On the <small>DP</small>/<small>NP</small> status of nominal projections in Bangla: Consequences for the theory of phases

Abstract

This paper examines the status of nominal projections in Bangla from the point of view of Bošković's (2008Bošković's ( , 2009) generalizations on np vs. dp languages, and argues that although Bangla is an article-less language, it is not an np language and projects a range of functional categories above np, including a dp level. Such a conclusion is shown to have an important consequence for cross-linguistic assumptions relating to the phasal architecture of nominal projections, building on work on nominal-internal phases initiated in Simpson and Syed (2016): it is suggested that the extended projection of noun phrases may contain two separate phases, in a way that resembles the occurrence of two phasal levels within clauses.

Strict vs. free word order patterns in Korean nominal phrases and Cyclic Linearization

“…Finally, the analysis of Korean has argued that nominal phrases may contain two Spell‐out domains, DP as well as n *P, rather than consist in just a single Spell‐out domain (DP), and in this respect the syntactic architecture of nominal phrases demonstrates potentially interesting parallels with that of clauses, where two Spell‐out domains are also assumed to be present (CP and VP or v P). While the notion of Spell‐out domain in Cyclic Linearization is somewhat different to the assumption of phases in standard Minimalist approaches, the conclusion of the present paper that nominal projections may contain a secondary, internal Spell‐out domain ( n *P) converges in an intriguing way with recent arguments that nominal phrases may contain secondary, ‘mid‐level’ internal phases (Simpson & Syed , Syed & Simpson ). This convergence of views from two different theoretical perspectives and empirical paradigms suggests that nominal phrases are indeed divided into two major cycles relevant for Spell‐out, and raises the broader question of whether any unification of the notions of Spell‐out domain and phase can potentially be achieved.…”

NP/DP Parameter and Classifier Languages: A Case of Magahi

“…also do not project DP. Contrary to what has been argued by Alok and Mishra (2012), some I-A languages have already been convincingly treated as DP languages, e.g., Bangla ( (Bhattacharya, 1999;Chacón, 2012;Syed & Simpson, 2017;etc. ), Oriya (Sahoo, 1999), and Assamese (Ghosh, 2001).…”

“…In the recent literature, the argument in the favour of DP has overseen the presence/absence of article in languages. Syed and Simpson (2017) have produced some arguments which are originally based on the generalization developed by Bošković (2008Bošković ( , 2009Bošković ( , 2010. So, the idea of having DP is now not necessarily based on the idea of having an article or determiner.…”

“…Following Bošković (2005) and explaining the obvious reasons, Alok (2014) claimed that Magahi, being an article-less language, is a non-DP language. Recent literature, as recent as Syed and Simpson (2017), has opened the debate by denying the stronger aspect of Bošković's (2005) claim. They have, following Bangla, which is an article-less language and in fact a class-language, divided the worlds' languages into three groups: (a) language with definite article, DP (b) language with no article and no DP and (c) languages with no article, but with special word order alternation, and DPs.…”

“…I have discussed Salzmann's argument and others' in the light of the present data from Magahi. All the arguments that are revisited either from Salzmann (2018) or Syed and Simpson (2017) have bearing upon Magahi. Language-independent motivations have also been presented.…”