A Theory of Distributed Number

image of A Theory of Distributed Number

The objective of this book is to develop a deeper understanding of the form and interpretation of number. Using insights from Generative syntax and Distributed Morphology, we develop a theory of distributed number, arguing that number can be associated with several functional heads and that these projections exist depending on the features they specify. In doing so, we make a strong claim for a close mapping between the syntactic structure and the semantics in the noun phrase, since each node corresponds to a different interpretation of number. Despite some technical implementations, the book is accessible to linguists working outside any particular syntax-semantic framework, since we propose generalizations that are applicable in many, if not all, models of grammar. The book focuses on Arabic, but also discusses a number of languages including English, French, Ojibwe, Blackfoot, Hebrew, Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Turkish, Persian, and Western Armenian.


  1. Acquaviva, P.
    2008Lexical Plurals: A Morphosemantic Approach. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2015 Singulatives. InWord Formation. An International Handbook for the Languages of Europe, Vol.2, P. Müller , I. Ohnheiser , S. Olsen & F. Rainer (eds), 1171–1192. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 2016 Structures for plurals. Lingvisticae Investigationes59: 217–233. 10.1075/li.39.2.01acq
    https://doi.org/10.1075/li.39.2.01acq [Google Scholar]
  4. 2019 Categorization as noun construction: Gender, number, and entity types. InGender and Noun Classification, E. Mathieu , M. Dali & G. Zareikar (eds), 41–63. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Aikhenvald, A.
    1991Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization Devices. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Alexiadou, A.
    2001Functional Structure in Nominals: Nominalization and Ergativity [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 42]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.42
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.42 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2010 Nominalizations: A probe in the architecture of grammar, Part 1: The nominalization puzzle. Language and Linguistic Compass4: 496–511. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2010.00209.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00209.x [Google Scholar]
  8. 2011 Plural mass nouns and the morpho-syntax of number. InProceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, M. B. Washburn , K. McKinney-Bock , E. Varis , A. Sawyer & B. Tomaszewicz (eds), 33–41. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Anand, P. , Andrews, C. , Farkas, D. & Wagers, M.
    2011 The exclusive interpretation of plural nominals in quantificational environments. InProceedings of SALT 21, P. Saint-Dizier (ed.), 176–196. https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/2617 (19February 2021) 10.3765/salt.v21i0.2617
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v21i0.2617 [Google Scholar]
  10. Arad, M.
    2005Roots and Patterns: Hebrew Morpho-syntax [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 63]. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 2003 Locality constraints on the interpretations of roots. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory21: 737–778. 10.1023/A:1025533719905
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025533719905 [Google Scholar]
  12. Arregi, K. & Nevins, A.
    2012Morphotactics: Basque Auxiliaries and the Structure of Spellout. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑3889‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3889-8 [Google Scholar]
  13. Aspesi, F.
    1990 Genre des noms et genre des morphèmes personnels en chamito-sémitique. InProceedings of the Fifth International Hamito-Semitic Congress, Vol.1, H. G. Mukařovski (Ed.), 11–28. Veröffentlichungen der Institute für Afrikanistik und Agyptologie der Universität Wien.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bale, A. , Gagnon, M. & Khanjian, H.
    2010 Cross-linguistic representations of numerals and number marking. InProceedings of SALT 20, Nan Li & David Lutz (eds), 1–15. https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/2552 (19February 2021) 10.3765/salt.v20i0.2552
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v20i0.2552 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2011 On the relationship between morphological and semantic markedness: The case of plural morphology. Morphology21: 197–221. 10.1007/s11525‑010‑9158‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-010-9158-1 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bale, A. & Khanjian, H.
    2014 Syntactic complexity and competition: The singular-plural distinction in Western Armenian. Linguistic Inquiry45: 1–26. 10.1162/LING_a_00147
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00147 [Google Scholar]
  17. Barker, C.
    1992 Group terms in English: Representing groups as atoms. Journal of Semantics9: 69–93. 10.1093/jos/9.1.69
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/9.1.69 [Google Scholar]
  18. Beeston, A.
    1975 Some features of Modern Standard Arabic. Journal of Semitic Studies20: 62–68. 10.1093/jss/XX.1.62
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jss/XX.1.62 [Google Scholar]
  19. Belnap, K.
    1991 Grammatical Agreement Variation in Cairene Arabic. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Belnap, K. R. & Gee, J.
    1994 Classical Arabic in contact: The transition to near-categorical agreement patterns. InPerspectives on Arabic Linguistics VI: Papers from the Sixth Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics [Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science 115], M. Eid , V. Cantarino & K. Walters (eds), 121–149. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.115.11bel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.115.11bel [Google Scholar]
  21. Belnap, K. R. & Shabaneh, O.
    1992 Variable agreement and nonhuman plurals in Classical and Modern Standard Arabic. InPerspectives on Arabic Linguistics IV: Papers from the Fourth Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics [Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science 85], E. Broselow , M. Eid & J. McCarthy (eds), 245–262. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.85.15bel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.85.15bel [Google Scholar]
  22. Belnap, R. K.
    1999 A new perspective on the history of Arabic variation in marking agreement with plural heads. Folia Linguistica33: 169–185. 10.1515/flin.1999.33.1‑2.169
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1999.33.1-2.169 [Google Scholar]
  23. Blanc, H.
    1970 Dual and pseudo-dual in the Arabic dialects. Language46: 42–57. 10.2307/412406
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412406 [Google Scholar]
  24. Bliss, H.
    2004 The Semantics of the Bare Noun in Turkish. MA thesis, University of Calgary.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Bobaljik, J.
