Главни садржај чланка

Hayley Ross


The Danish definiteness alternation presents two challenges for Nanosyntax. First, it displays structural allomorphy of the definiteness marker between a suffix and prenominal article; second, there is concord between the definiteness marker and noun gender. I show that Nanosyntax can address both issues, explaining the suffix-article alternation by virtue of its spellout algorithm and the lexical overlap between suffix and article. This account provides a deeper explanation for the structural allomorphy than the Distributed Morphology analysis proposed by Hankamer & Mikkelsen (2018). The existing proposal for concord in Nanosyntax (Caha, 2019) cannot handle this combination of gender concord and allomorphy, so I propose a simple copying mechanism which handles concord more flexibly. This new proposal, however, is substantially less restrictive than Caha’s framework, paving the way for future work to balance restrictiveness with empirical coverage of prefix/suffix alternations and concord across languages.


Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...

Детаљи чланка

Како цитирати
Ross, H. (2023). IMPLICATIONS OF THE DANISH DEFINITENESS ALTERNATION FOR CONCORD IN NANOSYNTAX. Годишњак Филозофског факултета у Новом Саду, 47(3), 15–41.
Bрој часописа
SinFonIJA 14 Special Issue


Baunaz, L., & Lander, E. (2018). Nanosyntax. In: L. Baunaz, L. Haegeman, K. De Clercq, & E. Lander (eds.), Exploring Nanosyntax. Oxford University Press. DOI:

Caha, P. (2009). The Nanosyntax of case (PhD Thesis). Universitetet i Tromsø.

Caha, P. (2019). Case competition in Nanosyntax. A study of numeral phrases in Ossetic and Russian. LingBuzz. Available at

Caha, P. (2020). Modeling declensions without declension features. The case of Russian. Available at

Caha, P., De Clercq, K., & Vanden Wyngaerd, G. (2019). The fine structure of the comparative. Studia Linguistica, 73(3), 470–521. DOI:

Delsing, L.-O. (1993). The Internal Structure of Noun Phrases in the Scandinavian Languages (PhD Thesis). University of Lund.

Embick, D., & Marantz, A. (2008). Architecture and Blocking. Linguistic Inquiry, 39(1), 1–53. DOI:

Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In: The view from building 20. The MIT Press. 111–176.

Hankamer, J., & Mikkelsen, L. (2005). When movement must be blocked: A reply to Embick and Noyer. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(1), 85–125. DOI:

Hankamer, J., & Mikkelsen, L. (2018). Structure, Architecture, and Blocking. Linguistic Inquiry, 49(1), 61–84. DOI:

Pesetsky, D. (2013). Russian case morphology and the syntactic categories. MIT Press. DOI:

Starke, M. (2010). Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language. Nordlyd, 36(1), 1–6. DOI:

Starke, M. (2018). Complex Left Branches, Spellout, and Prefixes. In: L. Baunaz, L. Haegeman, K. De Clercq, & E. Lander (Eds.), Exploring Nanosyntax. Oxford University Press. DOI:

Taraldsen, K. T. (2010). The nanosyntax of Nguni noun class prefixes and concords. Lingua, 120(6), 1522–1548. DOI:

Taraldsen, K. T., Taraldsen Medová, L., & Langa, D. (2018). Class prefixes as specifiers in Southern Bantu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 36(4), 1339–1394. DOI: