Cover not available
Part of
Advances in the Syntax of DPs: Structure, agreement, and case
Edited by Anna Bondaruk, Gréte Dalmi and Alexander Grosu
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 217] 2014
► pp. 193–219

Possessives within and beyond NP

Two ezafe- constructions in Tatar

The paper considers possessives in two ezafe -constructions in Tatar, a language without articles. More specifically, possessives in the so-called ezafe -2 and ezafe -3 constructions are distinguished formally by the presence of the genitive case on the possessive and the agreeing form of the possessive marker on the head in ezafe -3, but not in ezafe -2. The two types of possessors appear in distinct structural positions in the elaborate structure of a noun phrase, though neither of them remains inside NP. The two types of possessives themselves are of different size: the possessive in ezafe -3 is a full-fledged DP, but the possessive in ezafe -2 is a Small Nominal (Pereltsvaig 2006).
Published online: 14 October 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.217.08per
References (34)
References
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2005. Possessors and (in)definiteness. Lingua 115(6): 787–819. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Babyonyshev, Maria. 1997. The possessive construction in Russian: A crosslinguistic perspective. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 5(2): 1–41.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark 1985. The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 373–416.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2003. Lexical Categories. Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaver, David 2013. Definiteness and determinacy. Paper presented at the Stanford Linguistics Colloquium, 2013.
Bonet, Eulàlia 1995. Feature structure of Romance clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 607–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko 2005. On the locality of left branch extraction and the Structure of NP. Studia Linguistica 59(1): 1–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. What will you have, DP or NP? In Proceedings of NELS 37 , Emily Elfner & Martin Walkow (eds), 101–115. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
2009. More on the no-DP analysis of article-less languages. Studia Linguistica 63(2): 187–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. On NPs and clauses. Ms, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko & Şener, Serkan. 2012. Turkish NP. Ms, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra & Ladusaw, William. 2004. Restriction and Saturation. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 2000. (In)definiteness spread: From Romanian genitives to Hebrew construct state nominals. In Comparative Studies in Romanian Syntax, Virginia Motapanyane (ed.), 177–226. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Engelhardt, Miriam & Trugman, Helen. 1998. D as a source of adnominal genitive in Russian. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. The Connecticut Meeting 1997, Željko Bošković, Steven Franks & William Snyder (eds), 114–133. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Göksel, Asli. 1997. Morphological asymmetries between Turkish and Yakut. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics , Kâmile İmer & N. Engin Uzun (eds), 69–76, Ankara:Ankara University Publications.Google Scholar
. 2008. The interaction of prosody and morphology in interpreting morpheme sequences. Paper presented at the Workshop on Affix Ordering in Typologically Different Languages. 13th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna.Google Scholar
. 2013. Phrasal compounds, quotatives, epithets and descriptions; What to make of shared structure? Paper presented at the Workshop on Phrasal Compounds from a Theoretical and Typological Perspective, University of Mannheim.
Grashchenkov, Pavel. 2007. Izafetnaja konstruktsija: Mnogofaktornyj analiz (Ezafe-construction: A multifactorial analysis). In Misharskij dialect tatarskogo jazyka. Ocherki po sintaksisu i semantike (Mişär dialect of Tatar. Essays on syntax and semantics), Konstantin I. Kazenin, et al. (eds), 83–114. Kazan’: Magarif.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane.1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1997. The best clitic: Constraint conflict in morpho- Syntax. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 169–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin.1984. Case-marking, Agreement, and Empty Categories in Turkish. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
.1986. The stuttering prohibition and morpheme deletion in Turkish. In Proceedings of the Turkish Linguistic Conference 1984 , Eser Erguvanli Taylan & Ayhan Aksu-Koç (eds), 59–83. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Publications.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe 1994. Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and Logical Form. Linguistic Inquiry 25(4): 609 – 665.Google Scholar
Lyutikova, Ekaterina & Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2013. Elucidating nominal structure in articleless languages: A case study of Tatar. In BLS Proceedings 39. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
Munn, Alan. 1995. The possessor that stayed close to home. In Proceedings of WECOL 24 , Vida Samiian (ed.), 181–195. Fresno CA: Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2001. On the Nature of Intra-clausal Relations: A Study of Copular Sentences in Russian and Italian. PhD dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
. 2006. Small nominals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24(2): 433–500. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007a. Copular Sentences in Russian. A Theory of Intra-Clausal Relations. New York NY: Springer.Google Scholar
. 2007b. On the universality of DP: A view from Russian. Studia Linguistica 61(1): 59–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. On number and numberlessness in languages without articles. Proceedings of BLS 37, 300–314. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
Trugman, Helen. 2005. More puzzles about post-nominal genitives. In Possessives and Beyond: Semantics and Syntax[University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 29], Ji-yung Kim, Yury A. Lander & Barbara Partee (eds), 217–240. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
. 2007. Possessives within and beyond NPs. In Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, Richard, Compton, Magdalena Goledzinowska & Ulyana Savchenko (eds), 437–457. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
. 2008. Move versus Merge: DP-internal modifiers. In Elements of Slavic and Germanic Grammars: A Comparative View, Jacek Witkoś & Gisbert Fanselow (eds), 209–235. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Zakiev, Mirfatykh. 1995. Tatarskaya grammatika, Tom III: Sintaksis (Tatar Grammar, Vol. 3: Syntax). Kazan: Akademiya Nauk Tatarstana.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Gündoğdu, Songül & Betul Erbasi
2023. Chapter 6. Ezafe as a linking feature within DP. In Advances in Iranian Linguistics II [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 361], ► pp. 154 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2019. Noun Phrases in Article-less Languages [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 253], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.