Recall that Morris Halle had proposed to treat the phonological form of “abstract morphemes” (those with conditioned allomorphs) as (abstract) “Q.”  Q would be replaced in the phonology by the actual phonological realizations of the morpheme, in some context.  For DM, Morris and I assumed that, in place of Q, all morphemes had no phonological form at all in the syntax.  Nevertheless, the insertion of phonological forms via “Vocabulary Insertion” was seen as a phonological process, subject to whatever principles we (thought we) knew were applicable in the phonology.

We imagined that a language contained a set of Vocabulary Insertion rules (VIn rules),  that were rather like phonological rules in the Sound Patterns of English sense.  When the grammar was ready to insert a Vocabulary Item (VIt) into a morpheme from the syntax, all the VIn rules would compete for use.  The VIn rule specifying the largest subset of the features on the morpheme would win the competition.  If two (or more rules) specified the same subset of morphosyntactic features, these rules would compete on the basis of any contextual features they had that restricted the environment of the morpheme into which the VIt could be inserted.  For example, in the competition for insertion into a number morpheme with the feature [+plural], the VIn rule [+plural]<<—->> /-z/ would tie with the VIn rule [+plural] <<—->>Ø in terms of the subset of features that the rules spell out.  The latter rule would have the context of the list of stems that take the zero plural (deer, fish, etc.) and thus would win the competition with the /-z/ rule when the [+plural] feature was on a number node sister to, say, deer.  The /-z/ rule, having no contextual features, would be the default plural rule, used for [+plural] when the stem fell on no lists associated with the context for special VIn plural rules.

The “subset principle” here was supposed to be a version of a Pāninian elsewhere condition of the sort that governed the application of phonological rules.  The nesting of features between VIn rules (say a rule spelling out +plural and +masc nesting a rule spelling out just +plural) was parallel to the rule abbreviation conventions of phonology (in the 1960’s at least) and captured the idea that the most specified VIt that fit into a morpheme would be inserted (blocking the insertion of a VIt whose features nested within the more specified VIt’s).  Anderson’s principles for complementary distribution of the morphophonological rules realizing features in A-Morphous Morphology included a similar approach, again borrowed from phonology.

The overriding principle governing the complementary distribution of VIts was the one morpheme, one VIt principle.  That is, if a morpheme had features A and B, and there were separate VIns spelling out A and B, only one VIt could be inserted.  Such a situation, however, would not be covered by the subset principle, since A and B aren’t subsets of each other.  To mediate competition in such cases, additional principles were necessary.  Halle & Marantz propose stipulated ordering of VIs in such cases (so the one spelling out A might be ordered before the one spelling out B and thus bleed it – if the one spelling out A, however, had a contextual feature not met in a particular word, then B would show up).  Other approaches to VI rule ordering were explored, including a universal hierarchy of features (see Noyer (1992), e.g., for early work on this idea).

But if there is just one VIt per morpheme, the “bundling” of features in single morphemes becomes crucial for explaining the distribution of VIs in a word.  Halle & Marantz here supposed that “bundling” could be universal, e.g., if say Agreement in natural languages involved Agreement morphemes with a particular set of “phi-features” for person, number, and gender, then person, number and gender would be bundled universally into a single morpheme.  Or bundling could be language specific, with each language determining how to package the universally available features into morphemes.  A “bundling” parameter, for example, was explored in Pylkkänen (2008)) where languages were claimed to differ depending on whether or not they bundled the features of voice and those of v into a single morpheme, with consequences for both syntax and for morphophonology.

