* Heads – a Greville canonical G. Corbett approach Surrey Morphology Group, University of Surrey • 1 Relevance to PIPCs • One approach to PIPCs would be that these are constructions in which the • dependent has ‘ ideas above its ’, status taking some head properties. This implies that headedness is a gradient notion. Survey of possible head properties, concentrating on nominal phrases (cf the discussion of headedness in Meakins & Nordlinger (to appear)). • 2 •History important notion for Bloomfield (1933), though it goes back further • behind the development of X-‐‑bar theory (Chomsky 1970, Jackendoff 1977, and compare Kornai & Pullum 1990) • vital part of theoretical syntax since GPSG azdar (G & Pullum 1981, Gazdar, • Klein, Pullum & Sag 1985), and central in HPSG (Pollard & Sag 1994) • the heart of Dependency Grammar (as in Hudson 1984: 75-‐‑79) key idea in typology since Nichols (1986); also Evans & Fenwick (2013) interesting debate between Zwicky and Hudson on criteria, leading to the • volume on headedness (Corbett, Fraser & McGlashan 1993), with contributions by Zwicky, Hudson and others at least since Abney’s thesis (1987), ‘head’ has become increasingly theory-‐‑dependent. I will use ‘nominal phrase’ as a neutral term (NP/DP). • 3 •Canonical heads and all canonical dependents: criteria Quick introduction to canonicity all Basic strategy: a canonical head has possible head properties; similarly a canonical dependent has possible dependent properties.
canonical head canonical dependent determines semantic has no impact on semantic semantic properties of phrase properties of phrase determines external has no impact on external external syntax of phrase syntax of phrase syntactic determines internal has no impact on internal internal syntax of phrase syntax of phrase has morphological has morphological marker morphological marker of head of dependent has phonological has phonological marker phonological marker of head of dependent
* Figure 1: Canonical heads and dependents
The support of the AHRC under grant AH/M010708/1 (Prominent possessors) is gratefully acknowledged. I also thank these colleagues for useful suggestions: Oliver Bond, Patricia Cabredo-‐‑Hofherr, Peter Sells, Nigel Vincent and especially Erich Round. Greville G. Corbett Prominent Internal Possessors SOAS, September 2016
3.1 Semantic The idea of a semantic head goes back at least to Jespersen. Following him, Zwicky (1985: 4) writes: “we could take the head/modifier distinction to be at root semantic: in a combination X+Y, X is the 'semantic head' if, speaking very crudely, X + Y describes a kind of the ” thing described by X. So it is natural to suggest that the head will determine the co-‐‑occurrence restrictions of its phrase. For issues with semantic heads see McGlashan (1993). Ton French (Hulk & Tellier 1999: 183) (1) phénomènedistrait-‐‑e *distrait de fille est your.M.SG phenomenon(M) of daughter(F) COP .3SG bien . ( (M)) quite absent-‐‑minded-‐‑FEM.SG ‘That amazing daughter of yours is quite absent-‐‑minded.’ laquelle French (consultant) (2) Ton phénomène de fille, Elleavec your.M.SG phenomenon(M) of daughter(F) with REL.F.SG je viens de parl-‐‑er ...... 1SG come.1SG of speak-‐‑INF ... 3SG.FEM ... ‘That amazing daughter of yours, with whom I have just been speaking ... She ...’
(There are various related constructions, where the balance between syntactic and semantic head can differ: recall Koptjevskaja-‐‑Tamm 2001 on pseudo-‐‑ partitives, taken up from an acquisition perspective by Stickney 2007.)
Attraction: George Bush (Washington, 23 January 2004): (3) ... the illiteracy level of our children are appalling.
Scandinavian ‘pancake sentences’ (Enger 2004, Corbett 2006: 223-‐‑224), Haugen & Enger 2014) god-‐‑t. Norwegian (Bokmål/Nynorsk, Faarlund 1977: 240) (4) Pannekake-‐‑r er pancake-‐‑PL COP good-‐‑N.SG ‘Pancakes is good.’ (‘Eating pancakes is good.’) Nystekt-‐‑e god-‐‑t Norwegian (Bokmål, Enger 2004: 20) (5) pannekake-‐‑r er . new.fried-‐‑PL pancake-‐‑PL COP good-‐‑N.SG ‘Newly-‐‑fried pancakes is good.’ (‘Eating -‐‑ newly fried pancakes is good.’) som grusom-‐‑t Norwegian (Bokmål, Corbett 2006: 223, Hans -‐‑Olav Enger, p. communication) (6) Narkotika, erde -‐‑t for både misbrukere og Narcotic(M)[SG], which COP awful-‐‑N.SG for both addicts and pårørende, skulle aldri vært oppfunnet. relatives.spouses, it-‐‑N.SG should never been invented ‘Drugs, which is awful for both addicts and those close to them, -‐‑ it should never have been invented.’
