national centre for language technology (nclt) seminar series dublin city university july 18 th 2007...

National Centre for Language Technology (NCLT) Seminar Series Dublin City University

July 18th 2007

A feature valuation approach to the prohibition on two definite determiners

in genitive noun phrases in Irish

Gearóid Ó DonnchadhaUniversity College Dublin

This research has been funded by a scholarship received from the Irish Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences

(IRCHSS).

2

Research Question

Possessed noun cannot be accompanied by a definite determiner (An Gúm, 1999: 45; Doyle, 2001: 63; Duffield, 1995: 268; Mac Congail, 2002: 26; Ó Cadhlaigh, 1940:193).

Prohibition on two determiners in genitive noun phrases.

Using the framework of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky, 1995) and subsequent related work, as well as Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz, 1993; 1994; Marantz, 1998).

As far as we are aware there is no significant dialectal variation in the constructions discussed

3

Syntactic Theories

Several frameworks for syntactic research

Principles and Parameters

Minimalism

Lexical Functional Grammar

Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar

Categorial Grammar

4

Generative Syntax

Early Generative Grammar was based on Phrase Structure (PS) rules which generate Deep Structure (DS) and transformational rules which operate on DS to generate Surface Structure (SS).

SS output feeds into the semantic and phonological interface levels called Logical Form (LF) and Phonetic Form (PF).

Proliferation of rules proved problematic and had to be constrained.

5

Principles and Parameters

Constraints on possible grammars were defined in modules or theories according to the level at which they applied (DS, SS, LF, PF).

X-bar theory Case theory Movement theory Binding theory theta theory

Abstracting of general principles to replace rules in defining possible languages.

Variation across languages could be accounted for by parameters.

6

The Minimalist Program

Minimalism is a model of Transformational Grammar which is outlined in Chomsky (1995; 2000; 2001; 2004; 2005).

Using the minimum amount of theoretical machinery seeks to explain the computational processes involved in human language.

Derivational – syntactic structure is built incrementally by Merge and Agree. Well formedness conditions are internal to the derivation.

Representational – syntactic structure is given and well-formedness conditions apply at a specific level of representation.

Derivational versus representational approach is still a highly contentious issue.

7

The Minimalist Program

DS and SS eliminated, LF and PF remain (interface levels).

A Lexicon and a Computational System (CS).

In CS two operations Merge and Agree build the syntacticstructure required for a sentence.

Merge may be either external (insertion) or internal (movement).

8

Research Question

How can we explain the following examples?

(1) hata an mhairnéalaighhat the sailor (Gen)’the sailor’s hat’

(2) *an hata an mhairnéalaigh the hat the sailor (Gen)

’the sailor’s hat’

9

Determiner Phrase (DP)

(Abney, 1987: 9) ‘the DP Hypothesis’.

Noun phrase in Irish (Acquaviva, 2005; Bondaruk, 2006; Carnie, 2000; Doyle, 2002; Duffield, 1995; 1996; Harley, 2000; McCloskey, 2001; 2006)

(3) [DP D [NP N …

DP

D NP

N

10

Possessor Noun Phrases

Duffield (1995; 1996) comparative analysis with the Semitic languages :

(4) [DP D [AgrP Agr [NumP Num [NP N …

Assumes that D has D-features that must be checked which happens when D is occupied by a determiner, a possessive pronoun or a noun.

If D is occupied by a noun it assigns Case (genitive) to the possessor noun phrase (Duffield, 1995: 313).


[DP D hatai [AgrP Agr ti [NumP Num an mhairnéalaigh k [NP tk N ti … Move

Move

11

Determiner Phrase (DP)

In (6) the possessive pronoun base generated in Agr where it functions as an agreement marker licensing pro in Spec NP.

(6) mo theach‘my house’

[DP D moi [AgrP Agr ti [NumP Num theachk [NP proi N tk…Move Move

License

12

Possessor Noun Phrases

D is already occupied. Determiners, possessive pronouns and prenominal determiners cannot co-occur in possessor noun phrases as shown in (7)-(9):

(7) *an mo theach the my house

(8) *mo hata an mhairnéalaigh my hat the sailor



13

Type Constructions

Type constructions (Doyle, 1996; Green, 2004). In (10)-(12) - head noun has raised to D checking the D features of D and assigning genitive case to the complement. Following examples from De Bhaldraithe (1959):

(10 ) hata mairnéalaigh

hat sailor (Gen)’a sailor hat’

(11) bean tí

woman house (Gen)’a housewife’

(12) sagart paróiste

priest parish (Gen)’a parish priest’

14

Type Constructions

Definite version of (10)-(12) shown in (13)-(15) are more problematic for Duffield's framework:

(13) an hata mairnéalaighthe hat sailor (Gen)’the sailor hat’

(14) an bhean tí

the woman house (Gen)’the housewife’

(15) an sagart paróiste

the priest parish (Gen)’the parish priest’

15

Type Constructions

(13)-(15) cannot be a noun-noun compound following the determiner as in (18), as this type of compound (19) does not have a genitive complement, examples are from (Ó Dónaill, 1977).

(18) [DP D [NP N [NP N …

(19) othar + carr an t-otharcharr ’the ambulance’

‘Masc’ ‘Masc’ ‘Masc’‘Sg’ ‘Sg’ ‘Sg’‘Nom’ ‘Nom’ ‘Nom’

DP

D NP

N N

16

Determiner Placement

Correlation between the placement of the determiner and type of reading involved.

(16) an hata mairnéalaigh the hat sailor (Gen)

’the sailor hat’ (17) hata an mhairnéalaigh

hat the sailor (Gen)’the sailor’s hat’

In (13)-(15) how is genitive case assigned?

If D is filled no explanation for the determiner.

17

Type Constructions

Major stumbling block, (13)-(15) are commonplace. Examples (20)–(22) are from (Ó Dónaill, 1977):

(20) an mála scoilethe bag school (Gen)’the schoolbag’

(21) an páirc imearthathe field play (Gen)‘the playing field’

(22) an múinteoir eolaíochtathe teacher science (Gen)‘the science teacher’

18

Paradigm

The following paradigm emerges:




(25) an hata mairnéalaigh the hat sailor (Gen)

’the sailor hat’

19

New Developments

New developments (Chomsky, 2000; 2001; 2004; 2005).

Elimination of Agr and the introduction of Merge and Agree.

Hypothesis - lexical categories such as verb and noun are not primitive but are compositional and are defined by functional heads within their internal structure i.e. little [v] and little [n] (Borer, 2005a; 2005b; Chomsky, 2001; 2004; Marantz, 1998; Ouhalla, 2005).

Can look at the previous examples (23)-(25) in a new light.

20

The Minimalist Program and Distributed Morphology

Merge from right to left until required sentence is derived:

(26) The man has closed the door

External Merge (27)

(27) [DP the [NP door]]

Merge of (27) with the verb:

(28) [VP closed [DP the door]...

21


Merge of (28) with [v]:

(29) [vP [DP the man v [VP closed [DP the door]

Merge of (29) with tense (T):

(30) [TP T has [vP [DP the man v [VP closed [DP the door]

Internal Merge moves the subject to Spec T resulting in the required derivation:

(31) [TP [DP the man T has [vP v [VP closed [DP the door]

22


NATURE and FUNCTION of [v].

[v] enters the derivation with its agreement features unvalued and enters Agree with the direct object (DO). Merge with DO results in the valuation of the agreement features of [v] (32) (Chomsky, 2004: 123). Merge also results in the valuation of the Case feature of DO to accusative (33).

