Partitivity in natural language (original) (raw)
Related papers
Glossa, 2019
The paper offers a broad overview of several structures that fall under the umbrella term of "partitives". It surveys previous analyses and proposes a treatment based on two null operators, PART % and PART pro , with different syntactic and semantic properties. The approach is argued to outperform previous theories in its ability to cover conjunctions, mass cases and contrastive differences across Italian and English. Crowd-sourced grammaticality judgments and corpus searches are used to supplement informal judgments and try to shed light on a complex set of facts.
2021
This paper explores the coding patterns of partitives and their functional extensions, based on a convenience sample of 138 languages from 46 families from all macroareas. Partitives are defined as constructions that may express the proportional relation of a subset to a superset (the true-partitive relation). First, it is demonstrated that, cross-linguistically, partitive constructions vary as to their syntactic properties and morphological marking. Syntactically, there is a cline from loose – possibly less grammaticalized – structures to partitives with rigid head-dependent relations and, finally, to morphologically integrated one-word partitives. Furthermore, partitives may be encoded NP-internally (mostly via an adposition) or pronominally. Morphologically, partitives primarily involve markers syncretic with separative, locative or possessive meanings. Finally, a number of languages employ no partive marker at all. Secondly, these different strategies are not evenly distributed in the globe, with, for example, Eurasia being biased for the separative stragey. Thirdly, on the functional side, partitives may have functions in the following domains in addition to the true-partitive relation: plain quantification (pseudo-partitives), hypothetical events, predicate negation and aspectuality. I claim that the ability to encode plain quantification is the prerequisite for the other domains. Finally, it is argued that there is a universal preference towards syncretism of two semantically distinct concepts: the proportional, true-partitive relation (some of the books) and plain quantification (some books).
Crosslinguistic variation in partitives
Partitives cross-linguistically, 2022
Since then, comparative studies that focus on different facets of partitives crosslinguistically have multiplied, even across theoretical borders, as reflected in numerous conferences and publications. The PARTE network originates in several workshops that were organized by Elisabeth Stark and colleagues at the University of Zurich in 2014 and 2016 that brought together syntacticians and typologists. Although the PARTE network comprises 11 universities and institutions and 18 researchers, the partitivity network in a broader sense is much larger, and includes researchers who presented their work on partitivity at workshops in Venice in 2017, Pavia in 2019 and Frankfurt in 2019. Most of the contributors of this special issue on "Partitives cross-linguistically" are members of the extended network. The collaboration resulted already in several volumes and special issues, more specifically Falco & Zamparelli (2019); Ihsane & Stark (2020); Ihsane (2020) and Sleeman & Giusti (2021). Members and contributors of the PARTE network have focused on different aspects of partitivity, and have tried to shed light on the relation between the various items which are referred to as 'partitives' in the literature, including their diachronic development, as we discuss in Section 2.
On the Structure of English Partitive NPs and Agreement
Studies in Generative Grammar, 2002
Syntactic and semantic complexities of English partitive constructions have given us many troubles in understanding English NP structures. The paper begins with the classification of partitive NPs into two types based on agreement factors and claims that enriched information on lexical entries can provide feasible generalizations for such constructions while capturing their syntactic and semantic properties in a systematic way.
Aspects of the Structure and Meaning of Partitive Constructions
In this study I explore the structure and meaning of partitive constructions. I investigate the relation between partitivity and specificity, and argue that partitives in Classical/Standard Arabic manifest the same type of ambiguity with regard to specificity that is manifested by regular indefinite noun phrases. I also shed light on a phenomenon that has never been noticed in the literature. Specifically, I uncover a use of the nominal –n suffix that has never been brought to light before. I argue that this suffix is required to be attached to certain determiners in partitive constructions to satisfy a structural function.
Crosslinguistic variation in partitives An introduction
Linguistic variation, 2023
As has been highlighted in the literature (see Luraghi & Huumo 2014a: 3–4) the word ‘partitive’ has often been used in reference to different types of linguistic items or constructions without further specification. In recent years, a number of studies have called attention to the different features of items covered by this label. In particular, it has been shown that partitive cases of languages such as Finnish, Estonian and Basque have much in common with partitive genitives known from the Indo-European languages as well as with partitive articles featured by some Romance languages, which in their turn parallel partitive determiners, verbal affixes or other clitics from Oceanic languages. This apparently heterogeneous array of different items did not receive a unified treatment in spite of striking similarities and of extensive language-specific studies, partly because the label ‘partitive’ blurred the difference between these items and partitive constructions (on which see Section 2).
Convergence and divergence in the expression of partitvity: a cross-linguistic experimental study
Sleeman & Ihsane, Linguistics, 2020
This paper focusses on the so-called partitive pronoun in French and Dutch, and the corresponding data in German, a language which is assumed not to have partitive pronouns in its standard, in contrast to certain dialectal varieties. Taking the diverse uses of the French partitive pronoun en as a starting point, we investigate the corresponding constructions in Dutch and German. The ultimate aim of the paper is to develop an analysis accounting for the similarities and differences between these languages in relation to the presence/absence of the partitive pronoun. To reach our objectives, we rely on data collected in a Grammaticality Judgment Test taken by native speakers of French, Dutch and German. We put together theory and experimental data in a crosslinguistic perspective investigating three languages that differ in their uses of partitive elements and formalize the results in a model in which the partitive pronoun can replace different portions of the nominal structure.
To appeaer in J. Dotlacil & B. Gehrke, 2006
The paper presents the partitive phrase (PartP) as a part of the general functional sequence in the nominal domain. It is argued that PartP derives grammatical number and effects related to countability, defines units of division and introduces the potentials of indefinite, non-generic and non-mass reference. Identity is established between this functional projection and the projection that derives partitive constructions. Contents of SpecPartP are related with the structural representation of the lexical meaning of nominal expressions, in order to account for observations that there are two levels in the structure of nominal expressions at which countability is determined.