1887
Volume 39, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0378-4169
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9927
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

In this paper I provide a description and analysis of a small class of plural mass nouns in Telugu (Dravidian), as well as an overview of the major properties of the mass/count distinction in the language. The plural mass nouns show the semantic behaviour of mass nouns in Telugu, however, they show the morphosyntactic behaviour of count nouns. I provide an analysis whereby the plurality is inherent to the roots, and it is this inherent plurality interacting with other properties of the morphosyntax of Telugu that makes these nouns appear to be count on the surface, though in reality they are mass nouns.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/li.39.2.02smi
2017-03-20
2019-10-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Acquaviva, P
    (2008a) Lexical Plurals: A morphosemantic approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. (2008b) Roots and lexicality in Distributed Morphology. ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000654.
  3. Alexiadou, A
    (2011) Plural mass nouns and the morpo-syntax of number. In M. B. Washburn , K. McKinney-Bock , E. Varis , A. Sawyer & B. Tomaszewicz (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp.33–41). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bale, A. C. & Barner, D
    (2009) The interpretation of functional heads: Using comparatives to explore the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics, 26(3), 217–252. doi: 10.1093/jos/ffp003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffp003 [Google Scholar]
  5. De Belder, M
    (2013) Collective mass affixes: When derivation restricts functional structure. Lingua, 126, 32–50. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.11.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.11.008 [Google Scholar]
  6. Borer, H
    (2005) Structuring Sense vol 1: In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Chierchia, G
    (1998) Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of ‘semantic parameter’. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and grammar (pp.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. Ghianiabadi, S
    (2012) Plural marking beyond count nouns. In D. Massam (Ed.), Count and Mass across languages (pp.112–128). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0007
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  9. Halle, M. & Marantz, A
    (1993) Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20 (pp.111–176). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Harley, H
    (2009) Compounding in distributed morphology. In R. Lieber & P. Stekauer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding (pp.129–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kiparsky, P
    (1973) "Elsewhere" in phonology. InA Festschrift for Morris Halle (pp.93–106). New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Kramer, R
    (2014) Gender in amharic: A morphosyntactic approach to natural and grammatical gender. Language Sciences, 43, 102–115. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2013.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2013.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2015) The Morphosyntax of Gender. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679935.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679935.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Krishnamurti, B. & Gwynn, J
    (1985) A Grammar of Modern Telugu. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Landau, I
    (2016) DP-internal semantic agreement: A configurational analysis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 34, 975–1020. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑015‑9319‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9319-3 [Google Scholar]
  16. Landman, F
    (1989a) Groups, I. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 559–605. doi: 10.1007/BF00627774
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627774 [Google Scholar]
  17. (1989b) Groups, II. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 723–744. doi: 10.1007/BF00632603
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00632603 [Google Scholar]
  18. Link, G
    (1983) The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice theoretical approach. In C. S. R. Bäuerle & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use and interpretation of language (pp.127–144). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Mathieu, E
    (2012) Flavors of division. Linguistic Inquiry, 43(4), 650–679. doi: 10.1162/ling_a_00110
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00110 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ojeda, A
    (2005) The paradox of mass plurals. In E. F. Salikoko Mufwene & R. Wheeler (Eds.), Polymorphous Linguistics: Jim McCawley’s Legacy (pp.389–410). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Ponamgi, R
    (2012) Quantification in Telugu. In E. Keenan & D. Paperno (Eds.), Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language (pp.781–843). Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑2681‑9_15
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2681-9_15 [Google Scholar]
  22. Ritter, E
    (1991) Two functional categories in noun-phrases: Evidence from modern hebrew. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Perspectives on phrase structure, volume 26 of Syntax and semantics (pp.37–62). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Schwarzschild, R
    (2011) Stubborn distributivity, multiparticipant nouns and the count/mass distinction. In B. S. Suzi Lima & Kevin Mullin (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS39 (pp.661–678).
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Smith, P. W
    (2015) Feature mismatches: Consequences for syntax, morphology and semantics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Solt, S
    (2009) The semantics of adjectives of quantity. Ph.D. thesis, City University of New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Tsoulas, G
    (2007) On the grammar of number and mass terms in greek. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 49, 239–266.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Wiltschko, M
    (2008) The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 26, 639–694. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑008‑9046‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-008-9046-0 [Google Scholar]
  28. Zhang, N. N
    (2012) Countability and numeral classifiers in mandarin chinese. In D. Massam (Ed.), Count and Mass across languages (pp.220–237). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0012
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0012 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/li.39.2.02smi
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): allomorphy , inherent features , mass/count distinction and Telugu
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