University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Calgary (Working) Papers in Linguistics Volume 31, 2020 2020-11-19 Plurality as a Phi-Feature in Non-Inflectional Plurals McDonald, Brittany http://hdl.handle.net/1880/112766 journal article https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca M c D o n a l d | 59 Plurality as a Phi-Feature in Non- Inflectional Plurals Brittany McDonald University of Calgary Abstract Some languages, such as Pirahã, express plurality through means other than plural inflectional morphology. Wiltschko (2008) calls these alternative plural marking strategies non-inflectional plurals and develops several diagnostic criteria for determining whether or not a language is an inflectional plural- marking language, illustrated with examples from English (an inflectional plural-marking language) Halkomelem (a non-inflectional plural language). These criteria pertain to obligatoriness, agreement, compounding, and derivational morphology. This paper expands on these criteria, drawing two more from Greenberg’s (1963) Universals, to answer the following research question: Do non-inflectional plurals possess a plural phi-feature? This paper explores this question by looking at certain properties of Khmer and Thai, two languages which appear to have non-inflectional plurals, to look for any evidence of the presence of phi-features in their respective plural-marking strategies. Key words: Syntax, morphology, inflection, derivation, plural, phi-features. M c D o n a l d | 60 1 Introduction Number is a feature which has been widely studied in language and, while it is generally thought to be well-understood, theories change and new discoveries can be made which force us to reconsider what we have learnt. For instance, it was once believed that all languages had grammatical number until the discovery of Pirahã provided evidence to the contrary (Corbett, 2000, p. 50). In this language, there are no plural forms for nominals, not even for pronouns (Corbett, 2000, p. 50). Instead, plural is expressed through conjunction as shown in (1), or the use of the comitative/associative postposition xigí (Corbett, 2000, p. 50). 1) ti gíxai pí-o ahá-p-i-í 1 2 also-OBL go-IMP-PROX-COMPLETE.CERTAINTY (You and I will go) (Corbett, 2000, p. 51, Figure 35) Wiltschko (2008) refers to these alternative means of expressing plurality as non-inflectional plurals. Knowing that there are languages that can express plurality by means other than grammatical number, the grammatical properties of these non-inflectional plurals come into question. This paper will attempt to answer the question in (2). 2) Do non-inflectional plurals possess a plural phi-feature? In this paper, I conclude that it is entirely possible for non-inflectional plural forms to lack phi-features, though this may not be the case for all non-inflectional plural marking languages. This could have certain implications about the language’s entire grammar. The most striking, perhaps, is the effect this would have on a language’s agreement system. As there are other coding strategies besides agreement, such as word order and case-marking, it is plausible to consider that languages are able to express many of the same ideas, such as the idea of plurality, clearly without the use of phi-features or agreement. In terms of markedness and Greenberg’s Universal 34 in (3), there are certain expectations to be had regarding number marking systems in language. Essentially, that singular is the least marked number form, followed by plural, then by dual, etc. 3) No language has trial number unless it has dual. No language has dual unless it has plural. (Greenberg, 1963, p. 94, Universal 34) Japanese has been described as a language with a plural form but no singular which violates (3) (Corbett, 2000, p. 38). It has been argued that since Japanese only optionally marks plural forms there is still a singular/plural distinction when plural is marked, therefore it does not violate Universal 34 (Corbett, 2000, p. 38). There are, however, several languages which behave like Japanese in that they optionally mark for plural, and sometimes have a single form for both singular and plural. Presumably, these languages (Japanese included) would have non-inflectional plural marking of some kind. M c D o n a l d | 61 Section 2 of this paper will briefly introduce the idea of non-inflectional plural marking and some diagnostic criteria from Wiltschko (2008), as well as introduce new criteria for consideration. Section 3 will survey the plural marking systems of three languages; English (a review and continuation of the analysis performed in Witschko (2008)), Khmer, and Thai as well as apply each criterion to these languages to see which patterns emerge. Section 4 will discuss the findings in Section 3. Concluding remarks will follow in Section 5. 2 Non-inflectional plurals Wiltschko (2008) explains the phenomenon of non-inflectional plurals in Halkomelem in great detail. She also provides four main diagnostic criteria for identifying whether a given language has an inflectional or non-inflectional plural marking system. Under this analysis, non-inflectional plurals are considered modifiers adjoined in the structure rather than heads of a NumP (#P) (Wiltschko, 2008, p. 646). Four main criteria are explored and are listed in (4). These criteria are used to differentiate between inflectional and non-inflectional plurals. 4) a. Is plural marking obligatory? b. Does plural marking trigger agreement? c. Can plural marking appear inside compounds? d. Can plural marking appear inside derivational morphology? (Wiltschko, 2008, p. 642) I propose that these criteria do not only distinguish between inflectional and non-inflectional plural but are also relevant to the presence or absence of phi-features, in particular, criterion (4a). It is normally expected that a controller (in this case, a nominal) would invoke some sort of agreement on its target (verb, article/determiner, adjective/modifier) (Corbett, 2000, p. 178). This suggests a correspondence between the grammatical features of a controller and those valued on its target. If the features of a nominal are not phi-features, but rather some sort of semantic or pragmatic features, it follows that these same features cannot apply to the target in the grammar, not triggering agreement. Criteria (4a, c, and d) are also relevant to the presence or absence of phi-features, as the distribution of non-inflectional plurals does not seem to match that of their inflectional counterparts in the languages that have them. This could indicate that while inflectional plurals have one type of distribution dictated by phi-features, non-inflectional plurals have another based on whatever type of features they possess (i.e. semantic, pragmatic). In addition to the criteria in (4) I propose two more in (5). (5a) is motivated by Greenberg’s (1963) Universal 36 shown in (6). 5) a. Does the language have grammatical gender? b. Do pronouns show a number distinction? 6) If a language has the category of gender, it always has the category of number. (Greenberg, 1963, p. 58, Universal 36) M c D o n a l d | 62 While (5a) may not be a defining criterion for a language having plural number, it does reveal a general tendency of language which can be used in support of other criteria. (5b) is relevant because, as Corbett (2000) notes, languages are not always symmetric in how they mark plural in pronouns and other nominals, but if a language does not have a number distinction in its pronouns, it is unlikely that it would mark for plurality on other nominals (p. 27). 3 Analysis Section 3.1 will apply the criteria in (4) and (5) to English, a language known to have inflectional plural, to set a baseline for one type of plural marking in order to make comparisons in the following sections. Section 3.2 will explore the different plural marking devices in Khmer and investigate the criteria proposed in the beginning of this section in relation to Khmer. Section 3.3 will do the same for Thai. 3.1 English 3.1.1 Inflectional Plurals in English Wiltschko (2008) performs the following analysis of English plural marking in order to contrast it with the system found in Halkomelem. I will briefly show her findings in English and then apply the new criteria in (5). These will clearly show that English, an inflectional plural marking language, clearly follows the criteria in a particular pattern which will prove to be different than non-inflectional plural marking languages. 3.1.2 Criteria in English Plural marking in English is obligatory. If a noun phrase has a cardinality greater than one, it generally must be marked with plural -/s/ or one of its allomorphs (Wiltschko, 2008, p. 642). This is seen in basic examples such as (7). For English, the answer to the question in (4a) is yes. 7) a. the three boys b. *the three boy (Wiltschko, 2008, p. 642, figures (2a and b)) Plural marking in English triggers agreement within a DP, as seen in (8)a and b, and also triggers agreement on verbs if the subject is 3rd person singular as seen in (8)c and d. For English, the answer to the question in (4b) is yes. 8) a. This boy can sing b. *These boy can sing (Wiltschko, 2008, p. 643, figures (5c and d)) c. The boy walks. d. *The boy walk. M c D o n a l d | 63 In English, plural marking is not permitted inside compounds. Even when a noun has a plural interpretation, such as in toothbrush since one would normally brush more than one tooth with it, the plural marking must appear on the entire compound and not on an element inside of it.