This paper argues that the Korean plural marker -tul is best analyzed as a modifier to the nP projection, rather than as a head in the nominal extended projection such as Num or Div(ision), which a standard pluralizer (e.g., English -s) realizes. As a modifier, plural -tul bears the privative feature [plural], rather than the binary feature [±plural] reserved for a plural that realizes a head. Supporting evidence comes from the fact that the presence of -tul leads to an obligatorily plural reading, while a number-neutral reading obtains in its absence; -tul also shows no evidence of inflectional properties. Appearing as an adjunct to nP, -tul shows certain idiosyncrasies, such as irregularities in the range of nouns that it can occur with. Evidence against the common claim that -tul is associated with a definite reading is provided, which suggests that it cannot realize D or adjoin to DP. The major consequence of this paper is that the often observed non-co-occurrence of classifiers and plural markers is predicted only when the relation between the two morphemes is in syntactic complementary distribution, but may not be when the relation is in merely semantic complementary distribution.
It is widely recognized that plural morphemes and classifiers are in complementary distribution, being unable to co-occur. Recent literature suggests a syntactic account for complementary distribution: A plural morpheme and a classifier realize the same functional head, and thus, they cannot co-occur. The goal of this article is to examine whether this syntactic approach to the alleged complementary distribution is applicable to certain classifier languages. We review analyses for each of 3 classifier languages, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, where a plural and a classifier co-occur. The reviewed analyses suggest that plural markers in these classifier languages do not realize the same head with classifiers (e.g., a plural instantiates Num/D in Chinese differently from a classifier), which accounts for its co-occurrence with a classifier.For example, Borer (2005) claims that classifiers and plural markers perform the same semantic function, that of individuation (in a non-measure construction, see Footnote 2 and Section 2 for more details); and thus, they realize the same functional head in the nominal structure, that is, they are in syntactic complementary distribution (to be detailed in Section 2). The proposed syntactic complementary distribution captures the well-observed fact that classifiers and plural markers cannot co-occur in some languages. The question that arises with respect to Borer's type of approach is how complementary distribution figures in classifier languages such as Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, where both classifiers and plurals are known to be available. For these languages (as will be discussed in Section 3), independently from Borer's claim, plural markers have been proposed to occupy a different position than classifiers in the nominal structure. Classifiers realize a functional head CL projected above an NP. Plural markers occupy a different head than a CL; for example, in Chinese (Li, 1999), the Num(ber) head (in the sense of Ritter 1991Ritter , 1995 has been proposed as the site for the plural marker -men. With respect to the claim that classifiers and plural markers realize the same functional head as in Borer, this type of proposal for the classifier languages seems to indicate that the syntactic complementary distribution of classifiers and plural markers proposed in Borer may not be applicable to these classifier languages.The goal of this article is to review relevant data provided and the main proposals made for each of the classifier languages under consideration and to evaluate whether the wellknown syntactic complementary distribution is applicable to these classifier languages. For reasons of space, the discussion to follow is restricted to the main proposals concerning the position of plural markers in a nominal structure of each of the classifier languages, assuming the syntax and semantics of classifiers to be relatively constant. In the studies to be reviewed, it appears that the syntax of classifiers in non-measure constructions is relatively less debatable than the s...
Some wh-words are easier to conjoin than others. For example, it has been noted that adjunct wh-words are easier to conjoin than argument wh-words. We review previous analyses of wh-word conjunction and evaluate them in light of data collected from a new acceptability judgement study. Our study replicates some previous findings but it also adds some new data to the puzzle. We further revisit the idea that wh-word conjunction can be used as a test for argumenthood, and we conclude that it can, with some caveats. In addition, we conclude that wh-word conjunction can be used as a test for obligatoriness, but only in arguments. The test does not distinguish between obligatory and optional adjuncts.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.