Mattiola Pluractionality

Received: 30 April 2017 Revised: 6 December 2019 Accepted: 23 December 2019
DOI: 10.1111/lnc3.12366
ARTICLE
Pluractionality: A cross-linguistic perspective
Simone Mattiola
University of Bologna
Correspondence
Simone Mattiola, Dipartimento di
Abstract
Lingue, Letterature e Culture Moderne, This paper aims to give a cross-linguistic overview of
University of Bologna, Via Cartoleria pluractionality. Pluractionality is defined as a structural
5, Bologna 40124, Italy.
Email: simone.mattiola@unibo.it modification of the verb indicating the presence of mul-
tiple events. The paper first investigates the functions
associated with pluractional markers in the languages
of the world and classifies them into core and addi-
tional functions. I then present the most frequent mark-
ing strategies that the languages adopt in order to
encode pluractionality and briefly discuss the morpho-
logical nature of one in particular (i.e., lexical alterna-
tion), as well as the formal identification of participant
plurality. Finally, I examine the grammatical status of
pluractionality in a cross-linguistic perspective, taking
the most recent typological literature into consider-
ation. I conclude that “pluractionality” cannot be theo-
retically conceived as a unique, cross-linguistically
ABBREVIATIONS: 1 = first person; 3 = third person; 10 = gender class 10; I = active for non-past; ii = active for past;
A = subject of transitive verb; ABL = ablative case; ABS = absolutive; ACC = accusative; ADV = adverb; AG = agent like;
AND1 = andative singular transitive; AUX = auxiliary verb; BEN = benefactive; CAUS = causative; CL = coordinating linker;
CNJ = coordinating conjunction; COMP = completive; COP = copula; D = dative of ditransitive verb; DAT = dative; DEF =
definite; DEF.F/M = definite feminine/masculine (gender); DET = determiner; DLMT = delimitative; DU = dual; DUR =
durative; ERG = ergative case; F = feminine; FAR^PST = far past; FREQ = frequentative; FUT = future; G = suffix or infix that
occurs in several TAM forms; GEN = genitive; HAB = habitual; HSY2 = hearsay; IND = indicative mood; INF = infinitive; IRR
= irrealis; ITER = iterative; L = linker (enumeration); LOC = locative case; LT = low tone; LV = locative voice; M =
masculine; NEG = negative; NOM = nominative; NON.SG = non-singular; NR = non-realis (subject–modality clitic); OBJ =
object; OBL = oblique case form; PASS = passive; PFV = perfective; PL(2) = plural(2); PLAC = pluractional; PP2 = completive
particle; PRO = pronoun; PROG = progressive; PRS = present; PS = caseless personal marker; Q = question; R = realis; RECP
= reciprocal; RED = reduplication; REL = relative marker/relative clause; REPEAT = V repeatedly; RM.PST = remote past; S =
intransitive subject function; SBJ = subject; SFOC = subject focus; SG = singular; SOF = softener; SSSS = simultaneous event,
different subject, S orientation; (SV.) = subject–verb relation (downstep not audible); TOWARD = venitive; TR = transitive;
V = gender agreement marker; gender class (marker is /v/); V = verb; WP = witnessed past tense; YIMPF = hesternal past
form of the imperfective auxiliary.
Lang Linguist Compass. 2020;14:e12366. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/lnc3 © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1 of 35
https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12366
2 of 35 MATTIOLA
valid category but should rather be regarded as a label,

which indicates different phenomena in different lan-
guages, useful for typological comparison but not
reflecting any kind of pre-established grammatical
category.
1 | INTRODUCTION
The aim of this paper is to provide a general introduction to pluractionality in the languages of
the world. For a long time, pluractionality was an understudied phenomenon. However, quite
recently, it has attracted the interest of several scholars, both from a typological (Corbett, 2000;
Mattiola, 2017b, 2018, 2019; Wood, 2007; Xrakovskij, 1997a) and from a language-specific per-
spective (cf. Garrett, 2001; Haji-Abdolhosseini, Massam, & Oda, 2002; Rose, 2007; Součková,
2011; Storch & Coly, 2017; Yu, 2003, among others).
The term pluractionality was originally coined by Newman (1980, p. 13) to refer to what
was called intensive in the literature on Chadic languages. Newman (1990) offered the first
definition:
the essential semantic characteristic of such verbs [pluractionals, SM] is almost

always plurality or multiplicity of the verb's action (Newman, 1990, p. 53).
Pluractionality therefore involves a plurality of situations—a plurality connected with the

semantic/lexical value of the verb. It does not represent a mere number marking on the verb
since this type of marking cannot refer in any way to its lexical semantics (such as subject–verb
agreement). For example:
1. Konso (Afro-Asiatic, Cushitic)

a. ʔiʃa-ʔ ʔinanta-siʔ ʔi=tuʛʛuur-ay
3SG.M.PRO-NOM girl-DEF.F/M 3=push[SG]-PFV[3M]
“He pushed the girl” (Orkaydo, 2013, p. 263).
b. ʔiʃa-ʔ ʔinanta-siʔ ʔi=tu-tuʛʛuur-ay
3SG.M.PRO-NOM girl-DEF.F/M 3=PL-push[SG]-PFV[3M]
“He pushed the girl more than once” (Orkaydo, 2013, p. 263).
In (1), the partial initial reduplication of the verb stem encodes the repetition of the situa-
tion denoted by the verb.
Newman's (1990) definition, however, does not account for another important feature of
pluractionality, that is, the locus of marking. For this reason, a more appropriate, cross-
linguistic definition is needed. I propose defining pluractionality as a morphological modifica-
tion of the verb or a pair of semantically related verbs that primarily convey a plurality of situa-
tions involving a repetition in time, space, and/or participants (Mattiola, 2019, p. 164). Since, in
Chadic languages, this phenomenon always involves the verb, Newman did not consider this as
a distinctive and significant property to be overtly specified. However, this specification is
important from a cross-linguistic perspective because it allows us to distinguish between two
PLURACTIONALITY: A CROSS-LINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVE 3 of 35
similar but different phenomena: verbal number and pluractionality (cf. Cabredo-Hofherr &
Laca, 2012, p. 1). While the notion of verbal number is usually used to refer to the encoding of
situation plurality through any linguistic means (adverbs, adnominal markers, etc.),
pluractionality only refers to cases where this notion is encoded through morphological devices
directly modifying the verb. Thus, we can consider pluractionality a particular case of verbal
number.
In the next sections, I focus on the main characteristics of pluractionality in the languages
of the world. The analysis presented in this paper is based on a 246-language sample
(cf. Appendix A) that I compiled for my doctoral dissertation (cf. Mattiola, 2017a, 2019). In my
language sample, I found 183 languages displaying at least one pluractional marker (74.4%),
while 63 languages did not exhibit pluractionality (25.6%).1 In Figure 1, we can see the distribu-
tion of languages with and without pluractional markers, respectively, marked by a blue and a
red circle.
Figure 1 reveals some interesting aspects about the distribution of pluractionality. This phe-
nomenon is widespread in all geographic areas of the world. We can find it in North and South
America, in Africa, in Europe, Asia, and Oceania. Nevertheless, its presence is not equally dis-
tributed: We notice a more frequent manifestation of pluractionality in North America, Africa,
and Oceania, followed by South America and Asia, while in Europe, this phenomenon is
scarcely seen.
After briefly examining the state of the art in Section 2, I will present the functions that
pluractional markers express in the languages of the world (cf. Section 3). Pluractional markers
cover a wide range of different functions in the languages of the world, from iterative to habit-
ual, from continuative to participant plurality, and so on. In this section, I will describe and
FIGURE 1 Distribution of languages with and without pluractional markers

4 of 35 MATTIOLA
attempt to organize all these functions according to their semantics and also explain why they
are associated with the same marking strategy. Then, I will describe the main formal character-
istics of pluractional markers, that is, the most frequent marking strategies that languages dis-
play to express pluractional functions. I will then discuss various related issues (cf. Section 4).
In Section 5, I will attempt to shed light on the semantic relationships between the functions
expressed by pluractional markers through semantic maps. Finally, I will discuss how a
functional–typological approach helps in explaining this phenomenon from a cross-linguistic
perspective, with particular attention to how typologically categorize all these constructions
(cf. Section 6).
2 | S TATE O F THE ART
In Section 1, I stated that pluractionality remained an understudied phenomenon for a long

time. Even though this is certainly true in general, we can still find some relevant works that
have addressed it (more or less directly). Among these studies, some have played a crucial role
in the investigation of plurality related to verbs. Three of the most pivotal theoretical surveys on
pluractionality that have profoundly influenced our understanding of the phenomenon and
have had a strong impact on subsequent investigations are Dressler (1968), Cusic (1981), and
Lasersohn (1995).2 In the next sections, the most important findings of these three works will
be briefly presented.
2.1 | Dressler (1968)
The first study directly dedicated to the analysis of pluractionality that we will discuss is
Dressler (1968). In this contribution, the author emphasizes the existence of this phe-
nomenon analyzing a (relatively) limited number of ancient languages (as well as some
modern ones) for a total of approximately 40 languages. The main result of this study is
to have recognized the broad range of functions that pluractional markers can express
and having proposed the use of a specific term to refer to constructions expressing to
plurality of situations (i.e., verbal plurality). However, Dressler classifies the functions he
identified in four aktionsarten, and thus, it becomes evident that he conceptualizes verbal
plurality as a sub-type of lexical aspect. The four different classes Dressler identified are
iterative aktionsart, distributive aktionsart, continuative aktionsart, and intensive
aktionsart. He then subdivides each of these classes into several sub-functions. The itera-
tive aktionsart comprises all functions that encode easily identifiable repetitions of a situ-
ation, that is, repetitions that are clearly separate. Dressler (1968) points out several
functions pertaining to this class, for example, discontinuative, repetitive, duplicative,
and frequentative (cf. Dressler, 1968, pp. 62–65). The distributive aktionsart includes all
functions in which the repetitions are distributed over space or over participants.
Dressler (1968) identifies the sub-types of this aktionsart as subject distributive, object
distributive, dispersive, diversative, and ambulative (cf. Dressler, 1968, pp. 65–74). The
continuative aktionsart gathers functions encoding situations that are prolonged over
time, for example, durative, continuative, and usitative (cf. Dressler, 1968, pp. 74–77).
Finally, the intensive aktionsart consists of functions indicating situations that are per-
formed with more or less intensity. The sub-types are intensive, attenuative, accelerative,
exaggerative, pejorative, and asseverative (cf. Dressler, 1968, pp. 77–84). In (2), all
aktionsarten are exemplified.
2. Types of aktionsarten in Dressler (1968)

a. Iterative aktionsart: Quileute (Chimakuan) (Dressler, 1968, p. 63)
xálatsli“ich schneide es” (transl. I cut it.) ! xá'alatsli“ich schneide es widerholt” (transl. I
cut it repeatedly.)
b. Distributive aktionsart: Lithuanian (Indo-European, Balto-Slavic) (Dressler, 1968, p. 69)
piáuti“schneiden” (transl. cut) ! piáustyti“in mehrere Stücke schneiden” (transl. Cut into
several pieces.)
c. Continuative aktionsart: Eastern Ojibwa (Algic, Algonquian) (Dressler, 1968, p. 77)
pemosse“he walks” ! pepimusse“he walks on and on”
d. Intensive aktionsart: Sierra Nahuatl (Uto-Aztecan, Southern Uto-Aztecan) (Dressler,
1968, p. 81)
tlaqua“er ißt” (transl. He eats.) ! tla-tlaqua“er ißt reichlich” (transl. He eats abundantly.)
2.2 | Cusic (1981)
Cusic's (1981) doctoral dissertation represents a general theoretical investigation of the semantic
relationship between verbal aspect and verbal plurality. Even though this work cannot be consid-
ered as actually cross-linguistic, the author analyzes verbal plurality in four different case studies
(Diegueño, Cochimi-Yuman; Pomo, Pomoan; and Moru-Madi languages [a subgroup of the Central
Sudanic family] and Klamath, an isolate language of Southern Oregon, USA) in order to corrobo-
rate his own findings together with a more detailed analysis of English. The most relevant outcome
of this work is his proposal of four parameters of analysis: event ratio, relative measure, connected-
ness, and distributive parameters. Event ratio classifies situational plurality on three levels:
(a) plurality in events, that is, “internal plurality or imperfectivity in the sense of internal structure
of the event” (Cusic, 1981, p. 61); (b) plurality of events, that is, “external plurality or iterativity in
the sense of a series of perfective or imperfective actions” (Cusic, 1981, p. 61); and, finally,
(c) plurality in and of events, that is, “both of these combined” (Cusic, 1981, p. 61). For example:
3. Ratio parameter (Cusic, 1981, p. 61)

a. Plurality in events: “The mouse nibbled and nibbled the cheese.”
b. Plurality of events: “The mouse bit the cheese again and again.”
c. Plurality in and of events: “The mouse was always nibbling at the cheese.”
These levels can be further organized in two classes: (a) (3a) can be labeled event-internal
plurality (a plurality that is detectable within the event, plurality of the internal phases; in
Cusic's words repetitive actions; see Cusic 1981, p. 78); (b) (3b and 3c) can be labeled event-
external plurality (a plurality that is external to the event; in Cusic's words repeated actions; see
Cusic 1981, p. 78). We will see in Section 3 that this distinction is also very relevant for our
investigation. The other three parameters are less innovative in that they were already noted in
Dressler (1968). The distributive parameter involves the idea of distribution in the sense of “sep-
aration in time, space, or some other way, of actor from actor, action from action, object from
object, property from property” (Cusic, 1981, p. 102). The relative measure parameter concerns
the “amount” of the action; for example, it considers the number of times the event is repeated
6 of 35 MATTIOLA
(few vs. several), the size (augmentative vs. diminutive), and the effort employed in the situa-
tion (intensive vs. diminutive). Finally, the connectedness parameter deals with “the relative
prominence of bounds at the phase and event levels” (Cusic, 1981, p. 96), that is, the relative
connection between the “phases” or “events” of a multiple action. However, Cusic (1981, p. 96)
notes that this parameter “does not provide clear-cut categories of meaning, but it is more sug-
gestive of a continuum” (i.e., more connected vs. less connected).
2.3 | Lasersohn (1995)
Lasersohn's (1995) is the first study that approaches pluractionality from the point of view of
formal semantics (after this work, several others followed). This work represents a formal theo-
retical account of plurality (in its broadest sense) in which the author also analyzes pluractional
markers. While based on English, the study also sometimes takes into consideration data from
other languages. As far as pluractional markers are concerned, the study analyzes Klamath
(Isolate, North America). Lasersohn defines pluractional markers as markers that “attach to the
verb to indicate a multiplicity of actions, whether involving multiple participants, times, or loca-
tions” (Lasersohn, 1995, p. 240). He then tries to semantically formalize the way in which
pluractional markers refer to multiple events (cf. (4)).3
4. V-PA(X) , 8e∈X[V(e)] & card(X) ≥ n (Lasersohn, 1995, p. 242)
This formula means that “a pluractional verb will hold true of a group of events if its
corresponding ‘singular’ verb holds true of each individual event in the group” (Lasersohn,
1995,p. 240) and if the number of events is greater than or equal to a defined number (two or
more, Lasersohn, 1995, p. 241). In other words, he notes that a verb form can be said to be
pluractional only if its unmarked form can be used for each event that composes the multiplic-
ity. He then offers a formalization that considers the whole functional domain described in
Cusic (1981). He points out the “non-overlap condition,” that is, each repetition cannot overlap
with any other and thus, they must be distributed over time, space, or participants. The final
formalizations proposed by Lasersohn (1995, p. 255) are reported here in (5) and (6): While the
former refers to separated reading (i.e., the non-overlap condition), the latter exemplifies the
particular case of continuous reading.
5. V-PA (X) ⬄ 8e,e'∈X[P(e) & ¬ f(e) of (e') & 9x[between(x, f(e), f(e')) & ¬9e”[P(e”) & t =
f(e”)]] & card(X) ≥ n (Lasersohn, 1995, p. 256)
6. V-PA (X) ⬄ 8e,e'∈X[P(e) & ¬ f(e) of (e') & ¬9x[between(x, f(e), f(e')) & ¬9e”[P(e”) & t =
f(e”)]] & card(X) ≥ n (Lasersohn, 1995, p. 257)
In conclusion, Lasersohn (1995) notes that these formulas cannot account for the whole
range of functions that pluractional markers encode in the languages of the world. For this rea-
son, he does not consider the relative measure parameter in his formulation, leaving this prob-
lem unsolved for future studies on this matter. He notes that:
[a] detailed formalization of Cusic's relative measure parameter, concerned with

the size, intensity, etc., of the events in the set satisfying the pluractional verb,
would take us too far afield; this parameter involves the interaction of a wide
variety of non-logical notions, not all of which seem to play the same role in the
overall semantics of pluractional morphemes. As the barest start on an analysis of
these notions, we might posit a series of measure functions on events, yielding
values based on size, degree of effort, effectiveness, etc. We could then add an
optional condition to the semantics of pluractional morphemes, requiring
certain minimum or maximum values for these functions, depending on the spe-
cific reading desired. In some cases, however, it may be the setting of n, rather than
the value of one of these measure functions, which is at issue (Lasersohn,
1995, p. 255).
3 | T H E FU N C T IO N A L DO M A I N O F PL U R A C T I O N A L I T Y
As already noted, one of the main peculiarities of pluractional markers is their multi-
functionality. Cross-linguistically, we find a large set of functions that such markers can encode.
Based on the frequency these functions show and whether or not they directly fall under the
typological definition of pluractionality given in Section 1, we can recognize two different
groups of functions. The first group consists in core functions, that is, the most common func-
tions that pluractional markers express in the languages of the world, which are included in the
definition proposed in Section 1. In other words, core functions are those functions whereby a
particular marker can be considered a pluractional one. The second group consists in additional
functions, that is, functions associated with a plurality of situations. These functions do not fall
under the definition of pluractionality. These functions are generally less widespread cross-
linguistically than the core functions, and they are not necessary in identifying a pluractional
marker, but at the same time, they are recurrent and show some kind of semantic connection
to event plurality (see Section 5). In the next sections, these two groups will be more specifically
defined and exemplified.
A brief note regarding the terms adopted in the next sections is in order. Several terms that I
use to describe pluractional functions (both core and the additional) are already used in the lit-
erature. However, it is important to say that the definitions I give of these terms can be different
from those proposed in the literature. I adopt these terms instead of creating new labels only
because the function they refer to is semantically similar to the function the same term is used
to refer to in the literature. There is a twofold reason behind this choice. First, one of the main
problems is the proliferation of terms referring to these markers. Corbett (2000, p. 264) notes
that “[u]nfortunately the lack of agreed terms has led some to consider it as being geographi-
cally restricted, whereas similar systems are found widely distributed, though referred to by dif-
ferent names.” If we use terms that are quite well established in the literature, we avoid the
problem of having too many terms referring to similar functions. Second, as already noted, the
widespread adoption of these terms makes it simpler to understand the real semantic value of
each function. However, this choice also means that we take into consideration cases of
markers that can actually be described as belonging to different conceptual categories. For
example, some markers that we do describe as pluractional are also considered as aspectual
values in Comrie (1976) or in Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994). Even though this choice can
be viewed as a possible problem, we will see that it is not if we base typological comparison on
comparative concepts, that is, concepts created ad hoc for large typological comparison and that
do not represent any cross-linguistic valid entity (cf. Haspelmath, 2010, among others), rather
than on categories (cf. Section 6).
8 of 35 MATTIOLA
3.1 | Core functions of pluractional markers
The first group of functions includes those functions that effectively involve situation plurality.
In the languages of the world, we can find three such functions. The first function is
pluractionality stricto sensu, that is, when the plurality of situations involves a distribution over
time. We can recognize two different sub-types depending on the temporal extension of the
time frame involved. When the repetitions are limited to a single occasion (in the sense of a
time frame in which a situation, that is, states and events, occurs in a place involving particular
participants), we refer to iterativity (cf. 7).
7. Iterativity: plurality of the situations limited to a single occasion

Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish) (Salishan, Central Salish)
a. Chen kwelesh-t ta sxwi7shn
1SBJ.SG shoot-TR DET deer
“I shot a deer.”
b. Chen kwel~kwelesh-t ta sxwi7shn
1SBJ.SG RED~shoot-TR DET deer
“I shot a deer several times/continuously” (Bar-el, 2008, p. 34).
When the repetitions of the situations are distributed over more than one occasion, we refer
to frequentativity (cf. 8).4
8. Frequentativity: plurality of the situations extended to different occasions

Khwe (Khoe-Kwadi, Khoe)
tí à bɛc-ɛc-xú-t-a-tè!
1SG OBJ be.too.heavy-II-COMP-FREQ-I-PRS
“It is often too heavy for me!” (Kilian-Hatz, 2008, p. 146).
The second type of core functions is “spatial distributivity.” In this case, the repetitions that
compose the plurality of situations occur in different locations.
9. Spatial distributivity: plurality of the situations occurring in different places

Barasano (Tucanoan, Eastern Tucanoan)
gahe-rũbũ bota-ri kea-kudi-ka-ba~ ida~
other-day post-PL chop-ITER-FAR^PST-3PL 3PL
“The next day they went from place to place chopping down posts (for the new house)”
(Jones & Jones, 1991, p. 101).
The last function constituting the core of the pluractional functional domain is “participant
plurality,” that is, the plurality of situations affecting a plurality of participants.
10. Participant plurality: plurality of situations that affects several participants

Huichol (Uto-Aztecan, Southern Uto-Aztecan)
a. Nee waakana ne-mec-umɨɁii-ri eekɨ
1SG chicken.SG 1SG.SBJ-2SG.OBJ-kill.SG-BEN2.SG
“I killed you the chicken for you” (Comrie, 1982, p. 113, cited in Durie, 1986,
p. 357).
b. Nee waakana-ari ne-mec-uqɨɁii-ri eekɨ

1SG chicken-PL 1SG.SBJ-2SG.OBJ-kill.PL-BEN2.SG
“I killed the chickens for you” (Comrie, 1982, p. 113, cited in Durie, 1986, p. 357).
The participant involved in pluralization corresponds to the argument whose state is mostly
affected by the situation itself. Consequently, from a semantic point of view, the most affected
argument most often tends to be the patient. From a syntactic point of view, the argument
involved tends to be the object of transitive sentences and the subject of intransitive sentences
(absolutive argument). Thus, pluractionality tends to work on an ergative basis and, interest-
ingly, independently of the alignment pattern found in the language (cf. Durie, 1986;
Frajzyngier, 1985 and Mithun, 1988).
This last core function raises a major issue. The presence of a marker signaling a plurality of
participants can be conceived in at least two different ways. On the one hand, this marker can
be interpreted as an actual case of pluractionality, that is, a marker expressing plural events
involving plural participants. On the other, the same marker can also be considered as one indi-
cating agreement, that is, as a redundant marker indicating the number of entities in a specific
occasion (usually a nouny element, the controller of the agreement) on the verb (target of the
agreement). Obviously, the difference between these two interpretations lies in the presence or
absence of an actual plurality of situations. However, it is often the case that an agreement
marker appears in a plural situation without expressing this by itself. Even though this differ-
ence can appear straightforward at first glance, it does create a substantial problem in identify-
ing and discerning these two similar but different phenomena. I will treat this topic at length in
Section 4.1.2.
3.2 | Additional functions of pluractional markers
The second group of functions that pluractional markers can express cross-linguistically
involves those functions that I label additional. We defined these as functions that are not dis-
tinctive of pluractional markers, that is, which encode meanings that do not necessarily involve
a plurality of situations. At the same time, these functions are quite frequently associated with
pluractional markers.
Additional functions can be divided into different semantic clusters depending on the semantic
relationship they hold with the notion of plurality. We can recognize at least three different seman-
tic clusters, namely, (a) “non-prototypical plurality,” (b) “degree,” and (c) “reciprocity.”
Functions falling into non-prototypical plurality express a plurality that goes beyond the
typical singular–plural distinction. In other words, they add something from a semantic point
of view to a mere difference between a single situation and a plurality of situations. These func-
tions are often very similar to aspectual meanings as described in the literature, and they can
actually be described as pertaining to grammatical aspect (cf. Corbett, 2000, p. 247), in particu-
lar if we conceive of pluractionality as a semantic notion partially overlapping with other
notions. These functions are event-internal plurality (cf. 11), continuativity (cf. 12), habituality
(cf. 13), and generic imperfectivity (cf. 14).5
By event-internal plurality, I mean a situation where the pluractional marker expresses a sit-
uation in which there is a single situation composed of several different sub-events that are
hardly discernable from each other (i.e., not discrete). Following Cusic's (1981) terms, event-
internal plurality expresses a plurality that is internal to the event rather than external, in the
10 of 35 MATTIOLA
sense of a repetitive situation rather than a repeated situation, in which the single repetitions
are discrete and can be identified. This is well exemplified by Sandawe's two examples below.
11. Event-internal plurality: a singular situation that is internally complex. That is, it is com-
posed of several repetitive phases/sub-events.
Sandawe (Isolate, Africa).
a. Iterative or frequentative reading of the Sandawe Iterative morpheme -ìmé “ITER”
gélé-áá |-ìmé
Gele-SFOC (SV.)come.SG-ITER
“Gele came repeatedly” (Steeman, 2012, p. 143).
b. Event-internal plural reading of the Sandawe Iterative morpheme -ìmé “ITER”
tsháá=sà xàd-ímé-é
pot=3F.SG scrape_out-ITER-3OBJ
“She scraped out a pot” (Steeman, 2012, p. 141).
Similar to event-internal plurality, continuativity is a situation that cannot be described as

authentically plural because it represents a situation that is extended over time (and not
repeated). However, this extension retains some sort of meaning connected with plurality. This
is particularly evident in example (12c), from Chechen, in which the pluractional form of the
verb can be used in conjunction with a durative adverbial phrase (for 1 hour).
12. Continuativity: externally singular situations that are extended in time

Chechen (Nakh-Daghestanian, Nakh)
a. Unmarked form of the Chechen verb stem for “run”
So tykana vedira
1SG.ABS store.DAT V.run.WP
“I ran to the store” (Wood, 2007, p. 224).
b. Frequentative reading of the Chechen pluractional verb stem for “run”
Hoor awyyrana so tykana ydu
every morning 1SG.ABS store.DAT run.PLAC.PRS
“Every morning, I run to the store repeatedly (more than once per day)” (Wood,
2007, p. 225).
c. Continuative reading of the Chechen pluractional verb stem for “run”
So cwana sahwtiahw idira
1SG.ABS one.OBL hour.LOC run.PLAC.WP
“I ran (went running) for one hour” (Wood, 2007, p. 224).
Particularly interesting is habituality. In this case, we have a situation that closely resembles
frequentativity, that is, a repeated situation spread over different occasions; but habituality
involves further information about the situation in that the repetitions regularly occur in a spe-
cific time frame and, in some way, they are typical of that specific time frame. The two sen-
tences in (13) exemplify the frequentative/habitual distinction.
13. Habituality: situations repeated on different occasions (like frequentativity), but the situa-
tions occur in a limited time frame (which may or may not be directly specified), and they
are seen as typical of that time frame.
Sandawe (Isolate, Africa)
a. Frequentative reading of the Sandawe morpheme -wa “PL2”

nì-ŋ
hík'-wa-ŋ phàkhé-ŋ |'èé-ì
CNJ-CLgo.SG-PL2-L inspect-L look_at-3.NR
“And he will often go, inspect and have a look at it” (Steeman, 2012, p. 242).
b. Habitual reading of the Sandawe morpheme -wa “PL2”
mindà-tà-nà = sì hík'ì -wà
field_in_to = 1SG go.SG-PL2

“I go to the field” (every day of my life) (Steeman, 2012, p. 188).
Finally, generic imperfectivity involves situations that are extremely extended in time. In
other words, it represents situations that are always present, such as a property, a quality, or a
gnomic truth (cf. Shluinsky, 2009, and Bertinetto & Lenci, 2010).
14. Generic imperfectivity: It involves a situation that occurs always; for example, it can
involve a property or a quality of an entity or a gnomic truth.
Meithei (Sino-Tibetan, Kuki-Chin-Naga)
a. Frequentative/habitual reading of the Meithei morpheme -kən “REPEAT”
nók-kən-pə
laugh-REPEAT-NOM
“Someone who laughs all the time whether or not there is a joke, as a habit.”
b. Generic imperfective reading of the Meithei morpheme -kən “REPEAT”

əy-ti yám-nə pí-kən-pə mí-ni
I-DLMT lot-ADV give-REPEAT-NOM man-COP
I a lot always giving man am
“I am a very generous man” (lit. I am a man who always gives a lot; Chelliah, 1997, p. 216).
The functions included within the semantic cluster of degree involve a modification of the
usual development of the situation; that is, they involve a situation holding to a different
(i.e., to a greater or lesser) degree compared to the prototypical occurrence of the same situa-
tion. These functions are intensity (cf. 15), completeness (cf. 16), and emphasis (cf. 17). Intensity
involves a situation that is performed with more or less effort, that is, a situation in which “nor-
mal” (i.e., prototypical) development is modified for what concerns degree.
15. Intensity: a degree modification of the normal development of the situation

Yimas (Lower Sepik-Ramu, Lower Sepik)
a. Iterative/frequentative (depending on the context) reading of Yimas verbal reduplication
ya-n-arkark-wampaki-pra-k
V.PL.OBJ-3SG.A-break(RED: ark-)-throw-TOWARD-IRR
“He repeatedly broke them and threw them as he came.” (Foley, 1991, p. 319).
b. Intensive reading of Yimas verbal reduplication
ya-mpu-nanaŋ-tacay-ckam-tuk-mpun
V.PL.OBJ-3PL.A-DUR-see(RED: tay-)-show-RM.PST-3PL.D
“They were showing those to them very well (and they stared at those)” (Foley, 1991, p. 319).
Completeness involves a situation holding in its entirety. This is exemplified by the exam-
ples of Turkana.
12 of 35 MATTIOLA
16. Completeness: Turkana (Nilotic, Eastern Nilotic)

a. Pluractional reading of Turkana verbal reduplication
-poc“ pinch” ! a-poc-o-poc' “pinch repeatedly”
-ìlug “twist” ! a-k-ìlug-u-lug “twist repeatedly”
b. “Complete” reading of Turkana verbal reduplication

-ɲrl “crumble” ! a-ɲrl-r-ɲrl' “crumble completely”
-ìkic “bone out” ! a-k-ìkic-i-kic “bone out completely”
(Dimmendaal, 1983, p. 106)
An emphatic situation is associated with particular affectedness and involvement on the

part of participants.
17. Emphasis: Karo Batak (Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian)

a. Iterative/frequentative (depending on the context) reading of Karo Batak verbal
reduplication
Sapu-sapuna kucing é
(PASS.)stroke-stroke.she cat that
“She stroked the cat again and again” (Woollams, 1996, p. 98).
b. Emphatic reading of Karo Batak verbal reduplication
Peturah-turah sitik ukurndu
CAUS.grow-grow SOF mind.your
“Grow up a bit! (i.e., act like an adult!)” (Woollams, 1996, p. 98).
The last function is reciprocity that involves an action that is performed at least twice by
two participants reciprocally (cf. 18).
18. Jóola Karon (Atlantic-Congo, North-Central Atlantic)

a. Iterative reading of the Jóola Karon pluractional/reciprocal marker -ool “PLAC/RECP”
Lopeel a-muus-ool-a
Robert 3SG-pass-PLAC-ACC
“Robert went and came back” (adapted from Sambou, 2014, p. 150).
b. Reciprocal reading of the Jóola Karon pluractional/reciprocal marker -ool “PLAC/RECP”
Sanani Faatu ka-cuk-ool-a
Sanaand Fatou 3PL-see-RECP-ACC
“Sana and Fatou saw each other” (Sambou, 2014, p. 149).
Cross-linguistically, pluractional markers show a broad multifunctionality. Perhaps, the best

way to account for the various functions associated with pluractional markers is to arrange
these functions on a geometrical space using semantic maps. This will be done in Section 5.
4 | T H E MO R P H O S Y N T A X O F P L U R A C T I O N A L IT Y
The world's languages display several marking strategies to express pluractional functions.
However, the three strategies of affixation, reduplication, and lexical alternation are much more
widespread than others.
Affixation is probably the most frequent strategy, with prefixes (cf. 19), infixes (cf. 20), and
suffixes (cf. 21).
19. Prefixation: Tukang Besi (Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian)

no-para-langke di Maluku
3R-ITER-sail OBL Maluku
“They frequently sail in Maluku” (Donohue, 1999, p. 284).
20. Infixation: Mupun (Afro-Asiatic, Chadic)

a. wu gap pak lua lusim
3M cut.SG some meat leopard
“He cut a piece of leopard meat” (Frajzyngier, 1993, p. 60).
b. wu grəp pak lua lusim
3M cut.PL some meat leopard
“He cut leopard meat into pieces” (Frajzyngier, 1993, pp. 60–61).
21. Suffixation: West Greenlandic (Eskimo, Inuit)

saniqquti-qataar-puq
go.PST-ITER-3SG.IND
“He went past several times/again and again” (Fortescue, 1984, p. 283).
Reduplication is also a very frequent marking strategy, in particular in African languages.

We can find both full and partial reduplication (cf. 22 and 23, respectively).
22. Full reduplication: Shipibo-Konibo (Panoan, Mainline Panoan)

Jaino-a-x-ki bewa~bewa-kain-i ka-a iki
there.LOC-ABL-S-HSY 2sing~sing-AND1-SSSSgo-PP2 AUX
onis~onis-kain-i ja joni-n bi-[y]ama
be.sad~be.sad-AND1-SSSS that man-ERG get-NEG.PP2
“Then she left singing and singing, feeling sad, very sad, the one the man didn't take as
wife” (adapted from Valenzuela, 2003, p. 151).
23. Partial reduplication: Paiwan (Austronesian)

ka-keLem-anti kalaluni zepul.
RED~beat-LVNOM.PS.AG KalaluGEN.PS.SG Zepul
“Zepul beats Kalalu very often” (Chang, 2006, p. 147).
Finally, lexical alternation consists in two verbs that are totally different from a phonetic
point of view but are related by their lexical semantics. That is, both verbs express the same lex-
ical meaning, but while one encodes a single situation, the other encodes a plurality of situa-
tions (cf. Section 4.1.1).
24. Lexical alternation: Koasati (Muskogean, Alabaman-Koasati)

a. okipófkak o:w-á:y
whale-SBJ in.water-go_about.SG/DU
“A whale is swimming about” (Kimball, 1991, p. 446).
14 of 35 MATTIOLA
b. okipófkak o:w-á:yá-:c
whale-SBJ in.water-go_about.SG/DU-3NON.SG
“Two whales are swimming about” (Kimball, 1991, p. 446).
c. okipófkak o:-yomáhl
whale-SBJ in.water-go_about.PL
“There are some whales swimming about” (Kimball, 1991, p. 446).
As stated above, the marking strategies just exemplified are the most frequent cross-
linguistically. However, several other minor devices exist, such as the devoicing of initial/final con-
sonants, or internal vowel ablauts, but these strategies tend to co-occur with at least one of the
most common ones. At the formal level, this is precisely one of the main characteristics of
pluractionality: In a single language, several devices and strategies can coexist at the same time
without having an apparent functional specialization, though an exception is represented by lexical
alternation, which seems to express participant plurality more often (cf. Mattiola, 2019, p. 76).
4.1 | Some issues in the morphosyntax of pluractionality
There are at least two issues related to pluractional marking strategies that we must investigate
in more detail. The first concerns whether or not lexical alternation can be described in terms
of suppletion; the second concerns the formal distinction between participant plurality
(pluractionality) and syntactic agreement between the noun and the verb.
4.1.1 | Lexical alternation or suppletion?
Often, what I label lexical alternation is described in grammatical descriptions as a case of sup-
pletion. In linguistics, this phenomenon is usually defined as an alternation of forms that do
not have any kind of phonetic similarity but that both belong to the paradigm of the same lex-
eme (cf. Booij, 2005; Bybee, 1985; Haspelmath, 2002; Mel'čuk, 1994, among others). Thus, this
alternation has a morphological, and specifically paradigmatic, value. A typical example is the
alternation between go and went in English. They both belong to the paradigm of the verb “go”
even though they are totally different from a phonetic point of view. In English, this alternation
conveys morphological information, it signals a tense distinction between present and past.
The pairs described in the previous section do not show any kind of morphological relation,
neither derivational nor inflectional. This is particularly evident from the fact that each verb
has its own paradigm that does not have any connection with the paradigm of the other verb.
The connection between the two verbs is only semantic: While the first expresses a singular sit-
uation, the second encodes the same situation performed several times.
The semantic connection between these verbs is pointed out by Mithun (1988):
In the strictest sense, suppletion refers to allomorphic alternation conditioned by a

systematic inflectional distinction. […] The implied plurality of effect is a feature of
their [pairs of stems, SM] basic meaning. Walking alone is classified lexically as a
different activity from walking in a group; speaking is different from conversing;
murdering an individual is different from massacring a village. The pairs of verbs
are related semantically but not inflectionally (Mithun, 1988, p. 214).
An example in support of this statement is provided by Klamath (Isolate, North America), a

language spoken in South Oregon (USA). Let us consider the verbs below in (25):
25. Klamath (Isolate, North America)
lvoy “give a round object”

neoy “give a flat object”
ksvoy “give a live object”
sɁewanɁ “give plural objects”
(Barker, 1964, p. 176)
This language employs four different verbs to express the lexical meaning of “give.” They do
not have any paradigmatic relationship; that is, they must be considered as different lexemes.
They clearly share an important meaning component, but at the same time, they differ in terms
of semantic specialization. In other words, what characterizes each of the verbs in (25) is that
they refer to different properties of the entity involved in the giving situation, namely, a quality
of the object given (the shape, round or flat, and animacy). It is particularly interesting that
among these verbs, one (sɁewanɁ) differs from the others due to the number of objects given
and not because of one of their qualities. This means that the number of objects is assumed to
be a semantic value that is as important as their shape or animacy and thus needs to be lexically
expressed. This suggests that the singular/plural alternation on verbs affects semantics more
than morphology.
On the other hand, in the literature, we can find a contrasting position on this topic.
Veselinova (2006) considers the pluractional verbal alternation as an actual case of suppletion.
This theoretical discrepancy with the position of Mithun (1988) is mainly due to the definition
of suppletion that these two approaches adopt. Mithun (1988, p. 214) defines suppletion “in the
strictest sense”; on the other hand, Veselinova (2006) seems to adopt a broader and more com-
prehensive definition:
The term suppletion is typically used to refer to the phenomenon whereby regular
semantic and/or grammatical relations are encoded by unpredictable formal pat-
terns (Veselinova, 2006, p. xv).
This definition extends the scope of suppletion to situations in which paradigmatic alterna-
tion is no longer the pivotal element, and thus, it also includes derivational and regular seman-
tic alternations.
The most important consideration that leads Veselinova (2006) to embrace this approach is
that, from a diachronic point of view, suppletive stems tend to originate from two different lex-
emes that began to be associated in a specific historical moment because of their lexical mean-
ing. This association can lead to an actual morphological relationship, either derivational or
inflectional. Even though pluractional markers are more often derivational devices in the lan-
guages of the world (e.g., Beja and Sandawe, cf. Vanhove, 2017, pp. 70–75, and Steeman, 2012,
pp. 137–144, respectively) and rarely inflectional (e.g., Konso, cf. Orkaydo & Mous, 2017), when
we talk about the pluractional alternation of verbs, the situation does not yet seem to be at the
stage suggested by Veselinova (2006). The relationship between these verbs remains exclusively
semantic, as the case of Klamath clearly suggests. For this reason, Veselinova (2006) herself rec-
ognizes that synchronically lexical alternation does not represent a prototypical case of
16 of 35 MATTIOLA
suppletion, and thus her decision to describe these pairs of verbs as suppletive is merely due to
the less strict definition she adopts.
In conclusion, I will not consider lexical alternation as suppletion, despite the existence of
several similarities between the two phenomena.
There is a final terminological issue to address regarding lexical alternation. In the litera-
ture, besides the term “suppletion,” we also find use of the term “stem alternation.” However,
“stem alternation” is as misleading a term as suppletion. This is because it refers to an alterna-
tion between two different stems that in morphology are defined as “the base of an inflected
word-form” (Haspelmath, 2002, p. 274). The term “stem,” however, is more often used to refer
to suppletion or morphomic alternation within a specific paradigm (cf., e.g., Aronoff, 1994). For
this reason, “lexical alternation” seems to be much more appropriate than “stem alternation”
because it overtly signals that the two forms are actually two different lexemes without any par-
adigmatic connection.
4.1.2 | Participant plurality: Nominal or verbal number?
The second morphosyntactic issue to be discussed is the difficulty in distinguishing participant

plurality (pluractionality) from agreement between a noun (or pronoun) and the verb. In
Section 3.1, I defined “participant plurality” as a case in which the plurality of situations affects
several participants. We also noted how the argument involved is the element most affected by
the situation, and that, most often, this tends to be the patient and, syntactically, the absolutive
argument (cf. 26 and 27).
26. Nisgha/Nass Tsimshian (Tsimshian, Nishga-Gitxsan)

NLk.'ē
q'ax.q'aya'ant.
then RED~he.clubbed.them
“Then he clubbed them” (Boas, 1902, p. 70.9, cited in Mithun, 1988, p. 219).
27. Nisgha/Nass Tsimshian (Tsimshian, Nishga-Gitxsan)

NLk.'ē
ad'a'd'îk . u
sk Lwī-hē'ldEm qē'wun.
then RED~came many gull
“Now many gulls came” (Boas, 1902, p. 113.13, cited in Mithun, 1988, p. 218).
On the other hand, noun–verb agreement involves a marker placed on the verb (target) that
indicates the number of the entities to which the noun (controller) refers. For example, in (28),
we have a sentence in Russian (Indo-European, Balto-Slavic) in which the noun mam-a
“mother(F )-SG.NOM” controls the presence of the same value contextually marked on the posses-
sive pronoun (−a “F.SG.NOM”) with the number marker on the verb -it “3SG.” This means that
the singular morpheme on the verb is not a number marker of the verb but that it redundantly
signals the number of the controller, in this case, the noun mam-a.
28. Russian (Indo-European, Balto-Slavic)

moj-a mam-a ljub-it roman-y
my-F.SG.NOM mother(F )-SG.NOM love-3SG novel-PL.ACC
“My mother loves novels” (Corbett, 2006, p. 36).
Thus, it is clear that both phenomena correspond to number marking on the verb. However,
while agreement is a redundant marking of the number value of another lexeme (the noun or
pronoun) on the verb, participant plurality is an actual verbal marker expressing a plurality of
situations encoded by the verb.
Durie (1986) investigates the distinction between these two phenomena by analyzing a sam-
ple of about 40 mainly North American languages.6 This explains why he often refers to supple-
tion, rather than other marking strategies: In North America, participant plurality is very often
marked by lexical alternation. He notes that:
[A ] number suppletive verb selects an argument of the appropriate number in

much the same way that verbs select an argument whose referent has the appropri-
ate form: in the same way, for example, that English verb peel selects an object
whose referent has a skin, or that massacre selects an object referring to a group of
people (italics is mine; Durie, 1986, p. 355).
Durie introduces the pivotal concept of “semantic selection.” By this, he means that the plu-
ral form of verbs requires an argument that has specific semantic characteristics, that is, a plu-
ral argument. On the other hand, syntactic agreement does not require any argument with a
particular semantic property but rather involves a particular marker on the verb that redun-
dantly expresses the value of the controller. From this follows that participant plurality works
on semantic grounds, whereas agreement works on syntactic grounds. The Navajo sentences in
(29) clearly exemplify this distinction:
29. Navajo (Athapaskan-Eyak-Tlingit, Athapaskan-Eyak)

a. shí ashkii bi-ł yi-sh-ʼash
I boy him-with PROG-1SG-walk.DU
“I'm walking with the boy” (Jeanne, Hale, & Pranka, 1984, cited in Durie, 1986, p. 358).
b. nihí łaʼ di-iid-ááł
we subset FUT-1NON.SG-walk.SG
“One of us will go” (Jeanne, Hale, & Pranka, 1984, cited in Durie, 1986, p. 358).
In (29a), we have a singular subject shí “I” (controller) that triggers the agreement marker
sh- “1SG” on the verb (target). At the same time, we have the dual verb 'ash “walk.DU” because
the situation is semantically performed by two participants (syntactically, the subject and the
comitative). In (29b), we have the opposite situation: The subject of the sentence is syntactically
plural (nihí “we”) and triggers a non-singular marker on the verb (iid “1NON.SG”), but the verb is
singular because a single participant performs the action from a semantic point of view.
Because of its semantic nature, participant plurality has consequences on the whole context.
Mithun (1988, p. 214) notes that “(t)he primary function of stem alternation is not to enumerate
entities, but to quantify the effect of actions, states, and events.”
However, the distinction between participant plurality and agreement is not as straightforward
as it seems. The two phenomena remain formally similar. Though they have a quite different func-
tion, they are hardly discernable from an operational point of view. Durie (1986) proposes five
criteria (summarized in Table 1) to distinguish between participant plurality and syntactic
agreement.
This list of criteria is very useful, and in the majority of the cases, it helps distinguish the
two phenomena. However, it is not completely satisfactory, at least not at the theoretical level.
18 of 35 MATTIOLA
T A B L E 1 Criteria to distinguish participant plurality from syntactic agreement proposed by Durie (1986,
pp. 357–361)
N Criteria
I. Suppletion (i.e., lexical alternation, SM) is not triggered by a surface syntactic relation; rather, it
selects for the number of a particular semantic role of the verb.
II. Where there is discord between the number of participants bearing the appropriate semantic role and
the strict morphological number of the syntactic relation-bearing NP, suppletion will reflect the
former, agreement the latter.
III. Stem suppletion may distinguish number features which are not nominal number features of the
language: That is, they are not formally marked in any way in the nominal morphology, neither by
nouns nor pronouns.
IV. In syntactic contexts where agreement is characteristically absent, where a language systematically
omits agreement morphology to form an infinitive, stems still supplete for number. These contexts
include control constructions, imperative and attributive usage.
V. Stem suppletion for number is preserved in derivational word formation, but inflectional agreement is not.
This is because of two main reasons. First, the criteria are not always definitive; that is, some-
times, they are not sufficient to discern the two phenomena. The five criteria are not individu-
ally predictive, but they acquire predictive force when combined together. In other words, none
of them are conclusive alone. Second, in order for the criteria to be useful, they require situa-
tions that do not always occur in a specific language. If the situation predicted by the criteria
does not occur (cf., e.g., Criteria IV and V), they become useless. In other words, Durie's criteria
represent a very good operational tool that allows us to distinguish participant plurality from
syntactic agreement. However, they are not always applicable, and this makes them less strong
from a theoretical point of view.
However, this does not mean that we cannot discern participant plurality and agreement
when Durie's (1986) criteria are not applicable. At least one additional criterion can be very
helpful in ambiguous situations. Probably, the most accurate way to distinguish an actual case
of participant plurality from agreement is when the number marker can be used to express
some other pluractional functions (such as iterativity and frequentativity) in addition to a plu-
rality of participants. If we have at least one occurrence in which the marker under investiga-
tion appears in a sentence that does not display a plural argument but does encode a plurality
of situations, we can reasonably assume the marker to be an actual pluractional marker. Never-
theless, this last criterion is still unsatisfactory because by definition in order for a marker to be
considered a pluractional marker, it must express one core function and does not necessarily
need to express more than one core function. Consequently, even this criterion is not definitive.
In conclusion, Durie's (1986) five criteria together with the additional one I am proposing
here are certainly valuable tools for recognizing participant plurality, even though they also
exhibit some critical aspects. In other words, they are very good working criteria but have some
theoretical weaknesses that limit their applicability.
5 | A CO N C E P T U A L S P A C E F O R P L U R A C T I O N A L I T Y
As noted above, the semantic map model is a useful tool to understand the cross-linguistic mul-
tifunctionality of pluractional markers. The result of my cross-linguistic comparison is the
FIGURE 2 The conceptual space of pluractionality
conceptual space shown in Figure 2 (adapted from Mattiola, 2017b, 2019). A semantic map
allows us to display functions in a geometrical space in order to show the (semantic) relation-
ships occurring among them (Haspelmath, 2003, p. 213). Two functions are in a conceptual
space only if there is at least one language expressing them through two different marking strat-
egies (cf. the analytical primitive principle in Cysouw, 2007, 2010). Furthermore, two functions
are connected in a space only if there is at least one language expressing them through the same
marking strategy (cf. the connectivity hypothesis in Croft, 2001). This holds true for my concep-
tual space. Accordingly, the functions appear in the space and are connected in this way
because I found at least one language that formally discerns them and one language that adopts
the same device to express them. But before further describing the conceptual space I
present here, some of the notations I have adopted must be explained. I use three different
types of lines and two types of brackets. The full lines connect functions for which I found a
relationship within my data (connectivity hypothesis). The dotted lines show a relationship
that I did not find in my data but is described in the literature (cf. Bybee, Perkins, & Pagliuca,
1994, pp. 169–172). The dashed line shows a mediated relationship, that is, one for which I did
find some data but that I did not investigate in detail (the expression of singular situations was
not an objective in my investigation). The round brackets signal that a specific function is less
widespread than the others. The square brackets indicate a function that I did not find in
my data.
This conceptual space suggests a number of observations. First, we can distinguish between
two different areas: one pertaining to single actions and one pertaining to multiple actions. The
first area includes functions involving a single situation, that is, from a single action to event-
internal plurality (and at least partially continuativity). This area shows an increase in the
degree of complexity moving from the left to the right: While a single action is the most proto-
typical singular situation, event-internal plurality involves a situation that is externally singular
(not repeated) but that at the same time exhibits an intricate internal constituency (repetitive
sub-events, phases). This peculiarity makes event-internal plurality the perfect connection
between functions involving single and multiple situations. By contrast, the second area
includes all of the remaining functions (and, partly, event-internal plurality). This area shows
the effects of two factors: distributivity and pluralization. The first factor pertains to the func-
tions on the vertical axis. The vertical area displays the distribution of the various situations
20 of 35 MATTIOLA
over space (spatial distributivity) and/or over participants (participant plurality and reciprocity).
The second factor is a progressive increase in the degree of plurality. This increase follows two
possible directions: (a) the temporal extension of the situation (continuativity > progressivity7
> generic imperfectivity) and (b) the temporal extension of the repetitions (iterativity >
frequentativity > habituality > generic imperfectivity). Interestingly, both paths lead to generic
imperfectivity. This is probably due to the maximal degree of plurality associated with this func-
tion. Specifically, generic imperfectivity involves situations that always occur, in all the possible
occasions.
5.1 | Linguistic correlations of the pluractional conceptual space
The semantic interpretation of the conceptual space for pluractionality proposed in the previ-
ous section also leads to some other considerations and, specifically, suggests some linguistic
correlations (or tendencies) pertaining to the semantic nature and the organization of the
functions. It is important to note that what I call correlations or tendencies must be consid-
ered as associations between some of the functions displayed on the conceptual space and
some particular semantic phenomena. These considerations are drawn from my own exami-
nation of the pluractional conceptual space, and in this sense, they do not represent a solid
scientific result (i.e., based on empirical data). However, I believe that these considerations
deserve mention since they could help to better understand the pluractional functional
domain.
First, moving from the left to the right of the space, we see a generalization in meaning. This
is particularly evident when the opposite ends of the conceptual space are considered: While
the semantics of the functions on the left seems to be very specific (singular action, degree func-
tions, and event-internal plurality), the semantics of the functions on the right is much more
general (mainly generic imperfectivity and habituality). Semantic genericity progressively
increases from left to right (intensity/completeness/emphasis > event-internal plurality >
iterativity/continuativity/spatial distributivity/participant plurality/reciprocity > frequentativity
> habituality > generic imperfectivity).
The second correlation emerges from the morphological status of the different marking
strategies that languages use to encode these functions. Cross-linguistically, the functions
placed on the left side of the space tend to be marked more often through lexical strategies
and thus are usually described as aktionsart/actionality (lexical aspect). This becomes evi-
dent when event-internal plurality is considered. This function is generally expressed
through an intrinsic lexical value of the verb, that is, the actional value that Cusic (1981,
p. 78) calls repetitive actions (in opposition to repeated actions). In other words, event-
internal plurality pertains to the lexical semantics of the verb rather than the semantics of
the context. For example, in several languages, event-internal plural situations are lexically
expressed (e.g., the verbs whistle or knock in English). This also seems to be corroborated by
the fact that often verbs associated to event-internal plurality tend to evolve into new lex-
emes, leading to the pluractional marker losing its original meaning. This is also true of some
lexicalized reduplicated verbs in Maa (Nilotic, Eastern Nilotic) such as the verbs ɨtɔkɨtɔk
“boil” and ikirikir “shake” (cf. Mattiola, 2019, pp. 130–134). This general tendency can also
be observed for single actions, which roughly correspond to semelfactivity (cf. Nichols, 2011,
p. 314, for a distinction between the actional and the grammatical value in Ingush—Nakh-
Daghestanian, Nakh). Conversely, the functions on the right side tend to be marked more
often through more grammatical/morphological strategies, such as those usually described

as grammatical aspect. This observation is in line with Croft's (2012, pp. 31-33) remark that
grammatical and lexical aspects are hardly discernable from one another and that they are
better explained through a unidimensional approach.8
A third tendency is related to the first correlation pointed out in the present section, that
is, the progressive generalization of the semantics of the various functions. The functions on
the right tend to be associated with a wider set of verbs than the ones on the left, which may
be semantically incompatible with some types of verbs. For example, a pluractional marker
that conveys a function on the left side can hardly be applied to a stative verb, especially one
involving an inherent or permanent state (Croft, 2012, pp. 41–45), such as “to weigh.” On
the other hand, the functions on the right show less semantic constraints; that is, they gener-
ally tend to involve a broad range of verb types. This situation can probably be explained in
terms of the specificity of the functions on the left side, which leads to a number of semantic
constraints that the functions on the right side do not exhibit because of their semantic
genericity.
All of these correlations are shown in Figure 3.
If we consider these three correlations together, we can note that the functions on the
right tend to be expressed more often by more grammaticalized strategies and the ones on
the left by less grammaticalized strategies. Indeed, the three correlations showed in Figure 3
are all evidence of the different degree of grammaticalization of the marking strategies lan-
guages adopt to express pluractional functions. However, this is only a general tendency:
Highly grammaticalized markers exist that also express the functions on the left. For exam-
ple, single actions can also be marked by devices that are highly grammaticalized (e.g., the
Punctual in Konso—Afroasiatic, Cushitic—is described as a derivational device with some
inflectional properties by Orkaydo & Mous, 2017).
FIGURE 3 Linguistic correlations of the pluractional conceptual space (adapted from Mattiola
(2017b, p. 135)
22 of 35 MATTIOLA
6 | THE GRAMM ATIC AL STATUS OF PLURAC TIONALITY

I N A CR O S S - L I N G U I S T I C PE R S P E C T I V E
At this point, a theoretical note is in order. We can find several proposals in the literature on
pluractional markers concerning their grammatical classification. Some scholars have proposed
considering this phenomenon as a case of verbal aspect (Comrie, 1976; Corbett, 2000), others as
a case of lexical aspect/actionality/aktionsart (Cusic, 1981; Dressler, 1968; Wood, 2007 and
Xrakovskij, 1997b), and yet others as an independent phenomenon (Corbett, 2000, again). Inter-
estingly, each of the proposed classifications reflects something that we can actually find in the
languages of the world. This is due to the fact that the authors have tried to trace pluractional
markers back to a unique cross-linguistically consistent category. In several approaches to
cross-linguistic comparison, it is generally assumed that phenomena that display some similari-
ties can be described in terms of cross-linguistically valid grammatical categories. This is the
case for some formal approaches (e.g., the model presented in Baker, 2003, or the Lexical Func-
tional Grammar model as described in Bresnan, 2001) and for some functional–typological
approaches (Comrie, 1989; Hopper & Thompson, 1980, 1984, 1985; Keenan, 1976, among
others).9 However, these approaches do not seem to be adequate to describe phenomena such
as the distribution of pluractional markers. This is because they all try to describe linguistic
phenomena referring to categories considered as universally valid and as representations of the
speakers' mental organization. Following the quite innovative theory proposed in Dryer (1997),
some typologists have developed the idea that the categories used in grammatical description
cannot be considered as universally valid but should rather be regarded as language-specific
and construction-specific (cf. Cristofaro, 2009; Croft, 2001; Dryer, 1997; Haspelmath, 2007,
2010). In other words, each language has its own grammatical categories that are defined by lin-
guists based on distributional criteria (as outlined in Croft, 2001). This means that grammatical
categories and relations cannot be taken as universally valid precisely because they are defined
when making reference to the internal organization of a single language.10 Therefore, languages
display categories that are only partially similar. Haspelmath (2007) notes that:
[…] it is important to realize that similarities do not imply identity: It is very hard
to find categories that have fully identical properties in two languages, unless these
languages are very closely related. […] [O]ne has to start with the awareness that
each language may have totally new categories (Haspelmath, 2007, p. 126).
Consequently, the cross-linguistic comparison of linguistic phenomena should not be based

on categories defined on language-specific structures, which are far from being universally
applicable entities.
The most important consequence of the non-existence of pre-established categories

for language typology is that cross-linguistic comparison cannot be category-based,
but must be substance-based, because substance (unlike categories) is universal.
(Haspelmath, 2007, p. 124).
Linguistic typology must be based on universally applicable concepts. In the literature, these
are generally called “comparative concepts” and are defined on the basis of “universal
conceptual-semantic concepts, general formal concepts, and other comparative concepts”
(cf. Haspelmath, 2010, p. 665).
As observed earlier, pluractional markers show characteristics that are generally considered
typical of several other grammatical domains and categories. The observation of the main func-
tional and formal properties of pluractional markers revealed that these markers can behave
quite differently from one language to another. At the functional level, we saw that pluractional
markers are very multifunctional. In particular, I identified four functions falling under the
given definition of pluractionality and several other functions that can be additionally expressed
by these markers. These functions can be associated with different types of grammatical ele-
ments in different languages (cf. Mattiola, 2019, and more specifically the three case studies
presented in chapter 4). For example, in Akawaio (Cariban, Venezuelan), the suffix -pödï
expresses functions that fall under my definition of pluractionality, and, more specifically, it
encodes the functions we find on the right of the space (frequentativity, habituality, and generic
imperfectivity). In general terms, this makes the suffix an aspect-like device. However, we can
find cases where it applies to verbs that already have an actual aspectual marker (e.g., ezagï-
bödï-bök name-HAB-PROG “it is naming”). This suggests not considering -pödï as an aspectual
marker in Akawaio (cf. Mattiola, 2019, pp. 96–111, and Mattiola & Gildea, in prep). Another
example is provided by Maa (Nilotic, Eastern Nilotic), where the original pluractional device
(full reduplication) seems to be no longer frequent in texts. At the same time, a new
pluractional marker seems to have arisen, that is, the andative marker -áa AWAY. This suffix is
expanding its functional domain towards prototypical pluractional functions such as iterativity
in addition to its original directional meaning (cf. Payne, 2013, and Mattiola, 2019,
pp. 125–142). These two cases clearly show how pluractional markers can have very different
grammatical status and origins in different languages even if they share the common function
of encoding a plurality of situations.
At the formal level, three marking strategies are much more frequent than the others. Inter-
estingly, in several languages, these three strategies coexist with each other and often also with
some other minor strategies. For example, if we take into account the six Chadic languages of
the sample, we can notice that each of them shows different strategies and that, at the same
time, these strategies are very different from each other, even if the languages have a common
genetic affiliation, as illustrated in Table 2.
The great diversity of pluractional markers is reflected at the diachronic level, too. I identi-
fied four different diachronic sources of pluractional markers in the languages of the sample.
Frajzyngier (1997) argues that the pluractional affixes of Chadic languages originated from the
Chadic demonstrative system. The six diachronic patterns proposed by Frajzyngier (1997) are
listed in (30).
30. Possible diachronic patterns for Chadic pluractional affixes (Frajzyngier, 1997,p. 216)
a. DEMONSTRATIVE ! OBJECT ANAPHOR ! PLURAL OBJECT
b. DEMONSTRATIVE ! OBJECT ANAPHOR ! CATAPHORIC MARKER OF DETERMINED OBJECT ! PLURAL OBJECT
c. DEMONSTRATIVE ! OBJECT ANAPHOR ! CATAPHORIC MARKER OF DETERMINED OBJECT ! MARKER COD-
ING DEFINITENESS OF THE OBJECT ! PLURAL OBJECT
d. DEMONSTRATIVE ! OBJECT ANAPHOR ! PLURAL SUBJECT OF THE INTRANSITIVE VERB
e. DEMONSTRATIVE ! OBJECT ANAPHOR ! PLURAL SUBJECT OF TRANSITIVE
f. DEMONSTRATIVE ! OBJECT ANAPHOR ! PLURAL SUBJECT OF TRANSITIVE ! PLURALITY OF EVENTS
A second source for pluractional markers is provided by verbs of feeling. For example, in
Eton (Atlantic-Congo, Volta-Congo) the verb dìŋ “love/like” can be used as a quasi-auxiliary to
express iterativity and frequentativity (cf. 31b).
24 of 35 MATTIOLA
T A B L E 2 Marking strategies of the six Chadic languages of the sample
Marking strategies
Lexical
Languages Affixation Reduplication alternation Others
Hausa (Newman, — Partial (initial/ — —
2000) internal)
Lele (Frajzyngier, -wì — — Devoicing of
2001) initial
consonant
Masa (Melis, 1999) No pluractionality
Mupun (Frajzyngier, -a, -r, -e, -ep, — Yes —
1993) -wat, -k
Pero (Frajzyngier, -j/-t Double — Insertion of
1989) (gemination, glottal
partial) stop, insertion
of a geminated
glide
Wandala (Frajzyngier, -a- Partial Yes —
2012)
31. Eton (Atlantic-Congo, Volta-Congo)

a. dəc ù-Ltɛ L-dìŋ H ndɔgà
Q 2SG-PRS INF-like LT [10]mango
“Do you like mangoes?” (Van de Velde, 2008, p. 326).
b. à-mɛ L-dìŋ-gì L-kɔzì
I-YIMPF INF-HAB-G INF-cough
“He coughed often” (Van de Velde, 2008, p. 332).
Another possible diachronic source for pluractional markers is represented by locative/posi-

tional verbs. For example, in Lango (Nilotic, Western Nilotic), the verb bèdò “sit/stay” can be
used as an auxiliary in order to express iterativity.
32. Lango (Nilotic, Western Nilotic)

à-bédò lwòŋ-ŋò lócəəc
1SG.SBJ-stay.PFV call-INF man
“I kept on calling the man” (Noonan, 1992, p. 140).
Yet another possible source for pluractional markers is illustrated by Ute (Uto-Aztecan,
Northern Uto-Aztecan). In this language, the Habitual suffix -mi can have frequentative or
habitual readings.
33. Ute (Uto-Aztecan, Northern Uto-Aztecan)

navutigi-mi súuva-tu-mu-aa-ni' uni-kya-na,
imitate-HAB other-NOM-PL-OBJ-like do-PL-REL
“He used to imitate what others did” (Givón, 2011, p. 145).
Givón (2011, p. 132) notes that this marker has the verb miya “walk about/go” as its source.
Both the synchronic and diachronic properties of pluractional markers suggest that we are
not dealing with something that can be described cross-linguistically by making reference to a
unique notion. Pluractionality as defined in this paper must be considered as a comparative
concept, that is, as an association between some structural characteristics of the verb and the
function of encoding a plurality of situations. In a cross-linguistic perspective, the category
pluractionality does not exist. The term pluractional must be conceived only as a label that is
useful for grouping together a variety of grammatical elements that do not have completely
overlapping properties from one language to another but are all associated with the same func-
tion, namely, the expression of a plurality of situations.
A C K N O WL E D G M E N T S
I would like to thank the section editor, Sonia Cristofaro, and two anonymous reviewers for
their precious comments, suggestions, and critics. The usual disclaimers apply.
ORCID
Simone Mattiola https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3693-9349
E N D N O T ES
1
It is important to note that some of the 63 languages without pluractional markers can actually have one that
was not detected by the grammarian. This is because the lack of general and typological works on this phe-
nomenon often has hindered the recognition of pluractionality. From a scientific point of view, however, I
prefer a false negative (a non-recognized pluractional language) to a false positive (a language supposed to be
pluractional but that is not).
2
For reasons of space, I cannot focus on several other important contributions that have tackled pluractionality.
However, some additional works deserve mention: Xrakovskij (1997a), Van Geenhoven (2004, 2005), Wood
(2007), and Součková (2011). I will refer to some of these within the body of this paper.
3
Main abbreviations used in the formalization: V = verb, PA = pluractional marker, e = event, X = ranges over
sets of events, card = cardinality of two or greater, n = number of events.
4
The interlinear glosses used in this paper are generally the original glosses used in the source. I decided to
maintain them because they often refer to categories that have a specific role and interpretation only in the
relevant languages. At the same time, to avoid the uncontrolled proliferation of glosses referring to similar
language-specific categories, I uniformized the labels referring to the same category following the general
rules of Leipzig Glossing Rules (cf. https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/pdf/Glossing-Rules.pdf), keeping in mind
that the same label can have different connotation in different languages.
5
In the examples that follow, the sentence in (a) exemplifies the core pluractional reading, and the one in (b),
the additional reading of the same marker.
6
Durie does not specify his sample and, in addition, does not provide a precise number of languages. He simply
states: “I have unearthed over 40 languages from diverse parts of the world (…)” (Durie, 1986, p. 356).
7
The position of progressivity in the conceptual space is discussed at length in Mattiola (2017b, pp. 133-134).
Here, it is sufficient to note that progressivity was not directly found in the languages of the sample but the
connection between progressivity and imperfectivity is suggested by Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994,
pp. 170, 172).
8
“In unidimensional approaches, the semantics of grammatical aspect is the same of lexical aspect: Grammati-
cal aspect interacts with lexical aspect, but the result is of the same semantic type as lexical aspect. In
bidimensional approaches, grammatical aspect is semantically distinct from lexical aspect; its semantic struc-
ture is of a different type […]. The approach presented here is basically a unidimensional approach but with
an essential contribution from the bidimensional approach. Our primary interest is with the semantic
26 of 35 MATTIOLA
structure of predicates. However, […], predicates always occur in a tense–aspect construction, so the aspectual
structure of events has to be inferred from the interpretations of predicates in different tense–aspect construc-
tion” (Croft, 2012, pp. 31–32). For further details on this approach, see Croft (2012, ch. 1-2).
9
For detailed discussion on these approaches in relation to the cross-linguistic validity of grammatical catego-
ries and relations, see in particular Dryer (1997) and Cristofaro (2009).
10
This observation was originally made by Boas (1911, p. 81) in his introduction of languages of native North
America: “[n]o attempt has been made to compare the forms of the Indian grammars with the grammars of
English, Latin, or even among themselves; but in each case the psychological groupings which are given
depend entirely upon the inner form of each language.”
11
The classification follows the one proposed by Hammarström et al. (2018), while the names of the languages
follow the terms used in the bibliographic references.
R EF E RE N C E S
Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Baker, M. C. (2003). Lexical categories: verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bar-el, L. (2008). Verbal number and aspect in Skwkwú7mush. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes, 37, 31–54.
Barker, M. A. R. (1964). Klamath grammar. Berkeley & Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Bertinetto, P. M., & Lenci, A. (2010). Iterativity vs. habituality (and gnomic imperfectivity). Quaderni del
Laboratorio di Linguistica, 9(1), 1–46.
Boas, F. (1902). Tsimshian texts. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, Government Printing Office.
Boas, F. (1911). Introduction. In F. Boas (Ed.), Handbook of American Indian languages, part 1 (pp. 5–83).
Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, Government Printing Office.
Booij, G. (2005). The grammar of words. An introduction to linguistic morphology. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology: A study of the between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bybee, J., Perkins, R., & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the lan-
guages of the world. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Cabredo-Hofherr, P., & Laca, B. (2012). Introduction—Event plurality, verbal plurality and distributivity. In
P. Cabredo-Hofherr & B. Laca (Eds.), Verbal plurality and distributivity (pp. 1–24). Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Chang, A. H.-C. (2006). A reference grammar of Paiwan. Canberra: Australian National University doctoral
dissertation.
Chelliah, S. (1997). A grammar of Meithei. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Comrie, B. (1982). Grammatical relations in Huichol. In P. J. Hopper & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Studies in transi-
tivity (pp. 95–115). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago
Press.
Corbett, G. (2000). Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Corbett, G. (2006). Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cristofaro, S. (2009). Grammatical categories and relations: Universality vs. language specificity and
construction-specificity. Language & Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 441–479.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Croft, W. (2012). Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cusic, D. (1981). Verbal plurality and aspect. Standford, CA: University of Standford doctoral dissertation.
Cysouw, M. (2007). Building semantic maps: The case of person marking. In B. Wälchli & M. Miestamo (Eds.),
New challenges in typology (pp. 225–248). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cysouw, M. (2010). Semantic maps as metrics for meanings. Linguistic Discovery, 8(1), 70–95.
Dimmendaal, G. (1983). The Turkana language. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Donohue, M. (1999). A grammar of Tukang Besi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Dressler, W. (1968). Studien sur verbalen pluralität: Iterativum, distributivum, durativum, intensivum in der
allgemeinen Grammatik, in Lateinischen und Hethitischen. Wien: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf.
Dryer, M. (1997). Are grammatical relations universal? In J. Bybee, J. Haiman, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Essays
in language function and language type (pp. 115–143). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Durie, M. (1986). The grammaticization of number as a verbal category. In V. Nikiforidou, M. VanClay,
M. Niepokuj, & D. Feder (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society:
February 15–17, 1986, Berkeley (pp. 355–370). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of
California.
Foley, W. (1991). The Yimas language of New Guinea. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fortescue, M. (1984). West Greenlandic. London: Croom Helm.
Frajzyngier, Z. (1985). Ergativity, number, and agreement. In M. Niepokuj, M. VanClay, V. Nikiforidou, &
D. Feder (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: February
16–18, 1985, Berkeley (pp. 96–106). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California.
Frajzyngier, Z. (1989). A grammar of Pero. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.
Frajzyngier, Z. (1993). A grammar of Mupun. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.
Frajzyngier, Z. (1997). Grammaticalization of number: From demonstratives to nominal and verbal plural. Lin-
guistic Typology, 1(2), 193–242.
Frajzyngier, Z. (2001). A grammar of Lele. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Frajzyngier, Z. (2012). A grammar of Wandala. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Garrett, A. (2001). Reduplication and infixation in Yurok: Morphology, semantics, and diachrony. International
Journal of American Linguistics, 67(3), 264–312.
Givón, T. (2011). Ute reference grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Haji-Abdolhosseini, M., Massam, D., & Oda, K. (2002). Number and events: Verbal reduplication in Niuean. Oce-
anic Linguistics, 41(2), 475–492.
Hammarström, H., Bank, S., Forkel R. and Haspelmath M. (2018). Glottolog 3.2. Jena: Max Planck Institute for
the science of human history. (Available online at http://glottolog.org, Accessed on February 27, 2018).
Haspelmath, M. (2002). Understanding morphology. London: Edward Arnold.
Haspelmath, M. (2003). The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison.
In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language (Vol. 2, pp. 217–242). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Haspelmath, M. (2007). Pre-established categories don't exist: Consequences for language description and typol-
ogy. Linguistic Typology, 11(1), 119–132.
Haspelmath, M. (2010). Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language, 86
(3), 663–687.
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299.
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (1984). The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Lan-
guage, 60(4), 703–752.
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (1985). The iconicity of the universal categories noun and verb. In J. Haiman
(Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 151–183). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jeanne, L., Hale, K. and Pranka, P. (1984). Where is suppletion? Paper presented at the GLOW 1984.
Jones, W., & Jones, P. (1991). Barasano syntax. Dallas, TX: SIL & University of Texas at Arlington.
Keenan, E. L. (1976). Towards a universal definition of “subject”. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic
(pp. 303–333). New York: Academic Press.
Kilian-Hatz, C. (2008). A grammar of modern Khwe (Central Khoisan). Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.
Kimball, G. D. (1991). Koasati grammar. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Lasersohn, P. (1995). Plurality, conjunction and events. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Mattiola, S. (2017a). Typology of pluractional constructions in the languages of the world. Bergamo-Pavia:
Università degli Studi di Bergamo/Università degli Studi di Pavia doctoral dissertation.
Mattiola, S. (2017b). The conceptual space of pluractional constructions. Lingue e Linguaggio, XVI(1), 119–146.
Mattiola, S. (2018). Pluractional conceptual space: Three case studies and their typological relevance. Acta Lin-
guistica Petropolitana, 14(2), 517–551.
Mattiola, S. (2019). Typology of pluractional constructions in the languages of the world. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
28 of 35 MATTIOLA
Mattiola, S. & Gildea, S. (in prep). The pluractional marker -pödï of Akawaio (Cariban).
Melis, A. (1999). Description du Masa (Tchad): Phonologie, sintaxe et dictionnaire encyclopédique. Tours: Univer-
sity of Tours doctoral dissertation.
Mel'čuk, I. (1994). Suppletion: Toward a logical analysis of the concept. Studies in Language, 18(2), 339–410.
Mithun, M. (1988). Lexical category and the evolution of number marking. In M. Hammond & M. Noonan
(Eds.), Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics (pp. 211–234). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Newman, P. (1980). The classification of Chadic within Afroasiatic. Leiden: Universitaire Pers.
Newman, P. (1990). Nominal and verbal plurality in Chadic. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Newman, P. (2000). The Hausa language: An encyclopedic reference grammar. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Nichols, J. (2011). Ingush grammar. Berkeley & Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Noonan, M. (1992). A grammar of Lango. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Orkaydo, O. O. (2013). The category of number in Konso. In A. Mengozzi & M. Tosco (Eds.), Sounds and words
through the ages: Afroasiatic studies from Turin (pp. 253–266). Alessandria: Edizioni dell'Orso.
Orkaydo, O. O., & Mous, M. (2017). The semantics of pluractionals and punctuals in Konso (Cushitic, Ethiopia).
Journal of African Languages and Linguistics, 38(2), 223–263.
Payne, D. L. (2013). The challenge of Maa ‘away’. In T. Thornes, E. Andvik, G. Hyslop, & J. Jansen (Eds.), Func-
tional-historical approaches to explanation: In honor of Scott DeLancey (pp. 260–282). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Rose, F. (2007). Action repetitive et action répétée: Aspect et pluralité verbale dans la reduplication en émérillon.
Faits de Langues, 29, 125–143.
Sambou, P. (2014). Relations entre les rôles syntaxiques et les rôles sémantiques dans les langues jóola. Dakar:
Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar doctoral dissertation.
Shluinsky, A. (2009). Individual-level meanings in the semantic domain of pluractionality. In Epps, P. and
Arkhipov, A. (eds.). New challenges in typology. Transcending the Borders and Refining the Distinctions,
175–197. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Součková, K. (2011). Pluractionality in Hausa. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden doctoral dissertation.
Steeman, S. (2012). A grammar of Sandawe: A Khoisan language of Tanzania. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden doc-
toral dissertation.
Storch, A. and Coly, J.J. (eds.) (2017). Pluractional verbs and verbal plurals in African languages. STUF Special
Issue, 70(1), 1–238.
Valenzuela, P. M. (2003). Transitivity in Shipibo-Konibo grammar. Part I. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon doc-
toral dissertation.
Van de velde, M. (2008). A grammar of Eton. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Van Geenhoven, V. (2004). For-adverbials, frequentative aspect and pluractionality. Natural Language Seman-
tics, 12, 135–190.
Van Geenhoven, V. (2005). Atelicity, pluractionality, and adverbial quantification. In H. Verkuyl, H. de Swart, &
A. van Hout (Eds.), Perspectives on aspect (pp. 107–124). Dordrecht: Springer.
Vanhove, M. (2017). Le Bedja. Leuven: Peeters.
Veselinova, L. N. (2006). Suppletion in paradigms: Bits and pieces of the puzzle. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wood, E. (2007). The semantic typology of pluractionality. Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley doc-
toral dissertation.
Woollams, G. (1996). A grammar of Karo Batak, Sumatra. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Stud-
ies, Australian National University.
Xrakovskij, V. S. (Ed.). (1997a). Typology of iterative constructions. München: LINCOM.
Xrakovskij, V. S. (1997b). Semantic types of the plurality of situations and their natural classification. In
V. S. Xrakovskij (Ed.), Typology of iterative constructions (pp. 3–64). München: LINCOM.
Yu, A. (2003). Pluractionality in Chechen. Natural Language Semantics, 11, 289–321.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
Simone Mattiola is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Bologna (Italy). His Ph.D.
thesis was the first large-scale typological investigation of pluractionality in the languages of
the world through the comparison of a sample of 246 languages. He is currently working in
the universaLIST project that aims at investigating “list constructions” in typological and
cognitive perspective. His main areas of interest are linguistic typology, number (nominal
and verbal), and morphology.
How to cite this article: Mattiola S. Pluractionality: A cross-linguistic perspective. Lang

