Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T07:43:16.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Frankenduals: Their Typology, Structure, and Significance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Daniel Harbour
Daniel Harbour*
Affiliation:
Queen Mary University of London
*
Department of Linguistics (SLLF), Queen Mary University of London, London E1 4NS, UK, [d.harbour@qmul.ac.uk]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Frankenduals, that is, duals composed (as in Hopi) of a ‘singular’ and a ‘plural’ morpheme, display a consistent asymmetry. A new typological study shows that the element closer to the nominal is sensitive to singularity, whereas the one sensitive to plurality is more peripheral. This pattern impacts the theory of morphology (dual featurally crosscuts singular and plural), morphosemantics (number features are sensitive to order of composition), and syntax and its interfaces (the features are interpreted and pronounced where they are merged, not copied and partially deleted). The resulting account instantiates Hale's (1986) idea that features are semantically broad, ontologically flexible, and category-independent.

Keywords

composed dualfeaturesHopinumbertypology

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 96 , Issue 1 , March 2020, pp. 60 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ackroyd, Lynda. 1982. Dogrib grammar. Toronto: University of Toronto, ms.Google Scholar
Acquaviva, Paolo. 2008. Lexical plurals: A morphosemantic approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199534210.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199243709.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, David, and Harbour, Daniel. 2007. Syntax and syncretisms of the person case constraint. Syntax 10. 2–37. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9612.2007.00095.x.10.1111/j.1467-9612.2007.00095.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arka, I Wayan. 2011. Constructive number systems in Marori and beyond. Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference, 5–25. Online: http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/16/papers/lfg11arka.pdf.Google Scholar
Arka, I Wayan. 2012a. Projecting morphology and agreement in Marori, an isolate of southern New Guinea. Melanesian languages on the edge of Asia: Challenges for the 21st century (Language documentation & conservation special publication 5), ed. by Evans, Nicholas and Klamer, Marian, 150–73. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/4563.Google Scholar
Arka, I Wayan. 2012b. Verbal number, argument number, and plural events in Marori. Proceedings of the LFG12 Conference, 23–43. Online: http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/17/papers/lfg12arka.pdf.Google Scholar
Arka, I Wayan, and Dalrymple, Mary. 2016. Number and plural semantics: Empirical evidence from Marori. NUSA: Linguistic studies of languages in and around Indonesia 60. 89–106. DOI: 10.15026/87445.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1985. The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16. 373–415. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178442.Google Scholar
Béjar, Susana. 2003. Phi-syntax: A theory of agreement. Toronto: University of Toronto dissertation.Google Scholar
Bliss, Heather. 2005. Constructing dual number in Hopi. Actes du congrès annuel de l'Association canadienne de linguistique 2004/Proceedings of the 2004 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistics Association. Online: http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2004/Bliss-CLA-2004.pdf.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2002. Syncretism without paradigms: Remarks on Williams 1981, 1994. Yearbook of Morphology 2001. 53–86. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-3726-5_2.10.1007/978-94-017-3726-5_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2012. Universals in comparative morphology: Suppletion, superlatives, and the structure of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9069.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/theses/bonet91.pdf.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense, vol. 1: In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bunzel, Ruth L. 1933. Zuni texts. New York: G. E. Stechert & Co.Google Scholar
Bunzel, Ruth L. 1933–1938. Zuni. Handbook of American Indian languages, ed. by Boas, Franz, 385–514. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, Matthew J. 2014. Verbal number and aspect in Ngkolmpu. Canberra: Australian National University, ms.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica, and Bale, Alan. 2014. The interaction of person and number in Mi'gmaq. Nordlyd (Special issue on features, ed. by Krämer, Martin, Ronai, Sandra-Iulia, and Svenonius, Peter) 40. 85–101. DOI: 10.7557/12.3235.10.7557/12.3235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139164344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2012. Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139206983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth A. 2005. A note on number. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 441–55. DOI: 10.1162/0024389054396935.10.1162/0024389054396935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crum, Beverly, and Dayley, Jon. 1993. Western Shoshoni grammar. Boise, ID: Department of Anthropology, Boise State University.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2003. The paradigmatic structure of person marking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199254125.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cysouw, Michael, and Wohlgemuth, Jan. 2010. The other end of universals: Theory and typology of rara. Rethinking universals: How rarities affect linguistic theory, ed. by Cysouw, Michael and Wohlgemuth, Jan, 1–10. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary. 2001. Lexical functional grammar. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9781849500104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary. 2012. Number marking: An LFG overview. Proceedings of the LFG12 Conference, 139–56. Online: http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/17/papers/lfg12dalrymple.pdf.Google Scholar
Francis, Bernie, and and trans.), John Hewson (eds. 1990. The Micmac grammar of Father Pacifique. Sydney, NS: Cape Breton University Press.Google Scholar
François, Alexandre. 2009. Verbal number and suppletion in Hiw. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Aussois, June 2009.Google Scholar
François, Alexandre. 2019. Verbal number in Lo-Toga and Hiw: An emergent paradigm in the lexicon. Transactions of the Philological Society (Special issue: The diachrony of suppletion, ed. by Vincent, Nigel and Plank, Frans) 177. 338–71. DOI: 10.1111/1467-968X.12168.Google Scholar
Gajewski, Jon. 2002. On analyticity in natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT, ms.Google Scholar
Gajewski, Jon. 2008. NPI any and connected exceptive phrases. Natural Language Semantics 16. 69–110. DOI: 10.1007/s11050-007-9025-8.10.1007/s11050-007-9025-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granberry, Julian. 1967. Zuni syntax. Buffalo: State University of New York at Buffalo dissertation.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 1973. Person marking in Walbiri. A festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Anderson, Stephen R. and Kiparsky, Paul, 308–44. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 1986. Notes on world view and semantic categories: Some Warlpiri examples. Features and projections, ed. by Muysken, Pieter and van Riemsdijk, Henk, 233–56. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 1997. Some observations on the contributions of local languages to linguistic science. Lingua 100. 71–89. DOI: 10.1016/S0024-3841(96)00029-0.10.1016/S0024-3841(96)00029-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Kenneth, Jeanne, LaVerne Masayesva; and Pranka, Paula M.. 1991. On suppletion, selection and agreement. Interdisciplinary approaches to language: Essays in honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, ed. by Georgopoulos, Carol and Ishinara, Roberta, 255–70. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-011-3818-5_13.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1997. Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (PF: Papers at the interface) 30. 425–49. [Reprinted in Research in Afroasiatic grammar: Papers from the Third Conference on Afroasiatic Languages, Sophia Antipolis, 1996, ed. by Lecarme, Jacqueline, Lowenstamm, Jean, and Shlonsky, Ur, 125–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2003.].Google Scholar
Hammarström, Harald, Forkel, Robert; and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) 2017. Glottolog 3.0. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. Online: http://glottolog.org.Google Scholar
Harbour, Daniel. 2003. The Kiowa case for feature insertion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21. 543–78. DOI: 10.1023/A:1024196621352.10.1023/A:1024196621352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harbour, Daniel. 2007. Morphosemantic number: From Kiowa noun classes to UG number features. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-5038-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harbour, Daniel. 2011a. Descriptive and explanatory markedness. Morphology 21. 223–45. DOI: 10.1007/s11525-010-9167-0.10.1007/s11525-010-9167-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harbour, Daniel. 2011b. Valence and atomic number. Linguistic Inquiry 42. 561–94. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00061.10.1162/LING_a_00061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harbour, Daniel. 2014. Paucity, abundance, and the theory of number. Language 90. 185–229. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2014.0003.10.1353/lan.2014.0003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harbour, Daniel. 2016. Impossible persons. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262034739.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi, and Ritter, Elizabeth. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78. 482–526. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2002.0158.10.1353/lan.2002.0158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, Sheldon P. 1976. Mokilese reference grammar. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene, and Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Henry, Alison. 2005. Non-standard dialects and linguistic data. Lingua 115. 1599–1617. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.07.006.10.1016/j.lingua.2004.07.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoijer, Harry. 1933–1938. Tonkawa. Handbook of American Indian languages, ed. by Boas, Franz, 1–148. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Jaker, Alessandro, Sangris, Fred; and Sundberg, Mary Rose (eds.) 2013. Wıìlıìdeh yatıì wet‘à edàgot‘ yatıì enhtł‘è: Weledeh language verb dictionary. Yellowknife, NT: Goyatiko Language Society.Google Scholar
Jeanne, LaVerne Masayesva. 1978. Aspects of Hopi grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/16325.Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 2000. Few dogs eat Whiskas or cats Alpo. Issues in semantics (University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics 23), ed. by Kusumoto, Kiyomi and Villalta, Elisabeth, 59–82. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Kalectaca, Milo. 1978. Lessons in Hopi, ed. by Langacker, Ronald W.. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Kimball, Geoffrey D. 1991. Koasati grammar. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Kimball, Geoffrey D. 1993. Two hunters, two wives, two dogs, and two clawed witches: The use of the dual in a Koasati narrative. International Journal of American Linguistics 59. 473–96. DOI: 10.1086/466215.10.1086/466215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 2000. Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions and particles. The syntax of specifiers and heads, ed. by Koopman, Hilda, 204–60. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203171608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. Phrase structure and the lexicon, ed. by Rooryck, Johan and Zaring, Laurie, 109–38. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_5.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40. 187–237. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2009.40.2.187.10.1162/ling.2009.40.2.187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. Lexical matters, ed. by Sag, Ivan and Szabolcsi, Anna, 29–53. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lee, Jenny. 2016. Root alternation and verbal plurality in Ranmo. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 22. 197–206. Online: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol22/iss1/22.Google Scholar
