The patterns shown in (5) are in line with the analysis on split plurality in (4). In ... Carefully observing (8), we realize that English plural nominals are classified.
Arizona Linguistics Circle 12
Soo-Hwan Lee
What do no s know about plurality? Nominal pluralization from a cross-linguistic perspective* Soo-Hwan Lee, Sogang University 1
Introduction
➢ It has been well known in literature that plurality within nominal structures are realized within a single projection namely the numeral phrase (#P). (1)
a.
[DP the [#P [NP boy] -s] ]
b.
[DP the [#P [NP girl] -s] ]
➢ However, many recent investigations have demanded for an account which classifies morphological plurals with further precision (see Chierchia 1998, Borer 2005, Alexiadou 2011, and Kramer 2016). ➢ By means of scrutinizing the typology of plurality, this work extends the recent discussions put forward by Kramer (2016) on split plurality and nPs. (2)
näfs → ‘soul’
[nP [√ näfs] -at] ‘small insects’
→ [#P [nP [√ näfs] -at] -otʃtʃ] ‘small insects’ (Amharic, Kramer 2016) ➢ So as to develop an approach demonstrating that nos actively participate in pluralization, Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993) will be adopted. ➢ The general hierarchical system of nominals shown in (3) is utilized: (3)
√P < nP < #P < DP < (KP) < PP
I thank professor Michael Barrie at Sogang University for providing me the opportunity to work on Bantu languages. I would also like to thank my four consultants for providing me with data on Swahili. This work was supported by CORE (Initiative for College of Humanities’ Research and Education) and funded by the Ministry of Education and the National Research Foundation of Korea. Additionally, this work was supported by the Global Research Network program through the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2017S1A2A2039972). *
1
Arizona Linguistics Circle 12 2
Soo-Hwan Lee
Split plurality (nP + #P)
➢ Kramer (2016) discusses significant morphological characteristics of split plurality in Amharic. The gist of her idea is as follows: (4)
DP #P #o [+pl]2
nP √
Do
no [+pl]1 x1
x2 ‘
➢ The phonological realization of x1 is subject to allomorphy which is determined by the inherent noun features. Hence, x1 is a variable which is morphologically idiosyncratic and irregular. ➢ However, the phonological realization of x 2 is not subject to allomorphy of any kind. Hence, x2 is an invariable which is morphologically regular. ➢ The co-realization of irregular and regular exponents, namely x1 and x2, gives rise to split plurality (double plural). ➢ Split plurality gives rise to a linearized order of √-x1-x2 (√-irregular-regular). The order of √-x2-x1 (√-regular-irregular) is simply not possible. ➢ It can be pointed out that the realization of idiosyncrasy in meaning is relevant to morphological irregularity as shown in (2). ★ The line of reasoning mentioned so far suggests that the morphological irregularity of pluralization is controlled by nPs instead of #Ps. 2
Arizona Linguistics Circle 12 3.1
Soo-Hwan Lee
English pluralization
➢ To begin with, the paradigm of ‘person ~ persons ~ people ~ peoples’ seems to indicate something about English pluralization. (5)
➢ A morphological mismatch arises between people and persons in (5b) and (5c). ➢ The example, peoples ‘ethnic groups’, in (5d) displays both irregular and regular plural inflections. ★ The patterns shown in (5) are in line with the analysis on split plurality in (4). In other words, the involvement of two different projections, namely nP and #P, is necessary.
➢ Consider additional mismatches shown in English (compound) nominals listed in (6) and (7): (6)
(7)
Irregular plural a. big foot → b. wisdom tooth → c. wild goose →
big feet wisdom teeth wild geese
Regular plural a. bigfoot b. saber tooth c. silly goose
bigfoots (‘creatures reported to exist in Canada’) saber tooths (‘mammals of the cat family’) silly gooses (‘children who are being silly’)
→ → →
3
Arizona Linguistics Circle 12
Soo-Hwan Lee
➢ Following the line of analysis on split plurality, the forms of (6) and (7) are created arguably under dissimilar rules governed by separate domains (e.g., nP and #P). (8)
a. b. c. d. e. f.
[ X [nP feet -Ø] ] [#P [X foot] -s] [ X [nP teeth -Ø] ] [#P [X tooth] -s] [ X [nP geese -Ø] ] [#P [X goose] -s]
= (6a) = (7a) = (6b) = (7b) = (6c) = (7c)
➢ Carefully observing (8), we realize that English plural nominals are classified into two different categories. ➢ One is the set of nominals which are realized with irregular plurals determined by the idiosyncrasy of inherent nominal features. These share apparent commonalities with the variable, x1, shown in (4). ➢ The other is the set comprised of nouns that are realized with the regular plural morpheme, -s /z/. These are in line with the characteristics of the invariable, x2. ➢ Hence, we see an apparent motivation for placing English plurals in two separate domains, namely nP and #P, which are similar to the patterns displayed in Amharic. Interestingly, structural locality conditioning seems to be at play. (9)
#P #o [+pl]/-z/
→ Regular pluralization nP
no [+pl]allomorph
→ Irregular pluralization √
4
Arizona Linguistics Circle 12 3.2
Soo-Hwan Lee
Swahili pluralization
➢ Swahili is a Bantu language which exhibits rich gender morphology. ➢ The general principle of plural as well as singular inflections in Swahili runs on the basis of allomorphy denoting a wide range of gender classes. (10)
➢ In other words, the morphological realizations of these gender features are determined by their respective noun classes, similar to the variable, x1, in (4). ➢ In fact, morphological variability of plural features in Swahili can be observed even in verb-noun nominal compounds giving rise to idiosyncrasy in meaning. (11)
➢ Here, the plural morphology of Swahili can be explained through the morphosyntactic role of the nP which is the control tower for allomorphy conditioned by inherent noun features. ➢ Such analysis is also in line with the view of treating gender features as an instance of no (see Carstens 2008 and Kramer 2015 in particular). 5
★ While split plurality (nP + #P) does not seem to be available in Swahili, nPs do participate in denoting plurality. (13)
#P
→ Regular pluralization (left to be attested)
#o
nP no [+pl]gender
3.3
→ Irregular pluralization √
Korean pluralization
➢ The ways in which pluralization takes place in Korean are quite complex and intricate. ➢ Let us first go over reduplication for wh-elements in Korean. (14)
a.
b.
nwukwu → who ‘who’ (singular) mwues → what ‘what’ (singular)
➢ The total reduplication of the phonological contents, nwukwu ‘who’ and mwues ‘what’, in (14) denotes a plural reading.
6
Arizona Linguistics Circle 12
Soo-Hwan Lee
➢ The inflection is morphologically irregular since the reduplicated form is a variable determined by the phonological content of its nominal stem. ➢ Further, only a small number of Korean nominals undergo reduplication suggesting that it is selective in nature. ➢ Evidence collected here suggest that reduplication in Korean is a property of nPs instead of #Ps. (15)
a. b.
[nP [nwukwu] nwukwu] [nP [mwues] mwues]
= (14a) = (14b)
➢ Another way of forming plurals in Korean is through the marker, -tul. ➢ Similar to reduplication, not all nominal expressions in Korean are able to freely introduce -tul. (16)
➢ Depending on [±human, ±animate] feature(s) and some other idiosyncratic properties that nouns inherently possess, -tul may or may not surface. ➢ Consider the following data:
-tul analyzed under Sejong corpus (Kang 2007) Semantics of nouns with -tul Number of nouns with -tul Human (e.g., ‘person’, ‘student’) 77 Animal (e.g., ‘bird’, ‘rabbit’) Thing (e.g., ‘book’, ‘tree’)
1 22
7
Arizona Linguistics Circle 12
Soo-Hwan Lee
➢ Such uneven distribution of -tul is considered to be an idiosyncratic property governed by nPs according to Kim & Melchin (2018). ➢ Additionally, the optional use of -tul on plural nouns prevents its status from being recognized as a syntactic head (e.g., no or #o), following Wiltschko (2008). ➢ Instead, it is recognized as an optional modifier existing elsewhere within the syntactic projection. (17)
nP [plural] -tul
nP √
no
Kim & Melchin (2018)
➢ This suggests that -tul is a plural marker morphosyntactically distinct from Swahili or English plural-denoting nos. ➢ Nonetheless, the idiosyncratic behaviors of -tul can be effectively explained through the characteristics of the nP. ➢ Interestingly enough, the wh-element, nwukuw ‘who’, can appear with its reduplicated form as well as the plural marker, -tul. (18)
[nP [nP [nwukwu] nwukwu] -tul]
‘who’ (plural)
➢ Such analysis is well accounted for when we sum up the discussion mentioned thus far. The reduplicate exhausts the head, no, and -tul appears in a nP-modifier position as in (17). ★ In summary, Korean does not exhibit split plurality using both nPs and #Ps. However, it is possible to introduce double plural markers within a single projection, namely the nP. 8
Arizona Linguistics Circle 12
4
Soo-Hwan Lee
Conclusion
➢ This work proposed a DM-style approach to pluralization and demonstrated that plural morphology can be realized on different functional heads (e.g., nos and #os). ➢ No language among Swahili, Korean, and English leaves out nP as a possible candidate for pluralization. ➢ English allows split plurality (nP + #P), whereas Swahili and Korean do not. ➢ Structural locality conditioning for allormophy seems to be at play (Bobaljik & Harley 2017). ➢ The following table summarizes the morphosyntactic realizations of plural markers in Swahili, Korean, and English:
Swahili
Irregular nP wa-tu
Irregular+Regular nP + #P *
Regular #P agreement
Korean
salam-tul
*
*
English
people-Ø
people-Ø-s
person-s
➢ The plural inflections on certain numerals (# os) and determiners (Dos) cannot be viewed as independently motivated plural morphemes due to the fact that they simply reflect agreement(s) with nos.
9
Arizona Linguistics Circle 12
Soo-Hwan Lee References
An, Duk-Ho. 2016. On some expressions of plurality in Korea n and their implications: With reference to Chinese and Japanese. Linguistic Research 33(2), 205-227. Bobaljik, Jonathan and Heidi Harley. 2017. Suppletion is local: Evidence from Hiaki. The Structure of Words at the Interfaces, edited by H. Newell, M. Noonan, G. Piggot & L. Travis, 141-159. Oxford: OUP. Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense, vol. I: In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press Carstens, Viki. 2008. DP in Bantu and Romance. In The Bantu-Romance Connection. K. Demuth and C. De Cat (eds.). 131-166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2015. How universal is the mass/count distinction? Three grammars of counting. In Chinese syntax in a cross-linguistic perspective, ed. Audrey Li, Andrew Simpson, and Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai, 147-175. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Deal, Amy Rose. 2016. Plural exponence in the Nez Perce DP: A DM analysis. Morphology, 26(3-4), 313-339. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from Building 20, ed. by Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 111-176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Harley, Heidi. 2009. The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP. In Quantification, Definiteness and Nominalization, ed. by Anastasia Giannakidou and Monika Rathert, vol. 24, Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics, 321-343. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kang, Beom-Mo. 2007. Plurality and plural marker ‘deul’. Eoneohak Eoneohak 47, 3-31. Kim, Kyumin & Paul Melchin. 2018. Modifying plurals, classifiers, and co-occurrence: The case of Korean. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3(1): 25. 1-29. Kramer, Ruth. 2015. The Morphosyntax of Gender. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kramer, Ruth. 2016. A split analysis of plurality: Number in Amharic. Linguistic Inquiry, 47(3): 527-559. Mathieu, Éric. 2012. Flavors of division. Linguistic Inquiry, 43(4), 650-679. Punske, Jeffrey and Scott Jackson. 2017. The bifurcated nature of plural: Reconsidering evidence from English compounds. In Proceedings of 43rd Annual Meeting of Berkeley Linguistics Society 43: 261-284. Wiltschko, Martina. 2008. The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26. 639-694.
