DP Det. + ''of'' + [DP Det. + NP">sub>DP Det. + ''of'' + [DP Det. + NPMartí i Girbau, M. N. (2010). The syntax of partitives.where the first determiner is a Quantifier (linguistics), quantifier word, using a prepositional element to link it to the larger set or whole from which that quantity is partitioned. The partitive constructions of the following languages all have the same translation, with a very similar form: Some languages, for example
Set partitives and entity partitives
Partitives can be distinguished semantically based on whether they involve a part of a whole, called ''entity partitives'', or a subset of a larger set, called ''set partitives''. The embedded NPs in entity partitives denote either entities at the individual level, such as "a cookie" or entities at the group level, such as "Bob and Sue". Some phrases such as ‘the linguists’ can be interpreted as either a group level entity and thus participate in an entity partitive – "half of the linguists"; alternatively, it can be interpreted as a set of entities, and thus participate in a set partitive – "one of the linguists".de Hoop, H. (1997). A semantic reanalysis of the partitive constraint. Lingua,103(2), 151-174 Set partitives contain plural countable nouns in their embedded noun phrase (NP), and can be combined with quantifier determiners such as "many", and specific numbers such as "three". Entity partitives can contain either singular countable nouns orThe partitive constraint
Given the following syntactic structure of partitives, '' P Det. + of + [DP Det. + NP'', the first determiner">P_Det._+_NP.html" ;"title="P Det. + of + [DP Det. + NP">P Det. + of + '', the first determiner is a quantifier word which quantifies over a subset or part of the embedded DP, which either denotes a Set (mathematics)">set Set, The Set, SET or SETS may refer to: Science, technology, and mathematics Mathematics *Set (mathematics), a collection of elements *Category of sets, the category whose objects and morphisms are sets and total functions, respectively Electro ...Anti-uniqueness
Barker claims that partitives are ''anti-unique''; that is, a partitive cannot refer to a unique individual or set of individuals, but must have at least two individuals or sets of individuals in its extension, causing a degree of indefiniteness.Barker, C. (1998). Partitives, double genitives and anti-uniqueness. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 16(4), 679-717. In addition, he limits a partitive to being only able to refer to a proper subset, which he calls ''proper partitivity''. This means that, for example, in the partitive phrase "one of John’s friends", that John must have at least two friends for this to be a proper partitive, and in order for it to satisfy anti-uniqueness by not referring to a unique individual. Similarly, "three of John’s friends" would imply that John has at least four friends, from which an indeterminate three are being referred to. 4. a) I met ne of John's friends b) *I met the ne of John's friends c) I met the ne of John’s friendsthat you pointed out this morning. Furthermore, Barker states that DP partitive constructions cannot be headed by a definite determiner without being modified by aPartitives and quantitatives
A true partitive should be distinguished from a very similar construction called a quantitative (often called a ''pseudopartitive'', or sometimes a non-partitive).Structural approaches to partitives
While a number of linguists have proposed different approaches to account for the partitive structure, three approaches will be introduced here.A functional projection approach
In 1995, Guillermo Lorenzo proposed a partitive (π), which is equivalent to the meaning of "out of" in English, is a functional category by itself and projects to a phrasal level. A partitive phrase (πP) is selected by the Numeral (Num) and in turn the partitive head (π) selects the following DP. A Spanish example is shown below:Partitive prepositional phrase approach
Advocates of the ''partitive prepositional phrase (partitive PP)'' approach claim that the partitive meaning is integrated into a PP. Structurally, a quantifier is followed by a noun, and a preposition in between denotes the quantifier is a subset of the following noun. Within a partitive PP construct, the preposition "of" contains lexical content similar to ‘out of’ and always projects to a PP, hence the name partitive PP. Supporters of partitive PP often assume the presence of an empty noun following the quantifier in order to specify the two sets in relation and the preposition introduces the bigger set. Catalan provides evidence for this underlying structure: In the first example, the notion denotes the set of "three men" is a subset of "those men". The second example has an overt noun inserted between the quantifier and the partitive PP and is still considered grammatical, albeit odd and redundant to a native speaker of Catalan. The third sentence has an empty noun holding the final noun position. Altogether this is taken as strong evidence that an empty noun category should be posited to license a partitive meaning. Alternatively, some linguists argued an empty noun placement is unnecessary if one considers the quantifier’s role to be quantifying a subset. The noun following the partitive PP automatically becomes the bigger set and the whole nominal represents a subset-set relation.Quantifier-based approach
Closely related to the partitive PP approach, some authors propose an alternate analysis which also focuses on looking at partitive distribution in nominals. Vos claims that it is the relationship between the quantifier and the noun collectively determine the partitive meaning.Vos, H. M. (1999). A grammar of partitive constructions. Under this view, the preposition belongs to a functional category and its existence is solely for grammatical reasons. In other words, the preposition is not registered with any lexical content. Vos claims the internal relation between the first and second noun in a nominal partitive implicitly denotes a subset-set, possessive or part-whole relation. Similarly, de Hoop embraces the idea that only when a quantifier pairs with a desired type of DP, specific kind of partitive relation can then be determined. The preposition "of" plays a crucial role in enabling the selected DP to surface. The deciding factor to label a partitive construction concerns with the presence of an internal DP, as demonstrated in the English examples below:Partitive constructions
The partitive nominal construction consists of structure '' P Det. + of + [DP Det. + NP'', as shown in 10a). 10. a) Three of John’s friends. b) Three friends of John’s. A related construction traditionally called the double genitive has been argued by Barker to actually be a partitive, which he terms the possessive partitive (shown in 10b), rather than simply a redundant application of the genitive marker ‘s. Barker claims that this is a use of the partitive "of", rather than the gentitive ‘of’, distinguishing it from being a gentitive construction. To support this, he notes that prenominal possessives such as "Mary’s child" cannot occur with a following possessor introduced by the genitive "of" such as, "Mary’s child ofGEN John". This phrase is illogical, since nominals are syntactically constrained to only allow one possessor. Yet, prenominal possessives can be combined with possessive partitives, containing the partitive "of", such as "my favorite story ofPART yours". This phrase is grammatical, taking the meaning "my favourite story out of your stories". 11. a) a picture of John b) a picture of John's Similarly, 11a) does not mean the same as 11b). The first is an instance of the genitive "of", and means that John is in the picture. The second is an instance of the partitive "of", and hence is a possessive partitive; in contrast, it means a picture from the collection of pictures that belong to John, but does not say anything about whether John is in the picture. 12. a) a friend of John's b) a friend of John's friend Nor do 12a) and 12b) mean the same. The first is a possessive partitive, referring to someone who is a member of the set of John’s friends. The second includes a postnominal genitive "of" phrase, and refers instead to someone who is a friend in relation to a member of the set of John’s friends, but not necessarily to John himself. 13. a) three friendsi of i">ohn’s friendsi b) three i">iof i">ohn’s friendsi c) three friendsi of i">ohn’s [ei The difference between the nominal partitive and the partitive possessive constructions may in fact be a matter of ellipsis in the phonetic forms, as suggested by Zamparelli. He proposes that the two constructions have the same logical form, for example 13a), where the word friend has the same referent in both positions. Variations then arise in the phonetic form depending on which "friend" word is ellipsed. In the nominal partitive, the first "friend" is ellipsed, becoming 13b), whereas the possessive partitive ellipses the second instance of "friend", yielding 13c).Partitive case: Finnish morphology
Finnish indicates the partitive by inflecting nouns in the partitive case. AnReferences
{{reflist, 2See also
*