Aspects of individuation

Cowper, E A; Hall, Daniel Currie

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0003

Cited by 57 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 163 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Building on this empirical result, we claim that -tul is a modifier of nP, and that it does not realize a head in the nominal spine dedicated to the function of individuation in syntax. 8 This consequence suggests that a plural marker that does not instantiate a syntactic head of individuation, such as -tul in Korean, is predicted not to be in complementary distribution with classifiers, which are commonly viewed as instantiating an individuating head (e.g., Cheng & Sybesma 1998;Li 1999;Borer 2005;Cowper & Hall 2012). Thus, the current paper contributes to clarifying how the complementary distribution of plurals and classifiers noted in numerous studies should be understood: the complementary distribution in this prediction is syntactic, not semantic.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modifying plurals, classifiers, and co-occurrence: The case of Korean

Kim¹,

Melchin

2018

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that the Korean plural marker -tul is best analyzed as a modifier to the nP projection, rather than as a head in the nominal extended projection such as Num or Div(ision), which a standard pluralizer (e.g., English -s) realizes. As a modifier, plural -tul bears the privative feature [plural], rather than the binary feature [±plural] reserved for a plural that realizes a head. Supporting evidence comes from the fact that the presence of -tul leads to an obligatorily plural reading, while a number-neutral reading obtains in its absence; -tul also shows no evidence of inflectional properties. Appearing as an adjunct to nP, -tul shows certain idiosyncrasies, such as irregularities in the range of nouns that it can occur with. Evidence against the common claim that -tul is associated with a definite reading is provided, which suggests that it cannot realize D or adjoin to DP. The major consequence of this paper is that the often observed non-co-occurrence of classifiers and plural markers is predicted only when the relation between the two morphemes is in syntactic complementary distribution, but may not be when the relation is in merely semantic complementary distribution.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modifying plurals, classifiers, and co-occurrence: The case of Korean

Kim¹,

Melchin

2018

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That classifiers and plural markers are in complementary distribution has been observed at least as far back as Greenberg () and Sanches and Slobin () and has been discussed in recent literature (e.g., Bale & Khanjian, , Borer, ; Bošković & Hsieh, ; Chierchia, ; Cowper & Hall, ; J. Kim, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…Borer () assumes that if two or more items are in complementary distribution, where they cannot co‐occur in the same environment, this indicates that they serve the same function . Under this view, the fact that a plural marker and a classifier cannot appear together in the same nominal phrase indicates that they play the same role in the phrase (see Cowper & Hall, , for a similar view). Thus, they are proposed to compete for the same functional head in the nominal structure, which we refer to as syntactic complementary distribution in this paper.…”

Section: Plurals Are In Syntactic Complementary Distribution With Clamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As mentioned above, Chinese is often cited as an example of a language in which numeral classifiers and a plural marker are both available but cannot co‐occur in a single noun phrase (e.g., Borer, ; Cheng & Sybesma, ; Cowper & Hall, ). As shown in (3), the plural marker –men cannot appear with a classifier –ge (Cheng & Sybesma , p. 537):

This type of data is also taken by Borer () as evidence that the plural marker –men and numeral classifiers realize the same functional head, Div (see Section 2).…”

Section: Distribution Of Classifiers and Plural Markers In East Asianmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We refer readers to the cited references, both of which compare Korean to Japanese or Chinese with respect to associativity . Regarding classifiers, like the Japanese –tachi , the plural –tul can co‐occur with classifiers (An, ; Cowper & Hall, ; J. Kim, ; K. Kim & Melchin, ); this is shown in (22) …”

Section: Distribution Of Classifiers and Plural Markers In East Asianmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

On the complementary distribution of plurals and classifiers in East Asian classifier languages

Kim

Melchin

2018

Language and Linguist. Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is widely recognized that plural morphemes and classifiers are in complementary distribution, being unable to co-occur. Recent literature suggests a syntactic account for complementary distribution: A plural morpheme and a classifier realize the same functional head, and thus, they cannot co-occur. The goal of this article is to examine whether this syntactic approach to the alleged complementary distribution is applicable to certain classifier languages. We review analyses for each of 3 classifier languages, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, where a plural and a classifier co-occur. The reviewed analyses suggest that plural markers in these classifier languages do not realize the same head with classifiers (e.g., a plural instantiates Num/D in Chinese differently from a classifier), which accounts for its co-occurrence with a classifier.For example, Borer (2005) claims that classifiers and plural markers perform the same semantic function, that of individuation (in a non-measure construction, see Footnote 2 and Section 2 for more details); and thus, they realize the same functional head in the nominal structure, that is, they are in syntactic complementary distribution (to be detailed in Section 2). The proposed syntactic complementary distribution captures the well-observed fact that classifiers and plural markers cannot co-occur in some languages. The question that arises with respect to Borer's type of approach is how complementary distribution figures in classifier languages such as Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, where both classifiers and plurals are known to be available. For these languages (as will be discussed in Section 3), independently from Borer's claim, plural markers have been proposed to occupy a different position than classifiers in the nominal structure. Classifiers realize a functional head CL projected above an NP. Plural markers occupy a different head than a CL; for example, in Chinese (Li, 1999), the Num(ber) head (in the sense of Ritter 1991Ritter , 1995 has been proposed as the site for the plural marker -men. With respect to the claim that classifiers and plural markers realize the same functional head as in Borer, this type of proposal for the classifier languages seems to indicate that the syntactic complementary distribution of classifiers and plural markers proposed in Borer may not be applicable to these classifier languages.The goal of this article is to review relevant data provided and the main proposals made for each of the classifier languages under consideration and to evaluate whether the wellknown syntactic complementary distribution is applicable to these classifier languages. For reasons of space, the discussion to follow is restricted to the main proposals concerning the position of plural markers in a nominal structure of each of the classifier languages, assuming the syntax and semantics of classifiers to be relatively constant. In the studies to be reviewed, it appears that the syntax of classifiers in non-measure constructions is relatively less debatable than the s...

show abstract

Two types of plurals and numeral classifiers in classifier languages: the case of Korean

Park

2022

J East Asian Linguist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aspects of individuation

Cited by 57 publications

References 163 publications

Modifying plurals, classifiers, and co-occurrence: The case of Korean

Modifying plurals, classifiers, and co-occurrence: The case of Korean

On the complementary distribution of plurals and classifiers in East Asian classifier languages

Two types of plurals and numeral classifiers in classifier languages: the case of Korean

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About