Modifying plurals, classifiers, and co-occurrence: The case of Korean

Kim, Kyumin; Melchin, Paul B.

doi:10.5334/gjgl.397

Cited by 3 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That is, a plural referent is possible in the absence of plural marking in these languages; nouns without plural marking are interpreted as number neutral, rather than singular. This appears to be the case for the languages discussed in this paper as well, and Section 3.3 presents arguments from K. Kim and Melchin () that this property of the Korean plural –tul results from its syntactic status as a modifier rather than a head plural (in the sense of Wiltschko, ). We are not aware of analogous analyses for Chinese or Japanese, but descriptively, these languages appear to pattern like those discussed by Doetjes (see Sections 3.1 and 3.2).…”

Section: Other Approaches To Complementary Distributionmentioning

confidence: 65%

“…The co‐occurrence shown in (22) suggests that in Korean the plural marker and classifiers, like those in Japanese, are not in complementary distribution, which is argued in K. Kim and Melchin (). Moreover, it has been argued that –tul cannot be an instantiation of a Div‐like head (Cowper & Hall, ; K. Kim & Melchin, ). In Cowper and Hall (), following Park (), –tul realizes a Q head .…”

Section: Distribution Of Classifiers and Plural Markers In East Asianmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…We refer readers to the cited references, both of which compare Korean to Japanese or Chinese with respect to associativity . Regarding classifiers, like the Japanese –tachi , the plural –tul can co‐occur with classifiers (An, ; Cowper & Hall, ; J. Kim, ; K. Kim & Melchin, ); this is shown in (22) …”

Section: Distribution Of Classifiers and Plural Markers In East Asianmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If the number feature on D is not valued, the derivation crashes, which captures the obligatory co‐occurrence. In Korean (24), on the other hand, the co‐occurrence of the plural –tul is not obligatory, which should result from something other than Agree (K. Kim & Melchin, ; Wiltschko, ). Upon this conclusion, the feature [plural] instantiated by a plural marker in some languages is a modifying feature.…”

Section: Distribution Of Classifiers and Plural Markers In East Asianmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

K. Kim and Melchin () rule out DP as a possible option where –tul can adjoin, and thus, –tul cannot be a DP modifier. Unlike the Chinese –men , for example, –tul does not induce a definite interpretation.…”

Section: Distribution Of Classifiers and Plural Markers In East Asianmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

On the complementary distribution of plurals and classifiers in East Asian classifier languages

Kim

Melchin

2018

Language and Linguist. Compass

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is widely recognized that plural morphemes and classifiers are in complementary distribution, being unable to co-occur. Recent literature suggests a syntactic account for complementary distribution: A plural morpheme and a classifier realize the same functional head, and thus, they cannot co-occur. The goal of this article is to examine whether this syntactic approach to the alleged complementary distribution is applicable to certain classifier languages. We review analyses for each of 3 classifier languages, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, where a plural and a classifier co-occur. The reviewed analyses suggest that plural markers in these classifier languages do not realize the same head with classifiers (e.g., a plural instantiates Num/D in Chinese differently from a classifier), which accounts for its co-occurrence with a classifier.For example, Borer (2005) claims that classifiers and plural markers perform the same semantic function, that of individuation (in a non-measure construction, see Footnote 2 and Section 2 for more details); and thus, they realize the same functional head in the nominal structure, that is, they are in syntactic complementary distribution (to be detailed in Section 2). The proposed syntactic complementary distribution captures the well-observed fact that classifiers and plural markers cannot co-occur in some languages. The question that arises with respect to Borer's type of approach is how complementary distribution figures in classifier languages such as Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, where both classifiers and plurals are known to be available. For these languages (as will be discussed in Section 3), independently from Borer's claim, plural markers have been proposed to occupy a different position than classifiers in the nominal structure. Classifiers realize a functional head CL projected above an NP. Plural markers occupy a different head than a CL; for example, in Chinese (Li, 1999), the Num(ber) head (in the sense of Ritter 1991Ritter , 1995 has been proposed as the site for the plural marker -men. With respect to the claim that classifiers and plural markers realize the same functional head as in Borer, this type of proposal for the classifier languages seems to indicate that the syntactic complementary distribution of classifiers and plural markers proposed in Borer may not be applicable to these classifier languages.The goal of this article is to review relevant data provided and the main proposals made for each of the classifier languages under consideration and to evaluate whether the wellknown syntactic complementary distribution is applicable to these classifier languages. For reasons of space, the discussion to follow is restricted to the main proposals concerning the position of plural markers in a nominal structure of each of the classifier languages, assuming the syntax and semantics of classifiers to be relatively constant. In the studies to be reviewed, it appears that the syntax of classifiers in non-measure constructions is relatively less debatable than the s...

show abstract

Section: Other Approaches To Complementary Distributionmentioning

confidence: 65%

Section: Distribution Of Classifiers and Plural Markers In East Asianmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Distribution Of Classifiers and Plural Markers In East Asianmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Distribution Of Classifiers and Plural Markers In East Asianmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

Section: Distribution Of Classifiers and Plural Markers In East Asianmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

On the complementary distribution of plurals and classifiers in East Asian classifier languages

Kim

Melchin

2018

Language and Linguist. Compass

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Variation in the Syntax of Plural Markers: The Case From Plural –Menin Mandarin

Kim

Meng

2021

Studia Linguistica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides a novel analysis of plural marker –men in Mandarin as a modifier: –men does not realize a head such as Num(ber); rather, it adjoins to a DP in the nominal structure. The proposed analysis can account for defining properties of –men as a modifier, such as the interpretation of a bare noun with respect to –men, lack of agreement, co‐occurrence with a classifier, and so on, which cannot be accounted for by the previous approaches that view –men as realizing a head, such as Num, in the nominal projection. The consequences of this paper support the recent view that the syntax of plural markers is not homogeneous but heterogeneous.

show abstract

The syntax and morphology of nominal modification in Ògè

Adenuga¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This dissertation investigates several aspects of nominal modification in Ògè, an understudied language of Benue-congo spoken in Àkókó Northwest in Nigeria. The study focuses on two areas of nominal modification namely, Nominal Attributive Modifiers (NAMs) and the strategies of number marking. The discussion and analysis of NAMs in the language reveal that Ògè belongs to the group of languages which lacks adjectives as a lexical category. NAMs are nominal and they are derived from an existing lexical category namely, verbs. Predicative modifiers and NAMs have forms that are similar to the long and short forms (LF & SF) of adjectives in languages in which adjectives form an open class, for example, Russian, SerBoCroatian (BCS) and German. Based on the Minimalist program, the dissertation reveals that unlike Russian, BCS, and German in which the discrepancies between the two forms of adjectives are related to definiteness (as in the case of BCS) and Agree, the discrepancies in the two forms of modifiers in Ògè are related to the fact that Ògè lacks adjectives and resorts into the nominalization of stative verbs in order to derive attributive forms. Using the analyses of adjuncts according to Truswell (2004) and Zeijlstra (2020), the dissertation proposes that NAMs are adjuncts in a modification structure while they are heads in possessive and genitive constructions. In addition, I propose that NAMs are attributive-only modifiers which modify the NP rather than the DP. The dissertation also investigates the strategies of number marking in Ògè. Unlike languages in which number marking is obligatory in the nominal domain (Hebrew, German, English), nouns in Ògè are not always marked for number. This means that nouns in Ògè have general number. The general number nature of nouns in Ògè is like that of the nouns in modifying plural marking languages namely, Halkomelem, Korean, Yucatec Maya and Yorùbá. However, I argue that unlike the modifying plural marking languages in which the Number Phrase (NumP) is not projected, NumP is projected in the nominal spine of Ògè, claiming that NumP bears an interpretable number feature which values the uninterpretable number feature in D. Argument in support of this comes from the interpretation of the noun in the presence of òtúro (an element which translates to the plural definite interpretation of the noun). I analyze òtúro as a plural determiner which occupies the D-head in the syntax of Ògè. The dissertation argues following Alexiadou (2019) that the locus of the occurrence of the marker of plurality in the nominal spine does not depend on its interpretation as a plural morpheme, rather, the locus of the occurrence of the element that is sensitive to the plural interpretation of the noun depends on other parameters which are definiteness, specificity and animacy.

show abstract

Modifying plurals, classifiers, and co-occurrence: The case of Korean

Cited by 3 publications

References 26 publications

On the complementary distribution of plurals and classifiers in East Asian classifier languages

On the complementary distribution of plurals and classifiers in East Asian classifier languages

Variation in the Syntax of Plural Markers: The Case From Plural –Menin Mandarin

The syntax and morphology of nominal modification in Ògè

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About