Caha 2019 Nanosyntax Some Key Features

Nanosyntax: some key features
Pavel Caha∗
Masarykova univerzita Brno
February 2, 2019
1 Introduction
Nanosyntax (Nano, Starke 2002, 2009; Caha 2009) is a theory of morphosyntax whose central
tenets overlap to some extent with those proposed in Distributed Morphology (DM, Halle and
Marantz 1993, 1994). For instance, DM’s famous dictum of ‘syntax all the way down’ is
something that Nanosyntax would subscribe to just as much as DM. Similarly, both theories
converge on a ‘late insertion’ approach to morphology, where syntactic computation, consisting
minimally of Merge and Move, applies before spell out. The shared features are given in (1).1
(1) Nanosyntax and DM, shared features:
a. Late Insertion: All syntactic nodes systematically lack all phonological features.
The phonological features are supplied – after the syntax – by consulting the Vo-
cabulary Items (lexical entries) in the postsyntactic lexicon.
b. Syntax all the way down: Terminal nodes are organized into hierarchical structures
determined by the principles and operations of the syntax. Since terminal nodes
correspond to units smaller than words, it follows that syntactic principles govern
∗
My work on this paper has been supported by the Czech Science Foundation, Grant no. GA17-10144S. I want
to thank Karen De Clercq, Michal Starke and Guido Vanden Wyngaerd for their helpful comments on a previous
version of this paper.
1 However, I have to add that the shared features are somewhat compromised by the fact that I had to change the
definitions compared to the wording used in Halle and Marantz (1994) (their literal rendering would make such an
agreement impossible). Nevertheless, I hope to have extracted the spirit correctly in an attempt to show what both
frameworks share, compared to other approaches, such as, e.g., A-morphous Morphology (see Anderson 1992) or
Lexicalist approaches (e.g., Di Sciullo and Williams 1987).
1
the internal structure of words. There is no sharp boundary between the traditional
syntax and morphology.
At the same time, there are also differences. The first major difference is that in Nanosyn-
tax, each morphosyntactic feature corresponds to its own syntactic terminal (cf. Kayne 2005,
Cinque and Rizzi 2010). I will refer to this as “No Bundling.” The second important differ-
ence is that there are no post-syntactic operations in Nanosyntax (“No Morphology,” see, e.g.,
Koopman 2005, Kayne 2010)). In this article, I shall begin from No Bundling, and explain the
idea behind “No Morphology” later on.
Let me start by noting that as a consequence of No Bundling, it follows that any com-
plex object like, e.g., the set of features [1st PLURAL ], must be created by (binary) Merge,
and therefore, correspond to a syntactic phrase. This position reflects a more fundamental hy-
pothesis about language, namely that any complex grouping of more primitive building blocks
should be dealt with within a single generative system.
DM does not share this view. Ever since its early days until the most recent incarnations, the
input to syntactic computation in DM are not only terminals with single features, but also com-
plex sets of features, called feature bundles. As Bobaljik (2017) puts it in his recent overview
of the theory, the input to the syntactic computation in DM is “a list of the syntactic atoms
[...]. Items on this list would include [...] (possibly language-particular) bundles of features
that constitute a single node: for example English (plausibly) groups both tense and agreement
(person and number) under a single INFL node in the syntax.” The reliance on ‘syntactically
atomic’ feature bundles is characteristic for the work done in DM despite the fact that a lot of
its home-grown research has been devoted to uncovering the rich structure of these bundles (cf.
Harley and Ritter 2002). In fact, this type of work lays bare a fundamental tension inside the
DM model: on the one hand, it is becoming increasingly clear that feature bundles have a rich
internal structure. On the other hand, this structure cannot be generated by syntax, because it
is already in place when syntax starts assembling such bundles together.
Feature bundles are a point of concern for Nano. As Starke (2014a) puts it, “a ‘feature
bundle’ is equivalent to a constituent,” because “enclosing elements inside square brackets is a
notational variant of linking those elements under a single mother node.” From this perspective,
feature bundles are equivalent to n-ary trees, with n typically greater than 2. Starke further
points out that this is equivalent to having a “second syntax” with “a new type of Merge for
2
the purpose of lexical storage.” Crucially, the issue of what generative system lies behind the
formation of these bundles remains a largely unaddressed question within DM.
Nanosyntax, as already mentioned, entirely dispenses with feature bundles. The framework
(as a core hypothesis about the architecture of grammar) simply rejects the possibility that
feature bundles may be generated outside of the core syntactic computation:
(2) No Bundling (a property of Nanosyntax, but not DM):

The atoms (terminal nodes) of syntactic trees are single features. All combinations of
morphosyntactic features arise as the result of (binary) Merge. Pre-syntactic feature
bundles do not exist, they correspond to phrases assembled by syntax.
The elimination of feature bundles eradicates the residue of Lexicalism in the theory of gram-
mar. To see that, consider the fact that feature bundles are language specific (recall the quote
from Bobaljik’s 2017 introduction to DM). If that is so, then the list of “pre-syntactic building
blocks” from which syntactic structures are constructed in DM is also necessarily language
specific, as used to be the case in Lexicalist theories. DM of course differs from Lexicalist
theories in many important respects, but the idea that syntax begins from language-particular
objects is shared between DM and Lexicalism.
In Nanosyntax, this residue of a language-particular presyntactic lexicon is eliminated.
What we are left with as the building blocks are universal features. Concerning the inven-
tory of such features, Nanosyntax in line with Cartography adopts “the strongest position one
could take; one which implies that if some language provides evidence for the existence of a
particular functional head (and projection), then that head (and projection) must be present in
every other language” (Cinque and Rizzi 2010, 55). As a result, the set of syntactic building
blocks is the same in all languages, and we have no trace left of a language particular list that
feeds syntax. Nanosyntax thus completes the shift from a presyntactic lexicon to a postsyntacic
one.
The goal of this chapter is to further elaborate on the technical consequences of the dif-
ferences highlighted above. I will introduce phrasal spellout and spellout-driven movement as
the essential theoretical tools which allow the theory to capture a range of data while adhering
to the principles introduced above. I will then briefly go through three case studies (on case
marking, comparatives and root suppletion), which, I think, provide a good illustration of how
the shared features and differences play out in the analysis of particular pieces of data.
3
2 Constituent spellout
Once feature bundles are dispensed with, it follows that markers like we, which corresponds to
multiple features ([1 PL ]), spell out multiple terminals of the syntactic tree (cf. Vanden Wyn-
gaerd 2018). The first question is how to delimit the sets of terminals that may be spelled out by
a single marker. This question arises because it is not the case that just about any two terminals
may be pronounced together regardless of their position in the tree. To give an example: a
morpheme like we cannot lexicalise the person of the subject and the number of a fronted XP,
so that a sentence like In god we trust would be the spellout of a meaning corresponding to In
god[-s I] trust. Here the bracket in the second sentence encloses two elements that jointly pro-
vide both the feature of the first person and that of a plural, yet their adjacency is not sufficient
for joint spellout. So clearly, some restrictions on which features may be lexicalised together
must be a part of the spellout mechanism: the sheer reduction of the number of morphemes in
a string cannot be the right criterion.2
Starke (2002; 2009; 2014b; 2018) as well as much current work in Nanosyntax propose that
the theoretically simplest way to define sets of terminals eligible for joint spellout is to rely on a
grouping mechanism that is already needed for independent reasons. The sets of terminals that
syntax provides for free are (by definition) constituents, and hence, the zero theory is one where
morphemes spell out constituents (cf. McCawley 1968, Weerman and Evers-Vermeul 2002,
Neeleman and Szendrői 2007, Radkevich 2010 for similar approaches outside of Nanosyntax).
Constructing theories along these lines has been the golden standard of work in genera-
tive grammar. Consider, for instance, the work done on ellipsis or movement. Here, we also
encounter situations where ellipsis/movement targets multiple terminals. The standard way
of explaining why several terminals undergo ellipsis/movement jointly is to say that they are
all contained in a single constituent, and it is this constituent that actually undergoes ellip-
sis/movement. Nanosyntax adopts the same methodology (just applying it to spellout) and
adheres to the view that when multiple terminals are joined inside a single morpheme, this is
so because the morpheme spells out a constituent containing these terminals. All observable
restrictions on joint lexicalisation should follow from this (in the same way as restrictions on
‘joint movement’ or ‘joint ellipsis’).
In following this logic, Nanosyntax not only adheres to a standard theory-building proce-
2 Noteincidentally that phenomena like these are not completely out of this world; see Blix (2016, sec.6.2) for
a discussion of a morpheme of Pazar Laz, which is able to spell out the number of the object alongside the person
of the subject, provided they form a unit available for spellout.
4
dure, but also increases our model of grammar incrementally (rather than changing it complete-
ly). To see that, consider the fact that where DM has feature bundles located under a terminal,
Nanosyntax has a run-of-the-mill syntactic phrase. However, all terminal nodes of standard
DM (where markers are inserted) are still syntactic nodes in Nano—just phrasal.
This is not so in sequence-based approaches to spellout. These approaches are close to
Nano in that a single morpheme may correspond to several terminals. The difference is that in
this theory, spellout targets multiple terminals that form “a functional/linear sequence” (Abels
and Muriungi 2008, Dékány 2012, Svenonius 2012, Merchant 2015, Haugen and Siddiqi 2016).
These approaches thus lead to a much more radical departure from feature constituency used
in DM. In such approaches, the feature bundles of DM (targeted by insertion) are no longer
constituents at all: they have been replaced by a new type of object, a “sequence.”
2.1 Underspecification
Let me now move on to the observation that if we want to have a theory where morphemes
target phrasal nodes, we must define our insertion principles differently from what is usually
assumed in DM. The reason is that non-terminal insertion clashes with one of DM’s key features
(as defined in Halle and Marantz 1994), namely Underspecification, see (3).
(3) Underspecification (a feature specific to DM). In order for a Vocabulary Item to be

inserted in a terminal node, the identifying features of the Vocabulary Item must be a
subset of the features at the terminal node.
Underspecification is embodied in the well-known insertion principle used in DM, the Subset
Principle, given in an abbreviated form below. Notice that this principle explicitly states that it
governs insertion only at terminal nodes.
(4) The Subset Principle (abbreviated, Halle 1997)

