Number Is Different in Nominal and Pronominal Phrases

1 Introduction

Current research on the nominal spine (1a) supports the idea that number can be associated with different positions. Much of the work on nominal number contrasts a "high" position in Num that hosts grammatical number and a "low" position in n that hosts idiosyncratic, adjunct, or lexical number.¹ Comparatively little research has examined where number is located in pronouns. While it is clear that pronouns involve ɸ-features that typically include person (π) and number (#) as a bundle, it is not clear where these features occur in relation to other nominal projections,² nor whether pronouns have the full complement of nominal projections that nominals have.³ A possible proposal for pronominal structure, in which number is not a separate head, is shown in (1b).

(1)

a. Nominal structure
[_DP D [_NumP Num [_nP n [_√P Root]]]]

b. Pronominal structure
[_DP D [_ɸP ɸ [_nP n [_√P Root]]]]
(ɸ includes #, π)

In this squib, we illustrate with two case studies that grammatical number in the nominal and pronominal domains is fundamentally different. We propose that this difference follows from a deeper principle: namely, that grammatical number forms a part of the nominal spine (see Wiltschko 2008, 2014) and very often plays an individuating role in nominals, in contrast with other types of nominal number and with number in pronominals, which plays a featurally bundled role,⁴ subordinated to person. We first isolate seven key differences between the two systems, as follows:⁵

(2)

a. There are languages in which number is marked on pronouns but not on other nominals, giving rise to the top of Corbett's Animacy Hierarchy (Corbett 2000:54–66).

b. Number in pronominals is usually different in morphophonological form from number in nominals (Daniel 2013).⁶

c. Associativity is often marked on nominals but rarely on pronominals.

d. Number can instantiate differences in formality in pronominals, not nominals.

e. Number can be systematically marked twice on pronominals, while double number marking on nominals tends to be idiosyncratic and/or limited to a particular noun class.

f. Number contrasts in pronominals can differ from those in nominals.

g. Pronominal number is compatible with the feature proper, whereas nominal number is not.

The first two differences, in (2a) and (2b), point to the connection between number and person in pronominals. In languages in which number is marked only on pronouns, its presence is dependent on person marking, and in the languages in which it is realized differently from number marking on nouns, it is typically bundled with person in a single unanalyzable stem or affix (Daniel 2013). In a similar vein, Moravcsik (2017), citing Helmbrecht (2004), observes that reduplication is a common way to iconically mark additive plurals on nouns but that it is unattested for plural pronouns. Even in cases where plural marking on pronouns and nominals appears to be the same, there turn out to be other ways in which the number marking is atypical. For instance, Daniel (2013:sec. 5.5) notes that where a plural marker on pronouns is optional—something that is unexpected—it is often the same marker that is used on nominals.

Not only does number on pronouns and nominals tend to be different in form, it also seems to be different in meaning (Cysouw 2003). It has been observed that plural marking on first and second person pronominals is not additive but associative (see Corbett 2000: 83 and sec. 4.3.1; Corbett cites Lyons 1968:277 and Jespersen 1924: 192 in this regard).⁷ In many languages, there is a dedicated construction that yields an associative plural reading for proper names, kinship terms, and sometimes titles (Corbett 2000, Moravcsik 2003, Daniel and Moravcsik 2013). Paradoxically, as noted in (2c), pronouns in most languages do not take specific associative plural marking, even though they tend toward an associative reading in the plural.⁸

To summarize, number marking on pronouns and nominals tends to differ morphologically and semantically. Where it is the same, it tends to exhibit other unusual properties as well. This suggests that there is a deeper difference at play. We now...