Split noun phrase topicalization in Eshkevarat Gilaki

Abstract

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.

Nominal Linkers in Balochi

“…The distinctive properties of both types of REZ are summarized in Table 4. It is important to note that the REZ with a dual nature is not peculiar to Balochi, but a similar distinction is also observed in other Caspian languages like Gilaki, in which two types of REZ are diagnosed with distinctive phonological and syntactic properties, (Kahnemuyipour et al 2020; see also chapter 5, this volume for the Gilaki facts, as well as chapter 9, 10 and 11 for a similar distinction in Sangesari, Taleshi and Tati).…”

Nominal linkers in Sangesari

“…Aside from these differences, Sangesari shares one core similarity with Caspian languages: Reverse Ezafe with attributive adjectives has a different form from the Reverse Ezafe used with possessors and adpositions, with different properties. This indicates that Reverse Ezafe is not a single phenomenon in all of these languages (see Kahnemuyipour et al 2020, to appear for discussion).…”

Nominal linkers in Iranian languages: An introduction

“…In general, Balochi is a Reverse Ezafe language, where the nominal modifiers and complements precede the head noun. Gündoğdu shows that the Reverse Ezafe that appears in the context of possessive and adpositional phrases has a different form and distinct properties from the one used between attributive adjectives and nouns (along the lines of Kahnemuyipour et al 2020 for Caspian languages). 4 It is further shown that the Reverse Ezafe used in the context of attributive adjectives is different from the one used with attributive nouns.…”

“…The noun phrase in Sangesari is head-final, so the nominal linker used in this language is characterized as Reverse Ezafe. The authors show that the Reverse Ezafe used in possessive and adpositional contexts are realized as -i and that they do not pattern like the Reverse Ezafe used with attributive adjectives, which is realized as -a (see Kahnemuyipour et al 2020, to appear for discussion). The adpositions in Sangesari are mostly postpositions, and the authors show that Sangesari postpositions can be either nominal or true, with only nominal postpositions allowing Reverse Ezafe.…”

“…Taleshi is a Reverse Ezafe language where modifiers/complements precede the head noun. The authors show that the Reverse Ezafe used with attributive adjectives (realized as -a) is distinct from the Reverse Ezafe used in possessive and adpositional phrases (realized as -i) (see Kahnemuyipour et al 2020, to appear for discussion). The authors show that irrespective of the type of postpositions as true versus nominal, the complement of a postposition obligatorily takes Reverse Ezafe (if it is consonant-final).…”