DETs in the Functional Syntax of Greek Nominals
DETs in the Functional Syntax of Greek Nominals
复制标题
希腊名词功能句法中的 DET
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Kyriakaki
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Kyriakaki
本文探讨了名词性限制性修饰语的形式机制。其核心主张是，RMN取决于确定性在给定语言中的编码方式。在希腊语中，RMN的例子是超定限定词后跟裸形容词，如下面的（1）所示。这些可以在矩阵标称之前或之后：（1） 敬ksilino敬kuti 到skalistoThe木制 的 框 的 在句法上，我认为限定词和形容词可以构成限制性名词，也可以构成非限制性名词，这取决于它们的结构位置。本文以限制性名词为研究对象，认为限制性名词是由焦点到焦点的转换，焦点到焦点的转换是由焦点到焦点的转换。这些名词是小名词，由范畴根和n组成。看看矩阵名词的结构，就会发现形容词与NumP相邻，因为它们总是在名前。对属格词的研究也表明，希腊语名词的移动与NumP一样高。先前的分析将其与丰富的形态学相关联（Lekakou和Szendri，2007，2008，2010）。对他们来说，限定词是词形变化的拼写，但在其他方面是语义上的咒骂语。对于这些主张，我反驳说，RMN最好被视为依赖于如何编码的明确性和明确的限定词是简单的明确性不足。假设确定性包括两个组成部分，熟悉性和独特性，并根据标准英语和苏格兰英语的数据，我建议，明确的限定词拼写出一个组成部分，熟悉性，预计表现出RMN。熟悉性和唯一性因此可以分别映射到两个句法投影FamP和ιP中。因此，本研究为RMN提供了一个现代的跨语言解释，同时也为我们提供了关于确定性如何跨语言编码的新见解。
In this dissertation, I explore the formal mechanisms underlying restrictive modification by nominals (RMN). The central claim is that RMN is dependent on how definiteness is encoded in a given language.In Greek, RMN is exemplified by extra definite determiners followed by bare adjectives, as shown in (1) below. These may precede or follow the matrix nominal:(1) To ksilino to kuti to skalistoThe wooden the box the carved‘The carved wooden box’/ ‘The carved box the wooden one’Syntactically, I argue that the determiner and the adjective may form either a restrictive or non-restrictive nominal depending on their structural position. Focusing on restrictive nominals, I argue that they are adjuncts to nP, which raise to FocP when focused. These adjuncts are small nominals, consisting of acategorial roots and n. A look at the structure of the matrix noun reveals that adjectives adjoin to NumP, as they are always prenominal. A look at genitives also suggests that Greek nouns move as high as NumP.Central to this thesis is the question of what licenses RMN. Previous analyses have correlated it with rich morphology (Lekakou and Szendrői, 2007, 2008, 2010). For them, the determiner is the spell-out of inflection, but is otherwise a semantic expletive. To these claims, I counter-argue that RMN is best viewed as being dependent on how definiteness is encoded and that the definite determiner is simply underspecified for definiteness. Assuming that definiteness consists of two components, familiarity and uniqueness, and based on data from Standard English and Scottish English, I propose that definite determiners spelling out one component, familiarity, are predicted to exhibit RMN. Familiarity and uniqueness can thus be mapped into two syntactic projections, FamP and ιP, respectively. I then propose a syntactico-semantic mechanism that derives these constructions.Hence, this research offers a modern cross-linguistic account of RMN, while it also provides us with new insights about how definiteness can be encoded cross-linguistically.