2 Greville G. Corbett Prominent Internal Possessors SOAS, September 2016
(7) Constructional mismatches and the Agreement Hierarchy: (Corbett 2006: 208-‐‑224)
Agreement relative personal attributive predicate Hierarchy: pronoun pronoun Russian conjoined sg / (PL) (sg) / PL (sg) / PL ((sg)) / PL noun phrases (PL 14%) (PL 71%) Serbian/Croatian/ remnant / (remnant) / French Bosnian complex lower remnant (M.PL) M.PL M.PL noun numeral phrases phrases (M.PL 18%) (M.PL 62%) Norwegian syntactic SEMANTIC SEMANTIC SEMANTIC agreement vs. head HEAD HEAD HEAD default agreement DEFAULT DEFAULT DEFAULT
Associatives sg PL no data PL (Talitsk Russian)
Note: lower case indicates syntactic agreement, and upper case SEMANTIC AGREEMENT; parentheses indicate a less frequent variant.
3.2 Syntactic It is in syntax that the notion of head is most important.
“The head of a constituent/phrase is the element which determines the most important properties of the constituent/phrase. At the same time, the head also determines the composition of the phrase. That is, the head requires certain other elements sent to be pre in the phrase.” Müller (2016: 28)
3.2.1 Numeral phrases in Russian and other Slavonic languages
Russian (8) odin žurnal one[M.SG] magazine(M)[SG] ‘one magazine’
(9) odn-‐‑a gazet-‐‑a one-‐‑F.SG newspaper(F)-‐‑SG ‘one newspaper’
(10) odn-‐‑o pis´m-‐‑o one-‐‑N.SG letter(N)-‐‑SG ‘one letter’
(11) odn-‐‑i nožnic-‐‑y one-‐‑PL scissors-‐‑PL ‘one pair of scissors’
3 Greville G. Corbett Prominent Internal Possessors SOAS, September 2016 odin dva Thus with ‘one’ we see agreement in number and in all three gender values, as we would find with an adjective (only the forms are irregular). The numeral ‘two’ agrees in a more limited way:
(12) dv-‐‑a žurnal-‐‑a two-‐‑M.NOM magazine(M)-‐‑SG.GEN ‘two magazines’
(13) dv-‐‑e gazet-‐‑y two-‐‑F.NOM newspaper(F)-‐‑SG.GEN ‘two newspapers’
(14) dv-‐‑a pis´m-‐‑a two-‐‑N.NOM letters(N)-‐‑SG.GEN ‘two letters’
Naturally, ‘five’ is rather different: (15) Na ulic-‐‑e sto-‐‑it pjat´ dom-‐‑ov. on street-‐‑SG.LOC stand-‐‑3SG five[NOM] house-‐‑PL.GEN ‘There are five houses on the street.’
(16) k pjat-‐‑i dom-‐‑am towards five-‐‑DAT house-‐‑PL.DAT ‘towards five houses’
(17) The simple cardinal numerals of Russian
odin dva tri pjat´ sto tysjača million 1 2 3 5 100 1,000 1,000,000 1. agrees with noun in syntactic number + -‐‑ -‐‑ -‐‑ -‐‑ -‐‑ -‐‑ 2. agrees in case in the direct case + -‐‑ -‐‑ -‐‑ -‐‑ -‐‑ -‐‑ 3. agrees in gender 4. agrees in animacy + (+) -‐‑ -‐‑ -‐‑ -‐‑ -‐‑ 5. has no semantically + + + -‐‑ -‐‑ -‐‑ -‐‑ independent plural + + + + (-‐‑) -‐‑ -‐‑ 6. fails to take agreeing determiners + + + + + -‐‑ -‐‑ 7. does not take noun in genitive plural throughout + + + + + ± -‐‑ paradigm
Each numeral in turn shows slightly fewer adjective-‐‑like (more -‐‑ noun like, head-‐‑ like) properties:
4 Greville G. Corbett Prominent Internal Possessors SOAS, September 2016
‘If the simple cardinal numerals of a given language vary in their syntactic behaviour, the numerals showing nounier behaviour will denote higher numerals than those with less nouny behaviour’ (Corbett 1978: 363; cf. Hurford – 1987: 187 197).
Russian predicate agreement: in principle, two possibilities: (18) vošl-‐‑o pjat´ devušek came.in-‐‑SG.NEUT five.NOM girl.PL.GEN ‘five girls came in’
(19) vošl-‐‑i pjat´ devušek came.in-‐‑PL five.NOM girl.PL.GEN ‘five girls came in’
Table 1 : Predicate agreement with numeral phrases in Slavonic (Corbett 2000: -‐‑ 214 216 for details and sources, notably Suprun 1969: -‐‑ 175 187)
2 3 4 5-‐‑10 100 West Slavonic: Czech PL PL PL sg sg Slovak PL PL PL PL/sg sg Sorbian DUAL PL PL PL/sg sg 99% PL 91% PL ||100% PL 7% PL Polish (N=123) (N=43) (N=15) (N=68) South Slavonic: Old Church DUAL PL PL (PL)/sg Slavonic Bulgarian PL PL PL PL PL Macedonian PL PL PL PL PL 97% PL 89% PL 83% PL 7% PL Serbo-‐‑Croat (N=735) (N=249) (N=133) (N=1161) Slovene DUAL PL PL sg sg East Slavonic: 83% PL 79% PL 74% PL 38% PL 21% PL Ukrainian (N=208) (N=150) (N=34) (N=45) (N=14) 92% PL 78% PL 63% PL 39% PL || 50% PL Belarusian 50% PL Russian (N=219) (N=67) (N=16) (N=49) (N=2) 86% PL 77% PL 76% PL (N=541) (N=247) (N=68) (N=220)
In able T 1, DUAL (where available) and PL(URAL) represent semantic agreement. When a cell has a single entry (e.g. ‘PL’), this indicates that the form is used in the majority of instances, though not necessarily all. A gap indicates a lack of data.
5 Greville G. Corbett Prominent Internal Possessors SOAS, September 2016
3.2.2 Slavonic possessive adjectives
Upper Sorbian (Corbett 1987: 304, citing Faßke 1981: 385) (20) To je naš-‐‑eho wučerj-‐‑ow-‐‑a zahrodk-‐‑a. That is our-‐‑GEN.SG.M teacher-‐‑POSS-‐‑NOM.SG.F garden(F)-‐‑NOM.SG Wón‘That is our teacher’s njej garden.’
wjele w dźěła. 3SG.NOM.M a.lot in 3SG.LOC.F works. ‘He [our teacher] works in it a lot.’
(See recent work O'Connor, in Maling & Skarabela. 2013.)
3.2.3 Possessors in Arawan languages
Kulina (Dienst 2014: 90-‐‑91) Agreement with object, possessor and -‐‑ possessed are non KA nouns, so -‐‑ non KA agreement: (21) zomahi nokho saka ozai Ø O [zomahi nokho] saka o-‐‑na-‐‑ za-‐‑i M SG AUX IN DECL M jaguar( ) eye gouge 1 -‐‑ -‐‑ -‐‑ . na-‐‑ ‘I Ø gouged the jaguar’s eye.’ (Note: indicates that an immediately preceding auxiliary is deleted.) ka Agreement with object, possessor KA is a noun: KA agreement: (22) anobeze nokho saka o zai Ø O [anobeze nokho] saka o-‐‑ka-‐‑na-‐‑ za-‐‑i collared.peccary(M-‐‑KA) eye gouge 1SG-‐‑KA.AG-‐‑AUX-‐‑IN-‐‑DECL.M ‘I gouged the collared peccary’s eye.’ ka Agreement with subject, possessed is a KA noun: KA agreement: (23) o-‐‑w-‐‑amori tiro to-‐‑ -‐‑na-‐‑ni 1SG-‐‑EPENTH-‐‑foot(M-‐‑KA) break 3-‐‑ KA.AG-‐‑AUX-‐‑DECL.F ‘I broke my foot.’ (lit.: ‘My foot broke.’) ka-‐‑ ‘A verb agreeing ka-‐‑ with an argument that contains an inalienable possessive construction takes the class marker if either the possessor or the possessed is a class noun.’ (Dienst 2014: 90)
Paumarí (Aikhenvald 2010: 240) (24) ojoro ka-‐‑bodi-‐‑ni ka-‐‑karaho turtle(KA, F) KA-‐‑mouth(NON-‐‑KA, F)-‐‑F KA-‐‑big ‘big mouth of a turtle’ or ‘mouth of a big turtle’
6 Greville G. Corbett Prominent Internal Possessors SOAS, September 2016
3.3 Morphological
Construct state: Classical Arabic (Creissels 2009: 73-‐‑74) (25) daxal-‐‑a kalb-‐‑u-‐‑n. enter.PF-‐‑3SG.M dog.SG-‐‑NOM-‐‑INDF ‘A dog came in.’
