Morphology

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 419–443 | Cite as

The expression of person and number: a typologist’s perspective

Original Paper

Abstract

The categories of person and number have been analyzed extensively, both from a generative/structural perspective and from a typological/cross-linguistic perspective. The goal of both approaches is to account for the diversity of human languages, but in practice both have a rather different take on the subject. One major difference between these approaches is the relation between language-specific and cross-linguistic analyses. This paper argues that it is crucial to strictly distinguish between the two. However, this plea is at odds with the generative/structural perspective, which attempts to deal with both kinds of analyses at the same time. In contrast, it is of central importance from a typological/cross-linguistic perspective to keep the comparison constant across the wide variation as attested among human languages, thereby often ignoring many language-specific details (for the course of the comparison). The final section of this paper summarizes some major results of recent cross-linguistic comparisons of the person/number categories in the world’s languages.

Keywords

Person Number Typology Cross-linguistic Evidence Analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baerman, M. (2002). The Surrey person syncretism database.Google Scholar
  2. Baerman M. (2004) Directionality and (un)natural classes in syncretism. Language 80(4): 807–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baerman M. (2005) Typology and the formal modelling of syncretism. In: Booij G., Marle J. (eds) Yearbook of morphology 2004. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 41–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baerman M., Brown D. (2005) Syncretisms in verbal person/number marking. In: Haspelmath M., Dryer M.S., Gil D., Comrie B. (eds) World atlas of language structures. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 122–125Google Scholar
  5. Baerman, M., Brown, D., & Corbett, G. G. (2005). The syntax—morphology interface: A study of syncretism (Cambridge studies in linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bandelt H.-J., Dress A.W.M. (1992) Split decomposition: A new and useful approach to phylogenetic analysis of distance data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 1(3): 242–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benincà P., Poletto C. (2005) The third dimension of person features. In: Cornips L., Corrigan K.P. (eds) Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 265–299Google Scholar
  8. Bhat, D. N. S. (2004). Pronouns. (Oxford studies in typology and linguistic theory). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bhat D.N.S. (2005) Third-person pronouns and demonstratives. In: Haspelmath M., Dryer M.S., Gil D., Comrie B. (eds) World atlas of language structures. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 178–181Google Scholar
  10. Boas F. (1911) Introduction. In: Boas F. (eds) Handbook of American Indian languages. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, DC, pp 1–83Google Scholar
  11. Bobaljik J.D. (2008) Missing persons: A case study in morphological universals. The Linguistic Review 25(1–2): 203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bolinger D. (1950) Rime, assonance, and morpheme analysis. Word 6: 117–136Google Scholar
  13. Borgman D.M. (1990) Sanuma. In: Derbyshire D.C., Pullum G.K. (eds) Handbook of Amazonian languages. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 15–248Google Scholar
  14. Bryant D., Huson D.H. (2005) Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Phylogenetic Networks 23(2): 254–267Google Scholar
  15. Buchler I.R., Freeze R. (1966) The distinctive features of pronominal systems. Anthropological Linguistics 8(8): 78–105Google Scholar
  16. Chlenova, S. F. (1973). Kategorija chisla v lichnyx mestoimenijax [Category of number within personal pronouns]. In Lingvotipologicheskie Issledovanija (pp. 164–201). Moskva: Izdatel’stvo MGU.Google Scholar
  17. Conklin H.C. (1962) Lexicographical treatment of folk taxonomies. In: Householder F.W., Saporta S. (eds) Problems in lexicography. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, pp 119–142Google Scholar
  18. Cowper, E., & Hall, D. C. (2005). The pieces of pi. In M.-O. Junker, M. McGinnis, & Y. Roberge (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2004 CLA Annual Conference (pp.Google Scholar
  19. Cysouw, M. (2001a). The (a)symmetry of inflectional person marking. Paper presented at ALT IV, Santa Barbara, CA.Google Scholar
  20. Cysouw, M. (2001b). The paradigmatic structure of person marking. PhD dissertation Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  21. Cysouw M. (2003a) Against implicational universals. Linguistic Typology 7(1): 89–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cysouw, M. (2003b). The paradigmatic structure of person marking. (Oxford studies in typology and linguistic theory). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Cysouw M. (2005a) A typology of honorific uses of clusivity. In: Filimonova E. (eds) Clusivity: Typology and case studies of the inclusive-exclusive distinction. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 213–230Google Scholar
  24. Cysouw M. (2005b) Inclusive/exclusive forms of ‘we’. In: Haspelmath M., Dryer M.S., Gil D., Comrie B. (eds) World atlas of language structures. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 162–169Google Scholar
  25. Cysouw M. (2005c) Syncretisms involving clusivity. In: Filimonova E. (eds) Clusivity: Typology and case studies of the inclusive–Exclusive distinction. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 73–111Google Scholar
  26. Cysouw M. (2005d) What it means to be rare: the case of person marking. In: Frajzyngier Z., Hodges A., Rood D.S. (eds) Linguistic diversity and language theories. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 235–258Google Scholar
  27. Cysouw M. (2007a) Building semantic maps: The case of person marking. In: Wälchli B., Miestamo M. (eds) New challenges in typology. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 225–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cysouw M. (2007b) New approaches to cluster analysis of typological indices. In: Köhler R., Grzbek P. (eds) Exact methods in the study of language and text. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 61–76Google Scholar
  29. Cysouw M. (2009) The asymmetry of affixation. Snippets 20(3): 10–14Google Scholar
  30. Cysouw, M. (2010). Semantic maps as metrics on meaning. Linguistic Discovery (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  31. Dalrymple M., Kaplan R.M. (2000) Feature indeterminacy and feature resolution. Language 76(4): 759–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Daniel M. (2005) Plurality in independent personal pronouns. In: Haspelmath M., Dryer M.S., Gil D., Comrie B. (eds) World atlas of language structures. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 146–149Google Scholar
  33. Daniel M., Moravcsik E.A. (2005) The associative plural. In: Haspelmath M., Dryer M.S., Gil D., Comrie B. (eds) World atlas of language structures. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 150–153Google Scholar
  34. Dobrushina N., Goussev V. (2005) Inclusive imperative. In: Filimonova E. (eds) Clusivity: Typology and case studies of the inclusive–exclusive distinction. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 179–211Google Scholar
  35. Dress A.W.M., Huson D.H. (2004) Constructing splits graphs. IEEE Transactions on Computational Biology And Bioinformatics 1(3): 109–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Filimonova E. (2005a) Clusivity cross-linguistically: Common trends and possible patterns. In: Filimonova E. (eds) Clusivity: Typology and case studies of the inclusive-exclusive distinction. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 399–424Google Scholar
  37. Filimonova, E., (Ed.) (2005b). Clusivity: Typology and case studies of the inclusive—exclusive distinction (Typological studies in language). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  38. Fischer S. (2006) Zur Morphologie der deutschen Personalpronomina—eine Spaltungsanalyse. In: Müller G., Trommer J. (eds) Subanalysis of argument encoding in distributed morphology. Institut für Linguistik, Universität Leipzig, Leipzig, pp 77–101Google Scholar
  39. Forchheimer P. (1953) The category of person in language. De Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  40. Frampton J. (2002) Syncretism, impoverishment, and the structure of person features. Chicago Linguistic Society 38(1): 207–222Google Scholar
  41. Gehling, T. (2004). `Ich’, ‘du’ und andere: Eine sprachtypologische Studie zu den grammatischen Kategorien ‘Person’ und ‘Numerus’. Sprache, Kommunikation, Wirklichkeit: Linguistische Studien zur Semantik und Pragmatik. Münster: LIT.Google Scholar
  42. Gehling T. (2006) Die Suche nach dem anderen ihr. Zur Inklusiv-Exklusiv-Distinktion in der Zweiten Person. In: Gehling T., Voss V., Wohlgemut J. (eds) Einblicke in Sprache. Logos, Berlin, pp 153–180Google Scholar
  43. Georgi D. (2006) A distributed morphology approach to argument encoding in Kambera. In: Müller G., Trommer J. (eds) Subanalysis of argument encoding in distributed morphology. Institut für Linguistik, Universität Leipzig, Leipzig, pp 1–22Google Scholar
  44. Goffman E. (1979) Footing. Semiotica 25(1–2): 1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hanson R. (2000) Pronoun acquisition and the morphological feature geometry. Calgary Working Papers in Linguistics 22: 1–14Google Scholar
  46. Harley H., Ritter E. (2002a) Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78(3): 483–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Harley H., Ritter E. (2002b) Structuring the bundle: A universal morphosyntactic feature geometry. In: Simon H., Wiese H. (eds) Pronouns—grammar and representation. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 23–39Google Scholar
  48. Haspelmath M. (2007) Pre-established categories don’t exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11(1): 119–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Helmbrecht J. (2004a) Ikonizität in Personalpronomina. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 23(2): 211–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Helmbrecht, J. (2004b). Personal pronouns: Form, function, and grammaticalization. Ph. D. thesis, Habelitationschrift, Erfurt.Google Scholar
  51. Hollenbach B.E. (1970) Inclusive plural: A further look. Linguistics 60: 27–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Holt, D. (1999). Pech (Paya) (Languages of the world/materials). Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
  53. Hopkins E.B. (1986) Pronouns and pronoun fusion in Yaouré. In: Wiesemann U. (eds) Pronominal systems. Narr, Tübingen, pp 191–204Google Scholar
  54. Howe, S. (1996). The personal pronouns in the Germanic languages: A study of personal pronoun morphology and change in the Germanic languages form the first records to the present day. (Studia Linguistica Germanica). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  55. Huson D.H., Bryant D. (2006) Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Molecular Biology and Evolution 23(2): 254–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Jespersen O. (1924) The philosophy of grammar. Allen & Unwin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  57. Laycock D. (1977) Me and you versus the rest. Irian 6: 33–41Google Scholar
  58. McGinnis M. (2005) On markedness asymmetries in person and number. Language 81(3): 699–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. McGregor, W. B. (1990). A functional grammar of Gooniyandi. (Studies in language companion series). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  60. McGregor W.B. (1996) The pronominal system of Gooniyandi and Bunuba. In: McGregor W.B. (eds) Studies in Kimberley languages in honour of Howard Coate. Lincom, Munich, pp 159–173Google Scholar
  61. McKay G.R. (1978) Pronominal person and number categories in Rembarrnga and Djeebbana. Oceanic Linguistics 17: 27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Moravcsik, E. A. (1994). Group plural–associative plural or cohort plural. Linguist List, 5(681). http://linguistlist.org/issues/5/5-681.html.
  63. Moravcsik E.A. (2004) A semantic analysis of associative plurals. Studies in Language 27(3): 469–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Müller G. (2006a) Notes on paradigm economy. In: Müller G., Trommer J. (eds) Subanalysis of argument encoding in distributed morphology. Institut für Linguistik, Universität Leipzig, Leipzig, pp 161–195Google Scholar
  65. Müller G. (2006b) Subanalyse verbaler Flexionsmarker. In: Breindl E., Gunkel L., Strecker B. (eds) Grammatische Untersuchungen, Analysen und Reflexionen. Gisela Zifonun zum 60. Geburtstag. Narr, Tübingen, pp 183–203Google Scholar