So, DM had bundles of features in terminal nodes of the syntax formed prior to the use of these bundles in the syntax, a hierarchical organization of these terminal nodes (= morphemes) produced by the syntax, and a principle of Vocabulary Insertion via VIn rules that provided, in the morphophonology, a single VIt for each morpheme from the syntax.  An additional set of assumptions was necessary to account for word formation – how syntactically distributed morphemes end up in a sequence of phonological words.  Marantz (1984) included an elaborate theory of “morphological merger” – the process by which morphemes were put together into words.  DM did not adopt the analyses of Marantz (1984), instead buying into what was turning into a consensus account of syntactic word formation:  a morpheme that headed a lower phrase raised and adjoined to the head of the phrase that took its maximal projection as its complement (if XP were the complement to YP, X could raise and adjoin to Y).  Halle & Marantz more or less presuppose the viability of this analysis, despite the fact that mainstream generative theory at the time, influenced by Chomsky, included a lexicalist assumption that words were the basic units of syntax, constructed in the lexicon (see the final section of Halle & Marantz (1993) for a comparison with Chomsky’s approach).  In addition to head movement (and adjunction), Halle & Marantz supposed that some morphemes could be inserted (and adjoined to morphemes already in the syntactic tree) after the syntax proper, e.g., agreement and perhaps case morphemes.  And cliticization (of the sort found in English possessive constructions like “the queen of England’s hat”) was assumed to involve yet another post-syntactic process, (morphological) merger under adjacency, adjoining two morphemes that were adjacent in the morphophonology.

Bundling, head-movement, morphological merger, and the one morpheme, one VI principle served as the scaffolding for a piece-based realizational approach to morphology and phonology, contrasting with, e.g., Lieber-style (1992) lexicalist theories with their phonology-laden morphemes and Anderson-style realization theories without Vocabulary Items as pieces.  However, empirical issues required additional mechanisms for early DM, one central to the theory and two place-holders for a better theory to come.  The subset principle of Vocabulary Insertion along with assumptions about how context resolves ties between VIns that spell out the same features lead to this generalization about contextual allomorphy:  the more specific VIts go in the more specified environments, while the more general VIts go in the less specified environments (are relative defaults).  However, against this generalization, there seemed to be situations in which a more general VIt is inserted in a more specific environment.  Bonet (1991) provided a set of cases of this sort from Romance pronominal clitics and suggested a principle of Impoverishment could explain the facts.  For example, the Spanish dative clitic le (for third person masculine nouns) occurs in most environments with other clitics.  However, in some dialects, before the third person accusative lo, le surfaces as se, apparently the third person reflexive clitic.  Bonet argues that se is actually a default (third person) clitic, and its distribution motivates the deletion of features from the 3^rdperson dative clitic in the environment of the 3^rd accusative clitic before Vocabulary Insertion.  This Impoverishment of features causes the insertion of a more general clitic, se, in a more specified environment (before lo) over le, which is the default third person dative clitic.  An understudied claim of Marantz’s (e.g., 2010) is that the locality constraints on the relationship between the trigger of Impoverishment (in our example, the accusative clitic) and the target of Impoverishment (here the dative clitic) is looser than that between the locus of VIn and any environment that might trigger a contextual allomorph to be inserted.  In Halle & Marantz, the analysis of Potawatomi involved a longish distance relationship between an Impoverishment trigger and its target, a relationship that was too distant to have triggered contextual allomorphy at the target.  If Marantz’s observation is correct, Impoverishment and contextual allomorphy would properly be separated in the theory, as in standard DM.

Given the one morpheme, one VI principle, certain patterns of morpheme distribution become difficult to describe.  For example, data motivating portmanteaux morphemes (where a single VIt looks as if it is spelling out two morphemes) and circumfixes (where two VIts look to be spelling out a single morpheme, on opposite sides of a stem) challenge straightforward accounts of Vocabulary Insertion under one morpheme, one VI.  Halle & Marantz endorse two brute force operations to provide rather standard accounts of these phenomena.  In Fusion, two morphemes join into one before Vocabulary Insertion, allowing the features of both to contribute to the choice of the VIt for this fused morpheme and predicting complementary distribution between a portmanteau VIt and any other VIts that spell out only the features of one or of the other of the pre-fused morphemes.  For Georgian, we supposed that the subject and object agreement morphemes fused prior to vocabulary insertion, explaining the fact that only a single prefix reflecting the person and number of the subject or the object occurs with any verb, even though prefixes exist in the language to separately spell out a subject and an object agreement.

In Fission, some of the features of a morpheme are split off from the morpheme into a separate terminal node, allowing for a VI to be inserted into the original morpheme and an additional VI to be inserted into the new terminal node.  For Georgian, we accounted for the appearance of number suffixes in the same verbs as agreement prefixes by Fissioning off the number feature when it occurred with a certain set of other features in the Fused subject and object agreement morpheme.  (See Blix (to appear) for a recent non-Fusion, non-Fission analysis of the Georgian data within a realizational morphology.)

After the appearance of Halle & Marantz, Jochen Trommer (e.g., 1999) pointed out that if we abandon the one morpheme, one VIt principle, allowing multiple VIn into a single morpheme, we could derive (at least most of) the same forms as the H & M version of DM does without Impoverishment, Fusion, or Fission.  Impoverishment would be replaced by “consuming zeros”:  phonologically null VIts that eat up features in the environment of other morphemes, effectively Impoverishing them prior to VIn of a phonologically contentful VIt.  Fission would simply involve multiple VIn into a single morpheme, and Fusion could be replaced by contextual allomorphy at one of the apparently Fusing morphemes in the context of the other, followed by either non-insertion of a VIt into the other morpheme or insertion of a consuming zero VIt.

The question of which of these mechanisms to retain in the theory is not a simple matter of simplicity or redundancy.  Before we abandon, say, Fusion, we need to ask whether or not there is a theory of Fusion that makes different predictions than DM with, say, Trommer’s changes.  Of particular interest are locality domains for the operations, specifically the relation between targets and triggers, as well as any interactions among operations that result from their ordering.  For example, we have already seen that the environment for the trigger of Impoverishment may be at a longer distance from the target than that between the environment for Vocabulary Insertion and the morpheme at which we’re inserting the VIt.  If this is correct, it argues against Trommer’s collapsing of Impoverishment with VIn (of a consuming zero).  Similarly, Matthew Hewett has recently argued for the autonomy of Fission as an operation within DM based on the interaction of Fission with other processes (Hewett (2020)).

Blix, H.  (to appear).  Spans in South Caucasian agreement.  NLLT.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-020-09475-x

Bonet, E. (1991). Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. MIT.

Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. Hale, K. & SJ Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20.

Hewett, M.  (2020). On the autonomy of Fission: Evidence from discontinuous agreement in Semitic.  NYU MorphBeer handout.

Lieber, R. (1992). Deconstructing morphology: Word formation in syntactic theory. University of Chicago Press.

Marantz, A. (1984). On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs Cambridge, Mass, (10), 1-339.

Marantz, A. (2010). Locality domains for contextual allosemy in words. Handout of a talk given at the University of California, Santa Cruz, 30.

Noyer, R. R. (1992). Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).

Trommer, J. (1999, August). Morphology consuming syntax’resources: Generation and parsing in a minimalist version of Distributed Morphology. In Proceedings of the ESSLI Workshop on Resource Logics and Minimalist Grammars (pp. 469-80).

I’m one of the co-editors of a forthcoming Handbook of Distributed Morphology (I’m the junior editor, in the sense that my co-editors are accomplishing way more than me towards getting the volume together. Senior Editors: Artemis Alexiadou, Ruth Kramer, and Isabel Oltra-Massuet.) Collectively, with the help we hope of our chapter writers and the broader community, the editors will put together an introductory chapter that explains some of the basics of DM in the context of the origins of the theory in the 1990’s. I’ll be Blogging some paragraphs for this chapter, in the hopes of generating questions and corrections. Please help!

Distributed Morphology, in particular as presented in Halle & Marantz (1993), emerges from a specific time and place within the trajectory of Generative Grammar: MIT Linguistics in the early 1990’s. The 1980’s at MIT had seen much work centered around the connection between the internal structure of words and the syntax and semantics of the sentences in which the words occurred. This included in particular the issue of whether the order of morphemes in words “mirrored” (to use Muysken’s observation (1981), later popularized by Baker (1985)) the hierarchical structure of sentences syntactically and semantically. And also bracketing paradoxes (Pesetsky (1985), Sproat (1988)). This work, however, was not at the heart of the development of DM. It did, however, rely on the piece-y-ness and abstractness of morphemes, as well as the parallelism if not identity between word structure and sentences structure.

