In:Semantic Plurality: English collective nouns and other ways of denoting pluralities of entities
Laure Gardelle
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 349] 2019
► pp. v–x
Get fulltext
This article is available free of charge.
Published online: 7 November 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.349.toc
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.349.toc
Table of contents
Chapter 1.Introduction: Why study semantic plurality and pluralities of
entities?1
1.1What is a plurality of entities?5
1.1.1Plurality compared with aggregate and set5
1.1.2Do collective nouns denote pluralities? The concept of internal
plurality7
1.1.3Do plural NPs denote pluralities? The singularist approach9
1.1.4List of linguistic means available to denote pluralities of
entities10
1.2Advantages of a semantic /plurality/ feature over the /number/
feature11
1.3Why take collective nouns as a starting point?13
1.3.1Collective nouns as the problematic backbone of references to
pluralities13
1.3.2A long tradition of deceptively simple descriptions in grammars and
dictionaries15
1.3.3A number of unsolved issues in recent studies18
1.3.4Leading questions for this volume20
1.4A preliminary list of pre-requisites for collective nouns21
1.4.1A relation between units and a collective whole21
1.4.2A plurality resulting from a grouping operation22
1.4.3A specific type of part/whole relation23
1.4.3.1Unprototypical meronymy23
1.4.3.2Collective wholes distinguished from particulate masses23
1.4.3.3Meronymy distinguished from taxonomy, despite the shared notion
of members24
1.4.4A /plurality/ feature at lexical level – from whole sense to facet
of25
1.5Outline of the book26
Chapter 2.Hybrid agreement: Motivations, nature and constraints27
2.1The boundary issue: Hybrid agreement as a defining feature of collective
nouns?28
2.2The nature of hybrid agreement as an argument against the status of
defining feature30
2.2.1Description of hybrid agreement with animate count collective
nouns30
2.2.2The argument of hybrid agreement in gender systems33
2.2.3Hybrid agreement as a superimposed effect of the universal Animacy
Hierarchy33
2.2.4Consequence: The singular as the default agreement pattern34
2.3Construal with hybrid agreement: Motivation and factors of
opacification35
2.3.1Fundamental motivation: A double layer of conceptualisation35
2.3.2Opacification factor 1: The status of default number of the
singular37
2.3.3Opacification factor 2: Differences in the behaviour of individual
nouns38
2.3.4Opacification factor 3: cross-regional differences42
2.3.4.1American English vs. British English42
2.3.4.2Other varieties of English47
2.3.5Opacification factor 4: Genre and stylistic variation48
2.3.6Opacification factor 5: Assessing the hypothesis of a diachronic
evolution towards more singular49
2.4Conclusion on hybrid agreement in relation to the definition of
collective nouns51
Chapter 3.Establishing the boundaries of collective nouns for count nouns53
3.1Further construal characteristics of collective nouns that license hybrid
agreement54
3.1.1Cohesion of the units55
3.1.2A bounded plurality55
3.1.3Non additivity considered further: Extreme heterogeneity in the
degrees of permeability57
3.1.4Collective nouns, senses and facets: Hybrid agreement does not
guarantee a collective noun61
3.1.4.1Distinction between lexicon-based and discourse-based collective
reference62
3.1.4.2Exclusions from the class of collective nouns64
3.1.4.3Summary: types of collectiveness and consequences for hybrid
agreement67
3.1.5Units of the same type not found to be a prerequisite68
3.2Boundaries of the class of count collective nouns for humans69
3.2.1Exclusion of enemy69
3.2.2Exclusion of the taxon/exemplar relation: the case of race70
3.2.3Inclusion of underdetermined nouns (e.g. group)72
3.2.4A list of human count collective nouns73
3.2.4.1Data collection procedure73
3.2.4.2A list of count collective nouns for humans73
3.3Boundaries of the class of count collective nouns for animals75
3.3.1From flocks and herds to auroras of polar bears: Are all these
collective?76
3.3.1.1Preliminary overview of count nouns used to denote pluralities of
animals76
3.3.1.2Only a minority of these nouns are actually collective77
3.3.2Exclusion of the taxon/exemplar relation: The case of
breed and species80
3.3.2.1Literal uses for animals80
3.3.2.2Metaphorical extensions: Comparison with kind
and generation81
3.3.3Inclusion of count uses of fauna83
3.3.4A list of count collective nouns for animals83
3.4Count collective nouns that denote pluralities of inanimates84
3.4.1Inclusions and exclusions: A closer look at potential problem
cases84
3.4.1.1Books and other written documents (e.g. anthology)85
3.4.1.2Nouns that denote networks87
3.4.1.3Durations (e.g. week)87
3.4.1.4Alphabet88
3.4.2A list of inanimate count collective nouns that may occur without an
of-complement88
3.4.3A comparison between inanimate and animate count collective
nouns89
3.5The boundaries of collective nouns among N1s in binominal NPs90
3.5.1From pseudo-partitives to the organised plurality
construction91
3.5.2Meaning relations when N1 is uncontroversially collective94
3.5.3Extension 1: Collective nouns in metaphorical uses are still
collective95
3.5.4Extension 2: Loss of collective status in rare cases of reanalysis of
the construction97
3.5.5Application to N1s that are not of collective origin: Rejection of
collective status98
3.6Conclusion100
Chapter 4.A comparison between NPs headed by count collective nouns and NPs whose
/plurality/ feature is acquired in discourse103
4.1NPs headed by a count noun in the plural104
4.1.1The morphosyntactic plural: Discourse feature or component of lexical
matter?104
4.1.2Construal of pluralities when the plural morpheme is -s: Distinction
between collective and cohesive106
4.1.3Construal of pluralities with the zero plural morpheme: A form of
collectivisation?108
4.1.3.1ø as a morpheme: (These) elephant, aspirin, (ten) crew and others108
4.1.3.2The result of two different coercion processes: Rejection of the
notion of internal plural112
4.1.3.3These pluralities are not collective – resulting labels117
4.2Other ways of denoting pluralities of units through discourse-acquired
features120
4.2.1Conjoined NPs120
4.2.2Partly substantivised adjectives123
4.2.2.1A four-stage gradient of nominalisation124
4.2.2.2The result of pressure to categorise individuals127
4.2.2.3What construal of the pluralities? A gradient from aggregates to
groupings128
4.2.2.4Competing solutions for the same adjectives128
4.2.3Quantifier + singular count noun130
4.3Conclusion131
Chapter 5.Non-count singular nouns with a /plurality/ feature133
5.1A note on terminological choices134
5.1.1Non-count as a matter of variety of English134
5.1.2Non-count rather than mass135
5.1.3Non-count nouns as carrying number: Lexical vs. morphosyntactic
number137
5.2The terms of the debate: Construal differences between
furniture nouns and count collective nouns140
5.2.1Introduction: Historical perspective140
5.2.2Construal differences between furniture nouns and
other singular non-count nouns142
5.2.3Construal differences between furniture nouns and
count collective nouns143
5.2.4Construal differences between furniture nouns and
N-s145
5.3Furniture nouns as superordinate aggregate nouns:
Non-taxonomic hyperonyms of plural classes147
5.3.1Superordinate aggregates147
5.3.2Non-taxonomic hyperonyms148
5.3.3The hyperonym of plural classes hypothesis150
5.3.4A typology of nouns that denote aggregates of heterogeneous
entities153
5.3.4.1Tentative list153
5.3.4.2A note on number variation: reanalyses154
5.4Extension to other non-count nouns that denote pluralities of
entities154
5.4.1Other inanimates: Pluralities of homogeneous entities155
5.4.2Animals158
5.4.3Humans160
5.4.3.1Management and other departments?160
5.4.3.2Mankind, humankind and
humanity?161
5.5Conclusion164
Chapter 6.Lexical plurals that denote pluralities of entities167
6.1Overview and typology of lexical plurals that denote pluralities of
entities168
6.1.1Crew, people and other originally count collective
nouns169
6.1.2Morphologically-marked lexical plurals169
6.1.2.1Nouns with a lexical plural marker -s170
6.1.2.2Nouns with a Latin plural ending170
6.1.2.3Remarkable lack of stability of the plural number171
6.1.3Cattle as an odd-one-out?174
6.2These lexical plurals as aggregate nouns174
6.2.1Cattle: An aggregate noun resulting from coercion of
a singular aggregate noun174
6.2.2Other nouns that denote entities of different kinds176
6.2.2.1Hyperonyms of plural classes176
6.2.2.2Lack of interest in the individual units: Aggregate nouns177
6.3Lexical plurals vs. N-s or singular non-count nouns: Construal and
morphological attractors179
6.3.1Preference for lexical plurals over N-s179
6.3.2Preference for lexical plurals over non-count singular nouns180
6.4Conclusion183
Chapter 7.General conclusion185
7.1The Scale of Unit Integration for pluralities of entities186
7.2Challenges for further research190
7.2.1The relation of morphosyntactic number to the lexical level190
7.2.2Other types of pluralities191
References193
General index207
Lexical index211
