Lexical plurals in Telugu
Mass nouns in disguise
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.
Article outline
- Introduction
- 1.The mass/count distinction in Telugu
- 1.1Mass versus count: A general overview
- 1.2The morphosyntax of the mass/count distinction in Telugu
- 1.3The semantic distinctions between mass nouns and count nouns in Telugu
- 2.Milk and water: Plural mass nouns in Telugu
- 2.1Milk and Water
- 2.2Plural mass nouns: A cross-linguistic picture
- 3.Issues that Telugu raises for theories of the mass/count distinction
- 4.A solution
- 4.1
Končam and konni are allomorphs
- 4.2The Inner Structure of niiLLu and paalu
- 5.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References (28)
References
Acquaviva, P. (2008a). Lexical Plurals: A morphosemantic approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Acquaviva, P. (2008b). Roots and lexicality in Distributed Morphology. [URL].
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.
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. 

De Belder, M. (2013). Collective mass affixes: When derivation restricts functional structure. Lingua, 1261, 32–50. 

Borer, H. (2005). Structuring Sense vol 1: In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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. 

Ghianiabadi, S. (2012). Plural marking beyond count nouns. In D. Massam (Ed.), Count and Mass across languages (pp. 112–128). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

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.
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.
Kiparsky, P. (1973). "Elsewhere" in phonology. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 93–106). New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
Kramer, R. (2014). Gender in amharic: A morphosyntactic approach to natural and grammatical gender. Language Sciences, 431, 102–115. 

Kramer, R. (2015). The Morphosyntax of Gender. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Krishnamurti, B. & Gwynn, J. (1985). A Grammar of Modern Telugu. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Landau, I. (2016). DP-internal semantic agreement: A configurational analysis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 341, 975–1020. 

Landman, F. (1989a). Groups, I. Linguistics and Philosophy, 121, 559–605. 

Landman, F. (1989b). Groups, II. Linguistics and Philosophy, 121, 723–744. 

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. 

Mathieu, E. (2012). Flavors of division. Linguistic Inquiry, 43(4), 650–679. 

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.
Ponamgi, R. (2012). Quantification in Telugu. In E. Keenan & D. Paperno (Eds.), Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language (pp. 781–843). Springer. 

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.
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).
Smith, P. W. (2015). Feature mismatches: Consequences for syntax, morphology and semantics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
Solt, S. (2009). The semantics of adjectives of quantity. Ph.D. thesis, City University of New York.
Tsoulas, G. (2007). On the grammar of number and mass terms in greek. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 491, 239–266.
Wiltschko, M. (2008). The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 261, 639–694. 

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. 

Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Acquaviva, Paolo & Laure Gardelle
2023.
Pluralia tantumandsingularia tantum. In
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology,
► pp. 1 ff.

Jaradat, Abdulazeez
2023.
When a Dual Marker Acts as a Paucal Marker: The Case of the Dual -e:n in Northern Rural Jordanian Arabic.
Languages 8:3
► pp. 183 ff.

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.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 october 2024. 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.