  66. Nevins, A. I. (2003). Do person/number syncretisms refer to negative values? Paper presented at 77th meeting of the LSA, Atlanta.Google Scholar
  67. Palácio A.P. (1986) Aspects of the morphology of Guató. In: Elson B.F. (eds) Language in global perspective: Papers in honor of the 50th anniversary of the Summer Institute of Linguistics 1935–1985. Summer Institute of Linguistics, Dallas, TX, pp 363–372Google Scholar
  68. Payne D.L., Payne T.E. (1990) Yagua. In: Derbyshire D.C., Pullum G.K. (eds) Handbook of Amazonian languages. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 249–474Google Scholar
  69. Pike K.L. (1965) Non-linear order and anti-redundancy in German morphological matrices. Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung 32(3/4): 193–221Google Scholar
  70. Ritter, E., & Harley, H. (1998). Meaning in morphology: a feature-geometric analysis of person and number. Paper presented at 40th GLOW Colloquium, Tilburg.Google Scholar
  71. Rumsey A. (1996) On some relationships among person, number, and mode in Bunuba. In: McGregor W.B. (eds) Studies in Kimberley languages in honour of Howard Coate. Lincom, Munich, pp 139–148Google Scholar
  72. Rumsey A. (2000) Bunuba. In: Dixon R.M.W., Blake B.J. (eds) Handbook of Australian languages. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 34–152Google Scholar
  73. Saitou N., Nei M. (1987) The neighbour-joining method: A new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Molecular Biology and Evolution 4(4): 406–425Google Scholar
  74. Sauerland U. (2003) A new semantics of number. In: Young R.B., Zhou Y. (eds) Proceedings of SALT 13. CLC Publications, Cornell, Ithaka, pp 258–275Google Scholar
  75. Schwartz L.J. (1986) The function of free pronouns. In: Wiesemann U. (eds) Pronominal systems. Narr, Tübingen, pp 405–436Google Scholar
  76. Siewierska, A. (2004). Person (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Siewierska A. (2005a) Gender distinctions in independent pronouns. In: Haspelmath M., Dryer M.S., Gil D., Comrie B. (eds) World atlas of language structures. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 182–185Google Scholar
  78. Siewierska A. (2005b) Third-person zero of verbal person marking. In: Haspelmath M., Dryer M.S., Gil D., Comrie B. (eds) World atlas of language structures. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 418–421Google Scholar
  79. Siewierska A., Bakker D. (2005) Inclusive and exclusive in free and bound pronouns. In: Filimonova E. (eds) Clusivity: Typology and case studies of the inclusive–exclusive distinction. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 151–178Google Scholar
  80. Siewierska A., Bakker D. (2006) Bi-directional vs. uni-directional asymmetries in the encoding of semantic distinctions in free and bound person forms. In: Nevalainen T., Klemola J., Laitinen M. (eds) Types of variation: Diachronic, dialectical and typological interfaces. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 21–50Google Scholar
  81. Simon H. (2005) Only you? Philological investigations into the alleged inclusive-exclusive distinction in the second-person plural. In: Filimonova E. (eds) Clusivity: Typology and case studies of the inclusive–exclusive distinction. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 113–150Google Scholar
  82. Sokolovskaya, N. K. (1980). Nekotorye semanticeskie universalii v sisteme licnyx mestoimenij [Some semantic universals in systems of personal pronouns]. In I. F. Vardul’ (Ed.), Teorija i tipologija mestoimenij [Theory and typology of pronouns] (pp. 84–102). Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
  83. Swiggers, P., & Wouters, A. (1998). The Tékhne Grammatiké van Dionysius Thrax: De oudste Spraakkunst in het Westen (Orbis Linguarum). Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
  84. Thomas D.D. (1955) Three analyses of the Ilocano pronoun system. Word 11(2): 204–208Google Scholar
  85. Tuite, K. (1997). Svan (Languages of the world/materials). Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
  86. Uhlig, G. (1883). Dionysii Thracis Ars Grammatici. (Grammatici Graeci). Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary AnthropologyLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations