1887
Volume 31, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0920-9034
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9870
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

In this paper, we examine mass and count in Michif, a language often called a , which has elements from French (and English) and Cree (and Ojibwe). French has an obvious grammatical mass/count distinction (Doetjes 1997); Cree does not. Michif could therefore display a mass/count distinction, like French, or look like it lacks one, like Cree. In fact, the system is mixed (contra Croft 2003: 58): French-derived nominals display an obvious mass/count distinction and the Cree-derived nominals do not. Number, numerals and quantifiers disambiguate within the French-derived part of the grammar but do not in the Cree-derived part. Michif has inherited both the French system and the Cree system, reflected in the behaviour of the nominals.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jpcl.31.1.05gil
2016-01-01
2019-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ahenakew, Freda & H. Christoph Wolfart
    1983 Productive reduplication in Plains Cree. In William Cowan (ed.), Actes du quatorzième congrès des Algonquinistes (Québec, 1982), 369–377. Ottawa: Carleton University.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakker, Peter
    1997A language of our own: The genesis of Michif, the mixed Cree-French language of the Canadian Métis (Oxford Studies in Anthropological Linguistics). New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bale, Alan C. & David Barner
    2009 The interpretation of functional heads: Using comparatives to explore the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics26. 217–252. doi: 10.1093/jos/ffp003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffp003 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2012 Semantic triggers, linguistic variation, and the mass-count distinction. In Diane Massam (ed.), Count and mass across languages, 238–260. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0013
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0013 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bunt, Harry C
    1985Mass Terms and Model-Theoretic Semantics. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen & Rint Sybesma
    1999 Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry30. 509–542. doi: 10.1162/002438999554192
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554192 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chierchia, Gennaro
    1998 Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of ‘semantic parameter’. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Events and grammar, 53–103. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑3969‑4_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_4 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2010 Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese174(1). 99–149. doi: 10.1007/s11229‑009‑9686‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9686-6 [Google Scholar]
  9. Croft, William
    2003 Mixed languages and acts of identity: An evolutionary approach. In Yaron Matras & Peter Bakker (eds.), The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances, 41–72. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Deprez, Viviane
    2005 Morphological number, semantic number and bare nouns. Lingua115. 857–883. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.01.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.01.006 [Google Scholar]
  11. Doetjes, Jenny
    1997Quantifiers and selection: On the distribution of quantifying expressions in French, Dutch and English. Leiden, NL: Leiden University dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Frantz, Donald G & Norma Jean Russell
    1989Blackfoot dictionary of stems, roots, and affixes. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Gillon, Carrie
    2009 The mass/count distinction and what it tells us about plurality in Innu-aimun. Paper given at the Semantics of Underrepresented Languages of the Americas V , May 15-17, 2009, Harvard and MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2015 Innu-aimun plurality. Lingua162:128–148. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.05.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  15. Jackendoff, Ray
    1991 Parts and boundaries. Cognition41: 9–45. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(91)90031‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90031-X [Google Scholar]
  16. Jespersen, Otto
    1909The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. MacKenzie, Marguerite
    1980Toward a dialectology of Cree-Montagnaiss-Naskapi. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto dissertation. [available atwww.eastcree.org]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Mathieu, Éric
    2012 On the mass/count distinction in Ojibwe. In Diane Massam (ed.), Count and mass across languages, 172–198. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0010 [Google Scholar]
  19. Pelletier, Francis Jeffry
    1975Non-singular reference: Some preliminaries. Philosophia 5. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑4110‑5_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4110-5_1 [Google Scholar]
  20. Poplack, Shana
    1993 Variation theory and language contact. In Dennis Preston (ed.), American dialect research, 251–286. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.68.13pop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.68.13pop [Google Scholar]
  21. Rhodes, Richard
    1986 Métchif: a second look. Proceedings of the Algonquian Conference17: 287–96. William Conan , ed.Ottawa: Carleton University.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Rhodes, Richard. A
    1990 Lexical hierarchies and Ojibwa noun derivation. In Savas L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization, 151–158. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Rosen, Nicole
    2003 Demonstrative position in Michif. Canadian Journal of Linguistics48(1/2). 39–69.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2006 Language contact and Michif stress assignment. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung - Language Typology and Universals (STUF)59(2). 170–190. doi: 10.1524/stuf.2006.59.2.170
    https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.2006.59.2.170 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2007Domains in Michif phonology. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto dissertation. Available at: twpl.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/twpl/article/view/6495/3473
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Rosen, Nicole & Janelle Brodner
    2012 Vowel space of Michif. Paper presented at2012 Meeting of the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas , January 5-8, 2012, Portland, OR.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Statistics Canada
    2011 Census of Population, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-314-XCB2011048.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Thomason, Sarah
    2003 Social factors and linguistic processes in the emergence of stable mixed languages. In Yaron Matras & Peter Bakker (eds.), The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances, 21–39. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Wilhelm, Andrea
    2008 Bare nouns and number in Dëne Sųłiné. Natural Language Semantics16. 39–68. doi: 10.1007/s11050‑007‑9024‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-007-9024-9 [Google Scholar]
  30. Wiltschko, Martina
    2012 Decomposing the mass/count distinction: Evidence from languages that lack it. In Diane Massam (ed.), Count and mass across languages, 146–171. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0009
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0009 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jpcl.31.1.05gil
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): mass/count distinction , Michif , mixed languages and nominals
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