Abstract

Across languages, plural marking on count nouns typically gives rise to a multiplicity inference, indicating that the noun ranges over sums with a cardinality of 2 or more. Plural marking has also been observed to occur on mass nouns in Greek and a few other languages, giving rise to a parallel abundance inference, indicating that there is a lot of the relevant substance. It has been observed in the literature that both of these inferences disappear in downward-entailing environments, such as when a plural appears in the scope of negation (Tsoulas 2009; Kane et al. 2015). There are two main competing approaches in the literature that aim to account for the described pattern with respect to multiplicity inferences: the ambiguity approach (Farkas & de Swart 2010) and the implicature approach (Sauerland 2003; Spector 2007; Mayr 2015, among others). As discussed in Tieu et al. (2018), while both approaches can account for the upward- versus downward-entailing pattern of multiplicity inferences, they differ in what they predict with respect to the acquisition of these inferences and their relationship with implicatures. Tieu et al. (2014; 2018) investigated multiplicity inferences in English and reported evidence for the implicature approach. In this paper, we first show how the ambiguity approach and the implicature approach to the multiplicity inference can be extended to account for the abundance inference. We then report on an experiment that tests the predictions of the two approaches for multiplicity and abundance inferences in preschool-aged children and adult native speakers of Greek. Our results replicate the patterns reported in Tieu et al. (2014; 2018) for multiplicity inferences, and crucially reveal an analogous pattern for abundance inferences. Adults computed both kinds of inferences more in upward-entailing environments than in downward-entailing ones, and children computed fewer inferences overall than adults did. These results reflect an overall pattern of implicature calculation in line with a unified implicature analysis across the three kinds of inferences. By contrast, we discuss how they pose a challenge for the ambiguity approach.

Highlights

  • 1.1 Plural marking on mass nouns In English and various other languages, while the plural combines freely with count nouns, it can appear on mass nouns only in restricted ways

  • Based on Tieu et al (2018), we can formulate the uniformity prediction of the implicature approach as follows: (56) Uniformity prediction of the implicature approach: If multiplicity inferences, abundance inferences, and scalar implicatures are of the same nature, we expect to observe the same pattern of between-group differences when we investigate the three kinds of inferences

  • Participants were more likely to give lower ratings to the negative target sentences, children tended to give higher rewards than adults, and there was less of a difference between adults and children on the negative targets compared to the positive targets. 4.2.3 Multiplicity vs. abundance inferences vs. scalar implicatures We consider the results across all the positive conditions, namely the positive multiplicity inference targets, the positive abundance inference targets, and the scalar implicature targets

Read more

Summary

Introduction

1.1 Plural marking on mass nouns In English and various other languages, while the plural combines freely with count nouns, it can appear on mass nouns only in restricted ways. A sentence where a pluralised mass noun, like waters in (1a), occurs, can only be rescued when the mass term is coerced or reinterpreted as types of or standardized quantities of the relevant substance, such as in (2) or (3) (Allan 1980; Link 1983; Chierchia 1998; 2010; Deal 2017, among many others).. The incompatibility of plural marking and mass terms is such a widely observed generalisation that it has become criterial in deciding whether a noun is mass or count. It has been observed that pluralised mass nouns are attested in a variety of unrelated languages that otherwise do make a grammatical mass/count distinction, e.g., Kuikuro (Franchetto et al 2013), Innu-aimun (Gillon 2015), Ojibwe (Rhodes 1990; Mathieu 2012), Blackfoot (Wiltschko 2012), and Greek (Tsoulas 2009).. It has been observed that pluralised mass nouns are attested in a variety of unrelated languages that otherwise do make a grammatical mass/count distinction, e.g., Kuikuro (Franchetto et al 2013), Innu-aimun (Gillon 2015), Ojibwe (Rhodes 1990; Mathieu 2012), Blackfoot (Wiltschko 2012), and Greek (Tsoulas 2009). In Greek, in particular, the equivalent of (1a) in (4) is acceptable, and it is not interpreted as giving rise to a coerced meaning where waters refers to types of or standardised units of water (Harbour 2009; Tsoulas 2009; Alexiadou 2011; Kane et al 2015)

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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