Documentation

Linglib.Theories.Morphology.DM.NominalStructure

Nominal Phrase Structure (Distributed Morphology) #

@cite{alexiadou-2003} @cite{adamson-2024} @cite{myler-2016} @cite{kramer-2015} @cite{kampanarou-alexiadou-2026}

Structural positions within the extended nominal projection, the Gender Locality Hypothesis (GLH), and the possession-type distinction.

These types encode general claims about nominal structure that are independent of any particular language:

The inalienable/alienable structural distinction is canonically @cite{alexiadou-2003} (with earlier proposals in Guéron 1985, Vergnaud & Zubizarreta 1992); subsequent treatments include @cite{myler-2016} and the DM refinement of @cite{adamson-2024}, which adds the GLH. Recent uptake of the same distinction (recoverable from Greek genitive alternation): @cite{kampanarou-alexiadou-2026}.

Caveat on PossessionType.possessorPosition .inalienable = .specN. The original Alexiadou 2003 / @cite{kampanarou-alexiadou-2026} eq. 37a analysis represents the inalienable possessor as the complement of NP (sister of the possessee under a higher NP node), not as Spec,nP. The substrate's .specN is a contemporary DM gloss on this — close enough that downstream consumers (Tseltalan possessor extraction in @cite{aissen-polian-2025}, Icelandic hafa/eiga in @cite{myler-2016}) recover the right empirical predictions, but readers should be aware that not every formulation in the literature carves up the alienable/inalienable contrast at exactly Spec,nP vs Spec,PossP. Field divergence: Michelioudakis et al. 2024 explicitly collapses both possessor types into Spec,nP (cf. @cite{kampanarou-alexiadou-2026} p. 24), which the substrate does not currently represent.

Structural positions within and around the nominal phrase.

@cite{adamson-2024} distinguishes positions by their locality to n, the locus of gender features:

[DP D [NumP Num [PossP DP_alienable Poss [nP DP_inalienable [n √ROOT n]]]]]

Only positions within nP are local enough to condition gender.

Instances For
    @[implicit_reducible]
    Equations
    Equations
    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
    Instances For

      Is this position within nP?

      nP-internal positions: root, n head, Spec,nP (inalienable possessor). Everything else (Poss, Spec,PossP, Num, D) is outside nP.

      Equations
      Instances For

        Gender Locality Hypothesis (GLH):

        "Gender features on n must be valued only within nP." (@cite{adamson-2024} (15))

        A position can influence gender assignment iff it is nP-internal. Elements introduced at Poss, Num, D, or higher cannot condition gender.

        Equations
        Instances For

          Two types of possession, distinguished by structural position (@cite{adamson-2024}, following @cite{myler-2016}).

          • Inalienable (iPossession): possessor introduced in Spec,nP. The n head bears a selectional feature {D} (CatHead.selectsD). Semantically introduces a body-part-of / part-whole relation.
          • Alienable (aPossession): possessor introduced in Spec,PossP, mediated by a Poss head. Requires additional morphological marking in many languages (e.g., Teop te).
          Instances For
            @[implicit_reducible]
            Equations
            Equations
            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
            Instances For

              Can this possession type affect gender assignment? Derived from the GLH and the possessor's structural position.

              Equations
              Instances For

                Number features can appear in two positions (@cite{adamson-2024} §5.1):

                • Low number (on n): derivational, can interact with gender. Evidence: Standard Italian -a plurals (masc.sg → fem.pl), Tunisian Arabic collectives (Dali & Mathieu 2021).
                • High number (on Num): inflectional, cannot interact with gender.
                Instances For
                  @[implicit_reducible]
                  Equations
                  Equations
                  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                  Instances For

                    Functional heads outside nP whose features cannot affect gender assignment under the GLH (@cite{adamson-2024} §5.2).

                    Instances For
                      @[implicit_reducible]
                      Equations
                      Equations
                      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                      Instances For

                        Two mechanisms by which iPossession can affect gender (@cite{adamson-2024} §§2.3, 3–4):

                        1. Possessee gender: the noun's gender is determined by WHETHER it has an iPossessor. The n head that introduces an iPossessor bears particular gender features. (Teop, Jarawara)
                        2. Inherited gender: the noun's gender is determined by the GENDER OF the iPossessor. An unvalued gender probe on n is valued via Probe-Goal agreement with the iPossessor DP. (Yanyuwa, Coastal Marind)
                        Instances For
                          @[implicit_reducible]
                          Equations
                          Equations
                          • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                          Instances For

                            Both mechanisms are consistent with the GLH: in both possessee gender (Teop, Jarawara) and inherited gender (Yanyuwa, Coastal Marind), the gender-affecting element is nP-internal.