Reply to commentaries, “On the identity of roots”

It is an amazing and humbling thing to have a baker’s dozen of one’s most insightful colleagues engage seriously with one’s actual proposals on paper. I am edified and inspired by these commentaries, all of which have made an important contribution to my understanding of my own ideas, as well as my understanding of the commentators’ views on these and related issues. All of the commentaries adduce important empirical evidence bearing on all these questions, which would not normally be collected in a single place; this strikes me as an incredibly valuable resource. I also appreciate this opportunity to expound further on some of the issues discussed in light of the responses, articulate where I see connections and opportunities arising, and respond to one or two criticisms. Luckily for me, some commentaries include discussion and data that I will invoke in responding to critical points raised in other commentaries; how great is that? One thing the commentaries make abundantly clear is that the discussion of roots’ essential natures, in and out of syntax, is far from over. On the one hand, Borer argues for a fundamentally phonological characterization, raising questions concerning the paradigmatic character of the suppletion data I present. On the other hand, Rappaport Hovav and De Belder emphasize the essential character of the semantic content of roots, including and especially suppletive ones. Labelle points out the importance of semantic content in realizing the project of integrating roots into a concrete model of sentence production and processing, as it must be communicative intent that drives selection of the Numeration. Acquaviva argues that root nodes are crucially non-syntactic entities, fundamentally different from other abstract morphemes in List 1, while Svenonius argues strongly against postulating a foundational distinction between functional, syntactic elements and encyclopedic, non-syntactic elements. This latter division on roots’ fundamental nature is closely connected to another foundational syntactic question that arises in several of the commentaries, concerning the position of