with or without a numeral. And it can co-occur with countable as well as uncountable nouns;. (19)a. bahiTaa b. bahi duiTaa c. duiTaa bahi book-TAA book two- ...
Sahoo, Kalyanamalini (1999) ’The Syntax of Definiteness in Oriya In R. Singh (eds.) The Year Book of South Asian Languages & Linguistics. Sage Publications: New Delhi, Thousand Oaks, California, and London.
Title: The Syntax of Definiteness in Oriya Subtitles: 1.0: Introduction 1.1: Numerals 1.2: The singular indefinite morpheme -e 1.3: The singular definite morpheme -ka 2.1: Classifiers 2.2: The default-classifier morpheme -Taa
Abstract∗ Definiteness plays an important role in Oriya (an Indo-Aryan language) syntax. The bound morphs -e, and -ka, which are singular and carry the feature bundle [+Num, +K], have been analyzed as the indefinite and definite Article, respectively. It is also argued that the default classifier morpheme -Taa which is assumed to have its underspecified features integrated into the DP, indicates definiteness of the DP (when -Taa is not attached to a numeral), as nominals with no overt D or Q element presuppose identifiability and thus mark definiteness.
∗
I acknowledge my sincere thanks to Prof. K.A.Jayaseelan, and Prof. Probal Dasgupta, both of whom have read the earlier drafts of this paper through, and have given lots of comments and suggestions to improve it ‘ more than I can really acknowledge.
2 The Syntax of Definiteness in Oriya 1.0 Introduction To characterize definiteness marking in Indian languages has become a longstanding problem for syntactic theory. Most of the Indian languages do not have an article comparable to the English article `the'. In the absence of a particular overt (lexically realized) marker of that sort, these languages convey definiteness sometimes through morphological elements and sometimes at the level of word order choice, discourse organization, and other pragmatically relevant choices. The primary function of definiteness is to identify a particular referent of the definite NP. Nominals with no D or Q element presuppose identifiability and thus mark definiteness too. In this paper, we restrict our investigation to certain syntactic factors in the Oriya definiteness and indefiniteness marking system, with an eye on points at which Oriya differs from other Eastern Indian languages. But no comparative syntactic work as such is attempted here1. The word order in Oriya DPs is not very rigid. Some elements like numerals, classifiers, articles, and quantifiers can occur both pre- and postnominally without affecting the meaning of the DP at all. Some of the numerals and classifiers are realized as free morphs and precede the element they count or classify; others are bound morphs which encliticize. It is this variation that gives the definiteness phenomena in Oriya a distinctive syntactic profile. Although definiteness can be marked through various morphological elements like the Poss DP, demonstrative, ordinal, quantifier like jaaka (Sahoo 1996), even a DP without any of these lexically realized elements can carry definiteness. For example, a DP like (1) bahiTaa2 book-K `the book' is [+definite, +singular]. And obviously this is not because of -Taa. For in DPs like (2) a. bahiTaae b. bahi duiTaa book-K-one book two-K `a book' `two books' the presence of -Taa does not indicate definiteness. The question is: what imparts definiteness in bahiTaa? And without any overt marker for a numeral how does it end up carrying the [+singular] feature? And also if there is any null element present, is that null element a number marker (numeral) or a definiteness marker (definite determiner) or both? To find this out we shall consider the numerals and classifiers in Oriya. Section 1 deals with the Numerals and section 2 with the Classifiers in Oriya.
3 1.1 Numerals Nonsingular numerals are realized as free morphs in Oriya. Besides the regular numerals, two bound morphs -e, and -ka which retain the properties of a singular number give the same meaning in colloquial Oriya as the numeral eka does in formal Oriya. The numeral eka in Oriya is derived from the Sanskrit word eka `one'. It is considered to be too formal for colloquial speech. In that register, -e, goTaae3, goTie, goTe, -ka, etc. are the various counterparts to the numeral eka; e.g. (3) `a sack of rice' can be expressed in various ways, such as (i) eka bastaa chaauLa (formal) one sack rice (ii) bastaae chaauLa sack-one rice (iii) chaauLa bastaae rice sack-one (iv) goTaae/goTie /goTe bastaa chaauLa one sack rice And when the DP is [+definite] it is realized as: (v) chaauLa bastaaka rice sack-one `the sack of rice' The above example 3 seems to indicate that singularity can be expressed in various ways, such as: goTaae, goTie, goTe, -e, and -ka. And while -e (in goTaae, goTie, goTe) is associated with a [-definite] feature on the NP/DP, -ka indicates [+definite]. We shall first discuss the distributional properties of -e, and then move to those of -ka. 1.2 The singular indefinite morpheme -e In example 3 we found that -e is the realization of a singular morpheme which marks nominal indefiniteness. If we consider the distributional properties of -e we find that -e can co-occur with a Classifier and/or a Measure word with classifier properties, which we will regard as a Classifier ‘ a proviso we will take for granted from this point onwards whenever we use the term classifier); e.g. (4) bastaae chaauLa sack-one rice ’a sack of rice— It cannot be attached to the head noun directly; but it occurs attached to the classifier; e.g.
4 (5)a. *(gochhaa) ghaase (bundle) grass-one b. gochhaae ghaasa bundle-one grass ’a bundle of grass— -e cannot co-occur with a non-singular numeral for obvious semantic reasons: (6) *duie bahi two-one book The element -e does not co-occur with a classifier4 if the DP also contains an ordinary non-singular numeral, but it can co-occur with Measure word numerals such as saha `hundred', hajaara `thousand', etc. Only certain nonsingular numerals count as Measure words (and are thus treated in our description as Classifiers): (7) a. sahe loka b. hajaare Tankaa hundred-one man thousand-one rupee `one hundred men' `one thousand rupees' c. eka saha loka d. eka hajaara loka one hundred man one thousand man `one hundred men' `one thousand rupees' (8) a. pandara gaai b. *pandare gaai c.*eka pandara gaai fifteen cow fifteen-one cow one fifteen cow `fifteen cows' `fifteen cows' `fifteen cows' (Note that although 7c-d seem to be formal, they are possible constructions in Oriya, while 8b-c are not so.) In 7a-b, saha, and hajaara are Measure words and are treated as classifiers. 8b-c are ill-formed because pandara `fifteen' is an ordinary non-singular numeral, which makes it incompatible with -e. We shall take the position that saha, hajaara, etc. are syntactically Measure words and semantically numerals. -e is always cliticized to the classifier and thus contrasts with other numerals which can occur independently: (9)a. dui haLa jotaa b. *haLa e jotaa c. *e haLa jotaa two Cl shoe Cl one shoe one Cl shoe ’two pairs of shoes' `a pair of shoes' `a pair of shoes' d. haLe jotaa e. jotaa haLe Cl-one shoe shoe CL-one `a pair of shoes' `a pair of shoes' What is the categorial status of -e ? We have seen that it indicates nominal singularity and counts as some sort of numeral; it carries the [-definite] feature; and unlike other numerals, it is always cliticized. Once we arrive at a clear account of these properties, we can assign a composition that economically expresses our conclusions. Working towards such an account, we take it that the initial order in a DP is Numeral-Classifier-Noun, on the basis of examples where the relevant items are morphologically independent full words: (10) a. dui haLa jotaa b. *haLa dui jotaa two Cl shoe Cl two shoe `two pairs of shoes' `two pairs of shoes'
5 But in the case of -e, the movement of the classifier to the pre-numeral (pre -e) position is obligatory (because -e always appears cliticized to the right of the classifier); e.g. (11) bastaai-e ti chaauLa sack-one rice `a sack of rice' In Chomsky's (1995) checking theory, which we assume, movement is driven by morphological requirements. N/NP-raising in the overt syntax would be motivated by the requirement of morphological checking of features, some of them optionally assigned as a lexical item enters the numeration. A checked feature is marked "invisible" at the interface. Thus, we assume that obligatorily encliticized elements such as the indefinite singular numeral -e has PF visible (strong) features which make the host element (here, the classifier) obligatorily move to the pre-enclitic position for number feature checking. In other words, we postulate that the numeral -e always occurs (is placed, by the operation Merge) in a position higher than the classifier; and the strong features of -e make the classifier overtly move to the pre-numeral position in the syntax, yielding the desired order of the items in a DP. So, here we assume that -e, a carrier of the features [+numeral], [+singular], and [-definite], also carries the contextual feature [CL_]. This [CL_] feature is strong and induces classifierraising. (12) DP / \ / \ SPEC D' /\ / \ D NumP /\ / \ SPEC Num' / \ / \ Num ClP dui /\ -e / \ ^ SPEC Cl' | /\ | / \ | Cl NP | | /\ |---------bastaa chaauLa `sack' `rice' In the second of the cases depicted in 12, with -e5 selected as the Num, its strong feature [Cl_] induces classifier-raising. The classifier bastaa raises through head-to-head movement and left-adjoins to -e, to output in the case of
6 bastaae chaauLa `sack one rice'. In contrast, when 12 selects the non-singular Num dui ’two—, there is no strong [Cl_] feature at work. No feature-checking need drives classifier-raising; therefore we get the elements in the underlying order, dui bastaa chaauLa ’two sack rice—. A natural alternative to the Cl bastaa to the left of -e is to lower -e and right adjoin it to the classifier bastaa. Rightward lowering, however, creates some theoretical problems. Rightward movement would be inconsistent with the Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA)6 of Kayne (1994)7. And lowering would leave a trace that cannot be bound by its antecedent (because of lack of ccommand). The rightward lowering alternative also lacks descriptive adequacy. It would require postulating that all the classifiers have features that trigger numeral-raising. But in our account only one element -e needs to have strong features for classifier-raising. So considerations of descriptive economy also support our account and not rightward lowering. Note that, neither -e nor the other numerals force nominal preposing. The feature of -e which Attracts a classifier (Chomsky 1995) attracts no nominals, and the other numerals do not have obligatory feature checking requirements that would make nominal preposing necessary. However, Oriya does allow optional movement of the NP to the left of the Num+Cl (or Cl+Num) sequence. How do we deal with this optional nominal preposing within the DP? We propose that, in addition to the consistently strong [Cl_] feature of -e, checking is also needed for an optionally strong [-definite] feature on Num. Such checking drives movement of the nominal to the SPEC of Num8. We also, then, assume that all numerals carry the default specification [-def], but that only optionally does a [+num -def] element also bears a strong [[-def]_] feature. Our proposal rests on the idea that [±def] is an active feature, in Oriya syntax, as it differentiates [-def] -e as in this section from [+def] -ka as in section 1.3. What are the properties of nouns that enable them to respond to these attractors in the Num system? Tentatively, we suggest that an Oriya noun leaving the lexicon for the numeration has 3 options: (i) the N/NP, say, chaauLa, can choose [-def], and this can check the strong feature on bastaae in chaauLa bastaae, ’rice sack one— (not only is -e a Num; the adjunct-host structure bastaa-e is also a Num, and still bears a strong feature waiting to be checked -‘ if -e has exercised the option of bearing this strong feature); (ii) if chaauLa chooses the [+def] feature, then the derivation crashes in the absence of the [+def] licensor -ka studied in section 1.3 (-ka has not appeared in any example presented so far); (iii) chaauLa chooses no value for [±def], and if the Num fails to exercise the strong feature option, then the unmarked order bastaae chaauLa ’sack one rice— results, and the default [-def] feature of Num suffices to mark the DP as indefinite. Let us take it that this discussion settles the issue of what feature checking considerations drive the optional preposing of nominal material. Let
7 us briefly address the question of the categorial character N or NP of what is moved to the left. There are two issues to be settled here: (13) i. What induces the movement in question? ii. What moves “ the N or the NP? Inquiry assumes that constituents move for a reason (feature checking), in general, only as a "last resort", if a derivation would "crash" without the movement. In the cases under consideration, we take it that it is the NP (not N) which moves. For if the N were to move, the intervening heads would come in the way of this movement, violating the Head Movement Constraint9 (HMC). This can be shown in a tree like (14): (14) DP / \ / \ SPEC D' /\ / \ D NumP /\ / \ SPEC Num' chaauLa / \ ’rice— / \ Num ClP | /\ / -e / \ ^ `one' SPEC Cl' | t2 /\ | / \ | Cl NP | | /\ ----------bastaa ti `sack' 1.3 The singular definite morpheme -ka The element -ka shares with -e the properties of semantic singularity, numeralhood, and obligatory attachment to a classifier, as in 15b below. Direct attachment to an N , as in 15a, is not possible: E.g. (15)a. *chaauLaka rice-KA ’the rice— b. chaauLa bastaaka rice sack-KA ’the sack of rice—
8 What is special about -ka is that the [classifier -ka] sequence always occurs in the postnominal position and never in the prenominal position: e.g. (16)a. chaauLa bastaaka rice sack-KA b. *bastaaka chaauLa sack-KA rice As -ka marks singular number, it cannot co-occur with numeral. This leads us to assume that -ka carries [+Num] as a categorial feature, we propose that its lexical entry also carries contextual feature specifications for the features [CL_] and [Def_]. These features, both of them strong, trigger respectively overt classifier-raising to the NUM head -ka and overt [+Def] NP-raising to the SPEC of NUM. Without these movements in the overt syntax, the derivation would crash at PF. In a PST we can show this as: (17) DP / \ / \ SPEC D' /\ / \ D NumP /\ / \ SPEC Num' | / \ chaauLa / \ `rice' Num ClP | /\ / -ka / \ ^ `one' SPEC Cl' | | /\ | t2 / \ | Cl NP | | /\ |---------bastaa t1 `sack' The NP chaauLa `rice' moves to the SPEC of NumP through SPEC-to-SPEC movement forming the chain [chaauLa, t2, t1] and the classifier bastaa moves to the Num slot through head-to-head movement and left-adjoins to it. Note that we are still treating -ka, along with -e, as a numeral. We shall later reanalyze both these elements implying obvious changes in 17: the classifier goes further up and adjoins to a new head, and the NP goes a step further and moves into its specifier.
9 2.1 Classifiers A classifier is a noun-related element but has no independent nominal reading. Having insufficient referential or predicative content, it is not fully lexical. The default classifier -Taa is consistently [+K]. Most other classifiers count as a noun or as a classifier depending on the context. Thus a nondefault classifier has [+N, -V, +K] as intrinsic features. It normally selects the types of nouns it occurs with. A classifier always co-occurs with a numeral: (18) a. Topaae rakta b. dui Topaa rakta c. *Topaa rakta drop-one blood two drop blood drop blood ’a drop of blood— ’two drops of blood— In the previous section we have studied classifiers in relation to the numerals and tentatively worked out the relative positions of the numerals and classifiers, deciding that a ClP is generated as the complement of Num0. In this section we shall deal with the default classifier, -Taa. 2.2 The default-classifier morpheme -Taa10 If we consider the distributional properties of -Taa, we find that -Taa can occur with or without a numeral. And it can co-occur with countable as well as uncountable nouns; (19)a. bahiTaa b. bahi duiTaa c. duiTaa bahi book-TAA book two-TAA two -TAA book ’the book— ’two books— ’two books— (20)a. bhaataTaa b. chaahaaTaa c. khiraTaa cooked rice-TAA tea-TAA milk-TAA ’the rice— ’the tea— ’the milk— -Taa can co-occur with a semi-lexical classifier; e.g. (21) ghaasa gochhaaTaa grass bundle-TAA ’the bundle of grass— Although Oriya normally imposes selectional restrictions between particular semi-lexical classifier and particular noun sub-types, -Taa can occur unrestrictedly with all nouns. Another special property of -Taa is its ability to co-occur with a classifier neighbour ‘ not an option available to other classifiers11. So, considering the wide range of occurrence of -Taa, we call it a "default classifier". And to distinguish the default classifier from semi-lexical classifiers we label the default classifier ’K with the feature [+K] alone, and semi-lexical classifiers ’Cl with the features [+K, +N, -V]. Now consider the contrast between the acceptable sequence Num - K - N, as in 22, and the unacceptable sequence Cl - K- N, as in 23: (22) duiTaa aata two-K apple `two apples' (23) *gochhaaTaa ghaasa bundle-K grass `the bundle of grass'
10 That is, the occurrence of -Taa in the prenominal position makes the phrase illformed in 23 where it is attached to a classifier, but not in 22 when it is attached to a numeral. In other words, -Taa, like the element -ka, has the property of triggering NP-preposing when it is not cliticized to a numeral. Further study of the properties of -Taa shows that, when no overt numeral is present in the structure, -Taa apparently imparts the singular semantics to the N/NP which hosts it. E.g. (24) bahiTaa delu book-K gave `could you please give me the book' (25) mote aata duiTaa deba me apple two-K give `can you please give me two apples' In 24, -Taa indicates semantic singularity, but in 25, -Taa does not contribute to the indication of nominal number, which is provided by the numeral dui ’two—. These examples at first sight encourage us to treat a noun-attached -Taa as indicating nominal singularity. This would involve assuming that -Taa has a [+Num] feature. But that line of thought is inconsistent with the fact that it cooccurs with a numeral as in 25. We shall return to this issue later, providing an account of the data. Meanwhile, taking the line of least resistance, we postulate neither [+Num] not singularity for the lexical entry of -Taa. Let us now turn to the following examples: (26) a. pilaaiTaa ti b. *Taapilaa child-K K-child `the child' `the child' (27) a. ghaasaj gochhaaiTaa ti tj b. *gochhaaTaa ghaasa grass bundle-K bundle-K grass `the bundle of grass' `the bundle of grass' (28) a. duiiTaa ti gochhaa ghaasa b. ghaasa duiTaa gochhaa two-K bundle grass grass two- K bundle `two bundles of grass' `two bundles of grass' c. *duiTaa ghaasa gochhaa two-K grass bundle `two bundles of grass' When -Taa is attached to a noun or a classifier, it indicates [+definite], as in 26a and 27a, respectively. But when it is attached to a numeral it indicates [-definite], as in 28. But the question is what makes it behave in this fashion? Again, the ungrammaticality of 27b indicates that obligatory NP-preposing and [+definiteness] go together. These examples 26-28 also indicate that -Taa always occurs cliticized to the right of its host element (numeral, classifier, noun); in other words, the features of -Taa induce its host element(s) to raise and left-adjoin to it. Note that it is specifically -Taa that compels such raising. Its nonclitic variant goTaa does not. Thus as we see at 29a vs 29b, the uncliticized We have already seen that a classifier cannot occur without the help of a numeral or an article. In the sequential order also, the uncliticized classifier goTaa (not -Taa)
11 along with the singular number marker precedes the semi-lexical classifier bastaa: (29) a. goTaae bastaa chaauLa b. *bastaa goTaae chaauLa K-one Cl rice Cl K-one rice `a sack of rice' `a sack of rice' But the variant -Taa compels a semi-lexical classifier neighbour to precede it: (30) a. gochhaaTaae ghaasa b. *Taa(e) gochhaa ghaasa Cl -K-one grass K-(one) bundle grass `a bundle of grass' `a bundle of grass' The morphological structure of gochhaaTaae in 30a is transparent: the K -Taa precedes the Num -e in the sequence -Taae. On the strength of 29-30 we shall tentatively conclude that -e originates at a position higher than the KP so that in 29, the strong feature of -e attracts K (goTaa) to raise and left-adjoin to it, yielding goTaae. And in the case of 30, to satisfy the strong feature of -Taa, gochhaa raises to left-adjoin to -Taa. Now the issue here that seems central to us is: given that both -e and -Taa have strong features that require checking, if -e attracts -Taa, then how are the strong features of -Taa checked? But as -Taa precedes -e in the sequence -Taae, we can say that -e originates higher than -Taa, and the strong features of -e raise -Taa to its left to give the surface realisation. In the case of a phrase like 30, the strong features of -Taa first induce the classifier to raise and left-adjoin to -Taa, forming the complex [gochhaa Taa]. In a second step, the complex raises and left-adjoins to -e to satisfy the strong features of -e and we get the sequence gochhaaTaae ghaasa. So, this clearly indicates that -e should be generated higher than the KP in the tree. But the NumP must be generated lower than the KP, in order to handle examples like: (31) duiTaa aata two-K custard apple `two custard apples' Here, feature checking for -Taa is presumably made possible by raising and leftadjoining the number word dui ’two—. Therefore dui must have originated lower than -Taa. With this background, we can now argue that -e and -ka, although they are [+singular, +numeral], are not true Nums. Henceforth, we shall generate -e and -ka under a higher node for which we may use the label Art(icle), an abbreviation for the categorial feature bundle [+Num, +K] (whereas true Nums are [-K]). Art provides for the choices [±definite] and in principle [±singular]. It is perhaps always [+singular] in the morphologically overt examples availble in Oriya; and Art may on further study turn out to be identical or closely related to the highest nominal head ”D ; we leave these issues open. The example in 29 also indicates that the KP is generated higher than the ClP so that we can derive goTaae bastaa chaauLa without violating the HMC. Putting all these together, the tree looks like:
12 (32)
ArtP / \ / \ SPEC Art' /\ / \ Art KP -e / \ -ka / \ SPEC K' /\ / \ K NumP -Taa /\ goTaa / \ SPEC Num' /\ / \ Num ClP | / \ dui / \ SPEC Cl' /\ / \ Cl NP | | gochhaa N' ` bundle' | N ghaasa ` grass'
This tree allows us to derive all the phrases that we have examined so far. -Taa, which has strong features to attract its host elements, occurs higher than all its potential host elements, namely, numeral, classifier, and Noun. Interestingly, when a (true) numeral is present, the features of -Taa attract only the numeral, as in: (33) duiiTaa ti bahi two-K book `two books' (34) duiiTaa ti gochhaa ghaasa two-K bundle grass `two bundles of grass' (35) *gochhaaiTaa dui ti ghaasa bundle-K two grass `two bundles of grass'
13 (36) *ghaasaiTaa dui gochhaa ti grass-K two bundle `two bundles of grass' The ungrammaticality of 35-36 says that in the presence of a numeral, the features of -Taa attract only the numeral . But in the absence of a numeral, -Taa induces the raising of the next lower node Cl, as in: (37) chaauLaj bastaaiTaa ti tj rice Cl -K `the sack of rice' When Num and Cl are both absent, the features of -Taa raise the next lower node, that is N, as in: (38) pilaaiTaa ti child-K `the child' Given analysis 32, these facts follow at one level from the HMC which does not allow a head-moved element to skip any intervening node. At another level, however, we must now ask: what can drive such a range of movements? what sort of feature does -Taa carry which can be satisfied either by a NUM, or by a CL or by an N/NP? One answer to this question, at a first approximation level, emerges from the feature composition of the key categories which co-occur with K [+K]: Art [+Num +K], Cl [+K +N -V], Num [+Num], and N [+N -V ]. The answer is that K alone has neither numerical (/quantificational) nor nominal features. We propose that K needs to have its underspecified feature matrix integrated into the DP. A partner with either quantificational or nominal features, moving next to K, can do this. If no partner does so, the derivation crashes because of a Full Interpretation failure at K. We leave open the question how to implement this underspecification approach in terms of strong features attracting particular categories. For concreteness, we speculate that a true Num shares the [+N] feature with nouns and adjectives, and we tentatively propose that K—s strong feature says [+N_] and attracts the closest eligible category. A somewhat similar question arises in the case of the Article -e, which must have its features checked by (go)Taa if the latter is present as in 39; but can have them checked by the classifier if, as in 40, (go)Taa is absent: (39) a. goTe haLa jotaa b. jotaa haLaTaae K-one Cl shoe shoe Cl -K-one `a pair of shoes' `a pair of shoes' (40) a. haLe jotaa b. *haLe goTaa jotaa Cl-one shoe Cl-one K shoe `a pair of shoes' `a pair of shoes' We shall take the position that -e has a strong [K_] feature attracting the nearest K-marked element, be it a pure K or a semi-lexical Cl. We turn now to a major question which we had deferred: how does a phrase like bahiTaa `the book' as in example 1, acquires the features [+singular, +definite]? On the analysis developed so far, there is nothing to support the definite reading, and there is no overtly realised number marker.
14 Let us first look at a slightly easier case. In bahiTaae `a book', the strong features of -Taa induce raising, as a result of which the N bahi head-moves, leftadjoining to -Taa satisfying the [+N] feature of -Taa and forms the complex [bahi Taa], and then the complex moves to Art to satisfy the strong features of Art -e, and thus yielding bahiTaae. Now we can approach the harder case bahiTaa. Corresponding to the indefinite bahiTaae ’a book—, with the segments N-K-Art, we would expect ’the book— to come out as *bahiTaaka, with the definite Art -ka replacing the indefinite Art -e. But *bahiTaaka is excluded. Instead, we find that bahi-Taa, an N K sequence without an overt Art, picks up the features of singular number and definiteness. We need an account that links the fact that bahi-Taa, unexpectedly has these features with the starred status of *bahi-Taa-ka, a definite form that would have provided an obvious parallel to the indefinite bahi-Taa-e. Given our decisions so far, the overtly present -Taa shares the feature [+K] with the expected or ’absent— article -ka (recall that an Art is specified [+Num, +K]). One economical solution, then, would be to invoke the principle stated informally at the outset, that nominals with no overt D or Q element presuppose identifiability and thus mark definiteness. If we add that the default number for nominals is singular, it follows that ‘ in the absence of particular markings overriding these principles“ general principles permit -Taa to take on [+singular] (implying [+Num]) and [+def]. We thus get these features for free as a matter of conventional interpretation. The question ‘ which one must ask“ of whether the resulting tree has an Art node needs to be placed in perspective. Recall that Art is really an abbreviation for [+K, +Num]. In a sense, -Taa itself becomes an Art if its own [+K] is supplemented by [+Num] because of general conventions. Why is *bahi-Taa-ka excluded on this analysis? To answer this, we need to examine the strong feature that the two Articles -ka and -e share. We originally stated that contextual feature as [Cl_]. Technically this would only attract semi-lexical [+K +N -V] items, not the nonlexical default classifier -Taa. Thus, that system would actually exclude *bahiTaa-ka, and the real problem would be not how to rule the definite *bahi-Taa-ka out, but how to permit the indefinite bahi-Taa-e ! Obviously, the remedy is to distinguish the strong feature of -ka, [Cl_], from that of -e, [[+K]_], where Cl abbreviates [+K +N -V]. The indefinite Art will now attract default as well as semi-lexical classifiers the definite Art only semi-lexicals, as desired. The account as it has now emerged helps make sense of an otherwise puzzling fact. Namely, that when -Taa is attached to a numeral, as in aata duiTaa `custard apple two-K = two custard apples', the phrase is interpreted as [-definite]; whereas when -Taa is attached to a non-numeral (a noun or a classifier), as in bahiTaa ’book K = the book—,or ghaasa gochhaaTaa ’grass bundle K = the bundle of grass— the phrase is [+definite]. These facts now follow from the convention that steps in with default specifications of [+definite, +singular] only when numerals are absent. A numeral, if present, imposes its default indefiniteness.
15 To finish tying up loose ends, let us ask why bahi duiTaa ’book two K = two books— permits optional nominal preposing. The obvious extension of our analysis of chaauLa bastaae ’a sack of rice— given above would be to allow -Taa here, as we allowed -e there to carry an optional strong feature which attracts an optional indefiniteness feature that bahi ’book— may have picked up as it left the lexicon and entered the numeration. The particular strong features may however have to be different at a level of technical detail not addressed here. Conclusion In conclusion we can say that the expression of definiteness in Oriya employs overt elements such as the Article -ka and also interacts with particular features and feature driven movements in an intricate way. Our study has focussed on feature driven processes that play a major role in nominal definiteness marking in Oriya. However, in this study, we have left unexplored the properties of the definitizer jaaka which occurs in examples like dui-Taa jaa-ka bahi ’two-K Q-Art book = the two books—, and bahi dui-Taa jaa-ka ’book two-K Q-Art = the two books—. So far we have found no independent evidence allowing us to converge on a viable morphological characterization of jaa. There is some reason to believe, however, that the results of the present study, in their essentials, will be compatible with what future work will have to say about that particular overt mechanism for definiteness marking. NOTES 1See
Bhattacharya (in this volume) for an account of comparable phenomena in Bangla.
-Taa is the default classifier and is labeled as ’K— to distinguish it from marked classifiers which are labeled as ’Cl—. 2
Of course, goTaae, goTie, goTe are considered to be allomorphic variants. But the morphological analysis of these elements indicates that it is the attachment of -e to goTaa/goTi which gives the singular meaning. So, we may say that here -e, not goTaa, is responsible for assigning singular number to the nominal.
3
4 We propose to treat a Measure word as a sub-type of Classifier. A Measure word like bastaa ’sack— has a lexical or referential reading as well as a classificatory reading while a true classifier has no lexical reading. In Oriya, a given DP never contains more than one semilexical element of this sort; so we shall treat (semi-lexical) classifiers as Cl, [+N -V +K], and only the (entirely functional) default Classifier as K, [+K]. 5Here,
for the time-being, we have generated -e in the NUM slot. We will revise this presently. Standard X-bar theory assumes that adjunction can be either to the left or to the right; but Kayne (1994) proposes a version of X-bar theory where adjunction is always to the left and never to the right. 6
7Our
analysis uses Kayne—s SPEC-Head-Complement order as a working assumption and
16
does not set out to provide new justification for it. 8 Crosscategorially, the numeral ’one— has irregular behaviour. So, -e, which is the bound morph for the numeral ’one— has this special property, which is not noticed with the other numerals like dui ’two—, tini ’three—, etc.
The Head Movement Constraint of Baker (1988) says that when a head (X 0 category) seeks to adjoin to another head (Y0), it cannot skip an intervening head. Readers who prefer the Minimal Link Condition (Chomsky 1994, Chomsky & Lasnik 1993) will no doubt adapt this account to their own version of the MLC or some other restatement of the HMC. 9
10In
Oriya, the variant -Ti is not noticeably different from -Taa. The two variants are nearly in free variation. We leave the exact relation between them for future research, tentatively assuming that -Ti is indeed a free variant of -Taa. The clitic -Taa shares this ability (to occur with semi-lexical classifiers) with the word goTaa. Therefore, we consider -Taa as the reduced form of the morpheme goTaa ( details available in Sahoo 1996) and assume that -Taa and goTaa are featurally and syntactically equivalent, except that -Taa is a clitic.
11
References Abney, Stephen. P. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bhattacharya, Tanmoy. in this volume *** Editor please fill in details (final title, page numbers etc.) from elsewhere in your file!*** Chomsky, Noam & Howard Lasnik. 1993. Principles and Parameteres Theory. In Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, ed. J.Jacobs et al. Walter de Gruyter. Chomsky, Noam. 1994. Bare Phrase Structure. MIT occasional papers in Linguistics 5. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Programme. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.; MIT Press. Sahoo, Kalyanamalini. 1996. The DP-analysis of Oriya and English Noun Phrases. M.Phil. dissertation, CIEFL, Hyderabad.