The phonological exponent of a Vocabulary Item is inserted into a morpheme of the
terminal string if the item matches all or only a subset of the grammatical features
specified in the terminal morpheme.
Can this insertion principle be broadened in a way that the Subset Principle could also govern
insertion at phrasal nodes? It turns out it cannot. Consider, for instance, the suppletive com-
5
parative worse. Bobaljik (2012) proposes that it spells out a non-terminal composed of the root
√
BAD and an associated CMPR head. Its lexical entry is as shown in (5):
(5) worse ↔ CMPR P

√
CMPR BAD
To allow for insertion of such lexical items, one could simply drop the restriction on terminal
nodes from the Subset Principle. This would preserve the spirit of Underspecification and, at
the same time, allow insertion into all nodes in general. To reflect the more general nature of
insertion sites in such a reformulation of the Subset Principle, given in (6), I will call it the
‘Generalised’ Subset Principle. The boldfaced parts highlight the modifications introduced in
(6) compared to the standard formulation in (4).
(6) The Generalised Subset Principle (a made-up principle that would fail, if proposed)
The phonological exponent of a Vocabulary Item is inserted into a node if the item
matches all or only a subset of the grammatical features specified in the node.
This principle would allow the insertion of worse (5) into a non-terminal built by syntax, as
shown in (7). The tree here depicts the structure built by syntax, and the bracket indicates that
the spellout of CMPRP is successful, since worse in (6) matches a (trivial) subset of the features
√
specified inside the CMPRP, namely the root BAD and the CMPR feature.
(7) CMPR P (worse)

√
CMPR BAD
However, the Generalised Subset Principle would also allow for the CMPR P in (8-a) to be
pronounced by a regular (non-suppletive) root like fast, with an entry as given in (8-b). The
spell out of the CMPRP in (8-a) is allowed because fast is specified for a (proper) subset of the
√
features contained in the CMPRP node, specifically for the root FAST. This is obviously a
wrong result, since fast does not have a comparative meaning, and so insertion at C MPRP must
be blocked in this case. In fact, taking this logic to its extreme, a whole sentence containing the
√
root FAST at the bottom could be spelled out as fast.
√
(8) a. CMPR P (fast) b. fast ↔ FAST
√
CMPR FAST
6
There are various ways in which theories based on Underspecification may block fast in spelling
out the whole C MPR P in (8-a). The main strategy is to augment the Subset Principle by addi-
tional principles that restrict Underspecification at non-terminals. For instance, Bobaljik adopts
the Vocabulary Insertion Principle proposed by Radkevich (2010) for the case at hand; cf. Fea-
ture Portaging in Newell and Noonan (2018) or negative features in Siddiqi (2006). I shall
not discuss these theories in any detail here (see Caha 2018a for the discussion of some po-
tential problems), since the general point is exactly this: in order to allow for non-terminal
spell out, one needs to re-think how insertion works: Underspecification on its own is not
enough. Nanosyntax—rather than proposing additional principles on top of Underspecifica-
tion—replaces Underspecification by a similar (but inverted) condition, namely Overspecifi-
cation. Once Overspecification is adopted, phrasal lexicalisation works with no need for any
additional principles.
2.2 Fusion and the architecture of grammar
In mainstream DM, however, insertion is proposed to target only terminals. Trivially, this move
eliminates the need to augment Underspecification by any additional principles to deal phrasal
spell out. However, the need to associate worse to multiple terminals then requires something
special.3 One possible approach within DM is to introduce a post-syntactic operation called
Fusion. What Fusion does is that it takes the relevant non-terminal as an input, and turns it into
a terminal, see (9).
√
(9) Fusion: CMPR P → [ CMPR BAD ]
√
CMPR BAD
The availability of such a proposal rests on a particular architecture of the grammar. In partic-
ular, because of the fact that Fusion does not affect the interpretation of CMPR , Fusion (along
with other similar operations) is assumed to take place on a separate branch of the deriva-
tion that only affects PF. Still, Fusion happens before the insertion of Vocabulary items, which
means that Vocabulary Items must also be inserted at the PF branch, following Fusion (and, as
we shall see, other postsyntactic operations). The overall model is thus as shown in (10) on the
left-hand side, which is a picture taken from Harley and Noyer 1999, slightly simplified).
3 Itis of course also possibe to deny that worse realises multiple terminals, in which case the CMPR marker
would be silent. See Caha (2018a) for a discussion of the issues that interact with this decision, specifically, what
kind of consequences this has for the so-called *ABA property of paradigms that we will turn to shortly.
7
(10) The architecture of Distributed Morphology (left) and Nanosyntax (right)
Distributed Morphology Nanosyntax
Feature bundles Single features
Fusion,
Feature Lexicon
insertion,
Merger
Lexicon
PF CF PF CF
The point of Vocabulary-Item insertion is labelled as ‘Lexicon.’ The label is used because it is
here where syntactic features are paired with their pronunciation. (In contrast, I will not use
the term Lexicon for the pre-syntactic list of features or feature bundles, since the pre-syntactic
list does not contain such pairs, at least in Harley and Noyer 1999.) In DM, the Lexicon is
pushed down the PF branch, because, as said, it needs to follow Fusion, which does not feed
interpretation. This, however, leads to a paradox. To see that, consider the fact that the CF needs
to know whether dog or cat has been inserted into the root node. But since the nodes of the
syntactic tree are devoid of phonological and conceptual features (recall (1-a)), this information
is only present in the derivation after Vocabulary Insertion, i.e., after the ‘Lexicon’ box. So in
order for the CF to know which Vocabulary Item has been inserted, it needs to have access to
the stage of the derivation that follows Vocabulary Insertion. This is paradoxical, because the
PF—CF split actually precedes Vocabulary Insertion, so if one sticks to the strict Y-model, CF
should not be able to see which Vocabulary Item has been inserted. The tension is resolved (in
Harley and Noyer 1999) by enriching the model by a direct communication line between the
CF and the PF. This is indicated by the dashed line, which by-passes the syntactic derivation.4
Nano rejects post-syntactic operations, replacing Fusion by phrasal spellout. Therefore, the
Lexicon is not located down on the PF branch, but appears at the juncture of the three systems
(syntax, PF and CF). When a lexical item is inserted at a node, its phonology (e.g., good) is
sent to PF, while the corresponding concept (good’) is simultaneously sent to CF. No additional
direct communication line between the PF branch and the CF is needed. (The meaning of the
4 Harley
(2014) or Embick and Noyer (2007) provide a different solution to the issue of how conceptual infor-
mation is passed on to CF (without the need for a direct communication line), which I discuss in section 4.2.
8
dashed arrow leading from the Lexicon back to syntax will become clear in section 4.1.)
Even though the existence of Fusion and similar operations complicates the architecture,
mainstream DM has fully embraced the model with Lexicon on the PF branch, preceded by
a number of operations, some of which are listed in (10). As Bobaljik (2017) puts it, in DM,
“the investigation of mismatches between syntactically-motivated representations, and those
observed in the morphophonological string” assumes “a central role,” and “a variety of devices
[=postsyntactic operations] serve together to constitute a theory of possible mismatches.”
In Nano, the theoretical goal is different, namely to develop a unified theory of syntax
and morphology based on No Bundling. On this approach, all such ‘mismatches’ must be
accommodated by updating our syntax. Reference to post-syntactic operations represents a
type of solution that would not be considered satisfactory in Nano.
Note that deciding whether we do—or don’t—need a Morphological Component of the sort
envisaged in DM is not a matter of simple empirical observation (as researchers working in DM
sometimes tend to suggest). This is not to say that facts play no role, but it is an indisputable fact
that for as long as the theory of syntax is not ready and finished once and for all (accounting for
all the facts there are), mismatches between surface forms and syntactic structures are bound to
occur: their very existence does not constitute evidence for anything. The question is rather how
we proceed when mismatches are uncovered: do we treat them as illusions, which disappear
once syntax is properly set up, or do we accommodate the facts by adding ‘mismatch-removing
operations’ on top of an existing theory? Nanosyntax (along with other approaches) rejects
the latter and opts for the former. To express the programmatic resistance of Nanosyntax to a
post-syntactic component through a slogan, Caha (2007) suggested that one should not only
avoid morphological analysis in the privacy of one’s own Lexicon (as Marantz 1997 proposed),
but also in the privacy of one’s own Morphology.
(11) No Morphology (a feature of Nanosyntax). There is no component of grammar other

than syntax that has the power to manipulate syntactic structures. No nodes or features
may be added or deleted outside of syntax, no displacement operations take place
outside of the syntactic computation.
As the chapter unfolds, I would like to give the reader a sense of the technology that Nano uses
to deal with the scenarios that DM covers by the post-syntactic operations given in (10).
9
2.3 Overspecification
As the frst step towards a model without post-syntactic operations, Nanosyntax replaces all
analyses with Fusion by phrasal lexicalisation. To avoid the problems caused by Underspecifi-
cation, Starke (2009) replaces it by Overspecification, see (12).
(12) Overspecification (a feature specific to Nanosyntax). In order for a lexical item to be

inserted in a node, the lexical entry must fully contain the syntactic node, including all
its daughters, granddaughters, etc., all the way down to every single feature dominated
by the node to be spelled out, and in exactly the right geometrical shape.
Technically, overspecification is implemented by the so-called Superset Principle:
(13) The Superset Principle, Starke (2009):

A lexically stored tree L matches a syntactic node S iff L contains the syntactic tree
dominated by S as a subtree.
Once The Superset Principle is in place, non-terminal spell out works as needed (and without
the need to add additional principles). Specifically, worse (recall (5)) can still spell out the
√
structure [CMPR BAD] in (7), because the syntactic tree is contained in the lexically stored
√
tree in (5). However, fast (with the entry as in (8-b)) can no longer spell out [CMPR FAST],
because such a syntactic tree is not contained in the entry of fast in (8-b). So all is well.
This is an important result. It shows that once Overspecification is adopted, we no longer
need to search for additional principles that counteract the effects of Underspecification, and
we have a fairly simple insertion rule that in principle applies to all nodes (both phrasal and
terminal), an important achievement in the pursuit of No Bundling.
2.4 Elsewhere
The Superset Principle (just like the Subset Principle) leads sometimes to the result that several
candidate morphemes qualify for insertion at a particular phrasal node. Consider, for instance,
the phrases given in (14) and the lexical entries as in (15).
10
(14) a. F2 P b. F3 P c. F4 P
F2 F1 F3 F2 P F4 F3 P
F2 F1 F3 F2 P
F2 F1
(15) a. α ↔ F3 P b. β ↔ F4 P
F3 F2 P F4 F3 P
F2 F1 F3 F2 P
F2 F1
What we see here is that the lexical entry for β matches all the structures in (14), because it
contains every single one. α matches only (14-a,b), but it does not match (14-c). This means
that for (14-a,b), both α and β are candidates for insertion. In such cases, the entries compete,
and the so-called Elsewhere Condition (Kiparsky 1973) determines the winner. The Elsewhere
Condition says that when two entries compete, the more specific entry wins. In our case, this
is α, because it spells out proper subset of structures compared to β . As a rule of thumb, the
more specific entry is the one that contains fewer superfluous features:
(16) The Elsewhere Condition:

When two entries can spell out a given node, the more specific entry wins. Under the
Superset Principle governed insertion, the more specific entry is the one which has
fewer unused features.
3 Features, Paradigms and the *ABA

With the basics of insertion in place, let me now turn to how the theory is put to use in modelling
morphological paradigms. In a tradition going back at least to Jakobson (1936 [1962]), it has
become customary to characterise the cells of paradigms in terms of more primitive units of
analysis, namely features, where each cell of the paradigm is defined by a unique set of features.
This approach is also widely adopted in DM, where the relevant features usually form a bundle
at the relevant terminal. In Nanosyntax, feature bundles are dispensed with, and so each cell in
a paradigm corresponds to a constituent containing the relevant features.
Consider, for instance, the trees in (14). These trees can be taken to define a paradigm like
the one in (17). Specifically, the tree (14-a) contains the features F1 and F2 ; these corresponds
11
to the features that characterise the cell on the first row (Cell 1). The tree (14-b) corresponds to
Cell 2 (it contains the same features as Cell 2), and (14-c) corresponds to Cell 3.
(17) An example paradigm

features α matches β matches insertion
Cell 1 F1 , F2 yes yes α
Cell 2 F1 , F2 , F3 yes yes α
Cell 3 F1 , F2 , F3 , F4 no yes β
Consider now in addition that these cells (each cell representing a particular constituent) can be
spelled out by lexical items which contain them. In (15), I have given two lexical entries such
that α contains the features of Cell 2 and Cell 1, and β contains the features of all the cells.
Such lexical entries therefore match the cells of the paradigms as depicted in the table (17).
Where both match, competition arises with a winner determined by the Elsewhere Condition.
The winners are recorded in the final column, and they correspond to the surface paradigm
generated by the system introduced in the previous section.
The interest of “translating” the abstract structures in (14) onto a paradigm like (17) is that
once we realise the possibility of such a “translation,” we can start doing it also the other way
round. If we succeed, we ultimately reduce surface paradigms (the sequences of αs and β s) to
surface manifestations of syntactic structures of a rather familiar kind. A fundamental question
in this enterprise is how we come to know—given a set of forms—what order they come in, so
that we can then decide what structure they correspond to.
An important stepping stone on this path was the investigation of the so-called *ABA pat-
terns. ABA (without the asterisk) refers to a pattern where in a particular arrangement of cells,
the first cell and the last cell are the same, while the middle cell is different. When ABA is pre-
ceded by an asterisk, this means that such a syncretism is not found. As in any area of science,
the goal is to explain why we observe some patterns of behaviour, but never other patterns; so
if *ABA is observed in a paradigm, we want the theory to be able to explain this.
It can be shown that when the cells in a paradigm are ordered in terms of growing complex-
ity (as in (17)), then the *ABA restriction falls out from the theory. Consider the reasoning:
In order for Cell 3 in (17) to be spelled out as β , the entry of β must be as in (15-b) (it must
contain all the features of Cell 3). Now by virtue of containing all the features of Cell 3, and
because we are dealing with a paradigm of growing complexity (by assumption), β necessarily
also contains all the features of Cell 2 and of Cell 1. If that is so, then β also automatically
12
applies in those cells (in virtue of the Superset Principle).
Now since β is in principle applicable in all the cells, the only way how β may fail to
spell out the middle cell is that there is a more specific competitor—α in our case—which
outcompetes β due to the fact that it has fewer superfluous features. Crucially, once we have
β in the most complex cell and α in the middle cell, we realize that the least complex cell
(C1) can never be spelled out by β (which would yield an ABA type of pattern). To see that,
consider the fact that in the setup we have created, both α and β can spell out Cell 1. Further,
since α has fewer features than β , α it will always win when they compete, including Cell 1.
The conclusion to be drawn here is therefore the following: if it is true that surface paradigms
derive from syntactic structures of the sort in (14), we expect such paradigms to exhibit rather
stringent restrictions on syncretism. For this reason, the study of *ABA patterns has been an
important empirical domain to look at within Nanosyntax.5
In one of the first approaches along these lines, Caha (2009) has addressed this issue for case
morphology, and found a number of languages where such constraints have been independently
observed in the existing literature. Moreover, he argued that the results of such studies can be
generalised into a universal linear restriction on syncretism in case, such that in the sequence
NOM — ACC — GEN — DAT— INS — COM , only adjacent functions can be syncretic. Leaving the
subsequent ramifications of this ordering aside (see Hardarson 2016, Starke 2017, Zompı̀ 2017,
Van Baal and Don 2018, Caha 2018b), Caha (2009) proposed that such a constraint can be ex-
plained by organising the cells of case paradigms in a cumulative fashion, as depicted abstractly
in table (17), so that ultimately, the full case structure looks as given in (18).
5 See, e.g., McCreight and Chvany (1991), Plank (1991) or Johnston (1996) for the investigation of *ABA
patterns outside of both DM or Nanosyntax. See Bobaljik (2012) for an important discussion of *ABA within
DM, which has provided much inspiration for this kind of work.
13
(18) COM P
F6 INS P
F5 DAT P
F4 GEN P
F3 ACC P
F2 NOM P
F1 NP
...
The proposal embodied in this structure is that the nominative case (corresponding to NOM P
in (18)) is characterised by the feature F1 , the accusative (corresponding to ACC P in (18)) is

derived from the nominative by yet another feature, etc. The proposal has the effect that the
cases NOM — ACC — GEN etc. stand in a containment relation, exactly as the abstract structures
in (14). The labels of the phrasal constituents are apparently exocentric, but this is only for
clarity: the ‘true’ label of the nominative is F1 P, but this would be a rather opaque label, so
the non-terminal nodes carry the name of the case, which is defined by the collection of Fs it
dominates (e.g., ACC = [ F1 , F2 ]). I am leaving the content of the features aside, see Caha
(2013) for some remarks.
The novel part of this proposal is not so much the idea that case decomposes into various
features; this has been a common stance ever since Jakobson’s (1936 [1962]) pioneering work.
The novel part is rather that each case feature corresponds to a head of its own, which, recall,
is one of the core features of Nano. What is also different from Jakobson is that the features
are privative. In sum, the proposal derives the morphological patterns found in case paradigms
from a type of architecture that is characteristic for syntactic derivations.
By now, a number of researchers working within Nanosyntax have looked at various phe-
nomena through a similar lens, and used *ABA patterns as a tool for uncovering the underlying
features and their hierarchical organisation into ‘nesting’ structures of the type in (18) (see in
particular Starke 2009; Pantcheva 2010; De Clercq 2013; Baunaz and Lander 2018a,c; Lander
and Haegeman 2018; Taraldsen Medová and Wiland 2018). And even though some more re-
cent contributions point out that *ABA patterns can also be derived with non-nesting types of
structures (e.g., Caha 2017a or Bobaljik and Sauerland 2018), this changes nothing to the fact
that for a number of domains, the existence of *ABA patterns has led to the confirmation of an
14
architecture where the atoms of syntax are not feature bundles, but single features.
In DM, the standard treatment of case morphology is different in a way that I think is symp-
tomatic for the larger architectural differences between the frameworks (see Halle 1997; Halle
and Vaux 1998; McFadden 2004; Embick and Noyer 2007; Calabrese 2008). Consider, for
instance, one specific proposal taken from Embick and Noyer (2007), a state-of-the-art paper
on DM. Their feature decomposition, intended to capture the facts of the Latin declension, is
given in (19). I have taken the freedom to re-label their ablative as instrumental, since in Latin,
the ablative marks also instruments.
(19) Case decomposition in DM

NOM ACC GEN DAT INS
Oblique - - + + +
Structural + + + + -
Superior + - - + +
To see the generative power of such a decomposition, consider, for instance, the triplet NOM —
ACC — GEN . In this sequence, no ABA pattern is attested in Latin, which is in line with the fact
that this would be very rare crosslinguistically. In particular, Baerman et al. (2005) report that
if one of NOM / ACC is the same as an oblique case (frequently a genitive), this is going to be the
accusative and not the nominative.6
However, the decomposition in (19) cannot rule out such ABA patterns, and so it does not
allow us to capture the asymmetry reported by Baerman et al. (2005) (cf. McFadden 2017,
Smith et al. 2018). Consider the reasoning: In the proposal (19), the three cases under discus-
sion share the feature [+structural], and so any exponent marked for [+structural] can appear in
all the cases, yielding an AAA pattern (recall that DM uses Underspecification). When such
a ‘default’ AAA pattern interacts with competing entries, ABA patterns emerge. Specifically,
because of the decomposition into equipollent features, it is possible to devise tailor-made com-
petitors for each individual case. Suppose, for instance, that NOM has a dedicated case marker,
B, specified as [-Oblique, +Structural, +Superior]. Its competition with the underspecified
marker A would yield a BAA pattern. However, if B were tailor-made for ACC, competition
would yield ABA, and if B were tailor-made for GEN , we would get AAB. This shows that
within this particular triplet, any pair of cases can be syncretic, which goes against the general-
6 Baerman et al. (2005) phrase this as a tendency, see Caha (2018b) for a discussion of some counterexamples.
15
isation observed in the typological literature. Hence, as Caha (2009) argues, the Nanosyntactic
proposal that features are privative, and assembled by Merge, is not only theoretically attractive
(consistent with No Bundling), it allows one to capture important generalisations.
The standard DM account (as described in Embick and Noyer 2007) has an additional
feature that is worth mentioning in this context. Following Marantz (1991) and McFadden
(2004), Embick and Noyer (2007) report that in DM, case features are not a part of the syntactic
derivation at all. They note: “At PF, case features are added to DPs [...], based on the syntactic
structure that the DP appears in. [...] These features are added at PF, and are not present in
the syntactic derivation.” I will refer to such features introduced post syntax as morphological
features, ‘M-features’ for short.
The important point is that the postulation of M-features amounts to the introduction of yet
another generative component (this time post-syntax), where complex feature bundles can be
assembled. In addition, when case is expressed independently of other categories (as in ag-
glutinative languages), such case features would be introduced in a separate node, also created
post-syntax, as Embick and Noyer (2007) make clear in their footnote 25. I find it difficult
to reconcile such an array of structure-building operations with the explicit statement that in
DM, “all complex objects, whether words and phrases, are treated as the output of the same
generative system (the syntax)” (Embick and Noyer 2007). One can of course always back-
track from specific proposals about case features, but the fact remains that from the perspective
of Nanosyntax, the multitude of mechanisms that DM’s architecture makes available is “an
embarassment of the riches,” as Bobaljik (2017) points out.
To make explicit the implications of these findings for the general architecture assumed in
Nano and DM, I will start by quoting a passage from Embick and Noyer (2007), originally
meant as a guideline for comparing Lexicalist and non-Lexicalist approaches. They say: “It
is often objected in discussions of non-Lexicalist versus Lexicalist analyses that the patterns
analyzed syntactically in the former type of approach could potentially be stated in a theory
with a Lexicon. This point is almost certainly correct, but at the same time never at issue. [...]
The Lexicalist position, which posits two distinct generative systems in the grammar, can be
supported only to the extent that there is clear evidence that Lexical derivations and syntactic
derivations must be distinct.”
DM (compared to Nano) has exactly the same issue of multiple systems that can generate (or
minimally provide) complex objects: (i) pre-syntactic feature bundles, (ii) syntax, (iii) feature
16
bundles constructed at ‘PF,’ (iv) nodes inserted at PF. So if the reasoning quoted above is
followed consistently, it must be concluded that Nano has an architectural advantage of exactly
the same sort that differentiates between lexicalist and non-Lexicalist approaches. In particular,
to the extent that feature bundles can be generated by syntax (corresponding to vanilla-flavour
syntactic constituents), they should not be drawn from a pre-syntactic list or created at PF.
4 Cyclic spellout
Another important feature of current work in Nanosyntax is Cyclic spellout (cf. Starke 2018,
Baunaz and Lander 2018b, Caha et al. 2019a).
(20) Cyclic spellout. Spell out must successfully apply to the output of every Merge F op-
eration. After successful spellout, the derivation may terminate, or proceed to another
round of Merge F, in which case a new round of spellout is initiated, and so on.
Cyclic spellout plays a central role in current Nanosyntactic thinking, providing the basis of
an account for a number of phenomena including idioms, root suppletion and affix ordering.
To see how cyclic spellout works, let us assume the very same toy scenario that we have been
working with in (14), only enriched by the idea of cyclic spellout. Suppose then that syntax
merges F1 and F2 , forming F2 P:
(21) [F2P F2 F1 ]
After Merge F has applied, spellout applies. Spellout means that the lexicon is searched for
an item matching the phrase in (21). In our toy scenario, F2 P is contained in the lexical entry
for both α, recall (15-a), and β , recall (15-b). Recall also that α wins against β due to The
Elsewhere Condition. Spellout is therefore successful.
After the successful application of spellout at F2 P, the lexicalisation procedure remembers
minimally that F2 P can be lexicalised by α. If no more features are added (we are finished
constructing the intended meaning), the derivation terminates and F2 P will ultimately be pro-
nounced as α. However, if we want to add more meaning, the derivation continues—without
being immediately pronounced. Suppose it continues, and that F2 P is fed back to syntax for
an additional Merge F operation. The result is that F3 is added, and spellout applies to the
F3 P depicted in (22). In (22), the tree contains the information (accessible to the lexicalisation
17
procedure, not to syntax) that F2 P has been matched by α at the previous round of spellout.
(22) F3 P
F3 F2 P (α)
F2 F1
When a tree like (22) is fed to spellout, we again find two possible matches for F3 P, namely
α and β , with α again as the winner. The match of α at F3 P is remembered, and all previous
matches inside F3 P are forgotten (over-ridden). Should no more features be added, F3 P would
be pronounced the same as F2 P, namely by α.
If we want to add more meaning, (22) is fed back to syntax again, and F4 is added, producing
F4 P as shown in (23).
(23) F4 P
F4 F3 P (α)
F3 F2 P
F2 F1
Once again, at spellout, the product of Merge F (namely F4 P) must be matched against a lexical
entry. This time, only the lexical entry for β is a match. It is thus remembered as the spellout
of F4 P, and α is over-ridden. If no more features are added, F4 P is pronounced as β .
Note that lexical entries containing trees do not duplicate syntax in any way (which is sim-
ilar to saying that lexical entries containing phonology do not “duplicate” phonology). The
purpose of the lexicon in Nanosyntax is to link syntactic representations (trees) to representa-
tions legible by phonology (sound) and by the conceptual system (meaning).
Note finally that cyclicity here is neither the same as the notion of a phase as currently
entertained in the syntactic literature (e.g., Chomsky 2001), nor is it meant as its replacement.
The core of Chomsky’s proposal is that some phrasal nodes are special and correspond to
phases, other phrasal nodes are ordinary, and do not correspond to phases. Cyclic spellout
treats all phrasal nodes alike. Phases in Chomsky’s sense are not a part of the standard Nano
toolbox, but they could be easily added; there is no logical incompatibility between cyclic
spellout (cyclic lexical look up) and the idea that some phrasal nodes are special (for instance,
where actual shipping to PF/CF occurs).
There are two empirical domains where cyclic spellout plays an important role. I now visit
18
them in turn.
4.1 Spellout-driven movement
When spellout at a newly formed FP fails, spellout-driven movements take place. The goal of
these movements is to create a configuration where the spellout of FP succeeds.
(24) Spellout-driven movement. When Merge F produces an FP that cannot be spelled

out (no lexical item matches the FP), the FP is rejected at the interface. Syntax then
tries to rescue the structure by performing one in a predefined hierarchy of movement
operations, before it sends the structure for spellout again. A variety of spellout-driven-
movement operations may apply until spellout at FP succeeds. Once lexicalisation
succeeds, the derivation either terminates or continues by Merge F.
Spellout movements are different from standard feature driven movements in that they have
no effect on interpretation, they are strictly local (inverting the order of two adjacent phrases),
and show no reconstruction effects (there is no evidence for two interpretation sites). Within
Nanosyntax, spellout-driven movement is used as a replacement for the traditional head move-
ment as well as for DM’s Merger. The machinery is also related to the U20 type of movements
proposed in Cinque (2005). However, wh-movement, focus movement, etc. are of a differ-
ent kind and contrast with spellout-driven movement on all three properties given above (they
affect interpretation, they can cross multiple phrases, they show reconstruction effects).
The algorithm for spellout-driven movement is given in (25). It is basically a version of the
algorithm as presented in Starke (2018), and I will explain its workings step by step.
(25) Spellout Algorithm
a. Merge F and spell out.

(i) If (a) fails, try spec-to-spec movement of the node inserted at the previous
cycle, and spell out.
(ii) If (a.i) fails, move the complement of F, and spell out.
b. If (a.ii) fails, remove F from the main workspace. Start a new workspace, and
build a phrase containing F that can be spelled out. Once done, Merge that phrase
back with the main projection line.
19
In the previous section, we have already informally talked about how (25-a) works. What we
shall now see in more detail is what happens when spellout fails. I am going to ilustrate the
algorithm on a fragment of data discussed in Caha et al. (2019a) (CDV henceforth). Once the
system is introduced, I show that it is capable to replicate derivations that have been treated by
post-syntactic Merger in DM.
The goal of CDV’s paper is to capture alternations in comparative marking in Czech, En-
glish and other languages. Beginning with Czech, the basic contrast is illustrated in (26).
(26)
FULL MARKING REDUCED MARKING
POS CMPR GLOSS POS CMPR GLOSS
chab-ý chab-ějš-ı́ ‘weak’ slab-ý slab-š-ı́ ‘weak’

kulat-ý kulat-ějš-ı́ ‘round’ bohat-ý bohat-š-ı́ ‘rich’
jist-ý jist-ějš-ı́ ‘certain’ tlust-ý tlust-š-ı́ ‘fat’
The table shows two different classes of comparatives in Czech. The first class—which is the
productive one—can be seen on the left, and it forms comparatives by the suffix -ějš. The
marker appears in a position preceding the final agreement marker -ı́ (obligatory in Czech).
The second class uses a reduced marker to the same effect, namely -š. There does not seem to
be any straightforward way of deciding which adjective forms which type of comparative; this
seems to be to a large extent an arbitrary property of a particular root (though frequency and
phonology play a role, see Křivan 2012). In what follows, I will use the examples on the first
row (both meaning ‘weak’) to illustrate the working of the theory.
CDV give various reasons to believe that the non-reduced marker -ějš decomposes into -
ěj and -š, where the latter marker is shared between the two comparatives. For instance, the
comparative adjective chab-ěj-š-ı́ ‘weaker’ has a corresponding comparative adverb chab-ěj-i,
which lacks the -š, suggesting that -š has an independent life on its own. The two classes thus
differ as shown below, with the final agreement omitted:
(27) Two classes of comparatives

√
a. -ěj -š
√
b. -š
Taking the bi-morphemic nature of the comparative in (27-a) as a starting point, CDV propose
20
that in the morphosyntactic structure, two comparative projections must be present, where the
lower one is pronounced as -ěj, and the higher one as -š (cf. Caha 2017b, De Clercq and
Vanden Wyngaerd 2017). This is schematically depicted in (28-a), where the comparative
markers appear on top of a QP. QP corresponds to a gradable adjective, and decomposes into
the gradability head Q and the property head A (not shown in the tree).
(28) a. C MPR 2P b. C MPR 2P
C MPR 1P C MPR 2 C MPR 1P C MPR 2
QP C MPR 1 -š C MPR 1 QP -š
chab ...
-ěj
slab
In this setting, (28-b) encodes the proposal that Class 2 adjectives lack C MPR 1 -ěj because their
roots spell out a phrasal projection that includes C MPR 1 as well as the QP. The structures are
simplified, and I elaborate on them further below. However, what can be seen right away is that
the two classes of roots can be easily distinguished in the lexicon as follows:
QP b. slab- ↔ C MPR 1P ↔ WEAK
(29) a. chab ↔ ↔ WEAK
... C MPR 1 QP
...
With such entries, both roots can spell out the QP (due to the Superset Principle), and appear
as such (without any affixes) in the positive degree (which corresponds precisely to the QP). In
the comparative, a difference shows up. The chab root, given in (29-a), still spells out QP only,
and needs additional affixes to express C MPR 1 (-ěj) and C MPR2 (-š). The slab root, however,
is able to spell out C MPR 1 on its own, and combines only with CMPR 2 -š. It is interesting
to note that this way, we state the selection requirements between the root and the particular
comparative suffix using the variable size of the lexical tree associated with the root. There
is no need for a statement of the sort ‘this root combines with -š’ or ‘this root combines with
-ěj-š;’ such combinatorial statements simply fall out from the lexical difference in the size of
the tree associated to the two classes of roots.7
Let me now describe how exactly spellout works in Class 1 (non-reduced marking). The
derivation begins by forming a QP. Such a QP is contained in both lexical entries in (29), and
7 This is an interesting proposal for allomorphy in general, and there is an ongoing work that investigates this
option (see, e.g., Holaj 2018), but I leave this aside here for reasons of space.
21
so both roots can be inserted. I am assuming here (following CDV) that the choice of the root
is free, and not subject to Elsewhere reasoning (cf. Harley and Noyer 1999). Suppose that
the root in (29-a) (chab) is selected. QP is thus successfully spelled out, and the derivation
continues by adding C MPR 1, forming C MPR 1P. When this happens, the structure is again sent
for spellout. The structure now looks as in (30-a):
(30) a. C MPR 1P b.
QP (chab) C MPR 1P
CMPR 1 QP (chab)
... CMPR 1
...
(30-a) cannot be spelled out by the root chab (its lexical entry does not contain C MPR1), and so
the output of MergeF (CMPR 1P) ends up without a spellout. The structure is therefore rejected
at the interface, and Merge F cannot continue. A repair spellout-driven movement is therefore
attempted. The various options of this movement are always applied in the succession given in
(25) (no look-ahead as to whether a particular step will succeed or not).
The first option is moving the Spec of the complement. For our case, this entails that the
movement of Spec,QP should be tried first, but QP has no movable Spec in (30-a), so this
option is skipped. The next option down the list is the movement of the full complement,
which is the QP. The output of such a movement is shown in (30-b). Note that QP leaves no
trace inside C MPR 1P. According to Starke (2018), this is a general property of spellout-driven
movement, and this is also how it differs from, e.g., wh-movement (recall that spellout-driven
movement, unlike wh-movement, never shows any reconstruction effects, and so there is never
any evidence for two different interpretive positions).
After movement, the spell out of C MPR 1P is tried again. C MPR 1P now lacks the QP inside,
and so there is a chance that lexicalisation succeeds. We know that it does in Czech, inserting
the marker -ěj. Its lexical entry according to CDV is therefore as shown in (31). It is easy to see
that this entry perfectly matches the C MPR1P in (30-b). (Recall that it is the lower C MPR 1P
that has been created by Merge F, and it is therefore this lower node that undergoes spellout.)
(31) -ěj ↔ C MPR 1P
C MPR 1
At this stage, the structure (30-b) is successfully spelled out, and if no more features are added,
it would be pronounced as the sequence of chab and -ěj. Note that as a result of spellout-driven
22
movement, C MPR 1P follows the QP, so on the surface, -ěj follows chab. The suffixal nature
of -ěj is determined by the shape of the lexical tree it is associated to in (31). The tree has
just a single feature dependent on the lowest phrasal projection C MPR 1P. In a model like that
of Chomsky (1994) (Bare Phrase Structure), such a configuration only arises in syntax when
the second daughter of C MPR1P extracts. And since movement is only to the left (as in Kayne
1994 and many others), this means that -ěj will only ever be inserted as a suffix.
The derivation now proceeds by merging C MPR 2 on top of (30-b), with the result shown
in (32). This constituent cannot be spelled out as is, triggering spellout-driven movement.
According to the spell out algorithm, the first operation that must be tried is the movement of
the Spec of C MPR 2’s complement. This phrase corresponds to the QP, and so the QP is moved
out, with the result in (33). In Czech, there is no marker to spell the C MPR 2P thus formed
(containing the features C MPR 1 and C MPR2), and hence, spell out fails.
(32) C MPR 2P (33)
QP (chab) C MPR 2P
C MPR 2
...
C MPR 2 C MPR 1P (-ěj)
QP (chab) C MPR 1P (-ěj)
CMPR 1
... CMPR 1
When (33) is rejected, the next option to be tried is complement movement. We start from the
original Merge F structure (32), the complement of the newly added F is moved, producing
(34). CDV propose that the lexical entry for -š is as in (35). This lexical item matches the
C MPR 2 in (34) out of which the phrase [chab-ěj] had extracted, and so spell out succeeds,
producing the correct sequence of morphemes chab-ěj-š.
(35) -š ↔ C MPR 2P

(34)
C MPR 2
C MPR 2P
QP (chab) C MPR 1P (-ěj) C MPR 2

... CMPR 1
Note that this way, Nanosyntax replicates a roll-up movement type of derivation without the
need to postulate the usual ‘movement’ features on particular heads. In this theory, mirror
23
image orders (in the sense of Baker 1985) arise as a result of the interaction between the spellout
algorithm and the tree shape of lexical entries (Starke 2014b).
I will now briefly show how reduced comparative marking arises in this theory. The deriva-
tion starts again by assembling a QP, which can be spelled out by slab, because it is contained
in its entry, recall (29-b). If we wanted to produce the positive, the derivation would end here,
producing just slab to which AGR would be added. In the comparative, when C MPR 1 is added
on top of such an QP, see (36-a), spell out succeeds without any movement, because exactly
such a C MPR 1P is contained in the lexical entry of slab in (29-b). C MPR 1P is thus successfully
spelled out, and the derivation continues by merging C MPR 2 on top, see (36-b).
(36) a. C MPR 1P b. C MPR 2P
CMPR 1 QP (slab) C MPR 2 C MPR 1P (slab)

... CMPR 1 QP
...
This time, spell out fails, and spellout-driven movement is triggered. The first thing to be be
tried is Spec movement. However, the complement of C MPR 2 in (36-b) has no Spec, and so
this option is skipped. Complement movement is tried next, producing the structure (37), which
correctly spells out as slab followed by -š:
(37)
C MPR 1P (slab) C MPR 2P
CMPR 1 QP C MPR 2
...
An important observation is that for different roots, the spellout algorithm produces different
tree shapes, compare (37) with (34). The choice of a particular root thus has a certain (limited)
power to steer the derivation in a particular direction. For example, the lexical item does not
influence the sequence in which features are merged, but it does influence in how the features
are linearly ordered (C MPR 1 either precedes or follows the complement).
This turns out to be useful in extending this theory to English, focussing on the alternation
between more intelligent and smart-er. CDV build their analysis around the fact that the two
markers differ in terms of complexity. In particular, -er is simpler than mo-re (it spells out
fewer features). The complexity of more can be interpreted either literally, so that more is
24
segmented as mo-re. However, even in the absence of surface decomposition, the interpretation
tells us that more is the comparative of much, which in Nano necessarily means that more
(which is minimally [CMPR much]) must express more features than -er (CMPR). Importantly,
each feature must correpond to a syntactic head.
CDV implement these observations as follows. First of all, they interpret adjectives like
smart-er as exactly parallel to the Czech reduced comparatives like slab-š ‘weaker,’ with the
final structures as in (38), where spellout-driven movement has moved C MPR1P out of C MPR 2P
in a way described for (37). Because of this parallel, the lexical entry of smart will be like the
one of slab in (29-b), i.e., associated to the full C MPR 1P.
(38)
CMPR 1P CMPR 2
CMPR 1 QP CMPR 2
... -š
-er
slab
smart
Now we know that adjectives like intelligent do not combine with -er. CDV encode this by as-
sociating such adjectives to a QP only, see (39). This yields *intelligent-er, since the two pieces
(intelligent and -er) do not spell out all the features of the comparative (they lack C MPR 1).
QP (40) more ↔ CMPR 2P

(39) intelligent ↔
...
CMPR 2 CMPR 1P
CMPR 1 Q
The lexical entry for more (which does appear in the comparative of intelligent) therefore needs
to spell out both C MPR 1 and C MPR 2. This is independently supported by the fact that more
on its own is the comparative of much, so it must be able to pronounce all the ingredients of
the comparative meaning—plus the meaning of much. Much in CDV’s system corresponds to
a functional adjective spelling out Q, which lacks any particular property A associated to it.
Therefore, if more is the comparative of much, its lexical entry must be as in (40).
With the lexical entries in place, let us see how the derivation proceeds. Syntax first assem-
bles the QP and spell out finds a match, the item intelligent. The structure is then fed back to
syntax for additional Merge F. C MPR 1 is added, but since intelligent cannot spell out such a
phrase, repair movements take place. However, neither Spec movement or complement move-
25
ment produce the right configuration for the spell out of C MPR1 by more. The last option (25-b)
in the spell out algorithm is therefore followed. What the definition says is that we should re-
move F (CMPR 1 in our case) from the main derivation, and open a separate derivational space,
where we Merge C MPR 1 with something else. This separate derivation is treated similarly to
the main derivation, and the spellout algorithm works as usual. CDV propose that the first thing
which happens when a new derivational space opens is that C MPR (which corresponds to F) is
first attempted Merged with Q, which corresponds to F−1 . The result is shown in (41-a), which
spells out as more, because it is contained in the lexical tree of more in (40).
(41) a. CMPR 1P b. CMPR 2P
CMPR 1 Q
CMPR 2 CMPR 1 (more)
CMPR 1 Q
The derivation of the comparative then continues in the new workspace, adding the next F to
C MPR1P, see (41-b). This structure also spells out as more, and since the intended meaning
has been assembled, the second workspace is closed (merged with the QP intelligent), with the
result as shown in (42):
(42) CMPR 2P
CMPR 2P (more) QP (intelligent)
CMPR 2 CMPR 1
...
CMPR 1 Q
What we see here is that more is merged as a pre-modifier of intelligent, which is a consequence
of the geometrical shape of its lexical tree. In particular, the lexical tree of more has two sister
features as its lowest elements. This contrasts with suffixal markers, which only have a single
feature as the bottom-most element. In Nano, the difference between prefixes and suffixes is
thus encoded by the difference in the shape of the lexical tree.8
Note further that Spec formation has the effect that C MPR 1 and C MPR 2 form a constituent
in (42) to the exclusion of the QP spelled out by intelligent. In DM, such a ‘rebracketing’ (from
the scope order [ CMPR 1 [ CMPR 2 QP ] ] to [[ C MPR 1 C MPR 2] QP ]) is often treated as a
8 Cf. Taraldsen et al. (2018); De Clercq and Vanden Wyngaerd (2018) for an analysis of prefixes as complex
specifiers.
26
result of post-syntactic Merger. In Nanosyntax, this type of re-bracketing arises as a core part
of the syntactic computation, executed by the Spellout algorithm (25). In particular, when Spec
formation is used during a derivation, Merger type of structures are going to arise.
Let me now compare this analysis with how comparatives are treated in DM. For instance,
in Matushansky (2013), more is the spell out of the very same syntactic Deg head that is spelled
out by -er. The difference between the two spell out shapes is attributed to a post-syntactic much
insertion, where a special node is created in the morphology that has not been present in syntax
and adjoined to Deg. Into this M-node, much is inserted as a last resort support for the affixal
-er in the Deg head.
Such an analysis does justice to the complex nature of more, but accounts for it by a post-
syntactic operation, something that CDV manage to avoid. Usually, in DM, justification for
M-nodes is provided by the observation that they do not contribute to interpretation. In this
particular case, the much part of the comparative more is apparently not needed for interpreta-
tion, since adjectives like smart-er do without it. However, such an observation does not, on
its own, require the existence of post-syntactic operations. In CDV’s analysis, the superfluous
nature of much is also captured, specifically by the fact that Q is present twice in the structure,
once as a part of intelligent, and second, as a part of more. In the latter case, it is introduced
simply as a way for C MPR 1 to merge with something, so that the derivation can continue;
hence, the analogy to Matushansky’s much-support is clear (cf. Corver 1997 for the original
idea). The crucial difference is thus not so much about the analytic intuitions here (Matushan-
sky’s paper is rather similar in spirit to the CDV analysis, arguing for syntactic treatment of
comparatives); the difference is that the Nanosyntactic technology allows one to implement
such intuitions without the need to postulate a second generative system with the power to add
heads after syntax (duplicating Merge in Morphology).
In Bobaljik’s (2012) treatment, there is no much-support. Both more and -er spell out ex-
actly the same head. When this head is suffixal, -er surfaces. When it is not, more is inserted. I
shall leave it aside whether (and how) this proposal expresses the fact that more is the compar-
ative of much, and focus rather on the fact that the Morphological component is implicated also
in Bobaljik’s analysis. In order to govern the alternation between more intelligent and smart-er,
he introduces the feature [+M] on roots that have the affix er. This feature triggers the appli-
cation of a post-syntactic Merger operation, which (after syntax) attaches the C MPR head as a
suffix to the adjective. One of the reasons for using post-syntactic Merger is the fact that the
27
two different realisations of the comparative are sensitive to the particular choice of a lexical
item, which—in standard theories—should not influence how syntactic derivations proceed.
Clearly, the present analysis follows a very similar intuition, namely that there is a lexical
difference between the two classes of adjectives such that some combine with more and some
with -er. So again, the issue is rather how this intuition ends up encoded. In CDV, the difference
between the two classes of roots is expressed in terms of how many meaning components the
lexical items pronounce, an indispensable type of lexical variation. Via the cyclic-spellout
algorithm (which ensures that the choice of a lexical item can influence, to a limited extent,
how syntactic derivation proceeds), the difference in the size of the lexical items is reflected by
different structures, as syntax tries to merge the comparative features on top of two different
bases. Crucially, no reference to features like “I trigger post-syntactic merger” is needed, so
any post-syntactic component that effects such instructions is not needed either. However, this
is achieved not by dismissing the idea that the realisation of the comparative in English is a
consequence of a particular lexical choice. This idea is fully embraced, but embedded into a
model of syntax where such an observation can be implemented without invoking post-syntactic
operations.
Finally, on Embick’s (2007) analysis, it is left open as to whether more requires the addition
of an M-head (as in Matushansky’s analysis) or not (as in Bobaljik’s analysis). But similarly
to Bobaljik, he uses a post-syntactic operation of Local Dislocation to bring the affix and the
adjectival root together. The difference between Local Dislocation and Merger is too subtle to
be addressed here (see Matushansky 2013 for a good discussion of the problems associated to
this analysis), and similar remarks thus apply as in the case of Merger.
4.2 Pointers: idioms and root suppletion
The cyclic nature of spellout further opens up the interesting possibility that insertion at higher
nodes can make reference to lexical items inserted at an earlier cycle. A device that makes ref-
erence to a previous cycle is called a pointer in Nanosyntax (Starke 2014b, Caha and Pantcheva
2012, Taraldsen 2012, Vanden Wyngaerd 2018, Caha et al. 2019b).
(43) Pointers. Insertion at a cycle n can make reference to lexical items inserted at cycles
preceding n. A device that allows for such a reference is called a pointer.
28
At least since Bobaljik (2000), a rather similar idea has been also a part of DM. The crucial
difference between DM and Nano is how reference to lexical entries is executed. In DM, this is
relegated to traditional contextual rules: they scan the vicinity of the insertion site, and if they
find what they are looking for, a special allomorph may be inserted. However, such contextual
rules may never change the lexical item they refer to. In Nanosyntax, this is different. In order
to see it, consider the basic shape of an entry with a pointer (as used in Caha et al. 2019b). Such
a lexical item looks as in (44):
(44) γ↔ FP
F L EXICAL
I TEM 153
Such a lexical item can be used to spell out a node that contains the feature F as one of the
daughters, and the other daughter corresponds to a phrase that has been spelled out by a partic-
ular lexical item (namely 153) at a previous cycle. Concerning the use of the numerical index:
lexical items in general correspond to a particular triplet of phonology, syntax and concept
(where phonology or concept may be empty). For ease of reference, we can assign a numerical
index to each such a triplet. The specific lexical item which is referenced in (44) is thus the one
that has the (arbitrarily assigned) index 153.
Now if at the stage F−1 the lexical item 153 is indeed used to spell out the structure, the
spellout procedure remembers it, and goes for another round of Merge F. This leads to the
addition of F, forming an FP as shown in (45). In the bracket, we once again find the information
that F−1 P has been spelled out in a particular way, namely by the lexical item 153. (Recall that
this is a type of information that only spell out has access to, not syntax.)
(45) Fx P
Fx F−1 P (153)
...
If the derivation reaches a stage like the one in (45), then the the lexical item (44) will be
used to spell out such an Fx P. This will lead to the over-riding of the lexical item 153, and its
replacement by the new lexical item, namely (44).
What kind of data do we need pointers for? The initial reason for Starke to introduce
pointers was the need to deal with idioms like kick the bucket. The observation that Starke
29
wanted to capture is that the idiomatic reading is only present in the context of specific lexical
items contained in the idiom; so even though pail can refer to the same object as bucket, kick the
pail lacks the idiomatic reading, which kick the bucket has. To encode the observation, Starke
proposed that idioms are phrasal lexical items which make reference to particular lexical items,
as in (46). Here small caps stand in for the lexical items that the spellout procedure had inserted
at previous cycles.
(46) ↔ ‘DIE’
KICK
THE BUCKET
When such a lexical item is used, it inserts the concept ‘die,’ over-riding the concepts associated
to kick and bucket. Note that the entry is not associated to any phonology, so the phonology of
the relevant entries remains unchanged; they sound exactly like kick, the and bucket.
The same technology can be used to deal with root suppletion. Suppose, for instance, that
we insert the adjective good as the spellout of a QP. Suppose that a C MPR 1 head is further
merged with this structure, leading to the configuration as in (47-a). This structure is spelled
out by the lexical item bett in English, which is given in (47-b), over-riding the previous spell
out good. Note that the conceptual information is not over-ridden this time; only the phonol-
ogy is. From this perspective, suppletion is nothing else but the phonological counterpart of
idiomaticity.
(47) a. C MPR 1P b. bett ↔ C MPR 1P
C MPR1 QP (good) C MPR 1 GOOD
...
As Caha et al. (2019b) point out, this treatment of root suppletion shows some interesting
differences to how root suppletion is treated in DM. DM has from the start assumed that roots
√
are a-categorial entities, notated as . Further, as a zero hypothesis, it was assumed that there
√ √
is just a single in syntax, and that morphological exponents are inserted late into nodes
(i.e., post syntax). This is important for modularity, which requires that only such information
is present in a module, which the module can “ read.” Now DM is well aware of the observation
that “[n]o phonological properties of roots interact with the principles or computations of syntax
nor do idiosyncratic Encyclopaedic facts about roots show any such interactions” (Marantz
√
1995). In an architecture where there is a single in syntax, and various morphological roots
30
are inserted late, it follows that syntactic computation will not be able to make reference to
phonological or conceptual information.
The work done in Nanosyntax on the issue of roots concurs with modularity as well, but
√
differs in one respect. In particular, as Ramchand (2008) proposes, a-categorial nodes could
easily be eliminated from syntax all together, and replaced by (sequences of) functional heads.
But the main point is the issue how root suppletion interacts with late insertion of root mor-
phemes, which turns out to be problematic in DM, but not in Nanosyntax. To see this, consider
the fact that among the adjectival roots (smart, fast, etc.) we also find suppletive ones like
good, see (48-a). Suppose further that lexical insertion targets only terminals, as in classi-
cal DM. What would be the entry for bett? The answer is that bett would be the contextual
√
allomorph of the node in the context of a CMPR head, as in (48-b).
√
(48) a. ⇔ smart, fast, good
√
b. ⇔ bett / ] CMPR ]
Once the entries are set up like this, good is inserted in the positive (bett- does not apply
√
since the conditions for insertion are not met), while bett- wins as an exponent of in the
comparative: both good and bett- are candidates, but bett- wins due to Elsewhere (it is more
√
specific). However, the problem is that if there is just a single in syntax, bett- does not win
√
only over good, but in fact over any exponent of the node. This in effect means that in the
grammar fragment (48), the comparative of any root is going to be spelled out as bett-. Marantz
(1995) notes this, and in an attempt to turn this observation into an advantage, he proposed that
√
suppletion does not exist, and all apparent instances of it involve the exponent of a functional
head. If bett- is a suppletive exponent of a functional head, then it is not a comparative of the
√
node, and it does not compete with items like fast, smart, etc.
However, Harley (2014) as well as Haugen and Siddiqi (2013) have argued, convincingly
√
to my mind, that suppletion exists. In order to implement it, and without running into the
√
issues noted above, Harley argues that s must be individuated in syntax (she uses numerical
indexes for this purpose, Embick and Noyer 2007 propose that roots carry their phonology
√
and meaning through the entire derivation). However, once s are differentiated in syntax
(in whatever way), the initial observation that, e.g., cat and dog are indistinguishable by the
syntactic computation no longer follows. As soon as the syntax contains individuated roots, it
31
can target them by different sets of rules.9
Pointers are important in that they allow us to account for root suppletion without the need
to distinguish roots in syntax. To see that, recall that the main reason why numerical indexes
on roots were introduced by Harley is to make sure that bett- will not win over fast (they each
√
spell out a node with a different index). This is not needed in a cyclic phrasal spell out model
with pointers: given the lexical entry for bett- in (47-b), there is no reason to expect that this
lexical item would outcompete fast. In particular, if fast had been chosen as the spell out of QP,
then (47-b) is simply not a candidate for spell out at all. This is so because the pointer makes
sure that bett- can only apply when at a previous cycle, good has been inserted.
In sum, cyclic spell out with pointers allows one to entertain a theory where individual roots
are not distinguished in syntax, and, at the same time, such roots are subject to suppletion,
something which is currently impossible in DM.
5 Summary of key features

To sum up, let me repeat here the most important features of the Nano framework as introduced
above, starting from the features it shares with DM:
(49) Nanosyntax and DM, shared features:
a. Late Insertion: All syntactic nodes systematically lack all phonological features.
The phonological features are supplied – after the syntax – by consulting the
Vocabulary Items (lexical entries) in the postsyntactic lexicon.
b. Syntax all the way down: Terminal nodes are organized into hierarchical struc-
tures determined by the principles and operations of the syntax. Since terminal
nodes correspond to units smaller than words, it follows that syntactic principles
govern the internal structure of words. There is no sharp boundary between the
traditional syntax and morphology.
The following properties have been identified as features that differentiate Nano from DM,
though not necessarily from other frameworks (like Cartography Cinque and Rizzi 2010 or
9Inote here that systems with roots individuated in syntax avoid the timing paradox discussed in (10). Since
the identity of the root is fixed before the PF—CF split, the PF does not need to directly communicate to CF what
choice it had made. Importantly, such approaches are in the minority, so I only mention this in a footnote. The
main issue is that these approaches fall short of deriving the ‘modularity’ observation that roots like cat and dog
are not distinguished in syntax.
32
work by Kayne 2005, Koopman 2005 and others):
(50) Features differentiating Nano from DM, but not other frameworks:
a. No Bundling: The atoms (terminal nodes) of syntactic trees are single features.
All combinations of morphosyntactic features arise as the result of (binary) Merge.
Pre-syntactic feature bundles do not exist, they correspond to phrases assembled
by syntax.
b. No Morphology. There is no component of grammar other than syntax that has
the power to manipulate syntactic structures. No nodes or features may be added
or deleted outside of syntax, no displacement operations take place outside of the
syntactic computation.
Finally, the following features are specific to Nano and not present in any other framework, as
far as I am aware.
(51) Features specific to Nano:
a. Cyclic phrasal spellout. Spell out must successfully apply to the output of every
Merge F operation. After successful spellout, the derivation may terminate, or
proceed to another round of Merge F, in which case a new round of spellout is
initiated, and so on.
b. Overspecification. In order for a lexical item to be inserted in a node, the lexical
entry must fully contain the syntactic node, including all its daughters, grand-
daughters, etc., all the way down to every single feature dominated by the node
to be spelled out, and in exactly the right geometrical shape.
c. Spellout-driven movement. When Merge F produces an FP that cannot be spelled
out (no lexical item matches the FP), the FP is rejected at the interface. Syntax
then tries to rescue the structure by performing one in a predefined hierarchy of
movement operations, before it sends the structure for spellout again. A variety
of spellout-driven-movement operations may apply until spellout at FP succeed-
s. Once lexicalisation succeeds, the derivation either terminates or continues by
Merge F.
33
References
Abels, Klaus and Peter Muriungi. 2008. The focus particle in Kı̂ı̂tharaka: Syntax and semantics.
Lingua 118: 687–731.
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology, vol. 62. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Baerman, Matthew, Dunstan Brown, and Greville G. Corbett. 2005. The Syntax-Morphology
Interface. A Study of Syncretism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Baker, Mark. 1985. The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry
16: 373–415.
Baunaz, Lena and Eric Lander. 2018a. Deconstructing categories syncretic with the nominal
complementizer. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3 1.
Baunaz, Lena and Eric Lander. 2018b. Nanosyntax: the basics. In Exploring Nanosyntax,
edited by Lena Baunaz, Karen De Clercq, Liliane Haegeman, and Eric Lander, pp. 3–56.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Baunaz, Lena and Eric Lander. 2018c. Ontological categories. In The Unpublished Manuscript,
edited by Pavel Caha, Karen De Clercq, and Guido Vanden Wyngaerd, pp. 1–18. lingbuz-
z/003993.
Blix, Hagen. 2016. South Caucasian agreement: A Spanning account. Master’s thesis, Univer-
sity of Vienna.
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2000. The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. University of Maryland
Working Papers in Linguistics 10: 35–71.
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2012. Universals In Comparative Morphology. MIT Press, Cambridge,

MA.
Bobaljik, Jonathan and Uli Sauerland. 2018. *ABA and the combinatorics of morphological
features. Glossa 3: 15.1–34.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2017. Distributed morphology.
Caha, Pavel. 2007. The Superset Principle. Ms., CASTL.
34
Caha, Pavel. 2009. The Nanosyntax of Case. Ph.D. thesis, University of Tromsø, Tromsø.
Caha, Pavel. 2013. Explaining the structure of case paradigms through the mechanisms of
Nanosyntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31: 1015–1066.
Caha, Pavel. 2017a. How (not) to derive a *ABA: the case of Blansitt’s generalization. Glossa
2: 84.1–32.
Caha, Pavel. 2017b. Suppletion and morpheme order: Are words special? Journal of Linguis-
tics 53 4: 865–896.
Caha, Pavel. 2018a. Notes on insertion in distributed morphology and nanosyntax. In Exploring
Nanosyntax, edited by Lena Baunaz, Karen De Clercq, Liliane Haegeman, and Eric Lander,
pp. 57–87. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Caha, Pavel. 2018b. Syncretism as Merge F. Ms., Masaryk University, lingbuzz/004340.
Caha, Pavel, Karen De Clercq, and Guido Vanden Wyngaerd. 2019a. The fine structure of the
comparative. Studia Linguistica 73 1.
Caha, Pavel, Karen De Clercq, and Guido Vanden Wyngaerd. 2019b. On the difference between
√
and root. Ms., Lingbuzz.
Caha, Pavel and Marina Pantcheva. 2012. Contiguity beyond linearity. Talk at Decennium:
The first 10 years of CASTL.
Calabrese, Andrea. 2008. On absolute and contextual syncretism. In Inflectional Identity, edited
by Asaf Bachrach and Andrew Nevins, pp. 156–205. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Chomsky, Noam. 1994. Bare phrase structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5: 1–48.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale. A Life in Language, edited by
Michael Kenstowicz, pp. 1–52. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2005. Deriving Greenberg’s universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic
Inquiry 36 3: 315–332.
Cinque, Guglielmo and Luigi Rizzi. 2010. The cartography of syntactic structures. In The
Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, edited by Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog, pp. 51–
65. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
35
Corver, Norbert. 1997. Much-support as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 119–164.
De Clercq, Karen. 2013. A unified syntax of negation. Ph.D. thesis, Ghent University.
De Clercq, Karen and Guido Vanden Wyngaerd. 2017. Splitting up the comparative: evidence
from Czech. Papers of the Linguistic Society of Belgium 11: 1–18.
De Clercq, Karen and Guido Vanden Wyngaerd. 2018. Unmerging analytical comparatives.
Jezikoslovlje 19 3.: 341–363.
Dékány, Éva. 2012. A profile of the Hungarian DP: The interaction of lexicalization, agreement
and linearization with the functional sequence. Ph.D. thesis, Universitetet i Tromsø, Tromsø.
Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria and Edwin Williams. 1987. On the definition of word. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Embick, David. 2007. Blocking effects and analytic/synthetic alternations. Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory 25 1: 1–37.
Embick, David and Rolf Noyer. 2007. Distributed morphology and the syntax/morphology
interface. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, edited by Gillian Ramchand and
Charles Reiss, pp. 289–324. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Halle, Morris. 1997. Distributed morphology: impoverishment and fission. MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics 30: 425–449.
Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection.
In The View from Building 20, edited by Ken Hale and Jay Keyser, pp. 111–176. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz. 1994. Some key features of distributed morphology. In
Papers on Phonology and Morphology, edited by Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley, and Tony
Bures, vol. 21 of MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 275 – 288. Cambridge, Mass.
Halle, Morris and Bert Vaux. 1998. Theoretical aspects of Indo-European nominal morphol-
ogy: The nominal declensions of Latin and Armenian. In Mir Curad: Studies in Honor of
Clavert Watkins, edited by Jay Jasanoff, H. Craig Melchert, and Lisi Olivier, Innsbrucker
Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, pp. 223–240. Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Univer-
sität Innsbruck, Innsbruck.
36
Hardarson, Gı́sli Rúnar. 2016. A case for a weak case contiguity hypothesis—a reply to Caha.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34 4: 1329–1343.
Harley, Heidi. 2014. On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics 40: 225–276.
Harley, Heidi and Rolf Noyer. 1999. State-of-the-article: distributed morphology. Glot Inter-
national 4: 3–9.
Harley, Heidi and Elizabeth Ritter. 2002. Structuring the bundle: A universal morphosyntactic
feature geometry. In Pronouns: Grammar and Representation, edited by Horst J. Simon and
Heike Wiese, p. 23–39. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Haugen, Jason D. and Daniel Siddiqi. 2013. Roots and the derivation. Linguistic Inquiry 44:
493–517.
Haugen, Jason D. and Daniel Siddiqi. 2016. Towards a restricted realization theory: Multimor-
phemic monolistemicity, portmanteaux, and post-linearization spanning. In Morphological
metatheory, edited by Daniel Siddiqi and Heidi Harley, pp. 343–385. John Benjamins, Am-
sterdam.
Holaj, Richard. 2018. Balancing between roots and thematic vowles. In The unpublished
manuscript, edited by Pavel Caha, Karen De Clercq, and Guido Vanden Wyngaerd, pp. 81–
93. Lingbuzz, lingbuzz/003993.
Jakobson, Roman. 1936 [1962]. Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen der
russischen Kasus. In Selected writings, vol. 2, pp. 23–71. Mouton, The Hague.
Johnston, Jason. 1996. Systematic Homonymy and the Structure of Morphological Categories.
Some Lessons from Paradigm Geometry. Ph.D. thesis, University of Sydney.
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kayne, Richard. 2005. Some notes on comparative syntax: With special reference to English
and French. In Movement and Silence, pp. 277–333. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kayne, Richard S. 2010. Toward a syntactic reinterpretation of Harris & Halle (2005). In
Selected papers from “Going Romance,” Groningen 2008, edited by R. Bok-Bennema,
B. Kampers-Manhe, and B. Hollebrandese, pp. 145–170. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
37
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. ‘Elsewhere’ in phonology. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, edited by
Stephen Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, pp. 93–106. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.
Koopman, Hilda. 2005. Korean (and Japanese) morphology from a syntactic perspective. Lin-
guistic Inquiry 36 4: 601–633.
Křivan, Jan. 2012. Komparativ v korpusu: explanace morfematické struktury českého

stupňovánı́ na základě frekvence tvarů. Slovo a slovesnost 73: 13–45.
Lander, Eric and Liliane Haegeman. 2018. The nanosyntax of spatial deixis. Studia linguistica
72 2: 362–427.
Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. In Proceedings of ESCOL ’91, edited by Benjamin Ao
German Westphal and Hee-Rahk Chae, pp. 234–253. Cornell Linguistics Club, Ithaca.
Marantz, Alec. 1995. A late note on late insertion. In Explorations in generative grammar: A
festschrift for Dong-Whee Yang, edited by Young Sun Kim, Byung-Choon Lee, Kyoung-Jae
Lee, Kyun-Kwon Yang, and Jong-Kuri Yoon, pp. 396–413. Hankuk, Seoul.
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy
of your own lexicon. In University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, edited by
Alexis Dimitriadis, Laura Siegel, Clarissa Surek-Clark, and Alexander Williams, vol. 4, pp.
201–225. University of Pennsylvania.
Matushansky, Ora. 2013. More or better: On the derivation of synthetic comparatives and
superlatives in English. In Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle,
edited by Ora Matushansky and Alec Marantz, pp. 59–78. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
McCawley, James. 1968. Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar without deep struc-
ture. CLS 4: 71–80.
McCreight, Katherine and Catherine V. Chvany. 1991. Geometric representation of paradigms

in a modular theory of grammar. In Paradigms: The Economy of Inflection, edited by Frans
Plank, pp. 91 – 112. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York.
McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The position of morphological case in the derivation. Ph.D. thesis,
UPenn.
38
McFadden, Thomas. 2017. *ABA in stem-allomorphy and the emptiness of the nominative.
Glossa .
Merchant, Jason. 2015. How much context is enough?: Two cases of span-conditioned stem
allomorphy. Linguistic Inquiry 46: 273–303.
Neeleman, Ad and Kriszta Szendrői. 2007. Radical pro-drop and the morphology of pronouns.
Linguistic Inquiry 38: 671–714.
Newell, Heather and Maire Noonan. 2018. A re-portage on spanning; feature portaging and
non-terminal spell-out. In McGill Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 156–167. McGill Uni-
versity, Montreal.
Pantcheva, Marina. 2010. The syntactic structure of locations, goals, and sources. Linguitics
48: 1043–1081.
Plank, Frans. 1991. Rasmus Rask’s dilemma. In Paradigms: The Economy of Inflection, edited
by Frans Plank, pp. 161–196. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Radkevich, Nina. 2010. On Location: The structure of case and adpositions. dissertation,
University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge.
Siddiqi, Daniel. 2006. Minimize Exponence: Economy Effects on the Morphosyntactic Com-
ponent of the Grammar. Ph.D. thesis, University of Arizona.
Smith, Peter W., Beata Moskal, Ting Xu, Jungmin Kang, and Jonathan David Bobaljik. 2018.
Case and number suppletion in pronouns. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory .
Starke, Michal. 2002. The day syntax ate morphology. Class taught at the EGG summerschool,
Novi Sad.
Starke, Michal. 2009. Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language. Nordlyd 36:
1–6.
Starke, Michal. 2014a. Cleaning up the lexicon. Linguistic Analysis 39: 245–256.
39
Starke, Michal. 2014b. Towards an elegant solution to language variation: Variation reduces to
the size of lexically stored trees. In Linguistic Variation in the Minimalist Framework, edited
by Carme M. Picalo, pp. 140 – 153. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Starke, Michal. 2017. Resolving (dat = acc) 6= gen. Glossa 2 1: 104.1–8.
Starke, Michal. 2018. Complex left branches, spellout, and prefixes. In Exploring Nanosyntax,
edited by Lena Baunaz, Karen De Clercq, Liliane Haegeman, and Eric Lander, pp. 239–249.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Svenonius, Peter. 2012. Spanning. Ms., CASTL.
Taraldsen, Knut Tarald, Lucie Taraldsen Medová, and David Langa. 2018. Class prefixes as
specifiers in southern bantu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36 4: 1339–1394.
Taraldsen, Tarald. 2012. *ABA and the representation of features in syntax. Talk presented at
BCGL 7, Brussels.
Taraldsen Medová, Lucie and Bartosz Wiland. 2018. Semelfactives are bigger than degree
achievements. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory .
Van Baal, Yvonne and Jan Don. 2018. Universals in possessive morphology. Glossa: a journal
of general linguistics 3 1.
Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido. 2018. The feature structure of pronouns: a probe into multidi-
mensional paradigms. In Exploring Nanosyntax, edited by Lena Baunaz, Karen De Clercq,
Liliane Haegeman, and Eric Lander, pp. 277–304. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Weerman, Fred and Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul. 2002. Pronouns and case. Lingua 112: 301–
338.
Zompı̀, Stanislao. 2017. Case decomposition meets dependent-case theories. Master’s thesis,
Pisa: Universita de Pisa.
40

Caha 2019 Nanosyntax Some Key Features

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Caha 2019 Nanosyntax Some Key Features

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Caha 2019 Nanosyntax Some Key Features

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nanosyntax: some key features

(1) Nanosyntax and DM, shared features:

(2) No Bundling (a property of Nanosyntax, but not DM):

(3) Underspecification (a feature specific to DM). In order for a Vocabulary Item to be

(4) The Subset Principle (abbreviated, Halle 1997)

(5) worse ↔ CMPR P

(7) CMPR P (worse)

2.2 Fusion and the architecture of grammar

(11) No Morphology (a feature of Nanosyntax). There is no component of grammar other

(12) Overspecification (a feature specific to Nanosyntax). In order for a lexical item to be

Technically, overspecification is implemented by the so-called Superset Principle:

(13) The Superset Principle, Starke (2009):

(16) The Elsewhere Condition:

3 Features, Paradigms and the *ABA

(17) An example paradigm

in (18)) is characterised by the feature F1 , the accusative (corresponding to ACC P in (18)) is

(19) Case decomposition in DM

4.1 Spellout-driven movement

(24) Spellout-driven movement. When Merge F produces an FP that cannot be spelled

(25) Spellout Algorithm

a. Merge F and spell out.

POS CMPR GLOSS POS CMPR GLOSS

chab-ý chab-ějš-ı́ ‘weak’ slab-ý slab-š-ı́ ‘weak’

(27) Two classes of comparatives

(28) a. C MPR 2P b. C MPR 2P

C MPR 1P C MPR 2 C MPR 1P C MPR 2

QP C MPR 1 -š C MPR 1 QP -š

(31) -ěj ↔ C MPR 1P

(32) C MPR 2P (33)

(35) -š ↔ C MPR 2P

QP (chab) C MPR 1P (-ěj) C MPR 2

(36) a. C MPR 1P b. C MPR 2P

CMPR 1 QP (slab) C MPR 2 C MPR 1P (slab)

QP (40) more ↔ CMPR 2P

(41) a. CMPR 1P b. CMPR 2P

CMPR 2P (more) QP (intelligent)

4.2 Pointers: idioms and root suppletion

(47) a. C MPR 1P b. bett ↔ C MPR 1P

C MPR1 QP (good) C MPR 1 GOOD

5 Summary of key features

(49) Nanosyntax and DM, shared features:

(51) Features specific to Nano:

Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2012. Universals In Comparative Morphology. MIT Press, Cambridge,

Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2017. Distributed morphology.

Caha, Pavel. 2007. The Superset Principle. Ms., CASTL.

Caha, Pavel. 2018b. Syncretism as Merge F. Ms., Masaryk University, lingbuzz/004340.

Křivan, Jan. 2012. Komparativ v korpusu: explanace morfematické struktury českého

McCreight, Katherine and Catherine V. Chvany. 1991. Geometric representation of paradigms

Starke, Michal. 2017. Resolving (dat = acc) 6= gen. Glossa 2 1: 104.1–8.

Svenonius, Peter. 2012. Spanning. Ms., CASTL.

You might also like