scholarly journals On maximality in Mandarin possessives

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-43
Author(s):  
Chyan-an Arthur Wang
Keyword(s):  
Relational Nouns

Abstract The possessive construction in Mandarin is similar to English prenominal possessives except that maximality is presupposed only for cases involving inherently relational nouns. In this paper, I adopt the hypothesized split of argument and modifier genitives proposed by Partee & Borschev (2001, 2003) and argue that modifier-genitives can occur NP-internally in Mandarin possessives, whose appearance is restricted to cases with non-relational nouns. The discrepancy of the maximality presupposition observed in Mandarin can thus be captured since non-relational nouns can have a split of interpretations between argument and modifier genitives, resulting in a non-maximality reading.

On the Implicit Anaphoric Argument of Relational Nouns in Mandarin Chinese

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 819-842
Author(s):  
Alan Hezao Ke ◽  
Ya Zhao ◽  
Liqun Gao ◽  
Shuying Liu ◽  
Acrisio Pires
Keyword(s):  
Mandarin Chinese ◽  
Relational Nouns

scholarly journals Predicative Possessives, Relational Nouns, and Floating Quantifiers

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 825-846 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Tsoulas ◽  
Rebecca Woods
Keyword(s):  
Floating Quantifiers ◽  
Relational Nouns

Green (1971) notes the apparent unacceptability of certain quantificational expressions as possessors of singular head nouns. We provide data from a range of English dialects to show that such constructions are not straightforwardly unacceptable, but there are a number of restrictions on their use. We build on Kayne’s ( 1993 , 1994 ) analysis of English possessives in conjunction with considerations on floating quantifiers to explain both the types of possessive that are permitted in the relevant dialects and their distribution, which is restricted to predicative position.

scholarly journals When Gur class markers are absent: suffix omission in Natioro

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 26-44
Author(s):  
Vadim Dyachkov
Keyword(s):  
Burkina Faso ◽  
Typical Feature ◽  
Semantic Properties ◽  
Relational Nouns

The paper deals with the morphology of class marking in Natioro, an underdescribed Gur language spoken in several villages of Burkina Faso. In Natioro, class markers (which are a typical feature of Gur languages) are frequently omitted in many contexts, such as genitive constructions, as well as NPs modified by adjectives, numerals, and quantifiers. In the paper, I will focus on the morphological (rather than semantic) properties of these constructions. I will show that noun stems occurring in constructions with omitted class markers can be regarded as instances of incorporation. Particular attention will be given to adjectival incorporation. In Natioro, there are two types of adjectival constructions, which can be distinguished by the nature of the stems involved. I will argue that some of the incorporated constructions are derived by merging a noun with a non-inflected adjective, whereas others can be regarded as full-fledged adjectives that incorporate noun stems. Some parallels between the constructions of the latter type and constructions with relational nouns are discussed as well.

Beyond external possession: genitive and dative with locational nouns in Latvian

2011 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 79-107
Author(s):  
Axel Holvoet
Keyword(s):  
Present Article ◽  
Reference Object ◽  
Widespread Occurrence ◽  
Spatial Expressions ◽  
Syntactic Description ◽  
Relational Nouns

The present article deals with the dative external possessor construction in Latvian. Attention is drawn to the widespread occurrence of this construction, extending to constructions with relational nouns practically functioning as adpositions. The carrying-over of the external possessor construction to what would otherwise be described as adpositional phrases creates certain problems for syntactic description. Emphasis is, however, on the semantic aspects. The features commonly associated with the external possessor construction, such as animacy, sentiency and affectedness, play no role here. It is suggested that the differences between the constructions with genitive and dative in spatial expressions with relational nouns are connected with the figure-ground configuration, the constructions with the dative serving to mark the shift of saliency from the figure (located object) to the ground (reference object). This, it is argued, is not an accidental extension of the external possessor construction to a domain where is was not originally applicable, but reflects the general principles underlying the external possessor construction. This can be formulated as the shifting of cognitive or discourse saliency from the figure/possessum to the ground/possessor in a locative/possessive structure.

scholarly journals Local versus long-distance bound implicit arguments of inalienable relational nouns in Chinese

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-37
Author(s):  
ALAN HEZAO KE ◽  
ACRISIO PIRES
Keyword(s):  
Mandarin Chinese ◽  
Body Part ◽  
Binding Theory ◽  
Long Distance ◽  
Distance Bound ◽  
Implicit Argument ◽  
Implicit Arguments ◽  
Relational Nouns

This paper argues that inalienable relational nouns in Mandarin Chinese, specifically kinship nouns (KNs, e.g. father, sister) and body-part nouns (BPNs, e.g. head, face), have an implicit reflexive argument. Based on a syntactic comparison between KNs, BPNs, locally and long-distance bound reflexives, we argue that the implicit reflexive arguments of BPNs must be locally bound, whereas that of KNs can either be locally or long-distance bound. We conclude that these two types of implicit arguments in Mandarin Chinese correspond to locally and long-distance bound reflexives, respectively. We analyze this difference in connection with binding theory and a theory of logophoricity. We argue that the implicit argument of BPNs is a locally bound anaphor and cannot be used as a logophor, whereas that of KNs can, supporting a proposal that the logophoric property leads to long-distance binding, as argued by Huang & Liu’s (2001) for reflexives in Mandarin Chinese.

scholarly journals Genitives, relational nouns, and the argument-modifier distinction

2000 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 177-201
Author(s):  
Barbara H. Partee ◽  
Vladimir Borschev
Keyword(s):  
Head Noun ◽  
Testing Ground ◽  
Possessive Constructions ◽  
The Status ◽  
Teacher Team ◽  
Relational Nouns

The argument-modifier distinction is less clear in NPs than in VPs; nouns do not typically take arguments. The clearest cases of arguments in NPs are in certain kinds of nominalizations which retain some "verbal" properties (Grimshaw 1990). The status of apparent arguments of non-deverbal relational nouns like sister is more controversial. Genitive constructions like 'John's teacher', 'team of John's' offer a challenging testing ground for the argument-modifier distinction in NPs, both in English and cross-linguistically. On the analyses of Partee (1983/97) and Barker (1995), the DP in a genitive phrase (i.e. 'John' in 'John's') is always an argument of some relation, but the relation does not always come from the head noun. On those "ambiguity" analyses, some genitives are argument-like and some are modifier-like. Recent proposals by Jensen and Vikner and by Borschev and Partee analyze all genitives as argument-like, a conclusion we are no longer sure of. In this paper we explore a range of possible analyses: argument-only, modifier-only, and ambiguity analyses, and consider the kinds of semantic evidence that suggest that different analyses may be correct for different genitive or possessive constructions in different languages.  

scholarly journals Relational Nouns and Reciprocal Plurality

2007 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Staroverov
Keyword(s):  
Relational Nouns

n/a

diversity of Maa (Nilotic) adverbs

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Doris Payne
Keyword(s):  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Single Class ◽  
Prepositional Phrases ◽  
Nominal Phrase ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Shared Function ◽  
Word Classes ◽  
Aspect Markers ◽  
Historical Origins ◽  
Relational Nouns

Maa linguistic varieties (Maasai, Parakuyo, Chamus, Samburu, among others), of the Eastern Nilotic family (Nilo-Saharan phylum), have words which can modify a predicate or predication and have the function of what cross-linguistically are called adverbs. While these words can be considered a single class due to this shared function and distribution, there are nevertheless morphosyntactic and usage distinctions. This is partly due to disparate historical origins, but also to semantics and different typical collocations. Among other distinctions, some adverbs can function as nominal tense/aspect markers within a determined nominal phrase (DP). Though the origins of all adverbs cannot be traced, the paper documents sources in oblique prepositional phrases, relational nouns, adjectives, relative clauses, and perhaps infinitive verbs, involving a wide range of lexical roots, such as ‘little’, ‘paint, mark’, ‘be abundant (with grass), be generous’, and others. Some synchronic adverbs do not have evident sources in other word classes, including the ­most frequently used word for ‘previously, before’, and the modal adverb ‘probably not, unlikely’ which is also an attenuative adverb. Maa adjectives and nouns largely overlap in their morphosyntax, but the ability to be modified by certain adverbs distinguishes them.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document