<SECTION
<LINK
"mor-n*">
"art" TITLE "Articles">
<TARGET "mor" DOCINFO AUTHOR "Edith Moravcsik"TITLE "A semantic analysis of associative plurals"SUBJECT "SL, Volume 27:3"KEYWORDS ""SIZE HEIGHT "220"WIDTH "150"VOFFSET "4">
A semantic analysis of associative plurals*
Edith Moravcsik
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
The paper presents a general framework for the semantic analysis of nominal
plural expressions and assigns a place among them to a lesser-known construction: associative plurals. Six parameters are proposed for identifying the
meaning differences among nominal plural expressions. Within this framework, associative plurals are characterized as ranked group plurals that form
a single paradigm with first and second person plural pronouns and inclusory
(=sylleptic) constructions, all of which are shown to be governed by similar
preferences regarding the semantic composition of the designated group.
1.
Introduction
There is an interesting plural construction occurring in Japanese, Hungarian,
and many other languages which is not commonly discussed in the literature.
(1) a.
JAPANESE
Tanaka-tachi
Tanaka-apl
‘Tanaka and his family or friends or associates’
b. HUNGARIAN
Péter-ék
Peter-apl
‘Peter and his family or friends or associates’
I will refer to this construction as the associative plural (APL).1
Two of the noteworthy characteristics of associative plurals are their
frequent occurrence across languages and the varied ways in which their form
relates to meaning. Starting with the former: while associative plurals are of
restricted distribution in any one language, they are fairly widespread across
languages: a recent study found them to be present in 201 languages out of a
Studies in Language 27:3 (2003), 469–503.
issn 0378–4177 / e-issn 1569–9978© John Benjamins Publishing Company
470 Edith Moravcsik
sample of 238 (Daniel & Moravcsik, forthcoming). This frequency pattern is the
reverse of, say, that of click sounds which are rare across languages but very
prominent in some of the languages that do have them. Regarding formmeaning relations: while the forms of associative plurals are, by definition (see
below), never fully compositional spelling out all of their meaning elements,
they are always suggestive of the meaning in that they manifest a proper subset
of their semantic components. Two common expression types are the following
(boldface indicates formally represented components):
a. X and X’s associated person(s)
This type consist of a noun and a plural pronoun; for example Mandarin
Chinese zhangsan tamen “Zhangsan they” ‘Zhangsan and his group’ (Tomomi
Okazaki, p.c.).
b. X and X’s associated person(s)’
This type, which is present in about half of the sample mentioned above,
contains a noun and a plural marker. Thus, oddly enough, the form “more than
one X” stands for the meaning “(one) X and X’s associated person(s)”; for
example Chantyal Ram-ma “Ram-PL” ‘Ram and his family’ (Michael Noonan,
p.c.); also Japanese (see (1a) above).
Various other combinatory patterns also occur: the Hungarian form (see
(1b) above), where -ék, the associative plural marker attached to X, can be
analyzed as -é ‘his one’ and -k ‘plural’, exemplifies “X and his associated
person(s)”; and some dialects of English have “X and (X’s) associated person(s)” as in John ‘n them.
This paper focuses on the meaning of associative plurals.2 The goal is to find
a place for this complex semantic structure within a comprehensive system of
nominal plurality so that, rather than being an oddity, it can be shown to be a
principled subtype within this class. As the first step toward this goal, we will
take a more detailed look at the associative plural meaning itself in Section 2.
Section 3 will then propose a set of classificatory parameters for nominal plurals in
general and Section 4 suggests a placement of associative plurals within the
semantic space defined by these parameters, followed by a summary in Section 5.
Three concepts central to the discussion are defined as follows. The term
plural will be used in reference to any non-unary set including also duals, trials,
and paucals. A nominal plural expression will be taken to be a noun or pronoun phrase that refers to more than one entity of the same semantic participant role. Associative plurals will be taken to be constructions whose meaning is
<LINK "mor-r12">
"mor-r7">
A semantic analysis of associative plurals 471
‘X and X’s associate(s)’, where all members are individuals, X is the focal referent,
and the associate(s) form a group centering around X; and whose formal expression consists of a noun referring to X and one or more affix, clitic, and/or word
so that these elements taken together do not spell out the entire meaning.
2. The meaning of associative plurals
The most obvious semantic property of associative plurals is plurality itself:
they refer to non-unary sets of individuals. In this regard, they are just like two
common types of nominal plural expressions: “ordinary plurals”, such as boys,
and coordinate structures such as John and Mary. In addition to numerically
unspecified plurals, associative duals also occur in some languages, such as in
Central Alaskan Yup’ik (Corbett & Mithun 1996, Corbett 2000: 107–110).
Second, the members of the plural set referred to by associative plurals form
a spatially or conceptually coherent group. While there may be a tendency even
for ordinary plurals and coordinate nominals to refer to members of groups
rather than to unconnected individuals, for associative plurals, this is not a
tendency but a requirement. Thus, Hungarian Péter-ék could not ordinarily
refer to Peter and his enemies.
This does not mean, however, that the members of the set necessarily act
together. Examples in (2) show that in Hungarian, both collective ((2a)) and
distributive ((2b)) interpretations are possible.
(2) a.
Péter-ék együtt érkeztek.
Peter-apl together arrived
‘Peter and his associates arrived together.’
b. Péter-ék különböző időben érkeztek.
Peter-apl different at:times arrived
‘Peter and his associates arrived at different times.’
Third, the group referred to by the associative plural is asymmetric, or ranked,
with the named individual its prominent member, which we will call the focal
referent (term borrowed from Michael Daniel (cf. Daniel 2000)). In this
respect, associative plurals are more akin to conjoined nominals than to
ordinary morphological plurals: while the members of ordinary plurals cannot
be ranked since they are not individuated, ranking is a frequently exploited
option for conjoined nominals.
<LINK "mor-r7">
472 Edith Moravcsik
Fourth, the focal referent must be a definite human individual. It may be
a proper name (‘Peter and his associate(s)’), a definite kin term (‘my brother
and his associate(s)’), a title noun (‘the teacher and his associate(s)’), or some
other definite noun, generally in the singular. The predominant preference
order of these nominal types is given in G(eneralization)-1:
G-1.
The choice of the focal referent for associative plurals
Proper
Definite
Definite
Other Definite
Name
Kin Noun
Title Noun
Human Noun
If in a language, a nominal can be a focal referent of an associative
plural, so can any other nominal to its left on the scale in that language.
Here is evidence to illustrate the scale. A language where the focal referent is
restricted to proper names is Central Alaskan Yup’ik (Corbett & Mithun 1996,
Corbett 2000: 107–108). In Central Pomo, the constraint on focal referents is
more relaxed: it can be a proper name or a (definite) kin term, as well as
indefinite and question pronouns (Corbett & Mithun 1996, Corbett 2000: 106).
Focal referents in Japanese and Hungarian can be any of the first three categories on the scale. Daniel has also identified sporadic instances of non-human
focal referents (Daniel & Moravcsik, forthcoming). Some languages, such as
Bagvalal and Georgian, make further subdistinctions within the classes (ibidem).3
A fifth semantic feature of associative plurals has to do with the implied
member or members of the plural set: the associate(s). From the point of view
of the similarity relationship holding within the entire plural set, associative
plurals fall between ordinary morphological plurals and conjoined nominals. A
morphological plural such as my brothers refers to a set all members of which
are labeled as maximally similar in that they are all brothers of mine. Coordination requires much less similarity: one can say My brother and his car were
destroyed in the storm. where the plural set consisting of ‘my brother’ and ‘his
car’ is quite heterogeneous. Associative plurals require less homogeneity than
ordinary plurals but more homogeneity than coordinated nominals. Thus, the
Hungarian associative plural bátyám-ék “my:brother-APL” ‘my brother and his
group’ refers to a set consisting of my brother and others who are not my
brothers but who are nonetheless definite humans individuals of roughly the
same status as the focal referent. This expression could not normally be used
for my brother and his dog or, as Ivan Derzhanski observed (p.c.), for my
brother and his slaves.
Furthermore, the particular nature of the group relationship between focal
referent and associates is also constrained: the associates seem to be most
A semantic analysis of associative plurals 473
commonly family, less commonly friends or associates in an activity, and even
less commonly only situationally related. These preferences for associates are
represented in G-2.
G-2.
The choice of associates for associative plurals
(a) Human
(b) Family
Relations
Animate
Friendship, Incidental
Shared
Association
Activities
If in a language, a nominal can be an associate of an associative plural,
so can any other nominal to the left on the two scales in that language.
To illustrate “incidental association”: in Hungarian, if a bunch of children
going on a trip are randomly divided into two bus-loads each supervised by a
parent, one may refer to the children and their supervisor in one bus by using
the associative plural form of the parent’s name. In languages such as Hungarian or Japanese, where the associative plural relation may be incidental as in this
example, it can also be used to refer to friends and relatives.
In sum: we have identified five components of the meaning of associative
plurals:
–
–
–
–
–
the set referred to is plural
members of the plural set form a group
the set is ranked, with a focal referent identified and the associates implied
the focal referent is generally a definite human individual
the associates are generally also definite human individuals of roughly the
same status as the focal referent, with close relations between them preferred.
This analysis provides an initial, rough-and-ready picture of the semantics of
associative plurals. But if we want to do full justice to the question, we need to
examine a broader range of nominal plural expressions and establish a systematic classification of their meanings within which we can then find a principled
place for associative plurals. This will be done in Section 3.
3. The meanings of nominal plural expressions
3.1 Six semantic parameters of nominal plurality
It is proposed that the semantics of nominal plural expressions varies along the
following six parameters:
474 Edith Moravcsik
(A) MEMBERS OF THE SET
(a) Types of nominals
(e.g. the boys versus the teams)
(b) Enumeration
(e.g. the cats and the dogs versus the pets)
(B) RELATION AMONG THE MEMBERS
(c) Cohesion (e.g. crackers and cookies versus crackers and cheese)
(d) Ranking (e.g. John and Mary versus John with Mary)
(e) Numeration
(e.g. the two cats versus the cats)
(C) RELATION BETWEEN THE MEMBERS AND THE PREDICATE
(f) Reference (e.g. The players scratched their heads. versus The players
dispersed.)
Let us consider each parameter in some detail.
[a] Types of nominals
Members of a plural set may range over all conceivable kinds of nominals as
long as they are countable: they may be individuals (such as ‘dog’) and kinds
(such as ‘wine’), pronouns and nouns, common nouns and proper nouns,
animates and inanimates, males and females, definites and indefinites, and so
forth.4 The members of a plural set may be plurals themselves, as in The boys
and their parents left the yard.
[b] Enumeration
A set of entities may be referred to by an exhaustive list, by a partial list, or by a
single cover term. The three options are illustrates in (3).
(3) a.
full listing:
Bill, Becky, John, and Jill arrived.
b. partial listing:
Bill, Becky, and the others arrived.
c. summing:
aa. The guests arrived.
bb. The family arrived.
While full listing involves mentioning “many for many”, partial listing mentions “some for many” and summing involves mentioning “one for many”.
Languages employ various expression types for each of the three options.
Besides noun phrase coordination as in (3a), full enumeration is exemplified by
comitative constructions, first person inclusive duals, and constructions
<LINK "mor-r37">
"mor-r21">
"mor-r38">
"mor-r10">
A semantic analysis of associative plurals 475
generally known as sylleptic constructions, for which we will follow Haspelmath
(2000) in adopting Lichtenberk’s more transparent term: “inclusory” constructions (Lichtenberk 2000).5 (4)–(6) are examples.
(4) COMITATIVE CONSTRUCTION
ENGLISH
Harry went to the show with Mary.
(5) FIRST PERSON INCLUSIVE DUAL
ILOCANO (Cysouw 2001: 83–86)
ta ‘I and you(SING)’
(6) INCLUSORY CONSTRUCTION
KPELLE (Schwartz l985: 172)
ta Sumo
they Sumo
‘he and Sumo’
Partial listing is exemplified by Chantyal in (7), and by the Bengali and Turkish
instances of echo-constructions in (8) and (9), particularly common in EastAsian languages.
(7) CHANTYAL (Michael Noonan, p.c.) (H is used for a voiced glottal
fricative)
bHãra-ri cicya khorsani bacca-õ jHewno kuru kar-si -r
pot-loc salt chili
ghee-pl all
thing put-ant and
‘Put in the pot salt, chili, ghee, etc.’
(8) BENGALI (Lalita Sinha, p.c.)
jama-tama
dress-dress
‘dresses and affiliated things’
(9) TURKISH (Lewis 1967: 337)
havlú mavlú
towel
‘towels and the like’
kitap mitap
book
‘books and such’
The ultimate of partial listing is metonymy as in (10), where President Bush
stands for himself and his advisors.6
476 Edith Moravcsik
(10) President Bush sent troops to Afghanistan.
Summing, as in (3c), may be based on two alternative relations, to be discussed
next.
[c] Cohesion
The two semantic parameters of nominal plural expressions discussed so far
have to do with the individual members: their meaning type and whether they
are enumerated or not. We will now turn to the relationship among the
members of the plural set by asking three questions. The first concerns cohesion ([c]): what is the semantic tie among them? The second question is about
ranking ([d]): are the members all on a par or are they ranked relative to each
other? Third, is the set assigned cardinality ([e] Numeration)?
That there must be a common semantic denominator among members of
a plural set follows from the very fact that, by definition (cf. end of Section 1),
all members serve as the same semantic participant in the event described by the
predicate. This semantic unity of nominal plural expressions may be of two
kinds illustrated in (3c) repeated as (11).
(11) (=3c)
aa. The guests arrived.
bb. The family arrived.
The two summary terms in (11) are based on different relations among the
referents. The guests is based on similarity: they are all tokens of the type guest,
while the family presents them as an entirety: as parts of a whole. We will call
the former kind type plural and the latter, group plural. Other examples of type
plurals are beef and pork, crackers and cookies, policemen and firemen; other
examples of group plurals are beef and potatoes, crackers and cheese, the policeman and his dog.
In both type plurals and group plurals, subordinate terms are subsumed
under a superordinate term. Type plurals are taxonomic: the subordinate terms
are tokens and the superordinate term is a type. Group plurals are partonomic:
the subordinate members are parts and the superordinate term is a whole. A
type names an entity that is at the intersection of the properties of the members;
a whole is the union of the characteristics of the members. Both token-type and
part-whole relations are paradoxical: each says, in effect, that “many are one”.
In taxonomic plurals, the basis of this oneness is similarity; in partonomic
plurals, the basis of oneness is spatio-temporal or conceptual contiguity.
A familiar example of morphologically differentiated type plurals and group
plurals is German Wörter versus Worte, meaning ‘a set of isolated words’ and ‘a
set of coherent words in a text’, respectively; cf. also the Hungarian equivalents
<LINK "mor-r28">
"mor-r26">
"mor-r7">
A semantic analysis of associative plurals 477
szók versus szavak, both plurals of szó ‘word’. Other examples of group plurals
are comitative constructions, first and second person pronouns, and inclusory
constructions, already mentioned under [b] Enumeration. They will be
discussed in more detail in the next subsection ([d] Ranking).
The fundamental significance of partonomy and taxonomy in human
thinking, which is evident way beyond nominal plural formation, was first
enunciated by the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711–1776).
In pondering the question of how the human mind proceeds from one idea to
another, he writes:
Were ideas entirely loose and unconnected, chance alone woul’d join them;
and ‘tis impossible [that] the same simple ideas should fall regularly into
complex ones (as they commonly do) without some bond of union among
them, some associating quality, by which one idea naturally introduces
another. … The qualities from which this association arises, and by which the
mind is[,] after this manner[,] convey’d from one idea to another, are three,
viz. Resemblance, Contiguity in time or place, and Cause and Effect.7
Hume’s “resemblance”, or similarity, is the operative notion of taxonomy (or
categorization); “contiguity” is closely related to partonomy since parts of a whole
are generally contiguous while tokens of a type are not necessarily so. Cause-effect
relations may be regarded as a subtype of contiguity-based relations.
The pervasive presence of taxonomy and partonomy in cognition can be
illustrated by many examples. The two relations are operative in association
tests: given the term bread, people may respond either with cake or with butter,
the first association based on similarity and the second on contiguity. Their
significance in scientific analysis is shown by the viability of syntagmatic and
paradigmatic generalizations about language structure and other cultural and
natural phenomena8 . The two relations also loom large in everyday thinking.
It would in fact be difficult to overestimate people’s concern with the similarities and differences they see between themselves and others and their preoccupation with the groups, subgroups, and sub-subgroups that they view themselves as belonging or not belonging to.
Returning to nominal plurals: there is abundant evidence that in this
domain, partonomy has historical and developmental priority over taxonomy.
First, there are languages with only group plurals, whether exclusively pronominal (cf. Corbett 2000: 61–66) or also nominal (cf. Iljic 1994, according to which
all Mandarin noun plurals designate groups). Second, there is evidence that
morphological markers of type plurals can evolve from markers of group plurals
or collective plurals but, apparently, not the other way around. Christian
<LINK "mor-r3">
"mor-r36">
"mor-r5">
"mor-r4">
"mor-r25">
"mor-r42">
"mor-r49">
"mor-r22">
"mor-r40">
"mor-r12">
"mor-r10">
478 Edith Moravcsik
Lehmann mentions Bengali, Boni, Hixkaryana, Mandarin9, Persian, and
Russian among the languages where this historical development has taken place
(Lehmann 1995: 56–57; for Bengali, cf. also Brehm 1997: 20–23). Additional
evidence is found in Biermann 1982:236–237 from Indo-European, Hungarian,
Armenian, and Turkish, and in Honti (1997) from Uralic. Mithun (1999:94)
proposes that dual markers on Takelma nouns have their origin in group plurals.
A similar group-to-type development is documentable for conjunctions
linking coordinate nominals. ‘With’-coordination is widely evidenced to be
older than ‘and’-coordination: ‘with’ can change to ‘and’ but not vice versa
(Mithun 1988a, Stassen 2000, Heine & Kuteva 2002: 80–83). Since, given the
basic meaning of ‘with’, ‘with’-coordination can be assumed to have originally
expressed only group plurality, the ‘with’-to-‘and’ path suggests once again the
historical priority of group plurals over type plurals.10
The primacy of partonomic relations over taxonomic ones is also evident
in cognitive development. Research by Ellen Markman and others shows that
children acquire whole-part relations before they acquire type-token relations
(Markman et al. 1980, Markman 1989: 161–186, 229–230). Thus, they learn
that oaks are parts of a forest before they learn that oaks are instances of the
category ‘tree’.11
In plural-set formation, whether taxonomic or partonomic, there is also an
additional factor commonly involved. As people arrange things, or arrange
themselves, into classes by similarity or contiguity, the resulting sets are
generally not unranked: some members are placed over others. As will be shown
next, the same tendency of ranking individuals within sets is manifested in the
semantic structure of plural expressions.
[d] Ranking
Members of a plural set — whether taxonomically or partonomically linked —
may be conceived of as equals or as unequals. In actual fact, ranking predominates. Of fully-listed nominal plurals, conjoined noun phrases have the best
chance of designating unranked plural sets but even they are mostly understood
as ranked.12 Other group plurals, such as first and second person pronouns,
comitatives and inclusories, almost always convey ranking.
Let us first take first and second person plural pronouns. It has been noted
by many linguists (Kurylowicz, Benveniste, and Jesperson among them) and
discussed most recently in some detail by Michael Daniel (2000: Chapter 2),
Michael Cysouw (2001: 63–94), and D. N. S. Bhat (2001), that, on their most
common reading, we and you(PL) refer to heterogeneous sets and thus resemble
conjoined nominals. That is, while ordinary plurals, such as engineers, refer to
<LINK "mor-r50">
"mor-r38">
"mor-r46">
"mor-r51">
A semantic analysis of associative plurals 479
a set of individuals all of whom are construed as of the same kind — e.g. all are
engineers — the plural pronoun we generally does not refer to a set of speakers
but, rather, to the speaker and some others associated with him. The same holds
to a lesser extent for the plural ‘you’, which may refer to a set of addressees but may
also refer to one addressee and others not part of the speech event. In other words,
first and second person plural pronouns refer predominantly to ranked groups.
The same is true for comitative and inclusory constructions.13 The term
inclusory construction will be used in reference to a nominal plural that refers
to a set of individuals and includes two explicit constituents, one being a plural
referring summarily to all members and the other appositively identifying a
subset of the members. The plural constituent may be a plural pronoun or a
plural inflection on the verb with or without a plural pronoun also present; or
it may be a numeral occurring with or without a plural pronoun and/or a plural
verb. The meaning of a plural pronoun is present in all three constructions.
Examples are in (12) (cf. also (6) above).14
(12) a.
INCLUSORY PRONOUN
TAGALOG (Schachter & Otanes l972: 116)
Nakita ko sila ni Juan.
saw I them obl John
‘I saw him and John.’
TOQABAQITA (Lichtenberk 2000: 2)
kameraqa doqora-ku
I:DU(EXCL) brother-my
‘I and my brother’
b. INCLUSORY VERB INFLECTION
CHILEAN SPANISH (Schwartz 1988a: 65)
Fueron al
cine
con su esposa.
went:pl to:the cinema with 3pos wife
‘He and his wife went to the cinema.’
c. INCLUSORY NUMERAL
FRENCH (Tesnière 1951: 58)
nous deux mon père
we two my father
‘my father and I’
Inclusory constructions are a semantic subtype of comitatives (cf. Stolz 2001 and
references therein). The formal difference between the two is only that in
comitatives, the focal referent and the associate(s) are separately mentioned while
in inclusory constructions, all members of the plural set are summarily referred to
<LINK "mor-r12">
480 Edith Moravcsik
by a pronoun, verb morphology, or numeral, with the other constituent merely
providing more information about the associate(s). Thus, using Michael Daniel’s
term (Daniel 2000), in inclusory constructions, the associates are “absorbed” in the
pronoun. Comitatives and inclusory pronouns are contrasted in (13).
(13) HUNGARIAN
a. comitative construction:
Én elment-em Jancsival.
I went-1sg with:Johnny
‘I left with Johnny.’
b. inclusory pronoun:
Mi elment-ünk Jancsival.
we went-1pl with:Johnny
‘I left with Johnny.’
As mentioned above, the ranking of both taxonomic and partonomic sets is
very widespread in language outside plural expressions as well and in cognition
in general. In grammar, both taxonomic and partonomic sets are generally
analyzable as ranked. Within most partonomic sets — i.e. syntagmatic structures such as syllables, words, phrases, clauses, sentences, and discourses — it
is generally possible to pinpoint a distinguished member, such as a “head”.
Within taxonomic sets — i.e. paradigms or other categories — a similarly
distinguished member is either the “prototype” or the “unmarked member”.15
[e] Numeration
In addition to the nature of cohesion and the issue of ranking, a third parameter
of the relationship among members of a plural set has to do with their quantitative characterization: whether the members are or are not counted up. Formal
devices to specify number are numerals, quantifiers, and grammatical number
markers for dual, trial, paucal, or plural.
[f] Reference
Let us recapitulate what has been said so far about the meanings of nominal
plural expressions. Of the five semantic parameters discussed, the first two had
to do with the individual members of the set: their meaning and whether they
are all listed or not. The next three had to do with relations among the members within the set: whether they are linked by similarity or contiguity; whether
they are depicted as equals or not; and whether they are numerated or not.
The one remaining semantic dimension of nominal plural expressions has to
do with the relationship between the members of the plural set and the predicate:
<LINK "mor-r41">
"mor-r46">
A semantic analysis of associative plurals 481
whether the predicate refers to each member separately or jointly to the whole set.
We will refer to the two options as distributive and collective interpretations.16
There are several tests for determining the difference between the distributive
and collective interpretations of a plural expression. One is by seeing if sentence
coordination is or is not a possible paraphrase. Thus, for John and Jill are tall., John
is tall and Jill is tall. is a possible paraphrase but for John and Jill met., *John met and
Jill met. is not. Thus, the first sentence illustrates distributive reading and the
second, collective reading. Another test is trying to fit a distributive quantifier such
as each or a collective adverb such as together into the sentence.
One might ask whether the distinction between collective and distributive
readings isn’t the same thing as the distinction between group plurals and type
plurals drawn earlier. Actually, the two are different: group and type plurals
have to do with the relationship among members of the plural set regardless of
the predicate, while the collective-distributive distinction has to do with
whether the predicate applies to the members of the set separately or jointly.
The independence of the two distinctions is clearly shown by all four possibilities
of their combinations being viable, as in (14) (cf. also (2) above; and Schwartz
1985:162–166, Schwartz 1988a:69–71, and McNally 1993:368–370, 373–377).
(14) a.
type plural
– with distributive reading:
Sugar and salt dissolve in water.
– with collective reading:
Sugar and salt mix well.
b. group plural
– with distributive reading:
The team sat down.
– with collective reading:
The team dispersed.
3.2 Constraints on the meanings of nominal plurals
The intersections of the six parameters presented above allow for a large
number of semantic types of nominal plurals. In actuality, however, not all of
them occur and not all are equally common. First of all, some of the intersections of the parameters are logically excluded: they are non-existent by definition. For example, the parameters of enumeration and ranking are not independent: partially enumerated sets are necessarily ranked with the enumerated
member(s) understood as highlighted and the non-enumerated ones as
<LINK "mor-r7">
"mor-r46">
"mor-r41">
"mor-r11">
"mor-r35">
482 Edith Moravcsik
backgrounded. Another logically necessary constraint has to do with nominal
types and types of cohesion: nominals of unique reference cannot, by definition, form type plurals. That is to say, an expression like Bills can be interpreted
as a type plural only if Bill is used as referring to a set of people all having the
name Bill, rather than to a unique individual as in its predominant use.
Secondly, there are also logically non-necessary, empirical constraints on
the intersections of the six parameters. Some such constraints have been found
to hold in one language or another, with their overall crosslinguistic validity yet
to be tested. One has to with plurality and numeration: Greville Corbett found
that in some Slavonic and Afro-Asiatic languages, nominals accompanied by
large numerals tend to count as singulars at least for purposes of verb agreement (Corbett 1998). Another constraint has to do with cohesion and reference:
it has been suggested that the collective interpretation of nominal plural
expressions is the unmarked one not only in inclusory constructions (cf.
Schwartz 1988a: 70, McNally 1993: 368–373, Dalrymple et al. 1998) but for all
nominal plurals (Lasersohn 1995).
More significantly, there are also relevant proposals for constraints that
have been tested and found to hold true for large samples of languages. Two
such constraints will be discussed because of their relevance for associative
plurals.17 Both have to do with ranked group plurals, the first pertaining to the
choice of the focal referent and the other, to the choice of associates.
(A) The choice of the focal referent
In his book on grammatical number, Greville Corbett puts forth several
crosslinguistic generalizations which make crucial use of the following Animacy
Hierarchy (Corbett 2000: 56; for added clarity, it is cited here in a slightly
rephrased form):
The Animacy Hierarchy
First
Second Third
Kin
Other
Person Person Person Nouns Human
Pronoun Pronoun Pronoun
Nouns
Other
Inanimate
Animate Nouns
Nouns
Corbett’s central claim based on this hierarchy has to do with the distribution
of plural forms over nominal types (where “plural” includes duals, trials, etc.),
which we will paraphrase as G-3.
G-3.
The distribution of plural forms over nominal types
If in a language a nominal can be plural-marked, so can any other
nominal to its left on the Animacy Hierarchy in that language.18
<LINK "mor-r12">
"mor-r7">
A semantic analysis of associative plurals 483
For present purposes, it is a second proposal by Corbett that is of primary interest: it has to do with the distribution of plural meanings over nominal types.
Once a nominal is marked for plurality, exactly how is the plural interpreted?
Corbett proposes that “the likely interpretation of a number form depends in
part on the position of the head noun on the Animacy Hierarchy.” (Corbett
2000: 86, 279, fn. 13; see also Daniel 2000). One of the specific patterns governed by this generalization is that “at the very top [of the hierarchy], associative readings are more likely” (ibidem). The term “associative reading” corresponds to “ranked group reading” in our terminology; the “head noun” is what
we call the “focal referent”. The prediction may be spelled out in more detail as
follows:
G-4.
The choice of the focal referent for plural pronouns
First
Second Third
Person
Person Person
Pronoun Pronoun Pronoun
If in a language, a singular pronoun can be the focal referent of a plural
pronoun, so can any other singular pronoun to its left on the scale in
that language.
This pattern is clearly borne out by first and second person pronouns. First and
second person pronouns are at the top of the Animacy Hierarchy in this order,
which means that the availability of the ranked group reading of ‘we’ is predicted by the ranked plural reading of ‘you(PL)’ and the ranked group interpretation of ‘you(PL)’ is in turn predicted by the availability of such an interpretation of a third person plural pronoun in that language. The prediction holds:
there is apparently no language where a second person plural pronoun can have
a ranked interpretation but the first person plural pronoun can only refer to
several speakers and not to one speaker and others; and where a third person
plural pronoun can have a ranked interpretation but the second person plural
pronoun cannot.
At first blush, the predominance of ranked group plurals at the high end of
the hierarchy may not seem surprising. Note that the Animacy Hierarchy can be
construed as a hierarchy of individuation, with the most unique individuals on
the left.19 But if so, then the focal referent hierarchy in G-4 is related to a
logically given constraint mentioned in the beginning of this section: unique
referents cannot, by definition, form type plurals. While this much is logically
necessary, Corbett’s constraint is still an empirical one since the fact that unique
individuals nonetheless can form group plurals is not logically given.
<LINK "mor-r46">
484 Edith Moravcsik
While Corbett proposed the focal referent hierarchy of G-4 for pronouns in
their ordinary use, the generalization also holds for inclusory pronouns. All
available evidence supports G-5.
G-5.
The choice of the focal referent for inclusory pronouns
First
Second
Third
Person
Person
Person
Pronoun Pronoun
Pronoun
If in a language, a singular pronoun can be a focal referent of an
inclusory pronoun, so can any other pronoun to its left on the scale in
that language.
In other words, “we with you” (to mean ‘I with you’) is preferred over “you(PL)
with Joe” (to mean ‘you(SG) with Joe’); and “you(PL) with Joe” is preferred
over “they with Joe” (to mean ‘he with Joe’). Evidence for the scale is as follows.
First of all, all examples given by Schwartz (1985, 1988a, 1988b) and others
involve a pronoun as focal referent. Among pronouns, Schwartz (1985: 162,
1988a: 65–67) explicitly states that first and second person focal referents are
preferred over third persons and that there is also some evidence that first
persons are preferred over second persons. In Tagalog, for example, only first
and second person pronouns can be focal referents in inclusory pronoun
constructions (Schwartz 1985: 162, 1988b: 241); the same constraint is reported
for Riau Malay and Riau Indonesian (David Gil, p.c.). The hierarchy is also
supported by Latvian, which prefers first and second person inclusory pronouns
over third (Schwartz 1988b: 241). Schwartz finds the same hierarchy holding
not only for inclusory pronouns but also for inclusory verb inflection (Schwartz
1988a: 66–67).
Thus, G-4 and G-5 can be replaced by a single hierarchy for plural pronouns whether inclusory or not.
G-6.
The choice of the focal referent for inclusory and non-inclusory plural
pronouns
First
Second
Third
Person
Person
Person
Pronoun Pronoun
Pronoun
If in a language, a singular pronoun can be a focal referent of a plural
pronoun, whether inclusory or not, so can any other pronoun to its left
on the scale in that language.
<LINK "mor-r11">
"mor-r33">
"mor-r12">
"mor-r23">
"mor-r46">
"mor-r41">
A semantic analysis of associative plurals 485
The fact that the person scales determining the preferential choice of focal
referents of inclusory pronouns (G-5) and of pronouns in their ordinary, noninclusory use (G-4) are the same suggests that inclusory constructions are
ordinary person pronouns with a semantically appositive identification of the
associate(s): ‘we’ versus ‘we (i.e. I) with you’. This analysis, first proposed by
Ladusaw 1989 (see also Daniel 2000), explains not only the identical preferential
choice of the focal referent in pronouns across languages whether or not
inclusorily used but also the fact that apparently, no language differentiates
inclusory and non-inclusory pronouns by assigning distinct phonological forms
to the two.
In sum: we have seen that the hierarchy governing the choice of the focal
referent proposed by Corbett for plural pronouns holds not only for their
ordinary use but also for their inclusory use. This fact, along with their identical
phonological form, suggests that inclusory pronouns differ from the noninclusory pronouns only in terms of the enumeration parameter: inclusory
pronouns are fully enumerative while non-inclusory plural pronouns are
partially enumerative.21
(B) The choice of the associates
As mentioned above, besides the constraint on the choice of the focal referent
on pronouns, there are also constraints on the associates in ranked group
plurals that have some crosslinguistic support. The evidence comes from
inclusory constructions.
To begin with, the choice of associates in inclusory constructions is constrained by some non-relational properties. Schwartz’s and others’ examples
suggest that definiteness or at least referentiality is a constraint both on focal
referents and on associates (for explicit statements, see also Hetzron 1973: 503
(Hungarian), McNally 1993: 364–368 (Polish and Russian)). In addition,
associates have to be animate with preference for humans and among humans,
they are often proper names.
Second, there is a preference for a close relationship between focal referent
and associates: preferred associates are kins, or “habitual companions”
(Schwartz 1988a: 67–68). Frequent associates are child, sibling, or spouse
(Schwartz 1988a: 67–68, McNally 1993: 348, 370 Dalrymple et al.
1998: 605–609). As an example of the required close relationship between focal
referent and associates, Schwartz notes that in the Polish equivalent of the
sentence ‘I went to the cinema with the President of the Republic.’, the use of
the inclusory first person plural verb inflection (“we-went” to mean ‘I and the
President went’) would not be appropriate since one’s relationship with a high
<LINK "mor-r46">
486 Edith Moravcsik
official does not make for the kind of relationship required between focal
referent and associates in inclusory constructions. Schwartz also notes that the
Chilean Spanish equivalent of the sentence carries “the sense that the speaker
may be trying to impress the hearer by suggesting an intimate relationship or
habitual mutual activities with a person of prestige”.
Thus, Schwartz concludes that for inclusory verb inflection, if the construction is used for less intimate relationships, it is also used for more intimate
relationships (Schwartz 1988a: 68). G-7 presents both constraints:
G-7.
The choice of associates for inclusory pronouns
(a) Human
Animate
(b) More Close
Less Close
Relationship
Relationship
If in a language, a nominal can be an associate of an inclusory pronoun,
so can any other nominal to the left on the two scales in that language.
If, as suggested above, inclusory constructions involve ordinary plural pronouns, the same preference for close relations should hold for non-inclusorily
used pronouns as well. While I know of no crosslinguistic documentation of
this fact, there is some support for it. Regarding the human-animate distinction:
‘we’ is rarely used for a group that includes the speaker and his non-human
associates, such as pets, and perhaps never in reference to inanimate “associates” such as one’s car. Regarding the preferred close relationship between focal
referent and associates: this is evidenced by people’s adverse reaction to certain
“presumptuous” uses of ‘we’ when they feel they are lumped together with
others that they see as “different”.
Thus, we may tentatively generalize G-7 so as to include plural pronouns
both in inclusory and in non-inclusory use, yielding G-8:
G-8.
The choice of associates for inclusory and non-inclusory plural
pronouns
(a) Human
Animate
(b) More Close
Less Close
Relationship
Relationship
If in a language, a nominal can be an associate of a plural pronoun
whether inclusory or not, so can any other nominal to the left on the
two scales in that language.
A semantic analysis of associative plurals 487
An additional likeness between inclusory and non-inclusory pronouns has to do
with the choice of the associate(s)’s person relative to the person of the focal
referent. Here is the constraint:
G-9.
The choice of the associates’ person relative to that of the focal referent in inclusory pronoun constructions
First
Second Person
Person
Third
Person
The person of the associates cannot be to the right of the person of the
focal referent in inclusory constructions.
In other words, one can say “we with you” (meaning ‘I with you’) but one
cannot say “you (pl) with me” (meaning ‘you (sg) with me’).
On the face of it, this is a puzzling constraint since it does not hold for
comitative constructions even though they are also ranked group plurals: one
can say both “I with you” and “you with I”. But if we view inclusory pronouns
as ordinary plural pronouns with their usual meaning, things fall into place: if
a plural pronoun is to refer to the speaker and the addressee, it can only be first
person: no other pronoun can have this reference.20 Mutatis mutandis, the same
holds for sets including 1st and 3rd, and 2nd and 3rd person pronouns. Thus,
the stipulation for inclusory pronouns in G-9 boils down to simple compliance
with the semantic composition of ordinary plural pronouns. This is stated in G-10.
G-10. The choice of the associates’ person relative to that of the focal referent in both inclusory and non-inclusory pronoun constructions
First
Second Person
Person
Third
Person
The person of the associates cannot be to the right of the person of the
focal referent in plural pronouns whether inclusory or not.
In sum: in this section, two sets of constraints about ranked group plurals have
been discussed, one having to do with the choice of the focal referent and the
other, with the choice of the associates. The focal referents hierarchy, originally
proposed by Corbett for personal pronouns in their ordinary use, has been found
to hold for their inclusory use as well; and the associates hierarchy in turn, originally proposed by Schwartz for inclusory pronouns, has some support also from noninclusory plural pronouns. Furthermore, the constraint on the choice of the
respective persons of focal referent and associates in inclusory constructions was
seen as a natural consequence of the semantics of plural pronouns in ordinary
488 Edith Moravcsik
use. Thus, inclusory and non-inclusory pronouns turn out to obey identical
constraints both on the choice of focal referents (see G-6) and on associates (see
G-10). The availability of the general parameter of enumeration allows us to
pinpoint the single difference that obtains between the two: inclusory pronouns
are fully enumerative while non-inclusory ones are partially enumerative.
4. Associative plurals as a semantic type of nominal plurals
In Section 2, the meaning of associative plurals was described. This defined the
semantic object that we set out to find a principled place for. In Section 3, a set
of general parameters were proposed for systematizing the varied meanings of
nominal plurals in general. This in turn provided the semantic space within
which associative plurals are to be assigned a niche. What is, then, the place of
associative plurals among the semantic types of nominal plurals?
The meaning of associative plurals can be assessed within the framework
proposed in Section 3.1 as follows:
SEMANTIC
DIMENSIONS:
Nominal types:
Enumeration:
Cohesion:
Ranking:
–
–
–
Numeration:
Reference:
VALUES FOR ASSOCIATIVE
PLURALS:
definite, mostly human, possibly animate individuals
partial listing
group-based
ranked
the focal referent is mostly a singular definite human
individual chosen according to the following hierarchy of
preferences (G-1):
Proper Definite
Definite
Other
Human
Name
Kin Noun
Title Noun
Definite Noun
the associate(s) are also definite human individuals roughly
of the same status as the focal referent, chosen according to
the following preference scales (G-2):
(a) Human
Animate
(b) Family
Friendship,
Incidental
Relations
Shared
Association
Activities
plural, dual
both collective and distributive readings are possible
A semantic analysis of associative plurals 489
Searching for the closest semantic co-geners of associative plurals among
nominal plurals, we find that they form a class with other ranked group plurals:
comitative constructions and first and second person plural pronouns. Associative plurals differ from comitatives along two parameters: types of nominals
and enumeration. Comitatives are less grammaticalized and thus less constrained and more compositional: while associative plurals involve nouns,
comitatives may involve nouns or pronouns; and while associative plurals are
only partially enumerative in that they name the focal referent but not the
associates, in comitatives, both focal referent and associates are explicit. The
semantic tie between associative plurals and comitative constructions is also
borne out by the fact that comitatives generally involve humans or animates.
The semantic relationship between associative plurals and first and second
person plural pronouns is even closer. The two constructions opt for the same
choices with respect five of the six parameters: they refer to partially enumerated definite human individuals forming a ranked group consisting of a focal
referent and a set of associates, with various numerical categories — plural, dual
— available and both collective and distributive interpretations possible. The
only respect in which they part ways is in the type of nominals involved: first and
second person pronouns involve pronouns and associate plurals involve nouns.
If plural personal pronouns and associative plurals are indeed such close cogeners, we would expect them to observe the same constraints regarding the
preferential choice of focal referents and associates. A comparison of the respective
hierarchies noted in Sections 2 and 3.2 show that this is indeed the case.
The scale defining the preferential choice of focal referents for plural
personal pronouns is repeated below:
G-4.
The choice of the focal referent for plural pronouns (repeated from
Section 3.2)
First
Second
Third
Person
Person
Person
Pronoun Pronoun
Pronoun
If in a language, a singular pronoun can be the focal referent of a plural
pronoun, so can any other singular pronoun to its left on the scale in
that language.
Let us compare this with the focal referent hierarchy for associative plurals:
490 Edith Moravcsik
G-1.
The choice of the focal referent for associative plurals (repeated from
Section 2)
Proper
Definite
Definite
Other Definite
Name
Kin Noun
Title Noun
Human Noun
If in a language, a nominal can be a focal referent of an associative plural,
so can any other nominal to its left on the scale in that language.
Although the two hierarchies pertain to mutually exclusive sets of nominals —
plural pronouns involve pronouns as focal referents while associative plurals
involve nouns — they are obviously related: in both, more unique individuals
take precedence over less unique ones. Thus, speakers are more likely to be
unique than addressees; addressees are more likely to be unique than third
person referents; proper names have unique referents more often than definite
kin nouns. The same asymmetric relation holds between definite kin nouns and
definite title nouns, and definite title nouns and other definite human nouns.
Thus, the two hierarchies are complementary portions of a single hierarchy of
uniqueness: where one leaves off the other starts. Here is their joint statement.
G-11. The choice of focal referents for plural pronouns and associative
plurals
First
Person
Pronoun
Second Third
Proper
Person Person Name
Pronoun Pronoun
Definite Definite Other
Kin
Title
Definite
Noun
Noun
Human
Noun
If in a language, a nominal can be a focal referent of a personal pronoun or associative plural, so can any other nominal to the left on the
scale in that language.
This composite scale is almost identical to first six categories of Corbett’s
Animacy Hierarchy:
The Animacy Hierarchy (repeated from Section 3.2)
First
Person
Pronoun
Second Third
Kin
Person Person Nouns
Pronoun Pronoun
Other
Human
Nouns
Other
InaniAnimate mate
Nouns Nouns
There are only two differences between the two scales. First, proper names and
title nouns are not separated out as distinct points on the Animacy Hierarchy as
they are in G-11; second, the scale in G-11 stipulates definiteness for kins, title
nouns, and other human nouns while definiteness does not figure in the
<LINK "mor-r4">
A semantic analysis of associative plurals 491
Animacy Hierarchy. As noted in Section 3.2, the Animacy Hierarchy was
proposed by Corbett primarily to account for the distribution of plural forms
over nominal types and secondarily to account for the choice of focal referents
in ranked plural readings for pronominal plurals. We then suggested that
Corbett’s claim be broadened: a somewhat modified version of the hierarchy
accounts for the choice of the focal referent in ranked plural readings not only
for pronouns but for other nominal types as well. The question now arises
whether this alternative version of the hierarchy, modified for the correct
prediction of focal referents, is also appropriate for predicting number marking
in general, which was the primary goal of the Animacy Hierarchy, or whether
for that purpose, Corbett’s original Animacy Hierarchy should be retained.
Whether proper names and title nouns figure in the distribution of number
making in general is an empirical question and must be left open here.22
Regarding definiteness, however, there is evidence that it is a significant
condition on number marking. Corbett points out that in several languages,
only definite nouns are marked for plural or they are preferentially so marked
(2000: 278–280). Examples cited by him are the Omotic languages of Aari and
Gamo, Kambera (Austronesian), Basque, and Koryak. Anna Biermann also
remarks on the preference for number marking on referential nominals and
cites Galla and Korean as examples (Biermann 1982: 233–235). For Japanese,
Pamela Downing notes (1996: 206–207) that plural marking on nouns is
preferred in subsequent mention. She says that referents are introduced without
a plural marker but tracked by one: “The ‘plural markers’ are one indicator of
this established individuated status.” (208).23 A number-marking preference for
definite nominals is also suggested by the fact that personal pronouns, which
are semantically definite, are the most commonly plural-marked category.
Exactly how definiteness is to be worked into the hierarchy for predicting
the distribution of plural forms over nominal types is unclear. Does animacy
take precedence over definiteness or is it the reverse? If the former, then the
nominal types that appear on the hierarchy are primary and within each
nominal type, definites are higher than indefinites. If the latter — definiteness
being primary over animacy — then any definite nominal, whether kin,
animate, or inanimate, is preferentially number-marked over any indefinite
one. The issue is, once again, an empirical one and it must be left open here.24
What we have seen so far is that the choice of the focal referent for associative
plurals and first and second person plural pronouns obeys the same rank-order. If
associative plurals and first and second person plural pronouns are to be
regarded as differentiated only by whether the focal referent is a pronoun or a
<LINK "mor-r7">
"mor-r32">
"mor-r12">
"mor-r3">
492 Edith Moravcsik
noun, we would expect that not only the preferential choice of the focal
referents but also that of the associates is shared by them. Here are the relevant
hierarchies, repeated for comparison.
G-2.
The choice of associates for associative plurals (repeated from Section 2)
(a) Human
(b) Family
Relations
Animate
Friendship,
Incidental
Shared
Association
Activities
If in a language, a nominal can be an associate of an associative plural,
so can any nominal to its left on the two scales in that language.
G-8.
The choice of associates for inclusory and non-inclusory plural
pronouns (repeated from section 3.2)
(a) Human
Animate
(b) More Close
Less Close
Relationship
Relationship
If in a language, a nominal can be an associate of a plural pronoun
whether inclusory or not, so can any other nominal to the left on the
two scales in that language.
The scales in G-2 and G-8 are congruent. Thus, we may conclude that both the
choice of focal referents and the choice of associates obey similar scales for
associative plurals and personal pronouns, supporting the claim that the two are
related constructions with the difference having to do with the parameter of
nominal types: that the focal referents of personal pronouns are pronouns while
those of associative plurals are nouns.
This conclusion is not at all new: for earlier statements, see for example
Korchmáros 1995: 302, 304, Daniel 2000, Chapter 2, Bhat 2001: 201. However,
Corbett & Mithun express two reservations (1996; see also Corbett 2000: 83–84,
104). First, first and second person pronouns can also have non-associative
readings: ‘we’ can refer to more than one speaker and ‘you’ can refer to more than
one addressee. Second, if the meaning of first and second person plural pronouns
is indeed the same as that of associative plural nouns, why don’t these pronouns
show specific associative plural marking just as associative plural nouns do?
Important though these points are, they do not invalidate the proposal that
first and second person plural pronouns and associative plurals are one and the
same semantic category but for one parameter: nominal type. Regarding the
first point — that these pronouns can also be non-associatively interpreted —
A semantic analysis of associative plurals 493
it should be noted that the same ambiguity often holds for noun-based associative plurals as well. For example, as noted above, Japanese kodomo-tachi may
mean ‘the child and his associates’ or ‘more than one child’, just as we may
mean ‘I with my associates’ or ‘more than one I’. It is still true, though, that one
of the meanings of first and second person plural pronouns and one of the
meanings of plural-marked nouns are identical.
As to Corbett and Mithun’s second point — if first and second person
plural plural pronouns are associative plurals, why are they not marked for
associative meaning the same way as nouns are? — there are two relevant
considerations. First, there actually are some languages where noun-based
associative plurals and plural pronouns are marked the same way, with the
marker exclusive to first and second person pronominal plurals and nounbased associative plurals. An example is Tamang, where the associative plural
suffix -ni (as in lap’-ni “father-APL” ‘father and his party’) is also the plural
marker of second person pronouns (zai-ni “you-PL’ ‘you(PL)’) but not of
nouns (e.g. ila-kate “god-PL” ‘gods’) (Martine Mazaudon, p.c.). In both
instances, -ni is placed on a focal referent as if it were to indicate a plurality of
focal referents — even though what it actually indicates is one focal referent and
a set of associates. But, one might ask, why is this not so in all languages? This
is where a second consideration becomes relevant: more frequent interpretations are often unmarked in languages. Analogous cases where lexically predictable information is not marked are numerous; for example, inalienables are
often not marked for being possessums in possessive constructions25 and proper
names, being unique by definition, do not occur with the definite article in
many languages. Thus, given that the meaning of first and second person plural
pronouns is predominantly associative, we would not necessarily expect an
explicit marking of this meaning.
What we have seen so far is that the difference between first and second
person plural pronouns and associative plurals lies in the type of nominals they
employ: pronouns versus nouns. This is the only difference between them if we
compare associative plurals only with non-inclusory pronouns. If we also
consider pronouns in inclusory use, there is an additional difference. While
plural pronouns in their ordinary, non-inclusory use are partially enumerative
just as associative plurals are, in inclusory constructions they also differ from
associative plurals in that they involve complete, rather than partial, enumeration. The three constructions are contrasted in (15).
494 Edith Moravcsik
(15) ASSOCIATIVE PLURALS (partial enumeration):
“John-plu” (‘John and others’)
ORDINARY PLURAL PRONOUN (partial enumeration):
“we” (‘I and others’)
INCLUSORY PLURAL PRONOUN (full enumeration):
“we and Anna” (‘I and Anna’)
The differences between pronouns and associative plurals along the two
dimensions of nominal type and enumeration are displayed in Table 1.
Table 1 shows three of the four logically possible combinations of the two
parameters of nominal type and enumeration: while personal pronouns may be
used both in partially enumerative and in fully enumerative constructions,
associative plurals are shown only as partially enumerative. The fourth logical
possibility — constructions which are, like associative plurals, noun-based but
which, like inclusory pronoun constructions, fully list the members of the
plural set — is missing. It would be like “my uncles with his son”, where “my
uncles” refers to one uncle of mine and his son. Given the otherwise close
parallelism between associative plurals and pronouns, this asymmetry between
them is surprising.
As it turns out, however, the construction missing from Table 1 does exist
although I have only two examples of it. One is from Margi (Hoffmann
1963: 57; E is used for the schwa).26
(16) KàmbÈràwázhá’-yàr àgá àlà gÉndà
Kamburawazha-pl and his wife
‘Kamburawazha and his wife’
Is this an “inclusory construction” with the focal referent being a noun rather
than a pronoun; or is it an “associative plural” where the associate is listed
Table 1:A comparison of associative plurals and plural pronouns — first version
The Nominal
Type Parameter
The Enumeration
Parameter
plural pronouns in
non-inclusory use
pronoun
partial
enumeration
inclusory pronouns
pronoun
full enumeration
noun
partial
enumeration
associative plurals
<LINK "mor-r7">
A semantic analysis of associative plurals 495
rather than suppressed? The two analyses converge on the same construction.
This convergence is underscored by the fact that the suffix -yàr is both a regular
plural marker (cf. ndÈr’-yàr ‘words’) and the marker for associative plural
nouns (cf. Bàshír’-yàr ‘Bashir and his family’).
The other language with this construction is Alaskan Eskimo Yu’pik
(Corbett & Mithun 1996, Corbett 2000: 107–110).
(17) cuna-nku-k
arnaq=llu
Chuna-assoc-du woman=too
‘Chuna and the woman’
This construction nonetheless differs from the one in Margi in that, by form, it
admits of only one of the two analyses that work equally for Margi: the Yu’pik
construction is not an inclusory construction with a focal referent but, rather,
an associative plural construction with associate(s) listed. This is because, while
the marker, just as in Margi, also figures as an associative plural (actually, dual)
marker, unlike in Margi, it is not also a regular plural (dual) marker.
(18) a.
associative dual:
cuna-nku-k
Chuna-assoc-du
‘Chuna and his friend’
b. ordinary dual:
qaya-k
kayak-du
‘two kayaks’
Table 2 is a completed version of Table 1 showing that all four combinations of
the two parameters of nominal type and enumeration exist.
Thus, plural pronouns and associative plurals turn out to differ only in the
nominal types involved. Along this parameter, they complement each other in that
they occupy mutually exclusive but continuous sections of the animacy scale.
5. Conclusions
The analysis proposed above amounts to a full paradigm of grammaticalized
ranked group plural constructions. Without considering associative plurals,
there would be gaps: there would be ranked plural constructions with pronouns
as focal referents, but no grammaticalized ranked plural constructions with
<DEST "mor-r12">
<LINK
"mor-n*">
496 Edith Moravcsik
Table 2:A comparison of associative plurals and plural pronouns — final version
The Nominal
Type Parameter
The Enumeration
Parameter
plural pronouns in
non-inclusory use
pronoun
partial
enumeration
inclusory pronouns
pronoun
full enumeration
associative plurals
noun
partial
enumeration
“inclusory nouns” or
“fully enumerative
associative plurals”
noun
full enumeration
nouns as focal referents. Associative plurals step in to provide the noun-based
counterparts of pronouns both in inclusory and non-inclusory use. They thus
occupy a principled place among nominal plural expressions filling an otherwise vacant slot.
As part of the search for a proper analysis of associative plural meanings, a
set of general semantic parameters of nominal plurality have been proposed.
Additional crosslinguistic evidence and more careful semantic analysis is called
for to test the overall validity of this framework in accounting for the varied
meanings of nominal plural expressions across languages.
Notes
*I am grateful to the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig for its
inspiring atmosphere and warm hospitality, and to audiences for their comments on related
presentations at Rice University, at the Center of Language and Communication in Amsterdam, at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, and at the University of
Konstanz. For relevant discussions over the years, I am much indebted to Greville G.
Corbett, Michael Daniel, Hans den Besten, David Gil, Martin Haspelmath, Frans Plank, and
Jan Rijkhoff. Michael Cysouw’s comments on an earlier version of this paper are also much
appreciated.
Michael Daniel’s dissertation is the most extensive crosslinguistic account of associative
plurals available to date (Daniel 2000). It is written in Russian and my familiarity with it is
sketchy; thus my attributions throughout the paper may not be extensive enough or precise
enough. An English-language article by Daniel based on his dissertation is anticipated to
appear in Linguistic Typology.
<LINK "mor-r47">
"mor-r7">
"mor-r13">
"mor-r21">
"mor-r12">
"mor-r43">
"mor-r44">
"mor-r46">
"mor-r41">
"mor-r11">
"mor-r10">
"mor-r26">
"mor-r9">
"mor-r52">
"mor-r50">
"mor-r22">
A semantic analysis of associative plurals 497
1. This term was proposed by Greville Corbett and David Gil (p.c.). Other terms in the
literature used for this construction and related ones are elliptical plural, approximative
plural, plural a potiori, and representative plural.
2. For crosslinguistic analyses of associative plurals, see Corbett & Mithun 1996, Corbett
2000: esp. 101–111, den Besten 1996, 2001, Haspelmath 2000, Daniel & Moravcsik, forthcoming, and especially the book-length monograph Daniel 2000; cf. also Moravcsik 1994a,
1994b, and 1995.
3. An exception to the hierarchy is Balkar (Turkic): Michael Daniel (p.c.) reports that in this
language, proper names and some common nouns can form associative plurals but kinship
terms cannot.
4. For a general typology of nominals from the point of view of countability, see Rijkhoff
2002, especially 28–59.
5. Schwartz (1985, 1988a, 1988b) labels two subtypes of inclusory constructions “plural
pronoun construction” and “verb-coded coordination”. McNally 1993 and Dalrymple et al.
1998 use the term comitative coordination for the latter; Cysouw (2001: 325–340) calls
inclusory pronouns as found in some Bantoid languages compound pronouns.
6. I am indebted to Greville Corbett and David Gil (p.c.) for pointing out the connection
between partially enumerative plurals
6. I am indebted to Greville Corbett and David Gil (p.c.) for pointing out the connection
between partially enumerative plurals and metonymy.
7. Quote taken from section IV of “On the connexion or association of ideas”, volume I of
“A treatise on human nature”; Hume 1739 (1978): 10–11; cf. also 99, 100, 101, 283, 317). Allcaps are original; material between square brackets is added for easier parsing.
8. For discussion of taxonomic, partonomic, and cause-effect-related conjuncts, see Croft
2001: 337–338. For the ubiquity of taxonomic and partonomic vocabulary across languages,
see Goddard & Wierbicka (eds.) 2002. For the significance of the two relations in semantic
change, see, for example, Traugott & Dasher 2002.
9. The Chinese character for the plural morpheme-men consists of the image of a person and
a door suggesting that it originally referred to members of a household (Kurt Queller, p.c.).
10. The old age of comitatives is also shown relative to another construction type:
instrumentals. There is again a unidirectional development with a group plural construction
as source: the syncretism of comitative and instrumental markers is always (or almost always;
cf. Stolz 1996: 120) with the comitative marker extending its semantic range to instrumental
and not vice versa (Stolz 1996, 2001, Heine & Claudi & Hünnemeyer 1991: 158, Heine &
Kuteva 2002: 84–86). On the other hand, comitative markers do not seem to evolve from any
other grammatical marker: Heine and Kuteva list only nouns and verbs as their origins
(2002: 329). Thus, while comitatives can be targets of the first stage of grammaticalization
processes, for subsequent stages, they can only be sources. — For a recent bibliography on
comitative constructions, see Schwarz & Stroh & Urdze 2001.
11. Markman explains this by appeal to the Mutual Exclusivity Requirement — i.e.,
children’s reluctance to accept more than one term referring to the same item. Terms for
tokens and types violate the Mutual Exclusivity Requirement since the same object can be
<LINK "mor-r42">
"mor-r20">
"mor-r8">
"mor-r29">
"mor-r9">
"mor-r50">
"mor-r11">
"mor-r21">
"mor-r23">
"mor-r1">
"mor-r46">
"mor-r31">
"mor-r34">
"mor-r19">
"mor-r30">
"mor-r7">
"mor-r41">
"mor-r14">
"mor-r17">
498 Edith Moravcsik
referred to by alternative terms: e.g. oak and tree, while terms for parts and their wholes do
not: what is an oak is not also a forest. Another reason why partonomic relations may be
easier to acquire is that parts are normally present at the same time and thus simultaneously
available to the senses, while tokens of a type are not necessarily co-present.
12. For the syntactic ranking of conjuncts from the point of view of agreement, see Corbett
1983. For discussions of mismatches between formal and semantic balance in coordinate
structures, see Haiman 1985, McNally 1993: 347–348, Culicover & Jackendoff 1997,
Johannessen 1998, Haspelmath 2000: Section 8.1, and Croft 2001: 320–361.
13. One might question whether comitatives and inclusories meet the definition of nominal
plural expressions. The definition given at the end of Section 1 stipulates that the members
of the plural set must have the same participant role relative to the predicate. But do Peter
and his wife in the comitative construction Peter arrived with his wife. bear the same
participant role? While it is true that Peter’s wife is said to be a companion to Peter, it is also
true that they both arrived. Hence, as Thomas Stolz suggests, they can be said to have the
same “macrorole” (Stolz 2001: 591). The same argument applies to inclusory constructions.
14. For crosslinguistic work on inclusory constructions, see Hetzron 1973 (Hungarian),
Aissen 1989 (Tzotzil), Schwartz 1985 (which includes data from 22 languages including some
from Indo-European, Uralic, and the Austronesian family as well as languages from various
genetic groups in Africa), Schwartz 1988a (about 10 languages), Schwartz 1988b (an
overview of the previous two papers), McNally 1993 and Dalrymple et al. 1996 (mostly on
Russian and Polish), and Haspelmath 2000 with additional crosslinguistic data and discussion.
The crosslinguistic distribution of the three inclusory construction types has not yet
been adequately investigated (cf. Schwartz 1988b: 246–247). What is relatively certain is that
if a language has inclusory pronouns and verb agreement, and it allows for “pro-drop” (i.e.
null-argument instantiation), that language also has inclusory verb inflection (Hetzron
1973: 494, Schwartz 1988a: 62–63, Aissen 1989, Corbett 2000: 233). In other words, the
availability of inclusory pronouns in a language implies the availability of inclusory verbinflection if the logically necessary ingredients (verb inflection and optional pronouns) are
available. However, inclusory verb inflection can occur also in languages that have no
inclusory pronouns: Schwartz cites Dakota, Hausa, Kanuri, and Chilean Spanish as examples
(Schwartz 1988a: 62, 1988b: 246). The distribution of inclusory numerals is, to my knowledge, entirely unresearched.
15. For additional evidence for ranking in grammatical structures, see also König’s account
of intensifier reflexives (König 2001) and Langacker’s “reference point constructions”
(Langacker 1999). For the parallelism between marked versus unmarked terms and figure
versus ground, see Greenberg 1966: 60.
16. As shown by David Gil (Gil 1995), these terms have been used with various contents in
the literature. In this paper, we will assume definitions such as that of Kemmer or Corbett;
e.g.“…the collective, marking joint action, and the distributive, marking separate action”
(Kemmer 1997: 231, 232; similarly Corbett 2000: 119). On collective and distributive
reference, see Mithun 1988b, McNally 1993, Dolinina 1995, Gil 1995, Mithun & Corbett
<LINK "mor-r6">
"mor-r35">
"mor-r30">
"mor-r39">
"mor-r11">
"mor-r27">
"mor-r2">
"mor-r17">
"mor-r7">
"mor-r53">
"mor-r12">
"mor-r10">
"mor-r42">
"mor-r49">
"mor-r48">
"mor-r43">
A semantic analysis of associative plurals 499
1995, Lasersohn 1995, Kemmer 1997, Lønning 1997, Dalrymple et al. 1998, and Corbett
2000: 111–120.
17. For crosslinguistic generalizations regarding the numeration parameter — i.e., numeration and quantification — cf. Hurford 1975, Hurford 2003, Bach et al. 1995, and Gil 1993,
2001.
18. On the exceptions, which also follow a pattern, see “minor numbers” in Corbett
2000: 95–101.
19. For the interpretation of the Animacy Hierarchy as a scale of individuation, see
Yamamoto 1999 and Daniel 2000.
20. As Michael Cysouw pointed out (p.c.), this argument presupposes that inclusive
pronouns referring to first and second person are a kind of plural first person pronoun even
though there is no semantic reason to prefer this analysis over considering such inclusives
second person. For detailed crosslinguistic studies on inclusives, see Cysouw 2002a and
2002b.
21. While the focal referent hierarchy in G-6 assigns priority to human and animate focal
referents of ranked group plurals, there is very tentative evidence that unranked group
plurals of individuals also preferentially occur at the high end of the Animacy Hierarchy.
What this would mean is that the coordination of nominals is preferred for pronouns over
nouns, humans over other animates, and animates over inanimates. Some support for this
point is provided by the fact that conjunctions linking human or animate nominals are
sometimes different in form from those connecting non-human or inanimate nominals. This
suggests that these subtypes may have different origins and may arise at different times in
history. Furthermore, conjunctions very often derive from a formative meaning ‘with’ — i.e.,
from comitative constructions (cf. Mithun 1988a, Stassen 2000); and comitatives, as noted
above, are generally formed out of animates. These facts are consistent with the historical
primacy for conjoined humans over conjoined non-humans. Although a cursory search for
languages where only humans can be conjoined but non-humans cannot has not turned up
any examples, the prediction that such languages should exist has some plausibility.
22. Note that Silverstein (1976: 122) found it necessary to include proper names in the
hierarchy originally designed by him for predicting the distribution of split ergativity.
23. Relevant evidence also comes from Cushitic languages. Frajzyngier shows that in this
language family, one of the sources of plural markers is demonstratives, which are definite by
definition (1997: 237).
24. Another grammatical domain where animacy and definiteness jointly figure is the case
marking of the direct object; cf. Moravcsik 1978, Comrie 1989: 129–136, 185–200.
25. I am grateful to Suzanne Kemmer for providing this example.
26. I am grateful to Martin Haspelmath and Masha Vassilieva for calling my attention to this
example.
<DEST "mor-r14">
"mor-r1">
"mor-r2">
"mor-r3">
"mor-r4">
"mor-r5">
"mor-r6">
"mor-r7">
"mor-r8">
"mor-r9">
"mor-r10">
"mor-r11">
"mor-r12">
"mor-r13">
500 Edith Moravcsik
References
Aissen, Judith. 1989. “Comitative agreement in Tzotzil”. Papers on the plural pronoun
construction and comitative coordination 17–24. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California.
Bach, Emmon; Jelinek, Eloise; Kratzer, Angelika; and Hall, Barbara Partee (eds.). 1995.
Quantification in natural language, Volumes 1–2. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Bhat, D. N. S. 2001. Pronouns. A cross-linguistic study. Typescript.
Biermann, Anna. l982. “Die grammatische Kategorie Numerus”. In: Seiler, Hansjakob; and
Lehmann, Christian (eds), Apprehension. Teil I: Das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenständen 229–243. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Brehm, Mary. 1997. A history of plurality:The grammaticization of referent number in six
languages. Master of Arts project. Milwaukee, WI: The University of WisconsinMilwaukee.
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press.
Corbett, Greville G. 1983. Hierarchies, targets, and controllers: Agreement patterns in Slavic.
London: Crome Helm.
Corbett, Greville G. 1998. “Numerals, number, and individuation”. In: Chislo, jazyk, tekst
[Number, language, and text] 152–161. Minsk.
Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Corbett, Greville G.; and Mithun, Marianne. 1996. “Associative forms in a typology of
number systems; evidence from Yup’ik”. Journal of Linguistics 32: 1–17.
Culicover, Peter; and Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. “Semantic subordination despite syntactic
coordination.” Linguistic Inquiry 26: 195–217.
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cysouw, Michael. 2001. The paradigmatic structure of person marking. Doctoral diss.
Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen.
Cysouw, Michael. 2002a. Syncretisms involving clusivity. Typescript.
Cysouw, Michael. 2002b. A typology of honorific uses of clusivity. Typescript.
Dalrymple, Mary; Hayrapetian, Irene; and Holloway King, Tracy. 1998. “The semantics of
the Russian comitative construction”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16:
597–631.
Daniel, Michael. 2000. Tipologija associativnoj mnozhestvennosti. [The typology of
associative plurals] Doctoral dissertation. Moscow: Moscow University.
Daniel, Michael; and Moravcsik, Edith A. Forthcoming. “Associative plurals”. In: Dryer,
Matthew; Haspelmath, Martin; Gil, David; and Comrie, Bernard (eds.), World atlas of
language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
den Besten, Hans. 1996. “Associative DPs”. In: Cremers, Crit; and den Dikken, Marcel (eds.),
Linguistics in the Netherlands 1996 13–24. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
den Besten, Hans. 2001. “The complex ancestry of the Afrikaans associative constructions”.
In: Carstens, Adelia; and Grebe, Heinrich (eds), Taallandskap. Huldigungsbundel vir
Christo van Rensburg 49–58. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Dolinina, Inga. 1995. The nature of distributive plurality. Typescript.
<DEST "mor-r32">
"mor-r15">
"mor-r16">
"mor-r17">
"mor-r18">
"mor-r19">
"mor-r20">
"mor-r21">
"mor-r22">
"mor-r23">
"mor-r24">
"mor-r25">
"mor-r26">
"mor-r27">
"mor-r28">
"mor-r29">
"mor-r30">
"mor-r31">
A semantic analysis of associative plurals 501
Downing, Pamela. 1996. Numeral classifier systems. The case of Japanese. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1997. “Grammaticalization of number: From demonstratives to
nominal and verbal plural”. Linguistic Typology 1–2: 193–242.
Gil, David. 1993. “Nominal and verbal quantification”. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 46: 275–317.
Gil, David. 1995. “Maltese ‘collective nouns’: A typological perspective”. In: Borg, Albert;
and Plank, Frans (eds), The Maltese noun phrase meets typology. EUROTYP Working
Papers, Theme 7, Number 25. European Science Foundation.
Gil, David. 2001. “Quantifiers”. In: Haspelmath, Martin; König, Ekkehard; Oesterreicher,
Wulf; and Raible, Wolfgang (eds) Language typology and language universals 1275–1294.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Goddard, Cliff; and Wierzbicka, Anna (eds). 2002. Meaning and universal grammar. Volumes
I-II. Amsterdam/Philadelphia; John Benjamins.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Language universals. The Hague: Mouton.
Haiman, John. 1985. “Symmetry”. In John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in syntax 73–95. Amsterdam/Phildalephia: John Benjamins.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2000. “Coordination”. To appear in: Shopen, Timothy (ed.) Language
typology and linguistic description. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Heine, Bernd; Claudi, Ulrike; and Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization. A
conceptual framework. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.
Heine, Bernd; and Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hetzron, Robert. 1973. “Conjoining and comitativization in Hungarian: A study of rule
ordering”. Foundations of Language 10: 493–507.
Hoffmann, Carl. 1963. A grammar of the Margi language. London: Oxford University Press.
Honti, László. 1997. “Numerusprobleme”. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 54 (1–2): 1–126.
Hume, David. 1739. A treatise of human nature. London: John Noon. (1978 edition, ed. by
L. A. Selby-Bigge, second edition by P. H. Nidditch. 1978. Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Hurford, James. 1975. The linguistic study of numerals. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hurford, James. 2003. “The interaction between numerals and nouns”. In: Plank, Frans (ed.)
The noun phrase 561–620. Berlin; Mouton de Gruyter.
Iljic, Robert. 1994. “Quantification in Mandarin Chinese: Two markers of plurality”.
Linguistics 32: 91–116.
Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 1998. Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1997. “Collective and distributive marking, or: Where unity meets
multiplicity”. In: Melby, Alan K. (ed.) 23rd LACUS Forum 1996 231–149. Chapel Hill,
NC: Linguistic Association of Canada and the US.
König, Ekkehard. 2001. “Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns”. In: Haspelmath, Martin;
König, Ekkehard; Oesterreicher, Wulf; and Raible, Wolfgang (eds), Language typology
and language universals. Volume I. 747–760. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.
Korchmáros, Valéria. 1995. “Az -èk többesjel”. [The plural marker -èk] Néprajz és
Nyelvtudomány [Folklore and linguistics] 36: 295–308.
<DEST "mor-r46">
"mor-r33">
"mor-r34">
"mor-r35">
"mor-r36">
"mor-r37">
"mor-r38">
"mor-r39">
"mor-r40">
"mor-r41">
"mor-r42">
"mor-r43">
"mor-r44">
"mor-r45">
502 Edith Moravcsik
Ladusaw, William. 1989. “Group reference and the plural pronoun construction”. Papers on
the plural pronoun construction and comitative coordination 1–7. Santa Cruz, CA:
University of California.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. “Reference point constructions”. In Ronald W. Langacker,
Grammar and conceptualization 171–207. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lasersohn, Peter. 1995. Plurality, conjunction and events. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on grammaticalization. München: LINCOM Europa.
Lewis, Geoffrey L. l967. Turkish grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 2000. “Inclusory pronominals”. Oceanic Linguistics 39(1): 1–32.
Lønning, Jan Tore. 1997. “Plurals and collectivity”. In: Van Benthem, J.; and Ter Meulen. A.
(eds), Handbook of logic and language 1009–1053. Oxford: Elsevier.
Markman, Ellen M. 1989. Categorization and naming in children. Cambridge MA: The MIT
Press.
Markman, Ellen M.; Horton, Marjorie S.; and McLanahan, Alexander G. 1980. “Classes and
collections: Principles of organization in the learning of hierarchical relations”.
Cognition 8: 227–241.
McNally, Louise. l993. “Comitative coordination: A case study in group formation”. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 11: 347–379.
Mithun, Marianne. 1988a. “The grammaticalization of coordination”. In: Haiman, John; and
Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse 331–359.
Amsterdam/Phildalephia: John Benjamins.
Mithun, Marianne. 1988b. “Lexical categories and the evolution of number marking”. In
Hammond, Michael; and Noonan, Michael (eds.), Theoretical morphology. Approaches
in modern linguistics 211–234. New York: Academic Press.
Mithun, Marianne. 1999. The languages of Native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Mithun, Marianne; and Corbett, Greville G. 1995. Distributives, collectives, and number in
the world’s languages. Paper given at the First Meeting of the Association for Linguistic
Typology, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain.
Moravcsik, Edith. 1978. “On the case marking of objects”. In: Greenberg, Joseph H.;
Ferguson, Charles A; and Moravcsik, Edith A. (eds), Universals of human language,
Volume 4: Syntax 249–289. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Moravcsik, Edith A. 1994a. Associative plurals. Papers given at the Pre-inaugural Meeting of
the Association for Linguistic Typology, November 1994, in Konstanz, Germany.
Moravcsik, Edith A. 1994b. Sum: group plural. http://www.emich.edu/~linguist/issues/5/
5–681.html
Moravcsik, Edith A. 1995. Associative plural constructions. Paper given at the Conference on
functional approaches to grammar, Albuquerque, NM.
Rijkhoff, Jan. 2002. The noun phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schachter, Paul and Fe T. Otanes. l972. Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley: University of
California.
Schwartz, Linda. 1985. “Plural pronouns, coordination, and inclusion”. In: Stetson, Nancy
(ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Minnesota Conference on Language and Linguistics
152–184. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
<DEST "mor-r53">
"mor-r47">
"mor-r48">
"mor-r49">
"mor-r50">
"mor-r51">
"mor-r52">
</TARGET "mor">
A semantic analysis of associative plurals 503
Schwartz, Linda. 1988a. “Conditions for verb-coded coordinations”. In: Hammond,
Michael; Moravcsik, Edith A.; and Wirth, Jessica J. (eds), Studies in syntactic typology
53–73. Amsterdam/Philadelphia; John Benjamins.
Schwartz, Linda. 1988b. “Asymmetric feature distribution in pronominal ‘coordinations’”.
In Barlow, Michael; and Ferguson, Charles A. (eds.), Agreement in natural language:
Approaches, theories, and descriptions 237–249. Stanford: Center for the Study of
Language and Information.
Schwarz, Oxana; Stroh, Cornelia; and Urdze, Aina. 2001. BIB-KOM-TYP. Die Bibliographie
zur Komitativ-Typologie. Munich: LINCOM EUROPA.
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. “Hierarchy of features and ergativity”. In Dixon, R. M. W. (ed.),
Grammatical categories in Australian languages 112–190. New Jersey: Humanities Press.
Stassen, Leon. 2000. “AND-languages and WITH-languages”. Linguistic Typology 4–1: 1–54.
Stolz, Thomas. 1993. Über Komitative. Arbeitspapier Nr. 24. Berlin, Bochum, Essen, Leipzig:
Universität GH Essen.
Stolz, Thomas. 1996. “Some instruments are really good companions — some are not. On
syncretism and the typology of instrumentals and comitatives”. Theoretical Linguistics
23(1/2): 113–200.
Stolz, Thomas. 2001. “On Circum-Baltic instrumentals and comitatives”. In: Dahl, Östen;
and Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria (eds), Circum-Baltic languages. Volume 2: Grammar and
typology 591–612. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tesnière. Lucien. 1951. “Le duel sylleptique en français et en slave”. Bulletin de le Société de
Linguistique de Paris 47: 57–63.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs; and Dasher, Richard B. 2002. Regularity in semantic change.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yamamoto, Mutsumi. 1999. Animacy and reference. A cognitive approach to corpus linguistics.
Amsterdam/Phildalephia: John Benjamins.
Author’s address
Edith Moravcsik
Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Milwaukee, WI 53201–0413, USA
[email protected]