The structure of definite complex nominals (in Danish, J Hankamer, L Mikkelsen

Tags: Department of Linguistics Stevenson College University of California, Santa Cruz, Jorge Hankamer, Department of Linguistics, Dwinelle Hall University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA, Santa Cruz, CA, Mikkelsen, UC Berkeley, Line Mikkelsen, vre, complement, MIT Press, libraries, ginger aids digestion, UC Santa Cruz, DP
Content: The structure of denite complex nominals (in Danish)
Jorge Hankamer (UC Santa Cruz) and Line Mikkelsen (UC Berkeley) LSA Annual Meeting, San Francisco, January 11, 2009
1 Introduction Denite complex nominals (DCNs; Abney 1987:62{64, 76, Grimshaw 1990:94{101):
(1) the idea that ginger aids digestion
[def N CP]
Two realizations of DCNs in Danish:
(2)
a. den ide at ingefr gavner fordjelsen
def idea that ginger aids digestion.def
b. ide-en om at ingefr gavner fordjelsen ide-def about that ginger aids digestion.def
[def N CP] = Bare DCN [N-def P CP] = Prepositional DCN
Question 1 Why are there two realizations of DCNs in Danish? Because there are two syntactic structures available (with dierent meanings).
Question 2 Could (3) have been the attested pattern?1
(3)
a. *den ide om at ingefr gavner fordjelsen
def idea about that ginger aids digestion.def
b. *ide-en at ingefr gavner fordjelsen ide-def that ginger aids digestion.def
[def N P CP] [N-def CP]
No. (Or, at least, it would be surprising.) 1(3a) is grammatical if den is stressed, but then den is unambiguously a demonstrative D, not a denite article. The same is true of (4b), (6b), (11b), (12b), and (13b).
1
1.1 Danish deniteness markers -en and den never cooccur complementary and xed distribution: (4) Unmodied DPs require sux: a. lm-en lm-def the lm b. *den lm def lm (5) APs require article: a. *belgiske lm-en Belgian lm-def b. den belgiske lm def Belgian lm the Belgian lm (6) PPs license sux: a. lm-en fra Belgien lm-def from Belgium b. *den lm fra Belgien def lm from Belgium Analysis Distribution of deniteness marker is governed by syntactic structure: -en is found when D[def] is sister of a minimal NP (i.e. NP consisting solely of N) den is found elsewhere (Hankamer and Mikkelsen 2005, 2008)
(7) Unmodied DPs:
DDDlPl
D NP
-en lm
(8)
DP containing AP:
333DP
D NP
den AP NP
belgiske lm
2
2 Two structures for DCNs Bare DCN: CP is sister to N ! sister of D[def] is not a minimal NP ! denite article:
(9)
333DP
D 333NP
den N CP
ide at . . . fordjelsen
Prepositional DCN: PP is adjoined to DP ! sister of D[def] is a minimal NP ! denite sux:
(10)
DP
DdPd 333PP
D N P CP
-en ide om at . . . fordjelsen
2.1 PPs attach to DP PPs uniformly trigger the denite sux: (11) Modier PPs a. mad-en fra igar food-def from yesterday the food from yesterday b. *den mad fra igar def food from yesterday (12) Complement PPs a. sster-en til Per sister-def to Per the sister of Per b. *den sster til Per def sister to Per (13) PPs in pseudopartitives a. grupp-en af turister group-def of tourists the group of tourists b. *den gruppe af turister def group of tourists
3
PPs uniformly attach outside of NP (Hankamer and Mikkelsen 2005:111-113, 118; 2008: 326{327, Julien 2005:67{ 69):
(14)
DP
dDP PP
D NP
Ps generally allow CP complements: (15) Jeg tror pa at mine sange opbygger modet i folk. I believe on that my songs up-build courage-def in people I believe that my songs build courage in people. (16) 55VP V PdP P CP
These two patterns intersect to produce Prepositional DCN:
(17)
ЁЁЁDrP rr
DdP PdP
D NP P CP
Could things have been the other way around, i.e. [N-def CP] and [def N P CP]? no prejudice against [N-def CP]: no independent evidence that CP cannot adjoin to DP generalizing from (11){(13), [def N P CP] is unexpected, unless category of sister of P could determine attachment site of PP { Unexpected if PP is complement: c-selection is limited to category of complement and properties of head of complement { Unexpected if PP modier: head of modier may restrict the range of possible hosts, but non-head elements may not Upshot Attested realizations of DCNs are consistent with general properties of the language and conservative view of selection and modication.
4
2.2 Intervening relative clauses Both DCNs allow a non-restrictive relative clause to follow CP:2 (18) den ide [at ingefr gavner fordjelsen], som forvrigt ikke er ny DEF idea that ginger aids digestion which incidentally not is new the idea that ginger aids digestions, which incidentally isn't new (19) ideen om [at ingefr gavner fordjelsen], som forvrigt ikke er ny idea.DEF about that ginger aids digestion which incidentally not is new
This is consistent with our proposal, under the standard assumption that such relative clauses adjoin to DP (inter alia Toribio 1992 with antecedents in Jackendo 1977 (chapter 7) and Smits 1988):
(20) Bare DCN
@@@@@@@DhP hhhhhh
333DP
ЁЁЁCrP rr
D 333NP
som . . . ny
den N CP
ide at . . . fordjelsen
(21) Prepositional DCN
@@@@@@@DhP hhhhhh
DP
ЁЁЁCrP rr
DdPd 333PP
som . . . ny
D N P CP
-en ide om at . . . fordjelsen
Relative clauses may intervene between N and P in Prepositional DCN by attaching to lower DP in (21): (22) ide-en, som forvrigt ikke er ny, om [at ingefr gavner fordjelsen] idea-def which incidentally not is new about that ginger aids digestion
but not between N and C in Bare DCN; no lower attachment site in (20): (23) *den ide, som forvrigt ikke er ny, [at ingefr gavner fordjelsen] def idea which incidentally not is new that ginger aids digestion
2(18) is slightly odd, possibly for semantic reasons discussed in section 3. The contrast between it and (23) is nonetheless clear.
5
