Plurality and Definiteness in Persian

Transcription

1 Plurality and Definiteness in Persian Gita Zareikar & Paul B. Melchin Bilingual Workshop on Theoretical Linguistics Department of Linguistics University of Ottawa November 29, 2014

2 Roadmap Questions and Claims Data Ghomeshi 2003 Borer 2005 Proposal Summary 2 / 36

3 Questions How does Persian mark plurality and definiteness? 3 / 36

4 Questions How does Persian mark plurality and definiteness? How do nouns in Persian receive a general number reading? 3 / 36

5 Questions How does Persian mark plurality and definiteness? How do nouns in Persian receive a general number reading? Can the syntax of different kinds of nouns in Persian be explained in a cross-linguistic model of the noun phrase such as that of Borer (2005)? 3 / 36

6 Claims In the absence of any quantification (or plurality) and (in)definite marking, there will be a general number reading. 4 / 36

7 Claims In the absence of any quantification (or plurality) and (in)definite marking, there will be a general number reading. The plural morpheme marks quantification, rather than dividing a mass, and does not imply definiteness. 4 / 36

8 Claims In the absence of any quantification (or plurality) and (in)definite marking, there will be a general number reading. The plural morpheme marks quantification, rather than dividing a mass, and does not imply definiteness. Thus, we explain the Persian nominal denotations using Borer s influential, independently-motivated model of the noun phrase, and also account for general number and the plural of abundance. 4 / 36

9 Roadmap Questions and Claims Data Ghomeshi 2003 Borer 2005 Proposal Summary 5 / 36

10 Persian Noun Phrase Denotations Non-referential General number (1) sæg did-æm dog see.past.1sg I saw dogs. [lit: I saw dog. ] 6 / 36

11 Persian Noun Phrase Denotations Non-referential General number (1) sæg did-æm dog see.past.1sg I saw dogs. [lit: I saw dog. ] Plural of abundance (2) Ali ketab-ha xunde Ali book-pl read.part.3sg Ali has read all sorts of books [lit: Ali has read a lot. ] 6 / 36

12 Persian Noun Phrase Denotations Singular Singular definite (3) šir be sæmte man amæd lion.def towards me come.past.3sg The lion came towards me. 7 / 36

13 Persian Noun Phrase Denotations Singular Singular definite (3) šir be sæmte man amæd lion.def towards me come.past.3sg The lion came towards me. Singular indefinite (4) šir-i be sæmte man amæd lion-ind towards me come.past.3sg A lion came towards me. 7 / 36

14 Persian Noun Phrase Denotations Plural Plural definite (5) bačče-ha gerye-kærdænd child-pl cry-do.past.3pl The children cried. 8 / 36

15 Persian Noun Phrase Denotations Plural Plural definite (5) bačče-ha gerye-kærdænd child-pl cry-do.past.3pl The children cried. Plural indefinite (6) šir-ha-yi did-æm lion-pl-ind see.past-1sg I saw some lions. 8 / 36

16 Roadmap Questions and Claims Data Ghomeshi 2003 Borer 2005 Proposal Summary 9 / 36

17 Ghomeshi 2003 Proposals Plural marking in Persian is licensed only if the nouns are contained within D/QP. 10 / 36

18 Ghomeshi 2003 Proposals Plural marking in Persian is licensed only if the nouns are contained within D/QP. Plural nouns are construed as definite unless an overt indefinite marker appears 10 / 36

19 Ghomeshi 2003 Proposals Plural marking in Persian is licensed only if the nouns are contained within D/QP. Plural nouns are construed as definite unless an overt indefinite marker appears The indefinite marker is quantitative rather than cardinal and is associated with the higher functional structure within noun phrase than English 10 / 36

20 Ghomeshi 2003 Proposals Plural marking in Persian is licensed only if the nouns are contained within D/QP. Plural nouns are construed as definite unless an overt indefinite marker appears The indefinite marker is quantitative rather than cardinal and is associated with the higher functional structure within noun phrase than English The plural marker -ha is a derivational morpheme, since it affects the stress of the root. 10 / 36

21 Ghomeshi 2003 Generic Vs. Non-Referential In English definite singular count nouns, bare plural count nouns and bare mass can refer to kinds (7) a. The lion is strong. Definite singular count b. Lions are strong. Bare plural count c. Gold is expensive. Bare mass 11 / 36