    2017 Distributed morphology. InOxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.131
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.131 [Google Scholar]
  26. Booij, G.
    1996 Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. InYearbook of Morphology 1995, G. Booij & J. van Marle (eds), 1–16. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑3716‑6_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3716-6_1 [Google Scholar]
  27. Borer, H.
    2005Structuring Sense, Vol. 1: In Name Only. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Borer, H. & Ouwayda, S.
    2010 Men and their apples: Dividing plural and agreement plural. Paper presented atGLOW in Asia VIII, Beijing Language and Culture University.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Boris, G.
    1945–1948 Sur l’emploi des pluriels féminins dans un parler arabe moderne. Comptes Rendus du Groupe Linguistique d’ Études Chamito-Sémitiques (GLECS), 21–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Boudelaa, S. & Gaskell, M. G.
    2002 A re-examination of the default system for Arabic plurals. Language and Cognitive Processes17(3): 321–343. 10.1080/01690960143000245
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960143000245 [Google Scholar]
  31. Brocklemann, C.
    1908Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. Berlin: Reuther Reichard.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Brustad, K.
    2000The Syntax of Spoken Arabic. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Bunt, H.
    1985 The formal representation of (quasi-)continuous concepts. In J. Hobbs & R. Moore (eds), Formal Theories of the Commonsense World, 37–70. Norwood NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Butler, L.
    2012 Crosslinguistic and experimental evidence for non-number plurals. Linguistic Variation12: 27–56. 10.1075/lv.12.1.02but
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.12.1.02but [Google Scholar]
  35. Bybee, J. L.
    2006 From usage to grammar: The minds response to repetition. Language82: 711–733. 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
  36. Carlson, G.
    1977 Reference to Kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Carstens, V.
    2000 Concord in minimalist theory. Linguistic Inquiry31: 319–355. 10.1162/002438900554370
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438900554370 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2001 Multiple agreement and case deletion: Against phi- (in)completeness. Syntax4: 147–163. 10.1111/1467‑9612.00042
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00042 [Google Scholar]
  39. Caubet, D. , Simeone-Senelle, M.-C. & Vanhove, M.
    1989 Genre et accord dans quelques dialectes arabes. LINX 21: Genre et langage. Actes du colloque tenu à Paris X – Nanterre, les14–16 décembre 1988.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Cheng, C.-Y.
    1973 Response to Moravcsik. InApproaches to Natural Language, J. Hintikka , J. M. E. Moravcsik & P. Suppes (eds), 286–288. Dordrecht: Reidel. 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑2506‑5_14
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2506-5_14 [Google Scholar]
  41. Chierchia, G.
    1998 Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics6(4): 339–405. 10.1023/A:1008324218506
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008324218506 [Google Scholar]
  42. Chomsky, N.
    2000 Minimalist inquiries: The framework. InStep by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, R. Martin , D. Michaels & J. Uriagerka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2001 Derivation by phase. InKen Hale: A Life in Language, M. Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Cohen, D.
    1964 Remarques sur la dérivation nominale par affixes dans quelques langues sémitiques. Semitica14: 73–93.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Comrie, B.
    1975 Polite plurals and predicate agreement. Language51(4): 406–418. 10.2307/412863
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412863 [Google Scholar]
  46. 1985 Derivation, inflection, and semantic change in the development of the Chukchi verb paradigm. InHistorical Semantics and Historical Word Formation, J. Fisiak (Ed.), 85–96. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110850178.85
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110850178.85 [Google Scholar]
  47. Corbett, G.
    1991Gender. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139166119
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166119 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2000Number. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139164344
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164344 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2015 Hybrid nouns and their complexity. InAgreement from a Diachronic Perspective, J. Fleischer , E. Rieken & P. Widmer (eds), 191–214. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110399967‑010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110399967-010 [Google Scholar]
  50. Cowell, M.
    1964A Reference Grammar of Syrian Arabic (Based on the Dialect of Damascus). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Croft, W.
    2003Typology and Universals. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Dali, M.
    2015 The Feminine Operator in Arabic. MA thesis, University of Ottawa.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 2017On the contrastive use of plurals in Tunisian Arabic. Ms, University of Ottawa.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 2020 Gender and Number in Tunisian Arabic: A Case of Allosemy. PhD dissertation, University of Ottawa.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Dali, M. & Mathieu, E.
    2016 Les pluriels internes féminins de l’arabe tunisien. Lingvisticae Investigationes59: 253–271. 10.1075/li.39.2.03dal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/li.39.2.03dal [Google Scholar]
  56. 2020 Broken plurals and (mis)matching of φ-features in Tunisian Arabic. Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics12(2): 164–203. 10.1163/18776930‑01202005
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18776930-01202005 [Google Scholar]
  57. Dalrymple, M. , Kanazawa, M. , Kim, Y. , Mchombo, S. & Peters, S.
    1998 Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy21: 159–210. 10.1023/A:1005330227480
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005330227480 [Google Scholar]
  58. D’Anna, L.
    2017 Agreement in plural controllers in Fezzānī Arabic. Folia OrientalaLIV: 101–122.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Danon, G.
    2011 Agreement and DP-internal feature distribution. Syntax14: 297–317. 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2011.00154.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2011.00154.x [Google Scholar]
  60. 2013 Agreement alternations with quantified nominals in Modern Hebrew. Journal of Linguistics49: 55–92. 10.1017/S0022226712000333
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226712000333 [Google Scholar]
  61. De Belder, M.
    2008 Size matters: Towards a syntactic decomposition of countability. In N. Abner & J. Bishop (eds), Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), Los Angeles, UCLA, 16–18 May, 116–122. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 2011 A morphosyntactic decomposition of countability in Germanic. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics14(3): 173–202. 10.1007/s10828‑011‑9045‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-011-9045-0 [Google Scholar]
  63. Deal, A. R.
    2017 Countability distinctions and semantic variation. Natural Language Semantics25: 125–171. 10.1007/s11050‑017‑9132‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-017-9132-0 [Google Scholar]
  64. Dehaene, S.
    1999 The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. den Dikken, M.
    2001 Pluringulars, pronouns and quirky agreement. The Linguistic Review18: 19–41. 10.1515/tlir.18.1.19
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.18.1.19 [Google Scholar]
  66. Diakonov, I. M.
    1965Semito-Hamitic Languages: An Essay in Classification. Moscow: Central Department of Oriental Literature.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Diertani, C. E. A.
    2011 Morpheme Boundaries and Structural Change: Affixes Running Amok. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Dimmendaal, G.
    1983The Turkana Language. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110869149
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110869149 [Google Scholar]
  69. 2003 Number marking and noun categorization in Nilo-Saharan languages. Anthropological Linguistics42: 214–261.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Doetjes, J.
    2012 Count/mass distinctions across languages. InSemantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, PartIII, C. Maienborn , K. von Heusinger & P. Portner (eds), 2559–2580. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Donabédian, A.
    1993 Le pluriel en arménien moderne. Faits de Langue2: 179–188. 10.3406/flang.1993.1318
    https://doi.org/10.3406/flang.1993.1318 [Google Scholar]
  72. Doron, E. & Müller, A.
    2013 The cognitive basis of the mass-count distinction: Evidence from bare nouns. InCrosslinguistic Studies on Noun Phrase Structure and Reference, C. Hofherr & A. Zribi-Hertz (eds), 73–101. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Driver, G. R.
    1948 Gender in Hebrew numbers. Journal of Jewish Studies1: 90–104. 10.18647/14/JJS‑1948
    https://doi.org/10.18647/14/JJS-1948 [Google Scholar]
  74. Embick, D.
    2010Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262014229.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014229.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  75. Embick, D. & Marantz, A.
    2008 Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry39(1): 1–53. 10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  76. Embick, D. & Noyer, R.
    2001 Movement after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry4: 595–595.. 10.1162/002438901753373005
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901753373005 [Google Scholar]
  77. 2007 Distributed morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. InThe Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, G. Ramchand & C. Reiss (eds), 289–324. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Enger, H.
    2004 Scandinavian pancake sentences as semantic agreement. Nordic Journal of Linguistics3: 1–54. 10.1017/S0332586504001131
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586504001131 [Google Scholar]
  79. 2013 Scandinavian pancake sentences revisited. Nordic Journal of Linguistics36: 275–301. 10.1017/S0332586513000280
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586513000280 [Google Scholar]
  80. Erwin, W. M.
    2004A Short Reference Grammar of Iraqi Arabic. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Farkas, D. & de Swart, H.
    2010 The semantics and pragmatics of plurals. Semantics and Pragmatics3: 1–54. 10.3765/sp.3.6
    https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.3.6 [Google Scholar]
  82. Fassi Fehri, A.
    1988 Agreement in Arabic, binding and coherence. InAgreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Description, M. Barlow & C. Ferguson (eds), 107–158. Stanford CA: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 1993Issues in the Structure of Arabic Clauses and Words. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑1986‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1986-5 [Google Scholar]
  84. 2003 Nominal classes and parameters across interfaces and levels, with a particular reference to Arabic. Linguistic Variation Yearbook4: 41–108. 10.1075/livy.4.03feh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.4.03feh [Google Scholar]
  85. 2012Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 182]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.182
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.182 [Google Scholar]
  86. 2018Constructing Feminine to Mean: Gender, Number, Numeral, and Quantifier Extensions in Arabic. New York NY: Lexington Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 2019 Multiple facets of constructional Arabic gender and ‘functional universalism’ in the DP. InGender and Noun Classfication, É. Mathieu , M. Dali & G. Zareikar (eds), 67–92. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Féghali, M. & Cuny, A.
    1924Du genre grammatical en sémitique. Paris: Geuthner.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Ferguson, C. A.
    1989 Grammatical agreement in Classical Arabic and the modern dialects: A response to Versteegh’s Pidginization Hypothesis. Al-’Arabiyya22(1–2): 5–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Ferrando, I.
    2006 The plural of paucity in Arabic and its actual scope: On two claims by Siibawayhi and Al-farraa. InPerspectives on Arabic Linguistics XVI: Papers from the Sixteenth Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics, Cambridge, March 2002 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 266], S. Boudelaa (ed.), 39–61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.266.04the
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.266.04the [Google Scholar]
  91. Fischer, W.
    2002A Grammar of Classical Arabic, 3rd edn, J. Rodgers (transl.). New Haven CT: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Fleisch, H.
    1961Traité de philologie Arabe. Beirut: Dar El-Machreq.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Gardelle, L.
    2019Semantic Plurality. English Collective Nouns and Other Ways of Denoting Pluralities of Entities [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 349]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.349
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.349 [Google Scholar]
  94. Gebhardt, L.
    2009 Numeral Classifiers and the Structure of DP. PhD dissertation, Northwestern University.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. van Gelderen, E.
    2011The Linguistic Cycle: Language Change and the Language Faculty. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199756056.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199756056.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  96. Ghaniabadi, S.
    2012 Plural marking beyond count nouns. InCount and Mass across Languages, D. Massam (ed.), 112–128. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0007
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  97. Ghomeshi, J.
    2003 Plural marking, indefiniteness, and the noun phrase. Studia Linguistica57: 47–74. 10.1111/1467‑9582.00099
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00099 [Google Scholar]
  98. Gillon, C.
    2015 Innu-aimun plurality. Lingua162: 128–148. 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.05.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  99. Görgülü, E.
    2012 Semantics of Nouns and the Specification of Number in Turkish. PhD dissertation, Simon Fraser University.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Greenberg, J.
    1963 Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. InUniversals of Language, J. Greenberg (ed.), 73–113. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Greenberg, J. H.
    1966Language Universals, with Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies [Janua Linguarum Series Minor]. The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  102. 1972 Numeral classifers and substantive number: Problems in the genesis of a linguistic type. Working Papers on Language Universals9: 2–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  103. 1974 Studies in numeral systems, I: Double numeral systems. Working Papers in Language Universals14: 75–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Grimm, S.
    2012a Inverse number marking and individuation in Dagaare. InCount and Mass across Languages, D. Massam (ed.), 75–98. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0005
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  105. 2012b Number and Individuation. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Grimshaw, J.
    2005 Extended projection. InWords and Structure, J. Grimshaw (ed.), 1–74. Stanford CA: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Haelewyck, J.-C.
    2016Grammaire comparée des langues sémitiques. Bruxelles: Éditions Safran.
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Halle, M.
    1997 Fission and impoverishment. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics30: 425–449.
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Halle, M. & Marantz, A.
    1993Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection, 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  110. 1994Some Key Features of Distributed Morphology, 275–288. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Hamedani, L.
    2011 The Function of Number in Persian. PhD dissertation, University of Ottawa.
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Hammerly, C.
    2018 Limiting gender. In E. Mathieu , M. Dali & G. Zareikar (eds), Gender and Noun Classification, 93–118. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/oso/9780198828105.003.0005
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198828105.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  113. Hammond, M.
    1988 Templatic transfer in Arabic broken plurals. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory6(2): 247–270. 10.1007/BF00134231
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134231 [Google Scholar]
  114. Harbour, D.
    2008 Mass, non-singularity, and augmentation. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics49: 239–266.
    [Google Scholar]
  115. 2011 Valence and atomic number. Linguistic Inquiry42: 561–594. 10.1162/LING_a_00061
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00061 [Google Scholar]
  116. 2014 Paucity, abundance, and the theory of number. Language90: 185–229. 10.1353/lan.2014.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2014.0003 [Google Scholar]
  117. 2016Impossible Persons. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262034739.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262034739.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  118. Harley, H.
    2014 On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics40(3–4): 225–276. 10.1515/tl‑2014‑0010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2014-0010 [Google Scholar]
  119. Harris, A. C. & Campbell, L.
    1995Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511620553
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620553 [Google Scholar]
  120. Haspelmath, M.
    1998 How young is Standard Average European?Language Sciences20: 271–287.. 10.1016/S0388‑0001(98)00004‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(98)00004-7 [Google Scholar]
  121. Hasselbach, R.
    2014a Agreement and the development of gender in Semitic (Part I). Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlāndischen Gesellschaft164: 33–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  122. 2014b Agreement and the development of gender in Semitic (Part II). Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlāndischen Gesellschaft164: 319–344.
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Heine, B. , Claudi, U. & Hünnemeyer, F.
    1991Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Hetzron, R.
    1967 Agaw numerals and incongruence in Semitic. Journal of Semitic Studies12: 169–197. 10.1093/jss/12.2.169
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jss/12.2.169 [Google Scholar]
  125. Hieda, O.
    2006 On singulative languages in Nilotic languages. Nilo-Ethiopian Studies10: 1–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Hockett, C. F.
    1958A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York NY: MacMillan. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1958.tb00870.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1958.tb00870.x [Google Scholar]
  127. Hoeksema, J.
    1983 Plurality and conjunction. InStudies in Model-Theoretic Semantics, A. ter Meulen (ed.), 63–83. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783112420768‑005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112420768-005 [Google Scholar]
  128. Holes, C.
    1990Gulf Arabic. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Hopper, P. & Traugott, E.
    1993Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Hopper, P. & Traugott, E. C.
    2003Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  131. Howell, M.
    1900A Grammar of the Classical Arabic Language, Part I. Published under the authority of the Northwest Provinces and the Government of Oudh. Allahabad.
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Ivlevia, N.
    2013 Scalar Implicatures and the Grammar of Plurality and Disjunction. PhD dissertation, MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Jacobson, S.
    1984Yup’ik Eskimo Dictionary. Fairbanks AK: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska.
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Johnson, C. A. & Joseph, B. D.
    2014 Morphology and syntax … and semantics … and pragmatics: Deconstructing “semantic agreement”. Lingvisticæ Investigationes37: 306–321. 10.1075/li.37.2.08joh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/li.37.2.08joh [Google Scholar]
  135. Kienast, B.
    2001Historische semitische Sprachwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Kihm, A.
    2003 Les pluriels internes de l’arabe: Système et conséquences pour l’architecture de la grammaire. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes32: 109–156. 10.4000/rlv.473
    https://doi.org/10.4000/rlv.473 [Google Scholar]
  137. 2005 Noun class, gender, and the lexicon-syntax-morphology interfaces: A comparative study of Niger-Congo and Romance languages. InThe Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax, G. Cinque & R. S. Kayne (eds), 459–512. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Koutsoukos, N.
    2018 Constructional change on the contentful-procedural gradient. The case of the -idz(o) construction in griko. InCategory Change from a Constructional Perspective [Constructional Approaches to Language], K. Van Goethem , M. Norde , E. Coussé & G. Vanderbauwhede (eds), 263–287. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.20.10kou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.20.10kou [Google Scholar]
  139. Koutsoukos, N. & Ralli, A.
    2013 Elements with ambiguous morphological status: The marker -idz(o) in griko. Quaderns de Filologia18: 13–23. Special issue on Theoretical and Empirical Advances in Word-formation.
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Kramer, R.
    2009 Definite Markers, Phi-features, and Agreement: A Morphosyntactic Investigation of the Amharic DP. PhD dissertation, UC Santa Cruz.
    [Google Scholar]
  141. 2012 A split analysis of plurality: Evidence from Amharic. Linguistic Inquiry47(3): 226–236.
    [Google Scholar]
  142. 2015The Morphosyntax of Gender. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679935.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679935.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  143. 2016 A split analysis of plurality: Number in Amharic. Linguistic Inquiry47(3): 527–559. 10.1162/LING_a_00220
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00220 [Google Scholar]
  144. Kramer, R. & Winchester, L.
    2018 Number and gender agreement in Saudi Arabic: Morphology vs. syntax. InThe Proceedings of the 17th Texas Linguistic Society, F. Cooley , M. Everdell , H. Al Bulushi , A. Gutierrez Lorenzo , L. Orjuela & S. D. Gualapuro Gualapuro (ed.), 39–53. https://tls.ling.utexas.edu/2017tls/TLS17_Conference_Proceedings.pdf (25February 2021).
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Krifka, M.
    1989 Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification. InSemantics and Contextual Expression, R. Bartsch , J. van Benthem & P. van Emde Boas (eds), 75–111. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1515/9783110877335‑005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110877335-005 [Google Scholar]
  146. 1995 Common nouns: A contrastive analysis of English and Chinese. InThe Generic Book, M. Krifka , G. Carlson & J. Pelletier (eds), 389–411. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Kuryłowicz, J.
    1965 The evolution of grammatical categories. Diogenes51: 55–71. 10.1177/039219216501305105
    https://doi.org/10.1177/039219216501305105 [Google Scholar]
  148. Ladusaw, W.
    1980 On the notion affective in the analysis of negative-polarity items. Journal of Linguistic Research1: 1–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Lahrouchi, M. & Lampitelli, N.
    2015 On plurals, noun phrase and num(ber) in Moroccan Arabic and Djibouti Somali. InThe Form of Structure, the Structure of Form: Essays in Honor of Jean Lowenstamm [Language Faculty and Beyond 12], S. Bendjaballah , N. Faust , M. Lahrouchi & N. Lampitelli (eds), 303–314. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lfab.12.23lah
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.12.23lah [Google Scholar]
  150. Lahrouchi, M. & Ridouane, R.
    2016 On diminutives and plurals in Moroccan Arabic. Morphology26(3):453–475. 10.1007/s11525‑016‑9290‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-016-9290-7 [Google Scholar]
  151. Landau, I.
    2015 DP-internal semantic agreement: A configurational analysis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory34: 975–1020. 10.1007/s11049‑015‑9319‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9319-3 [Google Scholar]
  152. Langdon, M.
    1992 Yuman plurals: From derivation to inflection to noun agreement. International Journal of American Linguistics58: 405–424. 10.1086/ijal.58.4.3519776
    https://doi.org/10.1086/ijal.58.4.3519776 [Google Scholar]
  153. Lecarme, J.
    2002 Gender “polarity”: Theoretical aspects of Somali nominal morphology. InMany Morphologies, P. Boucher & M. Plénat (eds), 109–141. Somerville MA: Cascadilla.
    [Google Scholar]
  154. Levy, M. M.
    1971 The Plural of the Noun in Modern Standard Arabic. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.
    [Google Scholar]
  155. Lightfoot, D.
    1999Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  156. Link, G.
    1983 The logical analysis of plural and mass terms: A lattice-theoretic approach. InMeaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, R. Buerle , C. Schwarze & A. von Stechow (eds), 302–323. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110852820.302
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110852820.302 [Google Scholar]
  157. Lipinski, E.
    2001Semitic Languages Outline of a Comparative Grammar, 2nd edn. Leuven: Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  158. Lowenstamm, J.
    2008 On little n, ROOT, and types of nouns. InSounds of Silence: Empty Elements in Syntax and Phonology, J. Hartmann , V. Hegedus & H. van Riemsijk (eds), 105–144. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  159. Marantz, A.
    1997 No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics4(2): Article 14.
    [Google Scholar]
  160. 2001Words. Ms, MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  161. 2007 Phases and words. InPhases in the Theory of Grammar, S.-H. Choe , D.-W. Yang , Y.-S. Kim , S.-H. Kim & A. Marantz (eds), 191–222. Seoul: Dong-In Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  162. 2013 Verbal argument structure: Events and participants. Lingua130: 152–168. 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.012 [Google Scholar]
  163. Martí, L.
    2018 Inclusive plurals and the theory of number. lingbuzz/003528.
    [Google Scholar]
  164. 2020 Inclusive plurals and the theory of number. Linguistic Inquiry51(1): 37–74. 10.1162/ling_a_00330
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00330 [Google Scholar]
  165. Mathieu, E.
    2009 On the mass/count distinction in Ojibwe. Article presented at theMass/count workshop, University of Toronto, 7–8 February.
    [Google Scholar]
  166. 2012 Flavors of division. Linguistic Inquiry43: 650–679. 10.1162/ling_a_00110
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00110 [Google Scholar]
  167. 2013 On the plural of the singulative. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics23(1).
    [Google Scholar]
  168. 2014 Many a plural. InWeak Referentiality [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 219], A. Aguilar-Guevara , B. L. Bruyn & J. Zwarts (eds), 157–181. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.219.07mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.219.07mat [Google Scholar]
  169. Mathieu, E. & Zareikar, G.
    2015 Measure words, plurality, and cross-linguistic variation. Linguistic Variation15(2): 169–200. doi:  10.1075/lv.15.2.02mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.15.2.02mat [Google Scholar]
  170. 2017The syntax of higher plurals. Ms, University of Ottawa.
    [Google Scholar]
  171. Matushansky, O.
    2013 Gender confusion. InDiagnosing Syntax, L. L.-S. Cheng & N. Corver (eds), 271–294. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602490.003.0013
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602490.003.0013 [Google Scholar]
  172. McCarthy, J. & Prince, A.
    1990a Foot and word in prosodic morphology: The Arabic broken plural. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory8(2): 209–283. 10.1007/BF00208524
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00208524 [Google Scholar]
  173. 1990b Prosodic morphology and templatic morphology. InPerspectives on Arabic Linguistics, II: Papers from the Second Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics, Salt Lake City, Utah 1988 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 72], Mushira Eid & John McCarthy (eds), 1–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.72.05mcc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.72.05mcc [Google Scholar]
  174. McCawley, J. D.
    1968 Review of ‘Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. 3: Theoretical Foundations’. Language44: 556–593. 10.2307/411721
    https://doi.org/10.2307/411721 [Google Scholar]
  175. 1975 Lexicography and the count-mass distinction. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society1: 314–321.
    [Google Scholar]
  176. Meillet, A.
    1921Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Genève/Paris: Slatkine/Champion.
    [Google Scholar]
  177. Meinhof, C.
    1912Die Sprachen der Hamiten. Hamburg: L.R. Friederischsen.
    [Google Scholar]
  178. Mitchell, T.
    1956An Introduction to Egyptian Colloquial Arabic. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  179. Mithun, M.
    1988 Lexical categories and the evolution of number marking. InTheoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics, M. Hammond & M. Noonan (eds), 211–233. New York NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  180. 2010 The reordering of morphemes. InReconstructing Grammar: Comparative Linguistics and Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 43], J. Wohlgemuth & M. Cysouw (eds), 231–258. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.43.09mit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.43.09mit [Google Scholar]
  181. Mohammad, M. A.
    1990 The problem of subject-verb agreement in Arabic: Towards a solution. InPerspectives on Arabic Linguistics, 1: Papers from the Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics, Salt Lake City, Utah 1987 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 63], Mushira Eid (ed.), 95–125. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.63.07moh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.63.07moh [Google Scholar]
  182. Murtonen, A.
    1964Broken Plurals, Origin and Development of the System. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  183. Nevins, A.
    2011 Marked targets versus marked triggers and impoverishment of the dual. Linguistic Inquiry42(3): 413–444. 10.1162/LING_a_00052
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00052 [Google Scholar]
  184. Noyer, R.
    1992 Features, Positions and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. PhD dissertation, MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  185. ÓhAnluain, L. A.
    1999Graiméar Gaeilge na mBráithre Críostaí. Dublin: An Gúm.
    [Google Scholar]
  186. Ojeda, A.
    1992 The semantics of number in Arabic. InProceedings of SALT 2, Chris Barker & David Dowty (eds), 303–326. https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/3040 (25February 2021) 10.3765/salt.v2i0.3040
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v2i0.3040 [Google Scholar]
  187. 1995 The semantics of the italian double plural. Journal of Semantics12(3): 213–237. 10.1093/jos/12.3.213
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/12.3.213 [Google Scholar]
  188. Ouwayda, S.
    2014 Where Number Lies: Plural Marking, Numerals, and the Collective-distributive Distinction. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.
    [Google Scholar]
  189. Pearson, H. , Khan, M. & Snedeker, J.
    2011 Even more evidence for the emptiness of plurality: An experimental investigation of plural interpretation as a species of scalar implicature. InProceedings of SALT 20, N. Li & D. Lutz (eds). https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/issue/view/108 (26February 2021).
    [Google Scholar]
  190. Percus, O.
    2011 Gender features and interpretation: A case study. Morphology21(2): 167–196. 10.1007/s11525‑010‑9157‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-010-9157-2 [Google Scholar]
  191. Pereltsvaig, A.
    2014 On number and numberlessness in languages with andwithout articles. InCrosslinguistic Studies on Noun Phrase Structure and Reference, P. Cabredo-Hofherr & A. Zribi-Hertz (eds), 52–73. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  192. Preminger, O.
    2014Agreement and its Failures. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027403.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262027403.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  193. Quine, W. V. O.
    1960Word and Object. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  194. Ratcliffe, R. R.
    1998The ‘Broken’ Plural Problem in Arabic and Comparative Semitic: Allomorphy and Analogy in Non-concatenative Morphology [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 168]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.168
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.168 [Google Scholar]
  195. Ritter, E.
    1993 Where is gender?Linguistic Inquiry24(4): 795–803.
    [Google Scholar]
  196. Roberts, I.
    1985 Agreement parameters and the development of english modal auxiliaries. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory3: 21–58. 10.1007/BF00205413
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00205413 [Google Scholar]
  197. 2007Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  198. Roberts, I. & Roussou, A.
    1999 A formal approach to grammaticalization. Linguistics37(6): 1011–1041. 10.1515/ling.37.6.1011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.37.6.1011 [Google Scholar]
  199. 2003Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511486326
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486326 [Google Scholar]
  200. Rothstein, S.
    2010 Counting and the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics27(3): 343–397. 10.1093/jos/ffq007
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffq007 [Google Scholar]
  201. Rullmann, H. & You, A.
    2006 General number and the semantics and pragmatics of indefinite bare nouns in mandarin chinese. InWhere Semantics Meets Pragmatics, K. von Heusinger & K. Turner (eds), 175–196. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  202. Sauerland, U.
    2003 A new semantics for number. InProceedings of SALT 13, R. Young & Y. Zhou (eds), 258–275. https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/issue/view/96 (26February 2021).. 10.3765/salt.v13i0.2898
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v13i0.2898 [Google Scholar]
  203. Sauerland, U. , Andersen, J. & Yatsuhiro, K.
    2005 The plural is semantically unmarked. InLinguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Perspectives, S. Kepser & M. Reis (eds), 413–433. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197549.413
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197549.413 [Google Scholar]
  204. Sağ, Y.
    2016On the semantics of classifiers: A new perspective from an optional classifier language, Turkish. lingbuzz/002999.
    [Google Scholar]
  205. Schwarzschild, R.
    1996Pluralities. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑2704‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2704-4 [Google Scholar]
  206. 2011 Stubborn distributivity, multiparticipant nouns and the count/mass distinction. InProceedings of NELS39, S. Lima , K. Mullin & B. Smith (eds), 661–678. Amherst MA: GLSA.
    [Google Scholar]
  207. Siddiqi, D.
    2018 Distributed morphology. InThe Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory, J. Audring & F. Masin (eds). Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  208. Sigler, M.
    1996 Specificity and Agreement in Standard Western Armenian. PhD dissertation, MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  209. Smith, P.
    2015 Feature Mismatches: Consequences for Syntax, Morphology and Semantics. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.
    [Google Scholar]
  210. Smith, P. W.
    2017 The syntax of semantic agreement in English. Journal of Linguistics53(4): 823–863. 10.1017/S0022226716000360
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226716000360 [Google Scholar]
  211. Spector, B.
    2007 Aspects of the pragmatics of plural morphology: On higher order implicature. InPresupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics, U. Sauerland & P. Stateva (eds), 243–281. Basingstoke: Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230210752_9
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230210752_9 [Google Scholar]
  212. Speiser, E. A.
    1936 Studies in Semitic formatives. Journal of the American Oriental Society56: 22–46. 10.2307/593880
    https://doi.org/10.2307/593880 [Google Scholar]
  213. Stankiewicz, E.
    1962 The singular-plural contrast opposition in the Slavic languages. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics5: 1–15.
    [Google Scholar]
  214. Steriopolo, O. & Wiltschko, M.
    2010 Distributed GENDER hypothesis. InFormal Studies in Slavic Linguistics. Proceedings of Formal Description of Slavic Languages7, G. Zybatow , P. Dudchuk , S. Minor & E. Pshehotskaya (eds), 155–172. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  215. Stolz, T.
    2001 Singulative-collective: Natural morphology and stable classes in Welsh number inflexion on nouns. STUF – Language Typology and Universals54: 52–76. 10.1524/stuf.2001.54.1.52
    https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.2001.54.1.52 [Google Scholar]
  216. Tieu, L. , Cory, B. , Romoli, J. & Crain, S.
    2014 Plurality inferences are scalar implicatures: Evidence from acquisition. InProceedings SALT 24, T. Snider , S. D’Antonio & M. Weigand (ed.), 122–136. https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/24.122 (26February 2021).
    [Google Scholar]
  217. Tsoulas, G.
    2009 On the grammar of number and mass terms in Greek. In C. Halpert , J. Hartman & D. Hill (eds), Proceedings of the Workshop in Greek Syntax and Semantics [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 57], 131–146. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.
    [Google Scholar]
  218. Van Geenhoven, V.
    2000 Pro properties, contra generalized kinds. InProceedings of SALT 10, B. Jackson & T. Matthews (eds), 221–238. https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/3112 (26February 2021) 10.3765/salt.v10i0.3112
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v10i0.3112 [Google Scholar]
  219. Vásquez-Rojas, V.
    2012 The Syntax and Semantics of Purépecha Noun Phrases and the Mass/count Distinction. PhD dissertation, New York University.
    [Google Scholar]
  220. de Vries, H.
    2013 Distributivity and agreement: New evidence for groups as sets. InProceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium, M. Aloni , M. Franke & F. Roelofsen (eds), 241–248. Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  221. 2015 Shifting Sets, Hidden Atoms: The Semantics of Distributivity, Plurality and Animacy. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.
    [Google Scholar]
  222. Watanabe, A.
    2010 Vague quantity, numerals, and natural numbers. Syntax13: 37–77. 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2009.00131.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2009.00131.x [Google Scholar]
  223. Wechsler, S. & Zlatić, L.
    2003The Many Faces of Agreement. Stanford CA: CLSI.
    [Google Scholar]
  224. Wiltschko, M.
    2008 The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory26: 639–694. 10.1007/s11049‑008‑9046‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-008-9046-0 [Google Scholar]
  225. 2012 Decomposing the mass/count distinction. Evidence from languages that lack it. InCount and Mass across Languages, D. Massam (ed.), 120–146. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0009
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0009 [Google Scholar]
  226. Winter, Y.
    2001 Plural predication and the strongest meaning hypothesis. Journal of Semantics18: 333–365. 10.1093/jos/18.4.333
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/18.4.333 [Google Scholar]
  227. Wood, J.
    2012 Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Structure. PhD dissertation, New York University.
    [Google Scholar]
  228. Wright, W.
    1967A Grammar of the Arabic Language, Vol.I. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  229. Wurmbrand, S.
    2015 Does gender depend on number?Snippets30: 14–16. 10.7358/snip‑2015‑030‑wurm
    https://doi.org/10.7358/snip-2015-030-wurm [Google Scholar]
  230. Wurzel, W. U.
    1987 System-dependent morphological naturalness in inflection. Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology10: 59–95. 10.1075/slcs.10.22wur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.10.22wur [Google Scholar]
  231. Zabbal, Y.
    2002 The semantics of number in the Arabic noun phrase. MA thesis, University of Calgary.
    [Google Scholar]
  232. Zareikar, G.
    2019 The Distribution and Function of Number in Azeri. PhD dissertation, University of Ottawa.
    [Google Scholar]
  233. Zeuss, J. C.
    1853Grammatica Celtica. Leipzig: Weidmann.
    [Google Scholar]
  234. Zhang, N.
    2012 Countability and numeral classifiers in Mandarin Chinese. InCount and Mass across Languages, D. Massam (ed.), 220–237. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0012
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0012 [Google Scholar]
  235. Zwarts, J.
    2004 Competition between word meanings: The polysemy of around. Sinn und Bedeutung8: 349–360. doi:  10.18148/sub/2004.v8i0.768
    https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2004.v8i0.768 [Google Scholar]
  236. Zweig, E.
    2009 Number-neutral bare plurals and the multiplicity implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy32: 353–407. 10.1007/s10988‑009‑9064‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-009-9064-3 [Google Scholar]
-contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error