On NPs and Clauses

Bošković, Željko

doi:10.1515/9781614511601.179

Cited by 217 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is therefore important to note, in this respect, that both demonstratives and possessives are morphologically adjectival in SC, in that they agree with the noun they modify in case, number, and gender in the same way adjectives do. This is illustrated in (18) Moreover, SC possessives and demonstratives behave syntactically like adjectives in every respect, which is completely consistent with the proposed analysis (see Bo'ković 2005Bo'ković , 2010 and Zlatić 1997 for a number of arguments to this effect, which are based on the appearance of SC possessives and demonstratives in adjectival positions, stacking up, impossibility of modification, specificity effects, and so on; I return to this issue below). 8 A particularly compelling argument against the UDPH analysis of SC comes in fact from constructions that involve both demonstratives and possessives.…”

Section: The Universal Dp Hypothesis Kayne 1994 and Serbo-croatiansupporting

confidence: 78%

“…Also, the assumption that SC (as an articleless language) lacks DP, together with my general agenda, should not be mistaken for an attempt to claim that languages without articles completely lack any kind of functional projec-268 M I L O J E D E S P I Ć tions in the nominal domain or that functional projections in general cannot be null (i.e., that they must have some morphological exponent). As in other, similar works (e.g., Baker 2003, Bo'ković 2005, 2008, 2010, Chierchia 1998, Despić 2011, my more general point has been to show that Universal Grammar offers a wider range of possibilities than suggested by the UDPH, where SC and English stand at opposite ends of the spectrum. One should, however, not take this proposal to imply that all DP-less languages should behave like SC with respect to binding, since the SC phenomena discussed here are also governed by the peculiar nature of prenominal (adjectival) possessives (which even within the Slavic family display significant variation (e.g., Corbett 1987)); that is, it is certainly possible that possessives in certain DP-less languages are not adjoined to NP, but occupy its specifier (or even complement) position.…”

mentioning

confidence: 57%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Binding and the Structure of NP in Serbo-Croatian

Despić

2013

Linguistic Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On the basis of binding facts, I argue that Serbo-Croatian (SC) does not project DP and that DP is not a universal property of language. I show that a number of binding contrasts between English and SC follow straightforwardly from independently motivated differences in their nominal structure, most notably from the assumption that DP is present only in English. I also discuss in detail the potential significance of this puzzling set of facts for the binding theory in general. Specifically, I propose that SC employs Condition C as defined in Lasnik 1989 and, in addition to the core binding conditions, a competitive mechanism adopted from Safir 2004, which regulates the distribution of reflexives, pronouns, and R-expressions. I also argue that the binding domains for pronouns and reflexives in SC need to be formulated differently. as well as the audience at FASL 17 (Yale University). The article has also benefited greatly from the comments of anonymous LI reviewers. For assistance with data collection, I thank RorJe Despić, Helena Despić, Igor Markićević, and especially Alen Be'ić.

show abstract

Section: The Universal Dp Hypothesis Kayne 1994 and Serbo-croatiansupporting

confidence: 78%

mentioning

confidence: 57%

Binding and the Structure of NP in Serbo-Croatian

Despić

2013

Linguistic Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regarding examples such as (13b), the choice of matrix verb does not matter. However, DP-internal differences do matter: the von-PPs are impossible when the noun phrase is changed to a pronoun (as pronouns cannot be modified by PPs We follow Fortmann (1996) and Bo'ković (2010) in assuming that movement of adjuncts out of a noun phrase is prohibited by syntactic locality conditions (the specific formulation of the locality conditions does not matter for our purpose; see Bo'ković 2010 for a recent phasebased account). Interestingly, as pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, examples such as the one in (20) do not allow inverse scope (unlike (12a) and (13a), these constructions have not been tested experimentally, but the second author agrees with the reviewer here).…”

Section: Against a ''Rigidity'' Parametermentioning

confidence: 99%

Word Order and Scope: Transparent Interfaces and the ¾ Signature

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A recurring pattern of partial correlations between word order variation and scope possibilities (the 3 ⁄ 4 signature) supports a particular view of economy constraints in syntax, with these properties: (1) There are economy conditions (soft constraints) that value a particular type of correspondence between LF and PF representations. (2) These constraints are unidirectional: LF (broadly construed) is calculated first and determines PF (surface word order). (3) Scope rigidity is a property not of languages but of specific configurations, and the distribution of rigidity effects is (largely) predictable from independent variation in the syntactic resources of various languages.We focus here on the interaction of these three assumptions and on the role of (2) in predicting the 3 ⁄ 4 signature effect. We contrast our proposal with Reinhart's (2005) Interface Economy model, in which economy conditions regulate a mapping that takes overt structure as its input and yields permissible interpretations. OverviewOur primary concern in this article is the relationship between word order and (certain aspects of ) interpretation. It is a commonplace observation that there appears to be an inverse correlation between rigid word order and scope rigidity: languages with free word order are often said to ''wear their LF [scope] on their sleeves'' (Szabolcsi 1997:111), while languages with restricted possibilities for word order permutation, like English, have a high tolerance for scope ambiguity. Our focus here is not on this (inverse) correlation per se, but on the particular ways in which For useful feedback, we wish to thank as well as the participants in seminars at the University of Connecticut (Spring 2007(Spring , 2009) and audiences at Nanzan University, Harvard University, GLOW 31 (Newcastle), CGSW 23 (Edinburgh), and PLC 33. We also thank the anonymous referees for their very helpful comments and suggestions. Our names are listed in alphabetical order.

show abstract

“…Thus there are many signs that nominals in these two otherwise closely related dialects are quite different. Further research will determine in more detail whether the absence of the DP layer in Antakarana has other impacts on the syntax (see for example the series of papers on the presence versus absence of D in Slavic languages by Bošković 2008Bošković , 2012.…”

Section: Back To Antakaranamentioning

confidence: 99%

When bare nouns scope wide. The case of Malagasy

Paul

2015

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data from a wide range of languages appear to show that bare nouns take obligatory narrow scope. Research on bare nouns has therefore closely tied certain interpretative effects (low scope, number neutrality) to the special overt morphosyntax of bareness (Carlson 1977, inter alia). Thus there appears to be a tight connection between the syntax and the semantics of noun phrases. In this context, the goal of this article is two-fold. The first goal is to present data from Official Malagasy that call into question this correlation: bare nouns in the language can take variable scope. Thus the overt form of a nominal is not a reliable signal of its interpretation. Second, it is argued that bare nouns in Official Malagasy are in fact headed by a null determiner. Supporting data come from a related dialect, Antakarana, where bare nouns take obligatory narrow scope and there is no evidence for a null determiner.

show abstract

On NPs and Clauses

Cited by 217 publications

References 64 publications

Binding and the Structure of NP in Serbo-Croatian

Binding and the Structure of NP in Serbo-Croatian

Word Order and Scope: Transparent Interfaces and the ¾ Signature

When bare nouns scope wide. The case of Malagasy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About