Descriptive and explanatory markedness

Harbour, Daniel

doi:10.1007/s11525-010-9167-0

Cited by 25 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…I will illustrate here with languages that contain duals and/or paucals in addition to singular and plural, as these will be the most relevant for us later on. The reader is referred to Corbett (2000) and Harbour (2011Harbour ( , 2014 for detailed discussion of other number values. Consider Ljubljana Slovenian, a dialect of Slovenian spoken in and around Ljubljana.…”

Section: Harbour (2014)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Inclusive Plurals and the Theory of Number

Martí

2020

Linguistic Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I argue that an account of both inclusive plurals and the crosslinguistic typology of grammatical number requires postulating a [−atomic] feature (or something very much like it) in the structure of exclusive-plural DPs. When combined with the only theory we currently have that accounts for the crosslinguistic typology of number ( Harbour 2014 ), theories in which the exclusive-plural DPs of a language with inclusive plurals are [−atomic]-less under- or overgenerate with respect to that typology. These problems disappear as soon as the structure of exclusive plural DPs contains a component that generates exclusive-plural interpretations, either Harbour’s [−atomic] feature (added to a system with a second, [−atomic]-less structure, a proposal compatible with, e.g., Farkas and de Swart 2010 ) or a predicate-level exhaustivity operator (from Mayr 2015 ).

show abstract

Section: Harbour (2014)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Inclusive Plurals and the Theory of Number

Martí

2020

Linguistic Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…17 Our primary strategy here 17 We have not engaged here with the proposals in Harbour (2011;, and Ackema & Neeleman (2013). Harbour and Ackema and Neeleman contend that standard frameworks treat features as first order predicates, whose values serve as one-place truth functors, but that this should be replaced by a perspective is to limit building assumptions into our system, so that this will allow us, at least in principle, to consider the restrictiveness of various possible assumptions in the abstract, and to allow for direct formal comparison of classes of competing frameworks.…”

Section: Defaults and Containmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

ABA and the combinatorics of morphological features

Bobaljik

Sauerland

2018

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In several three cell paradigms, it has been observed that one logically conceivable pattern -ABA under some arrangement of cells -is unattested. Existing approaches assume that such *ABA generalizations provide evidence for feature inventories which are restricted to features that stand in containment relations, and are thus subject to Pāṇinian rule order. We present a novel approach to *ABA generalizations that derives from general properties of feature-based morphology. To this end, we develop a formal account of the widespread view that morphological paradigms derive from rules that relate abstract features from an inventory to morphological exponents. We demonstrate that the feature-based view restricts the space of typological patterns even without any further assumptions. We show furthermore that the feature-based theory derives *ABA as a special case of a broader class of generalizations if the number of features in the inventory must be minimal, and that these generalizations arise under a variety of general assumptions about feature-algebras (extrinsically ordered or Pāṇinian and with or without feature intersection). We discuss which explanation might be correct for actual cases of *ABA constraints, and we explore the consequences of the feature-based general approach for a range of paradigm sizes including those with more than three cells.

show abstract

“…Consider first the claim that ''the proposals on the table haven't worked''. At least one of the proposals on the table, namely Harbour 2009, Harbour 2011a, works so well that it has forced retraction of Kiowa-Tanoan number as an example of the unimaginable and confronted the authors of Myth with two more surprises and two universals that they have been unable to refute-the ''additional problems that we discuss in sect. R6.4…”

Section: ) Again Is Ignored ([ T D $ I N L I N E ] N O 22)mentioning

confidence: 99%