From the introduction: "Muysken argues from Quechua data for the separation of morphology and syntax. After quoting Pike's claim, "For the description of some languages it is not accurate or helpful to postulate a sharp morphology-syntax dichotomy." Muysken continues: "Here I would like to argue in detail that it is both accurate and helpful to postulate that dichotomy." (page 279) I intend to show that Muysken is wrong, that Quechua provides considerable evidence that morphology and syntax must be closely integrated, and that strictly separating them makes capturing certain regularities of the language--if not impossible--at least very difficult. I take the position that morphology and syntax are not distinct components and that they should be treated as a single domain, called morpho-syntax."
Weber, David J.
"The relationship of morphology and syntax: Evidence from Quechua,"
Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session: Vol. 27, Article 10.
Available at: https://commons.und.edu/sil-work-papers/vol27/iss1/10