NP-anaphora and focused possessors in parallel architecture

Ghomeshi, Jila

doi:10.1515/ling.2006.023

Cited by 3 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ezafe construction in Iranian languages (e.g. Ghomesi 1997, 2006, Samvelian 1983 In the Ezafe construction in Persian, modification is marked with the Ezafe enclitic -(y)e on the head noun (or modified noun) and all modifiers other than the last one, as in (24a)-(24c). Here, modifiers of a noun include post-nominal modifiers such as attributive nouns, adjectival phrases, prepositional phrases, and possessor noun phrases, but do not include any pre-nominal modifier (specifically, demonstratives, quantifiers, numerals, and superlative adjectives), relative clauses, or the possessive pronominal enclitic.…”

Section: Kazuhiro Kawachi and Abebayehu Aemero Tekleselassiementioning

confidence: 99%

Modification within a Noun Phrase in Sidaama (Sidamo)

Kawachi¹,

Tekleselassie²

2008

BLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Kazuhiro Kawachi and Abebayehu Aemero Tekleselassiementioning

confidence: 99%

Modification within a Noun Phrase in Sidaama (Sidamo)

Kawachi¹,

Tekleselassie²

2008

BLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to the null-marked nouns, there is also a stressed suffix, -e, that appears on nouns and, when a noun is marked with -e, it is interpreted as definite. (Ghomeshi, 2003;Ghomeshi, 2006;Samiian, 1983):…”

Section: Definite Markers: '-E' and 'ø'mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The language under the discussion in the present study is standard Modern Persian, a null subject language with SOV word order (e.g., Ghomeshi, 2003Ghomeshi, , 2006Ghomeshi, , 2013 which is a subcategory of the Indo-European languages (Windfuhr, 1979), and the official language of Iran. Persian has two distinct registers of written and spoken (also known as formal and informal) forms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Persian has two distinct registers of written and spoken (also known as formal and informal) forms. (e.g., Ghomeshi, 2003Ghomeshi, , 2006Hamadeni, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The dialect under the discussion in the present thesis is the register spoken in and around Tehran--known as "standard Persian" (Ghomeshi, 2003(Ghomeshi, , 2006. The Persian examples and the judgments provided related to the (in)definiteness marking in this chapter, [those that do not cite the previous work], are based the descriptive data gathered from my interactions with native Persian speakers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Semantics and Processing of Weak and Strong Definites in Colloquial Persian: Evidence from an Offline Questionnaire

Nikravan¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main goal of the present study was to investigate the semantics and processing of three (in)definite markers used in the colloquial Persian. It was proposed that colloquial Persian morphologically realizes two definite markers, the null marker 'Ø' and the suffix '-e'. It was further proposed that these correspond to so-called "weak" and "strong" definites, respectively; the presuppositions of strong definites need to be satisfied by an explicit antecedent but the presuppositions of weak definites do not (Schwarz, 2009, 2013). It was also proposed that 'ye…-i' is an indefinite marker. This proposal is supported by introspective judgments, as well as by quantitative data from an off-line questionnaire study (building on Burkhardt, 2006; Hirotani & Schumacher, 2011) that measured the naturalness of sentences that only varied in NPs marked with 'Ø', '-e,' 'ye…-i' in contexts which (i) an antecedent was available (Given contexts), (ii) an antecedent was unavailable but could be accommodated (Bridged contexts), and (iii) an antecedent was unavailable and accommodation was unlikely (New). As expected, there was an interaction between CONTEXT and MARKER and in particular the most natural text was the one in which '-e' was used in a Given context (this was the only condition that satisfied all relevant constraints). I would like to first thank my co-supervisors Dr. Masako Hirotani and Dr. Raj Singh for all of their support, guidance and encouragements from the initial to the final stages of working on my thesis project and writing the thesis. I'm indebted to Dr. Raj Singh who has always patiently put up with me and supported me in the number of ways. I'm indebted to him for the background I've built in cognitive linguistics, semantics, and specifically in (in)definites. Also, his generous financial support during my master's has greatly helped me focus on my research. He also generously provided the financial sponsorship for my experimental study. I also would like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Masako Hirotani for giving me the opportunity of working in a high level experimental environment, for providing me with the Lab facilities, for all of her generous and invaluable trainings, advice, feedback, and tips in doing research. I also would like to thank my committee members Dr. Erik Anonby and Dr. Kumiko Murasugi for their support and help and their invaluable advice and feedback. I also would like to thank Dr. Ana Arregui for drawing my attention to the weak/strong realization of definites cross-linguistically, and for her generous and insightful guidance. Thanks also go to Maryam Hosseini for the inspiring discussions regarding Persian definites. I'm

show abstract

Split noun phrase topicalization in Eshkevarat Gilaki

Kahnemuyipour

Shabani

2018

The Linguistic Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Split noun phrase topicalizationhas been the subject of intense studies across languages in the syntactic literature of the last few decades. One of the key questions raised for these constructions is whether they involve syntactic movement or base-generation. This paper explores this phenomenon in two understudied Iranian languages, Gilaki (Northwestern Iranian, Caspien) and Persian. In particular, we explore splits in two contexts, possessive constructions and numeral constructions. We develop diagnostics for distinguishing the two derivational possibilities, movement or base-generation, for the cases under investigation. We show that while Gilaki uses both derivational possibilities, movement in possessor split and base-generation in numeral split, Persian only allows for the latter with very similar behavior. We argue that possessor split occurs when the whole possessum DP/DemP moves out of its base position in a small clause. Numeral split occurs when the NP is replaced by a null nominal element, which is associated with an overt or pragmatic antecedent. We end the paper with a discussion of why an operation, movement or base-generation, is available for one construction but not the other.

show abstract

NP-anaphora and focused possessors in parallel architecture

Cited by 3 publications

References 10 publications

Modification within a Noun Phrase in Sidaama (Sidamo)

Modification within a Noun Phrase in Sidaama (Sidamo)

Semantics and Processing of Weak and Strong Definites in Colloquial Persian: Evidence from an Offline Questionnaire

Split noun phrase topicalization in Eshkevarat Gilaki

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About