Introduction published in:
Lexical plurals and beyond
Edited by Peter Lauwers and Marie Lammert
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 39:2] 2016
► pp. 207–216

Introduction

New perspectives on lexical plurals

| Ghent University
| University of Strasbourg
Published online: 30 March 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.39.2.001int
References

References

Acquaviva, P.
(2008) Lexical Plurals. A Morphosemantic Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A.
(2011) Plural mass nouns and the morpho-syntax of number. In M. Byram Wahsburn, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 28 (pp. 33–41). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Booij, G.
(1994) Against split morphology. In G. Booij, & J. Van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1993 (pp, 27–50). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
(1996) Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In G. Booij, & J. Van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1995 (pp. 1–16). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Borer, H.
(2005) In Name Only. Structuring Sense, Volume I. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colombat, B.
(1993) Remarques sur le développement de la notion de personne dans l’histoire de la linguistique. Faits de langues, 3, 15–27.Google Scholar
Cohen, M.
(1950) Regards sur la langue française. Paris: Sedes.Google Scholar
Corbett, G.
(2000) Number. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Curat, H.
(1988) Pluriel interne et système morphologique du nombre en français. Revue québécoise de linguistique, 17, 29–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Damourette, J., & Pichon, E.
(1927-1940) Des mots à la pensée. Paris: d’Artrey.Google Scholar
De Carvalho, P.
(1970) Recherches sur la catégorie du nombre en latin. Le pluriel poétique. Thèse de 3e cycle, inédite (disponible en photocopie).Google Scholar
(1974) Remarques sur certains signes de pluriel dans la déclinaison latine. Revue des études anciennes, 76, 3/4, 245–265. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993) Sur la grammaire du genre en latin. Evphrosyne, Revista de Filologia Clâssica, 21, 69–104.Google Scholar
(2015) “Pluriels lexicaux” … ou “contre pluriel” ? “Nombre” … ou “quantitude”? Paper presented at the workshop on Lexical Plurals , 9-10 September 2015, Ghent (ms).
Flaux, N.
(2000) Nouvelles remarques sur l’antonomase. Lexique, 15, 117–144.Google Scholar
Furukawa, N.
(1977) Le nombre grammatical en français contemporain. Tokyo: France Tosho.Google Scholar
Gréa, Ph
(2013) “Deux-trois mots” sur les déterminants de petite quantité: pluriel continu et perception sémantique. Journal of French Language Studies, 23, 193–219. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) La question du collectif dans la grammaire de Damourette & Pichon. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 109 (1), 201–235.Google Scholar
Guillaume, G.
(1944–1945 [1991]) Leçon du 7 juin 1945. série B. Leçons de linguistique de Gustave Guillaume, 1944–1945, série A et B, publiées sous la direction de R. Valin, W. Hirtle et A. Joly, Québec/Lille: Presses de l'Université Laval et Presses universitaires de Lille (pp. 201–210) (http://​nlip​.pcu​.ac​.kr​/gustave​/result1​.asp​?filenames​=45B0607​&wpage​=LL11​_210​_210.Google Scholar
Halle, M., & Maranz, A.
(1993) Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. In K. Hale, & S.J. Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20 (pp. 111–176). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O.
(1913) A Modern English Grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
(1924) The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Lammert, M.
(2015) Les pluralia tantum sous l’angle du collectif. Langue Française, 185, 73–84. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lasersohn, P.
(2011) Mass nouns and plurals. In K. von Heusinger, et al., Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol. 2 (pp. 1131–1153). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lauwers, P.
(2014) Les pluriels “lexicaux”. Typologie quantifiée des déficits de dénombrabilité. Langue française, 183, 117–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, J.
(2007) Sortals and the Individuation of Objects. Mind and Language, 22, 514–533. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, J. D.
(1975) Lexicography and the Count-Mass Distinction. In C. Cogen et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Berkeley Linguistic Society Conference (pp. 314–321). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Molho, M.
(1970) Duel et possessifs en florentin du 500. In Mélanges P. Fouché (pp. 59–79). Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Ojeda, A.
(2005) The Paradox of Mass Plurals. In S. Mufwene et al. (Eds.), Polymorphous Linguistics (pp. 389–410). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Togeby, K.
(1968) Structure immanente de la langue française. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
(1985) ‘Oats’ and ‘wheat’: the fallacy of arbitrariness. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in Syntax (pp. 311–342). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1988) The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilmet, M.
(19982). Grammaire critique du français. Bruxelles / Paris: Duculot.Google Scholar
Zindel, R.
(1958) Des abstraits en français et de leur pluralisation. Une contribution à l’étude des mécanismes de pensée. Berne: Francke.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Corbett, Greville G.
2019. Pluralia tantum nouns and the theory of features: a typology of nouns with non-canonical number properties. Morphology 29:1 ► pp. 51 ff. Crossref logo
Östling, Robert, Carl Börstell & Servane Courtaux
2018. Visual Iconicity Across Sign Languages: Large-Scale Automated Video Analysis of Iconic Articulators and Locations. Frontiers in Psychology 9 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 05 january 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.