Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistics

An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: van der Auwera, Johan

6 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.644
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.878

CiteScore 2017: 0.79

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.418
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 1.386

Online
ISSN
1613-396X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 55, Issue 6

Issues

Explaining asymmetries in number marking: Singulatives, pluratives, and usage frequency

Martin Haspelmath
  • Corresponding author
  • Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745, Jena, Germany
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Andres Karjus
  • Linguistics and English Language, School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Dugald Stewart Building, 3 Charles Street, Edinburgh, EH8 9AD, United Kingdom
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-10-17 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2017-0026

Abstract

This paper claims that crosslinguistic tendencies of number marking asymmetries can be explained with reference to usage frequency: The kinds of nouns which, across languages, tend to show singulative coding (with special marking of the uniplex member of a pair), rather than the more usual plurative coding (with special marking of the multiplex member), are also the kinds of nouns which tend to occur more frequently in multiplex use. We provide crosslinguistic coding evidence from a range of languages from different families and areas, and crosslinguistic corpus evidence from five languages, using large written corpora. Thus, the crosslinguistic pattern of singulative vs. plurative coding is a special instance of the tendency to devote more marking to rarer forms, and can be explained by the grammatical form-frequency correspondence principle.

Keywords: number marking; crosslinguistic tendencies; markedness; corpora; usage-based

References

  • Arensen, Jonathan E. 1982. Murle grammar. (Occasional Papers in the Study of Sudanese Languages, 2). Juba: University of Juba.Google Scholar

  • Belsley, David A., Edwin Kuh & Roy E. Welsh. 1980. Regression diagnostics: Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan. 2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Cook, R. Dennis. 1977. Detection of influential observations in linear regression. Technometrics 19(1). 15–18.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Cuzzolin, Pierluigi. 1998. Sull’origine del singolativo in celtico, con particolare riferimento al medio gallese. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 83(2). 121–149.Google Scholar

  • Dressler, Wolfgang, Gary Libben & Korecky-Kröll. Katharina. 2014. Conflicting vs. convergent vs. interdependent motivations in morphology. In Brian MacWhinney, Andrej Malchukov & Edith Moravcsik (eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage, 181–196. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud. 1991. Frequenz und Kognition–Frequenz und Markiertheit. Folia Linguistica 25(3–4). 361–394.Google Scholar

  • Gil, David. 1996. Maltese “collective nouns”: A typological perspective. Rivista di Linguistica 8(1). 53–87.Google Scholar

  • Givón, Talmy. 1991. Markedness in grammar: Distributional, communicative and cognitive correlates of syntactic structure. Studies in Language 15(2). 335–370.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of language, 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Language universals, with special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Grimm, Scott. 2012. Individuation and inverse number marking in Dagaare. In Diane Massam (ed.), Count and mass across languages, 75–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. Occurrence of nominal plurality. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.), The world atlas of language structures, 142–145. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42(1). 25–70.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19(1). 1–33.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2014. On system pressure competing with economic motivation. In Brian MacWhinney, Andrej L. Malchukov & Edith A. Moravcsik (eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage, 197–208. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin, Andreea Calude, Michael Spagnol, Heiko Narrog & Elif Bamyacı. 2014. Coding causal–noncausal verb alternations: A form–frequency correspondence explanation. Journal of Linguistics 50(3). 587–625.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin & Uri Tadmor (eds.). 2009. World loanword database. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wold.clld.org/.

  • Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hayward, Dick. 1984. The Arbore language: A first investigation (including a vocabulary). Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar

  • King, Gareth. 1993. Modern Welsh: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Kirt, Riin. 2013. Tasakaalus korpusel põhinevad sagedusloendid ja korpuse sõnavara ning “Eesti keele seletava sõnaraamatu” märksõnaloendi võrdlus. [Word frequency lists based on the “Balanced Corpus of Estonian” and selective comparison of corpora frequency lists with keywords from the “Explanatory Dictionary of Estonian”]. Tartu: University of Tartu MA thesis.Google Scholar

  • Levene, Howard. 1960. Robust tests for equality of variances. In Ingram Olkin, Sudhish G. Ghurje, Wassily Hoeffding, William G. Madow & Henry B. Mann (eds.), Contributions to probability and statistics: Essays in honor of Harold Hotelling, 278–292. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Mayerthaler, Willi. 1981. Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft Athenaion.Google Scholar

  • Mifsud, Manwel. 1996. The collective in Maltese. Rivista di Linguistica 8(1). 29–51.Google Scholar

  • Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2014. Where do motivations compete? In Brian MacWhinney, Andrej Malchukov & Edith Moravcsik (eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage, 299–314. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • R Core Team 2015. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/.

  • Reh, Mechthild. 1985. Die Krongo-Sprache (nìino mó-dì): Beschreibung, Texte, Wörterverzeichnis. (Kölner Beiträge zur Afrikanistik 12). Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.Google Scholar

  • Stolz, Thomas. 2001. Singulative-collective: Natural morphology and stable classes in Welsh number inflexion on nouns. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 54(1). 52–76.Google Scholar

  • Talmy, Leonard. 1988. The relation of grammar to cognition: A synopsis. In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics, 166–205. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Tiersma, Peter Meijes. 1982. Local and general markedness. Language 58(4). 832–849.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Treis, Yvonne. 2014. Number in Kambaata. In Anne Storch & Gerrit J. Dimmendaal (eds.), Number – constructions and semantics: Case studies from Africa, Amazonia, India and Oceania, 112–134. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Zipf, George Kingsley. 1935. The psycho-biology of language: An introduction to dynamic philology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-10-17

Published in Print: 2017-11-27


Citation Information: Linguistics, Volume 55, Issue 6, Pages 1213–1235, ISSN (Online) 1613-396X, ISSN (Print) 0024-3949, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2017-0026.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in