Partitive

Abstract: In this paper, we investigate the interaction between semantic parameters and morphological constraints in determining the distribution of the accusative case marker-(y)I in Turkish. This marker is often discussed as an instance of differentiated object marking (DOM). The account of accusative marking based on a functional interpretation of DOM assumes that the case suffix marks a direct object if it is too similar to an archetypical subject. Other approaches to accusative marking in Turkish have been based on the observation that the accusative marker is closely related to the direct object’s specificity as such, rather than to the similarity of the direct object to a typical subject—and there is general agreement that typical subjects are specific. These approaches predict that specific subjects are also overtly case-marked; this is confirmed by the data. Enc (1991) explains specificity in terms of partitivity and argues that the accusative case marker indicates a partitive construction (or at least an implied partitive relation), and thus marks a specific direct object. In this paper we show that the conditions for the distribution of this case marker are quite complex and cannot be explained within the functional view of DOM. In particular, we argue that the suffix indicates specificity under certain morpho-syntactic conditions, rather than indicating just a contrast to the subject. This view is vindicated by the assignment of (genitive) case to the embedded subject that is determined by very similar morpho-syntactic and semantic conditions: the embedded subject receives genitive case if it is specific and no genitive case if it is non-specific. Furthermore we show that Enc’s definition of specificity in terms of partitivity must be modified for semantic as well as morphological reasons. We develop a more flexible notion of specificity in terms of referentially anchored indefinite NPs. We give additional evidence, based on the detailed analysis of the morphological conditions for partitives, which shows that partitives are not necessarily specific. In conclusion, we show that the accusative case marker can indicate the referential property of the direct object (such as specificity) in clearly defined morphological environments in a reliable fashion; in other contexts, it is not a reliable indicator of properties like specificity.

Abstract: The standard analysis of quantification says that determiner quantifiers (such as every) take an NP predicate and create a generalized quantifier. The goal of this paper is to subject these beliefs to crosslinguistic scrutiny. I begin by showing that in St'a'imcets (Lillooet Salish), quantifiers always require sisters of argumental type, and the creation of a generalized quantifier from an NP predicate always proceeds in two steps rather than one. I then explicitly adopt the strong null hypothesis that the denotations of quantifiers should be crosslinguistically uniform. Since the Salish data cannot be captured by the usual analysis of English, I pursue the idea that English is reducible to the Salish pattern. Reanalysis of many English constructions is required. I argue that the reanalysis has advantages over the standard analysis for partitives, as well as for non-partitive all- and most-phrases, which I analyze as containing bare plurals of argumental type. Even where the new analysis faces some challenges (for example, with every), the attempt still leads to fruitful results. It forces us to view familiar constructions in a new light, and to redefine, I believe correctly, which quantificational constructions are ‘basic’ and which stand in need of further explanation.

Abstract: This monograph addresses fundamental syntactic issues of classifier constructions, based on a thorough study of a typical classifier language, Mandarin Chinese. It shows that the contrast between count and mass is not binary. Instead, there are two independently attested features: Numerability, the ability of a noun to combine with a numeral directly, and Delimitability, the ability of a noun to be modified by a delimitive modifier, such as size, shape, or boundary modifier. Although all nouns in Chinese are non-count nouns, there is still a mass/non-mass contrast, with mass nouns selected by individuating classifiers and non-mass nouns selected by individual classifiers. Some languages have the counterparts of Chinese individuating classifiers only, some languages have the counterparts of Chinese individual classifiers only, and some other languages have no counterpart of either individual or individuating classifiers of Chinese. The book also reports that unit plurality can be expressed by reduplicative classifiers in the language. Moreover, for the constituency of a numeral expression, an individual, individuating, or kind classifier combines with the noun first and then the numeral is integrated; but a partitive or collective classifier, like a measure word, combines with the numeral first, before the noun is integrated into the whole nominal structure. Furthermore, the book identifies the syntactic positions of various uses of classifiers in the language. A classifier is at a functional head position that has a dependency with a numeral, or a position that has a dependency with a generic or existential quantifier, or a position that represents the singular-plural contrast, or a position that licenses a delimitive modifier when the classifier occurs in a compound.

Abstract: Author(s): Norris, Mark | Advisor(s): Hankamer, Jorge | Abstract: This dissertation develops a novel theory of the kind of agreement that has come to be known as (nominal) concord, traditionally described as obtaining between a noun and its modifiers, e.g., adjectives and determiners. The empirical focus is the concord system in Estonian, and thus a second goal of the dissertation is to describe and analyze various morphosyntactic puzzles within Estonian DPs. The core phenomena investigated are: (i) the functional structure of nominals in Estonian, including the category D and the syntax of cardinal numerals; (ii) number concord in Estonian and concord more generally; and (iii) case concord in simple DPs as well as case concord in pseudopartitives and DPs with numerals, which apparently show an alternation between case assignment and case concord. The dissertation argues for a view of morphological case wherein some cases are assigned in particular environments when no other case is available and for a view of nominal concord as an agreement phenomenon that is formally distinct from subject-verb agreement.Despite the fact that Estonian lacks definite and indefinite articles---the most common members of category D---there is evidence that Estonian nominals contain a normal amount of functional structure, including DP. I argue that we achieve a clearer understanding of the Estonian possessor system if Estonian has DP, and I show that the category D is not only for articles, but also indefinite pronouns and the wh-determiner corresponding to `which'. I then argue that cardinal numerals in Estonian can occupy either a specifier position or a position as a head in the nominal extended projection. I show how this helps explain differences in number-marking and case-marking that arise in DPs with numerals.I then turn to an analysis of nominal concord in case and number in Estonian. I argue that treating nominal concord as a DP-internal correlate of subject-verb agreement does not lead us to a better understanding of its behavior. Furthermore, I show that nominal concord exhibits some behavior that is puzzling under an Agree-based analysis: (i) adjectives show concord despite the fact that they are not in a position to c-command the source of the features, and (ii) though possessors may intervene structurally and linearly between a putative probe and goal, they do not disrupt or affect concord in any way. The novel analysis of concord that I propose does not treat it as a direct relationship between two syntactic nodes, but as the relationship between an extended projection and the elements that comprise it. The properties just listed in (i) and (ii) are exactly what we would expect under such an approach.Finally, I explore the alternation between partitive case assignment and case concord in pseudopartitives and DPs with numerals in Estonian. I show that the partitive case assignment pattern only obtains when the entire construction is in a position to receive nominative or accusative case. I argue against a so-called case-stacking analysis, wherein the alternating elements are assigned two cases in the syntax, with the outcome determined by the morphology. Because Estonian shows the alternation in both DPs with numerals and pseudopartitives, it poses interesting challenges to the existing analyses of superficially similar phenomena. I propose instead that partitive is unmarked case inside nominals, assigned only when no other case is available. The alternation between partitive assignment and case concord then becomes a matter of timing: nominative and accusative are assigned after the unmarked case assignment rule comes into effect, but the other cases are assigned early enough that there is no need to appeal to the unmarked case.