Author:
Renans Agata,Sağ Yağmur,Ketrez F. Nihan,Tieu Lyn,Tsoulas George,Folli Raffaella,de Vries Hana,Romoli Jacopo
Abstract
AbstractIn English and many other languages, the interpretation of the plural is associated with an ‘exclusive’ reading in positive sentences and an ‘inclusive’ reading in negative ones. For example, the plural noun tulips in a sentence such as Chicken planted tulips suggests that Chicken planted more than one tulip (i.e., a reading which ‘excludes’ atomic individual tulips). At the same time, however, the corresponding negative sentence Chicken didn’t plant tulips doesn’t merely convey that he didn’t plant more than one tulip, but rather that he didn’t plant any tulip (i.e., ‘including’ atomic individual tulips). Different approaches to the meaning contribution of the English plural vary in how they account for this alternation across the polarities, but converge on assuming that (at least one of) the denotation(s) of the plural should include atomic individuals. Turkish, on the other hand, is cited as one of the few known languages in which the plural only receives an exclusive interpretation (e.g., Bale et al. Cross-linguistic representations of numerals and number marking. in: Li, Lutz (eds) Semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) 20, CLC Publications, Ithaca, pp 582–598, 2010). More recent proposals have, however, argued that the Turkish plural should in fact be analysed more like the English plural (e.g., Sağ, The semantics of number marking: reference to kinds, counting, and optional classifiers, PhD dissertation, Rutgers University, 2019). We report two experiments investigating Turkish-speaking adults’ and preschool-aged children’s interpretation of positive and negative sentences containing plural nouns. The results provide clear evidence for inclusive interpretations of the plural in Turkish, supporting accounts that treat the Turkish and English plurals alike. We briefly discuss how an inclusive meaning of the Turkish plural can be integrated within a theory of the Turkish number system which captures some idiosyncratic properties of the singular and the agreement between number and number numerals.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Philosophy
Reference61 articles.
1. Backscheider, Andrea G., and Susan A. Gelman. 1995. Children’s understanding of homonyms. Journal of Child Language 22 (1): 107–127.
2. Bale, Alan, and Hrayr Khanjian. 2009. Classifiers and number marking. In Semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) 18, ed. T. Friedman and S. Ito, 73–89. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
3. Bale, Alan, and Hrayr Khanjian. 2014. Syntactic complexity and competition: The singular-plural distinction in Western Armenian. Linguistic Inquiry 45 (1): 1–26.
4. Bale, Alan, Michaël Gagnon, and Hrayr Khanjian. 2010. Cross-linguistic representations of numerals and number marking. In Semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) 20, ed. Nan Li and David Lutz, 582–598. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
5. Berwick, Robert C. 1985. The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. The Plural is Unmarked: Evidence from Turkish, Hungarian and German;Glossa: a journal of general linguistics;2023-11-01
2. Türkçede çoğulluğun anlambilimine yeniden bir bakış;RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi;2022-07-21
3. Zero N: Number features and ⊥;Natural Language Semantics;2022-04-22
4. Bare singulars and singularity in Turkish;Linguistics and Philosophy;2021-09-16