Abstract
Lexical plural merges in or below the categorizing head n0. It often yields abundance in quantity, as in Greek and Innu-aimun. However, it is reported that it denotes paucity in quantity in one language, namely Telugu, to the best of the researcher’s knowledge. The current study reports that Jordanian Arabic has lexical plural that is semantically similar to the lexical plural in Telugu. Specifically, it yields paucity in quantity. From a typological perspective, this study calls for branching lexical plural into lexical greater as in Greek and Innu-aimun and lexical paucal as in Jordanian Arabic and Telugu, comparable to inflectional plural that may divide into greater, which gives abundance in quantity, and paucal, which yields paucity in number. This implies that languages that have the lexical plural category should fall into the following paradigm: languages with lexical greater and those with lexical paucal.
1. Introduction
Inflectional plural often counts. In the generative literature (Abney, Citation1987; Bernstein, Citation1991; Ritter, Citation1991, Citation1995; Valois, Citation1991), it is treated as a head of Number Phrase (#P) in the extended morphosyntactic projection of nominals.Footnote1 However, Borer (Citation2005) proposes that plural marking could divide. On this basis, inflectional plural can be counting or dividing. The former merges in #P under the counting head #0, whereas the latter merges in Division Phase (DivP) under the dividing head Div0, as shown in (1) (see Mathieu, Citation2012, Citation2014; Gillon, Citation2015 where it is reported that the counting plural and the dividing plural may coexist in same language).Footnote2 The main difference between the counting plural and the dividing plural is semantic. The former gives rise to exclusive interpretation. It excludes the singular, and therefore it yields two or more reading. In contrast, the latter gives rise inclusive interpretation (Borer, Citation2005; Mathieu, Citation2014; Martí, Citation2020, among others). In other words, it yields one or more reading.
![](/cms/asset/26b72206-6aad-4538-ab87-6a6268ec9c05/oaah_a_2212462_uf0001_b.gif)
Additionally, non-inflectional plural marking can be a derivational morpheme under n0. This means that it merges as a derivational head at the upper edge of the lexical domain, as in Amharic (Kramer, Citation2012) and Somali (Lecarme, Citation2002). In the relevant studies, evidence supporting lexical plural is that its formation shows the following idiosyncrasies: it is not that productive (i.e., it exhibits lexical gaps), and its interpretation is unpredictable and non-compositional (Acquaviva, Citation2008; Alexiadou, Citation2011; Kramer, Citation2012; Lecarme, Citation2002; Lowenstamm, Citation2008). Thus, lexical plural derives new meanings and shows formal properties of the categorizing head n0 merging with uncategorized roots:
![](/cms/asset/041deeb6-5ac4-466e-b865-cb87da911985/oaah_a_2212462_uf0002_b.gif)
However, the interpretation of lexical plural is not always highly unpredictable in natural languages. The lexical plural that is compatible with non-count nominals in Greek (Alexiadou, Citation2011; Tsoulas, Citation2007) and Innu-aimun (Gillon, Citation2015), for example, does not yield the predictable counting reading, yet it always yields abundance in quantity. The semantic relatedness between the counting plural (abundance in number) and the measuring plural (abundance in amount) explains why the abundance reading of the lexical plural in these two languages is not highly unpredictable. Consider the following example from Greek:
![](/cms/asset/6d35e245-7f5d-4954-b3d5-1db625b52957/oaah_a_2212462_uf0003_b.gif)
The current study demonstrates that Jordanian Arabic (henceforth JA), like Telugu, has lexical plural that merges under n0 with non-count nominals and yields paucity in quantity. To illustrate, the feminine sound plural suffix -a:t directly attaches to the non-count (mass) nominal majj’ water’ in (4) and measures a small amount of water, as shown in the translation.
![](/cms/asset/1adff348-90ad-4adb-9312-64eb9a04b77a/oaah_a_2212462_uf0004_b.gif)
![](/cms/asset/735a6ce6-779b-4a08-856e-d61789ed3ccf/oaah_a_2212462_uf0005_b.gif)
![](/cms/asset/0c1b4862-85af-470a-8b16-a11037c50b21/oaah_a_2212462_uf0006_b.gif)
![](/cms/asset/4607a1b2-3922-4786-bbfa-d7d5f482b90b/oaah_a_2212462_uf0007_b.gif)
The outline of this paper is as follows: Section 2 introduces the number system in Arabic, with particular attention given to the paucal category. Section 3 is to review studies that report the lexical plural in natural languages and to integrate it in the plural morphology of JA. In Section 4, it is proposed that lexical plural, as a category that exists in some languages of the world, branches into lexical greater and lexical paucal. Section 5 concludes the paper.
