Plural marking, indefiniteness, and the noun phrase

Ghomeshi, Jila

doi:10.1111/1467-9582.00099

Cited by 95 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has often been observed that plural markers in classifier languages tend to be associated with definite readings, or that they occur more often in definite than indefinite contexts (e.g., Iljic 1994;Li 1999;Ghomeshi 2003), and this is often interpreted as meaning that the plural marker itself encodes definiteness. Moreover, in Korean literature, there seems to be underlying assumption that -tul marks definiteness.…”

Section: -Tul Is Not a Definiteness Markermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Modifying plurals, classifiers, and co-occurrence: The case of Korean

Kim¹,

Melchin

2018

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: -Tul Is Not a Definiteness Markermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Ghomeshi (2003) shows that the Persian plural marker -ha does not itself encode definiteness. The Korean plural marker -tul behaves in a similar way, as illustrated in (27).…”

Section: -Tul Is Not a Definiteness Markermentioning

confidence: 99%

Modifying plurals, classifiers, and co-occurrence: The case of Korean

Kim¹,

Melchin

2018

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(1a) suggests that r ā is a definiteness marker, which has often been assumed (e.g. Ghomeshi 2003). However, the object marker also occurs with the indefinite markers yek and -i, leading to a specific interpretation, as in (19a,b) (Karimi 2003), and with indefinites in the restrictor of generic quantifiers, as in (19c,d) 'Vinegar curdles milk.'…”

Section: Pins As Event-dependent Definitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Number Neutrality and Anaphoric Update of Pseudo-Incorporated Nominals in Persian (and Weak Definites in English)

Krifka

Modarresi

2016

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Persian shows differential object marking. We argue that objects without the object marker rā are pseudo-incorporated in the verbal predicate; specifically, existential closure over the vP binds the event variable, and nominals in the vP are interpreted as dependent definites with respect to the event. This results in an apparent number neutrality and a maximality interpretation of pronouns typical of the E-type strategy. The semantic contribution of nominals is modeled in DRT. We also argue that weak definites in English are interpreted similar to pseudo-incorporated nominals in Persian, and offer an explanation why they are restricted to readings referring to institutionalized activities.

show abstract

“…L + H*h L + H* h L + H* lL% 4 The definite marker -e/-ae (sometimes realized as -he/-hae or -ye/-yae), used only in conversational style, attracts the primary lexical stress (Ghomeshi 2003 Figure 10). …”

Section: + H*h L + H*h L + H* L H%mentioning

confidence: 99%