Singular & Plural Nouns

Oxford Handbooks Online, 2008

The semantic type of singular, plural and mass (in)definite descriptions......... §1.4.3. Monadic second-order logic and the language of the partitive construction. ... §2. Essential plurals in natural language.

Art Lies issue #63, 2009

Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science, 2011

Meaning. Thanks to David Nicolas for several helpful comments and suggestions. Additional comments welcome.

2021

Every language has its own specific rules in pluralizing noun s . This research found the ability of students in pluralizing nouns in English . Pluralizing nouns is divided into two forms, regular and irregular form. The objectives of the research were to find out their ab i l ity and problems to pluralize noun s . The instruments used in this research we re test, and interview. The sample of this research was 32 students. B ased on the test, the number of the ability was very good , 25% (8 students) , good 38 % (12 students), and medium , 15 % (5 students) , while bad 13 % (4 students), and very bad 9 % (3 students). The pro blem s were that the students did not know accurately the rules or patterns how to pluralize noun in English especially the irregular ones (63%), not understanding the materials of plural nouns (15%), feeling difficult to apply plural nouns in sentences related to concordances (13%), and Feeling confused with the process of pluralizi...

 Discuss the types of count nouns and corresponding constructions in classifier and nonclassifier languages.  Discuss different kinds of plurals (semantically unmarked, semantically marked, and agreement plural) and their interaction with count noun constructions.  Bring ideas developed in the formal semantics of mass nouns and plurals to bear on the analysis of typologically different types of number constructions.

A class is the indefinite multitude of individuals denoted by a general name. -J. S. Mill (2002, I.ii.3) Sets are multiplicities which are also unities. -Gödel (Wang 1997, 254) . . . if we admit classes as objects, we must suppose that the same object can be both one and many, which seems impossible. - Whitehead and Russell (1962, 72) A plurality or plural object is a single object, some one thing, that is also many. 1 Despite the contradictory character of this description, a wide range of authors hold that there is such an object. This view is implicit in a prominent approach to the semantics of plural constructions of natural languages, the one that takes a plural term (e.g., 'Venus and Serena') to refer to a composite object: a set or class, a fusion or mereological sum, a group or aggregate, or the like. I 1 I use 'many' interchangeably with 'more than one' and 'two or more'. 2 think the approach is fundamentally mistaken because the notion of plurality is inconsistent.

1977

Singularity and Plurality in English Noun Phrases [: A Study in Grammar and Pragmatics.Keith Allan The British Library, Document Supply Centre, 1977.

Lexical plurals and beyond, 2016

This paper studies why, for a plurality of discrete entities, a non-count plural might be preferred over a count noun or a non-count singular. Building partly on Wierzbicka (1985, 1988), it proposes two parameters: semantics, but also morphology. With lexical plurals, the items are construed as being of different kinds (vs. count nouns) and the focus is on the plurality of items rather than on a common purpose (vs. non-count singulars). For morphology, the notion of ‘attractor’ is proposed for some patterns which partly motivate the [±count] and number features. A collateral finding is that the plural of lexical plurals can be unstable: some nouns ending with -s undergo reanalysis as morphological plurals, while Latin plurals tend to be reanalysed as singulars. It is suggested that this trend confirms the semantic values of singular and plural numbers, as well as the influence of the morphological parameter on number and construal.

Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2020

In linguistics, the dominant approach to the semantics of plurals appeals to mereology. However, this approach has received strong criticisms from philosophical logicians who subscribe to an alternative framework based on plural logic. In the first part of the article, we offer a precise characterization of the mereological approach and the semantic background in which the debate can be meaningfully reconstructed. In the second part, we deal with the criticisms and assess their logical, linguistic, and philosophical significance. We identify four main objections and show how each can be addressed. Finally, we compare the strengths and shortcomings of the mereological approach and plural logic. Our conclusion is that the former remains a viable and well-motivated framework for the analysis of plurals.