Abstract
Nilo-Saharan languages are well-known for their complicated system of nominal number marking, which features a variety of singulative and plural affixes (Dimmendaal 2000). Even though these systems have received some attention in the typological literature, there has been limited theoretical work on their implications for the morphosyntax of number cross-linguistically. The goal of this paper is to fill this gap, by providing an analysis of nominal number morphology in Kipsigis (Nilotic, Kenya), based on data from original fieldwork. First, I show that singulatives in Kipsigis are true allomorphs of singular number, unlike singulatives with a classifier function in languages like Ojibwe (Mathieu 2012). The descriptive term ‘singulative’ is therefore misleading, as it corresponds to two very different types of morphemes. Second, I claim that the tripartite system of number marking of Kipsigis and other Nilo-Saharan languages is due to the classification of nouns into morphosyntactic classes defined by the presence of inherent number features on little n; the interaction of these features with interpretable number features on the functional projection Num (Ritter 1991 a.o.) in the post-syntactic component gives rise to the exponence pattern that we observe. Finally, my analysis corroborates the existence of noun classification based on number, which has only been argued for Kiowa-Tanoan before (Harbour 2007). The existence of three number classes in Kipsigis can only be explained by reference to bivalent number features; number-based noun classification systems thus strongly support the view that number features are bivalent and not privative, which is also argued by Harbour (2007, 2011) for Kiowa.
Highlights
Kalenjin languages1 have what has been called in the literature a ‘tripartite’ system of number marking (Corbett 2000; Dimmendaal 2000): some nouns are interpreted as singular in their morphologically unmarked form and form their plural by the addition of a plural suffix (1), some nouns are interpreted as plural in their unmarked form and form their singular by the addition of a singulative suffix (2), while a third class of nouns never appear in their unmarked form: they have a singulative suffix in the singular, and a plural suffix in the plural (3)
I present my analysis in three steps: in 4.2, I argue in favor of number features on n in Kipsigis that divide nouns into three number classes; in 4.3, I show how the interaction of the number features on n with those on Num can account for the tripartite pattern of number marking; in 4.4, I briefly discuss how number agreement works in the language
I have provided an analysis of the morphological expression of nominal number in Kipsigis
Summary
Kalenjin languages have what has been called in the literature a ‘tripartite’ system of number marking (Corbett 2000; Dimmendaal 2000): some nouns are interpreted as singular in their morphologically unmarked form and form their plural by the addition of a plural suffix (1), some nouns are interpreted as plural in their unmarked form and form their singular by the addition of a singulative suffix (2), while a third class of nouns never appear in their unmarked form: they have a singulative suffix in the singular, and a plural suffix in the plural (3). Grimm (2012, 2018), includes data from Turkana (Eastern Nilotic; Kenya) in his theoretical account of tripartite systems of number marking, and he argues that those systems reflect an organization of nouns into semantic classes according to the Scale of Individuation in (4) In this type of theory, nouns with singulative marking (as in 2 above) constitute a number category (‘collectives’) that lies between mass and count nouns in the language. The analysis of the Kipsigis system developed in this paper highlights that the term ‘singulative’ is misleading: it can refer to either a classifier-like morpheme with individualizing semantics (e.g., in Ojibwe; Mathieu 2012), or to a true allomorph of singular morphology (e.g., in Kipsigis) The latter type of languages illustrate that singular number is not always the morphologically unmarked number form (for at least some nouns).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
