The Syntax of the Indonesian Noun Phrase

The present work considers the understudied issues in the syntax and semantics of the Indonesian noun phrase. First, I explore the syntax and semantics of Indonesian classifiers (either sortal or non-sortal). From the semantic point of view, Indonesian sortal classifiers introduce presupposition that a given noun belongs to a certain nominal class, which means that, semantically, they are akin to grammatical gender, as it is treated by Heim & Kratzer (1998). Syntactically, sortal classifiers have a category of their own, CL. Non-sortal classifiers, by contrast, belong to the N category: they are mere nouns. Secondly, I consider the syntax and semantics of NPs with cardinal numerals. I show that NPs with postnominal numerals are obligatorily indefinite; furthermore, they are “anti-topical”, i.e. they cannot be in topic. To account for these properties of postnominal numerals, I propose that they are optionally selected by an unpronounced indefinite determiner. Prenominal numerals, in contrast, do not have any special pragmatic uses: they are mere quantifiers. Syntactically, they are NP adjuncts. Thirdly, I consider the syntax of NPs with other quantifiers. I show that some quantifiers can select for sortal classifiers (e.g. numerals, or setiap ‘every’), while some others do not allow for it (e.g. semua ‘all’). On the other hand, all quantifiers can cooccur with non-sortal classifiers. I suggest that this is because some quantifiers belong to the Q category, while some others belong to the Num category. These categories have different selectional restrictions: Num can select either for Cl or N heads, while Q can only select for N heads. That is why Num-quantifiers can cooccur with both sortal classifiers and nouns, while Q-quantifiers can occur only with nouns. Furthermore, this explains why non-sortal classifiers can combine with any quantifiers: recall that non-sortal classifiers belong to the N category. Finally, I consider the syntax of the floating of quantifiers in Indonesian. I show that quantifier float is only possible with unaccusative predicates, and impossible otherwise (e.g. with transitive, or unergative predicates). I claim that the reason for this lies in the fact that the only argument of unaccusatives is the complement of V; hence, the sentential subject is base-generated to the right of the predicate. After that, the head noun may get topicalized and move to the Spec TP, where topics occur. In case the numeral is not topicalized, it remains in situ, i.e. gets stranded. Thus the clauses with floating quantifiers are generated. The floating of quantifiers with unergatives, by contrast, is impossible, since the sentential subject is base-generated as VP-external argument; hence, the predicate cannot intervene between the noun and the quantifier, and it is impossible to observe the floating of quantifiers. As for the transitive verbs, they do not allow for quantifier float because the Spec TP is occupied by the sentential subject, hence, movement in there is forbidden.