The treatment of inflectional periphrasis is problematic in LFG, apparently
because of the lexicalist nature of the framework. A close inspection of what is
usually understood by lexicalism reveals two distinct, but related, notions: lexicalism and lexical encapsulation. Complex inflectional systems show that one
can preserve lexicalism (the idea that words and phrases are different in terms of
units and rules of composition), but that it is necessary to reject lexical encapsulation (the idea ...
The treatment of inflectional periphrasis is problematic in LFG, apparently
because of the lexicalist nature of the framework. A close inspection of what is
usually understood by lexicalism reveals two distinct, but related, notions: lexicalism and lexical encapsulation. Complex inflectional systems show that one
can preserve lexicalism (the idea that words and phrases are different in terms of
units and rules of composition), but that it is necessary to reject lexical encapsulation (the idea that words are formed without input from syntax). An adequate
theory of inflectional morphology needs a framework that is not constrained by
lexical encapsulation. With such a framework, it is then possible to give a correct
account of inflectional periphrasis. The paper develops the analysis of two periphrastic constructions, one in Latin and one in Catalan, within a non-encapsulated version of LFG.
+