scholarly journals The syntax and morphology of nominal modification in Ògè

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Priscilla Lola Adenuga
Keyword(s):  
Minimalist Program ◽  
Yucatec Maya ◽  
Short Forms ◽  
Number Marking ◽  
General Number ◽  
Plural Marking ◽  
Open Class

This dissertation investigates several aspects of nominal modification in Ògè, an understudied language of Benue-congo spoken in Àkókó Northwest in Nigeria. The study focuses on two areas of nominal modification namely, Nominal Attributive Modifiers (NAMs) and the strategies of number marking. The discussion and analysis of NAMs in the language reveal that Ògè belongs to the group of languages which lacks adjectives as a lexical category. NAMs are nominal and they are derived from an existing lexical category namely, verbs. Predicative modifiers and NAMs have forms that are similar to the long and short forms (LF & SF) of adjectives in languages in which adjectives form an open class, for example, Russian, SerBoCroatian (BCS) and German. Based on the Minimalist program, the dissertation reveals that unlike Russian, BCS, and German in which the discrepancies between the two forms of adjectives are related to definiteness (as in the case of BCS) and Agree, the discrepancies in the two forms of modifiers in Ògè are related to the fact that Ògè lacks adjectives and resorts into the nominalization of stative verbs in order to derive attributive forms. Using the analyses of adjuncts according to Truswell (2004) and Zeijlstra (2020), the dissertation proposes that NAMs are adjuncts in a modification structure while they are heads in possessive and genitive constructions. In addition, I propose that NAMs are attributive-only modifiers which modify the NP rather than the DP. The dissertation also investigates the strategies of number marking in Ògè. Unlike languages in which number marking is obligatory in the nominal domain (Hebrew, German, English), nouns in Ògè are not always marked for number. This means that nouns in Ògè have general number. The general number nature of nouns in Ògè is like that of the nouns in modifying plural marking languages namely, Halkomelem, Korean, Yucatec Maya and Yorùbá. However, I argue that unlike the modifying plural marking languages in which the Number Phrase (NumP) is not projected, NumP is projected in the nominal spine of Ògè, claiming that NumP bears an interpretable number feature which values the uninterpretable number feature in D. Argument in support of this comes from the interpretation of the noun in the presence of òtúro (an element which translates to the plural definite interpretation of the noun). I analyze òtúro as a plural determiner which occupies the D-head in the syntax of Ògè. The dissertation argues following Alexiadou (2019) that the locus of the occurrence of the marker of plurality in the nominal spine does not depend on its interpretation as a plural morpheme, rather, the locus of the occurrence of the element that is sensitive to the plural interpretation of the noun depends on other parameters which are definiteness, specificity and animacy.

Plural marking on noun-associated forms

2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 363-401
Author(s):  
Francesca Di Garbo
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Type ◽  
Lexical Semantics ◽  
Number Marking ◽  
Number Systems ◽  
Plural Marking ◽  
Type 3 ◽  
Semantic Properties

AbstractNumber systems can be morphosemantic or morphosyntactic, based on whether number marking is restricted to nouns or also extends to noun-associated forms, such as adnominal modifiers, predicates, and pronouns. While it is well-known that asymmetries in the distribution of plural marking on nouns can be due to lexico-semantic properties such as animacy and/or inherent number, the question of whether these properties also affect patterns of plural agreement has been less broadly investigated. This paper examines the distribution of plural agreement in 24 Cushitic (Afro-Asiatic) languages. The number systems of the languages of the sample are classified into three types, ranging from radically morphosemantic (Type 1) to radically morphosyntactic (Type 2). A subset of languages displays a combination of morphosemantic and morphosyntactic strategies, and thus qualifies as a mixed type (Type 3). In these languages, the distribution of plural agreement is largely lexically-specified: nouns denoting groups, masses, and collections are more likely to trigger plural agreement than other types of nouns. These results thus show that, similarly to the nominal domain, the lexical semantics of nouns may also affect plural marking on noun-associated forms. Furthermore, in Cushitic, radically morphosemantic and radically morphosyntactic number systems appear to be diachronically connected to each other, with the latter seemingly evolving from the former, as testified by ongoing variation and change in some of the sampled languages. The relevance of these findings for understanding the typology and evolution of number systems is discussed.

Non-inflectional plural in yucatec maya

2021 ◽  
pp. 484-496
Author(s):  
Lindsay Butler
Keyword(s):  
Language Processing ◽  
Noun Phrase ◽  
Sentence Production ◽  
Linguistic Variation ◽  
Determiner Phrase ◽  
Yucatec Maya ◽  
Derivational Morphology ◽  
Production Experiment ◽  
Plural Marking ◽  
Additional Support

This chapter examines the morphosyntactic properties of optional, non-inflectional plural marking in Yucatec Maya. Evidence is presented that suggests that the non-inflectional plural in Yucatec Maya adjoins to the Determiner Phrase rather than heading the Number Phrase as in better-known languages. Plural marking cannot occur inside of compounds, derivational morphology, or on a prenominal adjective. Additionally, it can adjoin to the second linear noun of a conjoined noun phrase and modify either or both of the conjuncts. The results of a sentence production experiment with speakers of Yucatec Maya are summarized and provide additional support for the Determiner Phrase–adjoined hypothesis. The Yucatec Maya facts are discussed in the wider context of cross-linguistic variation in the typology of plural marking and the implications for linguistic theory and models of language processing.

scholarly journals Majang nominal plurals with comparative notes

1988 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-91
Author(s):  
Peter Unseth
Keyword(s):  
Number Marking ◽  
Plural Marking

This paper describes the complex Majang system of noun plural formation. Majang uses singulative suffixes, plural suffixes, and suppletive plural stems to mark number on nouns. Majang is seen to exemplify in many ways the *N/*K pattern of singular and plural marking as described by Bryan [1968] for many Nilo-Saharan languages. Tiersma's [1982] theory of "Local Markedness" is shown to provide an explanation for singulative marking on some nouns in Majang and other Surma languages. A comparison of Majang noun plurals with plural forms in other Surma languages allows the reconstruction of some number marking for Proto-Surma.

scholarly journals Nominal Number Marking in Wolane

Aethiopica ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 135-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronny Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Number Marking ◽  
Noun Classes ◽  
Plural Marking

Countable common nouns in the East Gurage language Wolane are usually unmarked for number and belong to one of three noun classes based on the inherent gender feature of the nouns. First, it will be argued that morphological plural marking indicates plurality and specificity. Second, it will be shown that the interaction between the three noun classes and definiteness has various pragmatic effects. Finally, the findings for Wolane are compared with related East Gurage languages.

Number and the Mass–Count Distinction

2021 ◽  
pp. 39-64
Author(s):  
Alan Bale
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Number Marking ◽  
Mass Nouns ◽  
Count Nouns ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Plural Marking ◽  
Syntactic Properties

This chapter reviews the connections between number marking (specifically, singular and plural marking) and the mass–count distinction. It explores how different semantic theories of number marking interact with various ontological theories of the mass–count distinction. It also discusses a growing tension within the mass–count literature. On one hand, there are many semantic and syntactic similarities between mass nouns and plurals, which suggests that the two subcategories might have many features in common. On the other hand, verbal, auxiliary, and determiner agreement patterns suggest that mass nouns share certain syntactic properties with singular count nouns. Yet, singular count nouns and plural count nouns hardly share any properties in common, both in terms of their syntactic distribution and their semantic implications. The chapter discusses two potential resolutions to this growing tension.

scholarly journals Plural strategies in Yoruba

2010 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-181
Author(s):  
Ọládiípọ̀ Ajiboye
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Feature Matching ◽  
Head Noun ◽  
Discourse Context ◽  
General Number ◽  
Matching Mechanism ◽  
Plural Marking ◽  
Feature Percolation

This paper accounts for the strategies that Yorùbá adopts to mark plural. One way in which plural is marked syntactically is by certain plural words. The plural word can either interpret the noun as plural directly as in the case of àwọn and quantifying words such as púpọ̀ ‘many’ and méjì ‘two’; or it can be realized on a primitive adjective (in the form of COPY) or on a demonstrative (in the form of wọ̀n-). Such elements in turn make available the plural interpretation of the noun they modify. The paper proposes that these plural words possess a covert or an overt [PLURAL] feature, which percolates onto the NP. This analysis of plural marking predicts that there are two ways by which languages may (overtly) mark their nouns for plural cross-linguistically. Languages like Yorùbá, which do not show agreement, mark plural syntactically and make use of a plural feature percolation mechanism, while languages like English, which show agreement, mark plural morphologically and use a plural feature-matching mechanism. It further demonstrates that in Yorùbá, an NP can be freely interpreted as singular or plural in specific discourse context and proposes a general number analysis to account for this type of case. As to the syntax of these plural words, It is proposed that like other non-morphological plural marking languages (e.g., Halkomelem (British Columbia, Canada) as in Wiltschko 2008), Yorùbá plural words are adjuncts that are adjoined to the host head (noun or modifier/demonstrative).

scholarly journals Nominal number in cushitic

2021 ◽  
pp. 521-538
Author(s):  
Maarten Mous
Keyword(s):  
Morphological Markers ◽  
Number Marking ◽  
Complex Interactions ◽  
General Number ◽  
Third Gender ◽  
Agreement Morphology ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Number Form

Cushitic languages have a number of interesting properties in the category of number. None of these are valid for all Cushitic languages. Number is not obligatorily expressed in various Cushitic languages which have a general number form that is unspecified for number. Nonetheless morphological number marking in the noun is often complex in two ways: there are many competing lexically determined morphological markers and many different constellations of derived singular and derived plurals. Number and gender show complex interactions in Cushitic. Number formatives impose gender and hence different gender values for different number forms in the same lexeme, sometimes apparent gender polarity (singular and plural having opposite values for gender). A theoretically challenging property of some languages is that that there is a third gender, here labelled ‘plural’ because it takes the agreement morphology of 3pl pronouns.

Number in Sign Languages

2021 ◽  
pp. 643-660
Author(s):  
Roland Pfau ◽  
Markus Steinbach
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Noun Phrases ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Number Marking ◽  
Visual Spatial ◽  
Phonological Features ◽  
Specific Sign ◽  
Plural Marking ◽  
Grammatical Number

In sign languages, just as in many spoken languages, number can be marked on nouns, pronouns, and verbs, and quantifiers are used to specify quantity within noun phrases. The chapter does not address the expression of grammatical number in one specific sign language, but rather describes patterns found in various sign languages, focusing on modality-independent and modality-specific properties of number marking. As for the former, nominal and verbal plurals are commonly realized by reduplication. As for number-marking strategies specific to visual–spatial languages, it is found that sign languages employ the two hands (e.g. lexical plurality), the signing space in front of the signer's body (e.g. plural marking on predicates), and specific reduplication types that are not attested in spoken languages (e.g. sideward reduplication of certain nouns). In addition, the choice of pluralization strategy is determined by modality-specific phonological features, and we are thus dealing with phonologically conditioned allomorphy.

Plural marking on mass nouns

2018 ◽  
pp. 234-248
Author(s):  
Maria Kouneli
Keyword(s):  
Functional Projection ◽  
Number Marking ◽  
Mass Nouns ◽  
Count Nouns ◽  
Plural Marking

Mass nouns are generally incompatible with plural morphology in number-marking languages. Greek mass nouns, though, can freely pluralize. Chapter 11 shows that the meaning of plural mass nouns in Greek is that of ‘spread over a surface in a disorderly way’. The author argues that plural morphology on mass nouns in the language is the spell-out of number features on the nominalizing head n, unlike plural morphology on count nouns, which spells out the head of the functional projection NumP. She extends this analysis to other languages with plural marking on mass nouns, and argues that plural morphology on mass nouns is never the spellout of features on Num, which can only have the meaning associated with regular plural morphology on count nouns cross-linguistically.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document