The center of the DM paper was Halle’s concerns about allomorphy. Abstract morphemes distributed in the syntax were at the center of Chomsky’s (1957) Syntactic Structures’ approach to the English auxiliary system. Abstract -en, for example, came with have in a syntactic tree and was spelled out as (mostly) -ed and sometimes -en by context-sensitive phrase structure rules after affix-hopping. In the years after SS, lexicalist approaches to morphemes dominated phonology in particular, where -en and -ed would be separate morphemes in complementary distribution as perfect participle endings. Spell out of abstract morphemes in the SS manner allows for a straightforward approach to syncretism, where more specified allomorphs are inserted into an abstract morpheme position when their environmental requirements are met; elsewhere a default allomorph would appear. For, e.g., the English present tense paradigm, this seems the best analysis of marked -s (for third person singular subjects) and default zero, as opposed to a lexicalist position that needs to postulate 5 distinct zero present tense morphemes to fill out the paradigm.

Halle was working on a proposal that morphemes with suppletive allomorphs should be given the underlying phonological form of Q, a placeholder for phonological features. Then morphophonological rules would spell out the various allomorphs of Q in particular contexts. The Q attached to present tense features, for example, would spell out as -s in the context of third singular features and zero elsewhere. Morphemes without suppletive allomorphs, like progressive -ing – the concrete morphemes – would carry their phonological forms with them in the syntax. In discussions with Morris, although as a card-carrying lexicalist in Lieber’s (1980) sense, believing that morphemes contained phonological forms, I thought that the Q vs. concrete distinction was unnecessary within any theory that allowed Q’s – that allowed the phonological form of a morpheme to be spelled out in the phonology after syntax. If you have Q’s, every morpheme could be a Q, with concrete morphemes simply having only default realizations, not contextually sensitive ones. Once I got to work with Morris on complex inflectional systems with rampant syncretisms, I drank the Q-laid, abandoned the lexicalist assumption about phonological forms, and worked with him on a fully realizational morphology (all Qs all the time). Here we were particularly influenced by Robert Beard’s (e.g., 1986) work.

But the immediate impetus for the work in the original Distributed Morphology paper was Anderson’s A-Morphous Morphology research (1992). Anderson endorsed a realizational approach to inflection, but not to derivation – a split that we would put pressure on in later work but that was not under discussion in the 1993 paper. However, for Anderson the phonological forms of inflectional morphemes were not pieces – not units in the phonology. Rather, they were the by-product of morphophonological rules, identifiable as units by the linguist but not by the grammar. Anderson made two moves. First, he assimilated affixation to so-called “process” morphemes such as reduplication, metathesis, ablaut/umlaut and truncation. Prefixation and suffixation were just the addition or subtraction of phonemes, as in epenthesis. Second, he claimed that the order of overt inflectional material with respect to other such material and with respect to the stem was determined by the (stipulated) order of morphophonological rule blocks, which also served to explain some of the complimentary distribution of inflectional material. This order didn’t “mirror” syntax in any sense, and was in an important sense arbitrary. As part of this system of morphophonological spell-out, Anderson proposed a number of principles that yielded complementary distribution among certain inflectional spell-outs, to explain why we don’t have oxens and mices, for example.

The 1993 paper was clearly a response to Anderson. We re-analyzed illustrative data sets important to his framework from Georgian and Potawatomi and explicitly evaluated his approach to complementary distribution. Meanwhile, of course, research in what has been labelled “prosodic morphology” was demonstrating (e.g., Marantz (1982)) why so-called process morphemes might best be seen as the addition of a piece of phonological material that may have the effect of reducing phonological structure (as in hypocharistics and truncation) or rearranging phonology as in metathesis. We emphasized in the paper, however, that even if the phonological form of some morphemes should be seen as a process rather than as a piece, the processes could be seen to occur in a position in a hierarchical structure that was the spell out of the syntax. That is, process phonology could be considered a morphophonological “piece” in a particular hierarchicacal position within a syntactic tree structure of morphemes.

To be continued…..

Anderson, S. R (1992). A-morphous morphology (Vol. 62). Cambridge University Press.
Baker, M. (1985). The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic inquiry, 16(3), 373-415.
Beard, R. (1986). On the separation of Derivation from Morphology: Toward a Lexeme. Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. Hale, K. & SJ Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20.
Marantz, A. (1982). Re reduplication. Linguistic inquiry, 13(3), 435-482.
Muysken, P. C. (1981). Quechua causatives and logical form: a case study in markedness.
Pesetsky, D. (1985). Morphology and logical form. Linguistic inquiry, 16(2), 193-246.
Sproat, R. (1988). Bracketing paradoxes, cliticization and other topics: The mapping between syntactic and phonological structure. Morphology and modularity, 339-360.

The work from the MorphLab on morphologically complex words in English has generally investigated words with one (overt) suffix. An exception is Yohei Oseki’s dissertation research (published in Oseki et al. 2019 and Oseki & Marantz 2020), which investigated combinations of prefixes and suffixes with an eye to long-distance relationships between the prefix and suffix. For example, un– attaches as a negative prefix to adjectives and as a “reversative” prefix to a subset of reversible verbs. The string unbeat is ill-formed as is, since beat is not one of the verbs semantically compatible with reversative un-, but unbeatable is fine, since the –able suffix creates an adjective from the verb, to which adjective the negative un– may attach. English prefixes are limited, and these combinations of prefixes and suffixes constitute a very small part of the general English vocabulary.

What about combinations of suffixes, as in nation-al-iz-ation? Here a consideration of the possible combinations yields some insights into the classification of morphemes cross-linguistically as “derivational” vs. “inflectional” and raises questions about whether we should expect morphological processing to reflect real differences in the function and nature of different morphemes.

A good starting point for a dive into multiple suffixation in English is Nigel Fabb’s (1988) article on affix order. While the literature has since produced many critiques questioning some of Fabb’s data and conclusions, his general overview of the data and the issues has proved foundational for further studies. Sticking only to English “word” suffixes (those that attach to stems that can be used as independent words, as opposed to bound stems like toler– in tolerate, tolerance and tolerable), Fabb finds strikingly few possible combinations of suffixes, even accounting for the category preferences of the suffixes (e.g. –able attaches to verbs). Most suffixes attach only to a finite set of stems and to a specific list of other suffixes. Some suffixes generally attach only to stems.

Particularly striking is Fabb’s conclusion (p. 535):

“A few suffixes are subject to no selectional restrictions other than those involving part-of-speech. These are:

(3)        [1] -able
            [17] deverbal -er
            [37] -ness”

(The numbers in square brackets reflect the affixes’ order in Fabb’s list of 43 suffixes.) Note that –able and –er attach to verbs while –ness attaches to adjectives. Fabb finds no selectional-free affixes that attach to nouns. Conspicuous in their absence from Fabb’s list are the participle endings –ed and –ing that create adjectival/stative passives and event nominalizations respectively; it’s not clear what motivated him to leave these out. The availability of an adjectival passive for a given verb depends on certain semantic and syntactic properties, not morphological or phonological ones. Similarly, –ing event nominalizations are generally OK on any verb semantically compatible with an event nominal. If we add –ing and –ed to the suffixes in (3), we get a plausible list of category-changing morphemes that could be part of the extended projection of verbs and adjectives. That is, the meanings in this list – for verbs, agentive nominals, event nominals, abilitative adjectives, result/state adjectives; for adjectives, property nominals – may be universal uses of verbs and adjectives and part of the paradigm for any (semantically compatible) verb or adjective in a language.

Note that nounhood is a dead end for this set of derivational suffixes. Verbs can yield nouns and adjectives, and adjectives can yield nouns, but none of the suffixes mentioned take nouns as their input. The maximum depth of derivation given these suffixes is two: verb-able/ed–ness. Examples would include: brok-en-ness, say–able-ness, close–d-ness, etc. However, nouns do enter into productive derivations, e.g. with –ish and –like: dissertation–like, farmer–ish, etc. For some reason, Fabb leaves –like off his suffix list and claims that –ish doesn’t attach outside other suffixes. However, –like and –ish seems amenable to an analysis similar to that of compounds, particularly since they may attach to phrases: I-don’t-care-like attitude, je-ne-sait-quoi-ish expression.

To go beyond three suffixes of the non-compound-ish type – and to consider the possibility of recursion in derivational morphology – we need to look at a set of Latinate affixes that Fabb identifies, including –al, –ion, –ity, –ism, –ist, and –ize, which interact with Latinate –ify, –ate, –ic, –ive, –an, –ous, and the previously mentioned –able. In particular, –al somehow gets us around the usual dead end of nouns, creating adjectives from nouns, and –ize allows the creation of verbs from adjectives. Since we can create nouns from verbs, we now can get adjectives from these nouns and verbs from the resulting adjectives, giving us the recursion noted by Lieber and others: nation-al-iz-ation-al-iz-ation-al-…  Where do –al and –ize fit into a universal set of morphemes perhaps associated with the extended projection of nouns and adjectives respectively?

Adjective forming –al creates an adjective from a noun with the meaning, “of or pertaining to the noun.” In English, for nouns like lake that resist the –al suffix, the noun itself can serve as a pre-nominal modifier: lake house, lake boat. For the same modification in predicative position, the noun would appear with a preposition: a house on a lake, a boat for the lake. It’s an interesting question whether languages generally have a way of creating a “of or pertaining to” modifier from a noun via affixation. Perhaps this question has been addressed in the literature, but if so, I haven’t seen the work.

For –ize, the question is whether languages generally have a way to create a causative accomplishment verb from an adjective. In English, the default construction for this meaning is a periphrastic “make NP Adj” construction (I made them happy, *I happyized them), but English lacks a productive derivational method to create causatives even from e.g. intransitive change of state verbs. So one could imagine a language with affixal causative constructions also having causatives formed from adjectival stems (or not).

This limited recursivity of derivation for English (and Indo-European languages in general) is not really parallel to what we see in agglutinative languages like Turkish. An example from Ergin, Morgan and O’Donnell (2020) illustrates the contrast.

Kur: set up
Kur-um: institution
Kur-um-sal: institutional
Kur-um-sal-laş: become institutional
Kur-um-sal-laş-tır: institutionalize
Kur-um-sal-laş-tır-ıver: institutionalize quickly
Kur-um-sal-laş-tır-ıver-e-me: cannot institutionalize quickly
Kur-um-sal-laş-tır-ıver-e-me-yecek: will not be able to institutionalize quickly
Kur-um-sal-laş-tır-ıver-e-me-yecek-ler: they will not be able to institutionalize quickly
Kur-um-sal-laş-tır-ıver-e-me-yecek-ler-imiz: those that we will not be able to institutionalize quickly
Kur-um-sal-laş-tır-ıver-e-me-yecek-ler-imiz-den: one of those that we will not be able to institutionalize quickly
Kur-um-sal-laş-tır-ıver-e-me-yecek-ler-imiz-den-miş: it has been heard/reported that (it) is one of those that we will not be able to institutionalize quickly
Kur-um-sal-laş-tır-ıver-e-me-yecek-ler-imiz-den-miş-siniz: it has been heard/reported that you are one of those that we will not be able to institutionalize quickly
Kur-um-sal-laş-tır-ıver-e-me-yecek-ler-imiz-den-miş-siniz-ce-sine: it has been heard/reported that you are as if one of those that we will not be able to institutionalize quickly

The first stages of the illustrated Turkish affixation mirror English institut-ion-al-ize, with the added feature of distinguishing the formation of the accomplishment verb from the adjective as an unaccusative (-laş) and the causativization of the unaccusative verb (-tır). After institutionalize, however, Turkish veers into non-English directions, piling on heads that correspond to independent words in English sentences, including adverbs (-yecek  ‘quickly’) and evidential-like heads (-miş  ‘it has been heard/reported’). It’s not clear whether these suffixes are derivational or inflectional on standard definitions, or whether it’s correct or insightful to call them “paradigmatic,” except if we use “paradigmatic” to describe words formed along the extended projection of a verb.

Various (sets of) affixes seem to have their own linguistic stories, resisting a general classification e.g. as “derivational” or “inflectional” suffixes. It is therefore unclear whether or not our processing models should themselves treat suffixes in a uniform manner. Time will tell.

References

Ergin, R., O’Donnell, T., & Morgan, E. (2020). Storage and Computation of Multimorphemic Words in Turkish. Cognitive Science Society 2020.

Fabb, N. (1988). English suffixation is constrained only by selectional restrictions. Natural language & Linguistic theory, 6(4), 527-539.

Oseki, Y., Yang, C., & Marantz, A. (2019). Modeling Hierarchical Syntactic Structures in Morphological Processing. Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics, 43-52.

Oseki, Y., & Marantz, A. (2020). Modeling Morphological Processing in Human Magnetoencephalography. Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics, 3(1), 209-219.