Pseudo-partitive Constructions Research Articles

The syntax of individuating and measuring pseudo-partitives in Alasha Mongolian

Pseudo-partitive constructions give rise to multiple interpretive ambiguities including a container interpretation (i.e. individuating) and a contents (i.e. measuring) one. There are two competing analyses: one based on structural ambiguities (Landman in Indefinites and the types of sets, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004; Rothstein in Brill’s J Afroasiat Lang Ling 1:106–145, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1163/187666309X12491131130783, a.o.) and one based on a uniform syntax (Lehrer in Lingua 68:109–148, 1986; Matushansky and Zwarts in Lamont and Tetzloff (eds) North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 47, Volume 2, pp 261–274, GLSA, Amherst, 2016, a.o.). I contribute to this debate with data from Alasha Mongolian (Mongolic), which differentiates each interpretation via case marking on the quantizing noun: glass-comitative = individuating vs. glass-genitive/Ø = measuring. I argue that there is no large-scale structural ambiguity: the numeral and the quantizing noun always form a constituent introduced in the specifier position of a null functional head (Schwarzschild in Syntax 9(1):67–110, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2006.00083.x; Svenonius in McNally and Kennedy (eds) Adjectives and adverbs: syntax, semantics and discourse, Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics, pp 16–42, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008; Ott in J Comp Ger Ling 4:1–46, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-010-9040-x). I propose that (i) case differences on the quantizing constituent boil down to the presence or absence of a case probe on a higher Agr head; (ii) and, the interpretive differences between the individuating and measuring pseudo-partitives are the result of a more subtle syntactic distinction in the feature content of the quantizing noun, i.e. an interpretable [±Container] feature.

«¡La de + N + que…!» The Feminine Definite Article in Spanish Exclamative Clauses

The present study explores the exclamative use of the feminine definite article la in structures such as ‘¡La de chicos que besé en la fiesta!’ (How many guys I kissed at the party!). First, a morphosyntactic description of the pattern is offered so as to show that the data under analysis are pseudopartitive constructions which display all the characteristics of primary and partial exclamatives. Building on research on nominal exclamatives, we conclude that these examples are not CPs but indefinite DPs with an exclamative flavor which contain a semi-relative clause introduced by que. Within the framework of Distributed Morphology, we schematize a set of syntactic structures which capture the ‘chimeric’ and hybrid nature of the data, these being halfway between DPs and exclamative clauses. In order to do so, it will be necessary to split the DP into smaller projections (FocP, FinP), since la must move to Spec-FocP to be interpreted as an exclamative operator.

Pseudopartitive constructions are not a subtype of nominal juxtaposition in Beserman

Abstract Juxtaposition as a machinery of building noun phrases is well-known to be widespread in Uralic languages: the modifier is left-adjoined to the head and does not bear any morphological marker of syntactic dependency. This strategy is used to attach adjectives, cardinals and modifying nominals to nouns (like in Beserman ǯ́aǯ́eg siĺ ‘goose meat’), and to build constructions with measure nouns (like Beserman odig kə̑də̑ gibi ‘one basket of mushrooms’, lit. one basket mushroom). However, there remains a question whether all these constructions share the same syntactic structure. We consider pseudopartitive constructions with measure nouns in comparison with NPs containing non-marked modifying nominals and NPs with adjectives, showing that they do not share the same syntactic structure. Constructions with unmarked modifying nominals show properties of compounding, while pseudopartitives arguably have a measure phrase (a cardinal with a measure noun) and a noun phrase (the quantified nominal), which is the head of the pseudopartitive construction. The syntactic properties we analyze include constituent properties, branching, pronominalization, fragment questions, linear ordering restrictions, particular properties of head ellipsis, and information structure effects.

Size nouns in Romanian. Gliding along the quantifying – evaluating continuum

The paper looks at size nouns of the type grămadă ‘heap / pile’ in Romanian and classifies them into two categories: size nouns with a comparative interpretation (Doetjes and Rooryck 2003) and size nouns with a quantifying interpretation (Brems 2007; 2010), the latter reading being sometimes contextually extended to a third type of interpretation, the negative evaluation interpretation (Brems 2010). The two major types of readings that size nouns may have are read off a head-complement syntactic structure, typical for pseudopartitive constructions, which size nouns+de+N constitute a subcategory of (Tănase-Dogaru 2017). The comparative interpretation arises as a reflex of the semi-lexicality of the size noun, while the quantifying interpretation is a reflex of the size noun having lost its original lexical meaning, and therefore serving a functional role.

Синтаксис и семантика партитивных и псевдопартитивных конструкций в горномарийском языке

Синтаксис и семантика партитивных и псевдопартитивных конструкций в горномарийском языке

Un huevo: subjetivación, cuantificación y negación

Abstract This paper deals with two types of quantitative constructions in which un huevo occurs: (a) In certain contexts, it functions as a quantifier noun ―that is, an inherently relational noun quantifying a nominal phrase in pseudo-partitive constructions: el libro tiene un huevo de páginas [‘the book has a hell of a lot of pages’]. The value of un huevo as a quantifier is evaluative, and the quantitative assessment is based on pragmatically or contextually established criteria. (b) In other contexts, the construction un huevo can be considered an example of minimizer, and more specifically, a vulgar or taboo minimizer. The minimizers are scalar elements which seems potentially sensitive to negative polarity, and become quantifiers after a grammaticalization process: under the scope of the negation, they can be reanalyzed as negative emphatic markers (no le importo a nadie un huevo [‘Nobody gives a toss about me’]). From the examples provided by the corpora of the RAE, the functional characteristics of the two constructions will be analyzed, and their origins will be explained. More generally, it will be shown that these two types of constructions constitute two examples of subjectification, a process by which the pragmatic meaning can become grammaticalized and become a conventional construction.

Two Dutch <i>many</i> ’s and the structure of pseudo-partitives

This article discusses the syntax and semantics of Dutch pseudo-partitive constructions with measure nouns, such as drie liter water ‘three liters of water’. The major empirical puzzle is the distribution of two Dutch instances of many/much: veel and vele. Unlike earlier proposals, I analyze veel as a gradable adjective, and vele as a numeral. It turns out that in pseudo-partitives with pure measure readings, only vele can freely occur (veel liters water only allows a marked “liter-bottle” reading). This is puzzling, because veel is otherwise allowed both with mass and count terms, and both in the singular and in the plural. I adopt the more-or-less standard right-branching syntax for Dutch pseudo-partitives (providing some new arguments for its correctness), and propose a semantics for measure nouns which, in combination with Ionin & Matushansky’s semantics for cardinals, correctly characterizes these constructions and explains where pure measure readings occur. I then show that my analysis correctly derives the behavior of veel and vele in these constructions, given their characterization as a gradable adjective and a numeral.This article is part of the Special Collection: Partitives

Whensomethingbecomesa bit

This paper analyzes the mechanisms of syntactic and semantic change involved in the development of the degree modifieralgo“a bit, a little” in Spanish from an indefinite pronoun with inanimate reference meaning “something”. Specifically, it focuses on the distribution of the pronoun in the Medieval and Classical periods of Spanish and its interpretation in partitive and pseudo-partitive constructions. I argue for combination of structural and pragmatic factors in the creation of the degree modifier and relate this change to other diachronic developments of indefinites across languages. I also discuss implications for models of the distribution of degree modifiers crosslinguistically.

Number marking in German measure phrases and the structure of pseudo-partitives

This paper investigates the variation in the morphology and interpretation of pseudo-partitive constructions (‘NUM-N1-(of)-N2’) in the Central Bavarian dialect of Vienna, which shows a morphological distinction between ambiguous measure phrases such as two glasses of water: in the referential reading, which refers to two glasses, N1 takes plural morphology, whereas it is morphologically inert in the quantity reading, which refers to an amount of water. While these two readings of measure phrases in pseudo-partitives are cross-linguistically well represented, they are not always morphologically differentiated. The distribution of number marking in Viennese has syntactic (possibility of fronting out of the pseudo-partitive), semantic (availability of the referential vs. the quantity reading, predicate selection), and prosodic consequences (presence vs. absence of word stress on N1). I argue that this is because in the quantity reading, N1 is a morphologically inert functional head μ which takes a numeral and a substance noun (N2) as its arguments and counts the instances of N2 for a given unit of measure, while in the referential reading, the pseudo-partitive consists of two NPs. The variation in number morphology seen in these constructions can be used as a diagnostic for the microvariation and the cartography of complex NPs in Germanic pseudo-partitives, as well as for languages which do not morphologically distinguish between the two readings, like English.

Partitive and pseudopartitive structures Partitive and pseudopartitive structures in temporal adverbials

The article discusses the interpretation and structure of those durative and frame adverbials in English which contain partitive or pseudopartitive constructions (e.g. for 18 months of my life and in 18 months of repairs ). In addition to the oft-discussed for and in -adverbials, the paper considers adverbials headed by through(out) and within as well. Building on the observation that these adverbials contain a measure phrase, an adverbial structure is proposed which parallels the structure of other measure phrase expressions. It is shown that some durative and frame adverbials have the expected partitive and pseudopartitive interpretation; this permits a treatment that relies on nominal counterparts such as 18 pounds of (the) sand , with a nominal projection serving as the (pseudo)partitive structure. However, some in -adverbials and all within -adverbials are interpreted differently. These adverbials have a boundary interpretation, which is shown in the example We knew within five minutes of talking to her / within five minutes of her arrival that her story was true . It is suggested that the boundary interpretation arises because the of -phrase is a PP, with a structure reminiscent of a locative PP rather than a nominal projection.

Scalarity and Dimensionality across Categories. Estonian Pseudopartitive Constructions

Scalarity and Dimensionality across Categories. Estonian Pseudopartitive Constructions

Definiteness marking and the structure of Danish pseudopartitives

The Danish pseudopartitive constructions differ in their possibilities of definiteness marking: the Indirect Partitive Construction (IPC) (D N1 P N2) permits N1 to bear the definite suffix, while the Direct Partitive Construction (DPC) (D N1 N2) does not; in addition, neither construction permits the prenominal definite article in the absence of a prenominal modifier. Drawing on previous work regarding the morphosyntax of definiteness marking in Danish, we use the distribution of definiteness marking as a probe to illuminate the structure of the pseudopartitive constructions. Our conclusion is that despite superficial similarities the two constructions are quite different in structure, the IPC having a lexical N head and a PP complement, and the DPC a functional n head with an NP complement, forming a single extended projection of N2. These assumptions allow us to account for a number of differences in the behavior of these constructions, shedding light on the nature of pseudopartitives as well as on the theory of extended projections.

Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase

1. List of Contributors 2. Introduction (by Alexiadou, Artemis) 3. On the deficient/strong Opposition in Possessive Systems (by Cardinaletti, Anna) 4. Possessors, Articles and Definiteness (by Schoorlemmer, Maaike) 5. Possession in Germanic (by Delsing, Lars-Olof) 6. Attributive Genitive Constructions in German (by Lindauer, Thomas) 7. Case Underspecification in Morphology, Syntax and the Lexicon (by Gallmann, Peter) 8. Predicate Inversion in DP (by Dikken, Marcel den) 9. Predicate Movement in Pseudopartitive Constructions (by Corver, Norbert) 10. A Theory of Kinds, Partitives and of/z Possessives (by Zamparelli, Roberto) 11. Adjectival Modification and Multiple Determiners (by Alexiadou, Artemis) 12. Fragments of Balkan Nominal Structure (by Dimitrova-Vulchanova, Mila) 13. A Note on Rigidity (by Uriagereka, Juan) 14. Subject Index

La heterogeneidad estructural de las pseudopartitivas en español

En la lingüística actual está totalmente asentada la ya clásica diferencia establecida por Selkirk (1977) al segregar la construcción pseudopartitiva de la construcción partitiva propiamente dicha. Sin embargo, en la bibliografía no se advierte lo estructuralmente heterogéneo del grupo de las pseudopartitivas, al menos tal y como se viene presentando en los estudios gramaticales del español. El objetivo de este artículo es mostrar que bajo el marbete de construcción pseudopartitiva (y otros alternativos) cohabitan secuencias que responden a dos esquemas sintácticos radicalmente distintos. La sistemática indiferenciación se debe a que una y otra estructura obedecen a la misma distribución de componentes semántico-pragmáticos: un cuantificador y un cuantificado (en este orden) entre los que media la preposición de (‘cuantificador + de + cuantificado’).