A new argument for existence of the DP in languages without articles

Erschler, David

doi:10.1017/s0022226719000288

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Accordingly, we conclude that they must consist of a bare D, similarly to the proposal of Moskal Direct evidence in favor of the higher D-layer comes from the interaction between such plurals and the comitative prefix ɐd-, which was shown to c-select for NumP by Erschler (2019), and to be incompatible with DPs. This prefix is indeed incompatible with plural indefinites, as is illustrated for the plural form of 'who' in (21a).…”

Section: Wh-stems and Their Plural Formssupporting

confidence: 84%

“…The basic assumptions I make here are, first, that Ossetic projects the DP, as was shown in Erschler (2019), and, second, that (interpretable) number marking in nominals is associated with the head Num 0 , which is situated below D, Ritter (1991;1992;. I also adopt the standard assumptions of DM regarding the existence of acategorial roots and categorizing functional heads, of which n 0 is most relevant for our current discussion.…”

Section: The Overall Structure Of Dp In Digormentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Iterated D-layers in a nominal and Multiple Case Exponence: The structure and significance of a morphological <em>rarissimum</em>

Erschler

2022

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper addresses a typologically unusual instance of Multiple Exponence: some wh-based items in Digor Ossetic, an agglutinative Eastern Iranian language spoken in the Caucasus, exhibit double case marking in the plural. For example, the allative plural of the indefinite ka-dɐr who-INDEFINITE ‘someone’ is kɐ-mɐ-dɐr-tɐ-mɐ who-ALLATIVE-INDEFINITE-PLURAL-ALLATIVE. I propose an analysis of this phenomenon in the framework of Distributed Morphology. The key ingredients of the analysis are the presence of two D heads on the spine of such a nominal; and the possibility of last-resort sharing of a case value between these heads. Furthermore, under appropriate conditions, the case exponents associated with the two D heads undergo haplological dissimilation. The rarity of this kind of double case exponence is due to the fact that a number of independent conditions need to be met simultaneously in order for it to obtain.

show abstract

Section: Wh-stems and Their Plural Formssupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: The Overall Structure Of Dp In Digormentioning

confidence: 99%

Iterated D-layers in a nominal and Multiple Case Exponence: The structure and significance of a morphological <em>rarissimum</em>

Erschler

2022

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…I am not convinced that these adjuncts really syntactically select their complement. Adjectives seem to combine with predicates more generally, e.g., also with verbs under complex predicate formation as in resultatives, and the position of adverbs is arguably restricted by the semantics of the verbal constituent they attach to, see Ernst (2002). Larson (to appear) provides another argument for the head status of determiners, viz., the fact that some of them select partitive PPs:…”

Section: ) Booksmentioning

confidence: 99%

The NP vs. DP debate. Why previous arguments are inconclusive and what a good argument could look like. Evidence from agreement with hybrid nouns

Salzmann

2020

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The DP-hypothesis as proposed in Abney (1987) is nowadays generally taken for granted in formal syntactic work. In this paper I will show that a surprising number of arguments that have been provided in the literature are not conclusive. Many rest on purely theory-internal premises and thus lose their force given the developments within syntactic theory over the last decades. Others are largely based on presumed parallelisms between the noun phrase and the clause. In practically all cases a reasonable reanalysis within the NP-hypothesis is possible. Similarly, I will show that the few arguments in favor of the NP-hypothesis that there can be found are also inconclusive. Instead I will establish solid criteria for headedness and explore their implications for the NP vs. DP debate. I will show that the fact that the features of the head are present on the maximal projection makes testable predictions when the noun interacts with noun phrase external heads. I will first show that data from selection favor the DP-hypothesis (contrary to previous claims) since one needs to be able to syntactically select both DPs and bare nouns/NPs. Second, I will present a new argument in favor of the DP-hypothesis based on data from hybrid agreement in Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian. The phenomenon crucially requires D-elements to be closer to agreement targets outside the noun phrase than the noun itself. This follows if DP dominates NP but not vice versa.

show abstract

“…A stronger argument against Bošković's intra-linguistical parametrization is evidence that nominals of different size can co-occur within one language. Several researchers have offered such evidence (Déchaine & Wiltschko 2002, Pereltsvaig 2006Lyutikova & Pereltsvaig 2015;Erschler 2019), and this paper adds data from SIK, with its structural-size asymmetry between subjects and P-complements, to the list.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Small complements of Ps and genitive case assignment

Pleshak

2023

Proc Ling Soc Amer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper deals with possessor case assignment in Samburg Izhma-Komi subjects and oblique nominals. The problem is that the case assigned to the possessor depends on the syntactic position of the enclosing nominal; possessors are genitive in subjects and nominative in obliques. This is not predicted by the current theories of case. Looking at morphosyntactic properties of P-complements in Samburg Komi such as possessive agreement within the complement, possessive agreement with the complement, and plural marking of the complement, I show that these complements are not full DPs. The possessor case-marking follows straightforwardly. Since P-complements are not DPs, as opposed to subjects, genitive cannot be assigned. Independently, I show that nominative is the case assigned in PPs. In absence of a D, the case associated with P is assigned to possessors in obliques. This analysis has several theoretical implications. First, I show that inherent cases are better analyzed as syntactic P-heads alongside free-standing postpositions. Second, I provide an argument in favor of DP-hypothesis. Finally, I show that not all arguments within a language must be full DPs.

show abstract

A new argument for existence of the DP in languages without articles

Cited by 10 publications

References 23 publications

Iterated D-layers in a nominal and Multiple Case Exponence: The structure and significance of a morphological <em>rarissimum</em>

Iterated D-layers in a nominal and Multiple Case Exponence: The structure and significance of a morphological <em>rarissimum</em>

The NP vs. DP debate. Why previous arguments are inconclusive and what a good argument could look like. Evidence from agreement with hybrid nouns

Small complements of Ps and genitive case assignment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About