Collectivizers in Italian (and beyond). The interplay between collectivizing and evaluating morphology (and the Div paradox)

In this work, we show that collectivizers are in a sort of complementary distribution with singulatives, and that the same grammatical devices employed to convey a singulative meaning, namely evaluative morphology and gender shift, are in fact used also for collectivization purposes. On the basis of these empirical observations, it is tempting to assume that they share the same morphosyntactic workspace (Chomsky et al. 2018), weakening the Div hypothesis of Borer (2005). Based on morphosyntactic evidence, we argue that the very concept of a divider in the grammar of natural languages is far from being a realistic tool. This conclusion is supported by the observation that a full array of different class(ifying) specifications, including the whole set of the evaluative spectrum (diminutives, augmentatives, pejoratives, etc.) enter the syntactic computation to restrict the semantic shape, as well as the argumental variable of the root. In the case of collectivizers, they introduce an aggregate‐like reading not only applying to individual roots but also to mass roots or adjectival and verbal roots, suggesting that a richer and subtler set of interpretive properties comes into play.

[1]  Gennaro Chierchia,et al.  Plurality of Mass Nouns and the Notion of “Semantic Parameter” , 1998 .

[2]  Dan Jurafsky Universal Tendencies in the Semantics of the Diminutive. , 1996 .

[3]  É. Mathieu,et al.  Measure words, plurality, and cross-linguistic variation , 2015 .

[4]  G. Chierchia,et al.  Reference to Kinds across Language , 1998 .

[5]  M. D. Belder Collective mass affixes: When derivation restricts functional structure , 2013 .

[6]  Mutsumi Imai,et al.  Separating the chaff from the oats: Evidence for a conceptual distinction between count noun and mass noun aggregates , 2004 .

[7]  Leonardo M. Savoia,et al.  N morphology and its interpretation: the neuter in Central Italian varieties and its implications , 2015 .

[8]  Scott Grimm Degrees of Countability: A Mereotopological Approach to the Mass/Count Distinction , 2012 .

[9]  Scott Grimm Individuation and inverse number marking in Dagaare , 2012 .

[10]  Andrew J Koontz-Garboden,et al.  A note on possession and mereology in Ulwa property concept constructions , 2015, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory.

[11]  Gennaro Chierchia,et al.  Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation , 2010, Synthese.

[12]  David Barner,et al.  The Interpretation of Functional Heads: Using Comparatives to Explore the Mass/Count Distinction , 2009, J. Semant..

[13]  Andrew Koontz-Garboden,et al.  Semantics and Morphosyntactic Variation: Qualities and the Grammar of Property Concepts , 2017 .

[14]  J. Snedeker,et al.  Quantity judgments and individuation: evidence that mass nouns count , 2005, Cognition.

[15]  Víctor M. Prieto SPANISH EVALUATIVE MORPHOLOGY: PRAGMATIC, SOCIOLINGUISTIC, AND SEMANTIC ISSUES , 2005 .

[16]  D. Barner,et al.  Semantic triggers, linguistic variation and the mass‐count distinction⋆ , 2012 .

[17]  Dennis Ott,et al.  Diminutive-formation in German , 2011 .

[18]  Roberto Zamparelli DEI EX MACHINA : A NOTE ON PLURAL/MASS INDEFINITE DETERMINERS , 2008 .

[19]  Hc Harry Bunt Ensembles and the Formal Semantic Properties of Mass Terms , 1979 .

[20]  O. Percus Gender features and interpretation: a case study , 2011 .

[21]  L. Savoia,et al.  Reducing ‘case’ to denotational primitives: Nominal inflections in Albanian , 2011 .

[22]  A. Nussbaum Feminine, Abstract, Collective, Neuter Plural: Some Remarks on each (Expanded Handout) , 2014 .

[23]  R. Kramer Gender in Amharic: a morphosyntactic approach to natural and grammatical gender , 2014 .

[24]  F. Ludovico The morphosyntax of adverbs of the carpone/i type in (Old and Modern) Italian , 2015 .

[25]  R. Déchaîne,et al.  The Internal Syntax of Shona Class Prefixes , 2014 .

[26]  Susan Rothstein,et al.  Counting and the Mass/Count Distinction , 2010, J. Semant..

[27]  Collectives, object mass nouns and individual count nouns: Nouns between lexical and inflectional plural marking , 2016 .

[28]  A. F. Fehri Semantic Gender Diversity and Its Architecture in the Grammar of Arabic , 2016 .

[29]  Maïa Ponsonnet,et al.  A preliminary typology of emotional connotations in morphological diminutives and augmentatives , 2018 .

[30]  Colleen Anne Ahland A Grammar of Northern and Southern Gumuz , 2012 .

[31]  Caterina Mauri,et al.  Building and Interpreting Ad Hoc Categories: A Linguistic Analysis , 2017 .

[32]  É. Mathieu,et al.  Flavors of Division , 2012, Linguistic Inquiry.

[33]  Guglielmo Cinque,et al.  Augmentative, pejorative, diminutive and endearing heads in the extended nominal projection* , 2015 .

[34]  H. Wiese Collectives in the intersection of mass and count nouns: A cross‐linguistic account* , 2012 .

[35]  F. Joosten Collective nouns, aggregate nouns, and superordinates: When 'part of' and 'kind of' meet , 2010 .

[36]  L. Marten,et al.  The point of Bantu, Chinese and Romance nominal classification , 2011 .

[37]  Ellen M. Markman,et al.  Why superordinate category terms can be mass nouns , 1985, Cognition.