DP Hypothesis Research Articles

The ‘Big DP’ Hypothesis: New Evidence from Gender Agreement in a Shipibo-Spanish Language Contact Situation

Previous evidence suggests clitics and determiners do not enter the same type of gender agreement relations in contact varieties of Spanish, despite proposals that treat clitics as determiners (big DP – Determiner Phrase – hypothesis) (Uriagereka 1995; Cecchetto 1999, 2000; Belletti 2005). We conducted a study on gender agreement between clitics and their antecedents, and determiners and nouns among adult Shipibo-Spanish bilinguals to answer the following question: Do Shipibo- Spanish bilingual speakers have similar patterns of local vs. long-distance gender agreement? Our results show gender agreement between D and N obtains categorically, but gender agreement between the clitic and its antecedent is at chance-level. We propose an alternative analysis for our data that does not assume the big DP hypothesis.

Binding in South Slavic and DP: A Data-Driven Approach

Abstract: This paper reports on a set of experiments designed to test the binding potential of prenominal possessives in Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Serbian. Despić (2013) argues that the differences in binding possibilities observed between English and Serbian provide support for the Parameterized DP Hypothesis (e.g., Fukui 1988; Zlatić 1997; Bošković 2003, 2005, 2008). LaTerza (2016) tests whether the claim holds true for two South Slavic DP-languages, Bulgarian and Macedonian, and concludes that it does not. Data provided in LaTerza 2016 is further discussed in Franks 2019. Based on three interesting observations—the use of a clitic vs. full pronoun, different binding behavior of pronominal and nominal possessives in Bulgarian, and acceptability judgments reported for Macedonian and Serbian—Franks (2019) concludes that Bulgarian and Macedonian have the same binding potentials as English, confirming Despić's original hypothesis. Srdanović and Rinke (2020) provide Serbian experimental data focusing on possessives in subject position and coreferential readings of pronouns in object positions. The authors show that Serbian allows coreferential readings just like English, especially when clitics are used. Our paper provides experimental data for Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Serbian. Our conclusions are that the three languages exhibit almost identical binding potentials. This finding is in line with the ones in Srdanović and Rinke 2020 since it also disproves the claim that the differences in binding result from the nominal structure present in a language: DP or NP.

Water Valuation and the Application of Declared Preferences Method: Contingent Valuation vs a Choice Experiment Approach

In the Declared Preferences methods (DP) questions are developed to different persons in order to establish alternative hypothetical scenarios. The most important methods which are based in a Declared Preferences hypothesis are the Contingent Valuation (CV) method and those which are based in a Choice Experiment (CE) Approach. In DP methods questions are used in order to establish preferences over hypothetical scenarios, which could be different (either goods or services). Each alternative is described through different attributes, and the answers can be used in order to determine the different preferences. Some very relevant methods which are based in the DP hypothesis can be found which are based in CV and CE methods.

The Syntax of Comitative Structure in Standard Arabic: A Minimalist Approach

This paper investigates comitative structures in Standard Arabic from a Minimalist perspective. The main aim is to find generalizations that describe and explain comitative structures. Specifically, the objectives are to distinguish comitative structures from coordinative structures and to analyze comitative structures from syntactic and semantic perspectives. We reach the following results: first, there is a difference between /wa/ in coordination and /wa/ in comitative structures. Second, comitative structures can be symmetric and asymmetric. In the symmetric comitative structures, the concomitate object is an argument and obligatorily agrees with DP1 in terms of the [ animate] feature. In the asymmetric comitative structures, the concomitate object is an adjunct and optionally agrees with DP1 in terms of the [ animate]. In our analysis of comitative structure, we propose the complex DP, headed by /wa/. The difference between the two types of comitative structures is that the derivation of the symmetric one happens at the level of complementation; in contract, the asymmetric one is merged in the adjunct position. Another significant finding is that the verb is not always the one that assigns the accusative Case. The major significance of this study is that it gives a distinction between comitative and coordinative structures, distinguishes between two types of comitative structures, and analyses the structure in the light of the DP hypothesis and the Minimalist program.

Hebrew nominals do not require functional structure above the NP

Ritter (1991) is widely cited as having shown that Hebrew nominals require functional structure like DP and Num(ber)P dominating the lexical NP (see, e.g., Preminger 2020). This paper revisits the arguments for this functional structure, and shows that they do not go through. An endocentric analysis where the maximal projection of the nominal in Hebrew is a projection of the head N is a perfectly viable one. There is no need for functional projections like DP and NumP in Hebrew, and hence no argument from Hebrew for their existence. This demonstration is in line with recent work questioning the motivation for the DP Hypothesis, and arguing that the empirical facts better support a model where the lexical head N is the head of the nominal (Bruening 2009; 2020; Bruening et al. 2018).

The head of the nominal is N, not D: N-to-D Movement, Hybrid Agreement, and conventionalized expressions

The DP Hypothesis has recently come under intense criticism (Bruening 2009, Bruening et al. 2018). In the face of this criticism, several responses have been offered. This paper addresses three such responses and shows that they are without force. First, N-to-D movement is not necessary in Shona, as Carstens (2017) claims. Second, patterns of hybrid agreement in Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian do not require the DP Hypothesis, as Salzmann (2018) claims. Third, patterns of conventionalized expressions show that there is a close syntactic relation, possibly selection, between a selecting head and N, contra Salzmann (2018). The patterns of conventionalized expressions are incompatible with the DP Hypothesis and require that the head of the nominal is N, not any functional head. Functional heads inside nominals have to be dependents of the head N, not vice versa.

Cliticization as Extraction: The Big DP Hypothesis Revisited

In this paper, it is argued that cliticization is extraction out of a big DP. Big DPs contain both clitic pronouns and associate DP arguments (Torrego, 1995; Uriagereka, 1995, 2005, among others). The DP can be pronounced, which gives rise to a clitic doubling configuration, or can be null, in which case a simple clitic configuration is obtained. This hypothesis allows us to explain not only the limited movement possibilities of clitic pronouns (cf. Belletti 1999), but also their restricted inventory: Not all complements can be cliticized. If clitic pronouns are reduced maximal projections (Cardinaletti and Starke, 1999), the big DP hypothesis needs to be revisited. Clitic pronouns cannot be assumed to be the heads of big DPs, as was suggested in the abovementioned proposals. The proposal is that clitic pronouns are merged as specifiers of the highest projection of big DPs, namely K(ase)P, which also captures the fact that they are the only elements which bear morphological case in languages like Italian.

Cross-linguistic Variation of Binding Possibilities and Parameterized DP Hypothesis Revisited

The former study approached the cross-linguistic variation of binding possibilities from the perspective of parameterized DP hypothesis. However, the parameterized DP hypothesis failed to explain some syntactic truth as regards the binding relation between possessive NP and pronoun. It has been examined in the present study that different languages have different means to form possessive structure and different mechanisms work in obligatory and optional binding. The c-commanding relation is the semantic basis for the optional binding between the possessive NP and the pronoun. For languages with possessive NP entering derivation after T, possessive NP fails to c-command pronoun and there will be no optional binding. For languages with possessive NP or morpheme entering derivation before T, possessive NP or morpheme succeeds to c-command pronoun and there is optional binding.

The variable use of determiners in Old French and the argument DP hypothesis

AbstractTheargument DP hypothesis, adopted by many syntactic analyses, claims that nominal arguments are introduced by a determiner (D), which may be covert or overt. While overt D is obligatory in Modern French (consistent with the argument DP hypothesis), it was not obligatory in earlier stages of French. We explore the factors that contributed to this change – includingsemantic class, syntactic function, number, anddefiniteness – focusing on a shift that occurred in the D-paradigm in two Anglo-Norman texts of the 12th century. Quantitative analysis (Goldvarb) yields two major findings. First, the effect ofsyntactic functionremains constant: subject position favours overt D, but object position inhibits it. Second, there is a change in the effect ofsemantic class: count nouns increasingly favour overt D, but non-count (mass and abstract) nouns increasingly inhibit it. More generally, the gradual disappearance of bare Ns in French reflects the emergence of paradigmatically conditioned D.

Selection, idioms, and the structure of nominal phrases with and without classifiers

It is common to hypothesize that in classifier and non-classifier languages alike the various functional heads (determiner/demonstrative, numeral, classifier) each head their own projection, so that the maximal projection of the nominal phrase is not NP but something like DP. We evaluate the predictions this makes regarding selection and verb-object idioms in English, a non-classifier language, and in Korean and Vietnamese, two classifier languages. These predictions are not upheld, and nominals act very differently from clauses and PPs, which are headed by functional heads. Selection and idioms show that the maximal projection of the nominal must be a projection of the lexical N itself, not a functional element. We develop such an analysis of nominals, and show how it accounts for data that was taken to motivate the DP Hypothesis.

Split DP Hypothesis와 유동수량양화사

Split DP Hypothesis와 유동수량양화사

Binding in English and South Slavic and The Parameterized DP Hypothesis

Despić (2013) argues that Serbian binding data provide support for the Parameterized DP Hypothesis (e.g., Fukui 1988 , Corver 1992 , Zlatić 1997 , Bošković 2003 , 2005 , 2008 ). His key claim is that the differences in binding possibilities observed between English and Serbian result from the presence of a DP layer in the former vs. its absence in the latter. 1 Apparent determiners in Serbian are claimed to be NP-adjoined elements (with category left unspecified). 2 In this squib, I show that Despić's analysis makes incorrect predictions about Serbian and closely related Slavic languages: Bulgarian and Macedonian.

The stress-XP theory and Mandarin NVN phrase stress

This paper provides an analysis for the stress distribution of Mandarin phrases of the structure [V NP], [A NP], [AP (de) NP], and [NP N] and especially the more complex verb-embedded structures [NP [V N]], [[NP V] NP], and [[V NP] NP]. The analysis is based on Truckenbrodt’s (Brown (ed.) The encyclopedia of languages and linguistics, 2006; Borowsky et al. (eds.) Prosody matters: Essays in honor of Elisabeth Selkirk, 2012) Stress-XP theory, the general light noun phrase hypothesis, and the Mandarin-specific de-headed DP hypothesis. This paper also proposes a stress length correspondence criterion and argues that the stress assignment schemes it derives support the Stress-XP theory. A number of other related prosodic syntax issues in Chinese are discussed along the way, such as the means of stress realization, the compound vs. phrase distinction, and the difference between empty D head and implicit D head.

The Realization of Genitive uy in Korean and the DP Hypothesis

The Realization of Genitive uy in Korean and the DP Hypothesis

What the adnominal intensifier "sam" and Left Branch Extractions tell us about the structure of Polish nominal projections

In this paper, I reconsider the nature of sam (a Polish counterpart to Russian and Serbo-Croatian sam , German selbst , Italian solo , Danish selv ), a lexical item generally assumed to be adjectival. First, I focus on its use as an adnominal intensifier and argue that in this function it should be considered pronominal. Since intensifying sam has a history of appearing in analyses propagating the DP Hypothesis, my proposal sheds some light on these issues and leads to bigger questions concerning the structure of Polish nominals, in particular whether they project DP or not. Answers to these questions constitute the second part of the paper, where I argue that D equals Person (hence DP/PersonP) and that it is universally present in Polish nominals. I draw on the evidence from Left Branch Extractions and adjunct extractions and show that, while such extractions are quite freely available in Polish, they are nevertheless blocked whenever in the presence of overt D/Person heads, just like in languages with articles, projecting DP. I further show that the difference between Polish and English with respect to adjectival LBE reduces to the employment of distinct case-checking strategies and agreement options.

