Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistic Variation
Vol. 15:1 (2015) ► pp.69–115

The illusion of the NP/DP divide

Evidence from Lithuanian

In this paper, we present syntactic and semantic arguments that, in at least one articleless language (Lithuanian), bare nouns are able to project either NP or DP structures (cf. Franks & Pereltsvaig 2004; Ajíbóyè 2006; Pereltsveig 2006). We show that, in some syntactic contexts, Lithuanian bare nouns are only able to receive definite interpretations; in one context, they are only interpreted indefinitely. We then tie these interpretations to the presence or absence of D. Further, we highlight problems with the view that there is a categorical difference between articleless (NP) and articleful (DP) languages (Bošković 2010; Despić 2011), by testing Bošković’s and Despić’s generalizations about NP vs. DP languages on Lithuanian. In both cases, Lithuanian ends up behaving somewhat like an NP language, and somewhat like a DP language. Lithuanian is therefore a counterexample to the NP/DP split posited by Bošković, and must receive a different analysis.

Keywords: NPs, determiners, aspect, scope, DPs, indefiniteness, definiteness


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 21 September 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.15.1.03gil
References
Abney, Stephen
1987 The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. PhD diss., MIT.
Ambrazas, Vytautas
(ed.) 1997 Lithuanian grammar. Vilnius: baltos lankos.Google Scholar
Armoskaite, Solveiga & Carrie Gillon
In prep. The Conspiracy on D in Lithuanian.
Armoskaite, Solveiga
2012 Effects of pluractional suffix. Evidence from Lithuanian. In Diane Massam (ed.), Mass-count across languages, 129–146. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Armoskaite, Solveiga & Marina Sherkina-Lieber
2008 Plur-actional and uni-actional suffixes. Evidence from Russian and Lithuanian. In Anton Antonenko, John Bailyn & Christina Bethin (eds.), FASL XVI Proceedings, 1–15. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic publications.Google Scholar
Ajíbóyè, Oládiípò
2006 Topics on Yorùbá nominal expressions. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia dissertation.Google Scholar
Androutsopoulou, Antonia
1998 Split DPs, focus, and scrambling in Modern Greek. In Emily Curtis, James Lyle & Gabriel Webster (eds.), The Proceedings of the sixteenth West Coast conference on formal linguistics (WCCFL 16), 1–16. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Aljović, Nadira
2002 Long adjectival inflection and specificity in Serbo-Croatian. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes. Syntaxe de la Definitude 311. 27–42.Google Scholar
Barnes, Jonathan
1969 The law of contradiction. Philosophical Quarterly 191. 302–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit
2005 In name only. Structuring sense, vol. I1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko
2002 On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 331. 351–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 On the clausal and NP structure of Serbo-Croatian. In Richard Compton, Magdalena Goledzinowska & Ulyana Savchenko (eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The Toronto meeting, 2006, 42–75. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
2008a The NP/DP analysis and Slovenian. In Proceedings of the Novi Sad generative syntax workshop 11. 53–73. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet u Novom Sadu.
2008b What will you have, DP or NP? In Emily Elfner & Martin Walkow (eds.), Proceedings of the North East linguistics society (NELS) 37, 101–114. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
2009 More on the no-DP analysis of article-less languages. Studia Linguistica 631. 187–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 On NPs and clauses. Ms. University of Connecticut.
Bošković, Željko & Jon Gajewski
2011 Semantic correlates of the NP/DP parameter. In Suzi Lima & Kevin Mullin (eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 39. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam
2006 Theories of case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Lisa & Rynt Sybesma
1999 Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry 301. 509–542. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro
1998 Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 61. 339–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1986 Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra & William A. Ladusaw
2004 Restriction and saturation. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa
1998 The morphological and phonological constituent structure of words in Moses-Columvia Salish (Nxaʔamxcín). In Ewa Czaykowska-Higgins & M. Dale Kinkade (eds.), Salish languages and linguistics, 153–196. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta
2003 Bare nominals: Non-specific and contrastive readings under scrambling. In Simin Karimi (ed.), Word order and scrambling, 67–90. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Despić, Miloje
2011 Syntax in the absence of determiner phrase. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.Google Scholar
Epstein, Melissa A
1999 On the singular indefinite article in English. In Gianluca Storto (ed.), Syntax at Sunset 2, 14–58. Los Angeles: UCLA Working Papers in Syntax.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven & Asya Pereltsvaig
2004 Functional categories in the nominal domain. In Olga P. Arnaudova, Wayles Browne, Maria-Luisa Rivero & Diana Stojanovic (eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The Ottawa meeting, 109–128. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Filip, Hana
1999 Aspect, eventuality types, and nominal reference. NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
van Geenhoven, Veerle
1998 Semantic incorporation and indefinite descriptions: Semantic and syntactic aspects of noun incorporation in West Greenlandic. Stanford: CSLI PublicatGoogle Scholar
Gillon, Carrie
2013 The semantics of determiners: Domain restriction in Skwxwú7mesh. Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Harlig, Jeffrey
1989 The interaction of verbal aspect and noun phrase determination in Hungarian. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago dissertation.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene & Angelika Kratzer
1998 Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James
1985 On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 161. 547–593.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise & Richard Demers
1994 Predicates and pronominal arguments in Straits Salish. Language 701. 697–736. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiss, Katalin F
1995 Definiteness effect revisited. In Istvan Kenesei (ed.), Approaches to Hungarian Volume 5, 65–88. Szeged: JATE.Google Scholar
Lambova, Mariana
2004 On information structure and clausal architecture: Evidence from Bulgarian. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.Google Scholar
Löbner, Sebastian
2002 Understanding semantics. London: Arnold Publishers.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe
1994 Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 251. 609–665.Google Scholar
Lyons, Christopher
1999 Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maleczki, Márta
2001 Indefinite arguments in Hungarian. In Istvan Kenesei (ed.), Argument structure in Hungarian, 157–199. Budapest: AKK.Google Scholar
Mathieu, Éric & Ioanna Sitaridou
2002 Split wh-constructions in Classical and Modern Greek. In Artemis Alexiadou, Susann Fischer & Melita Stavrou (eds.), Papers from the Workshop ‘Language change from a generative perspective’ , 143–182.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa
1998 Determiner systems and quantificational strategies: Evidence from Salish. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
2005 When I was small – I Wan Kwikws: A grammatical analysis of St’át’imcets oral narratives. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Ntelitheo, Dimitrios
2004 Syntax of elliptical and discontinuous nominals. Los Angeles, CA: University of California MA thesis.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara
2006 A note on Mandarin possessives, demonstratives, and definiteness. In Betty J. Birner & Gregory Ward (eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricean studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn, 263–280. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David
1970 On the article in English. In Manfred Bierwisch & Karl Erich Heidolph (eds.), Progress in linguistics, 233–248. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya
2007 On the universality of DP: A view from Russian. Studia Linguistica 61(1). 59–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 Small nominals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24(2). 433–500. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana
1998 Determiner phrase in a language without determiners. Journal of Linguistics 341. 165–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, Susan
2004 Structuring events. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russell, Bertrand & Alfred N. Whitehead
1910–1913 Principia mathematica, 3 Vols1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung
2012 Word order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stjepanović, Sandra
1999 What do second position cliticization, scrambling, and multiple wh-fronting have in common. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim
1989 Subjects, specifiers and X-bar theory. In Mark R. Baltin & Anthony S. Kroch (eds.), Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, 232–262. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Swart de, Henrieta
2012 Verbal Aspect. In Rober Binnick (ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect, 752–781. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sybesma, Rint
1999 The Mandarin VP. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna
1984 From the definiteness effects to lexical integrity. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistic 241. 178–218.Google Scholar
1986 From the definiteness effects to lexical integrity. In Werner Abraham & Sjaak de Meij (eds.), Topic, focus and configurationality, 321–348. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987 Functional categories in the noun phrase. In Istvan Kenesei (ed.), Approaches to Hungarian, vol. 21. 167–189. Szeged: JATE.Google Scholar
1994 The noun phrase. In Stephen R. Anderson & Katalin F. Kiss (eds.), The syntactic structure of Hungarian, syntax and semantics, vol. 271. 179–275. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 7 other publications

Armoskaite, Solveiga & Carrie Gillon
2015. Introduction The (not so) universal D. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 60:3 ► pp. 251 ff. DOI logo
Köylü, Yılmaz
2021. An overview of the NP versus DP debate. Language and Linguistics Compass 15:3 DOI logo
Norris, Mark
2018. Nominal structure in a language without articles: The case of Estonian. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3:1 DOI logo
SIGURÐSSON, EINAR FREYR & MILENA ŠEREIKAITĖ
2024. The dual face of structural object case: on Lithuanian genitive of negation. Journal of Linguistics 60:1 ► pp. 161 ff. DOI logo
Vaiksnoraite, Elena
2021. A direct analysis of Lithuanian phrasal comparatives. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 6:1 DOI logo
Šereikaitė, Milena
2021. Active Existential in Lithuanian: Remarks on Burzio’s Generalization. Linguistic Inquiry 52:4 ► pp. 747 ff. DOI logo
Šereikaitė, Milena
2022. Impersonals, passives, and impersonal pronouns: Lessons from Lithuanian. Syntax 25:2 ► pp. 188 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 april 2024. 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.