2.3 Intervening PPs Given (20), we expect that nothing can intervene between N and C in Bare DCN. In fact, a PP may intervene: (24) Han havde nemlig den aftale [med lgen] at han skulle undersges igen til maj. he had namely def agreement with doctor.def that he should examine.pass again in May In fact he had the agreement with his doctor that he would be examined again in May.
One possibility:
(25)
$$$$$$DP
$$$$$DP 333CP
ЁЁЁDrP rr
ЁЁЁPrP rr at . . . til maj
D
NP med lgen
den N hCPi
aftale
CPs can extrapose out of DCNs: (26) a. De lavede [den aftale at ingen ma ga derind efter lukketid] sidste forar. they made the agreement that noone may enter there after close.time last spring They made the agreement that noone may enter after hours last spring. b. De lavede den aftale sidste forar [at ingen ma ga derind efter lukketid]. they made the agreement last spring that noone may enter there after close.time They made the agreement last spring that noone may enter after hours.
General preference for PPs to precede CPs motivates extraposition in (24). no motivation for extraposing CP complement across relative clause in (20), hence no derivation for (23).
3 Meaning and usage
Presupposing vs. asserting Prepositional DCNs presuppose the existence of their referent:
(27) De har overholdt aftalen
om at bibliotekerne skal nansieres via brugerbetaling.
they have kept
agreement.def about that libraries.def shall nance.pass via user.payment
They have kept the agreement that libraries must be nanced by the users.
To evaluate the truth of (27) an agreement that library users pay to use the library must have been made. If (27) is negated (they didn't keep the agreement . . . ), this is still the case. Bare DCNs do not presuppose the existence of their referent. They assert it:
(28) De har lavet den aftale at bibliotekerne skal nansieres via brugerbetaling. they have made def agreement that libraries.def shall nance.pass via user.payment They have made the agreement that libraries must be nanced via user payment.
If there is no agreement about library user payment, (28) is false, not truth-valueless or uninterpretable. The negation of (28) does not presuppose any such agreement either, in fact it denies it (though a more felicitous way of expressing this would have an indenite object NP).
6
Environmental support Prepositional DCN, with N=aftale (agreement), occurs as { object of predicates like overholde (keep), vre uenig i (disagree with), opsige (cancel), undertegne (sign), vre med i (be part of) { subject of predicates like vre kommet i stand (be established), holde (last), fa tilslutning (get support), blive eectueret (be implemented), blive a yst (be cancelled), blive betegnet som (be characterized as), vre prget af (be characterized by), vre uantagelig (be unacceptable). Corresponding Bare DCN occurs as { object of predicates like have (have), lave (make), fa (get), indga (enter into), fungere med (function with), skilles med (seperate with), give handslag pa (shake hands on) { only one attested subject use, with the verb indga (be included in) (This pattern appears to instantiate Hawkins' (1978: 130{149) distinction between anaphoric and referentestablishing denites, with Prepositional DCNs being anaphoric and Bare DCNs being referent establishing.) 4 Conclusion Danish has two realizations of denite DCNs because general properties of the language make two structures available. The realization of deniteness markings in each of these (sux vs. article) is consistent with syntactic regularities of the language (PPs attach to DP) along with a conservative view of selection and modication. Assuming the proposed structures we can explain the ordering possibilities of CP complements, relative clauses and PP complements in DCNs. The two structures are not arbitrary; they have distinct meanings and distinct usage. Thus we see once again that deniteness marking is a useful probe for the internal structure of nominals. References Abney, S. (1987). The English noun phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Ph. D. thesis, MIT. Grimshaw, J. (1990). argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT press. Hankamer, J. and L. Mikkelsen (2005). When movement must be blocked: A reply to Embick and Noyer. Linguistic Inquiry 36 (1), 85{125. Hankamer, J. and L. Mikkelsen (2008). Deniteness marking and the structure of Danish pseudopartitives. Journal of Linguistics 44 (2), 317{346. Hawkins, J. A. (1978). Deniteness and Indeniteness: A Study in Reference and Grammaticality Prediction. London: Croom Helm. Jackendo, R. (1977). X Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Julien, M. (2005). Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Smits, R. (1988). The relative and cleft constructions of the Germanic and Romance languages. Dordrecht: Foris. Toribio, A. J. (1992). Proper government in Spanish subject relativization. Probus 4, 291{304. 7
(Hankamer ) Department of Linguistics Stevenson College University of California, Santa Cruz 1156 High Street Santa Cruz, CA 95064 [email protected] http://ling.ucsc.edu/~hank/ (Mikkelsen) Department of Linguistics 1203 Dwinelle Hall University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720{2650 [email protected] http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~mikkelsen/ 8

J Hankamer, L Mikkelsen

File: the-structure-of-definite-complex-nominals-in-danish.pdf
Author: J Hankamer, L Mikkelsen
Published: Tue Jan 6 08:45:59 2009
Pages: 8
File size: 0.16 Mb


, pages, 0 Mb

Polymer handbook, 6 pages, 0.29 Mb

Crossing the chasm, 61 pages, 1.68 Mb

Al-Tusi, connaissez-vous, 12 pages, 0.42 Mb
Copyright © 2018 doc.uments.com