In:Advances in the Syntax of DPs: Structure, agreement, and case
Edited by Anna Bondaruk, Gréte Dalmi and Alexander Grosu
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 217] 2014
► pp. 193–219
Possessives within and beyond NP
Two ezafe- constructions in Tatar
Published online: 14 October 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.217.08per
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.217.08per
The paper considers possessives in two
ezafe
-constructions in Tatar, a language without articles. More specifically, possessives in the so-called
ezafe
-2 and
ezafe
-3 constructions are distinguished formally by the presence of the genitive case on the possessive and the agreeing form of the possessive marker on the head in
ezafe
-3, but not in
ezafe
-2. The two types of possessors appear in distinct structural positions in the elaborate structure of a noun phrase, though neither of them remains inside NP. The two types of possessives themselves are of different size: the possessive in
ezafe
-3 is a full-fledged DP, but the possessive in
ezafe
-2 is a Small Nominal (Pereltsvaig 2006).
References (34)
Babyonyshev, Maria. 1997. The possessive construction in Russian: A crosslinguistic perspective. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 5(2): 1–41.
Baker, Mark 1985. The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 373–416.
Beaver, David 2013. Definiteness and determinacy. Paper presented at the Stanford Linguistics Colloquium, 2013.
Bonet, Eulàlia 1995. Feature structure of Romance clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 607–647.
Bošković, Željko 2005. On the locality of left branch extraction and the Structure of NP. Studia Linguistica 59(1): 1–45.
2008. What will you have, DP or NP? In
Proceedings of NELS 37
, Emily Elfner & Martin Walkow (eds), 101–115. Amherst MA: GLSA.
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 2000. (In)definiteness spread: From Romanian genitives to Hebrew construct state nominals. In Comparative Studies in Romanian Syntax, Virginia Motapanyane (ed.), 177–226. Oxford: Elsevier.
Engelhardt, Miriam & Trugman, Helen. 1998. D as a source of adnominal genitive in Russian. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. The Connecticut Meeting 1997, Željko Bošković, Steven Franks & William Snyder (eds), 114–133. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Göksel, Asli. 1997. Morphological asymmetries between Turkish and Yakut. In
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics
, Kâmile İmer & N. Engin Uzun (eds), 69–76, Ankara:Ankara University Publications.
. 2008. The interaction of prosody and morphology in interpreting morpheme sequences. Paper presented at the Workshop on Affix Ordering in Typologically Different Languages. 13th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna.
. 2013. Phrasal compounds, quotatives, epithets and descriptions; What to make of shared structure? Paper presented at the Workshop on Phrasal Compounds from a Theoretical and Typological Perspective, University of Mannheim.
Grashchenkov, Pavel. 2007. Izafetnaja konstruktsija: Mnogofaktornyj analiz (Ezafe-construction: A multifactorial analysis). In Misharskij dialect tatarskogo jazyka. Ocherki po sintaksisu i semantike (Mişär dialect of Tatar. Essays on syntax and semantics), Konstantin I. Kazenin, et al. (eds), 83–114. Kazan’: Magarif.
. 1997. The best clitic: Constraint conflict in morpho- Syntax. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 169–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kornfilt, Jaklin.1984. Case-marking, Agreement, and Empty Categories in Turkish. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.
.1986. The stuttering prohibition and morpheme deletion in Turkish. In
Proceedings of the Turkish Linguistic Conference 1984
, Eser Erguvanli Taylan & Ayhan Aksu-Koç (eds), 59–83. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Publications.
Longobardi, Giuseppe 1994. Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and Logical Form. Linguistic Inquiry 25(4): 609 – 665.
Lyutikova, Ekaterina & Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2013. Elucidating nominal structure in articleless languages: A case study of Tatar. In
BLS Proceedings
39. Berkeley CA: BLS.
Munn, Alan. 1995. The possessor that stayed close to home. In
Proceedings of WECOL 24
, Vida Samiian (ed.), 181–195. Fresno CA: Department of Linguistics.
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2001. On the Nature of Intra-clausal Relations: A Study of Copular Sentences in Russian and Italian. PhD dissertation, McGill University.
. 2013. On number and numberlessness in languages without articles.
Proceedings of BLS
37, 300–314. Berkeley CA: BLS.
Trugman, Helen. 2005. More puzzles about post-nominal genitives. In Possessives and Beyond: Semantics and Syntax[University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 29], Ji-yung Kim, Yury A. Lander & Barbara Partee (eds), 217–240. Amherst MA: GLSA.
. 2007. Possessives within and beyond NPs. In Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, Richard, Compton, Magdalena Goledzinowska & Ulyana Savchenko (eds), 437–457. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Gündoğdu, Songül & Betul Erbasi
2023.
Ezafe as a linking feature within DP. In Advances in Iranian Linguistics II [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 361], ► pp. 154 ff.
Lyutikova, Ekaterina & Asya Pereltsvaig
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