(26) daxal-‐‑a l-‐‑kalb-‐‑u. enter.PF-‐‑3SGM DEF-‐‑dog.SG-‐‑NOM ‘The dog came in.’
(27) *daxal-‐‑a kalb-‐‑u. enter.PF-‐‑3SG.M dog.SG-‐‑NOM ‘A/the dog came in.’
(28) daxal-‐‑a kalb-‐‑u l-‐‑malik-‐‑i enter.PF-‐‑3SG.M dog.SG-‐‑NOM DEF-‐‑king-‐‑GEN ‘The dog of the king came in.’
(29) daxal-‐‑a kalb-‐‑u-‐‑hu enter.PF-‐‑3SG.M dog.SG-‐‑NOM-‐‑3SG.M ‘His dog came in.’
Case stacking (Suffixaufnahme): Nyamal (Dench 2009: 765) (30) Nyunanga-‐‑karta-‐‑lu pinyjil-‐‑karta-‐‑lu yaji-‐‑la-‐‑ngka-‐‑mu. 2SG.GEN-‐‑PROPR-‐‑ERG pencil-‐‑PROPR-‐‑ERG write-‐‑ANT-‐‑2SG-‐‑ANT ‘You’ll write (it) down with your pencil’
3.4 Phonological
Haruai (Piawi family, Madang Province, New Guinea): Comrie 1993
‘... in the absence of other factors (constrastive stress, greater stress associated with focus, that .[1] is, essential new information), dependents receive greater stress than their heads ’ Comrie (1993: 36)
4 Beyond simply head and dependent 4.1 Problems of recursion Recursion is expected (Widmer, Auderset, Widmer, Nichols & Bickel 2016)
4.1.1 Personal pronoun This typically ends the chain of possessors.
4.1.2 “Possessor camouflage” (Comrie 2016); Sakha (Yakut) has a marker for stacked (but not simple) possessors
7 Greville G. Corbett Prominent Internal Possessors SOAS, September 2016 n Sakha (Yakut): Comrie (2016) and sources there (31) sargї ubay-‐‑ї-‐‑ ǰie-‐‑te Sargy brother-‐‑3-‐‑GEN house-‐‑3 ‘Sargy’s brother’s n house’
(32) kini ehe-‐‑ti-‐‑ oron-‐‑o s/he grandfather-‐‑3-‐‑GEN bed-‐‑3 ‘her/his n grandfather’s bed’
(33) ehe-‐‑ti-‐‑ oron-‐‑o grandfather-‐‑3-‐‑GEN bed-‐‑3 ‘her/his grandfather’s bed’
4.1.3 Slavonic vs Suffixaufnahme 4.1.3.1 general constraint Morphological structure may limit what information words can carry (as, for instance, in Slavonic), versus languages where morphology can be “stacked”. (Corbett 1995). 4.1.3.2 minor constraints on stacking For example, in Nyamal, which has ‘complete concord’ in principle, nothing may follow the dative (Dench 2009: 767)
4.2 “Negotiation”
Bezhta (Dagestanian: Kibrik 1995: 220), van den Berg ; (2005: 261) further examples in Boguslavskaja (1995: 233-‐‑234). (34) abo -‐‑s Dct is father-‐‑GEN brother[ABS] ‘father’s brother’
(35) abo-‐‑la Obl is-‐‑t’i-‐‑l father-‐‑GEN brother-‐‑ OBL-‐‑DAT ‘to father’s brother’ • 5 Conclusion • Canonical approach: spell out the criteria, establish an idealized base line and calibrate from that. • Potential analogies to PIPCs in other constructions with interesting types of non-‐‑canonical heads and non-‐‑canonical dependents. Calibration: worth investigating whether we can find measures, as with agreement, for “measuring” head-‐‑hood, for application to PIPCs.
