Definiteness in Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian and some implications for the general structure of the nominal phrase

Trenkic, Danijela

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.005

Cited by 66 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, Trenkić (2004) and Aljović (2002) assert that specificity, rather than definiteness, is the distinction made by the two forms. Please note that the long form has the [+] value so it is either definite or specific while the Short form has the [-] value and it will be indefinite or non-specific.…”

Section: (50) Every Woman Talked To a Child In Fifth Gradementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is compatible with the definiteness approach, because the Vocative is a case of "calling out", and, if the meaning of the long forms is related to definiteness/specificity and overall referentiality, this could be explained by the fact that we cannot call out to non-specific referents. (52) As specified above, the specific/non-specific contrast within the two adjectival forms was proposed by Aljović (2002) and Trenkić (2004). Trenkić (2004) explains that the major source of confusion is that the term određen vid used to define the long adjectival form translates into 'definite', 'identifiable', and 'specific' (Trenkić 2004(Trenkić , 1406.…”

Section: (50) Every Woman Talked To a Child In Fifth Gradementioning

confidence: 99%

“…(52) As specified above, the specific/non-specific contrast within the two adjectival forms was proposed by Aljović (2002) and Trenkić (2004). Trenkić (2004) explains that the major source of confusion is that the term određen vid used to define the long adjectival form translates into 'definite', 'identifiable', and 'specific' (Trenkić 2004(Trenkić , 1406. The claim that the category being marked is in fact specificity comes from certain contexts where the speaker, by using the long form, signals that the referent is known only to himself or herself.…”

Section: (50) Every Woman Talked To a Child In Fifth Gradementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The claim that the category being marked is in fact specificity comes from certain contexts where the speaker, by using the long form, signals that the referent is known only to himself or herself. The context set up by Trenkić (2004) involves the person going into a room s/he has never seen before and describing it via a walkie-talkie to someone unfamiliar with the room. In a clearly indefinite context to the listener, the person produces only Long adjectival forms.…”

Section: (50) Every Woman Talked To a Child In Fifth Gradementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to define with more precision whether it is definiteness or specificity, their usage has to be investigated in more contexts through a survey. Trenkić (2004Trenkić ( , 1405, who refers to Hlebec (1986) states that this whole system of LongShort distinction is falling into complete disuse and "for most speakers the difference is obliterated, hence the two forms are 'free variants for one and the same speaker' ". The purpose of the survey is to check whether these are in fact free variants or whether the choice of the forms is governed by the definite/indefinite or specific/non-specific distinction.…”

Section: (50) Every Woman Talked To a Child In Fifth Gradementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Of good thieves and old friends: An analysis of Croatian adjectival forms

Velnić

2015

Vestnik

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Croatian adjectives have two forms in the masculine gender: the Long (L) form and the Short (S) form. The main distributional difference is that the Short adjective can be in predicative position and the Long one cannot, while both can be in attributive position. This difference between attributive and predicative can be related to a variety of other cross-linguistic distributions concerning adjectives (Alexiadou 2001). It has been stated (Aljović 2002, Trenkić 2004) for (Serbo-)Croatian that the two forms mark a distinction in definiteness or specificity with the long one being [+DEF/+SPEC] and the Short one [-DEF/-SPEC]. A survey on 32 adults was conducted in order to obtain more information about the distribution of the two forms in general; to find out whether it is definiteness or specificity that is being marked by the Long form; and to check whether one of the forms (the Long one) can function as a subject of a sentence in the absence of a noun. The results of the statistical analysis show that the predicative/attributive distinction is not as strict as described in the previous literature (Silić and Pranjković 2007); and that the Long form is related to specificity but does not express it. I propose an analysis that builds on cross-linguistic parallelisms described in Alexiadou 2001 and I propose that Croatian Long and Short distributional patterns are caused by the same factors as Noun Raising in Romance and Determiner Spreading in Greek, even though we find that this is not as strict as in those languages. However, it is only with expanding our cross-linguistic analysis to more languages that we can fully understand the nature of what these subtle differences of adjectives mark.

show abstract

Section: (50) Every Woman Talked To a Child In Fifth Gradementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: (50) Every Woman Talked To a Child In Fifth Gradementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: (50) Every Woman Talked To a Child In Fifth Gradementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: (50) Every Woman Talked To a Child In Fifth Gradementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: (50) Every Woman Talked To a Child In Fifth Gradementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Of good thieves and old friends: An analysis of Croatian adjectival forms

Velnić

2015

Vestnik

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Extraction from ComplexNPsand Detachment

Bošković

2017

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter overviews a number of issues regarding extraction out of complex NPs, starting with the traditional ban on extraction out of complex NPs (i.e. NPs modified by clauses), referred to as the Complex NP Constraint. The chapter also discusses cross‐linguistic variation regarding extraction of NP‐adjuncts and extraction of nominal complements. While languages differ with respect to such extraction when the relevant NP functions as a verbal complement, such extraction is uniformly ruled out when the relevant NP functions as a nominal complement. What these cases have in common with the Complex NP Constraint configuration (i.e. the case where the noun takes a clausal complement) is that they all involve extraction out of a nominal complement. They can then be unified with the Complex NP Constraint under a larger generalization where extraction is disallowed out of nominal complements, regardless of their categorial status. In other words, NP is an island for elements that its head does not theta‐mark, which can be captured in a phasal framework in a contextual approach to phases where the phasal status of NP is sensitive to the syntactic configuration in which it occurs as well as its theta‐relations. In addition to extraction out of complex NPs, the chapter discusses several cases where “parts” of a complex NP may not be base‐generated together.

show abstract

Subextraction

Corver

2017

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Subextraction is the phenomenon that occurs when a constituent is moved out of a larger phrase in which it is embedded. The question arises of when subextraction is possible and when it is not. Furthermore, the question of what accounts for the (im)possibility of subextraction should be answered. These questions are addressed for the nominal domain. Issues that are discussed include the (im)possibility of subextraction of left branch constituents, the (im)possibility of subextraction of right branch constituents, cross‐linguistic variation in subextraction behavior, and the role that the syntactic position of the noun phrase plays for subextraction.

show abstract

Definiteness in Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian and some implications for the general structure of the nominal phrase

Cited by 66 publications

References 16 publications

Of good thieves and old friends: An analysis of Croatian adjectival forms

Of good thieves and old friends: An analysis of Croatian adjectival forms

Extraction from ComplexNPsand Detachment

Subextraction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About