Skip to main content

The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspects. PhD Thesis, MIT, Cambridge

  • Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax: a minimalist approach. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2003. Classifiers. A typology of noun categorization devices. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allan, Keith. 1980. Nouns and countability. Language 56: 541–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alegre, Maria, and Peter Gordon. 1996. Red rats eater exposes recursion in children’s word formation. Cognition 60: 65–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, unpublished manuscript.

  • Anderson, Stephen R. 1982. Where’s morphology? Linguistic Inquiry 13: 571–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, Stephen R. 1986. Disjunctive ordering in inflectional morphology? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4: 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arad, Maya. 2003. Locality Constraints on the interpretation of roots: the case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 737–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Béjar, Susanna. 2003. Phi-syntax: a theory of agreement. PhD Thesis, University of Toronto.

  • Benveniste, Émile. 1971. Problems in general linguistics. Baltimore: University of Miami Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, Judy. 1991. DPs in Walloon: evidence for parametric variation in nominal head movement. Probus 3: 101–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blain, Eleanor M., Rose-Marie Déchaine, 2007. Evidential types: evidence from Cree dialects. International Journal of American Linguistics 73: 257–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Henry Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boas, Franz. 1911. Introduction to the handbook of American Indian languages. Washington: Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broselow, Ellen. 1983. Salish double reduplications: subjacency in morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 317–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunt, Harry C. 1985. Mass terms and model-theoretic semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, Greg. 1977. A unified analysis of the English Bare Plural. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 413–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chao, Yuen Ren. 1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6: 339–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1995a. The minimalist program. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1995b. Bare phrase structure. In Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program, ed. Gert Webelhuth, 383–439. Cambridge: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT occasional papers in linguistics 20. Cambridge: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL, MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung, Sandra. 1998. The design of agreement. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cysouw, Michael. 2003. The paradigmatic structure of person marking. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, Henry. 2008. A teacher’s grammar of upper St’at’imcets. ms. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, Henry, and Lisa Matthewson. 1999. On the functional determination of lexical categories. Revue Québécoise de Linguistique 27: 30–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Martina Wiltschko. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 409–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demirdache, Hamida, and Lisa Matthewson. 1995. On the universality of syntactic categories. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 25: 79–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • den Besten, Hans. 1996. Associative DPs. In Linguistics in the Netherlands, eds. Crit Cremers and Marcel den Dikken, 13–24. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • den Dikken, Marcel. 2003. The structure of the noun phrase in Rotuman. In Lincom Studies in Austronesian Linguistics 05, LINCOM Europa.

  • Déprez, Viviane. 2004. Morphological number, semantic number and bare nouns. Lingua 115: 857–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dressler, Wolfgang U., and Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi. 1994. Morphopragmatics: diminutives and intensifiers in Italian, German, and other languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durie, Mark. 1978. Grammaticization of number as a verbal category. In Proceedings of the 12th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 355–370.

  • 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 

  • Galloway, Brent. 1980. The structure of upriver Halkomelem, a grammatical sketch and classified word list for upriver Halkomelem. Sardis: Coqualeetza Education Training Center.

  • Galloway, Brent. 1993. A grammar of upriver Halkomelem. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Gerdts, Donna B. 2003. The morphosyntax of Halkomelem lexical suffixes. International Journal of American Linguistics 69: 345–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Ghomeshi, Jila. 2003. Plural marking, indefiniteness, and the noun phrase. Studia Linguistica 57: 47–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillon, Carrie. 2006. The semantics of determiners. Domain restriction in Skwxwú7mesh. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia.

  • Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Universals of language. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimshaw, Jane B. 1991. Extended projections. MS, Brandeis University.

  • Haeberli, Eric. 2002. Features, categories and the syntax of A-positions: cross-linguistic variation in the Germanic languages. Dordrecht, Boston: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Harley, Heidi, and Elizabeth Ritter. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: a feature geometric analysis. Language 78: 482–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hukari, Thomas. 1976. Transitive in Halkomelem. Papers from the 11th International conference on Salishan languages, in Seattle, Washington.

  • Hukari, Thomas. 1978. Halkomelem nonsegmental morphology. Papers from the 13th international conference on Salishan languages.

