syncretism w/o paradigms

[John Frampton]

My (relatively uninformed) view has been that morphological
features differ in some respects from syntactic features and that
there is a nontrivial (but not particularly complicated) mapping
from syntactic structure to morpheme (morpheme = bundle of
morphological features) structure. Structural case, for example,
gets assigned by that mapping (to my way of thinking).  It has
also seemed to me that impoverishment is naturally viewed as an
aspect of the syntactic structure -> morpheme structure mapping.
Under this view, impoverishment happens before the lexicon comes
into play in filling in the nodes of the morpheme structure.

Are there any knock-down arguments against this view?

- John Frampton
--

Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have,
however objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare
is an illegal means for settling those grievances or for altering
those conditions. (Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, the
American prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, in his opening
statement to the tribunal)