On the contrary, indirect reference is built step by step in the intermediate projections and it can only reach up to weak quantificational interpretation, below DP. In particular, it is suggested that reference can be achieved through two distinct ways: direct reference is achieved in cases of definiteness, familiarity or uniqueness which are deemed as exhaustive (strong) quantification. as analyses that focus on Bare NPs, like those suggested by Espinal & McNally (2011) and Dobrovie-Sorin & Beyssade (2012), among others.Īs for the structure of the Greek DP, it is argued that there are 2 functional layers in between the lexical projection, NP and the topmost layer of the Determiner Phrase, DP, namely Plurality Phrase and Number Phrase, each one of which is associated with different quantificational and referential possibilities. Longobardi 1994, Chierchia 1998), de-compositional models for the DP as suggested by Borer (2005) and Heycock & Zamparelli (2005), as well. For this purpose, I discuss classic approaches to the structure of NPs/DPs (e.g. The aim of this thesis is to provide an explanation for the distribution of Bare Noun Phrases (Bare NPs) in Modern Greek and argue for a de-compositional analysis of the Greek DP. The remainder of the chapter is devoted to two distinctive features of these sentences which have generated substantial discussion in the semantics and pragmatics literature: 1) the so-called definiteness restriction, which limits the ability of definite and quantificational nominals to appear as the ‘pivot’ of the construction and, 2) the predicate restriction, which has been claimed to restrict the expressions that can appear as the ‘coda’ to so-called stage-level predicates. The chapter therefore continues with an overview of the different analyses that have been proposed for the core existential proposition. Since, across languages, existential sentences resemble copular, possessive and locative sentences, considerable debate has arisen about the extent to which their semantics are similar. This chapter begins by reviewing the basic structural, semantic and discourse functional properties of existential sentences. Because of their special structural and interpretive characteristics, existential sentences have offered a rich ground on which to test theories concerning the semantics of noun phrases and of predication, as well as theories concerning the role of non-canonical constructions in information packaging. The term ‘existential sentence’ is used to refer to a specialized or noncanonical construction which expresses a proposition about the existence or the presence of someone or something. Examining and synthesizing ideas from the literature and drawing on data from many languages (including some understudied Quechua dialects), this book presents a novel way to understand the apparent irregularity of possession sentences while preserving existing explanations for the general cross-linguistic regularities we observe in argument structure. On the other hand, possession sentences have too many surface structures : languages differ markedly in the argument structures used to convey the same possessive meanings, with some employing a transitive verb HAVE, and others using a variety of constructions based around an intransitive verb BE. On the one hand, possession sentences have too many meanings : in a given language, the construction used to express archetypal possessive meanings (such as personal ownership) is also often used to express other apparently unrelated notions (body parts, kinship relations, and many others).
This book examines the syntax and semantics of possession sentences, which are infamous for appearing to diverge dramatically from this broadly regular pattern. There is broad agreement in the field that there is some regularity in the way that lexical semantics and syntax are related, so that thematic roles are predictably associated with particular syntactic positions. A major question for linguistic theory concerns how the structure of sentences relates to their meaning.
0 kommentar(er)
