Noun Phrases in Article-less Languages

Uzbek and beyond

| International Burch University, Sarajevo
ISBN 9789027202239 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
ISBN 9789027262899 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
This book is a theoretically oriented, comparative study of noun phrases and their semantic and morpho-syntactic properties. This is the first study that provides a comprehensive analysis of the nominal structure in Uzbek, and compares it with corresponding structures in other article and article-less languages. Uzbek nominals represent a fertile ground to test the universality of the DP hypothesis and to make an insightful contribution to an ongoing debate about the functional architecture of the nominal domain in languages with and without articles. The study shows that the ordering of various nominal suffixes in Uzbek reflects a rich functional structure, involving not only DP but also KP. The work also discusses elements such as determiners, demonstratives, quantifiers and adjectives, and positioning of these elements within the nominal domain. This study is especially useful for researchers interested in theoretical linguistics, comparative syntax and typology.
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 253]  2019.  xiv, 182 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
List of tables
List of abbreviations
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2. Perspectives on the DP-Hypothesis
Chapter 3. Determiners within the DP: Interpretation and architecture
Chapter 4. Functional projections within the nominal domain
Chapter 5. Conclusion
Name index
Subject index


Abney, S. P.
(1987) The English NP in its sentential aspect (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.Google Scholar
Adger, D.
(2003) Core syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Haegeman, L., & Stavrou, M.
(2007) Noun phrase in the generative perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aljović, N.
(2000) Recherches sur la morpho-syntaxe du groupe nominal en serbo-croate [Research on morpho-syntax of the nominal group in Serbo-Croatian] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Université de Paris VIII.Google Scholar
(2001) Le génitif de quantité en serbo‐croate [The genitive of quantity in Serbo-Croatian]. Verbum, XXIII(N° 2), 131–152.Google Scholar
(2002) Long adjectival inflection and specificity in Serbo-Croatian. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes, 31, 27–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Syntactic positions of attributive adjectives. In P. Cabredo Hofherr & O. Matushansky (Eds.) Adjectives. Formal analyses in syntax and semantics (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 153) (pp. 29–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aydemir, Y.
(2004) Are Turkish preverbal bare nouns syntactic arguments? Linguistic Inquiry, 35, 465–474. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aygen, G.
(1999) Specificity and subject-object positions / Scope interactions in Turkish (Unpublished manuscript). Harvard University.Google Scholar
(2002) Semantics of case: Syntactic implications of specificity and scope at a phrasal level (Unpublished manuscript). Harvard University.Google Scholar
(2003) Are there non-restrictive pre-relatives in Turkish? In C. Boeckx, C. Bowern, & J. Jasanoff (Eds.), Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics, 8, 199–215.Google Scholar
Baker, M. C.
(1985) The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry, 16, 373–416.Google Scholar
(1988) Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2003) Nominalization, complementation and polysynthesis. Talk given at CASTL-kick-off Conference, University of Tromsø, Norway.Google Scholar
Baker, M. C., & Vinokurova, N.
(2010) Two modalities of case assignment: Case in Sakha. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 28(3), 593–642. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M.
(2013) On alignment types and types of Differential Object Marking. Paper presented at the Tromsø Conference on Differential Object Marking.
Bašić, M.
(2004) Nominal subextractions and the structure of NPs in Serbian and English (Unpublished MA thesis). University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Beckwith, C. I.
(1998) Noun specification and classification in Uzbek. Anthropological Linguistics, 40(1), 124–140.Google Scholar
Belletti, A.
(1988) The case of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 19(1),1–34.Google Scholar
(1998) The Case of unaccusatives, Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 1–34.Google Scholar
Bittner, M. & Hale, K.
(1996) The Structural Determination of Case and Agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 27. 1–68.Google Scholar
Bodrogligeti, A.
(2002) Modern literary Uzbek. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Borthen, K.
(2003) Norwegian bare singulars (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). NTNU.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž.
(2005) On the locality of LBE and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica, 59, 1–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Ž. & Hsieh, I. C.
(2015) On the semantics of the NP-internal word order: Chinese vs Serbo-Croatian. In Slavic Languages in the Perspective of Formal Grammar: Proceedings of FDSL 10.5, Brno 2014, ed. by Ziková, M., Caha, P & Dočekal, M., 101–120. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž.
(2007) On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory, Linguistic Inquiry, 38, 589–644. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) What will you have, DP or NP? In E. Elfner & M. Walkow (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 37.Google Scholar
(2009) More on the no-DP analysis of article-less languages. Studia Linguistica, 63,187–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Phases beyond clauses (Unpublished manuscript). University of Conecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
(2012) On NPs and clauses. In G. Grewendorf & T. E. Zimmermann (Eds.), Discourse and grammar: From sentence types to lexical categories (pp.179–242). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2014) Now I’m a phase, now I’m not a phase: On the variability of phases with extraction and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry, 45, 27–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) On second position clitics crosslinguistically (Unpublished manuscript). University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž., & Gajewski, J.
(2011) Semantic correlates of the NP/DP parameter. In S. Lima, K. Mullin, & B. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 39 (pp. 121–134). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž, & Hsieh, I-T. C.
(2013) On word order, binding relations, and plurality in Chinese noun phrases. Studies in Polish Linguistics, 8, 173–204.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž., & Şener, S.
(2014) The Turkish NP. In P. Cabredo Hofherr & A. Zribi-Hertz (Eds.), Crosslinguistic studies on nominal reference: With and without articles (pp. 102–140). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Bossong, G.
(1985) Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den Neuiranischen Sprachen [Differential object marking in the New Iranian languages]. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Bowern, C.
(2004a) Bardi verb morphology in historical perspective (Doctoral dissertation). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(2004b) Diagnostic similarities and differences between Nyulnyulan and neighbouring languages. In C. Bowern & H. Koch (Eds.), Australian languages: Classification and the comparative method (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 249) (pp. 295–318). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Australian complex predicates. In Proceedings of the 32nd Berkeley Linguistics Society, 2, 190–198.Google Scholar
Bowers, J.
(1993) The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 591–656Google Scholar
Brugè, L.
(1996) Demonstrative movement in Spanish: A comparative approach. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 6(1), 1–53.Google Scholar
(2000) Categorie Funzionali del nome nelle lingue Romanze [Functional categories of the name in the Romance languages]. Milan: Cisalpino.Google Scholar
(2002) The positions of demonstratives in the extended nominal projection. In G. Cinque (Ed.), Functional structure in DP and IP (pp. 15–53). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brugè, L., & Giuliana, G.
(1996) On demonstratives. Paper presented at the 19th GLOW Colloquium, Athens. Printed in GLOW Newsletter, 36, 24–25.Google Scholar
Butt, M., & Geuder, W.
(2001) On the (semi)lexical status of light verbs. In N. Corver & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds), Semi-lexical categories: On the content of function words and the function of content words (pp. 323–370). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Caruso, Z.
(2012) The syntax of nominal expressions in articleless languages: A split dp-analysis of Croatian nouns (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Cheng, H. J.
(2013) Argument ellipsis, Classifier Phrases, and the DP Parameter. Doctoral dissertation. University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G.
(1998) Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6(4), 339–405. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1986b) Barriers. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1995) The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2000) Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In M. Micheals & J. Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays in minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
(2001) Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2002) On language and nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Beyond explanatory adequacy. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond (pp.104–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2005) Three factors in language design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G.
(1994) On the evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance DP. In G. Cinque, J. Koster, J. Y. Pollock, L. Rizzi, & R. Zanuttini (Eds.), Paths towards universal grammar (pp. 85–110). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2005) Deriving Greenberg’s universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 315–332. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Corver, N.
(1992) Left brunch extraction. Proceedings of NELS, 22, 67–84Google Scholar
Dede, M.
(1986) Definiteness and Referentiality in Turkish verbal sentences. In D.I. Slobin & K. Zimmer (Eds.), Typological Studies in Language 8 (pp.147–163).Google Scholar
Despić, M.
(2011) Syntax in the absence of determiner phrase (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
(2013) Binding and the structure of NP in Serbo-Croatian. Linguistic Inquiry, 44, 239–270. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Phases, reflexives and definiteness. Syntax, 18(3), 201–234. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, H.
(1996) Case configuration and noun phrase interpretation. Groningen: Grodil.Google Scholar
Diesing, M.
(1992) Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, C.
(2005) Noms nus et genericite [Bare nouns and genericity]. In C. Dobrovie-Sorin (ed.), Noms nus, nombre et types d’incorporation (pp. 129–157). Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar
Enç, M.
(1991) Semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 1–25.Google Scholar
Franks, S., & Pereltsvaig, A.
(2004) Functional categories in the nominal domain. In O. Arnaudova, W. Browne, M. L. Rivero, & D. Stojanovic (Eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics, 12: The Ottawa Meeting (pp. 109–128). Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Fukui, N.
(1988) Deriving the differences between English and Japanese: A case study in parametric syntax. English Linguistics, 5, 249–270. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Geenhoven, V.
(1998) Semantic incorporation and indefinite descriptions: Semantic and syntactic aspects of noun incorporation in West Greenlandic. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Giusti, G.
(1992) La sintassi dei sintagmi nominali quantifcati. PhD dissertation University of Venice.Google Scholar
(1993) La sintassi dei determinanti [The syntax of determiners]. Padova: UniPress.Google Scholar
(1995) A unified structural representation of (abstract) case and articles: Evidence from Germanic. In H. Haider, S. Olsen, & S. Vikner (Eds.), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax (pp. 77–93). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1996) Is there a TopP and a FocP in the noun phrase? University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 6(1), 105–128.Google Scholar
(1997) The categorial status of determiners. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), The new comparative syntax (pp.95–124). London: Longman.Google Scholar
(2002) The functional structure of noun phrases. A bare phrase structure approach. In G. Cinque (Ed.), Functional structure in DP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures (Vol. 1, pp. 54–90). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gribanova, V.
(2013) Copular clauses, clefts, and putative sluicing in Uzbek. Language 89(4), 830–882. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Uzbek differential argument marking. Datasets collected by 2011–2016. Stanford Digital Repository.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J.
(1991) Extended projection (Unpublished manuscript). Brandeis University, Waltham, MA.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J., & Mester, A.
(1988) Light verbs and theta-marking. Linquistic Inquiry, 19, 205–232.Google Scholar
Grohmann, K., & Panagiotidis, P.
(2005) An anti-locality approach to Greek demonstratives. In L. Brugè, G. Giusti, N. Munaro, W. Schweikert, & G. Turano (Eds.), Contributions to the 30th Incontro di Grammatica Generativa (pp. 243–263). Venezia: Cafoscarina.Google Scholar
Hale, K., & Keyser, S. J.
(1991) On the syntax of argument structure (Lexicon Project Working Papers 34). Cambridge, MA: Center for Cognitive Science, MIT.Google Scholar
Hale, K. & Keyser, J.
(1993) On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Hale, K. & Keyser, J. (Eds.), The View from Building 20: A Festschrift for Sylvain Bromberger, (pp. 53–108), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
(2002) Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hankamer, G., & Knecht, L.
(1976) The role of the subject/non-subject distinction in determining the choice of relative clause participle in Turkish. In G. Hankamer & J. Aissen (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 6 (Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics 2) (pp.123–135). Boston, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A.
(1978) Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J.
(1987) Indefiniteness and predication. In E. Reuland & A. Meulen (Eds), The representation of (in)definiteness (pp. 43–70). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S.
(1977) X’-syntax. A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jiang, L.
(2012) Nominal arguments and language variation. Doctoral dissertation. Harvard.Google Scholar
Johanson, L.
(1998) The structure of Turkic. In L. Johanson & E. A. Csato (Eds.), The Turkic languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kang, J.
(2014) On the absence of TP and its consequences: Evidence from Korean. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Kagan, O. & Pereltsvaig, A.
(2011) Syntax and Semantics of Bare NPs: Objects of Intensive Reflexive Verbs in Russian. In Bonami, O. & Cabredo Hofherr, P. (Eds.) Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 8 (pp. 221–238).Google Scholar
Kallulli, D.
(1999) The comparative syntax of Albanian: On the contribution of syntactic types to propositional interpretation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Durham.Google Scholar
Kelepir, M.
(2001) Topics in Turkish syntax: Clausal structure and scope. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.Google Scholar
Knecht, L. E.
(1986) Subject and object in Turkish. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J.
(1984) Case marking, agreement and empty categories in Turkish (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Harvard University.Google Scholar
(1986) The stuttering prohibition and morpheme deletion in Turkish. In A. Aksu Koç & E. Erguvanlı-Taylan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference in Turkish Linguistics (pp. 59–83). İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Publications.Google Scholar
(1987) Beyond binding conditions: The case of Turkish. In H. Boeschoten & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Studies in Modern Turkish (pp.105–120). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
(1988) A typology of morphological agreement and its syntactic consequences. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Parasession on Agreement in Grammatical Theory, 24(2), 117–134.Google Scholar
(1991) Some current issues in Turkish syntax. In H. Boeschoten & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Turkish linguistics today (pp. 60–92). Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
(1995) Scrambling and incorporation in Turkish. In A. Alexiadou, N. Fuhrhop, P. Law, & S. Löhken (Eds.), FAS Papers in Linguistics 1 (pp. 29–42). Berlin: FAS.Google Scholar
(1996) On copular clitic forms in Turkish. In A. Alexiadou, N. Fuhrhop, P. Law, & S. Löhken (Eds.), ZAS Papers in Linguistics 6 (pp. 96–114). Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
(1997) Turkish. Routledge, London and New York.Google Scholar
(1999) Partitive case in Turkish. Talk given at the 1st International Conference on Turkic Linguistics, Manchester University, April. Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
(2000) Some syntactic and morphological properties of relative clauses in Turkish. In A. Alexiadou, P. Law, A. Meinunger, & C. Wilder (Eds.), The syntax of relative clauses (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (pp. 121–159). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Functional projections and their Subjects in Turkish clauses. In E. Erguvanlı-Taylan (Ed.), The verb in Turkish (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 44) (pp.183–212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Subject case in Turkish nominalized clauses. In U. Junghanns & L. Szucsich (Eds.), Syntactic structures and morphological information (pp. 129–215). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2005) Asymmetries between pre-verbal and post-verbal scrambling in Turkish. In J. Sabel & M. Saito (Eds.), The free word order phenomenon: Its syntactic and sources and diversity (pp.163–179). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2006) Agreement; The (unique and local) syntactic and morphological licenser of subject Case. In J. Costa & M. C. Figueiredo Silva (Eds.), Studies on Agreement (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 86) (pp. 141–171). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Verbal and nominalized finite clauses in Turkish. In I. Nikolaeva (Ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp. 305–332). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) DOM and two types of DSM in Turkish. In H. de Hoop & P. de Swart (Eds.), Differential subject marking (pp. 79–111). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
(2009) Placement of agreement and subject licensing in Turkish/Turkic relative clauses. In S. Tatevosov (Ed.), Investigations into formal Altaic linguistics: Proceedings of WAFL 3 (pp. 68–87). Moscow: MAKS Press.Google Scholar
(2015) Turkish relative clauses: How exceptional are they from a Central Asian Turkic perspective? In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Central Asian Languages and Linguistics (ConCall),1, 1–22.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J., & Whitman, J.
(2013) Genitive subjects in TP nominalizations. In G. Iordachioaia (Ed.), Proceedings of JeNom 4 (Working Papers of the SFB 732) (pp. 39–72). Stuttgart: OPUS.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A.
(1995) Stage Level and Individual Level Predicates. In G. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.) The Generic Book, (pp.125–175). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kripke, S.
(1972) Naming and Necessity. Cambridge MA: Harvard U. Press.Google Scholar
Lamontagne, G., & Travis, L.
(1986) The case filter and the ECP. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics, 3(2), 51–75.Google Scholar
(1987) The syntax of adjacency. In Proceedings of the 6th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp.173–186). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Leko, N.
(1999) Functional categories and the structure of the DP in Bosnian. In M. Dimitrova-Vulchanova & L. Hellan (Eds.), Topics in South Slavic syntax and semantics (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 172) (pp. 229–252). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lidz, J.
(1999) The morphosemantics of object case in Kannada (Unpublished manuscript). University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Löbel, E.
(1989) Q as a functional category. In C. Bhatt, E. Löbel & C. Schmidt (Eds.), Syntactic phrase structure phenomena (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 6) (pp.133–158). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993) On the parametrization of lexical properties. In G. Fanselow (ed.), The parametrization of Universal Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 8) (pp.183–199). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1994) KP/DP-syntax: Interaction of case marking with referential and nominal features. Theoretical Linguistics, 20, 38–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lobeck, A.
(1995) Ellipsis: Functional heads and identification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G.
(1994) Reference and proper names. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 609–665.Google Scholar
(1996) The syntax of N-raising: A minimalist theory. Utrecht: OTS Working Papers.Google Scholar
(2001) The structure of DPs: Some principles, parameters and problems. In M. Baltin & C. Collins (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 562–601). Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, C.
(1999) Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyutikova, E., & Pereltsvaig, A.
(2013) Elucidating nominal structure in articleless languages: A case study of Tatar. In BLS Proceedings, 39, 123–136. Berkeley, CA: BLS. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) The Tatar DP. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 60, 289–325. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maciejewska, A.
(1996) The function and evolution of definite and indefinite articles (Unpublished MA thesis). University of Thessaloniki, Greece.Google Scholar
Marelj, M.
(2011) Bound-variable anaphora and Left Branch Condition, Syntax 14: 205–29.Google Scholar
Marantz, A.
(1991) Case and licensing. Proceedings of ESCOL 8, G.F. Westphal, B. A. & H-R Chae (Eds.), University of Maryland, Baltimore, (pp.234–253).Google Scholar
Massam, D.
(2001) Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19, 153–197. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Count and mass across languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, L.
(1998) Determiner systems and quantificational strategies: Evidence from Salish. The Hague: HAG.Google Scholar
McIntyre, A.
(2001) Argument blockages induced by verb particles in English and German: Event modification and secondary predication. In N. Dehé & A. Wanner (Eds.), Structural aspects of semantically complex verbs (pp.131–164). Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2001) German double particles as preverbs. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Milsark, G.
(1974) Existential sentences in English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.Google Scholar
Mithun, M.
(1984) The evolution of noun incorporation. Language, 60, 847–893. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, A., & Szendröi, K.
(2008) Case morphology and radical pro-drop. In T. Biberauer (Ed.), The limits of syntactic variation (Linguistic Aktuell/Linguistics Today 132) (pp. 331–351). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, A., & Weerman, F.
(1999) Flexible Syntax; A Theory of Case and Arguments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Nilsson, B.
(1985) Case marking semantics in Turkish. Stockholm: University of Stockholm Publications.Google Scholar
(1986) Object incorporation in Turkish. In A. Aksu-Koç & Erguvanli-Taylan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Turkish Linguistics Conference (pp.113–128). Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Publications.Google Scholar
Osawa, F.
(1998) The emergence of the D system and the demise of morphological case in English. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 467–489.Google Scholar
Öztürk, B.
(2005) Case, referentiality and phrase structure (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 77). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panagiotidis, P.
(2000) Demonstrative determiners and operators: The case of Greek. Lingua, 110, 717–742. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pereltsvaig, A.
(2001) On the nature of intra-clausal relations: A study of copular sentences in Russian and Italian (Unpublished PhD dissertation). McGill University.Google Scholar
(2006) Small nominals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 24, 433–500. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) On the universality of DP: A view from Russian. Studia Linguistica, 61(1), 59–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Noun phrase structure in article-less Slavic languages: DP or not DP? Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(3), 201–219. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) The functional structure of the nominal domain. In A. Fábregas, M. Putnam, & J. Mateu (Eds.), Contemporary linguistic parameters (pp. 303–331). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, A., & Lyutikova, E.
(2014) Possessives within and beyond NP: Two ezafe-constructions in Tatar. In A. Bondaruk, G. Dalmi, & A. Grosu (Eds.), Advances in the syntax of DPs: Structure, agreement, and case (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 217) (pp. 193–220). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, D.
(1982) Complementizer-trace phenomena and the nominative islands condition. The Linguistic Review, 1, 297–344. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J-Y.
1989). Verb movement, UG and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 365–424.
Progovac, L.
(1998) Determiner phrase in a language without determiners. Journal of Linguistics, 34, 165–179. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rahmatullayev, S.
(2006) Hozirgi adabiy O’zbek Tili. Tashkent: National University of Uzbekistan.Google Scholar
Rappaport, G.
(1998) The slavic noun phrase. Paper presented at the Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax Workshop, Spencer Creek, Indiana.Google Scholar
Reuland, E.
(2007) Minimal versus not so minimal pronouns: feature transmission versus feature deletion. Ms., Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS.Google Scholar
(2011) Anaphora and language design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L.
(1990) Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Runić, J.
(2014) A new look at clitics, clitic doubling, and argument ellipsis: Evidence from Slavic. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Rubin, E.
(1994) Modification: A syntactic analysis and its consequences. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell UniversityGoogle Scholar
Rappaport, G.
(2001) Extraction from nominal phrases in polish and the theory of determiners. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 8(3), 159–98.Google Scholar
(2002) Numeral phrases in Russian: A minimalist approach. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 10(1–2). 327–40.Google Scholar
Ritter, E.
(1991) Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. In S. Rothstein (ed.), Syntax and semantics, 25: Perspectives on phrase structure (pp. 37–62). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rutkowski, P.
(2002) Noun/pronoun asymmetries: Evidence in support of the DP hypothesis in Polish. Jezikoslovlje, 3(1–2), 159–170.Google Scholar
(2007) The Determiner Phrase Hypothesis as a tool of syntactic analysis of Polish nominal phrases (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Warsaw University.Google Scholar
Safir, K.
(1982) Syntactic chains and the definiteness effect (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.Google Scholar
Sapayev, Q.
(2009) Hozirgi O’zbek Tili. Toshkent: TDPU.Google Scholar
Schwarzchild, R.
(2002) Singleton indefinites. Journal of Semantics, 19, 289–314. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scott, G.
(2002) The syntax and semantics of adjectival modification (Unpublished doctoral disserataion). University of London.Google Scholar
Sezer, E.
(1972) Some observations on the genitive phrases in Turkish Nominalizations (Unpublished manuscript). Harvard University.Google Scholar
(1991) Topics in Turkish syntax (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Harvard University.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U.
(2004) The form of the Semitic noun phrase. Lingua, 114(12), 1465–1526. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siloni, T.
(1996) Hebrew noun phrases: Generalized noun raising. In A. Belletti & L. Rizzi (Eds.), Parameters and functional heads (pp. 239–267). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(1997) Noun phrases and nominalizations. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stowell, T. A.
(1991) Determiners in NP and DP. In K. Leffel & D. Bouchard (Eds.), Views on phrase structure (pp. 37–56). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Straughn, C. A.
(2011) Evidentiality in Uzbek and Kazakh (Unpublished doctoral disseration). The University of Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A.
(1983) The possessor that ran away from home. The Linguistic Review, 3, 89–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1987) Functional categories in the noun phrase. In I. Kenesei (Ed.), Approaches to Hungarian 2: Theories and analyses (pp.167–91). Szeged: Jate Press.Google Scholar
Taylan, E. E.
(1984) The function of word order in Turkish grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
(1986) Pronominal vs. zero representation anaphora in Turkish. In D. I. Slobin & K. Zimmer (Eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics (Typological Studies in Language 8) (pp. 209–232). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylan, E. E., & Zimmer, K.
(1994) Case marking in Turkish indefinite object constructions. Proceedings of Berkeley Linguistic Society, 20, 547–552. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, M.
(2011) Some theoretical consequences of Case-marking in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation. University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Talić, A.
(2013) Extraordinary complement extraction. Studies in Polish Linguistics 8, 127–150Google Scholar
Trenkić, D.
(2004) Definiteness in Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian and some implications for the general structure of the nominal phrase. Lingua, 114, 1401–1427. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Underhill, R.
1976Turkish grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Weerman, F., & Evers-Vermeul, J.
(2002) Pronouns and case. Lingua, 112, 301–338. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wiese, H.
(2012) Collectives in the intersection of mass and count nouns: A cross-linguistic account. In D. Massam (Ed.), Count and mass across languages (pp. 54–74). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Willim, E.
(1998) On the DP-hypothesis in Polish, an articleless language. In P. Stalmaszczyk (Ed.), Projections and Mapping: Studies in Syntax (pp. 137–158), Lublin: FOLIUM.Google Scholar
(2000) On the grammar of Polish nominals. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step. Essays in minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 319–346). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zanon, K.
(2015) On hybrid coordination and quantifier raising in Russian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Indiana, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Zakiev, M. Z.
(1995) Tatarskaya grammatika, Tom III: Sintaksis [Tatar grammar, Vol. 3: Syntax]. Kazan: Akademiya Nauk Tatarstana.Google Scholar
Zlatić, L.
(1997) The structure of the Serbian noun phrase (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
(1998) Slavic noun phrases are NPs not DPs. Paper presented at the Workshop on Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax, Bloomington, Indiana, 8 June.Google Scholar
Živanovič, S.
(2008) The varieties of most: On different readings of superlative determiners. In Proceedings of FDSL 6.5, 337–354. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Renkovskaya, Evgeniya
2020. New Indo-Aryan associative plural markers derived from Old Indo-Aryan apara ‘other’ and their further grammaticalization. Lingua Posnaniensis 62:2  pp. 65 ff. Crossref logo
ÖZGEN, Murat
2020. Olumsuz Kutup Birimleri, BelÖ ve Evre Kaydırımı. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 september 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Subjects & Metadata
BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax
BISAC Subject: LAN009060 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Syntax
ONIX Metadata
ONIX 2.1
ONIX 3.0
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2018046662 | Marc record