Les pluriels internes féminins de l’arabe tunisien
L’objectif de cet article est de rendre compte des pluriels simples et doubles de l’arabe dans le cadre de la théorie des nominaux et de l’individuation de
Borer (2005). En particulier, nous étudions ces pluriels dans les constructions où l’accord entre le verbe et le pluriel est déviant et faisons quatre propositions 1) les pluriels internes sont féminins (et singuliers) à un niveau sous-jacent dans les contextes où l’accord est déviant, ne représentant donc pas, contrairement aux apparences, d’échec d’appariement ; 2) lorsque les pluriels internes s’accordent avec le verbe, une interprétation distributive ou collective est établie, et lorsque les pluriels internes ne s’accordent pas avec le verbe, seule l’interprétation collective peut être générée, résultat de la fonction atomisante du féminin que l’on retrouve indépendamment dans le contexte du singulatif ; 3) le pluriel interne féminin constitue la base des doubles pluriels, si bien que ces derniers font surface à un niveau supérieur dans la structure nominale, offrant donc un deuxième type de pluriel, pourvu d’une fonction comptable, alors que celui généré sous la tête Div a une fonction atomisante ; 4) les règles que nous décrivons sont tout à fait prévisibles et productives, ce qui laisse supposer que les pluriels étudiés dans notre article ne sont pas des pluriels lexicaux.
The aim of this paper is to account for single and double plurals of Arabic under
Borer’s nominal theory of division (2005). In particular, we study these plurals in constructions where the agreement between the verb and the plural is deflected and make four proposals : 1) broken plurals are feminine (and singular) at an underlying level in contexts where the agreement is deflected, thus not representing failure of agreement, contrary to appearances; 2) when the broken plurals agree with the verb, distributive or collective interpretations arise, and when the broken plurals do not agree with the verb, only the collective interpretation can be generated as a result of the atomizing function of the feminine gender that is independently found in the context of the singulative ; 3) the feminine broken plural constitutes the basis of the double plurals, so that the later surface at a higher level in the nominal structure, thus providing a second type of plural, with a counting function, while the plural generated under Div has an atomizing function; 4) the rules that we describe are quite predictable and productive, suggesting that the plurals studied in our paper are not lexical plurals.
Article outline
- Introduction
- 1.Un pluriel interne féminin
- 2.Les pluriels doubles
- 3.Conclusion
- Notes
-
Œuvres citées
Article language: French
References (36)
Œuvres citées
Acquaviva, P. (2008). Lexical plurals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Alexiadou, A. (2004). Inflection class, gender and DP-internal structure. In Gereon Müller, Lutz Gunkel et Gisela Zifonun (Eds.), Explorations in Nominal In-flection (pp. 21–50). Berlin : Mouton. 

Belnap, K. (1991). Grammatical agreement variation in Cairene Arabic. Thèse de doctorat, University of Pennsylvania.
Borer, H. (2005). In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borer, H. & Ouwayda, S. (2010). Men and their apples : Dividing plural and agreement plural. Article présenté à
GLOW in Asia VIII
, Beijing Language and Culture University.
Brustad, K. (2000). The syntax of spoken Arabic. Washington, DC : Georgetown University Press.
Caubet, D., Simeone-Senelle & Vanhove, M. (1989). Genre et accord dans quelques dialectes arabes. Linx, 211, 39–66. 

Corbett, G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Corbett, G. (2006). Agreement. Cambridge: Cambirdge University Press.
Dali, M. (2015). The feminine operator in Arabic. Mémoire de maîtrise, Université d’Ottawa.
Dali, M. (article à paraître). On the contrastive use of plurals in Tunisian Arabic. Université d’Ottawa.
Danon, G. (2011). Agreement and DP-internal feature distribution. Syntax, 141, 297–317. 

De Belder, M. (2011). A morphosyntactic decomposition of countability in Germanic. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 141, 173–202. 

den Dikken, M. (2001). "Plurisingulars", pronouns and quirky agreement. The Linguistic Review, 181, 19–41.
Fassi Fehri, A. (1993). Issues in the structure of Arabic clauses and words. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. 

Fassi Fehri, A. (2003). Mass, Count, Bare. Article présenté à
The Sixth LSM Meeting
, Rabat : IERA, Mohammed V University.
Ferguson, C. (1989). Grammatical agreement in Classical Arabic and the modern dialects : A response to Versteegh’s pidginization hypothesis. Al-’Arabiyya, 221, 5–18.
Grimm, S. (2012). Inverse number marking and individuation in Dagaare. In D. Massam (Ed.), Count and mass across languages (pp. 75–98). Oxford : Oxford University Press. 

Kramer, R. (2009). Definite markers, phi-features, and agreement : A morphosyntactic investigation of the Amharic DP. Thèse de doctorat, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Kramer, R. (2015). The morphosyntax of gender. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Landau, I. (2016). DP internal agreement : A configurational analysis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 341, 975–1020. 

Mathieu, E. (2012a). Flavors of division. Linguistic Inquiry, 431, 650–679. 

Mathieu, E. (2009). On the mass/count distinction in Ojibwe. Presenté à the
Mass/count workshop
, organisé par Diane Massam, Université de Toronto, 7-8 février.
Mathieu, E. (2012b). The mass/count distinction in Ojibwe. In D. Massam (Ed.), Count and mass across languages, 172–198. Oxford : Oxford University Press. 

Mathieu, E. (2013a). On the plural of the singulative. In A. McKillen & B. Buccola (Eds.),
McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 23
, [URL]
Mathieu, E. (2013b). Many a plural. In A. Aguilar-Guevara, B. Le Bruyn & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Weak Referentiality (pp. 157–181). Amsterdam : John Benjamins. 

Ojeda, A. (1992). The Semantics of number in Arabic. In C. Baker & D. Dowty (Eds.), SALT II : Proceedings of the Second Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (pp. 303–325). Ohio State University, Linguistic Society of America.
Preminger, O. (2014). Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press. 

Smith, P. (2015). Feature mismatches : Consequences for syntax, morphology and semantics. Thèse de doctorat, University of Connecticut.
Steriopolo, O. & Wiltschko, M. (2010). Distributed GENDER Hypothesis. In G. Zybatow, P. Dudchuk, S. Minor & E. Pshehotskaya (Eds.), Formal Studies in Slavic Linguistics (pp. 155–172). Frankfurt am Main : Peter Lang.
Wechsler, S. & Zlatić, L. (2003). The many faces of agreement. Stanford: CLSI. 
Wright, W. (1933). A grammar of the Arabic language (Volume I1). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Zabbal, Y. (2002). The semantics of number in the Arabic noun phrase. Mémoire de maîtrise, Université de Calgary.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Jaradat, Abdulazeez & Marwan Jarrah
2022.
The syntax of plurals of collective and mass nouns: Views from Jordanian Arabic.
Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 58:3
► pp. 509 ff.

Idrissi, Ali, Eiman Mustafawi, Tariq Khwaileh & R. Muralikrishnan
2021.
A neurophysiological study of noun-adjective agreement in Arabic: The impact of animacy and diglossia on the dynamics of language processing.
Journal of Neurolinguistics 58
► pp. 100964 ff.

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