The exponence of caseless NPs in Moksha

Polina Pleshak

doi:10.3765/plsa.v6i1.4999

Abstract

In this paper, I argue that the difference between indefinite- and definite-declension genitives in Moksha (Uralic) is not in the semantic or referential characteristics of the nominals they mark (as the name suggests), but rather in the syntactic size of the nominals. I show that there is no one-to-one correspondence between the definiteness of a noun phrase and its marking. In particular, indefinite-declension genitives can mark non-specific indefinite as well as specific definite noun phrases. At the same time, indefinite-declension genitives are number-neutral, while definite-declension genitives are specified for number. In contrast to indefinite-declension nominals, definite-declension ones also trigger possessive agreement on the head noun. I analyze indefinite-genitives as NPs and definite-genitives as DPs. Based on what is generally known about DPs, I make several predictions regarding the distribution of the genitives; two definite-declension genitives should be incompatible within one enclosing DP, while there should be no such restriction on the co-occurrence of an indefinite-declension genitive with either another indefinite-declension genitive or a definite-declension genitive. These predictions are borne out, and these new findings enrich the discussion of the ban on the co-occurrence of two DPs which are too close in the structure. More generally, my analysis supports the view that nominals of different structural size can coexist within one language.

Highlights

In this paper, I discuss two types of genitive markers in Moksha (ISO-639-3: mdf, Finno-Ugric, Uralic), -n' and -t' / -t'n'ən'
In this paper I examined the marking of Moksha genitives and showed that their traditional characterization as definite or indefinite is misleading
The choice of an indefinite- or definite-declension form does not depend on referential characteristics of the noun phrase

Summary

Introduction

I discuss two types of genitive markers in Moksha (ISO-639-3: mdf, Finno-Ugric, Uralic), -n' and -t' / -t'n'ən'. While many indefinite noun phrases appear with the indefinite-declension marker, and most definite-declension nominals are definite, this is no more than a tendency, and there is no one-to-one correspondence between the definiteness of a noun phrase and its marking. What distinguishes nominals marked with the two different genitive suffixes are their syntactic properties. The difference between definite- and indefinite-declension nominals has to do with their structural size. I analyze phrases in the definite-declension genitive as DPs and phrases in the indefinite declension as nominals of a smaller size. This contrast allows us to make specific predictions about the properties of each type, and to test them using novel Moksha data.

Background

Conclusions and theoretical implications