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

Abstract

L’objectif de cet article est de rendre compte des pluriels simples et doubles de l’arabe dans le cadre de la théorie des nominaux et de l’individuation de Borer (2005) . En particulier, nous étudions ces pluriels dans les constructions où l’accord entre le verbe et le pluriel est déviant et faisons quatre propositions  1) les pluriels internes sont féminins (et singuliers) à un niveau sous-jacent dans les contextes où l’accord est déviant, ne représentant donc pas, contrairement aux apparences, d’échec d’appariement ; 2) lorsque les pluriels internes s’accordent avec le verbe, une interprétation distributive ou collective est établie, et lorsque les pluriels internes ne s’accordent pas avec le verbe, seule l’interprétation collective peut être générée, résultat de la fonction atomisante du féminin que l’on retrouve indépendamment dans le contexte du singulatif ; 3) le pluriel interne féminin constitue la base des doubles pluriels, si bien que ces derniers font surface à un niveau supérieur dans la structure nominale, offrant donc un deuxième type de pluriel, pourvu d’une fonction comptable, alors que celui généré sous la tête Div a une fonction atomisante ; 4) les règles que nous décrivons sont tout à fait prévisibles et productives, ce qui laisse supposer que les pluriels étudiés dans notre article ne sont pas des pluriels lexicaux.

The aim of this paper is to account for single and double plurals of Arabic under Borer’s nominal theory of division (2005) . In particular, we study these plurals in constructions where the agreement between the verb and the plural is deflected and make four proposals : 1) broken plurals are feminine (and singular) at an underlying level in contexts where the agreement is deflected, thus not representing failure of agreement, contrary to appearances; 2) when the broken plurals agree with the verb, distributive or collective interpretations arise, and when the broken plurals do not agree with the verb, only the collective interpretation can be generated as a result of the atomizing function of the feminine gender that is independently found in the context of the singulative ; 3) the feminine broken plural constitutes the basis of the double plurals, so that the later surface at a higher level in the nominal structure, thus providing a second type of plural, with a counting function, while the plural generated under Div has an atomizing function; 4) the rules that we describe are quite predictable and productive, suggesting that the plurals studied in our paper are not lexical plurals.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/li.39.2.03dal
2017-03-20
2019-10-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Acquaviva, P
    (2008) Lexical plurals. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexiadou, A
    (2004) Inflection class, gender and DP-internal structure. In Gereon Müller , Lutz Gunkel et Gisela Zifonun (Eds.), Explorations in Nominal In-flection (pp.21–50). Berlin : Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110197501.21
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197501.21 [Google Scholar]
  3. Belnap, K
    (1991) Grammatical agreement variation in Cairene Arabic. Thèse de doctorat, University of Pennsylvania.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Borer, H
    (2005) In name only. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Borer, H. & Ouwayda, S
    (2010) Men and their apples : Dividing plural and agreement plural. Article présenté à GLOW in Asia VIII , Beijing Language and Culture University.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brustad, K
    (2000) The syntax of spoken Arabic. Washington, DC : Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Caubet, D. , Simeone-Senelle & Vanhove, M
    (1989) Genre et accord dans quelques dialectes arabes. Linx, 21, 39–66. doi: 10.3406/linx.1989.1130
    https://doi.org/10.3406/linx.1989.1130 [Google Scholar]
  8. Corbett, G
    (1991) Gender. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139166119
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166119 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2006) Agreement. Cambridge : Cambirdge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dali, M
    (2015) The feminine operator in Arabic. Mémoire de maîtrise, Université d’Ottawa.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. . (article à paraître). On the contrastive use of plurals in Tunisian Arabic. Université d’Ottawa.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Danon, G
    (2011) Agreement and DP-internal feature distribution. Syntax, 14, 297–317. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2011.00154.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2011.00154.x [Google Scholar]
  13. De Belder, M
    (2011) A morphosyntactic decomposition of countability in Germanic. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 14, 173–202. doi: 10.1007/s10828‑011‑9045‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-011-9045-0 [Google Scholar]
  14. den Dikken, M
    (2001) "Plurisingulars", pronouns and quirky agreement. The Linguistic Review, 18, 19–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fassi Fehri, A
    (1993) Issues in the structure of Arabic clauses and words. Dordrecht : Kluwer Academic. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑1986‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1986-5 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2003) Mass, Count, Bare. Article présenté à The Sixth LSM Meeting , Rabat : IERA, Mohammed V University.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (2012) Key features and parameters in Arabic grammar. Amsterdam : John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.182
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.182 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ferguson, C
    (1989) Grammatical agreement in Classical Arabic and the modern dialects : A response to Versteegh’s pidginization hypothesis. Al-’Arabiyya, 22, 5–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gillon, G
    (2009) The Semantic core of determiners : Evidence from Skwxwu7mesh. In J. Gomeshi , I. Paul , & M. Wiltschko (Eds.), Determiners : Universals and variation (pp.177–213). Amsterdam : John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.147.06gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.147.06gil [Google Scholar]
  20. Grimm, S
    (2012) Inverse number marking and individuation in Dagaare. In D. Massam (Ed.), Count and mass across languages (pp.75–98). Oxford : Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0005
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kramer, R
    (2009) Definite markers, phi-features, and agreement : A morphosyntactic investigation of the Amharic DP. Thèse de doctorat, University of California, Santa Cruz.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (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]
  23. Landau, I
    (2016) DP internal 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]
  24. Mathieu, E
    (2012a) Flavors of division. Linguistic Inquiry, 43, 650–679. doi: 10.1162/ling_a_00110
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00110 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2009) On the mass/count distinction in Ojibwe. Presenté à the Mass/count workshop , organisé par Diane Massam, Université de Toronto, 7-8 février.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2012b) The mass/count distinction in Ojibwe. In D. 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]
  27. (2013a) On the plural of the singulative. In A. McKillen & B. Buccola (Eds.), McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 23 , people.linguistics.mcgill.ca/mcgwpl/McGWPL/2013v23n01/Mathieu2013.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (2013b) Many a plural. In A. Aguilar-Guevara , B. Le Bruyn & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Weak Referentiality (pp.157–181). Amsterdam : John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.219.07mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.219.07mat [Google Scholar]
  29. Mathieu, E. & Zareikar, G
    (2016) Measure words, plurality, and cross-linguistic variation. Linguistic Variation, 15, 169–200. doi: 10.1075/lv.15.2.02mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.15.2.02mat [Google Scholar]
  30. Ojeda, A
    (1992) The Semantics of number in Arabic. In C. Baker & D. Dowty (Eds.), SALT II : Proceedings of the Second Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (pp.303–325). Ohio State University, Linguistic Society of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Preminger, O
    (2014) Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027403.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262027403.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  32. Smith, P
    (2015) Feature mismatches : Consequences for syntax, morphology and semantics. Thèse de doctorat, University of Connecticut.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Steriopolo, O. & Wiltschko, M
    (2010) Distributed GENDER Hypothesis. In G. Zybatow , P. Dudchuk , S. Minor & E. Pshehotskaya (Eds.), Formal Studies in Slavic Linguistics (pp.155–172). Frankfurt am Main : Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Wechsler, S. & Zlatić, L
    (2003) The many faces of agreement. Stanford : CLSI.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Wright, W
    (1933) A grammar of the Arabic language(Volume I). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Zabbal, Y
    (2002) The semantics of number in the Arabic noun phrase. Mémoire de maîtrise, Université de Calgary.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/li.39.2.03dal
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/li.39.2.03dal
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): accord , agrement , arabe , arabic , collectif , collective , distributif , distributive , gender , genre , hybrid nouns , noms hybrides , plurals and pluriels
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