Article published in:
Lexical plurals and beyond
Edited by Peter Lauwers and Marie Lammert
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 39:2] 2016
► pp. 234–252

Lexical plurals in Telugu

Mass nouns in disguise

| Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main
In this paper I provide a description and analysis of a small class of plural mass nouns in Telugu (Dravidian), as well as an overview of the major properties of the mass/count distinction in the language. The plural mass nouns show the semantic behaviour of mass nouns in Telugu, however, they show the morphosyntactic behaviour of count nouns. I provide an analysis whereby the plurality is inherent to the roots, and it is this inherent plurality interacting with other properties of the morphosyntax of Telugu that makes these nouns appear to be count on the surface, though in reality they are mass nouns.
Keywords: Telugu, mass/count distinction, inherent features, allomorphy
Published online: 30 March 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.39.2.02smi
References

References

Acquaviva, P.
(2008a) Lexical Plurals: A morphosemantic approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008b) Roots and lexicality in Distributed Morphology. http://​ling​.auf​.net​/lingbuzz​/000654.
Alexiadou, A.
(2011) Plural mass nouns and the morpo-syntax of number. In M. B. Washburn, K. McKinney-Bock, E. Varis, A. Sawyer & B. Tomaszewicz (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 33–41). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Bale, A. C. & Barner, D.
(2009) The interpretation of functional heads: Using comparatives to explore the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics, 26(3), 217–252. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Belder, M.
(2013) Collective mass affixes: When derivation restricts functional structure. Lingua, 126, 32–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Borer, H.
(2005) Structuring Sense vol 1: In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G.
(1998) Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of ‘semantic parameter’. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and grammar (pp. 53–103). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ghianiabadi, S.
(2012) Plural marking beyond count nouns. In D. Massam (Ed.), Count and Mass across languages (pp. 112–128). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halle, M. & Marantz, 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, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, H.
(2009) Compounding in distributed morphology. In R. Lieber & P. Stekauer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding (pp. 129–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P.
(1973) "Elsewhere" in phonology. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 93–106). New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.Google Scholar
Kramer, R.
(2014) Gender in amharic: A morphosyntactic approach to natural and grammatical gender. Language Sciences, 43, 102–115. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) The Morphosyntax of Gender. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krishnamurti, B. & Gwynn, J.
(1985) A Grammar of Modern Telugu. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Landau, I.
(2016) DP-internal semantic agreement: A configurational analysis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 34, 975–1020. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Landman, F.
(1989a) Groups, I. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 559–605. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1989b) Groups, II. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 723–744. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Link, G.
(1983) The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice theoretical approach. In C. S. R. Bäuerle & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use and interpretation of language (pp. 127–144). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mathieu, E.
(2012) Flavors of division. Linguistic Inquiry, 43(4), 650–679. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ojeda, A.
(2005) The paradox of mass plurals. In E. F. Salikoko Mufwene & R. Wheeler (Eds.), Polymorphous Linguistics: Jim McCawley’s Legacy (pp. 389–410). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ponamgi, R.
(2012) Quantification in Telugu. In E. Keenan & D. Paperno (Eds.), Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language (pp. 781–843). Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, E.
(1991) Two functional categories in noun-phrases: Evidence from modern hebrew. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Perspectives on phrase structure, volume 26 of Syntax and semantics (pp. 37–62). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, R.
(2011) Stubborn distributivity, multiparticipant nouns and the count/mass distinction. In B. S. Suzi Lima & Kevin Mullin (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS39 (pp. 661–678).Google Scholar
Smith, P. W.
(2015) Feature mismatches: Consequences for syntax, morphology and semantics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.Google Scholar
Solt, S.
(2009) The semantics of adjectives of quantity. Ph.D. thesis, City University of New York.Google Scholar
Tsoulas, G.
(2007) On the grammar of number and mass terms in greek. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 49, 239–266.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, M.
(2008) The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 26, 639–694. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, N. N.
(2012) Countability and numeral classifiers in mandarin chinese. In D. Massam (Ed.), Count and Mass across languages (pp. 220–237). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 august 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.