2 Unmarked Plural

2.1 Plurality inference

In simple sentences like Example 2.1, plural nouns give rise to plurality inferences.

Example 2.1

1. The customer bought books about climate change.
   ↳ The customer bought multiple books about climate change.
2. The emergency exits of the building are clearly indicated.
   ↳ The building has multiple emergency exits.

Because of the plurality inference, plural nouns are so called. And one might be tempted to encode the plurality inference in the semantics of the noun (e.g. Chierchia 1998).

Example 2.2

〖cups〗= λx. x is a plural entity consisting of cups

But this analysis runs into compositional issues.

2.1.1 Bare plurals in Downward Entailing contexts

When a bare plural is put into a Downward Entailing context (a context that reverses entailment), the plurality inference is generally unobserved.

Example 2.3

1. This applicant does not have journal papers.
   ≠ This applicant does not have multiple journal papers.
2. If you have electronic devices in your bag, take them out and put them on a tray.
   ≠ If you have multiple electronic devices in your bag, …
3. This plant can survive without leaves for several years.
   ≠ This plant can survive without multiple leaves for several years.
4. We should clean up the mess before customers arrive.
   ≠ We should clean up the mess before multiple customers arrive.
5. Every professor who is supervising MA students this year.
   ≠ Every professor who is supervising multiple MA students this year.

Bare plurals in polar questions are often used to show the same point, although they are not strictly Downward Entailing.

Example 2.4

Q: Do you have children?
A: Yes I (only) have one. / ??No I (only)K have one.

But whether speakers use yes or no seems to depend on various pragmatic factors, which seems to me to be ill-understood (cf. Bale, Gagnon, and Khanjian 2011a; Grimm 2013).

Note that in English bare plurals give rise to kind readings, which are not what we are talking about here.

Example 2.5

1. Dinasaurs are extinct.
2. Cats are carnivore.

2.1.2 Plural definites with bound pronouns

Usually a universal quantifier quantifying into a presupposition entails that everything in the domain of quantification satisfies the presupposition. E.g., Example 2.6 entails that every relevant man has a son.

Example 2.6

Every man likes his son.

If plural means plural, then Example 2.7 should entail that every applicant has multile experimental papers. But in reality, it does not seem to, because the sentence is fine even if some applicants only had one experimental paper.

Example 2.7

Every applicant submitted their experimental papers in their submission.

This sentence is unacceptable if every applicant only had one paper. So the inference seems to be that at least some applicants had multiple papers, and is weaker than what would be predicted by the plural semantics. Let’s call this reading a reading with a partial plurality inference.

2.2 Ambiguity Theory and its problems

To account for the distribution of the plurality inference, Grimm (2013) pursues the idea that a plural noun phrase in English is semantically ambiguous between a concept-level interpretation, which is number-neutral, and an object-level interpretation, which is strictly plural.

He assumes that different pragmatic contexts prefer different interpretations. In particular, when you are asserting the absence of something, the concept-level interpretation is more natural. This explains the number-neutral interpretation under negation, as in Example 2.3a. He accounts for the other cases in a similar way.

It’s not very clear to me how Grimm (2013) could account for the weak plurality inference of definite plurals with bound pronouns, Example 2.7.

Furthermore, Spector (2007) observes that when put in a non-monotonic context, a plural noun phrase gives rise to a plurality inference only with respect to the positive part of the meaning.

Example 2.8

Exactly one of my students speaks non-European languages.

Note that things are a little more complicated when the quantifier is plural, because there is a cumulative reading.

Example 2.9

Exactly two of my students speak non-European languages.

The cumulative reading of this is that: There are two of my students, and there are some non-European languages such that each of the students speak some of the languages and each language is spoken by at least one of the students, which is compatible with each of the students speaking only one non-European language.

People seem to think that this has to do with focus, but it doesn’t seem to me to be confined to focus constructions.

Example 2.10

1. This is a unique incident where someone was attached by sharks.
2. This is a rare situation where someone was attacked by sharks.

2.3 Marked plural

Bale and Khanjian (2014) argues that plural in Western Armenian are not number neutral, but real plural.

Example 2.11

Dəgha-ner vasets.
boy-pl ran
‘Boys ran’ (Bale and Khanjian 2014: p.4)

Example 2.12

1. *John-ə dəgha-ner e.
   John-def boy-pl is
   
2. John-ə yev Brad-ə dəgha-ner en.
   John-def and Brad-def boy-pl are
   ‘John and Brad are boys.’ (Bale and Khanjian 2014: p.4)

These examples are not so different from English, but crucally, a plural noun is interpreted as plural even in Downward Entailing contexts.

Example 2.13

Amen mart vor bəzdig-ner uner vodk-i gajnetsav.
all person that child-pl had foot-dat stood.up
‘Everyone that had more than one children stood up.’ (Bale and Khanjian 2014: p.4)

Unmarked nouns in Western Armenian seem to be under-neutral, rather than singular.

Example 2.14

Dəgha vasets.
boy ran
‘A boy or boys ran’ (Bale and Khanjian 2014: p.2)

Example 2.15

1. John-ə dəgha e.
   John-def boy is
   ‘John is a boy.’
2. John-ə yev Brad-ə dəgha en.
   John-def and Brad-def boy are
   ‘John and Brad are boys.’ (Bale and Khanjian 2014: p.3)

Note that the unmarked noun in Example 2.14 does not seem to compete with the plural.

In this language, numerals are compatible with both types of nouns (unlike in Turkish, Hungarian, English, etc.).

Example 2.16

Yergu dəgha(-ner) vazets(-in).
two boy(-pl) ran-3pl
‘Two boys ran.’

Furthermore, Bale and Khanjian (2014) claim that definite unmarked nouns are strictly singular (and defintie plurals are strictly plural).

Example 2.17

Dəgha-n vasets.
boy-def ran
‘The boys ran’ (Bale and Khanjian 2014: p.6)

Example 2.18

1. *Yergu dəgha-n vazets.
   two boy-def ran
   
2. Yergu dəgha-ner-ə vazets-in.
   two boy-pl-def ran-3pl
   ‘The two boys ran.’ (Bale and Khanjian 2014: p.6-7)
   

Bale and Khanjian (2014) put forwarnd an analysis that predicts that a definite singular always strictly singular. However, data like Example (exm:pldef) should be checked to see if it’s really strictly singular. They do not report data of this kind.