We asked the question, how do we derive exact interpretations like those of number words. By some views, numbers are not special and that their exact interpretation arises from pragmatic enrichment, rather than lexically. For example, the word one may gain its exact interpretation because the presence of the immediate successor two licenses the pragmatic inference that one implies “one, and not two”. To investigate the possible role of pragmatic enrichment in the development of exact representations, we looked outside the test case of number to grammatical morphological markers of quantity. In particular, we asked whether children can derive an exact interpretation of singular noun phrases (e.g., “a button”) when their language features an immediate “successor” that encodes sets of two. To do this, we used a series of tasks to compare Englishspeaking children who have only singular and plural morphology to Slovenian-speaking children who have singular and plural forms, but also dual morphology, that is used when describing sets of two. Replicating previous work, we found that English-speaking preschoolers failed to enrich their interpretation of the singular and did not treat it as exact. New to the present study, we found that 4- and 5- year-old Slovenian-speakers who comprehended the dual treated the singular form as exact, while younger Slovenian children who were still learning the dual did not, providing evidence that young children may derive exact meanings pragmatically.
COBISS.SI-ID: 42393347
In this paper we consider several instances of the Slovenian affix ov, which surfaces in many, apparently unrelated contexts. Here we focus on (i) ov in verbs, where it can act as an imperfectivizer or a verbalizer, (ii) ov found in possessive adjectives and kind adjectives derived from nouns, (iii) ov which precedes the adjectiviser (e)n in denominal adjectives, and (iv) ov in nominal declension (acting as a genitive case ending in dual and plural or as a dual/plural augment). Building on the observation that certain affixes function either as inflectional or as derivational (see Simonović and Arsenijević 2020), and working within a Distributed Morphology approach which postulates that derivational affixes should be analyzed as roots (e.g. Lowenstamm 2014), we argue for a single multifunctional ov. This ov is a potentially meaningless root that can take as a complement other roots (thus forming a “radical core”) or phrases, resulting in different structures and consequently different stress patterns and meanings, but can also act as an Elsewhere allomorph, whose insertion is guided by an interplay of phonological and morphological constraints.
COBISS.SI-ID: 45058051
This paper discusses contraints on derivation of deverbal nouns and explains what they are and where they come from.
COBISS.SI-ID: 36768771