Number-based noun classification
- PDF / 1,238,180 Bytes
- 57 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 80 Downloads / 232 Views
Number-based noun classification The view from Kipsigis Maria Kouneli1
Received: 22 September 2018 / Accepted: 6 October 2020 © The Author(s) 2020
Abstract Nilo-Saharan languages are well-known for their complicated system of nominal number marking, which features a variety of singulative and plural affixes (Dimmendaal 2000). Even though these systems have received some attention in the typological literature, there has been limited theoretical work on their implications for the morphosyntax of number cross-linguistically. The goal of this paper is to fill this gap, by providing an analysis of nominal number morphology in Kipsigis (Nilotic, Kenya), based on data from original fieldwork. First, I show that singulatives in Kipsigis are true allomorphs of singular number, unlike singulatives with a classifier function in languages like Ojibwe (Mathieu 2012). The descriptive term ‘singulative’ is therefore misleading, as it corresponds to two very different types of morphemes. Second, I claim that the tripartite system of number marking of Kipsigis and other Nilo-Saharan languages is due to the classification of nouns into morphosyntactic classes defined by the presence of inherent number features on little n; the interaction of these features with interpretable number features on the functional projection Num (Ritter 1991 a.o.) in the post-syntactic component gives rise to the exponence pattern that we observe. Finally, my analysis corroborates the existence of noun classification based on number, which has only been argued for Kiowa-Tanoan before (Harbour 2007). The existence of three number classes in Kipsigis can only be explained by reference to bivalent number features; number-based noun classification systems thus strongly support the view that number features are bivalent and not privative, which is also argued by Harbour (2007, 2011) for Kiowa. Keywords DP syntax · Number · Noun classification · Nilotic languages · Morphology
B M. Kouneli
[email protected]
1
Philologische Fakultät, Institut für Linguistik, Beethovenstraße 15, Leipzig 04107, Germany
M. Kouneli
1 Introduction Kalenjin languages1 have what has been called in the literature a ‘tripartite’ system of number marking (Corbett 2000; Dimmendaal 2000): some nouns are interpreted as singular in their morphologically unmarked form and form their plural by the addition of a plural suffix (1), some nouns are interpreted as plural in their unmarked form and form their singular by the addition of a singulative suffix (2), while a third class of nouns never appear in their unmarked form: they have a singulative suffix in the singular, and a plural suffix in the plural (3). This system is different from that of most Indo-European languages, where nouns usually follow the pattern in (1), that is, they are morphologically unmarked in the singular and marked in the plural. (1)
Plural marking:
kipaw (SG)
(2)
Singulative marking:
peel-yaan (SG) peel (PL)
(3)
Singulative/Plural marking: pata-yaan (SG) pat-een (PL) (Endo-Marakwet dialect; Zwa
Data Loading...
