Cross-Linguistic Evidence for Number Phrase

Ritter, Elizabeth

doi:10.1017/s0008413100021952

Cited by 149 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Cardinal numerals, those that serve the purpose of counting, are derived from individualdenoting numbers, type n. Structurally, numbers occupy the specifier of the functional projection M(easure)P (Hurford 1987); MP projects between NP and DP as in (6) (Ritter 1992).…”

Section: Scontras's (2013) Proposalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting for counting: A unified semantics for measure terms and classifiers

Scontras

2015

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper develops and extends the semantic account of morphological number marking in the presence of numerals from Scontras 2013. The account handles variation in patterns of number marking along two dimensions: crosslinguistically, between languages that either necessitate or prohibit singular morphology in the presence of numerals greater than 'one'; and within one and the same language: English. The proposed semantics accounts for both sorts of variation by assuming flexibility in the selection of the measure relevant to the one-ness presupposition of the morphological singular form. The system also provides an explanation for the Slobin-Greenberg-Sanches Generalization, which states that no classifier language has obligatory number marking: by aligning the semantics of counting in both number marking and classifier languages, and by assuming that nouns in classifier languages denote kinds, the semantic contribution of number marking is necessarily redundant in classifier languages. A system of obligatory number marking only surfaces in languages where it delivers otherwise unrecoverable information about the number of intended referents.

show abstract

Section: Scontras's (2013) Proposalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting for counting: A unified semantics for measure terms and classifiers

Scontras

2015

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ritter 1991Ritter , 1992, by Baker's (1985) Mirror Principle PossP is lower in the structure than NumP. d. csont-ja-i-nk-at bone-POSS-PL-1PL-ACC 'our bones' e. csont-ja-i-tok-at bone-POSS-PL-2PL-ACC 'your bones' f. csont-ja-i-k-at bone-POSS-PL-3PL-ACC 'their bones' 4 When the possessed noun is morphologically singular, the Num head has no overt exponent, so the possessedness marker -ja/-je/-a/-e and the agreement suffix end up being adjacent.…”

Section: Possessive Morphology In Hungarianmentioning

confidence: 99%

The syntax of anaphoric possessives in Hungarian

Dékány

2015

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Starting with the seminal work of Szabolcsi, morphologically unmarked and Dative-marked possessors in Hungarian have been the subject of rich investigation. Anaphoric possessive constructions, however, have remained poorly researched. In these possessives the possessor bears the mysterious -é suffix and the covert possessum is interpreted under identity with an antecedent. This paper presents new evidence in favour of Bartos' (2001) analysis of anaphoric possessives, which holds that -é is the Genitive case. I further argue that anaphoric possessives in Hungarian involve a pro-form rather than deletion of a lexical noun, and this accounts for the restricted modification of the possessum.

show abstract

“…I assume that there is some variation between languages (and perhaps even within languages) with respect to whether or not a particular feature projects. So, for example, in some languages a number feature projects a functional projection NumP, whereas in others it does not (Ritter 1992). If the number feature does not project, then by hypothesis it should appear on the same head as the person feature, in the configuration licensed by the geometry.…”

Section: Licensed Configurationsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Structural Markedness in Formal Features: Deriving Interpretability

Béjar

2009

rql

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cet article propose que la structure interne des traits formels joue un rôle important dans la syntaxe, et peut rendre compte de phénomènes de surface complexes qui seraient autrement difficiles à expliquer. La représentation hiérarchique des traits morphosyntaxiques, développée par Harley 1994, Ritter 1997, et Harley et Ritter 1998, est incorporée dans la théorie minimaliste de la vérification des traits (Chomsky 1998). Il est proposé que l’interprétabilité des traits peut être vue comme une condition sur les configurations permises par la géométrie des traits. Nous proposons également que deux principes régissent l’interaction entre la structure des traits et les opérations syntaxiques. Le premier principe stipule que seuls les traits structurellement marqués peuvent être objet de vérification. Le deuxième permet la vérification entre des traits non identiques si ces traits entretiennent une relation implicationnelle. Nous démontrons que l’accord asymétrique en géorgien et en arabe standard peut être dérivé à l’aide de ces deux principes.This paper argues that the internal structure of formal features plays an important role in the syntax and can account for complex surface phenomena which are otherwise difficult to explain. The hierarchical representation of morphosyntactic features developed in Harley 1994, Ritter 1997 and Harley and Ritter 1998 is incorporated into minimalist checking theory (Chomsky 1998). It is proposed that feature interpretability can be understood as a condition on configurations licensed by the feature geometry. Two principles governing the interaction between feature structure and core syntactic operations are proposed. The first stipulates that only structurally marked features may satisfy a probe. The second permits checking between non-identical features if they are in an implicational relation. Agreement asymmetries in Georgian and Standard Arabic are examined and are shown to be derived from the aforementioned principles

show abstract

Cross-Linguistic Evidence for Number Phrase

Cited by 149 publications

References 0 publications

Accounting for counting: A unified semantics for measure terms and classifiers

Accounting for counting: A unified semantics for measure terms and classifiers

The syntax of anaphoric possessives in Hungarian

Structural Markedness in Formal Features: Deriving Interpretability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About