Pluralia tantum nouns and the theory of features: a typology of nouns with non-canonical number properties

Abstract

Many languages have an interesting class of nouns, the pluralia tantum, which have restricted number possibilities when, in some sense, they should not. Thus English binoculars has no singular, which is worth noting (that is, it is not predictable). True, there are other nouns denoting items consisting of two significant parts which behave similarly (spectacles, trousers.. .); indeed they are subject to 'middle-size generalizations' (Koenig 1999). But there are two reasons to note such nouns. First there are many English nouns equally denoting items consisting of two significant parts which are unremarkable in this respect: bicycle, bigraph, Bactrian camel, couple, duo.. . And second, there are languages with number systems roughly comparable to that of English in which the equivalents of binoculars and trousers are normal count nouns: Russian binokl', French pantalon. While pluralia tantum are of continuing interest, it is typically only the English type which is considered. But these familiar examples offer an entry point to a collection of lexical items, some with much stranger behaviour, lurking between the semi-predictable and the unexpectedly defective. In particular, some instances demonstrate that we cannot maintain the general assumption that the 'internal' morphosemantic specification of a paradigm cell and its 'external' morphosyntactic requirement are necessarily identical. I therefore set out a full typology of these fascinating nouns, so that their significance can be more fully appreciated. I start from the notion of canonical noun, and calibrate the different non-canonical properties according to a set of orthogonal criteria.

Splits, internal and external, as a window into the nature of features

“…We now turn to something found in larger groups of nouns in many languages, namely pluralia tantum nouns These nouns show a particular type of split, between the existing and missing part of the paradigm. Their properties have recently been analysed in detail (Corbett, 2019), so this section is short. What is important is that these nouns are of various types (not all are like scissors), and the differences prove significant for our purposes.…”

A plural indefinite quantifier on the Romance-Slavic border

“…Notably, although plural dominant nouns are not linked to specific semantic features (Acquaviva 2008;Corbett 2019), it is nevertheless worth noticing that a sizeable subset of them does denote referents usually occurring in pairs and thus favouring a meaning of singularity in the sense of 'one group of', 'one pair of' when they are modified by uni/une. At the margin, it can be further noted that the semantic features at issue here are far from being negligible from a cognitive point of view.…”

“…The fact that in these languages the plural form of the numeral 'one' is mostly found with pluralia tantum has not been addressed in depth. Corbett (2019) noted that pluralia tantum have no singular and thus trigger syntactic agreement in the plural even in those cases involving the numeral 'one'. Moreover, the semantics of pluralia tantum have been argued to be strictly related to those of collectives and "by means of collectives units are counted each of which is a multiplicity" (Lofstedt 1958: §4, 2 quoted in Ojeda 1997: 146).…”

“…We embrace a basic definition of pluralia tantum for the sake of convenience in testing, but we are aware that the status of pluralia tantum is more blurred(Acquaviva 2008;Corbett 2019). Furthermore, as specified below, we kept semantic variability at a minimum across experimental items once again for testing reasons (first and foremost picturability).…”

Repartitioning

“…For example, it is becoming clear that the semantic specifications of a paradigm cell and its external morphosyntactic specification do not have to be identical. This is demonstrated (i) at the level of specific lexemes, notably by pluralia tantum nouns in various languages which are semantically singular but control plural agreement, and (ii) at a more general level in languages where plural nouns regularly control singular agreement (see Corbett 2019 for examples of both types). The essential point here is that we are finding various instances where the content paradigm is not the simple construct it once appeared.…”