  • Iljic, Robert. 1994. Quantification in Mandarin Chinese: two markers of plurality. Linguistics 32: 91–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jelinek, Eloise, and Richard Demers. 1994. Predicates and pronominal arguments in straits Salish. Language 70: 697–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jurafsky, Daniel. 1996. Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive. Language 72: 533–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinkade, M. Dale. 1983. Salish evidence against the universality of “noun” and “verb”. Lingua 60: 25–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical phonology and morphology. In Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. In-Seak Yang, 3–91. Seoul: Hansin.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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).

  • Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 1999. Plurality in a classifier language. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8: 5–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing morphology: word formation in syntactic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names: a theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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).

  • Marantz, Alec. 2001. Phases and words. Manuscript, MIT

  • Marvin, Tatjana. 2003. Topics in the stress and syntax of words. PhD Thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass

  • Matthews, Peter H. 1972. Inflectional morphology; a theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthewson, Lisa. 1998. Determiner systems and quantificational strategies: evidence from Salish. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mithun, Marianne. 1999. The languages of native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakanishi, Kimiko, and Satoshi Tomioka. 2004. Japanese plurals are exceptional. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13: 113–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortmann, Albert. 2000. Where plural refuses to agree: feature unification and morphological economy. Acta Linguistica Hungaria 47: 249–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Pinker, Stephen. 1999. Words and rules: the ingredients of language. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, Keren. 2000. Morpheme order and semantic scope: word formation in the Athapaskan verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ritter, Elizabeth. 1995. On the syntactic category of pronouns and agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 405–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Sapir, Edward. 1911. The problem of Noun incorporation in American languages. American Anthropologist 13: 250–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauerland, Uli. 2003. A new semantics for number. In The Proceedings of SALT13, 258–275. Cornell University, Ithaca: CLC Publication.

  • 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 

  • Scalise, Sergio. 1984. Generative morphology. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scalise, Sergio. 1988. The notion of ‘head’ in morphology. Yearbook of Morphology 1: 229–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurdsson, Halldór. 2008. Remarks on features. In Phases at the interface, ed. Kleanthes Grohmann. Berlin: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith-Stark, T. Cedric. 1974. The plurality split. Papers from the regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 10: 657–671.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stebbins, Tonya. 1997. Asymmetrical nominal number marking. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 50: 5–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steriopolo, Olga. 2008. The form and function of expressive morphology. A case study of Russian. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia.

  • Stump, Gregory. 1989. A note on Breton pluralization and the elsewhere condition. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7: 261–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suttles, Wayne. 2004. Musqueam reference grammar. Vancouver: UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, Chi-Chen Jane. 1990. Chinese phrase structure and the extended X’-theory. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.

  • Trubetzkoy, N.S. 1939. Grundzuege der phonologie, vol. 8. Prague: Traveaux de Circle Linguistique de Prague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urbanczyk, Suzanne. 2004. Absolutive agreement. Paper presented at WSCLA 2004, University of Victoria.

  • Valois, Daniel. 1991. The internal syntax of DP. PhD dissertation, Los Angeles, UCLA.

  • van Eijk, Jan. 1997. The Lillooet Language: Phonology, Morphology, Syntax. Vancouver: UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eijk, Jan, and Thom Hess. 1986. Noun and verb in Salish. Lingua 69: 319–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • Wiltschko, Martina. 2002. The syntax of pronouns. Evidence from Halkomelem Salish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 157–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiltschko, Martina. 2005. A part of wood is not a tree. In Proceedings of the 40th international conference on Salish and neighbouring languages.

  • 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.

  • Wiltschko, Martina. 2008. Root incorporation. Evidence from lexical suffixes in Halkomelem. Lingua. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2007.10.012.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Yang, Rong. 2001. Common nouns, classifiers and quantification in chinese. PhD dissertation New Brunswick, Rutgers.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martina Wiltschko.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wiltschko, M. The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking. Nat Language Linguistic Theory 26, 639–694 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-008-9046-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-008-9046-0

Keywords

  • Functional categories
  • Plural
  • Modifiers
  • Salish
  • Inflection