Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:23:20.971Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Tatar DP

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2016

Ekaterina Lyutikova  and
Asya Pereltsvaig
Ekaterina Lyutikova
Affiliation:
Moscow State University, Moscow State Pedagogical University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, we reconsider whether article-less languages have the DP projection, focusing on Tatar. We argue that putative correlations between the presence/absence of articles in a language and various DP-external phenomena (e.g. Left-Branch Extraction, superiority effects, and others), discussed by Bošković and Şener (2014), inter alia, do not hold if a broader range of languages is considered more carefully. Instead, we show that certain correlations obtain between the internal structure, syntactic position, case marking, and interpretation of. noun phrases found in distinct structural environments: direct objects, possessors, and complements of the so-called attributivizers. Specifically, we demonstrate a contrast between two types of nominals: accusative direct objects, possessors in ezafe-3, and complements of certain attributivizers share properties that contrast them with unmarked direct objects, possessors in ezafe-2, and complements of other attributivizers. We argue that postulating the DP projection in the former but not the latter type of noun phrases allows us to account for these observed correlations in a unified way.

Résumé

Résumé

Dans cet article, nous reconsidérons l’hypothèse selon laquelle les langues sans articles ont des projections SD. En particulier, nous nous intéressons au cas du tatar. Nous soutenons que les corrélations putatives entre la présence/absence d’articles dans une langue et autres phénomènes liés au SD (par exemple l’extraction d’une branche gauche, la supériorité, parmi d’autres), présentées par Bošković et Şener (2014), inter alia, n’ont plus lieu d’être lorsqu’on considère un plus grand nombre de langues. Nous démontrons qu’il existe certaines corrélations entre la structure interne, la position syntaxique, le cas et l’interprétation des SN dans différents contextes syntaxiques: les objets directs, les possesseurs, et les compléments des attributiviseurs. En particulier, nous montrons un contraste entre deux types de noms: les objets directs accusatifs, les possesseurs en ezafe-3 et les compléments de certains attributiviseurs partagent des propriétés qui les distinguent des objets directs sans cas, les possesseurs en ezafe-2 et les compléments d’autres attributiviseurs. La solution proposée donnant une projection SD pour le premier type de nominaux mais pas pour le deuxième nous permet d’expliquer ces corrélations observées.

Keywords

Parameterized DP Hypothesisnoun phrase structurearticle-less languagesTatarTurkicezafepossessorsDifferential Object Markinghypothèse paramétrique du SDsyntagme nominallangues sans articlestatarturcezafepossesseursmarquage d’objet différentiel
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , November 2015 , pp. 289 - 325
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abayev, Vassiliy I. 1959. Grammaticheskij ocherk osetinskogo jazyka [Grammatical description of the Ossetian language}. Ordzhonikidze: Severo-Osetinskoe knizhnoe izdatel’stvo. English translation available online: http://ironau.ra/ocherk/.Google Scholar
Abney, Steven Paul. 1987. The English noun phrase and its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Haegeman, Liliane, and Stavrou, Melita. 2007. Noun phrase in the generative perspective. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Aljović, Nadira. 2002. Long adjectival inflection and specificity in Serbo-Croatian. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 31:27–42.Google Scholar
Ambrazas, Vytautas. 1997. Lithuanian grammar. Vilnius: Baltos Lankos.Google Scholar
Bailyn, John Frederick. 1994. The syntax and semantics of Russian long and short adjectives: An X’-theoretic account. In Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics; The Ann Arbor Meeting: Functional Categories in Slavic Syntax, ed. Toman, Jindrich, 1–30. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 2003. Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 2009. Is head movement still needed for noun incorporation? Lingua 119:148–165.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 2013. On alignment types and types of Differential Object Marking. Paper presented at the Tromsø Conference on Differential Object Marking.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark and Vinokurova, Nadya. 2010. Two modalities of Case assignment: Case in Sakha. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28:593–642.Google Scholar
Beaver, David. 2013. Definiteness and determinacy. Paper presented at the Stanford Linguistics Colloquium, November 2013.Google Scholar
Bittner, Maria. 1994. Case, scope and binding. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2005. On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica 59:1—45.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2008. What will you have, DP or NP? In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, ed. Elfner, Emily and Walkow, Martin, 101–114. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko 2009. More on the no-DP analysis of article-less languages. Studia Linguistica 63:187–203.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko 2010. On NPs and clauses. Ms., University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko and Gajewski, Jon. 2011. Semantic correlates of the DP/NP parameter. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, ed. Lima, Suzi, Mullin, Kevin, and Smith, Brian, 121–134. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko and Şener, Serkan. 2014. The Turkish NP. In Crosslinguistic studies on noun phrase structure and reference, ed. Hofherr, Patricia Cabredo and Zribi-Hertz, Anne, 102–140. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of “semantic parameter”. In Events and grammar, ed. Rothstein, Susan, 53–103. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra and Ladusaw, William. 2004. Restriction and saturation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1994. Evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance DP. In Paths towards Universal Grammar: Studies in honor of Richard S. Kayne, ed. Cinque, Guglielmo, Koster, Jan, Pollock, Jean-Yves, Rizzi, Luigi, and Zanuttini, Raffaela, 85–110. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert. 1992. Left branch extraction. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, ed. Broderick, Kimberley, 67–84. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 2007. Hindi pseudo incorporation. Ms., Rutgers University. Available online: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/%7Edayal/Pincorp-07.pdf.Google Scholar
Delsing, Lars-Olof. 1993. The internal structure of noun phrases in the Scandinavian Languages. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Despić, Miloje. 2011. Syntax in the absence of determiner phrase. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
E. Kiss, Katalin. 1987. Configurationality in Hungarian. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó/Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
E. Kiss, Katalin. 2002. The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Englehardt, Miriam and Tragman, Helen. 1998. D as a source of adnominal genitive in Russian. In Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The Connecticut meeting 1997, ed. Boskovic, Željko, Franks, Steven and Snyder, William, 114–133. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Englehardt, Miriam and Tragman, Helen. 2000. Double genitive constructions in Russian. In Comparative Slavic morphosyntax, ed. Fowler, George. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 1986. The syntactic position of focus in Hungarian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4:77–96.Google Scholar
Fu, Jingqi, Roeper, Thomas, and Borer, Hagit. 2001. The VP within nominalizations: Evidence from adverbs and the VP anaphor do-so. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19:549–582.Google Scholar
Gécseg, Zsuzsanna and Kiefer, Ferenc. 2009. A new look at information structure in Hungarian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27:583–622.Google Scholar
van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1998. Semantic incorporation and indefinite descriptions: Semantic and syntactic aspects of West Greenlandic noun incorporation. (Dissertations in Linguistics.) Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Grashchenkov, Pavel. 2007. Izafetnaja konstruktsija: Mnogofaktornyj analiz [Ezafe construction: Multifactorial analysis]. In Misharskij dialect tatarskogo jazyka: Ocherkipo sintaksisu i semantike [Miŧär dialect of Tatar: Essays on syntax and semantics], 83–114. Kazan’: Magarif.Google Scholar
Hazout, Ilan. 1990. Verbal nouns: Theta-theoretic studies in Hebrew and Arabic. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Hazout, Ilan. 1995. Action nominalization and the Lexicalist Hypothesis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13:355–404.Google Scholar
Van Hofwegen, Janneke. 2013. Extraction or splitting? How A’ movement phenomena in Lithuanian can shed light on the syntax-phonology interface and the NP-DP debate. Ms., Stanford University.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 1986. FOCUS in the theory of grammar and the syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Julien, Marit. 2005. Nominal phrases from a Scandinavian perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kagan, Olga and Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2011. Syntax and semantics of bare NPs: Objects of intensive reflexive verbs in Russian. In Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 8, ed. Bonami, Olivier and Hofherr, Patricia Cabredo, 221–238. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss8/kagan-pereltsvaig-eiss8.pdf.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ketrez, Nihan. 2005. Children’s scope of indefinite objects. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1984. Case marking, agreement, and empty categories in Turkish. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2001. Functional projections and their subjects in Turkish clauses. In The verb in Turkish, ed. Erguvanli-Taylan, Eser, 183–212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2003. Subject case in Turkish nominalized clauses. In Syntactic structures and morphological information, ed. Junghanns, Uwe and Szusich, Luka, 129–215. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Levin, Theodore and Preminger, Omer. 2015. Case in Sakha: Are two modalities really necessary? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33:231–250.Google Scholar
Lewis, Geoffrey L. 1967. Turkish grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and Logical Form. Linguistic Inquiry 25:609–665.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2000. How comparative is semantics? Paper presented at the Antwerp NP/DP Conference.Google Scholar
Lyutikova, Ekaterina. 2010. К voprosu o kategoriaľnom statuse imennyx grupp v rasskom yazyke [On the syntactic category of Russian noun phrases]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta, series 9 “Philology” 6:36–77.Google Scholar
Lyutikova, Ekaterina. 2014. Russkij genetivnyj possessor i formal’nye modeli imennoj gruppy [Russian genitive possessor and formal models of the noun phrase]. In Tipologija morfosintaksicheskix parametrov 2014.: Proceedings, ed. Lyutikova, Ekaterina A., Zimmerling, Anton V., Konoshenko, Maria B., 121–145. Moscow: MGGU.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. In Proceedings of the 8th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL 8), ed. Westphal, German, Ao, Benjamin, and Chae, Hee-Rahk, 234–253. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Marušič, Franc and Zaucer, Rok. 2013. A definite article in the AP—Evidence from colloquial Slovenian. In Nominal constructions in Slavic and beyond, ed. Schrücks, Lilia, Etxeberria, Urtzi, Giannakidou, Anastasia, and Kosta, Peter, 183–208. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane. 2001. Pseudo incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19:153–197.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane. 2009. Noun incorporation: Essentials and extensions. Language and Linguistics Compass 3/4:1076–1096.Google Scholar
Megerdoomian, Karine. 2008. Some bare nouns are more equal than others. Paper presented at the USC Student Workshop, May 2008.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2009. Polyvalent case, geometric hierarchies, and split ergativity. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 42), ed. Bunting, Jackie, Desai, Sapna, Peachey, Robert, Straughn, Chris and Tomkova, Zuzana, 57–76. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60:847–895.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1986. On the nature of noun incorporation. Language 62:32–38.Google Scholar
Munn, Alan. 1995. The possessor that stayed close to home. In Proceedings of WECOL 24, ed. Samiian, Vida, 181–195. Department of Linguistics, Fresno State University.Google Scholar
Pazelskaya, Anna and Tatevosov, Sergei. 2003. Nominalization in Russian: Eventuality types and aspectual properties. Paper presented at the 10th European Conference on Formal Description of Slavic Languages (FDSL-10), Slavic Department, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2000. Monotonicity-based vs. veridicality-based approaches to negative polarity: Evidence from Russian. In Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, ed. King, Tracy Holloway and Sekerina, Irina A., 328–346. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2001. Syntactic categories are neither primitive nor universal: Evidence from short and long adjectives in Russian. In Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Bloomington Meeting 2000., ed. Franks, Steven, King, Tracy Holloway, and Yadroff, Michael, 209–227. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2006a. Small nominals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24:433–500.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2006b. Head movement in Hebrew nominalis: A reply to Shlonsky. Lingua 116(8):A1-A40.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2007a. On the universality of DP: A view from Russian. Studia Linguistica 61:59–94.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2007b. Copular sentences in Russian: A theory of intra-clausal relations. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2008. Split phrases in Colloquial Russian. Studia Linguistica 62:5–38.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2013a. Noun phrase structure in article-less Slavic languages: DP or not DP? Language and Linguistics Compass 7:201–219.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2013b. On number and numberlessness in languages without articles. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. Cathcart, Chundra, Chen, I-Hsuan, Finley, Greg, Kang, Shinae, Sandy, Clare S., and Stickles, Elise, 300–314. Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2015. The functional structure of the nominal domain. In Contemporary Linguistic Parameters, ed. Fábregas, Antonio, Putnam, Mike & Mateu, Jaume, 303–331. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya and Kagan, Olga. 2011. Adjectives in layers. Ms., Stanford University / Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya and Lyutikova, Ekaterina. 2014. Possessives within and beyond NP: Two ezafe-constructions in Tatar. In Advances in the syntax of DPs: Structure, agreement, and case, ed. Bondarak, Anna, Dalmi, Grete, and Grosu, Alex, 193–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljiana. 1998. Determiner phrase in a language without determiners. Journal of Linguistics 34:165–179.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth. 1992. Cross-linguistic evidence for number phrase. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 37:197–218.Google Scholar
Rubin, Edward. 1994. Modification: A syntactic analysis and its consequences. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Rutkowski, Pawel. 2002. Noun/pronoun asymmetries: Evidence in support of the DP hypothesis in Polish. Jezikoslovlje 3:159–170.Google Scholar
Rutkowski, Pawel. 2007. The Determiner Phrase hypothesis as a tool of syntactic analysis of Polish nominal phrases. Doctoral dissertation, Warsaw University.Google Scholar
Suoni, Tal. 1996. Hebrew verbal gerunds. In Studies in Afroasiatic grammar, ed. Lecarme, Jacqueline, Loewenstam, J., and Shlonsky, Ur, 410—430. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Suoni, Tal. 1997. Noun phrases and nominalizations: The syntax ofDPs. (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 40.) Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas. 2010. Pleonastic morphology dies hard: Change and variation of defmiteness inflection in Lithuanian. In Variation and change in morphology: Selected papers from the 13th International Morphology Meeting, ed. Ranier, Franz, Dressier, Wolfgang U., Kastovsky, Dieter, and Luschützky, Hans Christian, 217–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1983. The possessor that ran away from home. The Linguistic Review 3:89–102.Google Scholar
Trenkic, Danijela. 2004. Defmiteness in Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian and some implications for the general structure of the nominal phrase. Lingua 114:1401—1427.Google Scholar
Trugman, Helen. 2005a. More puzzles about postnominal genitives. In Possessives and beyond: Semantics and syntax, ed. Kim, Ji-yung, Lander, Yury A., and Partee, Barbara H., 217–240. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Trugman, Helen. 2005b. Rudiments of Romance N-to-D movement in Russian. In Potsdam linguistic investigations: Linguistic investigations into formal description of Slavic languages, ed. Kosta, Peter, Hassler, Gerda, Shurcks, Lilia, and Thielemann, Nadine, 411–426. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Trugman, Helen. 2007. Possessives within and beyond NPs. In Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, ed. Compton, Richard, Goledzinowska, Magdalena, and Savchenko, Ulyana, 437–457. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Willim, Ewa. 2000. On the grammar of Polish nominals. In Step by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan, 319–346. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zakiev, Mirfatykh. 1995. Tatarskaya grammatika, Tom III: Sintaksis [Tatar grammar, vol. 3: Syntax]. Kazan: Akademiya Nauk Tatarstana.Google Scholar