2. Number in Arabic
This section provides a quick overview of the number system in Standard Arabic and Vernacular Arabic, and then it focuses on the paucal category.
2.1. Arabic number system
The number system in Standard Arabic (SA) and most Arabic vernaculars is rich. It comprises the following categories: the singular (count noun), the non-count (collective and mass), the singulative, the dual, and the plural (Borer & Ouwayda, Citation2010; Borer, Citation2005; Mathieu, Citation2013).Footnote4 Consider the words from SA in (8) that represent the categories mentioned above, respectively. Note that the difference between the examples in (8) and their vernacular counterparts is mainly phonological. (coll = collective noun, bpl = broken plural).
![](/cms/asset/01a4b6ce-3c86-4ea5-af45-85f0b4af4c10/oaah_a_2212462_uf0008_b.gif)
The dual has two forms inflected for case in SA: the nominative -a:(n) and the accusative or genitive -aj(n).Footnote6, while -e:n is the only dual form used in most Arabic vernaculars.Footnote7 The dual is morphosyntactic; its formation requires the suffixation of the dual morpheme to the singular, as in (8d). The plural category may target morphologically unmarked singular nominals, as in (8e). It may also target singulative nominals, resulting in the plural of the singulative, as in baqar-a:t “some cows”.
From a morphological perspective, the plural in Arabic has two modes: the concatenative and the non-concatenative. The former is shaped by affixing the masculine sound plural -u:n or the feminine sound plural -a:t to a stem linearly, generating the so-called sound plurals:
![](/cms/asset/31638768-1e96-4a5e-a3b4-e3abf71e63c5/oaah_a_2212462_uf0009_b.gif)
On the other hand, the non-concatenative mode of pluralization in Arabic is formed by mapping a plural template as a morphological unit, which can be viewed as a prosodic pattern on a singular nominal (stem), producing the broken plural. Arabic comprises about 31 distinct broken plural patterns (McCarthy & Prince, Citation1990). Consider the formation of the following SA broken pluralsFootnote8:
![](/cms/asset/0485d806-23a0-488a-ad2d-507de99fb0c6/oaah_a_2212462_uf0010_b.gif)
The paucal and greater are components in the domain of the broken plural templates (Fassi Fehri, Citation2018; 2020Ojeda, Citation1992) in SA. A paucal or greater plural template can be mapped onto one nominal, such as mapping the paucal template ʔaC1.C2uC3 and the greater template C1u.C2u:C3 to the singular ʃahr “month” in (11). Regarding Arabic vernaculars, no previous study reports such a distinction, as far as I know. However, empirical efforts should be paid to determine whether users of Arabic dialects make such a distinction. (pauc = PAUCAL)
![](/cms/asset/d0738a18-4c1c-4266-b12f-ff055a21b308/oaah_a_2212462_uf0011_b.gif)
![](/cms/asset/0289e435-6d54-4cc0-abc1-17d57b8328bd/oaah_a_2212462_uf0012_b.gif)
2.2. Paucity in Arabic
Paucity is reported in several studies on Arabic number. As mentioned above, inflectional paucal, which yields paucity in number, is a prominent feature of some broken plural templates with a numeral range between 3 and 10 (Ojeda, Citation1992; Wright, Citation1933), such as the prosodic plural templates ʔaC1.C2uC3 and ʔaC1.C2iC3-ah that are mapped onto the singular count nominals in (13) to denote paucity in numberFootnote9:
![](/cms/asset/dfb67bd3-2bc4-451b-acc8-de8861a9b6b9/oaah_a_2212462_uf0013_b.gif)
![](/cms/asset/e89830e2-4b7f-4a55-a3b6-bab7ab647262/oaah_a_2212462_uf0014_b.gif)
![](/cms/asset/18f26a7a-ba88-4959-b961-1dac3c72bda6/oaah_a_2212462_uf0015_b.gif)
![](/cms/asset/40a8afda-a1d6-45cb-8587-3422a3e7b917/oaah_a_2212462_uf0016_b.gif)
In the next section, lexical plural as a plural category in natural languages is explored.
3. Lexical plural
This section begins with an overview of previous work on lexical plural. It discusses cases of lexical plural in some languages where it gives rise to one of the following interpretations: abundance and paucity in quantity. Then, it integrates lexical plural denoting paucity in quantity in the number system of JA. At the end, it gives a hint on the mass-count distinction in JA, as the lexical plural in this Arabic variety targets non-count nominals.
3.1. Overview: lexical plural in natural languages
As mentioned earlier, lexical plural (Acquaviva, Citation2008; Alexiadou, Citation2011), which targets non-count nominals, such as water and wheat, is reported in some languages. Most previous studies that report this type of plural demonstrate that it yields abundance reading (a lot of), as is the case in Greek (Alexiadou, Citation2011; Tsoulas, Citation2007), and Innu-aimun (Gillon, Citation2015). Consider the following examples from these languages where the plural of mass nominals yields abundance in quantity:
![](/cms/asset/fc997709-6450-4c72-aec7-e963fa52bf7c/oaah_a_2212462_uf0017_b.gif)
![](/cms/asset/fe27de4d-38be-429b-8b8a-787bebff546c/oaah_a_2212462_uf0018_b.gif)
![](/cms/asset/e13cd792-17a1-49eb-a9dc-5374eabe8f33/oaah_a_2212462_uf0019_b.gif)
![](/cms/asset/ac046fbe-8b01-46cb-960f-a2682312f29d/oaah_a_2212462_uf0020_b.gif)
![](/cms/asset/d7d27d1c-6fd4-41d1-9fe6-bee7a50876af/oaah_a_2212462_uf0021_b.gif)
3.2. Lexical plural in Jordanian Arabic
Lexical plural in JA is the product of the pluralization of non-count nominals. Non-count nominals are first introduced in this section. As a category, it branches into collective nominals and mass nominals. In Arabic, collective nominals refer to kinds or groups of objects as a whole without any reference to the internal members (see Erwin, Citation1963; Harrell, Citation1962; Mathieu, Citation2013; Talmoudi, Citation1980). Collective nominals in Arabic refer to fruits, vegetables, grains, animals, insects, and germs. On the other hand, mass nominals refer to substances and materials with no discrete subsets, i.e., tiny atoms, liquids, gases, dairy products and powders, minerals, and other materials. Consider the examples in (22 and 23) where the feminine sound plural of non-count nominals gives rise to paucity in quantity (a small amount reading) in JA. In (22), -a:t attaches to collective nominals, whereas it is combined with mass nominals in (23).
![](/cms/asset/f7e49f38-8aaa-4bc6-860f-f7d1af7bd105/oaah_a_2212462_uf0022_b.gif)
![](/cms/asset/095383e6-e809-401c-9e77-070ef769e33f/oaah_a_2212462_uf0023_b.gif)
![](/cms/asset/d128e83c-5c63-457f-b15a-434ef6c0e5ad/oaah_a_2212462_uf0024_b.gif)
![](/cms/asset/a175e807-8ade-439b-aee6-43086a93b7d7/oaah_a_2212462_uf0025_b.gif)
![](/cms/asset/d0b5650b-0031-49bb-ac6a-c1f0fe9822c1/oaah_a_2212462_uf0026_b.gif)
![](/cms/asset/35609bcc-b784-45ca-976c-87b7fc1c30e8/oaah_a_2212462_uf0027_b.gif)
![](/cms/asset/35ae91d0-4546-40df-a5fd-0d2baa69b7ed/oaah_a_2212462_uf0028_b.gif)
![](/cms/asset/39f11de0-24ba-4f52-adbd-1319ea603105/oaah_a_2212462_uf0029_b.gif)
This dichotomy may imply that the semantics of the plural morpheme determines the yielded interpretation in a language. In JA, for example, the meaning of the feminine plural morpheme -a:t is typically paucal, whether it merges in the lexical or the inflectional domain of a nominal. What argues with the selection of the morpheme -a:t to be the marker of paucity per excellence in JA is that it is also the only marker available to pluralize the singulativized forms of non-count nominals, yielding paucity in number. Likewise, it denotes paucity with count nominals that broken templates can pluralize. Thus, the morpheme -a:t yields paucal reading in the spine of non-count and many count nominals.
3.3. Lexical plural and mass-count distinction
This part of the section is intended to answer the following question: does the existence of the lexical plural have any implication for mass-count distinction in JA? The compatibility between plural morphology and non-count nominals (especially mass nominals) is observed in JA; however, this compatibility is not full. Only one component of plural morphology in JA can combine with non-count nominals, namely the morpheme -a:t. Thus, JA, akin to Standard Arabic, distinguishes between count and non-count nominals (especially mass). In other words, both Arabic varieties have a grammatical mass-count distinction. The following paragraphs illustrate the morphosyntax of pluralization in JA.
Singular (count) nouns are freely pluralized. Pluralization is carried out in their inflectional domain. If the plural is dividing (Borer, Citation2005; Mathieu, Citation2012), it has inclusive reading. In this case, the plural morpheme merges under Div0, but it may move up to #0 to perform counting, such as the masculine and feminine sound plural of the count noun muʕallim in (30).
![](/cms/asset/f14ad601-1e30-49ea-b366-318ffd058045/oaah_a_2212462_uf0030_b.gif)
![](/cms/asset/d3fcab4d-413f-4415-aa4d-0036bc4070f5/oaah_a_2212462_uf0031_b.gif)
The previous analysis entails that lexical plural JA is exclusively a function of the feminine sound plural morpheme -a:t. It is the only plural morpheme compatible with non-count nominals in this dialect, yet it cannot count in this case. It can be inferred from these observations that lexical plural does not pose a problem to the proper mass-count distinction in JA.
The following section suggests branching lexical plural into paucal and greater, comparable to inflectional plural under #0.
4. Branching lexical plural
Given the variation in the interpretation of lexical plural in natural languages, it is suggested in this section that lexical plural, as a category that exists in some languages of the world, branches into lexical greater and lexical paucal. The former denotes abundance in quantity, whereas the latter gives rise to paucity in quantity. This branching, in turn, feeds the plural category; it can be inflectional/high or lexical/low. Inflectional plural, among other types of plural, embeds the inflectional greater and paucal. Likewise, the lexical plural branches into the lexical greater and paucal. Inflectional plural targets singular or singulative nominals and denotes numbers, i.e., inflectional greater and paucal operate within the inflectional domain of atoms and merge above the categorizing functional projection of a nominal. On the other hand, lexical plural targets non-count nominals (or may be roots, such as the adjoining plural in Halkomelem Salish) and refers to quantities. Precisely, lexical greater and paucal operate in the lexical domain of non-atomic nominals (mass nominals) or not yet atomized nominals (collectives) and merge under n0:
![](/cms/asset/ad564e97-42b7-492a-b156-0df318fbc274/oaah_a_2212462_uf0032_b.gif)
The previous discussion indicates that the full proposal of the inflectional plural and the lexical plural in the current research is shown in (33), where all the types of the inflectional plural and the lexical plural are observed in natural languages:
![](/cms/asset/a5368349-8c16-4527-97b3-7c53e6547971/oaah_a_2212462_uf0033_b.gif)
5. Conclusion
This paper calls for branching lexical plural into lexical greater as in Greek and Innu-aimun and lexical paucal as in Jordanian Arabic and Telugu, comparable to inflectional greater and paucal. Hence, languages with lexical plural should fall into the following paradigm: languages with lexical greater and those with lexical paucal. The observation that lexical plural in one language can have only one of these two interpretations calls for the complementary distribution of the lexical greater and lexical paucal; each exists in a set of languages. The selection between these two interpretations is language-specific.
This paper has also demonstrated that the feminine sound plural marker -a:t is a marker of paucity per excellence in Arabic. It yields paucity in number if it merges in the inflectional domain of a singular or singulativized nominal. In contrast, it denotes paucity in quantity if it merges under n0 in the morphosyntactic projection of a non-count nominal. Another issue raised in this paper is that the existence of lexical plural with non-count nominals does not question the mass-count distinction in JA. This dialect has mass-count distinction, yet non-count nominals can exceptionally be pluralized at the lexical level by the feminine plural marker -a:t to measure a small quantity.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Abdulazeez Jaradat
Abdulazeez Jaradat is an Associate Professor of Linguistics at Applied Science Private University, Amman, Jordan. His main interests are in syntax-phonology interface, morphosyntax and grammaticalization and language change.
