Cover not available
Part of
Morphological Complexity within and across Boundaries: In honour of Aslı Göksel
Edited by Aslı Gürer, Dilek Uygun-Gökmen and Balkız Öztürk
[Studies in Language Companion Series 215] 2020
► pp. 155–189

Structure of plural pronoun constructions

 | Boğaziçi University
 | Boğaziçi University
In Turkish plural pronoun constructions, plural pronouns can receive a singular interpretation, which constitutes a challenge for semantic compositionality. The question is whether this is due to the internal structure of plural pronouns, or whether the issue arises as a byproduct of the syntactic configuration. Earlier accounts tend to blame the problem on the syntax/semantics of plural pronouns. Nevertheless, the fact that it exclusively arises in plural pronoun constructions suggests to the contrary. This study adopts a φP account of Number, and proposes that inclusive plural pronouns result from the mechanism by which the coordinated DP acquires its φ-features. This is demonstrated to explain a number of puzzling properties of plural pronoun constructions that are otherwise left unaccounted for.
Keywords: plural pronoun constructions, phi-features, inclusive, exclusive, comitative, coordination
Article outline
  • 0.Introduction
  • 1.Earlier analyses
    • 1.1The saturation account
    • 1.2.Other accounts
    • 1.3Further problems with earlier accounts
      • 1.3.1IPPCs with regular coordinators
      • 1.3.2IPPCs with proper nouns
      • 1.3.3Ambiguity
      • 1.3.4Semantics of plural pronouns
      • 1.3.5Crosslinguistic variation
  • 2.A φ-acquisition model
    • 2.1Background assumptions
      • 2.1.1Φ-features
      • 2.1.2Comitative coordination
      • 2.1.3Case
    • 2.2Structure of PPCs
    • 2.3Other properties of PPCs
    • 2.4Further evidence
  • 3.The case of correlative coordinators
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 15 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.215.06tur
References (48)
References
Benmamoun, Elabbas, Bhatia, Archna & Polinsky, Maria. 2009. Closest conjunct agreement in head-final languages. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 9: 67–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Judy B. 2008. English th- forms. In Essays on Nominal Determination: From Morphology to Discourse Management [Studies in Language Companion Series 99], Henrik Høeg Müller & Alex Klinge (eds), 213–232. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brito, José António, Matos, Gabriela & Pratas, Fernanda. 2015. Comitative coordination in Capeverdean. In Selected Proceedings of the 44th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, Ruth Kramer, Elizabeth C. Zsiga & One Tlale Boyer (eds), 17–27. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Cable, Seth. 2017. Some observations on the plural pronoun construction of Tlingit, Polish, and Russian. In A Pesky Set: Papers for David Pesetsky, Claire Halpert, Hadas Kotek, & Coppe van Urk (eds), Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. <[URL]> (28 September 2019).Google Scholar
Caha, Pavel. 2009. The Nanosyntax of Case. PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø.
Camacho, José Antonio. 1997. The Syntax of NP Coordination. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
. 2000. Structural restrictions on comitative coordination. Linguistic Inquiry 31(2): 366–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels, & Juan Uriagereka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 1988a. Part 1. Conjunction adverbs. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
. 1988b. Part 2. Alternative analyses of conjunction. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1988. Agreement vs case marking and direct objects. In Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions, Michael Barlow, & Charles A. Ferguson (eds), 159–179. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Daniel, Michael & Moravcsik, Edith. 2013. The associative plural. In The World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS) Online, Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <[URL]> (4 February 2016).Google Scholar
Danon, Gabi. 2011. Agreement and DP-internal feature distribution. Syntax 14: 297–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Déchaine, Rose-Marie & Wiltschko, Martina. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33(3): 409–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dékány, Éva. 2009. Comitative adjuncts: Appositives and non-appositives. In Adverbs and Adverbial Adjuncts at the Interfaces, Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), 231–246. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dyla, Stefan & Feldman, Anna. 2003. On comitative constructions in Polish and Russian. In Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Formal Description of Slavic Languages, Gerhild Zybatow (ed.). Leipzig: Peter Lang. <[URL]> (21 February 2016).Google Scholar
Erelt, Mati. 2008. Concerning the relationship of the comitative construction to the coordinating construction in Estonia. Linguistica Uralica 44(2): 97–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Anna. 2002. Comitative and plural pronoun constructions. In Proceedings of Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics 17, Yehuda N. Falk (ed). Jerusalem, Israel: Hebrew University of Jerusalem. <[URL]> (12 December 2015).Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı & Kerslake, Celia. 2005. Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Coordination. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. II: Complex Constructions, 2nd edn, Timothy Shopen (ed.). Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Inokuma, Sakumi. 2013. Distribution of phi-feature within DPs and the Activity Condition. English Linguistics 3(1): 292–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 1996. In search of the English middle field. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2018. Turkish comitatives: The genuine and the apparent. In Tu+ 1: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Turkish, Turkic and the Languages of Turkey Faruk Akkuş, İsa Kerem Bayırlı & Deniz Özyıldız (eds), 99–126. Amherst MA: GLSA. <[URL]> (28 September 2019).Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William. 1988. Group reference and the plural pronoun construction. In Papers on the Plural Pronoun Construction and Comitative Coordination, 1–7. Santa Cruz CA: Syntax Research Center Report SRC, UCSC.Google Scholar
Lewis, Geoffrey L. 1967. Turkish Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2008. Reference to individuals, person, and the variety of mapping parameters. In Essays on Nominal Determination: From Morphology to Discourse Management [Studies in Language Companion Series 99], Henrik Høeg Müller & Alex Klinge (eds), 189–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNally, Louise. 1993. Comitative coordination: A case study in group formation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11(2): 347–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Coordinate Structures. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.
Nevskaya, Irina. 2005. Inclusive and exclusive in Turkic languages. In Clusivity: Typology and Case Studies of the Inclusive-Exclusive Distinction [Typological Studies in Language 63], Elena Filimonova (ed.), 341–358. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana. 1998. Structure for coordination (Part I & Part II). GLOT International 3(7): 3–9.Google Scholar
Richards, Marc D. 2007. On feature inheritance: An argument from the Phase Impenetrability Condition. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 563–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth. 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. Syntax and Semantics 25: 37–62.Google Scholar
. 1992. Cross-linguistic evidence for number phrase. Canadian Journal of Lingustics 37: 197–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. Where’s gender? Linguistic Inquiry 24: 795–803.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Sauerland, Uli. 2003. A new semantics for number. In Proceedings of SALT, Robert B. Young & Yuping Zhou (eds), 258–275. Ithaca NY: CLC.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Linda. 1988. Asymmetric feature distribution in pronominal coordinations. In Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, and Descriptions, Michael Barlow, & Charles A. Ferguson (eds), 237–249. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Škrabalová, Hana. 2003. Comitative constructions in Czech. In Investigations into Formal Slavic Linguistics, Peter Kosta, Joanna Blaszczak, Jens Frasek, & Ljudmila Geist (eds), 685–696. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Vassilieva, Maria Borisovna. 2005. Associative and Pronominal Plurality. PhD dissertation, Stony Brook University.
Vassilieva, Masha & Larson, Richard K. 2005. The semantics of the plural pronoun construction. Natural Language Semantics 13(2): 101–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Niina Ning. 2007. The syntax of English comitative constructions. Folia Linguistica 41(1-2): 135–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Coordination in Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Zoerner, Ed. 1995. Coordination: The Syntax of &P. PhD dissertation, University of California, Irvine.