University of Stuttgart
GK Klausurtagung
Dolgor Guntsetseg
29.06.2007
Bare nouns and incorporation in Mongolian
1. Preface to Mongolian
Mongolian is an Altaic language (along with Turkic and Mandji-Tungusic languages and
possibly with Japanese and Korean) and it is spoken in Mongolia, Burjatia and in Inner Mongolia
(China).
The typological characteristics of Mongolian are vowel harmony, agglutinated morphology and
SOV-structure of sentences etc. The DP-structure in Mongolian is generally as follows:
Table 1. DP-structure in Mongolian
demonstrative
prenominal attributive
quantifier
NP
adjective
headnoun
postnominal
quantifier
casesuffix
(1a) shows an example of a complex DP-structure in Mongolian, and in (1b) is an example of a
simple one.
(1)a. Ter
ojutan ene
buh
DEM student DEM all
ulaan havtas-tai
zuzaan nom-ig
unsh-san.
red
thick book-ACC
read-PST
cover-COM
´This student read all this thick book with red cover.`
b. Ter
ojutan
DEM student
nom
unsh-san.
book read-PST
´This student read a book.` or ´The student did book-reading.`
The subject of my talk is cases like as in (1b). I would like to describe these structures, namely
bare nouns, by their syntactic and semantic properties, particularly with regard to incorporated
bare nouns. I will aim to answer the following questions: i) is there in Mongolian a syntacticsemantic incorporation or ii) is there only semantic incorporation.
2. Identifying of bare nouns
2.1. Syntactic criteria for incorporated bare nouns
I will use the following syntactic criteria, suggested in Dayal (2003) for Hindi and in Öztürk
(2005) for Turkish, for the identification of bare nouns in Mongolian:

no determiner and no genitive NP

no case-marking

no possessive suffix

no postpositions

immediately preverbal position

modification possible only in certain restricted cases
1
University of Stuttgart
GK Klausurtagung
Dolgor Guntsetseg
29.06.2007
These properties are syntactic in nature, and at the first view, the bare nouns with these syntactic
properties seem to be incorporated to a verb, as in (1b). However, this syntactic criterion can be
breached in Mongolian as shown in (2a):
(2) a.
Bi
nom
udur
I
book day
bolgon
unsh-san.
every
read-PST
´I did book-reading every day.`
b.
Bi
neg
nom
udur
I
one/a book day
bolgon
unsh-san.
every
read-PST
´I read a book every day.`
In (2a), the bare noun nom ´book` is not in immediately preverbal position. Despite this fact, the
meaning of (2a) suggests that there is (at least) semantic incorporation, whereas in (2b) neg nom
is an indefinte NP.
In other words, in Mongolian the difference between indefinite non-specific NPs and
incorporated NPs is fluent and the syntactic criteria alone don’t suffice distinguish them.
2.2 Semantic criteria for incorporated bare nouns
In addition to the syntactic criteria, Dayal (2003) summarizes some semantic criteria for the
interpretation of bare nouns as incorporated NPs. They are as follows:

number neutrality (i.e. numberless)

