Hamida Demirdache
On Distributive Numerals. Theories and Experimental Evidence
Conferencista
-
Hamida Demirdache
Hamida Demirdache
Hamida Demirdache is professor of linguistics at the University of Nantes, and member of the LLiNG Lab (UMR6310, CNRS/UN). Her interests lie at the syntax, semantics and language acquisition interfaces. Her research seeks to integrate theoretical and experimental methodologies to probe issues at these interfaces across a variety of typologically different adult and child languages. She is particularly interested in understanding how languages express (and children acquire) concepts that are essentially abstract (e.g. tense, quantification) and which all languages convey while showing a widespread variation in the means used to linguistically express them across languages. What are the source and limits of crosslinguistic diversity at these interfaces?
Debatedor(a)
Resumo →
Hamida Demirdache
On Distributive Numerals. Theories and Experimental Evidence
The term ‘distributive numeral’ was introduced into formal linguistics by Gil (1982, 1995) to describe numeral noun phrases indicating that a plurality of individuals or events is distributed with respect to another plurality. On the relational approach advocated by Gill (see also Choe 1987, Zimmermann 2002 a.o.), distributivity is understood as a relation between two pluralities: the distributive key which denotes the plurality over which the distribution takes place vs. the distributive share which denotes the plurality that is being distributed. Gil distinguishes two major typological classes of distributive marking cross-linguistically: markers that attach to the distributive key vs. markers that attach to the distributive share.
Based on recent investigations of distributive numerals in Serbian and Korean by Bosnić et al. (2020, 2022) and Bosnić (2021), as well as Knežević (2015) and Knežević & Demirdache (2017, 2018), I discuss original critical experimental evidence and novel arguments bearing on the theoretical analysis of distributive-share markers, such as Serbian ‘po’ or Korean ‘-ssik’, as opposed to distributive-key markers, such as English ‘each’. The experimental findings discussed in this talk ultimately bear on two correlated fundamental questions. What are the core differences between distributive-key vs. distributive-share markers? To what extent can distributive-share markers be analysed as instances of universal quantification (be it over events/spatiotemporal locations or participants) vs. event plurality markers (pluractionals, enforcing distributivity over spatiotemporal locations)?