[Yearbook of South Asian Language and Linguistics, vol 2, ed. by Rajendra Singh, 71-99. New Delhi/ London: Sage Publications] Specificity in the Bangla DP Tanmoy Bhattacharya In this paper * I offer an analysis of the DP structure in Bangla (Bengali) based on specificity effects obtained within the DP. I propose that the Bangla DP has a three-layered structure, the layer intermediate between the DP and NP being a QP, based on the position of the Q/Num + Classifier complex in the DP. The specifier of the QP acts as the landing site for specific NPs. This leftward movement, I suggest, is due to a [specificity] feature of the Q head. Kinship Inversion is another instance of DP-internal NP movement which I claim to be driven by the same [specificity] feature of the Q head. These two types of movement out of a nP-shell are instances of overt NP movement inside the DP in Bangla. 1.0 Introduction The paper is organised as follows. In this section, I suggest a three-layered structure of Bangla DP. In section 2, I suggest that the XP intermediate between the DP and the NP is a QP. In sections 3 and 4, I investigate the position of the demonstrative (Dem) and the nature of the complex head Q which I argue contains Q/ Numerical (Num) and classifiers (Cla). In section 5, I briefly look at the position of Adjectives (Adj) in Bangla and suggest that they may be generated as NP-specifiers. In section 6.0, the main section of the paper, I examine the specificity effects obtained inside the Bangla DP. The last section provides the final argument in favour of equating clausal and phrasal structure through an investigation of the base position of the Possessive (Poss). 1.1 The Layered DP Most of the research in the syntax of DPs has concerned the similarity between clausal and phrasal structure. A plausible hypothesis is that these approaches can be subsumed under a common structure like the following: (1) Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 The most influential approach is due to Abney (1987) who argues that Noun Phrases are headed by the functional category Determiner (D). D is known to be similar to the Infl in accommodating agreement features. In the following structure (2), for example, John gets Case in [Spec,DP] from the ’s morpheme * I am indebted to Rita Manzini, Neil Smith, Michael Brody and Probal Dasgupta for comments, criticism and suggestions on earlier drafts of the paper; all remaining errors are mine.