Introduction The (not so) universal D

This volume grew out of our research agenda, seeking to understand the structure and interpretation of bare nouns in three typologically and genetically unrelated articleless languages: Lithuanian, Inuktitut, and Innu-aimun. None of these languages has articles, and yet they are very different from...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Canadian journal of linguistics 2015-11, Vol.60 (3), p.251-258
Main Authors: Armoskaite, Solveiga, Gillon, Carrie
Format: Article
Language:English
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1749-82d5e9e0ab9efab281e761e3ad2e9e1ece156ab775a4332db21dd42885d91dd43
container_end_page 258
container_issue 3
container_start_page 251
container_title Canadian journal of linguistics
container_volume 60
creator Armoskaite, Solveiga
Gillon, Carrie
description This volume grew out of our research agenda, seeking to understand the structure and interpretation of bare nouns in three typologically and genetically unrelated articleless languages: Lithuanian, Inuktitut, and Innu-aimun. None of these languages has articles, and yet they are very different from one another with respect to the syntactic and semantic behaviour of their bare nouns (for Lithuanian, see Gillon and Armoskaite 2013, 2015; for Lithuanian and Innu-aimun, Gillon and Armoskaite 2012; for Inuktitut, Lithuanian and Innu-aimun, Gillon 2013, 2015). This variation forced us to question the universality of D, as well as the universality of the semantics of D.
doi_str_mv 10.1017/S0008413100026219
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>cambridge_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1017_S0008413100026219</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0008413100026219</cupid><sourcerecordid>10_1017_S0008413100026219</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1749-82d5e9e0ab9efab281e761e3ad2e9e1ece156ab775a4332db21dd42885d91dd43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1LxDAQhoMouK7-AG-9CHqoZpK2aY6yfi0seNgVvIW0mWrLtlmSVvDfm7B7EMTTOx88884MIZdAb4GCuFtTSssMOARlBQN5RGYggKYAkB-TWWynsX9KzrzvQgqCyRm5Wg6js2aqx9YOyeYTk-vBjom3N8k0tF_ovN4mD-fkpNFbjxcHnZO3p8fN4iVdvT4vF_ertAaRybRkJkeJVFcSG12xElAUgFwbFsqANUJe6EqIXGecM1MxMCZjZZkbGSM-J7CfWzvrvcNG7Vzba_etgKp4p_pzZ2CyPbNztsN67CePqrOTG8KmqoCSS1Dr-Iv4Csh5IOl7wPjBSveVa83HL-h_sx9mbGMO</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Introduction The (not so) universal D</title><source>Cambridge Journals Online</source><source>Project Muse:Jisc Collections:Project MUSE Journals Agreement 2024:Premium Collection</source><creator>Armoskaite, Solveiga ; Gillon, Carrie</creator><creatorcontrib>Armoskaite, Solveiga ; Gillon, Carrie</creatorcontrib><description>This volume grew out of our research agenda, seeking to understand the structure and interpretation of bare nouns in three typologically and genetically unrelated articleless languages: Lithuanian, Inuktitut, and Innu-aimun. None of these languages has articles, and yet they are very different from one another with respect to the syntactic and semantic behaviour of their bare nouns (for Lithuanian, see Gillon and Armoskaite 2013, 2015; for Lithuanian and Innu-aimun, Gillon and Armoskaite 2012; for Inuktitut, Lithuanian and Innu-aimun, Gillon 2013, 2015). This variation forced us to question the universality of D, as well as the universality of the semantics of D.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0008-4131</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1710-1115</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0008413100026219</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><ispartof>Canadian journal of linguistics, 2015-11, Vol.60 (3), p.251-258</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2015</rights><rights>Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1749-82d5e9e0ab9efab281e761e3ad2e9e1ece156ab775a4332db21dd42885d91dd43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0008413100026219/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,72960</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Armoskaite, Solveiga</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gillon, Carrie</creatorcontrib><title>Introduction The (not so) universal D</title><title>Canadian journal of linguistics</title><addtitle>Can. J. Linguist</addtitle><description>This volume grew out of our research agenda, seeking to understand the structure and interpretation of bare nouns in three typologically and genetically unrelated articleless languages: Lithuanian, Inuktitut, and Innu-aimun. None of these languages has articles, and yet they are very different from one another with respect to the syntactic and semantic behaviour of their bare nouns (for Lithuanian, see Gillon and Armoskaite 2013, 2015; for Lithuanian and Innu-aimun, Gillon and Armoskaite 2012; for Inuktitut, Lithuanian and Innu-aimun, Gillon 2013, 2015). This variation forced us to question the universality of D, as well as the universality of the semantics of D.</description><issn>0008-4131</issn><issn>1710-1115</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kE1LxDAQhoMouK7-AG-9CHqoZpK2aY6yfi0seNgVvIW0mWrLtlmSVvDfm7B7EMTTOx88884MIZdAb4GCuFtTSssMOARlBQN5RGYggKYAkB-TWWynsX9KzrzvQgqCyRm5Wg6js2aqx9YOyeYTk-vBjom3N8k0tF_ovN4mD-fkpNFbjxcHnZO3p8fN4iVdvT4vF_ertAaRybRkJkeJVFcSG12xElAUgFwbFsqANUJe6EqIXGecM1MxMCZjZZkbGSM-J7CfWzvrvcNG7Vzba_etgKp4p_pzZ2CyPbNztsN67CePqrOTG8KmqoCSS1Dr-Iv4Csh5IOl7wPjBSveVa83HL-h_sx9mbGMO</recordid><startdate>201511</startdate><enddate>201511</enddate><creator>Armoskaite, Solveiga</creator><creator>Gillon, Carrie</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201511</creationdate><title>Introduction The (not so) universal D</title><author>Armoskaite, Solveiga ; Gillon, Carrie</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1749-82d5e9e0ab9efab281e761e3ad2e9e1ece156ab775a4332db21dd42885d91dd43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Armoskaite, Solveiga</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gillon, Carrie</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Canadian journal of linguistics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Armoskaite, Solveiga</au><au>Gillon, Carrie</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Introduction The (not so) universal D</atitle><jtitle>Canadian journal of linguistics</jtitle><addtitle>Can. J. Linguist</addtitle><date>2015-11</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>60</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>251</spage><epage>258</epage><pages>251-258</pages><issn>0008-4131</issn><eissn>1710-1115</eissn><abstract>This volume grew out of our research agenda, seeking to understand the structure and interpretation of bare nouns in three typologically and genetically unrelated articleless languages: Lithuanian, Inuktitut, and Innu-aimun. None of these languages has articles, and yet they are very different from one another with respect to the syntactic and semantic behaviour of their bare nouns (for Lithuanian, see Gillon and Armoskaite 2013, 2015; for Lithuanian and Innu-aimun, Gillon and Armoskaite 2012; for Inuktitut, Lithuanian and Innu-aimun, Gillon 2013, 2015). This variation forced us to question the universality of D, as well as the universality of the semantics of D.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S0008413100026219</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0008-4131
ispartof Canadian journal of linguistics, 2015-11, Vol.60 (3), p.251-258
issn 0008-4131
1710-1115
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1017_S0008413100026219
source Cambridge Journals Online; Project Muse:Jisc Collections:Project MUSE Journals Agreement 2024:Premium Collection
title Introduction The (not so) universal D
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T14%3A19%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-cambridge_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Introduction%20The%20(not%20so)%20universal%20D&rft.jtitle=Canadian%20journal%20of%20linguistics&rft.au=Armoskaite,%20Solveiga&rft.date=2015-11&rft.volume=60&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=251&rft.epage=258&rft.pages=251-258&rft.issn=0008-4131&rft.eissn=1710-1115&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0008413100026219&rft_dat=%3Ccambridge_cross%3E10_1017_S0008413100026219%3C/cambridge_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1749-82d5e9e0ab9efab281e761e3ad2e9e1ece156ab775a4332db21dd42885d91dd43%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0008413100026219&rfr_iscdi=true