Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 639–694

The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking

Original Paper

Abstract

Plural marking is not universally inflectional. This paper examines the formal properties of non-inflectional plural marking on the basis of a detailed case study of Halkomelem Salish. The plural marker in this language displays neither inflectional nor derivational properties. I argue that its distributional properties derive from its syntax: it is a modifier adjoined to category-neutral \(\sqrt{}\) roots. The analysis implies that plural marking is not universally merged as a syntactic (functional) head and that it does not universally merge with nouns. This leads to the postulation of a new typology of plural marking which goes beyond the distinction between inflectional and non-inflectional plural marking. Several diagnostics to distinguish among distinct types of plural markers are established.

Keywords

Functional categories Plural Modifiers Salish Inflection 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspects. PhD Thesis, MIT, Cambridge Google Scholar
  2. Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax: a minimalist approach. London: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  3. Adger, David, and Jennifer Smith. 2005. Variation and the minimalist program. In Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and the Social, eds. Leonie Cornips and Karen P. Corrigan, 149–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  4. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2003. Classifiers. A typology of noun categorization devices. London: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  5. Allan, Keith. 1980. Nouns and countability. Language 56: 541–567. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alegre, Maria, and Peter Gordon. 1996. Red rats eater exposes recursion in children’s word formation. Cognition 60: 65–82. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Alegre, Maria, and Peter Gordon. 1997. Why compounds researchers aren’t rats eaters: semantic constraints on plurals inside compounds. Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, unpublished manuscript. Google Scholar
  8. Anderson, Stephen R. 1982. Where’s morphology? Linguistic Inquiry 13: 571–612. Google Scholar
  9. Anderson, Stephen R. 1986. Disjunctive ordering in inflectional morphology? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4: 1–31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  11. Arad, Maya. 2003. Locality Constraints on the interpretation of roots: the case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 737–778. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bachrach, Asaf, and Michael Wagner. 2007. Syntactically driven cyclicity vs. output-output correspondence: the case of adjunction in diminutive morphology. In University of Pennsylvania Working Paper in Linguistics, volume 10.1 Google Scholar
  13. Béjar, Susanna. 2003. Phi-syntax: a theory of agreement. PhD Thesis, University of Toronto. Google Scholar
  14. Benveniste, Émile. 1971. Problems in general linguistics. Baltimore: University of Miami Press. Google Scholar
  15. Bernstein, Judy. 1991. DPs in Walloon: evidence for parametric variation in nominal head movement. Probus 3: 101–126. Google Scholar
  16. Blain, Eleanor M., Rose-Marie Déchaine, 2007. Evidential types: evidence from Cree dialects. International Journal of American Linguistics 73: 257–291. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Henry Holt. Google Scholar
  18. Boas, Franz. 1911. Introduction to the handbook of American Indian languages. Washington: Government Printing Office. Google Scholar
  19. Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense. London: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  20. Broselow, Ellen. 1983. Salish double reduplications: subjacency in morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 317–346. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bunt, Harry C. 1985. Mass terms and model-theoretic semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  22. Carlson, Greg. 1977. A unified analysis of the English Bare Plural. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 413–457. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chao, Yuen Ren. 1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkley: University of California Press. Google Scholar
  24. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6: 339–405. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chomsky, Noam. 1995a. The minimalist program. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Google Scholar
  26. Chomsky, Noam. 1995b. Bare phrase structure. In Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program, ed. Gert Webelhuth, 383–439. Cambridge: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  27. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist Inquiries: the framework. In Step by step. Essays in minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 8–153. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  28. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT occasional papers in linguistics 20. Cambridge: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL, MIT. Google Scholar
  29. Chung, Sandra. 1998. The design of agreement. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Google Scholar
  30. Cooper, Robin. 1979. The interpretation of pronouns. In Selection from the third Groningen round table, syntax and semantics, syntax and semantics, eds. Frank Heny and H. Schnelle, vol. 10, 61–92. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  31. Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  32. Cysouw, Michael. 2003. The paradigmatic structure of person marking. London: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  33. Davis, Henry. 2008. A teacher’s grammar of upper St’at’imcets. ms. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. Google Scholar
  34. Davis, Henry, and Lisa Matthewson. 1999. On the functional determination of lexical categories. Revue Québécoise de Linguistique 27: 30–69. Google Scholar
  35. Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Martina Wiltschko. 2003. Negation at the left periphery. Evidence from Algonquian and Salish. In Proceedings of WECOL 2001, eds. Lesley Carmichael, Chia-Hui Hunag, and Vita Samiian, 104–117. Fresno: CSU Fresno. Google Scholar
  36. Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Martina Wiltschko. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 409–442. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Demirdache, Hamida, and Lisa Matthewson. 1995. On the universality of syntactic categories. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 25: 79–93. Google Scholar
  38. den Besten, Hans. 1996. Associative DPs. In Linguistics in the Netherlands, eds. Crit Cremers and Marcel den Dikken, 13–24. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  39. den Dikken, Marcel. 2003. The structure of the noun phrase in Rotuman. In Lincom Studies in Austronesian Linguistics 05, LINCOM Europa. Google Scholar
  40. Déprez, Viviane. 2004. Morphological number, semantic number and bare nouns. Lingua 115: 857–883. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Dressler, Wolfgang U., and Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi. 1994. Morphopragmatics: diminutives and intensifiers in Italian, German, and other languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  42. Durie, Mark. 1978. Grammaticization of number as a verbal category. In Proceedings of the 12th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 355–370. Google Scholar
  43. Embick, David, and Morris Halle. 2004. On the status of stems in morphological theory. In Proceedings of going Romance 2003, eds. Twan Geerts, Ivo van Ginneken, and Haike Jacobs. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  44. Galloway, Brent. 1980. The structure of upriver Halkomelem, a grammatical sketch and classified word list for upriver Halkomelem. Sardis: Coqualeetza Education Training Center. Google Scholar
  45. Galloway, Brent. 1993. A grammar of upriver Halkomelem. Berkeley: University of California Press. Google Scholar
  46. Gerdts, Donna B. 1999. The combinatory properties of Halkomelem lexical suffixes. Papers for the 35th international conference on Salish and neighboring languages. 3, 95–106. UBCWPL. Google Scholar
  47. Gerdts, Donna B. 2003. The morphosyntax of Halkomelem lexical suffixes. International Journal of American Linguistics 69: 345–356. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Gerdts, Donna B., and Mercedes Hinkson. 1996. Salish lexical suffixes: a case of decategorialization. In Proceedings of the conference on conceptual structure, discourse and language, ed. Adele E. Goldberg, 163–176. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Google Scholar
  49. Gerdts, Donna B., Mercedes Hinkson, and Thomas E. Hukari. 2002. Numeral classifiers in Halkomelem. Papers for the 37th international conference on Salish and neighboring languages 9, 147–180, UBCWPL. Google Scholar
  50. Ghomeshi, Jila. 2003. Plural marking, indefiniteness, and the noun phrase. Studia Linguistica 57: 47–74. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Gillon, Carrie. 2006. The semantics of determiners. Domain restriction in Skwxwú7mesh. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia. Google Scholar
  52. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Universals of language. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  53. Grimshaw, Jane B. 1991. Extended projections. MS, Brandeis University. Google Scholar
  54. Haeberli, Eric. 2002. Features, categories and the syntax of A-positions: cross-linguistic variation in the Germanic languages. Dordrecht, Boston: Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar
  55. Harley, Heidi. 2005. How do verbs get their names. Denominal verbs, manner incorporation and the ontology of verb roots in English. In The syntax of aspect, eds. Tova R. Rapoport and Nomi Shir, 42–64. London: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  56. Harley, Heidi, and Elizabeth Ritter. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: a feature geometric analysis. Language 78: 482–526. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hukari, Thomas. 1976. Transitive in Halkomelem. Papers from the 11th International conference on Salishan languages, in Seattle, Washington. Google Scholar
  58. Hukari, Thomas. 1978. Halkomelem nonsegmental morphology. Papers from the 13th international conference on Salishan languages. Google Scholar
  59. Iljic, Robert. 1994. Quantification in Mandarin Chinese: two markers of plurality. Linguistics 32: 91–116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Jelinek, Eloise, and Richard Demers. 1994. Predicates and pronominal arguments in straits Salish. Language 70: 697–737. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen and Unwin. Google Scholar
  62. Jurafsky, Daniel. 1996. Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive. Language 72: 533–578. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  64. Kinkade, M. Dale. 1983. Salish evidence against the universality of “noun” and “verb”. Lingua 60: 25–40. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical phonology and morphology. In Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. In-Seak Yang, 3–91. Seoul: Hansin. Google Scholar
  66. Kratzer, Angelika. 2007. On the plurality of verbs. In Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation, eds. Johannes Dölling, Tatjana Heyde-Zybatow, and M Schäfer, 269–300. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  67. Kwon, Song Nim, and Anne Zribi-Hertz. 2004. Number from a syntactic perspective: why plural marking looks ‘truer’ in French than in Korean. In Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 5, eds. Olivier Bonami and Patrizia Cabredo-Hofherr, 133–158. (on-line proceedings of the fifth Syntax and Semantics Conference in Paris). Google Scholar
  68. Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 1999. Plurality in a classifier language. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8: 5–99. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing morphology: word formation in syntactic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  70. Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: a lattice-theoretical approach. In Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, eds. Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze, and Arnim van Stechow, 303–323. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  71. Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names: a theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609–665. Google Scholar
  72. Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  73. Manova, Stela. 2004. Derivation versus inflection in three inflecting languages. In Morphology and its demarcations, eds. Wolfgang U. Dressler, Dieter Kastovsky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, Franz Rainer, Francesco Gardani, and Markus A. Pöchtrager, 233–252. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  74. Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2 (=Proceedings of the 21st annual. Penn linguistics colloquium). Google Scholar
  75. Marantz, Alec. 2001. Phases and words. Manuscript, MIT Google Scholar
  76. Marvin, Tatjana. 2003. Topics in the stress and syntax of words. PhD Thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass Google Scholar
  77. Matthews, Peter H. 1972. Inflectional morphology; a theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  78. Matthewson, Lisa. 1998. Determiner systems and quantificational strategies: evidence from Salish. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. Google Scholar
  79. Mithun, Marianne. 1999. The languages of native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  80. Nakanishi, Kimiko, and Satoshi Tomioka. 2004. Japanese plurals are exceptional. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13: 113–140. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ortmann, Albert. 2000. Where plural refuses to agree: feature unification and morphological economy. Acta Linguistica Hungaria 47: 249–288. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Perlmutter, David M. 1988. The split-morphology-hypothesis. Evidence from Yiddish. In Theoretical morphology: approaches in modern linguistics, eds. Michael Hammond and Michael Noonan, 79–100. San Diego: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  83. Pinker, Stephen. 1999. Words and rules: the ingredients of language. New York: Basic Books. Google Scholar
  84. Rice, Keren. 2000. Morpheme order and semantic scope: word formation in the Athapaskan verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  85. Ritter, Elizabeth. 1991. Two functional categories in modern Hebrew noun phrases. In Syntax and Semantics 25, Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing, ed. Susan Rothstein, 37–60. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  86. Ritter, Elizabeth. 1995. On the syntactic category of pronouns and agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 405–443. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Roeper, Thomas, William Snyder, and Kazuko Hiramatsu. 2002. Learnability in a minimalist framework: root compounds, merger, and the syntax-morphology interface. In The process of language acquisition, ed. Ingeborg Lasser. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag. Google Scholar
  88. Rullmann, Hotze, and Aili You. 2006. General number and the semantics and pragmatics of indefinite bare nouns in Mandarin Chinese. In Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics, eds. Klaus von Heusinger and Ken P. Turner, 175–196. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Google Scholar
  89. Sanches, Mary, and L. Slobin. 1973. Numeral classifiers and plural marking: an implicational universal. In Working papers in language universals 1, 1–22. Stanford: Stanford University. Google Scholar
  90. Sapir, Edward. 1911. The problem of Noun incorporation in American languages. American Anthropologist 13: 250–282. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Sauerland, Uli. 2003. A new semantics for number. In The Proceedings of SALT13, 258–275. Cornell University, Ithaca: CLC Publication. Google Scholar
  92. Sauerland, Uli. 2008. On the semantic markedness of phi-features. In Phi-theory: phi-features across modules and interfaces, eds. D. Harbour, et al., 57–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  93. Scalise, Sergio. 1984. Generative morphology. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Google Scholar
  94. Scalise, Sergio. 1988. The notion of ‘head’ in morphology. Yearbook of Morphology 1: 229–245. Google Scholar
  95. Sigurdsson, Halldór. 2008. Remarks on features. In Phases at the interface, ed. Kleanthes Grohmann. Berlin: Mouton. Google Scholar
  96. Smith-Stark, T. Cedric. 1974. The plurality split. Papers from the regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 10: 657–671. Google Scholar
  97. Stebbins, Tonya. 1997. Asymmetrical nominal number marking. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 50: 5–47. Google Scholar
  98. Steriopolo, Olga. 2008. The form and function of expressive morphology. A case study of Russian. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia. Google Scholar
  99. Stump, Gregory. 1989. A note on Breton pluralization and the elsewhere condition. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7: 261–273. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Suttles, Wayne. 2004. Musqueam reference grammar. Vancouver: UBC Press. Google Scholar
  101. Tang, Chi-Chen Jane. 1990. Chinese phrase structure and the extended X’-theory. PhD dissertation, Cornell University. Google Scholar
  102. Trubetzkoy, N.S. 1939. Grundzuege der phonologie, vol. 8. Prague: Traveaux de Circle Linguistique de Prague. Google Scholar
  103. Urbanczyk, Suzanne. 2004. Absolutive agreement. Paper presented at WSCLA 2004, University of Victoria. Google Scholar
  104. Valois, Daniel. 1991. The internal syntax of DP. PhD dissertation, Los Angeles, UCLA. Google Scholar
  105. van Eijk, Jan. 1997. The Lillooet Language: Phonology, Morphology, Syntax. Vancouver: UBC Press. Google Scholar
  106. van Eijk, Jan, and Thom Hess. 1986. Noun and verb in Salish. Lingua 69: 319–331. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Wechsler, Stephen. 2004. Number as person. In Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 5, eds. Olivier Bonami and Patrizia Cabredo-Hofherr, 255–274. (on-line proceedings of the fifth Syntax and Semantics Conference in Paris). Google Scholar
  108. Wiltschko, Martina. 2002. The syntax of pronouns. Evidence from Halkomelem Salish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 157–195. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Wiltschko, Martina. 2005. A part of wood is not a tree. In Proceedings of the 40th international conference on Salish and neighbouring languages. Google Scholar
  110. Wiltschko, Martina. 2007. Why should Diminutives count. In Organizing grammar: studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, eds. Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts, Ursula Kleinherz, and Jan Koster, 669–678. Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  111. Wiltschko, Martina. 2008. Root incorporation. Evidence from lexical suffixes in Halkomelem. Lingua. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2007.10.012.
  112. Wiltschko, Martina. to appear. What’s in a determiner and how did it get there? In Determiners: universals and variation, eds. Jila Ghomeshi, Ileana Paul, and Martina Wiltschko. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  113. Wiltschko, Martina, and Olga Steriopolo. 2007. Parameters of variation in the syntax of diminutives. In Proceedings of the Canadian Linguistic Association 2007. Available http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2007/Arsenault.pdf Proceedings of the CLA 2007.
  114. Yang, Rong. 2001. Common nouns, classifiers and quantification in chinese. PhD dissertation New Brunswick, Rutgers. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations