Sie sind auf Seite 1von 17

Privative and Binary Features, Roots and Functional Vocabulary

Artemis Alexiadou Universit at Stuttgart artemis@ia.uni-stuttgart.de George Tsoulas University of York george.tsoulas@york.ac.uk

Features in Phonology, Morphology, Syntax and Semantics: What are they? University of Troms/CASTL 31 October and 1 November 2013

One chord is ne Two youre pushing it Three youre into Jazz. Lou Reed, (1942-2013) In memoriam

Introduction

Features are fundamental building blocks of information that enter in the construction of elements such as lexical items (whatever the latter may be) in many theories of grammar. Their properties and inventory have been and are intensively discussed in the literature in various terms and with varying conclusions. Adger and Svenonius (2011) distinguish two basic ways in which features can be understood in the theory of grammar:1 (1) (2) A descriptive device An object of the theory

This distinction of course does not mean that there can be no theory of descriptive devices but while we remain at the theoretical (as opposed to the meta -theoretical) level our approach is situated within the class of theories in (2), in other words we take features to represent substantive properties of linguistic elements, we do not feel it is necessary to a priori conne ourselves to a theory where features are necessarily only atomic elements (though in most cases they are). Another important aspect of the analysis of dierent possible feature systems relates to the privative vs. valued nature of features2 In this paper we are fundamentally concerned with the amount and type of semantic information that is made available, as features, to the syntactic derivation. We focus on nominals and more specically, assuming a model whereby roots enter the derivation under- or un-specied and
1 2

There may be other ways to understand features but they are not relevant to us here. We consider binary a subcase of valued feature systems.

much of the relevant information is provided exoskeletally (see, e.g. Acquaviva, 2012; Arad, 2005; Borer, 2005a,b; Marantz, 1997; Embick, 2010) we consider the question of the exact semantic feature(s) that roots carry and which is visible to the syntax and how the range of such features is constrained. Within this class of theories, there are few, if any, overarching constraints on the nature and quantity of featural content a lexical root may have. We rst consider one particularly restrictive recent proposal.

Kaynes Conjecture

A recent proposal regarding the amount of semantic information that enters the syntax is due to Kayne (2005, 2010) who proposes that every lexical item contains at most one syntactically interpreted feature.3 The implication of this is that whatever meaning is assumed for any lexical item and is beyond the semantic contribution of its single syntactically interpreted feature must come from somewhere else. If this is on the right track, the question arises as to what the relevant feature will be for each lexical item and how does one decide. We illustrate this approach with some of the items that Kayne analyses and a more detailed analysis of another item.

2.1

Several, Few, and Many and NUMBER

The idea here us that these items are in fact adjectival modiers of an unpronounced noun number or amount4 in the case of mass elements. So for items like several, few, many we will have roughly (3): (3) AdjP Several Few Many NUMBER NP Books

Now the rst question that arises is what is the semantic feature that these words have. For Kayne, the feature itself is directly grounded in the intuitive semantics of the items. So for few, the feature is [small], for many it is presumably [large] and something similar for several. We return to the actual representation of these features.

2.2

TIME

Tsoulas (2013) analyses before -clauses as invariably involving a silent nominal time which may further be preceded by an empty demonstrative that. Central in the analysis is the ungrammaticality of negation in Before -clauses:
3 The hypothesis does have antecedents and can be thought of as the natural continuation of the tradition that started, in a sense, with Pollock (1989). We will leave this aside for now. 4 Elements appearing in this typeface are unpronounced.

(4)

* John left the store before Mary didnt try the dress

The only interpretation that may be available for this sort of example, if accompanied by heavy focal stress on DIDNT is a reading where Mary was somehow supposed to have tried the dress on at a particular time and though the relevant event did not take place the time reference is to that time. Why do before -clauses disallow negation? In the present framework there is an obvious statement of the analysis of before in the following terms5 In somewhat informal terms the idea is that Before is always a preposition which selects a DP, therefore there is only one Before. In the case of Before that appears alone the real structure is: (5) Before [THIS/THAT TIME]

In the case of Before followed by a clausal constituent the clause is a relative modifying TIME. (6) Before [THAT [TIME [CP . . . ]]]

The proposal in Tsoulas (2013) is that negation in a Before -clause leads to presupposition failure. If this idea is roughly on the right track, one thing that follows is: (7) [THAT TIME] is a possible origin of the presupposition

What this means is that in the cases at hand the interpretation will halt as, clearly, there are many times/intervals at which a given event did not take place, and therefore that time is not uniquely identiable as we would have expected. The next question that then arises is: (8) What is the single interpretable syntactic feature in Before given that it cant be anything to do with TIME.

2.3
(9)

The feature of Before


Q: What is the single syntactically interpretable feature of Before ? A: Comparison

2.3.1

Evidence

Italian Del Prete (2008) presents an analysis of the Italian equivalent of Before as a comparative. Without going into the ne detail of his analysis, we can adopt similar stance and suggest that roughly and informally, the single interpretable feature of Before is something like Earlier.
This is a particular implementation of an idea that goes back to Katz and Postal (1964). A similar approach to before is also taken by Grnn and von Stechow (pear). For a recent criticism of this approach and by extension the approach taken here, see Sharvit (2013).
5

Ancient Greek (10) is originally a comparative adverb meaning before, i.e. sooner or formerly ; and seems to be connected with , before. The adverbial force survives in Attic only after the article, as in the foregoing statements T. 2.62. The adverbial and original use appears also in Homer wherever occurs with the indicative, the anticipatory (futural) subjunctive, or the optative with .Thus, but her I will not release; sooner shall old age come upon her A 29, : nor shalt thou recall him to life; sooner (before this) thou wilt suer yet another aiction. Smyth (1920, p.550, 2438) English (11) (12) Modication by Many/Much:

a. *More faster b. Much faster a. *More before . . . b. Much before . . .

Modication by bare degree phrases: (13) (14) a. b. Three days/hours/minutes/seconds/years before Three days/hours/minutes/seconds/years earlier

*Three days/hours/minutes/seconds/years earliest Moreno Mitrovic(p.c.): Slovenian has two Befores :

Slovenian and Serbo-Croatian (15) (16)

prej = adverb derived from / based on a preposition pred - (locative before) takes DP preden = relational / comparative adverb, cf. SC prije nego CP = before than CP (1) takes CP

Serbo-Croatian (SC) has only one before, the prej type When SC prije takes a CP, theres comparative syntax involved: (17) Prije nego sto sam ga video before than what aux him.cl see.part.sg Before I saw him

Also possible with DPs: comparative nego than and the wh-item absent (18) Do sao sam prije njega. came.part.m.sg aux before him.acc I came before him. (I was here before he was.)

CP-paraphrase of the latter: (19) Do sao sam prije nego sto je on (do sao). came.part.m.sg aux before that what aux he.nom I came before he did.

In Slovenian, the two types of before are in fact dierent only in presence/absence of this additional comparative+wh structure which is obligatory in SC. Slovenian preden is in fact composed of pred+nego (20) klicali. Prispel sem preden / *prej so me aux me.acc called.part.m.pl arrived.part.m.sg aux before I arrived before they called for me.

DP/CP before + DP (21) Pred sestankom. before.prep meeting before the meeting

Slo

Slovenian uses a preposition here, not the basic adverb prej or the relational/comparative before preden (22) Prije sastanka. before meeting before the meeting

SC

before + CP (23) Preden je Janes prispel. before.prep+com is John arrived before John arrived Jovan dospio. sto je Prije nego befor.textscprep than.com is John arrived before John arrived

Slo

(24)

SC

2.4

Syntactically Interpretable Features

Now, it is clear, if not completely formalized, that there is a relatively restricted domain of meanings including, as a rst approximation number, amount, time, place as well as the demonstrative elements this, that, here, there which can have the type of nominal exponent we have just discussed. The analysis that Kayne proposes entails a rich decomposition when applied to items such as those above, whereby any extra meaning one would naturally associate with such elements must be expressed through unpronounced nominals such as NUMBER and AMOUNT. Beyond this somewhat limited domain, however, it is more 5

dicult to understand what the relevant feature of nouns or verbs in general would be. It seems to us that this cannot be on a par with features such as [SMALL] or any other feature that relates directly to the conceptual semantics of the nominal. At the same time we take Kaynes analysis as suggestive evidence for the viability of the approach and the fact that at least one of the features visible to the syntactic derivation must be grounded in the semantics. But how rich should this grounding be? Is there a single semantic property that the visible feature should be representing so to speak?

Nominal Ontology

The denotational space covered by nominals can be partitioned in three main subsets: Kinds, Singular Properties, and Number Neutral Properties (Including count plurals and Mass terms). This is what Chierchia (2010) calls the semantic triad. There are dened maps that link the three domains: (25) c CAT AT cat the kind: type e plural/number neutral property singular property

A natural proposal then is that nominal roots freely associate with one of these domains. Now, Building on Marantz (1997), Embick (2010) and Borer (2005a) we assume that nominals are built in the syntax and involve combination of roots with elements from the functional vocabulary. We take the semantic information carried by the root to be related to the denotational domain that the root is associated with (but does not reduce to its functional type). Now if this is true of nominals across the board, the question is whether the non lexical (above the root) information is sucient in order to identify and unambiguously map nominals onto these domains. We suggest that it is not. Note further that if all information were available above the level of the root one would expect there to be specic syntactically realised structure that identies nominals as Kind denoting. This does not seem to be the case. Crucially, the syntax needs to know that a nominal is kind denoting (as it triggers other processes) but cannot determine it. It follows that the feature in question must be an inherent part of the root, i.e. preceding its introduction in the derivation. But this picture is unnatural in one respect, namely that it reduces eectively the singular/plural(number-neutral) distinction to a lexical root-level distinction. But the operation that yields the plural or number neutral property does not seem to represent the same type of feature as the one that codes for kind or property denotation. From one point of view we can see the dierence in terms of privativity. The root level features are privative whereas other features must be somehow xed in the syntax. The feature responsible for 6

the plural property is such a feature, and it can take the values +/- plural (or whatever the way in which each language codes this distinction) . Where +plural is the count plural and -plural is the mass property, rather than the singular. Adopting the general stance outlined above turns out to have a number of consequences for nominal syntax and semantics as well as for the crosslinguistic distribution of bare nominals, and the semantic status of -feature sets.

3.1

Greek Kinds: Alexopoulou et al. (2013)

Two main but related proposals about kinds can be found in the literature. First, Carlsons original proposal treats kind denoting expressions as names of kinds. On the other hand, Chierchias neo-Carlsonian approach treats them as (intensional) maximal collections of individuals. The extent to which these approaches are mutually exclusive is unclear and it is conceivable that both can be realised. In other words, it is possible that natural languages provide both names for kinds but also, in other circumstances, functions that yield denotations equivalent to that of a kind (qua maximal collection of instances of the kind). In Greek the situation is as follows: A number neutral root can be used as the complement to a Num head which is specied say as [+singular] which triggers an atomicity implicature or [-singular] which triggers a multiplicity implicature. Let us now assume, following Krifka (2010) that implicatures may sometimes be reied, or folded into the meaning of certain elements. As implicatures, they may be cancelled. Let us assume that cancellation does not only amount to overtly contradicting them but also to a choice of the speaker simply not to reify the relevant implicatures. This would be one case of neutralising the implicature. We thus have four possibilities: (26) a. b. c. d. Number Number Number Number Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Root Root Root Root [+ singular] - [+atomicity] [+ singular] - No implicature [- singular] - [+multiplicity] [- singular] - No implicature

What would each of these cases give us? Restricting attention to bare nouns, (26-a) will yield a bare singular which is able to be used argumentally since Num is the argumentizing head but cannot denote a kind as it is a predicate of individual level entities. It can, nonetheless be the basis of a kind expression through the application of the and in that case: (27) the(N[+singular,+atomicity] ) = The name of a kind

The same is true of (26-c). The bare plural in this case will be possible in argument positions but not as a kind denoting element. In this case (28) the(N[singular,+multiplicity] ) = A kind,qua maximal collection of individuals.

The two remaining cases are those where, theoretically, the bare noun should be able to refer to kinds. As we saw in the previous sections such cases do exist, but are limited. However, such readings must be instances of (26-b) and (26-d) above, that is, cases where

the implicatures are neutralised (or cancelled). Such examples then should be possible only when contextually relevant factors force either the neutralisation of the implicature or, equivalently, allow the speaker to choose not to reify the relevant implicatures. The case of coordinated nouns is a case in point: (29) a. Dinosavri ke tiranosavri ehoun eksafanisti edo kai dinosaurs-nom and tyrannosaurs-nom have-3pl disappeared here and ekatomiria xronia millions years Dinosaurs and Tyrannosaurs have disappeared millions of years ago. (Karharies kai) falenes spanizoun sto Saroniko (sharks-nom and) whales-nom are-rare in-the Saronic Sharks and whales are rare in the Saronic gulf.

b.

The picture emerging from Alexopoulou et al. (2013)is the following: Noting the crosslinguistic connection between kind reference and nominal bareness we have reached the following conclusions for Greek: rst, determinerless number phrases may be type shifted but carry multiplicity/atomicity implicatures that must be neutralised for the bare NumP to denote a kind. When these implicatures are neutralised bare nouns can refer to kinds as the examples like (29) show. When this is not the case, the denite article with its maximal/universal quanticational force must be used. Interestingly, in the case of a denite singular, we are led to the conclusion that it names a kind, whereas in the case of a denite plural it denotes a maximal collection of individuals, which is another way to get to the kind. The upshot of the discussion on the expression of Kinds in Greek is that there is a dierence between number neutrality/numberlessness and the plural denotation. As a result one might wish to reduce the semantic triad to a pair a la Chierchia (1998)

Nominalizations

Grimshaw (1990) argues in detail that de-verbal nouns do not form a homogeneous class.6 They are argued to be ambiguous between a complex event reading that supports argument structure (AS), and a result/referential (R)-reading that does not. (30-a) instantiates the AS-interpretation of the nominal, while (30-b) instantiates the R one. (30)
6

a.

the examination of the patients took a long time AS

Note that Grimshaw actually distinguishes between three classes of nominals:

(i) Complex event nominals that license AS (ii) Event nominals that do not license AS but still have an eventive interpretation and (iii) Result nominals that do not license AS and lack an eventive interpretation.

b.

the examination was on the table R

The table in (31) summarizes the criteria Grimshaw introduced to distinguish between the two types of nominals in English (Alexiadou, 2009; Borer, 2001, 2013): (31) R Nominals 1. Non- -assigner, No obligatory arguments 2. No event reading 3. No agent-oriented modiers 4. Subjects are possessives 5. by phrases are non-arguments 6. No implicit argument control 7. No aspectual modiers 8. Modiers like frequent, constant only with plural 9. May be indenite 10. May be plural AS Nominals -assigners, Obligatory arguments Event reading. Agent-oriented modiers subjects are arguments by phrases are arguments Implicit argument control Aspectual modiers. Modiers like frequent, constant appear with singular Must be denite Must be singular

Let us concentrate on properties (9) and (10): according to Grimshaw, AS nominals can only be denite, while result nouns may be modied by the indenite determiners a, one. (32) a. *An examination of the cat was interrupted by the reworks. b. One exam was rejected because it was written in red ink.

Moreover, the claim is made that AS nouns behave like mass nouns, they cannot pluralize. R- nouns are count nouns, and they may pluralize. When AS nominals pluralize, they are no longer AS nominals, rather they carry the R-interpretation (33-c): (33) a. *{the, some, a lot of} examinations of the cat b. one exam, two exams c. one examination, two examinations

However, this claim has been refuted in the more recent literature. Across languages, AS nominals can pluralize: (34) French (Roodenburg 2006, also on Italian): a. les destructions fr equentes de quartiers populaires pour elever des tours the destructions frequent of quarters popular for raise towers staliniennes stalinist The frequent destruction of popular quarters to build stalinist towers b. *the destructions of the city by the enemies

Romanian (Iordachioaia and Soare, 2007): Romanian has two types of event nominalizations: innitive and supine. As (36) shows, the innitival one can pluralize, while the supine one cannot: 9

(35) (36)

demolarea/ demolatul cartierelor vechi de c atre comuni sti demolish-Inf-the/ demolish-Sup-the quarters-Gen old by communists demol arile/ *demolaturile frecvente ale cartierelor vechi demolish-Inf-Pl/ demolish-Sup-Pl frequent-Pl quarters-Gen old by de c atre comuni sti communists

Crucially, in Romanian, the innitival nominalization can pluralize both under an AS and a non-AS supporting reading.

4.1

English

Mourelatos (1978), Borer (2005b, 78f), Alexiadou et al. (2010): Telic event nominals can pluralize and can appear with indenite determiners. This concerns the ing of nominals (nominal gerunds) and -ion nominals, but not verbal gerunds. Verbal gerunds cannot pluralize (37-d): (37) a. b. c. d. There were three late arrivals of a train There was (*a) pushing of the cart by John There was one pushing of the cart to New York by John Johns pushing(*s) the cart to New York

The event entailed by the gerund is imperfective (Pustejovsky, 1995), irrespectively of the Aktionsart involved. Verbal gerunds cannot be interpreted as R-nominals and they are necessarily denite.

4.2

German

Pluralization only with -ung nominals, innitival nominalizations do not pluralize: -U ng nominals project either the theme or the agent of an activity verb (see (), so they are not necessarily telic. In this case, a plurar under the R-reading is possibible (b). However, with -ung nominals derived from telic verbs which project the theme obligatorily, plural ASNs can occur just like in English: (38) a. b. (39) a. b. die the die the Beobachtung des Verd achtigen/ der Polizei observe-UNG the-Gen suspect/ the-Gen police Polizei Beobachtungen der observe-Ung-Pl the-Gen police

(Ag) R-plural

(Th/*Ag) Verbrechers des Feindes/ die T otung des the kill-UNG the-Gen enemy-Gen/ the-Gen criminal-Gen uhrer durch die Armee politischen F otungen der die gezielten T the army the targeted kill-UNG-Pl the-Gen political leaders via ASN plural die j ahrliche berpr ufungen des Betriebs the annual controlling of-the rm 10

(40)

a.

b. c.

Reinholds Besteigungen des K3 Reinholds climbings of-the K3 die Entsorgung der Atomrma the disposals of-the nuclear-rm

Ehrich (2002): while the singulars denote single events, the corresponding plurals denote sequences of iterated events. Plurals are thus homogeneous objects comparable to the denotations of mass nouns.

4.3

Greek

Derived nominals in Greek can have two forms. One of the instantiations involves a certain special ax that attaches to a verbal stem and creates a deverbal noun. The most common axes are: -m-, -sim-, -s-. A second formon involves forms that basically attach the class/number marking axes to the verbal stem/root, which might undergo vowel gradation (41-c): (41) a. b. c. kathariz-o kathariz-m-a clean-verb cleaning tragudo tragudis-t-is sing-verb singer katastrefo katastrof-i destroy-verb destruction

Kolliakou (1995): there are certain restrictions on -m- axation. Specically, she notes that prototypical state and accomplishment predicates do not give grammatical nominalizations when they combine with the ax -m-. (42) a. *agapima (loving) *skepsimo (thinking) b. *dolofonima (assassinating) *katastrema (destroying) Koliakou (1995, 211f.)

She notes that a sub-set of -m- nouns denote activities, as in (43), while others denote concrete nouns, as in (44): (43) Activities a. perpatao to perpati-m-a walk the walk b. sprohno ena karotsi to sprok-sim-o tu karotsiu push a cart the pushing of-the cart Concrete nouns a. paraskevazo paraskevasma produce product/concoction

(44)

However, a closer look at the possible and impossible formations reveals ner details (Alexiadou, 2011). Certain accomplishment predicates can build -m- nouns, as illustrated below. On the other hand, achievement predicates cannot built -m- nouns at all:

11

(45)

Accomplishments a. htizo ena spiti to htisimo enos spitiu build a house the building of-a house b. zograzo ena kiklo to zograsma enos kiklu draw a circle the drawing of-a circle Achievements a. anagnorizo i anagnorisi/*anagnorisma tu klefti recognize the recognition of-the thief b. ftano i aksi / *to agma arrive the arrival / the arriving c. krignio i ekriksi/*to ekrigma explode the explosion

(46)

Achievement nominalizations with -m- do not receive a dierent interpretation. They are just out. This suggests that -m- axation does not introduce aspectual shift, it rather introduces non-culmination, extension of activity. Hence it gives grammatical results only with those accomplishments which can receive an extended interpretation. On the same vein, destruction as well as assassination are out with -m-, as they cannot be interpreted as activities. The state of aairs presented is reminiscent similar to what Borer (2005b) notes for the English nominalizer -ing. As already noted by Kolliakou, plural marking is illicit on -m- nouns. Only telic nouns can surface with plural marking: (47) a. *ta plisimata ton piaton the washings the dishes-gen b. *ena plisimo ton piaton a washing the dishes-gen c. i dolofonies nearon koritsion the murderings young girls-gen

4.4

General Conclusions:

Across languages, telic/bounded nominals can pluralize. In agreement with Borer (2005b): Grimshaw was wrong about telic AS nominals, but she was right about atelic AS nominals. Atelic AS nominals are mass nouns and thus cannot pluralize unless they are interpreted as R-nominals. This predicts that if an R-interpretation is independently unavailable, the nominalizations will not have plurals. 4.4.1 On the internal structure of ASNs

Formation of ASNs is syntactic (see Marantz 1997; Alexiadou 2001; Borer 1993, 2013). (48) What does the internal structure of ASNs that pluralize look like? 12

There seems to be a correlation between a certain kind of nominal internal structure, the ability to pluralize and the availability of R-readings. (49) What does it mean to have a verbal internal structure one as opposed to a nominal or a mixed one (verbal + nominal)?

All nominals contain the DP layer. (50) a. b. c. d. [DP [DP [DP [DP [............]] [NominalFP....]] [VerbalFP...]] [NominalFP... [VerbalFP...]]] nominal internal structure verbal internal structure mixed internal structure

Non-derived nominals contain only nominal functional layers internally (50-a). A nominal internal structure is characterized by the presence of nominal functional projections below D ((50-a)/(50-c)). A verbal internal structure is characterized by the presence of verbal layers below D. A mixed internal structure contains both nominal and verbal layers and nominals with that structure show a mixed behavior . ASNs that pluralize contain whaterver layer of structure plural morphology is introduced in: NumberP, ClassP. Most ASNs that do not pluralize lack this layer, e.g. verbal gerunds: (51) Correlation to be explained AS/R-nominals and the mass vs. count noun distinction

4.5

Aspect and Pluralization

As known, the mass/count distinction in the nominal domain has often been compared to aspectual distinctions in the domain of verb phrases see e.g. (Mourelatos, 1978; Bach, 1986; Krifka, 1992; Borer, 2005b) to mention just a few: Certain amount of consensus: (52) (53) count nouns are similar to bounded events mass nouns are similar to (Un)bounded events

As known, activities can become bounded, when endpoints are introduced. The same applies in the domain of NPs: (54) a. b. c. d. Sue is Sue is There There running. Sue has run running a mile / Sue has run a mile was one pushing of the cart to New York by John was (*one) pushing of the cart by John

Let us assume that the problem lies in matching the information of the lower verbal structure and the upper nominal structure, for those nominalizations that have an internal nominal structure. Introducing (un)boundedness (see also Engelhardt 2000: 13

(55)

a. b. c.

Pluralization (inectional plural, nominal structure) Aktionsart Morphological Aspect

If the function of pluralization, is to introduce unboundedness, pluralization of structures that are already unbounded via Morphological Aspect, realised in AspP, and/or Aktionsart, realised within the Voice/vP would be non-sensical. This is the case with the verbal gerunds in English (and supine in Romanian). (56) What happens to mass nouns and atelic ASNs?

Pluralization of atelic ASNs is out for the same reason pluralization of a mass noun is anomalous. It is only allowed if the noun is able to be construed as picking out distinct units. In the case of derived nominals pluralization is possible only under an R-interpretation, i.e. when no AS is licensed. Why? As known, there is a dierence concerning boundednes in the verbal domain as opposed to boundedness in the nominal domain: the former makes reference to VPs and not to lexical items. Since atelic derived nominals are VPs, which are already unbounded, further pluralization is out. However, the nominal part can pluralize, in the absence of AS, since it is not unbounded.7

5
(57) (58) (59)

General Conclusions
The framework that we have assumed The idea that there is a true dierence between the notions of privative and valued features (i.e. they are not notational variants) That there is a distinction between content and specication

Regarding the notion of features we are led to the following conclusions. Given

Then: (60) (61) (62) Content features are privative and limited to the denotational sort of nominals. The denotational sorts may be simply properties and kinds (i.e. the number neutral property is not basic) Specicational features are valued

Finally turning to the question of innateness. Our current thinking leads us to a position where would be able to live with the suggestion that content (privative) features are innate whereas specicational ones are not as such. Rather they represent a way to interact with the data and they are in some sense emergent.
7

Remark: Greek -m- functions as a kind of lexical plural and thus blocks pluralization.

14

References
Acquaviva, P. (2012). The roots of nominality, the nominality of roots. Ms University College Dublin. Adger, D. and P. Svenonius (2011). Features in minimalist syntax. In C. Boeckx (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism, pp. 27 51. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Alexiadou, A. (2001). Functional Structure in Nominals. Nominalization and Ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, A. (2009). On the role of syntactic locality in morphological processes: the case of (greek) derived nominals. In A. Giannakidou and M. Rathert (Eds.), Quantication, Deniteness and Nominalization, pp. 253280. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Alexiadou, A. (2011). The aspectual properties of nominalization structures. In A. Galani, G. Hicks, and G. Tsoulas (Eds.), Morphology and its Interfaces, pp. 195220. John Benjamins. Alexiadou, A., G. Iordachioaia, and E. Soare. (2010). Number/aspect interactions in the syntax of nominalizations: a distributed morphology approach. Journal of linguistics 46, 537574. Alexopoulou, T., R. Folli, and G. Tsoulas (2013). Bare number. In R. Folli, C. Sevdali, and R. Trusswell (Eds.), Syntax and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Arad, M. (2005). Roots and Patterns. Berlin: Springer. Bach, E. (1986). The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9 (1), 516. Borer, H. (1993). Parallel morphology. Ms. University of Massachussetts, Amherst. Borer, H. (2001). Morphology and syntax. In S. Andrew and Z. Arnold (Eds.), The handbook of morphology, pp. 151190. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Borer, H. (2005a). Structuring Sense: In Name Only, Volume 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Borer, H. (2005b). Structuring Sense: The normal course of events, Volume 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Borer, H. (2013). Structuring Sense: Taking Form, Volume 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chierchia, G. (1998). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6 (4), 339405. Chierchia, G. (2010). Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese 174 (1).

15

Del Prete, F. (2008). A non-uniform semantic analysis of the italian temporal connectives prima and dopo. Natural Language Semantics 16 (2), 157203. Ehrich, V. (2002). The thematic interpretation of plural nominalizations. In ZASPIL 27. Embick, D. (2010). Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Number 60 in Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Engelhardt, M. (2000). The projection of argument-taking nominals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18 (1), 4188. Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Grnn, A. and A. von Stechow (To Appear). Tense in adjuncts. Language and Linguistics Compass . Iordachioaia, G. and E. Soare (2007). Two kinds of event plurals: evidence from romanian nominalizations. Paper presented at the Syntax and Semantics 7 Conference in Paris, October 2007. Katz, J. J. and P. M. Postal (1964). An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kayne, R. S. (2005). Movement and Silence. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Kayne, R. S. (2010). Comparisons and Contrasts. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Koliakou, D. (1995). Denites and Possessives in Modern Greek: an HPSG Syntax for Noun Phrases. Ph. D. thesis, University of Edinburgh. Krifka, M. (1992). Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In I. Sag and A. Szabolsci (Eds.), Lexical Matters, pp. 3052. University of Chicago Press. Krifka, M. (2010). How to interpret expletive negation under bevor in german. In T. H. . G. Fanselow (Ed.), Language and logos. Studies in theoretical and computational linguistics, pp. 214236. Berlin: Academie Verlag. Marantz, A. (1997). No escape from syntax: Dont try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In A. Dimitriadis, L. Siegel, C. Surek-Clark, and A. Williams (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, Volume 4.2 of University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, Philadelphia, pp. 201225. Mourelatos, A. (1978). Events, processes and states. Linguistics and Philosophy (2), 415 434. Pollock, J.-Y. (1989). Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365424. 16

Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, Massachuesetts: The MIT Press. Roodenburg, J. (2006). On the existence of plural event nominalizations: a view from romance. MS Universit at Stuttgart. Sharvit, Y. (2013). On the universal principles of tense embedding: The lesson from before. Journal of Semantics . Smyth, H. W. (1920). Greek Grammar for Colleges. American Book Company. Tsoulas, G. (2013). The grammar of silent time. Ms. University of York.

17

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen