Abstract
AbstractThis paper explores the coding patterns of partitives and their functional extensions, based on a convenience sample of 138 languages from 46 families from all macroareas. Partitives are defined as constructions that may express the proportional relation of a subset to a superset (the true-partitive relation). First, it is demonstrated that, crosslinguistically, partitive constructions vary as to their syntactic properties and morphological marking. Syntactically, there is a cline from loose – possibly less grammaticalized – structures to partitives with rigid head-dependent relations and, finally, to morphologically integrated one-word partitives. Furthermore, partitives may be encoded NP-internally (mostly via an adposition) or pronominally. Morphologically, partitives primarily involve markers syncretic with separative, locative or possessive meanings. Finally, a number of languages employ no partitive marker at all. Secondly, these different strategies are not evenly distributed in the globe, with, for example, Eurasia being biased for the separative strategy. Thirdly, on the functional side, partitives may have functions in the following domains in addition to the true-partitive relation: plain quantification (pseudo-partitives), hypothetical events, predicate negation and aspectuality. I claim that the ability to encode plain quantification is the prerequisite for the other domains. Finally, it is argued that there is a universal preference towards syncretism of two semantically distinct concepts: the proportional, true-partitive relation (some of the books) and plain quantification (some books).
Highlights
The aim of this paper is to explore the crosslinguistic variation of the coding patterns of partitive constructions and functional extensions that partitive constructions are found to attest in different languages
Its only relation to partitives is based on the fact that Glas Wein is a measure phrase that may be translated by a partitive-like expression in some other languages including English. Another problem is that if pseudo-partitive is taken as a purely semantic notion, one might misleadingly conclude that, for example, much wine in English is a pseudo-partitive because it is translated with a partitive-like construction into Russian or Basque and because it is synonymous with the pseudo-partitive a lot of wine in English
One can say that some measure phrases are coded by pseudopartitive constructions while other measure phrases resort to the construction that is generally used for plain quantification in the language
Summary
The aim of this paper is to explore the crosslinguistic variation of the coding patterns of partitive constructions and functional extensions that partitive constructions are found to attest in different languages. 2.1 Semantic concepts: true-partitive relation, subset, superset and plain quantification. It follows from the definition that in order for a linguistic expression to have the true-partitive meaning, the superset must have a definite specific interpretation (non-generic and non-property-denoting/predicate, non-distributive, and discursively accessible.) This requirement has been referred to as Partitivity Constraint in the literature (first observed in Jackendoff 1977; later analyzed and refined in Barwise and Cooper 1981; de Hoop 1997, 2003: 186 following Dowty and Brodie 1984; Hoeksema 1996a: 6; Ionin et al 2006; Ladusaw 1982; Reed 1989; Tănase-Dogaru 2017; Westerståhl 1985).. I refer to these latter relations as to meronymics to clearly distinguish them from partitives.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