22 Ghomeshi 2003 Generic Vs. Non-Referential In Persian both singular definite and plural in/definite can be used as generics (8) a. serke šir-ra mi-boræd vinegar milk-om DUR-curdle.3SG Vinegar curdles milk. Singular definite b. dolæt-ha dær-moqabel-e government-pl against-ez moxalef-an-e xod moqavamæt-mi-kon-ænd dissenter-pl-ez self resistance-dur-do-3pl Governments stand firm before their dissenters. Plural indefinite c. xod-æt ke mærd-ha-ra self-2sg.cl FOC man-pl-om mi-šenas-i DUR-know-2SG You yourself know men. Plural definite 12 / 36

23 Ghomeshi 2003 Generic Vs. Non-Referential In Persian bare count nouns in argument position are non-referential where in English nouns in non-head position are non-referential (9) sæg did-æm dog see.past.1sg I saw dogs. [lit: I saw dog. ] (10) a. a lion tamer, a lion cage... b. We went lion hunting today. 13 / 36

24 Ghomeshi 2003 Plural marking and definiteness It looks like the presence of plural marker triggers a definite reading for the noun which it is attached to (11) bačče-ha gerye-kærdænd child-pl cry-do.past.3pl The children cried. 14 / 36

25 Ghomeshi 2003 Plural marking and definiteness It looks like the presence of plural marker triggers a definite reading for the noun which it is attached to (11) bačče-ha gerye-kærdænd child-pl cry-do.past.3pl The children cried. Disregarding generics, bare nouns in subject position are constructed as definite (12) bačče gerye-kærd child cry-do.past.3sg The child cried. 14 / 36

26 Ghomeshi 2003 Plural marking and definiteness In object position definite bare nouns are distinguished from non-referential bare nouns by the case marker -ra (13) a. ketab book I read books. b. ketab-o book-om I read the book. c. ketab-ha-ro book-pl-om I read the books. xund-æm read.past-1sg xund-æm read.past-1sg xund-æm read.past-1sg 15 / 36

27 Ghomeshi 2003 Plural marking and definiteness CONCLUSION The structure of plural in Persian will be as: [ DP [ NP N-PL]Ø DEF ] 16 / 36

28 Ghomeshi 2003 Plural marking and indefiniteness Persian also has an indefinite enclitic -i 17 / 36

29 Ghomeshi 2003 Plural marking and indefiniteness Persian also has an indefinite enclitic -i In the subject position the plural marker and the indefinite enclitic cooccur, but the plural marker can appear in the absence of the enclitic too. In this case it entails a definite reading (14) D/QP NP Ø def /-i indef N-PL 17 / 36

30 Ghomeshi 2003 Examples: Subject position (15) a. šir-i be sæmte man lion-ind towards me A lion came towards me. b. šir-ha-yi be sæmte man lion-pl-ind towards me Some lions came towards me. (16) a. šir be sæmte man lion.def towards me The lion came towards me. b. šir-ha be sæmte man lion-pl.def towards me The lions came towards me. amæd come.past.3sg amæd-ænd come.past.3pl amæd come.past.3sg amæd-ænd come.past.3sg 18 / 36

31 Ghomeshi 2003 Examples: Object position (17) a. šir-i lion-ind I saw a lion. b. šir-ha-yi lion-pl-ind did-æm see.past-1sg I saw some lions. (18) a. šir-o lion.def-om I saw the lion. b. šir-ha-ro lion-pl.def-om I saw the lions. did-æm see.past-1sg did-æm see.past-1sg did-æm see.past-1sg 19 / 36

32 Ghomeshi 2003 Shortcomings Ghomeshi s analysis cannot explain the distinction between the general number reading and indefiniteness. 20 / 36

33 Ghomeshi 2003 Shortcomings Ghomeshi s analysis cannot explain the distinction between the general number reading and indefiniteness. All plurals are considered definite unless marked with the indefinite marker; she cannot account for bare indefinite plural cases such as the plural of abundance. 20 / 36

34 Ghomeshi 2003 Shortcomings Ghomeshi s analysis cannot explain the distinction between the general number reading and indefiniteness. All plurals are considered definite unless marked with the indefinite marker; she cannot account for bare indefinite plural cases such as the plural of abundance. Does not explain why we get a definite reading for bare singulars in subject position, but the object marker -ra is required for the same reading in object position. 20 / 36

35 Ghomeshi 2003 Shortcomings Ghomeshi s analysis cannot explain the distinction between the general number reading and indefiniteness. All plurals are considered definite unless marked with the indefinite marker; she cannot account for bare indefinite plural cases such as the plural of abundance. Does not explain why we get a definite reading for bare singulars in subject position, but the object marker -ra is required for the same reading in object position. Justifications for calling the plural marker -ha a derivational morpheme are unconvincing, especially since plurality is seen as a prototypical case of functional material in the noun phrase. 20 / 36

36 Roadmap Questions and Claims Data Ghomeshi 2003 Borer 2005 Proposal Summary 21 / 36

37 Borer s 2005 Model Borer (2005) proposes that there are three functional categories dominating NP in the nominal extended projection: (19) DP D #P # DivP Div NP 22 / 36

38 Borer s 2005 Model Borer (2005) proposes that there are three functional categories dominating NP in the nominal extended projection: Div: the division head, divides the denotation of the noun, makes it a count noun. (19) DP D #P # DivP Div NP 22 / 36

39 Borer s 2005 Model Borer (2005) proposes that there are three functional categories dominating NP in the nominal extended projection: Div: the division head, divides the denotation of the noun, makes it a count noun. #: the cardinality head, provides quantity. (19) DP D #P # DivP Div NP 22 / 36

40 Borer s 2005 Model Borer (2005) proposes that there are three functional categories dominating NP in the nominal extended projection: Div: the division head, divides the denotation of the noun, makes it a count noun. #: the cardinality head, provides quantity. D: the determiner head, provides information on specificity and referentiality. (19) DP D #P # DivP Div NP 22 / 36

41 Borer s 2005 Model English Example Example: Three cats (20) DP D Ø # three #P Div cat-s DivP N cat 23 / 36

42 Roadmap Questions and Claims Data Ghomeshi 2003 Borer 2005 Proposal Summary 24 / 36

43 Proposal We propose an analysis where each of the nominal functional morphemes realizes a particular head in Borer s hierarchy. Realization of heads: 25 / 36

44 Proposal We propose an analysis where each of the nominal functional morphemes realizes a particular head in Borer s hierarchy. Realization of heads: Div: Always null, present in count nouns and absent in mass nouns. In the absence of quantification in #P, gives a general number interpretation. 25 / 36

45 Proposal We propose an analysis where each of the nominal functional morphemes realizes a particular head in Borer s hierarchy. Realization of heads: Div: Always null, present in count nouns and absent in mass nouns. In the absence of quantification in #P, gives a general number interpretation. #: Realized either by the plural affix -ha or by a null singular affix. Absent in general number noun phrases. 25 / 36

46 Proposal We propose an analysis where each of the nominal functional morphemes realizes a particular head in Borer s hierarchy. Realization of heads: Div: Always null, present in count nouns and absent in mass nouns. In the absence of quantification in #P, gives a general number interpretation. #: Realized either by the plural affix -ha or by a null singular affix. Absent in general number noun phrases. D: Realized either by the indefinite marker -i or by a null definite article. Absent in non-referential noun phrases (general number and plural of abundance). 25 / 36

47 Proposal We propose an analysis where each of the nominal functional morphemes realizes a particular head in Borer s hierarchy. Realization of heads: Div: Always null, present in count nouns and absent in mass nouns. In the absence of quantification in #P, gives a general number interpretation. #: Realized either by the plural affix -ha or by a null singular affix. Absent in general number noun phrases. D: Realized either by the indefinite marker -i or by a null definite article. Absent in non-referential noun phrases (general number and plural of abundance). In all cases, over the course of the derivation NP realizes all the heads through head movement, with the affixes (overt and null) stacking on the NP head as it moves. 25 / 36

48 Proposal We propose an analysis where each of the nominal functional morphemes realizes a particular head in Borer s hierarchy. Realization of heads: Div: Always null, present in count nouns and absent in mass nouns. In the absence of quantification in #P, gives a general number interpretation. #: Realized either by the plural affix -ha or by a null singular affix. Absent in general number noun phrases. D: Realized either by the indefinite marker -i or by a null definite article. Absent in non-referential noun phrases (general number and plural of abundance). In all cases, over the course of the derivation NP realizes all the heads through head movement, with the affixes (overt and null) stacking on the NP head as it moves. Next we show the derivation of each kind of noun phrase: general number, plural of abundance, singular definite, singular indefinite, plural definite, and plural indefinite. 25 / 36

49 Proposal General Number These noun phrases involve only the NP and DivP projections. Div is filled with a null morpheme, dividing the NP s denotation and giving a count noun, but this division is not counted. This underspecification for number results in general number. (21) DivP NP šir lion Div Ø count 26 / 36

50 Proposal Plural of Abundance These noun phrases involve only the NP, DivP and #P projections. Div is again filled with a null morpheme, dividing the NP s denotation and giving a count noun. # is filled with the plural marker -ha, which indicates abundance in the divided denotation. (22) #P NP šir lion DivP Div Ø count # -ha pl 27 / 36

51 Proposal Singular Definite These noun phrases involve the whole DP projection. Div is again a null divider. # contains a null marker of singular number. D contains the null definite article. (23) DP NP šir lion DivP #P Div Ø count # Ø sg D Ø def 28 / 36

52 Proposal Singular Indefinite These noun phrases also involve the whole DP projection. Div is again a null divider. # contains a null marker of singular number. D contains the indefinite suffix -i. (24) DP NP šir lion DivP #P Div Ø count # Ø sg D -i indef 29 / 36

53 Proposal Plural Definite These noun phrases also involve the whole DP projection. Div is again a null divider. # contains the plural marker -ha. D contains the null definite article. (25) DP NP šir lion DivP #P Div Ø count # -ha pl D Ø def 30 / 36

54 Proposal Plural Indefinite These noun phrases also involve the whole DP projection. Div is again a null divider. # contains the plural marker -ha. D contains the indefinite suffix -i. (26) DP NP šir lion DivP #P Div Ø count # -ha pl D -i indef 31 / 36

55 Proposal Subject versus Object In this analysis, noun phrases are derived the same way regardless of whether they appear in subject position, object position, or elsewhere in the sentence. The only difference is that in the case of definite noun phrases in object position, the object marker -ra will be present. 32 / 36

56 Proposal Subject versus Object In this analysis, noun phrases are derived the same way regardless of whether they appear in subject position, object position, or elsewhere in the sentence. The only difference is that in the case of definite noun phrases in object position, the object marker -ra will be present. The object marker -ra is analyzed as a projection of KP (the case phrase projection), which dominates DP. 32 / 36

57 Proposal Subject versus Object In this analysis, noun phrases are derived the same way regardless of whether they appear in subject position, object position, or elsewhere in the sentence. The only difference is that in the case of definite noun phrases in object position, the object marker -ra will be present. The object marker -ra is analyzed as a projection of KP (the case phrase projection), which dominates DP. The KP projection is present only in definite noun phrases in object position; all subject noun phrases and all indefinite noun phrases lack this projection. 32 / 36

58 Roadmap Questions and Claims Data Ghomeshi 2003 Borer 2005 Proposal Summary 33 / 36

59 Summary Projecting only to DivP gives general number reading (no DP, so non-referential; no #P, so no number specification). 34 / 36

60 Summary Projecting only to DivP gives general number reading (no DP, so non-referential; no #P, so no number specification). The plural morpheme -ha is located in #, does not interact with DP (contra Ghomeshi 2003); thus, plural without DP gives abundance reading. 34 / 36

61 Summary Projecting only to DivP gives general number reading (no DP, so non-referential; no #P, so no number specification). The plural morpheme -ha is located in #, does not interact with DP (contra Ghomeshi 2003); thus, plural without DP gives abundance reading. Indefinite -i is in complementary distribution with the null definite article, both found in D; the null definite article is there by default in the absence of -i (in referential noun phrases). 34 / 36

62 Summary Projecting only to DivP gives general number reading (no DP, so non-referential; no #P, so no number specification). The plural morpheme -ha is located in #, does not interact with DP (contra Ghomeshi 2003); thus, plural without DP gives abundance reading. Indefinite -i is in complementary distribution with the null definite article, both found in D; the null definite article is there by default in the absence of -i (in referential noun phrases). Thus, we explain the Persian nominal denotations using Borer s influential, independently-motivated model of the noun phrase, and also account for general number and the plural of abundance. 34 / 36

63 Thank you! Thanks to Éric Mathieu and members of the University of Ottawa Syntax-Semantics Lab for helpful comments and feedback. 35 / 36

64 Bibliography Borer, H. (2005). Structuring Sense, Vol. I: In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carlson, G. N. (1977). Reference to Kinds in English. Ph. D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Cheng, L. L.-S. and R. Sybesma (1999). Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry 30(4), Chierchia, G. (1998). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6, Ghomeshi, J. (2003). Plural marking, indefiniteness, and the noun phrase. Studia Linguistica 57(2), / 36