The syntax of adjectives: A comparative study (review)

Reviewed by: The syntax of adjectives: A comparative study Melita Stavrou The syntax of adjectives: A comparative study. By Guglielmo Cinque. (Linguistic inquiry monographs 57.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010. Pp. viii, 202. ISBN 9780262514262. $35. In the first boom of transformational theory in the 1960s, adjectives as adnominal modifiers featured in a set of transformational rules that created them out of relative clauses. The derivation of adnominal1 adjectives proceeded along the following three transformational steps (see Alexiadou et al. 2007 for extensive discussion and references): (i) the adjective is generated as the predicate within a relative clause, (ii) the relative clause is 'reduced' by whiz-deletion, and (iii) predicate fronting places the adjectival predicate to the left of the noun (see 1). The equivalence in 1 was one argument in favor of the claim that the two sides of the arrow in 1 are related derivationally. 1. The problem (which) is [AP interesting] ↔ the interesting problem [End Page 419] Such things happened in the old days of linguistic innocence. But 1 entailed certain notorious complications (Bolinger (1967) was perhaps the first linguist to discuss such complications): (i) adjectives such as former, present, and alleged, as well as denominal classifying adjectives like nuclear, medical, and electrical, resist predicative use (*the murderer was alleged), and (ii) some adjectives can appear in either a prenominal or a postnominal position but with a different interpretation in each position. 2. a. The present president voted against the proposal, the former president approved. (the current president, temporal reading) b. The students present voted against the proposal. (those attending...) The transformational operation could not capture such interpretive asymmetries, because transformations were not supposed to alter meaning. Things began to change in the 1970s following Chomsky's pioneering article 'Remarks on nominalization' (1970), which was expanded in Jackendoff's (1977) X' theory. The focus of inquiry being transferred to the phrase structure component, transformations were considerably reduced. Many operations that were previously handled transformationally were now brought back to the 'base'. Thus, adnominal adjectives were base-generated (at the N. level). But even then, adjectives and adjective-containing noun phrases were not put under scrutiny. Also, issues of crosslinguistic differences/asymmetries were not yet addressed. With the advent of the so-called DP hypothesis, many functional categories emerged and found their proper place in the syntax, both nominal and clausal. In the golden age of generative grammar, expressed in what became known as the theory of government and binding, attention was paid to the detailed study of adjectives both from a syntactic and semantic point of view and from a typological perspective. Since the early 1990s, the name that came to be near synonymous to nominal syntax within the Chomskyan tradition, which later came to be known as the cartographic approach, was that of Guglielmo Cinque. Cinque was one of the first generative linguists to advance a theory of adjective distribution and interpretation within a broader theory of nominal architecture, in which N-movement played an important role. Simplifying greatly, the raising of the noun past one or perhaps more adjectives accounted for the fact that those adjectives that were passed by the noun surfaced following it. This operation could account for pre- and postnominal adjectives within a particular language as well as across languages. That was the mainstream hypothesis within the DP theory until the early 2000s. With the current book under review (see also Cinque 2005a,b) C revisits his original assumptions about N-movement, primarily as regards adjective placement and ordering. On the basis of a detailed comparison between English (Germanic) and Italian (Romance), he abandons his original idea about N-movement in favor of phrasal (NP) movement. The syntax of adjectives comprises an introduction, seven chapters, a separate conclusion, an appendix with data from six languages, notes, references, a subject index, and a name index. In the introduction and in Ch. 1, the reader gets an overview of the problems of the N-movement analysis advanced by the author in the 1990s, which further constitutes the focus of Ch. 2. First, APs in prenominal position in the Romance group and APs in the Germanic group (when possible) are contrasted via a number...

Eigennamen als kontextabhängige und inhärent definite Ausdrücke

Longobardi proposes a syntactic-semantic theory to explain the distribution of the definite article with proper names. In this article I examine and modify this theory with regard to the semantic component. Concerning thesemantics of DPs with common nouns Longobardi adopts Russell's theory of definite descriptions (existence and uniqueness are elements of the article meaning). Concerning the semantics of proper names, however, Longobardi follows Kripke's idea that proper names are rigid designators. Longobardi assumes - in connection with the DP hypothesis - that the syntactical difference between proper names and common nouns consists in the fact that, in contrast to a common noun, a chain is established between the proper name and the D-position. In this article I will show that - in accordance with von Heusinger's theory of salience - DPs with proper names are context dependent expressions like other definite DPs. The data show clear differences between DPs with proper names and DPs with common nouns: this can be explained if proper names are regarded as inherent definite expressions. It means that proper names contain the syntactic-semantic feature [+D].

The DP hypothesis and the syntax of identification

Cet article examine le problème de la localisation de la "définitude", c'est-à-dire des traits responsables de l'identification du référent, au sein du groupe nominal. En se fondant sur des données comparatives du français et du haïtien, il met en question l'hypothèse courante stipulant que la définitude est un trait binaire (±défini) généré dans la projection supérieure du syntagme nominal, 'DP'. Il est soutenu que les effets de "définitude" peuvent être produits par au moins deux types de traits - le trait catégoriel [n], et des traits locatifs - qui peuvent occuper diverses positions structurales et peuvent aussi se combiner pour former une coquille fonctionnelle. Une dernière hypothèse, fondée sur les faits du haïtien, est que le Nombre peut être projeté au-dessus du ou des traits d'identification dans la structure syntaxique.

Demonstratives: Form, Function, and Grammaticalization (review)

Reviewed by: Demonstratives: Form, function, and grammaticalization by Holger Diessel Joseph F. Eska Demonstratives: Form, function, and grammaticalization. By Holger Diessel. (Typological studies in language 42.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999. Pp. xii, 203. All languages possess demonstratives (dem(s)). Notwithstanding their ubiquity, there has not been a study devoted to a survey of their forms, features, and functions across languages prior to Holger Diessel’s fascinating volume, which is based upon a highly diversified sample of 85 languages; it is clearly written and filled with useful tables. Following his ‘Introduction’ (1–12), D provides four chapters on the synchronic analysis of the morphology, semantics, syntax, and pragmatics, respectively, of dems. The chapter on ‘Morphology’ (13–33) explains that while most dems are tonic, dem clitics do occur, but usually only adnominally. Dems may bear a variety of inflectional features—number, gender, and/or case, in descending order, are the most common; these are often determined by the role that the particular dem plays in the syntax. Perhaps the most interesting of these synchronic chapters is ‘Semantics’ (35–55), which describes the semantic distinctions signaled by dems. Aside from the common locative, D describes systems which code visibility, height relative to the speaker, geographical features, and motion of the referent relative to the speaker. He also discusses marking for ontology, animacy, humanness, sex, number, and boundedness. ‘Syntax’ (57–92) addresses the syntactic functions which dems can play—determiners, pronominals, adverbs, and interestingly, identifiers, e.g. ‘Here’s your food’. D also devotes a considerable portion of this chapter to arguing that dem articles are not determiners, but appositional pronominals, which causes him to reject Abney’s DP hypothesis. The chapter on ‘Pragmatics’ (93–114) divides dems into those employed exophorically, i.e. ‘with reference to entities in the speech situation’, and endophorically, i.e. for all other uses as anaphora and markers of deixis and to indicate recognition, i.e. information which is ‘discourse [End Page 871] new’ and ‘hearer old’. D proposes that the exophoric use of dems is original while their endophoric uses reflect some degree of regrammaticalization. The longest chapter in the volume, ‘Grammaticalization’ (115–55), is diachronic in orientation. D provides a striking review of the numerous categories into which dems can regrammaticalize: Third person pronominals, relative pronominals, complementizers, sentential connectives, and possessives from pronominal dems, definite articles and nominal class markers, boundary markers of postnominal relative clauses/attributes, determiners, number markers, and specific indefinite articles from adnominal dems, temporal adverbs and directional/locational preverbs from adverbial dems, and nonverbal copulas, focus markers, and expletives from identificational dems. The chapter culminates with a discussion of the diachronic source of dems: D’s important conclusion is that ‘there is no evidence from any language that demonstratives developed from a lexical source or any other source, for that matter, that is nondeictic’ (150); they probably belong, then, to the basic lexicon of all languages. A summary of major findings and suggested directions for future research complete the volume. This is an important book, not only for typologists, but for all linguists, and especially those about to begin fieldwork on undescribed languages. Joseph F. Eska Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University Copyright © 2001 Linguistic Society of America

