David Tuggy
ILV-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 época de los Borja = back when Borja
and his contemporaries were the stars playing football (soccer)

[Apellido>Name>Apellido?]

Spanish: Los Chuchos = followers of (candidate) Jesús Hernández
Ochoa.
Associative Plurality in
Nawatl
 Here are some examples of how associative plurality shows

up in ON.
New͎itzeh
koxamo
ichpopochtih
yonder.they.come the girls
whether
tlahtlaniskeh
Samueltih.
inka
they.will .ask
n
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.)


n
Associative Plurality in
Nawatl

Mokni
itzkuih nimanyeh
your.sibling his.dog immediately.he one
se
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
 ompa
the our.common.boundary
inw͎an
semonamiki
there with.them we.meet.each.other the Michael
n Migel
“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 inw
͎ an
‘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
B
…
Group of
Things
S
C
D
E
…
Name
Proper Names

The name then singles out from the group the one Thing with
the particular pronounced (or written) label.
B
…
Group of
Things
S
C
C
D
E
…
Name
Plurals

A plural, by contrast, construes the individual Things as
having the same characteristics (thus effectively similar) and
designates the group of them.
B
…
Group of
Things
S
C
C
D
E
…
Name
C
C
C
C
…
Plural
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.
Characteristics
X
Y
Z
C
C
C
C
C
…
Plural
Plurals

That nominal stem thus functions not as an individual Thing
but as a type, which is expected to be instantiated in many
individuals.
Characteristics
X
Y
Z
Thing
Type
C
C
C
C
C
…
Plural
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.
B
S
C
C
D
E
…
Name
C
C
C
C
…
Plural
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.
B
S
C
C
D
E
…
(Name)
Name
Type
C
C
C
C
…
Plural
Plural overrides Name

This is what happens in English: if you say “the Carolyns” you
mean “the girls/women (all) named Carolyn”.
B
S
C
C
D
E
…
(Name)
Name
Type
C
C
C
C
…
Plural
Plural overrides Name

“Being named Carolyn” is the defining characteristic for the
new Type of Thing.
B
S
C
C
D
E
…
(Name)
Name
Type
C
C
C
C
…
Plural
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?
B
S
C
C
D
E
…
Name
C
C
C
C
…
Plural
Making Plural fit Name

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.

B
S
C
B
C
D
E
…
Name
S
C
CC
DC
CE
…
Plural
Making Plural fit Name


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?
B
S
C
B
C
D
E
…
Name
S
C
CC
DC
CE
…
Plural
Making Plural fit Name

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.
B
S
C
B
C
D
E
…
Name
S
C
CC
DC
CE
…
Plural
Making Plural fit Name


This is essentially what happens in an associative plural.
The combination designates a group within which the Named
Thing is prominent.
B
S
C
C
B
D
E
…
Name
C
S
CC
C
D
C
E
…
Associative
Plural
Making Plural fit Name

The relationship on the basis of which the association is
formed is not specified, at least in the most schematic versions
of the construction.
B
S
C
C
B
D
E
…
Name
C
S
CC
C
D
C
E
…
Associative
Plural
Making Plural fit Name

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.
B
S
C
C
D
E
…
Name
C
C
C
C
…
Plural
Making Plural fit Name

This, however, has been specifically negated in the case of the
associative plural.
B
S
C
B
C
D
E
…
Name
S
C
CC
DC
CE
…
Plural
Making Plural fit Name

This does not mean the associated things are different in all
important respects. It does mean any important shared
characteristics are not those designated by
the Name.
B
S
C
B
C
D
E
…
Name
S
C
CC
DC
CE
…
Plural
Making Plural fit Name

Names, of course, most typically are used to designate
humans. (Naming of places, computer programs, etc., are
secondary usages.)
B
S
C
C
B
D
E
…
Name
C
S
CC
C
D
C
E
…
Associative
Making Plural fit Name


So, quite naturally, the prototypical collective Name-plural
construction also specifies humans.
(In fact I have no clear ON examples with nonhumans)
B
B
S
C
D
E
…
Name
S
C
D
E
…
Collective
Making Plural fit Name

Although these humans are alike in being human, they have
different names, and a name is what is designated by the
stem.
B
B
S
C
D
E
…
Name
S
C
D
E
…
Collective
Making Plural fit Name


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.

B
B
S
C
D
E
…
Name
S
C
D
E
…
Collective
Making Plural fit Name


Users count on context to constrain the likelihood that one
relationship rather than another should be adopted
(as in the
examples
we saw
B
S
B
S
earlier.)
C
D
E
…
Name
C
D
E
…
Collective
Associative-plural
lookalikes
 There are a couple of other common phenomena that are

very similar to this collective plural structure.
Seeing the
similarities
and differB
S
ences may
be instrucC
D
tive.
E
…
Name
B
S
C
D
E
…
Collective
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
(normalplural?)
plural)
(assoc
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, both
designate
a type and
a collection
of types.
…
dish
dish
(type)
…
dishes
dishes
(collection
of types)
(assoc plural?)
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
dish
(type)
…
dishes
dishes
(collection
of types)
(assoc plural?)
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
construction
and 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 ƛāka can mean “man
(adult human male)” or “human being”.
The latter meaning is practically limited to
plural forms and favors constructions like
nochi ƛākah ‘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)
signal
receptor
(hearer)
“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 at
least jointly responsible for what is
commlunicated.
communicator
(speaker)
signal
receptor
(hearer)
“Plural” pronouns

For 2nd person plurals it would be a “multiple hearer”.
communicator
(speaker)
signal
receptor
(hearer)
“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 for
these words)”
B
S
signal
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 will
favor one being
construed; others
will favor another.
B
S
signal
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.
B
S
signal
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
B
S
call them “plurals”?
signal
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)
B
S
C
C
D
E
…
(Name)
Name
Type
C
C
C
C
…
Plural
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.
C
C
B
S
B
S
Orizaba
Nawatl).

C
D
E
…
Name
CC
C
D
C
E
…
Associative
Plural
Summary

The relationship underlying the association may be anything
reasonable, just not equality (common possession of the
characteristics specified by the stem.)
B
S
C
C
B
D
E
…
Name
C
S
CC
C
D
C
E
…
Associative
Plural
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”
communicator
(speaker)
signal
receptor
(hearer)
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 (nonschematic?) associatives with common nouns?
 Are there other useful ways in which Names and plurals are combined?
 Does any language
systematically
distinguish multiplespeaker from
associative
C
C
st
1 person plural
…
…
…
pronouns?

B
B
C
S
D
E
Name
S
C
D
C
C
E
C
Associative
Plural
Powerpoint to be available
at
www.sil.org/~tuggyd