The latest version of this work is linked here.
This paper tackles a formal analysis of the holistic nominal structure of Eastern Tamang (Sino-Tibetan: taj), concerning both syntactic and semantic accounts. Eastern Tamang employs a rigid phrase structure as shown below. The goal of this paper is to show how the nominal phrase is derived, reflecting both syntactic restriction and semantic composition. Therefore, instead of focusing on specific grammatical items, this paper aims to show the overall interactions of grammatical items in the structure. The structural building starts from the bottom to the top, layer by layer, sequentially.
NP --> PossP > DEM > NuCL > AP > N > Num
Syntax
The important remarks regarding syntax and semantics are summarized in this section. In the realm of syntax, I argue that the core spine of the nominal structure is DP > NumP > NP. Due to the restrictions from functional categories (DP, NumP), there is not much flexibility in the nominal structure.
First, a Num head, which is the locus of the number (plural) morpheme, hosts a numeral classifier (NuCL, henceforth) at its specifier. Since an adjective phrase (AP, henceforth) is adjoined to the NP, the interchange between NuCL and AP is syntactically barred.
The word order restriction between PossP and DEM is peculiar: PossP is always followed by DEM. I argue that this word order is achieved by hosting DEM in the D head and a PossP at its specifier. The word order is explained by the Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA). Furthermore, I argue that [Spec, DP] is an A-position, where genitive Case is assigned.
Lastly, I argue that the D head is a phase (Chomsky, 2001; Citko, 2014). The Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC) captures why other lexical items, such as NuCL or AP, cannot precede a demonstrative or a possessor (Chomsky, 2008).
Semantics
In the realm of semantics, I adopt the seminal notion of cross-linguistic semantics proposed by Chierchia(1998): the denotation of bare NPs is a part of UG.
First, I argue that the impoverished (optional) usage of a number morpheme is because a bare NP is a logical predicate <e,t>; specifically, a lattice structure. Namely, the * operator in the sense of Link (1983), is satisfied in the lexicon, pre-syntax.
As for NuCL, Eastern Tamang is a classifier-for-numeral language, which is manifested by a mixed numeral system in the language. In addition, a classifier does not form a constituent with a nominal. Thus, following Krifka (1995); Bale and Coon (2014), the denotation of a classifier is to support deficient numerals. A NuCL semantically picks up a set of the correct numerals from the predicate.
A demonstrative in Eastern Tamang lacks the maximality condition, which casts doubt on the positing of an iota-operator in its denotation. Thus, to derive an entity reading from a lattice structure, I resort to a different approach: existential closure at the DP level. Thus, a full DP with a demonstrative is scopally inert (narrowest scope only)
A possessor phrase, located higher than a demonstrative due to syntactic requirements, is semantically an unrestrictive modifier, namely the extension is not reduced by the possessor phrase (Partee, 2006). I argue that this property is captured by the possessor as a domain restrictor (Jenks, 2018). Namely, the possessor feeds the context variable in the D head. Thus, all the potential entities in the discourse domain from which existential closure takes place are Sujan's.
Keywords: syntax-semantics interface, plurality, numeral classifier, NP/DP Parameter, mereology, definiteness, domain restriction, fieldwork