Volume 73, Issue 3

This study investigates the pragmatic referentiality and semantic modifiability of incorporated nouns. While some researchers argue that incorporated nouns have a referential function, others claim that they are not used to refer. Similarly, some hold that incorporated nouns are modifiable, whereas other researchers maintain that they cannot be modified. In order to tease apart these conflicting views, the present study systematically investigates the cross- and intra-linguistic variation regarding the referentiality and modifiability of incorporated nouns. A pre-defined set of criteria for the identification of referentially vs. non-referentially used nouns and modifiable vs. non-modifiable nouns, taken from Functional Discourse Grammar, is applied to incorporated nouns in a sample of 21 languages. The results show variation between referentially used modifiable nouns, non-referentially used modifiable nouns and non-referentially used non-modifiable nouns, both across and within languages. In addition, referentially used modifiable incorporated nouns and non-referentially used non-modifiable incorporated nouns appear to occur independently of each other, such that the conflicting perspectives on the referentiality and modifiability of incorporated nouns may be related to differences between studies and theoretical approaches in the languages they focus on. Moreover, incorporated non-referentially used modifiable nouns are only found in languages that also show incorporated referentially used modifiable nouns, which suggests that two independent incorporation processes should be distinguished: the incorporation of modifiable nouns and the incorporation of non-modifiable nouns.

Number systems can be morphosemantic or morphosyntactic, based on whether number marking is restricted to nouns or also extends to noun-associated forms, such as adnominal modifiers, predicates, and pronouns. While it is well-known that asymmetries in the distribution of plural marking on nouns can be due to lexico-semantic properties such as animacy and/or inherent number, the question of whether these properties also affect patterns of plural agreement has been less broadly investigated. This paper examines the distribution of plural agreement in 24 Cushitic (Afro-Asiatic) languages. The number systems of the languages of the sample are classified into three types, ranging from radically morphosemantic (Type 1) to radically morphosyntactic (Type 2). A subset of languages displays a combination of morphosemantic and morphosyntactic strategies, and thus qualifies as a mixed type (Type 3). In these languages, the distribution of plural agreement is largely lexically-specified: nouns denoting groups, masses, and collections are more likely to trigger plural agreement than other types of nouns. These results thus show that, similarly to the nominal domain, the lexical semantics of nouns may also affect plural marking on noun-associated forms. Furthermore, in Cushitic, radically morphosemantic and radically morphosyntactic number systems appear to be diachronically connected to each other, with the latter seemingly evolving from the former, as testified by ongoing variation and change in some of the sampled languages. The relevance of these findings for understanding the typology and evolution of number systems is discussed.

Studies in grammaticalization have established that processes of grammatical change frequently have lexical items as their source, and more specifically nouns and verbs. But there is at least one potential exception: As argued by Holger Diessel in a number of publications, demonstratives cannot be historically derived from other entities, such as lexical items. Based on a survey of languages from different parts of the world and belonging to different language families, the present paper argues that this generalization is in need of reconsideration.