Dear students,
Today we looked at grammatical number some more, and continued our investigation of the effects of [±atomic] and [±minimal]. Here are some of the highlights of today's class:
(1) we went over an argument that you don't want to introduce a feature [dual] or [+dual] that has to do with the fact that there is no language with a dual and without a singular/plural.
(2) we went over an argument that we want [±minimal] to be able to apply on its own (homework: go back to the handout and work out why; see top of section 3).
(3) we went over an argument that we do want the feature [±atomic] to be in the system (homework: go back to section 4 in the handout and work our why)
(4) the order in which the features are given is a bit counterintuitive. E.g., [+minimal, −atomic] means that [−atomic] applies first, then [+minimal] combines with the result. This is independent of whether the features spell out prefixes or suffixes
(5) not all plurals are created equal. For example, in some languages, like Imere, plurals are for three or more, whereas in English they are for two or more. That's related to the fact that Imere has a dual, but English doesn't. We want a theory that predicts that, and our theory does (Homework: go back to the handout and work out how). At the same time, there are also languages, like Larike, where plurals are for three or more even though they have a trial. We also want our theory to explain why (Homework: go back to the handout and work out how) (my apologies that I initially forgot that Larike plurals do this. And, generally, for forgetting what the next slide was going to show!).
Another question for you to work out from the information given in the handout:
(6) if (18) and (19) explain the Larike number system, why doesn't the language have the values that are generated from the following: (a) [−minimal, +minimal, −atomic], (b) [−minimal, +minimal, +atomic], (c) [−minimal, +atomic]?
In terms of material you can start thinking about that could form the basis of your final assignment, you could explore the following:
(7) what happens if [±atomic] doesn't apply first? (that was Christian's question--thank you!)
(8) are there other domains where features can't repeat with the same ± sign? (this was also one of Christian's questions. Thanks again!)
(9) if [±minimal] can repeat when in combination with [±atomic] (as in Larike), can [±minimal] repeat when it appears on its own? What would be the effect of that? What languages would we want to find to test our predictions? Find one such language, see whether the predictions obtain!
I'm looking forward to reading your answers to Puzzle 1--if you submitted it for feedback, expect a reply from me during the course of this week.
Thank you so much for listening to me after class. I really appreciate your support.
Until next week,
Luisa.
