Browsing by Subject "Semantics"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Number in classifier languages
    (2013-03) Nomoto, Hiroki
    Classifier languages are often described as lacking genuine number morphology and treating all common nouns, including those conceptually count, as an unindividuated mass. This study argues that neither of these popular assumptions is true, and presents new generalizations and analyses gained by abandoning them.I claim that no difference exists between classifier and non-classifier languages regarding the semantics of either nouns or numerals. Common nouns universally denote properties and are individuated, contra Chierchia (1998). I argue that classifier languages in fact make the most fine-grained basic number distinction, i.e. a three-way distinction of `singular (SG) : plural (PL) : general (GN)'. Classifiers are analyzed as a sophisticated kind of singular number morphology. Classifier languages have genuine plural markers (Chung 2000). Importantly, I consider general number, which is associated with number-neutral properties, as a universally available basic number category, along with singular and plural. Optional number marking follows from the three-way distinction number system, where the general is morphologically unmarked. While classifier languages distinguish all basic number categories, non-classifier languages conflate one or more of them morphologically. Languages can be classified into five types according to this criterion: (i) SG : GN : PL, (ii) SG/GN : GN/PL, (iii) SG/GN : PL, (iv) SG : GN/PL, and (v) SG/GN/PL. The difference between classifier and non-classifier languages reduces not to semantics (Krifka 1995; Chierchia 1998; Wilhelm 2008) or syntax (Li 1999), but to a difference in number morphology. The proposed number system and typology make it possible to account for bare "singular" kind terms in type (ii) languages (e.g. Brazilian Portuguese), a problem to Dayal's (2004) theory of number and definiteness marking in kind terms.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    On Bipartite Negation
    (2019-07) Tilleson, Paul
    Bipartite negation is the phenomenon in which two negators output to one instance of semantic negation. In this thesis I present an analysis of bipartite negation in Sgaw Karen, Ojibwe, and French, using original data from the former two languages and data from existing sources for French. I show that the negators in these languages differ with respect to clausal position, internal structure, meaning, and how the negators relate to each other. I argue that bipartite negation derives from either syntactic agreement or what I term NegP splitting, whereby two constituents in an extended projection of negation are merged in separate locations in the clause, similar to Poletto (2008) and de Clercq (2013). Sgaw Karen and French exhibit distinct variants of syntactic agreement. In Sgaw Karen, one negator is semantically uninterpretable and undergoes AGREE with the structurally lower interpretable negator, while in French both negators are interpretable goals for a structurally higher silent head responsible for imparting sentential negation. Ojibwe exhibits NegP splitting such that the sentential negator and a structurally higher negator are derived from a single extended projection of negation and are merged in two clausal positions. Both negators are interpretable for negation and cannot be in a syntactic agreement relation as I assume that only uninterpretable constituents initiate the AGREE operation. I present a framework of negation to explicate the functions of the negators in each language and to motivate why AGREE and NegP splitting are necessary to account for the range of facts on bipartite negation in these languages. Building on the work of de Clercq (2013), I argue that there are three classes of negators imparting contrary, contradictory, and focus negation respectively, each class having different internal structure. Each class of negator may merge in up to two distinct locations in the clausal spine, sentential negation being imparted by a contradictory negator merged in the TP domain. I show that dividing negators into classes based on meaning, internal structure, and clausal position has implications for the syntax of negative polarity emphasis, negative replies, and syntactic doubling outside of the domain of negation.