. It should be noticed that these nouns are systematically associated to corresponding verbs and they suggest some kind of event. The argument structure of contraataque, ‘counterattack’, would be as follows:
(16) NP N’ N ataque
PP
‘attack’
P’ P contra ‘counter’
N ataque ‘attack’
Nevertheless, it is difficult to decide in these cases whether contraataque is generated by conflation of the preposition and the first noun (as in 15) or by merge of heads of P and its complement N (as in 6). In both cases, one of the nouns would be implicit, thus creating the endocentricity effect noted by several authors (cf. for instance Varela & García 1999), for contraataque, ‘counterattack’, is a kind of ‘attack’. 4. Conclusions In the following chart we provide a summary of the different types of prepositional prefixation in Spanish, as studied in sections 1, 2 and 3 in this paper: Table 1
P+N P+A P+V
Component involved Proper syntax Word syntax Word syntax
Operation involved Merge of heads Conflation Conflation
Units involved Words Affixes Words
This means that there are three different processes involved in prepositional prefixation. The first one (P+N) takes place in the syntactic component directly, although it has often been considered a case of morphological compounding or even a case of derivational prefixation. We will call this process syntactic compounding. The second one (P+A) implies the combination of the argument structure of a word with one or more affixes at word syntax. This process corresponds to what is traditionally called derivation. The last one (P+V) also occurs at word syntax, but it involves argument structures of more than one word (morphological compounding). We hope we have been able to prove in this paper that the traditional notions of derivation and compounding are not primitive but derived concepts, inasmuch as what is relevant is the operation involved in generating the lexical item (conflation or merge), which depends in its turn on the component of the grammar at work (word syntax or proper syntax). In this sense, we have seen that certain cases of prepositional affixation that have traditionally been classified as morphological processes (P+N) are in fact the result of an operation of a purely syntactic nature, without the morphological component having any role in them. Besides, as conflation is defined as an operation concomitant with merge (Hale & Keyser 1999), we can conclude that syntactic principles operate both at sentential and word syntax. 1
Another possible solution is to consider that Greek and Latin prefixes are always syntactic objects, no matter if attached to nouns or to adjectives, as complex heads generated by merge, as we have seen in the previous section. The denominal suffix (generally –al), would then be the head of the word and it could
subcategorize for a noun as well as a predicative complex head. In this case, the suffix would have the following argument structure: X N X (reunión)X A A Pº -al [inter-nación-] [pro-gubernament-]
References Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: a Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Baker, M. 2000. Categories and Category Systems, ms. Chomsky, N. 1995. Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Contreras, H. & P. J. Masullo. 2000. “Motivating Merge”, in: Actas del X Coloquio de Gramática Generativa, Universidad de Alcalá. DiSciullo, A.M. 1992. “Prefixes and Suffixes”, in: Parodi, C., C. Quicali, M. Saltarelli & M.L Zubizarreta (eds.) Aspects of Romance Linguistics. Selected Papers from the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 177-194. Di Sciullo, A.M & E. Williams. 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Hale, K. & S. Keyser. 1993. “On the argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations”, in: Hale, K. & S. Keyser (eds.) A view from Building 20th. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Hale, K. & S. Keyser. 1998. “The basic elements of argument structure”, in: MIT Working papers in linguistics 32: Papers from the Upenn/ MIT Roundtable on Argument Structure. Cambridge: MIT, 73-118. Hale, K. & S. Keyser. 1999. “Conflation”, MIT, ms. Hernanz, M.L. & J.M. Brucart. 1987. La sintaxis. Barcelona: Crítica. Kornfeld, L. 2001. “La alternancia de los sufijos adjetivales –dor y –nte. Una explicación a partir de la estructura argumental”. Universidad Nacional del Comahue, ms. Lang, M. 1990. Formación de palabras en español. Madrid: Cátedra. Lieber, R. 1992. Deconstructing Morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Luján, M. 2001. “Sobre el Sintagma Determinante Definido”, in: Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. & E. Bustos (eds.) Semantics and Pragmatics of Spanish. Munich: Lincom Europa. Masullo, P. 1996. “Los sintagmas nominales sin determinante: una propuesta incorporacionista”, in: Bosque, I. (ed.) El sustantivo sin determinación. Madrid: Visor. Piera, C. & S. Varela. 1999. “Relaciones entre morfología y sintaxis”, in: Bosque, I. & V. Demonte (eds.) Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española. Madrid:
Espasa, vol. 3, chap. 67, 4367-4422. [RAE] Real Academia Española. 1931. Gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Spencer, A. 1991. Morphological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Varela Ortega, S. 1990. Fundamentos de morfología. Madrid: Síntesis, 1992. Varela, S. & J. García. 1999. “La prefijación”, in: Bosque I. & V. Demonte (eds.) Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, Madrid: Espasa, vol. 3, chap. 76, 4992-5039.