6 References Abney, Steven. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2010. Gender, noun class and language obsolescence: The case of Paumarí. In Eithne B. Carlin & Simon van de Kerke (eds.),
8 Greville G. Corbett Prominent Internal Possessors SOAS, September 2016 Linguistics and Archeology in the Americas: The Historization of Language and Society
Linguistics, 235-‐‑252. Leiden: Brill. Andersen, Torben. 2016. Case inflection of construct-‐‑state constructions Lingua in Dinka. 54.639-‐‑681. Berg, Helma van den. Language. 2005. The East Caucasian language family. 115.147-‐‑190. Bloomfield, Leonard 1933. New Double York: Case: Holt, Rinehart Agreement and by Winston. Suffixaufnahme, Boguslavskaja, Ol´ga Ju. 1995. Genitives and adjectives as attributes in Daghestanian. In: Franz Plank (ed.) N1/A de 230– 239. N2 New York: Oxford University Press. Casillas Martínez, Luis D. 2003. Gender Mismatches Proceedings in of Spanish and French the 9th International Affective Constructions: Conference on Head-‐‑ Driven Index Agreement Phrase Structure vs. Grammar Morphosyntactic Concord. In: Jong-‐‑Bok Kim & Stephen Wechsler (eds) , 1-‐‑17. Stanford: CSLI. [http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/3/hpsg02.htm]Readings in English Transformational Grammar Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on Nominalization. In: Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds). , 184-‐‑221. Boston: Ginn. Heads in Grammatical Theory Comrie, Bernard. 1993. The phonology of heads in Haruai. In: Greville G. Corbett, Norman M. Fraser & Scott McGlashan (eds). , – 36 43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, Bernard. 2016. Possessive chains and possessor camouflage. Paper Lingua read at ‘Syntax of the World’s Languages VII’, Mexico City, 17 August 2016. Corbett, Greville G. 1978. Universals in the syntax of cardinal numerals. 46.355-‐‑68. Language Corbett, Greville G. 1987. The mophology/syntax rom interface: evidence f possessive adjectives in Russian. 63.299Double -‐‑345. Case: Agreement by Corbett, Suffixaufnahme Greville G. 1995. Slavonic’s closest approach to Suffix Copying: the possessive adjective. Number In: Frans Plank (ed.) , 265-‐‑82. Agreement New York: Oxford ty Universi Press. Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corbett, Greville G. 2006. . Cambridge: Cambridge University Heads Press. in Corbett, Grammatical Greville Theory G. 2012. . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corbett, Greville G., Norman M. Fraser & Scott McGlashan (eds). 1993. . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Creissels, Proceedings Denis. of 2009. Conference Construct on forms Language of nouns Documentation in African languages. In: Peter and K. Linguistic Theory 2Austin, Oliver Bond, Monik Charette, David Nathan & Peter Sells (eds)
. London: SOAS. www.hrelp.org/eprints/ldlt2_08.pdf Dench, The Alan. Oxford 2009. Handbook Case of Case in an Australian language: Distribution of case and multiple case A Grammar marking of in Kulina Nyamal. In: Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds). , 756-‐‑769. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dienst, Stefan. 2014. (Mouton Grammar Library 66). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. COLING '00 Proceedings of the 18th conference on Ebert, Computational Christian linguistics & Marcus Kracht. 2000. Formal syntax and semantics of case stacking languages. Nordic Journal of , Linguistics Volume 1, 250-‐‑256. Enger, Hans-‐‑Olav. 2004. Scandinavian pancake sentences as semantic agreement. 27.5-‐‑34.
9 Greville G. Corbett Prominent Internal Possessors SOAS, September 2016
Evans, Nicholas & Eva Fenwick. Language 2013. Typology Marking and versus Historical indexing: Revisiting the Contingency: Nichols marking In -‐‑locus honor typology. of Johanna NicholsIn: Balthasar Bickel, Lenore A. Grenoble, David A. Peterson & Alan Timberlake (eds) [Typological Studies in Language 104], 69–90. Journal Amsterdam: of Linguistics John Benjamins. Faarlund, Jan . Terje 1977. Grammatik Embedded der clause obersorbischen reduction and Schriftsprache Scandinavian der gender Gegenwart: agreement. Morphologie. 13.239-‐‑57. Faßke, Helmut. 1981. Bautzen: Domowina Verlag. Gazdar, Gerald The & Scope Geoffrey of m. K. Pullu Lexical 1981. Rules Subcategorization, constituent order, and the notion 'head'. In: Michael Linguistics Moortgat, in the Harry Morning van Calm der Hulst, and Teun Hoekstra (eds). , 107-‐‑123. Dordrecht: Foris. [Also in Linguistic Society of Korea, editors: Generalized , 195-‐‑209. Hanshin Phrase Structure Publishing Grammar. Company, Seoul, Korea, 1982.] Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum Geoffrey K. & Sag, Ivan A. 1985. Blackwell: Cognitive Linguistic Oxford. Studies Haugen, Tor Arne & Hans-‐‑Olav Enger. Journal 2014. of Linguistics Scandinavian pancake constructions as a family of Word constructions. grammar. 1, 171–196. Hudson, R. A. 1987. Zwicky on heads. 23.109–132 Hudson, Richard A. 1984. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Formal Hulk, Perspectives Aafke on & Tellier, Romance Christine. Linguistics: 1999. Selected Conflictual papers agreement from the 28th Linguistic in Romance nominals. Symposium In: on J.-‐‑Marc Romance Authier, Languages Barbara (LSRL E. XXVIII), University Bullock Park, 16-‐‑ 19 & Lisa Reed (eds) April 1998
(Current Issues Language in Linguistic and Number: Theory -‐‑ 185), 179 95. the Amsterdam: emergence of a cognitive John system. Benjamins. Hurford, James X R. -‐‑ 1987. bar syntax: A study of phrase structure Oxford: Blackwell. Jackendoff, Ray The 1977. Philosophy of Grammar . (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 2.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jespersen, Otto. 1924. Double Case: . London: Agreement Allen by & Unwin. Suffixaufnahme, Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1995. Direct-‐‑Oblique Agreement of Attributes in Daghestanian. In: Franz Plank (ed.) 216–229. New York: Oxford University Press. Koptjevskaja-‐‑Tamm, Maria. 2001. “A piece The of Circum -‐‑ Baltic the cake” and “a cup of tea”: partitivLanguages: e Volume and -‐‑ pseudo partitive 2: Grammar nominal and Typology constructions in the Circum-‐‑Baltic languages. In: Östen Dahl & Maria -‐‑ Koptjevskaja Tamm (eds) , – 523 568. Amsterdam: John LanguageBenjamins. Kornai, András & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 1990. -‐‑ The X bar theory of phrase structure. 66.24-‐‑50. Heads in Grammatical Theory McGlashan, Scott. 1993. Heads and lexical semantics. In: Greville G. Corbett, Norman M. Fraser & Scott McGlashan (eds). , 204-‐‑230. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Meakins, Felicity Grammatical & Rachel theory: Nordlinger. From To transformational appear. Possessor dissension in the grammar to constraintNgumpin-‐‑Yapa -‐‑based languages approaches of northern Australia. Müller, Stefan. 2016. (Textbooks in Language Sciences 1). Berlin: Language Science Press.
10 Greville G. Corbett Prominent Internal Possessors SOAS, September 2016 Language Nichols, Johanna. Constructive 1986. Head case: Evidence marking from and Australian dependent languages marking grammar. 62.56-‐‑119. Nordlinger, Rachel. 1998. . Stanford: CSLI. O'Connor, Catherine, Joan Maling & Barbora Skarabela. 2013. Nominal categories and the expression Morphosy ntactic of possession: -‐‑ A cross linguistic Categories study and of the probabilistic Expression of Possessiontendencies and categorical constraints. In: Kersti Börjars, David Denison & Alan K. Scott (eds) Head-‐‑Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. , 89–122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A. 1994. Chicago: Proceedings University of of Chicago the Press. 2nd Conference on Generative Approaches to Stickney, Language Helen, Acquisition 2007. From North pseudopartitive America (GALANA) to partitive. In: Alyona Belikova et al. (eds). Slavjanskie čislitel´nye (stanovlenie , 406-‐‑415. čislitel´nyx Somerville, kak MA: osoboj časti reči)Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Suprun, A. E. 1969. . Minsk: Belorussian State University. Widmer, Manuel, Sandra Journal Auderset, of Linguistics Paul Widmer, Johanna Nichols & Balthasar Bickel. 2016. NP recursion over time. Draft 16 June 2016, University of Zürich. Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. Heads. Heads 21.1– 29. in Grammatical Theory Zwicky, Arnold M 1993. Heads, bases and functors. In: Greville G. Corbett, Norman M. Fraser & Scott McGlashan (eds). , 292-‐‑315. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11