Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
2019.
Semantic Plurality.
Vol. 349,
Issue. ,
Article contents
Are there any collective nouns among lexical plurals in English?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 October 2017
Abstract
The grammatical tradition has excluded lexical plurals from the category of collective nouns on the sole basis of their morphology (no discrepancy between singular form and so-called plural reference); but this criterion has led to hesitations, some linguists including, for instance, cattle or people. This study therefore considers other, semantic, criteria to establish more convincingly whether lexical plurals that denote pluralities of entities may be collective nouns. Relying on distinctions between meronymy and (non-taxonomic) hyperonymy, collectiveness and cohesion, and (a) crew (collective sense) / (several) crew (uninflected plural), it concludes that they are definitely not collective nouns, but aggregate nouns (or senses of nouns). Two sets are established. Some, mainly denoting humans, typically originate in the collective sense of the noun through a coercion mechanism; the others, mainly denoting objects, result from an operation of abstraction. For some of these, the notion of “hyperonyms of plural classes” is put forward.
Résumé
La tradition grammaticale a exclu les pluriels lexicaux de la catégorie des noms collectifs sur la seule base de leur morphologie (pas de divergence entre la forme singulière et la supposée pluralité de référence). Mais ce critère a conduit à des hésitations : certains linguistes, par exemple, y incluent cattle ‘bétail’ ou people ‘gens’. Cette étude examine donc d'autres critères, c'est-à-dire les critères sémantiques, pour établir de façon plus convaincante si les pluriels lexicaux qui dénotent des pluralités d'entités pourraient être des noms collectifs. S'appuyant sur les distinctions entre la méronymie et l'hyperonymie (non taxonomique), entre la collectivité et la cohésion, et entre a crew ‘un équipage’ (sens collectif) et several crew ‘plusieurs membres d’équipage’ (pluriel non marqué), il conclut qu'ils ne sont de toute évidence pas des noms collectifs, mais des noms (ou sens de noms) d'agrégat. Deux groupes sont établis : certains, qui dénotent principalement des êtres humains, proviennent généralement du sens collectif du nom par un mécanisme de coercition; les autres, qui dénotent principalement des objets, résultent d'une opération d'abstraction. Pour certains d'entre eux, la notion d'hyperonymes de classes plurielles est proposée.
Keywords
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 63 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 25 - 41
- Copyright
- © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2017
Footnotes
I wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their most helpful comments on the first draft of this article.
References
References
Acquaviva, Paolo. 2008. Lexical plurals: A morphosyntactic approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2011. Plural mass nouns and the morpho-syntax of number. In Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Washburn, Mary Byram
et al. , 33–41. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Audring, Jenny and Booij, Geert. 2015. Cooperation and coercion. Linguistics
54(4): 617–637.Google Scholar
Cai, Haitao. 2016. Atomic mass nouns: Unity, plurality and semantic flexibility. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences: Illinois Working Papers
41: 20–34. <http://hdl.handle.net/2142/89944> (accessed 29 April 2017)Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2012. Verbs: Aspects and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William and Cruse, Alan D.. 1984. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008– . COCA: The corpus of contemporary American English: 520 million words, 1990-present. Available online at <http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/>..>Google Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse. 2003. On verbal concord with collective nouns in British English. English Language and Linguistics
7: 85–127.Google Scholar
Furukawa, Naoyo A.
1977. Le nombre grammatical en français contemporain. Tokyo: Librairie France Tosho.Google Scholar
Gardelle, Laure. 2016a. Five crew, how many clergy: pourquoi certains noms collectifs peuvent-ils servir à nommer des membres? Anglophonia, French Journal of English Linguistics 22. <http://anglophonia.revues.org/1028>CrossRef>Google Scholar
Gardelle, Laure. 2016b. Lexical plurals for aggregates of discrete entities in English: Why plural, yet non-count, nouns?
Lingvisticae Investigationes
39(2): 355–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirtle, Walter. 1982. Number and inner space: A study of grammatical number in English. Cahiers de psychomécanique du langage. Québec: Presses de l'Université Laval.Google Scholar
Hirtle, Walter. 2009. Lessons on the noun phrase in English: From representation to reference. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1991. Parts and boundaries. In Lexical and conceptual semantics, ed. Levin, Beth and Pinker, Steven, 9–45. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1965. A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part II, vol. 1: Syntax. London: George Allen and Unwin. [1913]Google Scholar
Joosten, Frank. 2010. Collective nouns, aggregate nouns, and superordinates: When “Part of” and “Kind of” meet. Lingvisticae Investigationes
33(1): 25–49.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2004. Mass and collection. In Morphology: An international handbook on inflection and word-formation, vol. 2, ed. Booij, Geert, Lehmann, Christian, and Mugdan, Joachim, with the collaboration of Kesselheim, Wolfgang and Skopeteas, Stavros, 1067–1072. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
2008. Cognitive linguistics: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger, ed. 1999. The Cambridge history of the English language. Vol. 3, 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Link, Godehard. 2002. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Formal semantics: The essential readings, ed. Portner, Paul H. and Partee, Barbara H., 127–44. Oxford: Blackwell. [1983] (Reprinted from Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, ed. Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze, and Arnim von Stechow, 302–323. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1983.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, Ronald, ed. 2007. Essais et mémoires de Gustave Guillaume. Vol. 3: Essai de mécanique intuitionnelle 1: Espace et temps en pensée commune et dans les structures de langue. Text established by Tremblay, Renée. Québec: Presses de l'Université Laval.Google Scholar
Marchello-Nizia, Christiane. 1979. L'histoire de la langue française aux XIVe et XVe siècles. Paris: Bordas.Google Scholar
Palsgrave, John. 1972. Lesclaircissement de la langue françoyse. Menston: facsimile, reprinted by Scolar Press. [1530]Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1993. Syntactic categories and subcategories. In Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. Jacobs, Joachim, von Stechow, Arnim, Sternefeld, Wolfgang, and Vennemann, Theo, 646–686. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stock, Wolfgang G., and Stock, Mechtild. 2013. Handbook of information science. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sturgis, R.C.
2015. The mammals that moved mankind: A history of beasts of burden. London: Authorhouse.Google Scholar
Valin, Roch, Hirtle, Walter, and Joly, André, eds. 1992. Leçons de linguistique de Gustave Guillaume. Vol. 12: Leçons de l'année 1938–1939. Québec: Presses de l'Université Laval.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1985. Oats and wheat: The fallacy of arbitrariness. In Typological studies in langage, vol. 6 : Iconicity in syntax, ed. Haiman, John, 311–342. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Non-Linguistic Works Cited
Alexander, Elliot. 2015. The gospel is a children's story. Bloomington, Indiana:
Westbow.Google Scholar
Canning, Victor. 2009. Mr. Finchley takes the road. Reprint by John Higgins. London: Curtis Brown. [1940].Google Scholar
Kiser, Roger Dean. ‘Little Missy’. <http://depts.gpc.edu/~heritage/RogerDeanKiser.htm>, accessed September 2016.,+accessed+September+2016.>Google Scholar
NBC, Philadelphia. ‘Skittles on Trump Jr. tweet: Refugees are people, not candy’. <nbcphiladelphia.com>, NBCUniversal, accessed September 2016.,+NBCUniversal,+accessed+September+2016.>Google Scholar
Perry, Julie. 2014. The insiders' guide to becoming a yacht stewardess. 2nd edition. New York: Morgan James.Google Scholar
Peden, Robert. Ca. 2008. Beef farming - Beef farming in New Zealand. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand. <http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/beef-farming/page-1> (accessed 30 September 2016).Google Scholar
Schuman, Michael. 2009. ‘Barack Obama: We are one people’. Revised and expanded. New York: Enslow Publishers.Google Scholar
Wilson, George B. 2008. Clericalism: The death of priesthood. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical press.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by