The ups and downs of Pruning: Reply to Paparounas (2024)
Résumé
In this response, we critically engage with Paparounas's (2024) head-adjacency analysis of Greek verbal morphology.
While challenging Merchant's (2015) spanning analysis, Paparounas (2024) does not provide a better alternative, as it faces shortcomings upon closer scrutiny. Consequently, several analytical claims concerning Greek verbal morphology, alongside broader theoretical implications, lose their foundational support. Our critique focuses on Embick's (2010) Pruning mechanism. In particular, we show that the Greek data fail to substantiate Paparounas's claims regarding (a) its purportedly destructive nature, rendering a Pruned node incapable of conditioning another morphological rule, or (b) its timely operation. Furthermore, Pruning, as is applied in Paparounas ( 2024), suffers from look-ahead (cf. Moskal and Smith 2016), which makes the entire analysis incompatible with a head-adjacencybased approach. Building on Embick (2012), we specify the contexts in which look-ahead may not arise. Ultimately, however, we argue that a strict head-adjacency-based analysis of Greek verbal morphology is fundamentally flawed, regardless of destructivity and look-ahead.
Domaines
| Origine | Fichiers produits par l'(les) auteur(s) |
|---|---|
| Licence |