proper name plurals in orizaba nawatl ( nlv )

Proper Name Plurals in

Orizaba Nawatl(nlv)

David TuggyILV-Mexico

I have run up against an interesting construction in a language I work with.

A lot of people don’t seem to be aware of it (though it has certainly been described and discussed by some), even though it is widespread in the world very natural (once you come to think

about it) likely to be useful (once you come to

think about it) One name for it is “associative

plurality”

Associative Plurality It shows up clearly (and for many

languages only) when a proper name is pluralized.

For instance, a standard plural in Orizaba Nawatl (=ON, nlv) is –tih, and the plural name Samueltih does not mean “people named Samuel”, but “Samuel and his bunch.”

That is what associative plurality looks like.

Associative Plurality

On this map (from WALS.36A) blue dots show where associative plurality has been reported

Associative Plurality

As you can see, it is widespread. The other colors indicate associatives that aren’t

also used as plurals. White = no associative reported.

Associative Plurality Its naturalness is further attested by

the fact that it seems to pop up more or less independently in languages that do not have it as a regular feature. For instance: English: The Alberts = Uncle Albert and

his family (in a child’s speech) French: Les Margaret = Geoff Nathan &

Margaret Winters Spanish: En la epoca de los Borja = back

when Borja and his contemporaries were the stars playing football (soccer) [Apellido>Name>Apellido?]

Spanish: Los Chuchos = followers of (candidate) Jesus Hernandez Ochoa.

Associative Plurality in Nawatl

Here are some examples of how associative plurality shows up in ON.

Newitzeh n ichpopochtih koxamo yonder.they.come the girls whether tlahtlaniskeh inka n Samueltih. they.will .ask with.them the Samuel-s

“Those girls over there that are heading this way are probably going to ask after Samuel and his friends.”

(It might also be Samuel & his family; probably not Samuel & his political party.)

Associative Plurality in Nawatl

Mokni itzkuih nimanyeh se your.sibling his.dog immediately.he one

n Simontih kipiah. the Simons they.have.it “Your brother’s dog is just like one of

Simon’s family’s.”

(The chances of it being a family are raised by the cultural awareness that most other groupings don’t own dogs.)

Associative Plurality in Nawatl Nahuatl does not mark plurality as

consistently as do some other languages

Asta ikne kahki n toahsiampah; until yonder is the our.common.boundary

ompa inwan semonamiki n Migelthere with.them we.meet.each.other the Michael“Our common boundary is over there; that’s where our land borders on Michael’s family’s land”

Migel does not bear a plural suffix. The plurality is signalled only by the

post-positional word inwan ‘with them’.

Why Use Associative Plurals?

For the rest of this talk I’d like to consider the notion of why speakers might decide to do this.

It is no accident that associative plurality centers on pluralized Names (=proper nouns).

This is because Names and plurals are by their very definitions opposing, or incompatible, concepts.

General comments When you put two notions (A & B)

together in your mind to form a complex whole, you might do one of three things: Make A your “main” idea and fit B to it,

or the other way around. (“Main” idea = ± ‘head’.)

Make each adapt a bit to fit the other (can = unclear headship)

Build something rather different from (though not unrelated to) either (=exocentricity)

These strategies grade into each other

General comments A surprising amount of syntactic

structure is covered by these simple possibilities.

The ideas joined are almost always different (otherwise why bother joining them), but often are quite compatible.

When they are incompatible they will not fit together in the way you might expect, so something has to give.

General comments Either A has to be changed so it can

fit with B in the expected way or B has to be changed to fit with A or each has to “give” a little till they

fit. Or you may be able to come up with

an unexpected way to combine them so that they fit compatibly.

Or, of course, you may just refuse to put the two ideas together at all.

Proper Names vs. Plurals

Proper names (=Names) and plurals, I am claiming, are incompatible.

Languages seem to take at least three tacks regarding this situation. Some simply don’t allow Names to be

pluralized. Some change the Name so it fits easily

in the plural construction Some change the Plural so it doesn’t

contradict the Name

Proper Names and Plurals

Both a plural and a Name evoke strongly the notion of a group of prominently conceived individual Things.

…

Group of Things

Proper Names and Plurals

But they make incompatible additions to that basic notion.

…

Group of Things

Proper Names A Name assumes each of those

Things is separately labeled, thus different in their most relevant (and ∴ prominent) characteristic

…

Group of Things Name

C

B S

D

E …

Proper Names The name then singles out from the

group the one Thing with the particular pronounced (or written) label.

…


C

B S

D

E …C

Plurals A plural, by contrast, construes the

individual Things as having the same characteristics (thus effectively similar) and designates the group of them.

…


C

B S

D

E …

Plural

C C

C

C

C

…

Plurals The characteristics shared by the

individuals within the plural group are expected to be specified by the nominal stem with which the plural affix is combined.

Character-istics

XYZ

Plural

C C

C

C

C

…

Plurals That nominal stem thus functions not

as an individual Thing but as a type, which is expected to be instantiated in many individuals.

Character-istics

XYZ

Plural

C C

C

C

C

…Thing Type

Plural overrides Name One way to pluralize a Name is to

keep the specifications of the Plural intact, and force the Name to fit them.

Name

C

B S

D

E …

Plural

C C

C

C

C

…

Plural overrides Name This makes (coerces) the Name into

a Type, with multiple instantiations This contradicts its own specification

that it designates a unique individual.

Name

C

B S

D

E …

Plural

C C

C

C

C

…(Name) Type

Plural overrides Name This is what happens in English: if

you say “the Carolyns” you mean “the girls/women (all) named Carolyn”.

Name

C

B S

D

E …

Plural

C C

C

C

C

…(Name) Type

Plural overrides Name “Being named Carolyn” is the

defining characteristic for the new Type of Thing.

Name

C

B S

D

E …

Plural

C C

C

C

C

…(Name) Type

Plural overrides Name (Other kinds of constructions can effect

similar coercions. For instance, if you say, “[she looks like] a Carolyn” you convert the Name into a type which can be modified by an indefinite article.

Only in this case the type specifies some other characteristics —presumably visual ones— besides just having the name.

If you were to say “the Carolyn”, that would come very close to just saying “Carolyn”.)

Making Plural fit Name

But what if, instead of changing Name so it fits what Plural expects, we change Plural so Name fits better?

Name

C

B S

D

E …

Plural

C C

C

C

C

…


We could abandon both (a) the specification that the Things in

the Plural group are alike and (b) the profiling of the group as a whole.

Name

C

B S

D

E …

Plural

C C

C

C

C

…C

B S

D

E …


Then the two ideas would be so compatible as to be almost identical,

Plural would add nothing to Name, so why bother to combine them?

Name

C

B S

D

E …

Plural

C C

C

C

C

…C

B S

D

E …


It is more likely to be useful to drop the requirement of alikeness, but keep the designation of a group, letting it override Name’s specification of an individual.

Name

C

B S

D

E …

Plural

C C

C

C

C

…C

B S

D

E …


This is essentially what happens in an associative plural.

The combination designates a group within which the Named Thing is prominent.

Name

C

B S

D

E …Associative

Plural

C C

C

C

C

…C

B S

D

E …


The relationship on the basis of which the association is formed is not specified, at least in the most schematic versions of the construction.

Name

C

B S

D

E …Associative

Plural

C C

C

C

C

…C

B S

D

E …


In the “true” plural, of course, the relationship is one of similarity or effective equality, of sharing of the essential characteristics specified by the noun stem.

Name

C

B S

D

E …

Plural

C C

C

C

C

…


This, however, has been specifically negated in the case of the associative plural.

Name

C

B S

D

E …

Plural

C C

C

C

C

…C

B S

D

E …


This does not mean the associated things are different in all important respects. It does mean any important shared characteristics are not those designated bythe Name.

Name

C

B S

D

E …

Plural

C C

C

C

C

…C

B S

D

E …


Names, of course, most typically are used to designate humans. (Naming of places, computer programs, etc., are secondary usages.)

Associative

C C

C

C

C

…C

B S

D

E …

Name

B S

D

E …C


So, quite naturally, the prototypical collective Name-plural construction also specifies humans.

(In fact I have no clear ON examples with non-humans)

Name

B S

D

E …C

Collective

B S

D

E …C


Although these humans are alike in being human, they have different names, and a name is what is designated by the stem.

Name

B S

D

E …C

Collective

B S

D

E …C


So the associative group is established on the basis of some other relationships.

Typically they are the relationships that typically group humans. Kinship Friendship Shared

Activities Nearness Hierarchy

(e.g. boss-peon) Etc.

Name

B S

D

E …C

Collective

B S

D

E …C


Users count on context to constrain the likelihood that one relationship rather than another should be adopted

(as in the exampleswe saw earlier.)

Name

B S

D

E …C

Collective

B S

D

E …C

Associative-plural lookalikes

There are a couple of other common phenomena that are very similar to this collective plural structure.

Seeing the similaritiesand differ-ences maybe instruc-tive.

Name

B S

D

E …C

Collective

B S

D

E …C

Doing “dishes” In (my) English the word dish by

itself most prominently means “a plate”.

But the plural dishes can mean either “a group of plates” (a normal plural), or

…dish dishes

(normal plural)

…

Doing “dishes” dishes can mean “dishes and (/or?)

other similar types of things”, prominently including glasses, silverware, pots and pans and cooking utensils.

…dish dishes

(normal plural)

…dishes

(assoc plural?)

…

Doing “dishes” This is much like an associative plural.

There are differences however. Rather than the stem designating an

individual and the plural a collection of individuals, bothdesignatea type anda collectionof types. …

dish dishes(assoc plural?)

…dish

(type)dishes

(collection of types)

Doing “dishes” There is a strong tendency for usages

with this meaning to occur as part of certain set phrases, including “do the dishes”, “wash the dishes”, “dirty dishes”, and so forth.

…dish dishes

(assoc plural?)

…dish

(type)dishes

(collection of types)

Doing “dishes” There is something

certainly right to saying that dish has acquired a schematic meaning “thing associated with food preparation (which may need washing)”.

That meaning is limited to the plural constructionand is favored by other more extensive constructions concurrently (e.g. “wash the ____es”).

…dish

…

Doing “dishes” Acquiring such a more

schematic sense as part of a polysemic structure is one of the standard ways lexical items develop.

…dish

…

Doing “dishes” Many words in many

languages generalize in similar ways.

E.g. in Nawatl ƛaka can mean “man (adult human male)” or “human being”.

The latter meaning is practically limited to plural forms and favors constructions like nochi ƛakah ‘all men (= humans)’

…ƛāka

…

“Plural” pronouns Another associative-plural look-alike is

what are traditionally called “plural pronouns”.

Like Names, singular pronouns designate a single individual out of a group.

Particularly relevant here are 1st and 2nd person pronouns. They are defined by specific roles in the “communication situation” (aka the “epistemic ground”, etc.)

“Plural” pronouns 1st person singular designates the

individual communicating (prototypically, speaking)

2nd person singular, of course, designates the individual to whom that communication is directed.

communicator(speaker)

receptor(hearer)

signal

“Plural” pronouns You can, of course, have a true plural of

either concept. For 1st person plural that would be a

“multiple speaker” kind of concept, where a group of people are concurrently emitting the signal, or atleast jointly respon-sible for what iscommlunicated.


receptor(hearer)

signal

“Plural” pronouns For 2nd person plurals it would be a

“multiple hearer”.


receptor(hearer)

signal

“Plural” pronouns Especially for 1st person, however, it is,

in every language I know enough to speak about, more common for the putative plural form to mean “I and those associated with me (who are not necessarily co-responsible with me forthese words)”

signalB S

D

E …

“Plural” pronouns The relationship responsible for the

association may be one of any number of reasonable ones, including (surprise!) kinship friendship hierarchical relationships common activity etc.

Some contexts willfavor one being construed; others will favor another.

signalB S

D

E …

“Plural” pronouns This may be a reasonable place to go

looking for an explanation for the fact that so many languages have “irregular” plurals for these forms.

E.g. in Spanish “I” is yo (archaic nos). “We” is not *yos or *noses, as might

reasonably be expected if this were a true plural. signal

B S

D

E …

“Plural” pronouns Rather it is nos-otros: literally “I-

others”. Similarly, “you plural” is vos-otros: “you-others”.

It makes sense. “We” and “us” don’t usually mean lots

of speakers. They mean “me

and my bunch”. Maybe we shouldn’t

call them “plurals”?

signalB S

D

E …

Summary Plural Name constructions are wierd. This is because plurals and Names are,

by their very definitions, incompatible. In some languages they are not

permitted: in most they are marginal.

Summary Where permitted they tend to have one

of two interpretations. Either: The Name is converted to a Type and that

Type is pluralized in the normal way (e.g. English)

Name

C

B S

D

E …

Plural

C C

C

C

C

…(Name) Type

Summary Or else

The Plural loses its specification that all in the group share the characteristics designated by the stem;

and so it becomes an associative (e.g. Orizaba Nawatl).

Name

C

B S

D

E …Associative

Plural

C C

C

C

C

…C

B S

D

E …

Summary The relationship underlying the

association may be anything reasonable, just not equality (common possession of the characteristics specified by the stem.)

Name

C

B S

D

E …Associative

Plural

C C

C

C

C

…C

B S

D

E …

Summary Some common nouns (e.g. English

dishes) show a similar associative (more-schematic) meaning linked to their plurals.

…dish dishes

(assoc plural?)

…

Summary More strikingly, most languages’ 1st

(and less so, 2nd) person “plural” forms usually are associatives rather than true plurals relative to the singulars.

“We” does not mean “we who are speaking”


receptor(hearer)

signal

Summary Rather it means “me and my bunch”,

an associative meaning. This may help explain why these forms

are so rarely straightforward morphological plurals of the corresponding 1st and 2nd person singular forms.

I think that’s all kind of cool.

B S

D

E …

Summary Some interesting questions:

Does any language freely and productively use plurals for (non-schematic?) associatives with common nouns?

Are there other useful ways in which Names and plurals are combined?

Does any language systematically distinguish multiple-speaker from associative 1st person plural pronouns? Name

C

B S

D

E …Associative

Plural

C C

C

C

C

…C

B S

D

E …

Powerpoint to be available at

www.sil.org/~tuggyd

proper name plurals in orizaba nawatl ( nlv )

Documents