Atomic Homogeneity: A semantic strategy for the determination of plurality in the complex noun phrases of South African English

References

• Barner D, Thalwitz D, Wood J, Yang S-J, Carey S. 2007. On the relation between the acquisition of singular-plural morpho-syntax and the conceptual distinction between one and more than one. Developmental Science 10: 365–373.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock K, Cutting JC. 1992. Regulating mental energy: performance units in language production. Journal of Memory and Language 31: 99–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock K, Miller C. 1991. Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology 23: 45–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock K, Cutler A, Eberhard K, Butterfield S, Cooper Cutting J, Humphreys K. 2006. Number agreement in British and American English: disagreeing to agree collectively. Language 82: 64–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock K, Eberhard K, Cooper Cutting J, Meyer A, Schriefers H. 2001. Some attractions of verb agreement. Cognitive Psychology 43: 83–128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bresnan J, Hay J. 2008. Gradient grammar: an effect of animacy on the syntax of ‘give’ in New Zealand and American English. Lingua 118: 245–259.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chomsky N. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Corbett G. 1979. The agreement hierarchy. Journal of Linguistics 15: 203–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornips L. 2006. Intermediate syntactic variants in a dialect: standard speech repertoire and relative acceptability. In: Fanselow G, Fery C, Schlesewsky M, Vogel R (eds), Gradience in grammar: generative perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cornips L, Jongenburger W. 2001. Elicitation techniques in a Dutch syntactic dialect atlas project. Linguistics in the Netherlands 18: 53–76.
   Google Scholar
• Cornips L, Poletto C. 2005. On standardising syntactic elicitationtechniques (part 1). Lingua 115: 939–957.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Den Dikken M. 2001. ‘Pluringulars’, pronouns and quirky agreement. The Linguistic Review 18: 19–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Vos M. 2012. Homogeneity in subject-verb concord in South African English. Language Matters 44: 58–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamming R. 1950. Error detecting and error correcting codes. The Bell System Technical Journal 29: 147–160.
   Google Scholar
• Häussler J, Bader M. 2012. Agreement checking and number attraction in sentence comprehension: insights from German relative clauses. Available at http://ling.unikonstanz.de/pages/home/bader/…/AttractionPaperRC.pdf [accessed 12 November 2012].
   Google Scholar
• Humphreys K, Bock K. 2005. Notional number agreement in English. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12: 689–695.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackendoff R. 1991. Parts and boundaries. Cognition 41: 9–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joh Y-K. 2008. Plurality and distributivity. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Joh Y-K. 2010. Maximality as a side effect of pluralization. The Journal of Studies in Language 26: 175–193.
   Google Scholar
• Lasersohn P. 1990. Group action and spatio-temporal proximity. Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 179–206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lasersohn P. 1995. Plurality, conjunction and the order of events. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Le Corre M, Carey S. 2006. One, two, three, four, nothing more: an investigation of the conceptual sources of the verbal counting principles. Journal of Cognition 105: 395–438.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Link G. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: a lattice theoretical approach. In: Bauerle R, Schwarze C, von Stechow A (eds), Meaning, use and interpretation of language. Berlin: de Gruyter. pp 302–323.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchley H. 2010. The role of animacy in triggering plural agreement in collective nouns. Honours thesis, Rhodes University, South Africa.
   Google Scholar
• Nicol J, Forster K, Veres C. 1997. Subject-verb agreement processes in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 36: 569–587.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters P. 1999. Differing on agreement: a report on LANGSCAPE. English Today 15: 6–9.
   Google Scholar
• Sauerland U, Elbourne P. 2002. Total reconstruction, PF movement, and derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 283–319.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winter Y. 2002. Atoms and sets: a characterization of semantic number. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 493–505.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar