On the relationship between morphological and semantic markedness: The case of plural morphology

Morphology

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 197-221

  Bale, Alan ^a   Gagnon, Michaël ^b   Khanjian, Hrayr ^c  

^a Dept of Electrical and Computer Engineering   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^c MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Feature interpretations; Morphological markedness; Plural; Semantic markedness

Indexed keywords

EID: 79955478452     PISSN: 18715621     EISSN: 18715656     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11525-010-9158-1     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Bale, A. (2009). Yet more evidence for the emptiness of plurality. In Proceedings of the 38th meeting of the north east linguistic society (NELS 38).
2. Bale, A., and Khanjian, H. (2009). Classifiers and number marking. In Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) XVIII.
3. Benveniste, E. (1966). Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Bibiliothèque des Sciences Humaines. Gallimard.
4. Bobaljik J. (2001) Syncretism without paradigms: Remarks on Williams 1981, 1994. In: Booij G., Marle J. (eds) Yearbook of morphology 2001. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 53-86.
5. Bobaljik, J. D., and Zocca, J. L. (2010). Gender markedness: The anatomy of a counter-example. Morphology. doi: 10. 1007/s11525-010-9156-3.
6. Borer H. (2005) Structuring sense. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
7. Croft, W. (1990, 2nd ed., 2003). Typology and universals. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
8. Cysouw M. (2003) The paradigmatic structure of person marking. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
9. Fiengo R., Lasnik H. (1973) The logical structure of reciprocal sentences in English. Foundations of Language 9: 447-468.
10. Gillon B. (1992) Towards a common semantics for English count and mass nouns. Linguistics and Philosophy 15: 597-640.
11. Greenberg, J. (1966). Language universals, with special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Janua Linguarum, 59, Mouton.
12. Halle M., Marantz A. (1993) Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In: Hale K., Keyser S. J. (eds) The view from building 20. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 111-176.
13. Harbour D. (2003) The Kiowa case for feature insertion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 543-578.
14. Harley H. (2008) When is a syncretism more than a syncretism? Impoverishment, metasyncretism, and underspecification. In: Harbour D., Adger D., Béjar S. (eds) Phi theory: Phi features across modules and interfaces. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 251-294.
15. Jakobson, R. (1971). Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb. In Selected writings (Vol. 2). The Hague: Mouton.
16. Krifka M. (1989) Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In: Bartsch R., Benthem J., Emde Boas P. (eds) Semantics and contextual expressions. Foris Publications, Dordrecht, pp 75-116.
17. Link G. (1983) The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In: Bauerle R., Schwarze C., Stechow A. (eds) Meaning, use, and interpretation of language. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 302-323.
18. Nevins, A. (2007a). Dual number and context-sensitive markedness. Manuscript.
19. Nevins A. (2007b) The representation of third person and it consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25(2): 273-313.
20. Noyer R. (1998) Impoverishment theory and morphosyntactic markedness. In: Lapointe S., Brentari D., Farrell P. (eds) Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax. CSLI Publications, Palo Alto, pp 264-285.
21. Percus, O. (2010). Gender features and interpretation: A case study. Morphology. doi: 10. 1007/s11525-010-9157-2.
22. Poppe N. (1960) Buriat grammar. Indiana University, Bloomington.
23. Sauerland U. (2003) A new semantics for number. In: Young R., Zhou Y. (eds) Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory SALT XIII. CLC Publications, Cornell, Ithaca, pp 258-275.
24. Sauerland U. (2008) On the semantic markedness of Φ-features. In: Harbour D., Adger D., Béjar S. (eds) Phi theory: Phi features across modules and interfaces. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 57-82.
25. Sauerland U., Andersen J., Yatsushiro K. (2005) The plural is semantically unmarked. In: Kepser S., Reis M. (eds) Linguistic evidence. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 413-434.
26. Schwarzschild R. (1996) Pluralities. Kluwer, Dordrecht, Boston.
27. Silverstein M. (1986) Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In: Muysken P., Riemsdijk H. (eds) Features and projections. Foris, Dordrecht, pp 163-232.
28. Spector B. (2003) Plural indefinite DPs as plural-polarity items. In: Quer J., Schroten J., Scorretti M., Sleeman P., Verheugd E. (eds) Romance languages and linguistic theory 2001. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 295-313.
29. Spector B. (2007) Aspects of the pragmatics of plural morphology: On higher-order implicatures. In: Sauerland U., Statev P. (eds) Presuppositions and implicatures in compositional semantics. Palgrave-Macmillan, Houndmills, pp 243-281.
30. Vinka, M. (2001). Impoverishment as feature deletion: Dual and plural agreement in Sámi. In Working papers (Vol. 48, pp. 183-191). Lund: Lund University, Department of Linguistics.