Notes
1. Note that NumP does not exist in all languages (Wiltschko, Citation2008), as in Korean (Kwon & Zribi-Hertz, Citation2004).
2. To Borer, DivP is a classifier phrase.
3. Note that Wiltschko (Citation2008) and Butler’s (Citation2012) evidence to where a plural can adjoin in the spine of a DP is not reviewed in this paper as it is beyond its scope.
4. Arabic number system, its components and its morphosyntax constitutes a growing research domain in Arabic (cf. Benmamoun et al., Citation2014; Borer & Ouwayda, Citation2010; Dali, Citation2020, Citation2020; Fassi Fehri, Citation2018; Jaradat & Jarrah, Citation2022; Kihm, Citation2003; Lahrouchi & Lampitelli, Citation2014; Lahrouchi & Ridouane, Citation2016; Mathieu, Citation2013, Citation2014; Ojeda, Citation1992; Zabbal’s, Citation2002).
5. The singulativization of a collective nominal (e.g., fruits and grains) results in an unitization reading, whereas the singulativization of a mass nominal (e.g., minerals) gives rise to partition reading (Fassi Fehri, Citation2018; Jaradat & Jarrah, Citation2022). Non-count nouns can also be divided by classifying or measure phrases in Arabic, such as ħabb-at tamr “a grain of dates”.
6. From a historical point of view, the bound dual -a:n and -e:n are the grammaticalized forms of lexical ʔiθna:n, given related phonological clues. ʔiθna:n underwent phonological attrition (Norde, Citation2012; 2019Traugott, Citation2002) and were turned into morphologically bound dual morphemes (i.e., ʔiθna:n > -e:n).
7. The dual can be conveyed lexically in Arabic.a. ʔiθna:nʃaajTwotea“two cups of tea”
8. How this mapping operation takes place is debatable. For instance, Hammond (Citation1988) and McCarthy and Prince (199a,b) argue for the melodic transfer accounts whereby targets are categorized words. On the other hand, Kihm (Citation2003), Lahrouchi and Lampitelli (Citation2014) and Lahrouchi and Ridouane (Citation2016), among others, argue for the vocalic insertion accounts whereby the broken plural templates should have access to roots.
9. Broken plural is part of the Arabic non-concatenative inflectional morphology. It is formed by inserting vocalic segments into the consonantal segments of the singular. This operation changes the quality of the vowels of a singular.
References
- Abney, S. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
- Acquaviva, P. (2008). Lexical Plurals: A Morphosemantic Approach. Oxford University Press.
- Alexiadou, A. (2011). Plural mass nouns and the morphosyntax of Number. Proceedings of The West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 28, Somerville, MA. Cascadilla Proceedings PROJECT. University of Southern California.
- Benmamoun, E., Albirini, A., Montrul, S. A., & Saadah, E. (2014). Arabic plurals and root and pattern morphology in Palestinian and Egyptian heritage speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4(1), 89–17. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.4.1.04ben
- Bernstein, J. (1991). Dp’s in French and Walloon: Evidence for parametric variation in nominal head movement. Probus, 3(2), 101–126. https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.1991.3.2.101
- Borer, H. (2005). In name only: Structuring sense. Oxford University Press.
- Borer, H., & Ouwayda, S. (2010). Men and their apples: Dividing plural and agreement plural. In Handout of a talk presented at GLOW in Asia VIII. Beijing Language and Culture University.
- Butler, L. (2012). Crosslinguistic and experimental evidence for non-number plural. Linguistic Variation, 12(1), 27–56. https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.12.1.02but
- Corbett, G. (2000). Number. Cambridge University Press.
- Dali, M. 2020. The Distribution and Function of Number in Azeri. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Ottawa.
- Erwin, M. (1963). A short reference grammar of Iraqi Arabic. Georgetown University Press. Arabic series.
- Fassi Fehri, A. (2018). Constructing feminine to mean gender, number, numeral and quantifier extensions in Arabic. USAA Lexington Books.
- Gillon, C. (2015). Innu-aimun Plurality. Lingua, 162, 128–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.05.006
- Hammond, M. (1988). Templatic transfer in Arabic broken plurals. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 6(2), 247–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134231
- Harbour, D. (2014). Paucity, abundance, and the theory of number. Lingua, 90(1), 185–229. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2014.0003
- Harrell, R. (1962). A short reference grammar of Moroccan Arabic. Georgetown University Press.
- Jaradat, A., & Jarrah, M. (2022). The syntax of plurals of collective and mass nouns in JA. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 58(3), 509–539.
- Kihm, A. (2003). Les pluriels internes de l’arabe : système et conséquences pour l’architecture de la grammaire. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes, 32(32), 109–156. https://doi.org/10.4000/rlv.473
- Kramer, R. (2012). A split analysis of plurality: evidence from Amheric. In Arnette, N., & Ryan, B. (Eds.), WCCFL30 (pp. 226–236). Cascadilla Press.
- Kwon, S., & Zribi-Hertz, A. (2004). Number from a syntactic perspective: Why plural marking looks ‘truer’ in French than in Korean. In O. Bonami & P. C. Hofherr (Eds.), Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 5, pp. 133–158). CSSP.
- Lahrouchi, M., & Lampitelli, N. (2014). On plurals, noun phrase and num(ber) in Moroccan Arabic and Djibouti Somali. In Bendjabalah, S., Faust, N., Lahrouchi , M., Lampitelli , N. (Eds.), The Form of Structure, the Structure of Form: Essays in Honor of Jean Lowenstamm (pp. 303–314). John Benjamins.
- Lahrouchi, M., & Ridouane, R. (2016). On diminutives and plurals in Moroccan Arabic. Morphology, 26(3–4), 453–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-016-9290-7
- Lecarme, J. (2002). Gender “polarity:” theoretical aspects of Somali nominal morphology. In P. Boucher & M. Plénat (Eds.), Many Morphologies (pp. 109–141). Cascadilla Press.
- Lowenstamm, J. (2008). On little n, √, and types of nouns. In J. Hartmann, V. Hegedűs, & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Sounds of Silence: Empty Elements in Syntax and Phonology (pp. 105–144). Elsevier.
- Martí, L. (2020). Inclusive plurals and the theory of number. Linguistic Inquiry, 51(1), 37–74. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00330
- Mathieu, E. (2012). Flavors of division. Linguistic Inquiry, 43(4), 650–679. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00110
- Mathieu, E. (2013). On the plural of the singulative. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics, 23(1), 1–12.
- Mathieu, E. (2014). Many a plural. In A. Aguilar-Guevara, B. L. Bruyn, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Weak referentiality (pp. 157–181). John Benjamins.
- McCarthy, J. (2008). Morphology. In K. Versteegh (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics III (pp. 297–307). Brill.
- McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. 1990. Prosodic Morphology and Templatic Morphology. Proceedings of the Perspectives on Arabic linguistics III papers from the second annual symposium on Arabic linguistics, Amsterdam (pp. 1–54).
- McCarus, E. N. (2008). Modern Standard Arabic. In K. Versteegh (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics III (pp. 238–262). Brill.
- Norde, M. (2012). Lehmann’s parameters revisited. In K. Davidse, T. Breban, L. Brems, & T. Mortelmans (Eds.), Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections (pp. 73–110). John Benjamins.
- Ojeda, A. (1992). The semantics of number in Arabic. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 2, 303–326. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v2i0.3040
- Ritter, E. (1991). Two Functional Categories in Noun Phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 25: Perspectives on Phrase Structure (pp. 37–62). Academic Press.
- Ritter, E. (1995). On the Syntactic Category of Pronouns and Agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 13(3), 405–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992737
- Smith, P. (2016). Plural mass nouns in Telegu. University of Connecticut. Manuscript
- Talmoudi, F. (1980). The Arabic dialect of Sûsa (Tunisia). Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
- Traugott, E. (2002). From etymology to historical pragmatics. In D. Minkova & R. Stockwell (Eds.), Studying the History of the English Language: Millennial Perspectives (pp. 19–49). Mouton de Gruyter.
- Tsoulas, G. (2007). On the grammar of number and mass terms in Greek. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 49(1), 239–266.
- Valois, D. 1991. The Internal Syntax of DP and Adjective Placement in French and English. In T. Sherer (Ed.), Proceedings of NELS, University of Quebec in Montreal, 21, 367–382.
- Wiltschko, M. (2008). The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 26(3), 639–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-008-9046-0
- Wright, W. (1933). A Grammar of the Arabic Language I. MIT Press.
- Zabbal, Y. 2002. The semantics of number in the Arabic noun phrase, MA. Thesis. University of Calgary. Canada.