Distributive Quantification by Reduplication in Dravidian

Abstract

In the Dravidian languages reduplication of numerals and pronouns gives rise to distributive meanings. For example, in Telugu, as in Kannada, Tamil, and Malayalam, the other major Dravidian languages, reduplication of numerals gives rise to distributive readings. We find that the reduplicated numeral construction always gives rise to distributive readings. There are no collective readings of a reduplicated numeral construction. Additionally we observe that it gives rise to two further distributive interpretations that are not present in the non‐reduplicated construction. The main focus of this chapter is to explain the cause of the obligatory distributivity that is associated with the reduplicated numeral construction and to account for the various additional distributive readings that are possible in such constructions. This work is embedded in a larger project which examines the cross‐linguistic morpho‐syntax and semantics of reduplication, not restricted to numerals only, and its relation to plurality.

Overt distributivity in algebraic event semantics

“…I call this the occasion reading. It corresponds to what is also called the temporal key reading and the spatial key reading (Balusu 2005, Balusu & Jayaseelan 2013. I will treat the temporal and spatial cases as two separate readings (and I will focus on the temporal case).…”

Exhaustivity and homogeneity effects with distributive‐share markers: Experimental evidence from Serbian po

“…This work builds on recent investigations of distributive‐share markers in Serbian and Korean presented in Bosnić, Spenader & Demirdache 2020 as well as Knežević & Demirdache 2017, 2018. While there is one line of research that argues in favor of analyzing distributive‐share markers as universal quantifiers distributing over event aspects (Zimmermann 2002, Balusu 2006, Balusu & Jayaseelan 2013, Champollion 2016b, Bosnić, Spenader & Demirdache 2020), another contends that distributive‐share markers are event‐plurality markers and not universal quantifiers (Cable 2014, Knežević 2015, Knežević & Demirdache 2017, 2018). Recent experimental research with Serbian and Korean (Bosnić, Spenader & Demirdache 2020) found that with intransitive verbs, distributive‐share markers have exhaustivity requirements that support a universal‐quantifier analysis.…”

“…Knežević’s analysis contrasts sharply with a universal‐quantification analysis of distributive‐share markers, proposed, for example, in Balusu 2006 and Balusu & Jayaseelan 2013 for reduplicated numerals in Telugu. These works take an opposite stance to that defended by Knežević for Serbian po by assuming that the semantics of distributivity with reduplicated numerals does indeed involve a relation between a distributive key and a distributive share, with exhaustivity as a diagnostic for identifying the distributive key.…”

“…The issue, however, of whether or not distributive‐share markers also involve universal quantification is a matter of debate in the literature. One line of research, going back to Gil 1995, argues in favor of universal quantification (but over events as well as individuals: Faller 2001, Zimmermann 2002, Balusu 2006, Balusu & Jayaseelan 2013, Champollion 2016b, Bosnić, Spenader & Demirdache 2020). The other line of research argues that distributive‐share markers simply signal event plurality, suggesting a pluractional analysis (Lasersohn 1995, Matthewson 2000, Müller & Negrão 2012, Cable 2014, Knežević 2015, Cabredo Hofherr et al 2018); alternatively, it is argued by McKercher & Kim 2000 for Korean ‐ssik , as well as Faller 2001 for Quechua ‐nka , that these markers are not associated with distributivity at all but are merely group‐forming devices (serving to form multiple groups from the denotation of the noun they combine with).…”

A a Semântica Dos Numerais Distributivos: Um Estudo Entre Línguas

“…[ O formalismo de Gil, entretanto, é insuficiente para explicar de que forma as leituras são geradas a partir do numeral distributivo (BALUSU, JAYASEELAn, 2013). Ademais, como vimos, os exemplos do português brasileiro e do chinês mandarim apresentam uma gama de leituras distintas das descritas em (53a-b) exibindo, além das leituras atestadas para o georgiano, uma leitura em que o sujeito é parte do predicado distribuído.…”