Lexical categories in Spanish: The determiner By Linda M. McManness (review)

BOOK NOTICES 213 bring and take are treated, since they are often confused by English speakers, along with a discussion of point of view and choice of prefixes. The book concludes with three appendices supplying full conjugations , additional motion verbs, and additional prefixes; an English-Russian and Russian-English glossary is provided. In his handbook M sets up a variety of lesson techniques , such as completion exercises, translations, and pattern exercises designed for oral drill. For some assignments, the student is asked to focus on morphology , for others on lexical choices, and for still others on morphology and lexical choices at the same time. Many of them may be tailored to individual needs of students. By using up-to-date examples and colloquial language, M's book aims to prepare the intermediate student to use comfortably the everyday Russian heard on the street and in the home. For the growing number of students traveling to Russia to live and study, a good command of motion verbs will contribute much to their communication skills. One of the book's strengths is undoubtedly its basic orientation towards 'getting around', and because of the fundamental difference of this notion for Americans and Russians, every effort has been made throughout the book to include both Russian and American contexts with ample footnotes clarifying ambiguities. One problem for a handbook as comprehensive and communication oriented as this is the inclusion ofcertain idioms with prefixed verbs to the exclusion of others. To make the list of high frequency idioms more extensive would further contribute to the book's 'getting around' orientation but perhaps make the work too unwieldy. Some minor misspellings which I found are quite innocuous (38), while others may confuse the reader, especially those in the Russian -English glossary (133, 136). In sum, this highly-recommended and readable manual provides a reliable tool for exploring Russian grammar. [Helen Serdjuk, University of Pennsylmalist government-binding, relevant aspects of which are outlined in Ch. 1 (1-12). Specifically, M accepts Steven Abney's DP hypothesis, summarized and applied to Spanish in Ch. 2 (13-39). Ch. 2 also presents Abney's distinction between functional and lexical categories and his rationale for taking determiners to be a functional category like INFL and COMP, and it discusses and critiques a variant of the DP hypothesis proposed by Naoki Fukui and Margaret Speas. Chs. 3 (41-68) and 4 (69-96) consider 'demonstratives and definite articles' and 'possessives and genitives' respectively in Spanish, reviewing the literature from a DP perspective. Unfortunately, neither chapterprovides significant support for the main thesis of the book, restated in Ch. 5 (97-98). M points out several Spanish grammatical facts that appear inconvenient for various analyses, but her own analysis offers no clear advantages for handling them, and it is not clear from the discussion that a lot depends on whether determiners are functional or lexical. Facts adduced are largely taken from the cited literature , and readers familiar with Spanish should not expect to learn much about Spanish grammar. Fairly low-level points are made at length, like the fact that the definite article agrees in gender and number with the associated noun (42). Some purported facts are mistaken, like M's claim that ? further restriction on the definite article is that it cannot appear alone, unlike an empty nominal headed by a demonstrative . . . .' (45): the Spanish definite articles (el, la, los, las) are suspiciously similar to a free-standing pronoun (él) or pronominal clitic which attaches to verbs (la, los, las), and a complete account of Spanish determiners should cover the relation between determiners and pronouns, a topic essentially untouched in the work under consideration. The book is well-produced and relatively free of typographical errors, though several pages in Ch. 1 are double-spaced in an apparent effort at padding. [Glenn Ayres, Inter American University ofPuerto Rico, San Germán] Lexical categories in Spanish: The determiner . By Linda M. McManness. Lanham , MD: University Press of America, 1996. Pp. xi, 110. Though it does not identify itself as such, this book is apparently a University of Washington master's thesis. Its title may give the impression that the general issue of lexical categories...