narrow scope

[N+V] forms a complex predicate

low discourse transparency
In the next section, according to the semantic criteria, I’ll explore the relation between discourse
transparency (DT) and animacy of incorporated bare nouns.
3. Bare nouns, discourse transparency and animacy
As already mentioned, incorporated bare nouns must have either a low DT or no DT at all.
In addition to DT, there is another possible factor for the incorporation, namely the animacy
level of bare nouns as direct objects. The preliminary hypothesis is:
The lower in animacy the bare noun is the easier is to incorporate it,
in other words, the lower in animacy the bare noun is the lower is their DT.
In order this hypothesis to check, I will explore this interaction between these two semantic
properties, namely DT and animacy, with a test.
For this test, I will use the following three examples with bare noun and a transitive verb:
 huuhed harah ´to look after children`,
 guu saah ´to milk a mare` and
 nom unshih ´to read a book`.
As you see, the bare nouns in these examples have different animacy, and all these VPs denote
typical activities.
2
University of Stuttgart
GK Klausurtagung
Dolgor Guntsetseg
29.06.2007
Test 1: I’ll check the possibility of anaphoric relation in the examples firstly with a simple
pronominal demonstrative and secondly with a demonstrative NP.
(3)
Bi
uchigdur
huuhed
har-san.
I
yesterday
child
see-PST
´Yesterday I did looking-after-children.
a.
?
Ter
3SG
sahilgagui
bai-san.
cheeky
be-PST
b. Ter
DEM child
´She/He is cheeky.`
(4)
huuhed
sahilgagui
bai-san.
cheeky
be-PST
´This child is cheeky.`
Bi
uchigdur
guu
saa-san.
I
yesterday
mare milk-PST
´Yesterday I did mare-milking.`
a.
??
ikh
dogshin
bai-san.
3SG
very
wild
be-PST
Ter
b.
Ter
guu
ikh
DEM mare very
´It is wild.`
(5)
?
dogshin
bai-san.
wild
be-PST
´This mare is wild.`
Bi
uchigdur
nom
unsh-san.
I
yesterday
book read-PST
´Yesterday I did book-reading.`
a.
*
Ter
3SG
ikh
sonirholtoi
bai-san. b.
??
very
interesting
be-PST
DEM book very interesting
´It is interesting.`
Ter nom
ikh
sonirholtoi
bai-san.
be-PST
´This book is interesting.`
In contrast to these examples we find a higher DT for DPs with “neg”:
(6) Bi
I
uchigdur
neg
huuhed
har-san.
Ter/
Ter
huuhed………
yesterday
a
child
see-PST
3SG/
DEM child
………
´Yesterday I looked after a child. (S)He/This child is very cheeky.`
(7) Bi
I
uchigdur
neg
guu
saa-san.
yesterday
a
mare milk-PST
Ter/
Ter
guu
3SG/
DEM mare
……………
……………
´Yesterday I milked a mare. It/This mare is very wild.`
(8) Bi
I
nom ……………
uchigdur
neg
nom) unsh-san.
Ter/
Ter
yesterday
a
book read-PST
3SG/
DEM book
´Yesterday I read a book. It/This book is very interesting.`
3
……………
University of Stuttgart
GK Klausurtagung
Dolgor Guntsetseg
29.06.2007
Table 2: Summary of the test
noun + verb
Semantic
properties
neg + noun+verb
Examples
PRON
Dem.NP
PRON
Dem.NP
?



??
?


*
??


huuhed harah
[+human]
´to look after children
guu saah
[+animate]
´to milk a mare`
nom unshih
[-animate]
´to read a book`
The anaphoric relation is better, the higher in animacy the bare noun is. The hypothesis, that the
lower in animacy the bare nouns is the easier is to incorporate it, is confirmed. The semantic
incorporation seems to be gradual according to the animacy.
Furthermore, the incorporation in Mongolian is syntactically more freely (see Ex.(2a)), i.e.
Mongolian exhibits pseudo-incorporation like as Hindi. However, there is a question, how much
the pseudo-incorporation in Mongolian do allow morphological and syntactic operation?
4. Bare nouns and morphological and syntactic operations
As already shown in 2.1 example (2a), the syntactic criteria for incorporation are not so strong, at
least in Mongolian. What does this depend on? In my opinion, there es again an influence of
animacy. In order to check this hypothesis, I’ll perform two more tests by our examples.
Test 2: addition of the plural suffix to a bare noun:
(9)
Bi
uchigdur
huuhd(*-uud)
har-san.
I
yesterday
child-PL
see-PST
´Yesterday I did looking-after-children.`
(10)
Bi
uchigdur
guu(??-nuud)
saa-san.
I
yesterday
mare-PL
milk-PST
´Yesterday I did mare-milking .`
(11)
Bi
uchigdur
nom(??-nuud)
unsh-san.
I
yesterday
book-PL
read-PST
´Yesterday I did book-reading.`
Test 3: insertion of an adverb between the bare noun and the verb.
(12)
Bi
uchigdur
huuhed
??
I
yesterday
child
slowly
udaan
har-san.
see-PST
´Yesterday I did looking-after-children for a long time.`
4
University of Stuttgart
GK Klausurtagung
(13)
Dolgor Guntsetseg
29.06.2007
?
Bi
uchigdur
guu
hurdan
saa-san.
I
yesterday
mare quickly
milk-PST
´Yesterday I did mare-milking quickly.`
(14)
Bi
uchigdur
nom
hurdan
I
yesterday
book quickly
unsh-san.
read-PST
´Yesterday I quickly did book-reading.`
Table 3: Summary of tests
Semantic
properties
Examples
Plural suffix
Moving
*
??
??
?
??

huuhed harah
[+human]
´to look after children`
guu saah
[+animate]
´to milk a mare`
nom unshih
[-animate]
´to read a book`
The lower the animacy of bare nouns, the more possibility of morphological and syntactical
operations. This confirms the hypothesis about the influence of animacy.
5. Pseudo-incorporation and DOM
Animacy is a significant factor for pseudo-incorporation in Mongolian and it is also significant
for differential object marking (DOM). DOM in Mongolian depends on definiteness, specificity
and animacy.
(15)
Bi
uchigdur
neg
huuhd(-ig)
har-san.
I
yesterday
a
child-ACC
see-PST
´Yesterday I looked after a child.
(16)
Bi
uchigdur
neg
guu(-g)
saa-san.
I
yesterday
a
mare-ACC
milk-PST
´Yesterday I milked a mare. wild.`
(17)
Bi
uchigdur
neg
nom(*-ig)
unsh-san.
I
yesterday
a
book-ACC
read-PST
´Yesterday I read a book.`
5
University of Stuttgart
GK Klausurtagung
Dolgor Guntsetseg
29.06.2007
As these examples show, indefinite inanimate DO can not be marked with accusative suffix,
whereas indefinite animate DO can be marked. We can therefore conclude that the semantic
incorporation is a mirror image of DOM in the sense that:
i)
Differential object marking decreases with decreasing animacy.
ii)
Semantic incorporation increases with decreasing animacy.
(18) Incorporation on Animacy scala in comparison with DOM
DOM-direction
7. Conclusions

The degree of the semantic incorporation in Mongolian depends on animacy.

The bare nouns are not syntactically incorporated, as shown by the test 2 and 3.

Mongolian therefore displays a pseudo-incorporation of bare nouns comparable to
Hindi (Dayal 2003).
References
Dayal, V. (2003): A semantic for pseudo incorporation. Rutgers University
Farkas, D.F.&deSwart. H.(2004): Incorporation, plurality, and the incorporation of plurals: a dynamic
approach. In : Catalan Journal of Linguistics 3, pp. 45-73
Öztürk, B. (2005): Case, Referentiality and phrase structure. J.B. Publishing Company. Amsterdam
6
University of Stuttgart
GK Klausurtagung
Dolgor Guntsetseg
29.06.2007
My talk is about Bare nouns and incorporation in Mongolian
At first, I’d like to introduce to Mongolian (1. Preface to Mongolian)
Mongolian is an Altaic language (along with Turkic and Mandji-Tungusic languages and
possibly with Japanese and Korean) and it is spoken in Mongolia, Burjatia and in Inner Mongolia
(China).
The typological characteristics of Mongolian are vowel harmony, agglutinated morphology and
SOV-structure of sentences etc. The DP-structure in Mongolian is generally as follows in the
table 1:
demonstrative
prenominal attributive
quantifier
adjective
NP
head-
postnominal
noun
quantifier
casesuffix
There is an example of a complex DP-structure in Mongolian in (1a):
(1)a. Ter
ojutan ene
buh
DEM student DEM all
ulaan havtas-tai
zuzaan nom-ig
unsh-san.
red
thick book-ACC
read-PST
cover-COM
´This student read all this thick book with red cover.`
The DP in this sentence is ………………. As you see, DEM is always at the begin of a DP, and
the end of a DP is marked with a casesuffix.
In (1b) is an example of a simple noun .
b. Ter
ojutan
DEM student
nom
unsh-san.
book read-PST
This sentence has two reading, the one is ´This student read a book.`, the another one is ´The
student did book-reading.`
The subject of my talk is cases like as in (1b). I would like to describe these structures, namely
bare nouns, by their syntactic and semantic properties, particularly with regard to incorporated
bare nouns. I will aim to answer the following questions: i) is there in Mongolian a syntacticsemantic incorporation or ii) is there only semantic incorporation.
7
University of Stuttgart
GK Klausurtagung
Dolgor Guntsetseg
29.06.2007
The structure of my talk is as follows: in section 2: I’ll introduce the syntactic and semantic
conditions for the incorporated bare nouns.
In section 3: I will describe the relation between Animacy and discourse transparency of
incorporated bare nouns. In section 4 I will discuss about the morphological and syntactic
operations, which can be apply to the bare nouns.
In section 5: I will compare the semantic incorporaion with Differential Object Marking.
Now to the section two, where is about how to identify the bare nouns as incorporated noun
phrases. There are syntactic and semantioc criteria, I’d like to begin with syntactic criteria.
2. Identifying of bare nouns
2.1. Syntactic criteria for incorporated bare nouns
I will use the following syntactic criteria, suggested in Dayal (2003) for Hindi and in Öztürk
(2005) for Turkish, for the identification of bare nouns in Mongolian: they are