Lin, Vivian I-Wen. 2002. Coordination and sharing at the interfaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/8151.Google Scholar
Linn, Mary Sarah. 2000. A grammar of Euchee (Yuchi). Melbourne: University of Melbourne dissertation.Google Scholar
Little, Carol-Rose. 2018. A binary feature analysis of Mi'gmaq number agreement. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 35. 242–50. Online: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/35/paper3395.pdf.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, John E. 2018. Expanding to the edges: Central Numic dual number. International Journal of American Linguistics 84. 359–81. DOI: 10.1086/697587.10.1086/697587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2008. Cross-modular parallels in the study of phon and phi. Phi theory: Phifeatures across interfaces and modules, ed. by Harbour, Daniel, Adger, David, and Béjar, Susana, 329–67. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2011. Marked targets versus marked triggers and impoverishment of the dual. Linguistic Inquiry 42. 413–44. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00052.10.1162/LING_a_00052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, Stanley. 1965. Zuni grammar. Albuquerque: The University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Nichols, Lynn. 1997. Topics in Zuni syntax. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University dissertation.Google Scholar
Nichols, Lynn. 2008. Zuni accusative intransitives. International Journal of American Linguistics 74. 115–40. DOI: 10.1086/529465.10.1086/529465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noyer, Rolf. 1992. Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/12895.Google Scholar
Noyer, Rolf. 1998. Impoverishment theory and morphosyntactic markedness. Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax, ed. by Lapointe, Steven, Brentari, Diane, and Farrell, Patrick, 264–85. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1997. Indirect duals [part I]. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz, ms.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262162548.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, Keren. 2000. Morpheme order and semantic scope: Word formation in the Athapaskan verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511663659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth. 1993. Where's gender? Linguistic Inquiry 24. 795–803. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178843.Google Scholar
Sadler, Louisa. 2011. Indeterminacy, complex features and underspecification. Morphology 21. 379–417. DOI: 10.1007/s11525-010-9166-1.10.1007/s11525-010-9166-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1930. Southern Paiute, a Shoshonean language. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 65. 1–296. DOI: 10.2307/20026309.10.2307/20026309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 2003. A new semantics for number. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 13. 258–75. DOI: 10.3765/salt.v13i0.2898.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1990. The languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Grammatical categories in Australian languages, ed. by Dixon, R. M. W., 112–71. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Smith, Norval. 2011. Free personal pronoun system database. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht. Online: http://languagelink.let.uu.nl/fpps/index.php.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 2005. Division of labor between Merge and Move: Strict locality of selection and apparent reconstruction paradoxes. Proceedings of Division of Linguistic Labor, the la Bretesche workshop. Online: https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000163.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2005. Extending the extension condition to discontinuous idioms. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 5. 227–63. DOI: 10.1075/livy.5.08sve.10.1075/livy.5.08sveCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2007. Adpositions, particles, and the arguments they introduce. Argument structure, ed. by Reuland, Eric, Bhattacharya, Tanmoy, and Spathas, Giorgos, 71–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tamura, Suzuko. 1988. The Ainu language. Tokyo: Sanseido. [Reprinted in 2000, translated from Japanese into English by Sanseido Co. Ltd.].Google Scholar
Veselinova, Ljuba N. 2006. Suppletion in verb paradigms: Bits and pieces of the puzzle. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veselinova, Ljuba N. 2013. Verbal number and suppletion. The world atlas of language structures online, ed. by Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin. Anthropology, Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary. Online: http://wals.info/chapter/80.Google Scholar
Voegelin, Charles F., and Voegelin, Florence M.. 1957. Hopi domains: A lexical approach to the problem of selection. (International Journal of American Linguistics supplement 23(2).) Baltimore, MD: Waverly.Google Scholar
Wagner, Günter. 1933–1938. Yuchi. Handbook of American Indian languages, ed. by Boas, Franz, 293–384. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Walker, Willard. 1964. Reference, taxonomy, and inflection in Zuni. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University dissertation.Google Scholar
Walker, Willard. 1966. Inflectional class and taxonomic structure in Zuni. International Journal of American Linguistics 32. 217–27. DOI: 10.1086/464906.10.1086/464906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, Laurel J. 1984. A grammar of Kiowa. With the assistance of Parker McKenzie. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1986. A reassignment of the functions of LF. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 265–99. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178487.Google Scholar
Zhukova, Alevtina N. 1972. Grammatika korjakskogo jazyka: Fonetika, morfologia [Grammar of the Koryak language: Phonetics, morphology]. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Zigmond, Maurice L., Booth, Curtis G.; and Munro, Pamela. 1990. Kawaiisu: A grammar and dictionary with texts. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Zwarts, Joost. 2008. Aspects of a typology of direction. Theoretical and cross-linguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect, ed. by Rothstein, Susan, 79–105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.110.05zwaCrossRefGoogle Scholar