(32) [vP v [uPerson, uClass, uNum] [DP it [‘3rdPers’., ‘Neut’., ‘Sing’., uCase] …

[vP v [‘3rdPers’., ‘Neut’., ‘Sing’.] [DP it [‘3rdPers’., ‘Neut’., ‘Sing’., uCase] …

Agree

23


(33) [TPT [vP [Subj][v’ v [uPers, uClass, uNum] [DP it [‘3rdPers’, ‘Neut’, ‘Sing’, uCase] …

[TPT [vP [Subj][v’ v [‘3rdPers’, ‘Neut’, ‘Sing’] [DP it [‘3rdPers’, ‘Neut’, ‘Sing’, ‘Acc’] …

Lexical category verb is not a primitive category but a combination of [v] as a verbaliser which when merged with a root defines that root as a verb:

(34) [v] + [Root] Verb

Agree

24


Proposal

- Merge must be motivated.

- Need to value unvalued features.

- Features are valued by Agree under Merge.

- Structure building is driven by feature valuation.

25

Little [n] as a nominaliser

Gender as a subdivision of Class.

Class systems can be considered to fall out into three types: (sex-based) gender systems consisting in two or three genders, with Romance as a typical representative; noun class or multiple (> 3) gender systems, as exemplified by many Niger-Congo languages; and numeral classifier systems, as in Chinese (Kihm, 2001a: 2)

Gender associated with little [n].

gender, a particular realization of Class, expresses the functional element n, whose primary function is to assign nounness to roots. (Kihm, 2001b: 9)

26


Acquaviva (2006: 1879) following Kihm (2001b) claims for Irish:

The properties that define a noun independent of its syntactic context include gender; in this framework [n] is therefore the host for gender features.

Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz, 1993; Marantz, 1998), deconstructs the traditional lexicon and replaces it with three distinct lists.

List 1 consists of the Roots and Abstract Morphemes or grammatical feature bundles of the language

List 2 contains the Vocabulary Items that match the items of List 1 to their phonological content

List 3, called the Encylopaedia, contains the semantic information associated with a Root or a syntactically constructed object i.e. anidiom such as ‘kick the bucket’ (Embick and Noyer, 2005).

27

Distributed Morphology

Morphology-PhonologyInterface

Semantic Interface

Computational System

Vocabulary Lexicon

28


An Gúm (1999: 141) states (my translation) that: The second person singular, Imperative is called the root of the verb

The notion of root is discussed in Ó Sé (1991; 2000). Ó Sé (1991: 61) in a detailed discussion of verbal inflection in Modern Irish, states that:

Irish verbal forms should be segmented into roots, stems and

endings.

29


In the following example, I am assuming that Root is acategorial. Examples from (Ó Dónaill, 1977).

Root [Root [n]] = Noun [Root [v]] = Verb

meabhrmeabhr-án [Masc] ‘memorandum’ meabhr-aím ‘I remember’meabhrmeabhr-óg [Fem] ‘thoughful girl’séid séid-eán [Masc] ‘gust (of wind)’ séid-im ‘I blow’séid séid-eog [Fem] ‘puff (of wind)’bodhr bodhr-án [Masc] ‘deaf person’ bodhr-aím ‘I deafen’aistr aistr-eog [Fem] ‘transfer (picture)’ aistr-ím ‘I transfer’

The association of Class (gender), in the form of little [n], with the root identifies it as a noun.

30


(35) Noun + [n] Nouncigilt [Fem] –án [Masc]] cigilteán [Masc]

‘tickle’ ‘ticklesome person’

bláth [Masc] –óg [Fem]] bláthóg [Fem]‘flower’ ‘floret’

In (35) the Class feature of [n] defines the Class of the newly formed noun.

(36) [nP n[‘Fem’] [Root]] N[‘Fem’] (Noun)

[nP n[‘Masc’] [nP n[‘Fem’] [Root]] N[‘Masc’] (Noun)

Necessary to assume the [n] enters the derivation with its Class feature already valued.

31

Det-N Agreement

Determiner (D) in Irish agrees with the noun [n [Root]] in terms of Class (gender), Case and Number. Definite nouns in Irish indicated by the use of an in the singular and na in the plural.

(37) an mhucthe-sg pig-sg-f’the pig’

(38) an macthe-sg son-sg-m’the son’

(39) na mucathe-pl pig-pl-f’the pigs’

(40) na micthe-pl son-pl-m’the sons’

32

Det-N Agreement

The genitive singular form of the definite determiner is na when feminine, and an when masculine.

(41) teach na caillíhouse the-sg-gen old woman-sg-f (gen)’the old woman’s house’

(42) teach an fhir

house the-sg-gen man-sg-m (gen)’the man’s house’

33

Det-N Agreement

The genitive plural form of the definite determiner is na for both classes of noun.

(43) teach na gcailleachhouse the-pl-gen old woman-pl-f (gen)’the old women’s house’

(44) teach na bhfearhouse the-pl-gen man-pl-m (gen)’the men’s house’

34

Det-N Agreement

Why is it that Det-N agreement occurs?

From (37)-(44) it appears that Det-N agreement occurs under Agree with [n]. D is a Probe and according to Chomsky (2000: 122), a Probe by virtue of having unvalued features:

seeks a goal, namely, “matching” features that establish agreement.

Feature valuation takes place in a Probe-Goal relationship. According to Chomsky (2001: 4):

uninterpretable features of P and K render their relevant subparts active, so that matching leads to agreement.

35

Det-N Agreement

Valued features that enter the derivation assign their value to their unvalued counterparts by Agree. Unvalued features are indicated by prefixation with the letter ‘u’ for unvalued [uNum]. Elimination of unvalued features after valuation is indicated in the examples by red [uNum].

(45) [DP D [uClass, uNum, uCase] [nP n [‘Masc’, ‘Sing’, uCase] [RootP Root…

[DP D [uClass, uNum, uCase] [nP n [‘Masc’, ‘Sing’, uCase] [RootP Root…

Agree

36

Genitive Case

Genitive case syntactically conditioned. Assume [n] has an unvalued Case feature valued by same functional head that values Case on D. Case agreement is a One Probe-Two Goals relationship:

(46) Head (= v) [DP D [‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, ‘Acc’] [nP n [‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, ‘Acc’] [RootP

Root…

(47) Head(=Finite T)[DP D [‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, ‘Nom’][nP n [‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, ‘Nom’][RootP

Root…

Agree

Agree

37

Genitive Case

Proposal - Genitive structures such as (41)-(44) have the derivation shown in (48) or as a tree diagram in (49), where the Case feature of the possessor is valued to genitive by [n].

(48) [nP n [CLASS, ‘Sg’, uCase][RootP Root [DP D[‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, uCase][nP n[‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, uCase] [RootP Root

[nP n [CLASS, ‘Sg’, uCase][RootP Root [DP D [‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, ‘Gen’][nP n [‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, ‘Gen’] [RootP Root

(49) DP

D‘Gen’

nP n‘Gen’

nP

n

Agree

Agree

38

Definiteness

Proposal - Definiteness is an unvalued feature on the noun and is an inherent feature of a determiner and nouns have no inherent definiteness. In the following examples N = [n + Root].

(50) an fear’the man’D [‘Def’] + N [uDef] DP [D [‘Def’] + N [uDef]]

Null indefinite determiner

(51) Ø fear’a man’D [‘InDef’] + N [uDef] DP [D [‘InDef’] + N [uDef]]

Agree

Agree

39

Definiteness

How to account for (52)?

(52) *an hata an mhairnéalaighthe hat the sailor (Gen)’the sailor’s hat’

Merge of the noun mhairnéalaigh ‘sailor’ with the definite determiner.

(53) [DP D an [DEF, uClass, uNum, uCase] [nP n mhairnéalaigh [CLASS, NUM, uDef,

uCase] [DP D an [‘Def’, uNum, uClass, uCase] [nP n mhairnéalaigh [‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, uDef,

uCase] Agree

40

Definiteness

Merge of (53) an mhairnéalaigh ‘the sailor’s’ with hata ‘hat’.

(54) [nP n hata[CLASS,uNum,uDef,uCase][DP D an[DEF,uCase][nP n mhairnéalaigh[CLASS,uCase]

[nP n hata[‘Masc’, uDef, uCase][DP D an [‘Def’, ‘Gen’] [nP n mhairnéalaigh [‘Masc’, ‘Gen’]

No motivation exists for Merge of (54) with a determiner.

Under the above assumptions how might (13) repeated below as (55) be derived:

(55) an hata mairnéalaighthe hat sailor (Gen)’the sailor hat’

Agree

41

Definiteness

Merge of mairnéalaigh with a determiner we get either (56) a definite DP or (57) an indefinite DP:

(55) an hata mairnéalaigh

(56) [DP D an [‘Def’, uClass, uCase] [nP n mhairnéalaigh [‘Masc’, uDef, uCase]

(57) [DP D Ø [‘InDef’, uClass, uCase] [nP n mairnéalaigh [‘Masc’, uDef, uCase]

(56) will not result in the required derivation (55). Continue with the derivation of (57):

Agree

Agree

42

Definiteness

(57) [DP D Ø [‘InDef’, uCase] [nP n mairnéalaigh [‘Masc’, uCase]

Merge with hata:

(58) [nP n hata [‘Masc’, uDef, uCase][DP D Ø [‘InDef’, ‘Gen’][nP n mairnéalaigh [‘Masc’,

‘Gen’]

No motivation for Merge with a definite determiner resulting in (59). Possessor reading derives from the merger of the indefinite determiner with the possessor (57).

(59) hata mairnéalaighhat sailor (Gen)’a sailor’s hat’

Agree

43

Definiteness

Merge of two nouns:

(60) [nP n hata [‘Masc’, uDef, uCase] [nP n mairnéalaigh [‘Masc’, uDef,

‘Gen’]

Merge of (60) with a definite determiner:

(61) [DP an[‘Def’, uNum, uClass, uCase][nP hata[‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, uDef, uCase][nP mairnéalaigh[‘Masc’, uDef]

an hata mairnéalaighthe hat sailor (Gen)’the sailor hat’

Type reading (definite)

Agree

Agree

44

Definiteness

Merge of (60) with an indefinite determiner:

(62) [DP Ø[‘InDef’, uNum, uClass, uCase][nP hata[‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, uDef, uCase][nP mairnéalaigh[‘Masc’,

uDef]

hata mairnéalaighhat sailor (Gen)’a sailor hat’

Type reading (indefinite)

Agree

45

Conclusion

In this presentation the following points were discussed:

agreement and derivation of noun phrases in Irish using feature valuation by Merge and Agree.

an explanation of why the prohibition on two definite determiners exists.

the ambiguity of hata mairnéalaigh as ’a sailor’s hat’ or ’a sailor hat’.

the possessor reading ’a sailor’s hat’ results from an initial Merge with a null determiner followed by a Merge with a noun

whereas

the type reading ’a sailor hat’ results from an initial Merge with a noun followed by a Merge with a null determiner.

46

References

Abney, Steven Paul. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its sentential aspect, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,

MIT.

Acquaviva, Paolo. 2005. The Morphosemantics of Transnumeral Nouns. In Morphology and Linguistic Typology

- On-line Proceedings of the Fourth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting. Catania.

Acquaviva, Paolo. 2006. Goidelic inherent plurals and the morphosemantics of number. Lingua 116: 1860–

1887.

An Gúm. 1999. Graiméar Gaeilge na mBráithre Críostaí. Baile Átha Cliath: An Gúm.

Bondaruk, Anna. 2006. The licensing of subjects and objects in Irish non-finite clauses. Lingua 116: 874-894.

Borer, Hagit. 2005a. Structuring Sense Volume I: In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Borer, Hagit. 2005b. Structuring Sense Volume II: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Carnie, Andrew. 2000. On the Definition of X0 and XP. Syntax 3: 59-106.

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in

Honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin. David Michaels. and Juan Uriagereka. Cambridge MA: MIT

Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by Phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz.

Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. In Structures and Beyond, ed. Adriana Belletti. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1-22.

De Bhaldraithe, Tomás ed. 1959. English-Irish Dictionary. Baile Átha Cliath: Oifig an tSoláthair.

47

References

Doyle, Aidan. 1996. Compounds and syntactic phrases in modern Irish. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia

30: 83-96.

Doyle, Aidan. 2001. Irish. Muenchen: Lincom Europa.

Doyle, Aidan. 2002. Covert and Overt Pronominals in Irish.Vol. 1: Lublin Studies in Celtic Languages.

Lublin: Folium.

Duffield, Nigel. 1995. Particles and Projections in Irish Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Duffield, Nigel. 1996. On structural invariance and lexical diversity in VSO languages. In The Syntax

of the Celtic Languages: A comparative perspective, eds. Robert D. Borsley. and Ian Roberts.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Embick, David. and Noyer, Rolf. 2005. Distributed Morphology and the Syntax/Morphology Interface.

(To appear). In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, eds. G Ramchand. and C Reiss:

Oxford Univeristy Press.

Green, Antony Dubach. 2004. Lenition, coronal blocking and compounding in Irish. Paper presented

at Workshop on Word Domains: Theory and Typology, Leipzig.

Halle, Morris. and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. In The

View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, eds. Ken

Hale. and Samuel Jay Keyser. 111–176. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Halle, Morris. and Marantz, Alec. 1994. Some Key Features of Distributed Morphology. MIT Working

Papers in Linguistics 21: 275-288.

Harley, Heidi. 2000. Irish, the EPP and PRO ms.

48

References

Kihm, Alain. 2001a. Noun Class, Gender, and The Lexicon-Syntax-Morphology Interfaces: CNRS –

Laboratoire de Linguistique formelle. ms.

Kihm, Alain. 2001b. Agreement in noun phrases in Semitic: Its nature and some consequences for

morphosyntactic representations: CNRS – Laboratoire de Linguistique formelle. ms.

Mac Congail, Nollaig. 2002. Leabhar Gramadaí Gaeilge. Indreabhán: Cló Iar-Chonnachta.

Marantz, Alec. 1998. No Escape From Syntax: Don't Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your

Own Lexicon. Paper presented at Penn Linguistics Colloqium.

McCloskey, James. 2001. The Distribution of Subject Properties in Irish. In Objects and Other Subjects,

eds. William D. Davies. and Stanley Dubinsky. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

McCloskey, James. 2006. Irish Existentials: Predicates and Defniteness. Paper presented at Stanford

Existentials Fest, Stanford.

Ó Cadhlaigh, Cormac. 1940. Gnás na Gaeilge. Baile Átha Cliath: Oifig an tSoláthair.

Ó Dónaill, Niall ed. 1977. Foclóir Gaeilge-Béarla. Baile Átha Cliath: Oifig an tSoláthair.

Ó Sé, Diarmuid. 1991. Verbal Inflection in Modern Irish. Ériu XLII: 61-81.

Ó Sé, Diarmuid. 2000. Gaeilge Chorca Dhuibhne. Baile Átha Cliath: Institiúid Teangeolaíochta Éireann.

Ouhalla, Jamal. 2005. Agreement Features, Agreement and Antiagreement. Natural Language &

Linguistic Theory 23: 655–686.

national centre for language technology (nclt) seminar series dublin city university july 18 th 2007...

Documents