no determiner and no genitive NP

no case-marking

no possessive suffix

no postpositions

immediately preverbal position

modification is possible only in certain restricted cases
These properties are syntactic in nature, and at the first view, the bare nouns with these syntactic
properties seem to be incorporated to a verb, as in (1b). However, there is some cases in
Mongolian, where is breached one syntactic criterion: An example herefor is in (2a)
(2) a.
Bi
nom
udur
I
book day
bolgon
unsh-san.
every
read-PST
´I did book-reading every day.`
As you see, in this sentence is the adverb udur bolgon ´every day` is put between the noun nom
´book` and the verb unshsan ´read`, in other words, the bare noun nom ´book` is not in
immediately preverbal position. Despite this fact, the meaning of (2a) suggests that there is (at
least) semantic incorporation.
In contrast to (2a), in (2b) the noun phrase neg nom ´a book` is an indefinte NP.
b.
Bi
neg
nom
udur
I
one/a book day
bolgon
unsh-san.
every
read-PST
´I read a book every day.`
8
University of Stuttgart
GK Klausurtagung
Dolgor Guntsetseg
29.06.2007
The word neg is a numerale one and in this sentence it functions also as an indefinite article. The
meaning of this sentence is “I read a book every day.”
To sum up, in Mongolian the difference between indefinite non-specific NPs and incorporated
NPs is fluent and the syntactic criteria alone don’t suffice distinguish them.
Now to the 2.2 Semantic criteria for incorporated bare nouns
In addition to the syntactic criteria, Dayal (2003) summarizes some semantic criteria for the
interpretation of bare nouns as incorporated NPs. They are as follows:

number neutrality (i.e. numberless)

narrow scope

[N+V] forms a complex predicate

low discourse transparency
In the next section, according to the semantic criteria, I’ll explore the relation between discourse
transparency (DT) and animacy of incorporated bare nouns.
3. Bare nouns, discourse transparency and animacy
As already mentioned, incorporated bare nouns must have either a low DT or no DT at all.
In addition to DT, there is another possible factor for the incorporation, namely the animacy
level of bare nouns as direct objects.
The preliminary hypothesis is: the lower in animacy the bare noun is the easier it is to
incorporate it, in other words, the lower in animacy the lower the DT. In order this hypothesis to
check, I will explore this interaction between these two semantic properties, namely DT and
animacy, with a test.
For this test, I will use the following three examples with bare noun and a transitive verb:
 huuhed harah ´to look after children`,
 guu saah ´to milk a mare` and
 nom unshih ´to read a book`.
As you see, the bare nouns in these examples have different level of animacy, and all these VPs
denote typical activities.
Test 1: I’ll check the possibility of anaphoric relation in the examples firstly with a simple
pronominal demonstrative and secondly with a demonstrative NP.
Now to example (3)
9
University of Stuttgart
GK Klausurtagung
(3) Bi
Dolgor Guntsetseg
29.06.2007
uchigdur
huuhed
har-san. ´Yesterday I did looking-after-children.
So, now I try to make the anaphoric relation firstly with a pronominal demonstrative. In (3a)
?
Ter
sahilgagui
bai-san.
She or He is cheeky.` This anaphoric relation is questionable, but I can say that.
Secondly with a demonstrative NP in (3b):
Ter huuhed
sahilgagui
bai-san.
This child is cheeky.`
Such aanphoric relation has no problem. This sentence is grammatical right.
In example 4 is non-human DO.
(4) Bi
uchigdur
??
Ter ikh
guu
dogshin
saa-san.
Yesterday I did mare-milking.
bai-san. It is very wild.`
In (4a) is possible an anaphoric relation with a pronominal demonstrative, but more questionable
than in (3a).
With demonstrative NP in (4b)
?
Ter guu ikh
dogshin
bai-san. This mare is very wild.
is better than in (4a).
Now to example (5). There is non-animate DO:
(5) Bi
*
Ter
uchigdur
ikh
nom
sonirholtoi
unsh-san.
Yesterday I did book-reading.
bai-san.
It is very interesting.`
The anaphoric relation with a pronominal demonstrative is not possible as shown in (5a), and with a
demonstrative NP in (5b) is better than in (5a)
??
Ter nom ikh
sonirholtoi
bai-san.
This book is very interesting.` but more questionable.
In contrast to these examples in (3, 4 and 5), we find a higher DT for DPs with “neg” in the
examples in (6, 7 and 8):
(6) Bi
uchigdur
neg
huuhed
har-san.
´Yesterday I looked after a child.
There is
Ter ih sahilgagui baisan. She or He is very cheeky.`
Ter
(7) Bi
huuhed ih sahilgagui baisan.
uchigdur
neg
guu
This child is very cheeky
saa-san.
Ter/
……………
Ter
guu
Ter
nom ……………
´Yesterday I milked a mare. It/This mare is very wild.`
(8) Bi
uchigdur
neg
nom
unsh-san.
Ter/
´Yesterday I read a book. It/This book is very interesting.`
10
University of Stuttgart
GK Klausurtagung
Dolgor Guntsetseg
29.06.2007
Table 2: Summary of the test
noun + verb
Semantic
neg + noun+verb
Examples
properties
[+human]
PRON
Dem.NP
PRON
Dem.NP
?



??
?


*
??


huuhed harah
´to look after children
[+animate]
guu saah
´to milk a mare`
[-animate]
nom unshih
´to read a book` `
The anaphoric relation is better, the higher in animacy the bare noun is. The hypothesis, that the
lower in animacy the bare nouns is the easier is to incorporate it, is confirmed. The semantic
incorporation seems to be gradual according to the animacy.
Furthermore, the incorporation in Mongolian is syntactically more freely (see Ex. (2a)), i.e.
Mongolian exhibits pseudo-incorporation like as Hindi. However, there is a question, how much
the pseudo-incorporation in Mongolian do allow morphological and syntactic operation?
4. Bare nouns and morphological and syntactic operations
As already shown in 2.1 example (2a), the syntactic criteria for incorporation are not so strong, at
least in Mongolian. What does this depend on? In my opinion, there es again an influence of
animacy. In order to check this hypothesis, I’ll perform two more tests by our examples.
Test 2: addition of the plural suffix to a bare noun:
(9)
Bi
uchigdur
huuhd(*-uud)
har-san.
I
yesterday
child-PL
see-PST
´Yesterday I did looking-after-children.`
(10) Bi
I
uchigdur
guu(??-nuud)
saa-san.
yesterday
mare-PL
milk-PST
´Yesterday I did mare-milking .`
(11) Bi
I
uchigdur
nom(??-nuud)
yesterday
book-PL
unsh-san.
read-PST
´Yesterday I did book-reading.`
Test 3: insertion of an adverb between the bare noun and the verb.
11
University of Stuttgart
GK Klausurtagung
(12) Bi
I
Dolgor Guntsetseg
29.06.2007
uchigdur
huuhed
??
yesterday
child
slowly
udaan
har-san.
see-PST
´Yesterday I did looking-after-children for a long time.`
(13) Bi
I
?
uchigdur
guu
hurdan
saa-san.
yesterday
mare quickly
milk-PST
´Yesterday I did mare-milking quickly.`
(14) Bi
I
uchigdur
nom
hurdan
yesterday
book quickly
unsh-san.
read-PST
´Yesterday I quickly did book-reading.`
Table 3: Summary of tests
Sem. properties
Examples
Plural suffix
Moving
[+human]
huuhed harah
*
??
??
?
??

´to look after children`
[+animate]
guu saah
´to milk a mare`
[-animate]
nom unshih
´to read a book`
The lower the animacy of bare nouns, the more possibility of morphological and syntactical
operations. This confirms the hypothesis about the influence of animacy.
In the next section, I will compare the pseudo-incorporation with the differential object marking.
5. Pseudo-incorporation and DOM
Animacy is a significant factor for pseudo-incorporation in Mongolian and it is also significant
for differential object marking (DOM). DOM in Mongolian depends on definiteness, specificity
and animacy. (see Ex. (6)- (8)). As these examples show, indefinite inanimate DO can not be
marked with accusative suffix, whereas indefinite animate DO can be marked. We can therefore
conclude that the semantic incorporation is a mirror image of DOM in the sense that
i)
Differential object marking decreases with decreasing animacy.
ii)
Semantic incorpoaration increases with decreasing animacy.
12
University of Stuttgart
GK Klausurtagung
Dolgor Guntsetseg
29.06.2007
(15) Incorporation on Animacy scala in comparison with DOM
DOM-direction
7. Conclusions
1)
The degree of the semantic incorporation in Mongolian depends on animacy.
2)
The bare nouns are not syntactically incorporated, as shown by the test 2 and 3
3)
Mongolian therefore displays a pseudo-incorporation of bare nouns comparable to
Hindi (Dayal 2003)
13