Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:34:15.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introduction The (not so) universal D

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2016

Solveiga Armoskaite  and
Carrie Gillon
Solveiga Armoskaite
Affiliation:
University of Rochester
Carrie Gillon
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This volume grew out of our research agenda, seeking to understand the structure and interpretation of bare nouns in three typologically and genetically unrelated articleless languages: Lithuanian, Inuktitut, and Innu-aimun. None of these languages has articles, and yet they are very different from one another with respect to the syntactic and semantic behaviour of their bare nouns (for Lithuanian, see Gillon and Armoskaite 2013, 2015; for Lithuanian and Innu-aimun, Gillon and Armoskaite 2012; for Inuktitut, Lithuanian and Innu-aimun, Gillon 2013, 2015). This variation forced us to question the universality of D, as well as the universality of the semantics of D.

Type
Introduction
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , November 2015 , pp. 251 - 258
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Aboh, Enoch. 2004. Topic and Focus within D. Linguistics in the Netherlands 21:1–2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ajibóyè, Oládiípò. 2006.Topics onYorkba Nominal Expressions. Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2005. Possessors and (in)definiteness. Lingua, 115:115–787.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2005. On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica 59:59–1.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2007. On the clausal and NP structure of Serbo-Croatian. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Toronto meeting, 2006, ed. Compton, R., Goledzinowska, M., and Savchenko, U., 42–75. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2008a. The NP/DP analysis and Slovenian. Proceedings of the Novi Sad Generative Syntax Workshop 1, 53–73. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet u Novom Sadu.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2008b. What will you have, DP or NP? In Proceedings of NELS 37, ed. Elfner, EmilyandWalkow, Martin.GLSAPublications, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko, and Şener, Serkan. 2014. The Turkish NP. In Crosslinguistic studies on noun phrase structure and reference, ed. Hofherr, Patricia Cabredo and Zribi-Hertz, Anne, 102–140. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2009. More on the No-DP analysis of article-less languages, Studia Linguistica 63:63–187.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2012. On NPs and clauses. In Discourse and grammar: From sentence types to lexical categories, ed. Grewendorf, Günther and Zimmermann, Thomas Ede, 179–242. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, and Sybesma, Rint. 1999. Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry 30:30–509.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6:6–339.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2007. Amharic relatives and possessives: Defmiteness, agreement, and the linker. Linguistic Inquiry, 38:38–302.Google Scholar
Epstein, Melissa. 1999. On the singular indefinite article in English. In Syntax at Sunset 2, ed. Storto, Gianluca, 14–58. Los Angeles: UCLA Working Papers in Syntax.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven, and Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2004. Functional categories in the nominal domain. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Ottawa Meeting, ed. Arnaudova, Olga P., Browne, Wayles, Rivero, Maria-Luisa, and Stojanovic, Diana, 109–128. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila, Paul, Ileana, and Wiltschko, Martina, eds. 2009. Determiners: Universals and variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gillon, Carrie. 2013. The semantics of determiners: Domain restriction in Skwxwú7mesh. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Gillon, Carrie. 2015. Investigating D in languages with and without articles. In Methodology in Semantic Fieldwork, ed. Matthewson, Lisa and Bochnak, Ryan, 175–205. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gillon, Carrie and Solveiga, Armoskaite. 2012. The semantic import of (c)overt D. Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics , ed. Choi, Jaehoon, Hogue, E. Alan, Punske, Jeffrey, Tat, Deniz, Schertz, Jessamyn, and Traeman, Alex, 337–345. Available at http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/29/paper2719.pdf Google Scholar
Gillon, Carrie and Armoskaite, Solveiga. 2013. Diagnosis: D. On getting a second opinion for Lithuanian. Proceedings of NELS 42, ed. Keine, Stefan and Sloggett, Shayne, 169–182. GLSA Amherst.Google Scholar
Gillon, Carrie & Armoskaite, Solveiga. 2015. The Illusion of the NP/DP Divide: Evidence from Lithuanian. Linguistic Variation 15:15–69.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 2005. [1993] “Semantic Structure and Semantic Content in Lexical Representation”, in Grimshaw, Jane. Words and Structure, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, 75–89.Google Scholar
Filip, Hana. 1995. Boundedness in temporal and spatial domains. In Cognitive linguistics in the redwoods: The expansions of a new paradigm in linguistics, ed. Casa, Eugene, 655–692. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Filip, Hana. 1999. Aspect, eventuality types and nominal reference. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1985. On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16:16–547.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25:25–609.Google Scholar
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 1998. Determiner systems and quantificational strategies: Evidence from Salish. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Pakendorf, Brigitte. 2007. The ’non-possessive’ use of possessive suffixes in Sakha (Yakut). Turkic Languages 11:11–226.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 2013. Russian case morphology and the syntactic categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. 1996. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sorace, Antonella and Keller, Frank. 2005. Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua 115:1497–1524 Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 1989. Subjects, specifiers and X-bar theory. In Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, ed. Baltin, Mark R. and Kroch, Anthony S., 232–262. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1987. Functional categories in the noun phrase. In Approaches to Hungarian, Volume 2. ed. Kenesei, Istvan, 167–189. Szeged: JATE.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1994. The noun phrase. In The Syntactic structure of Hungarian, Syntax and semantics, Volume 27, ed. Anderson, Stephen R. and Kiss, Katalin E., 179–275. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Trugman, Helen. 2007. Possessives within and beyond NPs. In Annual Workshop of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, ed. Compton, Richard, Goledzinowska, Magdalena, and Savchenko, Ulyana, 437–457. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar