This thesis examines linguistic phenomena that implicate measurement in the nominal domain. The first is morphological number, as in one book vs. two books. Intuitively, the contrast between singular and plural forms of nouns finds its basis in whether or not some thing measures 1. Chapter 2 develops a formal account of morphological number centered around this measurement. Different classes of words and different languages employ different criteria to determine whether or not something measures 1 for the purpose of morphological singularity. The second component of the project takes a closer look at the semantics of quantizing nouns, or words that allow for the measurement or counting of individuals. Chapter 3 develops a typology of these quantizing nouns, identifying three classes of words: measure terms (e.g., kilo), container nouns (e.g., glass), and atomizers (e.g., grain), showing that each class yields a distinct interpretation on the basis of diverging structures and semantics. The third component of the project investigates our representations of measurement, modeled formally by degrees in the semantics. Chapter 4 accesses these representations of measurement through a case study of the word amount, which is shown to inhabit yet another class of quantizing noun: degree nouns. This case study motivates a new semantics for degrees. Formally, degrees are treated as kinds; both are nominalizations of properties. The properties that beget degrees are quantity-uniform, formed via a measure. Treating degrees as kinds ensures that they contain information about the objects that instantiate them. This new semantics for degrees highlights the four basic elements of the semantics of measurement. First, and perhaps most obviously, we have measure functions in our semantics. These measure functions translate objects onto a scale, allowing for the encoding of gradability. Scales are composed of the second element in our measurement semantics: numbers. Numbers, specifically non-negative real numbers, are taken as semantic primitives. The third element, kinds, often provides the objects of measurement. Kinds are abstract, intensional entities, so the fourth element in our measurement semantics, partitions, delivers maximal instances of the kind (i.e., real-world objects) to be measured. With measures, numbers, kinds, and partitions, we have a semantics of measurement. / Linguistics

This thesis investigates the function of number marking in Persian, within the framework of principles and parameters (P&P), and its relationship to inflectional and derivational number marking. Following the assumption in Distributed Morphology that inflectional and derivational morphology are not distinct, the distribution and properties of number marking in Persian provide evidence for both inflectional and derivational number marking. Assuming the two parameters of number marking (Wiltschko, 2007, 2008), number marking as a functional head and number marking as a modifier, I propose that number marking in Persian is mainly inflectional while number functions as a functional head; moreover, I propose that number marking in Persian can be derivational while number functions as a modifier. This explains that number morphology in Persian is not split to either inflectional or derivational. Rather, following Booij’s (1993, 1995) claim that inflectional morphology can be used contextually as well as inherently, I propose that number morphology in Persian is inflectional while number is a functional head; however, it has inherent residues as a modifier. Considering the functions of inflectional plural morphology in Persian, I argue that the functional category Number Phrase (NumP) is projected in Persian, and number is generated in the head of this functional category. Besides, Persian is a classifier language in which classifiers are in complementary distribution with plural marking. Following Borer’s (2005) discussion of the complementary distribution of plural marking and classifiers in Armenian, I argue that the head of NumP in Persian is either occupied by the plural maker or by full/empty classifiers. Moreover, I show that the presence of bare singulars/plurals in certain syntactic positions in Persian is related to the projection/non-projection of NumP.

This thesis investigates the function of number marking in Persian, within the framework of principles and parameters (P&P), and its relationship to inflectional and derivational number marking. Following the assumption in Distributed Morphology that inflectional and derivational morphology are not distinct, the distribution and properties of number marking in Persian provide evidence for both inflectional and derivational number marking. Assuming the two parameters of number marking (Wiltschko, 2007, 2008), number marking as a functional head and number marking as a modifier, I propose that number marking in Persian is mainly inflectional while number functions as a functional head; moreover, I propose that number marking in Persian can be derivational while number functions as a modifier. This explains that number morphology in Persian is not split to either inflectional or derivational. Rather, following Booij’s (1993, 1995) claim that inflectional morphology can be used contextually as well as inherently, I propose that number morphology in Persian is inflectional while number is a functional head; however, it has inherent residues as a modifier. Considering the functions of inflectional plural morphology in Persian, I argue that the functional category Number Phrase (NumP) is projected in Persian, and number is generated in the head of this functional category. Besides, Persian is a classifier language in which classifiers are in complementary distribution with plural marking. Following Borer’s (2005) discussion of the complementary distribution of plural marking and classifiers in Armenian, I argue that the head of NumP in Persian is either occupied by the plural maker or by full/empty classifiers. Moreover, I show that the presence of bare singulars/plurals in certain syntactic positions in Persian is related to the projection/non-projection of NumP.

This thesis investigates the function of number marking in Persian, within the framework of principles and parameters (P&P), and its relationship to inflectional and derivational number marking. Following the assumption in Distributed Morphology that inflectional and derivational morphology are not distinct, the distribution and properties of number marking in Persian provide evidence for both inflectional and derivational number marking. Assuming the two parameters of number marking (Wiltschko, 2007, 2008), number marking as a functional head and number marking as a modifier, I propose that number marking in Persian is mainly inflectional while number functions as a functional head; moreover, I propose that number marking in Persian can be derivational while number functions as a modifier. This explains that number morphology in Persian is not split to either inflectional or derivational. Rather, following Booij’s (1993, 1995) claim that inflectional morphology can be used contextually as well as inherently, I propose that number morphology in Persian is inflectional while number is a functional head; however, it has inherent residues as a modifier. Considering the functions of inflectional plural morphology in Persian, I argue that the functional category Number Phrase (NumP) is projected in Persian, and number is generated in the head of this functional category. Besides, Persian is a classifier language in which classifiers are in complementary distribution with plural marking. Following Borer’s (2005) discussion of the complementary distribution of plural marking and classifiers in Armenian, I argue that the head of NumP in Persian is either occupied by the plural maker or by full/empty classifiers. Moreover, I show that the presence of bare singulars/plurals in certain syntactic positions in Persian is related to the projection/non-projection of NumP.

This thesis investigates the function of number marking in Persian, within the framework of principles and parameters (P&P), and its relationship to inflectional and derivational number marking. Following the assumption in Distributed Morphology that inflectional and derivational morphology are not distinct, the distribution and properties of number marking in Persian provide evidence for both inflectional and derivational number marking. Assuming the two parameters of number marking (Wiltschko, 2007, 2008), number marking as a functional head and number marking as a modifier, I propose that number marking in Persian is mainly inflectional while number functions as a functional head; moreover, I propose that number marking in Persian can be derivational while number functions as a modifier. This explains that number morphology in Persian is not split to either inflectional or derivational. Rather, following Booij’s (1993, 1995) claim that inflectional morphology can be used contextually as well as inherently, I propose that number morphology in Persian is inflectional while number is a functional head; however, it has inherent residues as a modifier. Considering the functions of inflectional plural morphology in Persian, I argue that the functional category Number Phrase (NumP) is projected in Persian, and number is generated in the head of this functional category. Besides, Persian is a classifier language in which classifiers are in complementary distribution with plural marking. Following Borer’s (2005) discussion of the complementary distribution of plural marking and classifiers in Armenian, I argue that the head of NumP in Persian is either occupied by the plural maker or by full/empty classifiers. Moreover, I show that the presence of bare singulars/plurals in certain syntactic positions in Persian is related to the projection/non-projection of NumP.

This dissertation investigates nominal arguments in classifier languages (ClLs). There are two main goals. The first is to explore what is constant and what varies in the way ClLs form nominal arguments. The second goal is to understand the relationship between argument formation in classifier languages and argument formation more generally. Three classifier languages are the center of the discussion: Mandarin, a ClL without overt evidence of determiners, Yi, a head-final ClL which will be shown to have overt determiners, and Bengali, a ClL that has already been argued to have overt evidence of determiners. In addition to paying particular attention to these three ClLs, the discussion of nominal arguments also covers a wider range of ClLs and number marking languages (NMLs) from Romance, Germanic, and Slavic, as well as Hindi. In this dissertation we will argue for the following three points. First, numeral constructions (NCs) have identical syntax and semantics in ClLs and NMLs (possibly universally); specifically, we argue that NCs have a predicative interpretation and an argumental interpretation that arises via a choice function in the lexical entry of numerals. Secondly, we argue that language variation in the nominal domain is due primarily to two interrelated factors: what nouns denote (kinds or properties) and what low functional heads (i.e. number morphology (#) and classifiers) denote; we show how this variation in the nominal domain can be related to a more general macroparameter. Thirdly, we argue that determiners in ClLs are in fact expected, contrary to the standard view, but while they can combine with numeral-classifier phrases (ClPs) and numeral-less ClPs, they can never combine with bare nouns. The proposal is that bare nouns in ClLs are always argumental regardless of whether or not there are determiners. In the last chapter of this dissertation, we show that the developed analysis of nominal arguments and language variation yields an updated language typology of argument formation. With this proposed analysis of nominal arguments, we may be a few steps closer to a general theory of argument formation of wide cross-linguistic applicability. / Linguistics