Morphological Complexity Outside of Universal Grammar

There are many logical possibilities for marking morphological features. However only some of them are attested in languages of the world, and out of them some are more frequent than others. For example, it has been observed (Sapir 1921; Greenberg 1957; Hawkins & Gilligan 1988) that inflectional morphology tends to overwhelmingly involve suffixation rather than prefixation. This paper proposes an explanation for this asymmetry in terms of acquisition complexity. The complexity measure is based on the Levenshtein edit distance, modified to reflect human memory limitations and the fact that language occurs in time. This measure produces some interesting predictions: for example, it predicts correctly the prefix-suffix asymmetry and shows mirror image morphology to be virtually impossible

Basics of Language for Language Learners

Second editionTools and Strategies for Language Learning -- Sounding Like a Native Speaker -- Thinking Like a Native Speaker -- Acting Like a Native SpeakerItem not openly available

The Radical Unacceptability Hypothesis: Accounting for Unacceptability without Universal Constraints

The Radical Unacceptability Hypothesis (RUH) has been proposed as a way of explaining the unacceptability of extraction from islands and frozen structures. This hypothesis explicitly assumes a distinction between unacceptability due to violations of local well-formedness conditions—conditions on constituency, constituent order, and morphological form—and unacceptability due to extra-grammatical factors. We explore the RUH with respect to classical islands, and extend it to a broader range of phenomena, including freezing, A′ chain interactions, zero-relative clauses, topic islands, weak crossover, extraction from subjects and parasitic gaps, and sensitivity to information structure. The picture that emerges is consistent with the RUH, and suggests more generally that the unacceptability of extraction from otherwise well-formed configurations reflects non-syntactic factors, not principles of grammar.Peer Reviewe