Linguist Compass. 2020;14":e12366. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12366
A P P END I X : LANGUAGE SAMPLE USED IN MATTIOLA (2017a, 2017b, 2018, 2019)11
Classification Languages
Abkhaz-Adyge Abkhaz-Abaza Abkhaz (Abkhazian)
Afro-Asiatic Berber Tamasheq
Chadic Hausa
Lele
Masa (Masana)
Mupun (Mwaghavul)
Wandala
Cushitic Beja
Harar Oromo (Eastern Oromo)
Iraqw
Semitic Amharic
Arabic, Egyptian
Hebrew, modern
Maltese
Algic Yurok
Algonquian Maliseet-Passamaquoddy
(Malecite-Passamaquoddy)
Plains Cree
Angan Nuclear Angan Kapau (Hamtai)
Araucanian Mapudungun
Arawakan Southern Maipuran Apurin~a
Northern Maipuran Warekena (Baniva de Maroa)
Arawan Madi-Madiha Jarawara (Madi)
(Continues)
30 of 35 MATTIOLA
Athapaskan-Eyak-Tlingit Tlingit
Athapaskan Hupa
Navajo
Sarcee (Sarsi)
Slave (North Slavey)
Atlantic-Congo North-Central Atlantic Bijogo (Kangaki-Kagbaaga Kajoko Bidyogo)
Jóola Karon (Karon)
Wolof
Volta-Congo Eton (Eton-Mengisa)
Ewe
Godié
Ha
Igbo
Kisikongo (Kikongo)
Koromfe (Koromfé)
Lunda
Makonde
Mambay (Mambai)
Mono
Sango
Supyire (Supyire Senoufo)
Swahili
Yoruba
Austro-Asiatic Aslian Semelai
Khasi-Palaung Khasi
Khmeric Cambodian (Central Khmer)
Khmuic Khmu
Mundaic Mundari
Vietic Vietnamese
Austronesian Paiwan
Malayo-Polynesian Boumaa Fijian (Fijian)
Chamorro
Dehu
Kiribatese (Gilbertese)
Indonesian
Karo Batak (Batak Karo)
Kilivila
Maori
(Continues)
Mokilese
Paamese (Paama)
Rapanui
Sakalava (Antankarana Malagasy)
Samoan
Taba (East Makian)
Tagalog
Tukang Besi (Tukang Besi North)
Aymaran Central-Southern Aymara Aymara (Central Aymara)
Barbacoan Unclassified Barbacoan Awa Pit (Awa-Cuaiquer)
Border Warisic Imonda
Bunaban Bunuba (Bunaba)
Gooniyandi
Caddoan Caddo
Northern Caddoan Wichita
Cariban Guianan Carib (Galibi Carib)
Parukotoan Hixkaryana
Venezuelan Macushi
Panare
Central Sudanic Lenduic Ngiti
Sara-Bongo-Bagirmi Mbay
Chapacuran Moreic-Waric Wari'
Chibchan Core-Chibchan Bribri
Ika (Arhuaco)
Chonan Insular Chonan Selknam (Selk'nam)
Chukotko-Kamchatkan Chukotian Chukchi
Cochimi-Yuman Yuman Maricopa
Coosan Coos (Hanis)
Dagan Daga
Dogon Plains Dogon Jamsay (Jamsay Dogon)
Dravidian North Dravidian Brahui
South Dravidian Kannada
Eskimo-Aleut Eskimo Central Alaskan Yupik (Central Yupik)
West Greenlandic (Kalaallisut)
East Bird's Head Meax Meyah
Furan Fur
Gunwinyguan Gunwinyguan Bak Nunggubuyu (Wubuy)
Heiban West-Central Heiban Koalib (Koalib-Rere)
(Continues)
32 of 35 MATTIOLA
Hmong-Mien Hmongic Hmong-Njua
Huitotoan Nuclear Witoto Huitoto (Minica Huitoto)
Indo-European Armenic Armenian
Balto-Slavic Latvian
Russian
Serbian
Celtic Irish
Germanic German, Standard
English
Greek Greek, Modern
Indo-Iranian Bengali
Hindi
Iranian Pashto, Northern/Southern
Persian (Western Farsi)
Italic French
Spanish, Modern
Iroquoian Northern Iroquoian Oneida
Seneca
Iwaidjan Proper Maung (Mawng)
Japonic Japanesic Japanese
Kartvelian Georgian-Zan Georgian
Kadugli-Krongo Central-Western Krongo
Kadugli-Krongo
Katla-Tima Tima
Kawesqar North Central Alacufan Qawasqar
Keresan Western Keres Acoma (Western Keres)
Khoe-Kwadi Khoe Khwe (Kxoe)
Kiowa-Tanoan Kiowa
Koreanic Korean
Kxa ǂHoan (Amkoe)
Lower Sepik-Ramu Lower Sepik Yimas
Maban Mabang Masalit
Mande Eastern Mande Beng
Western Mande Jalonke (Yalunka)
Mangarrayi-Maran Mangarayi (Mangarrayi)
Maran Mara (Marra)
Matacoan Mataguayo II Wichí (Wichí Lhmantés Nocten)
Mayan Core Mayan Jacaltec (Popti')
(Continues)
Miwok-Costanoan Miwokan Lake Miwok
Mixe-Zoque Zoque San Miguel Chimalapa Zoque (Chimalapa
Zoque)
Mongolic Eastern Mongolic Mongolian
Muskogean Creek
Alabaman-Koasati Koasati
Western Muskogean Chickasaw
Nakh-Daghestanian Daghestanian Hunzib
Icari Dargwa (Southwestern Dargwa)
Lezgian
Nakh Chechen
Ingush
Nilotic Eastern Nilotic Turkana
Western Nilotic Lango
Nuclear Macro-Je Je Canela-Krahô
Nuclear Torricelli Kombio-Arapesh-Urat Bukiyip
Nuclear Trans New Central and South New Asmat (Central Asmat)
Guinea Guinea
Dani Western Dani
Enga-Kewa-Huli Kewa, East/West
Greater Binanderean Suena
Madang Amele
Kobon
Usan
Mek Una
Otomanguean Eastern Otomanguean Chalcatongo Mixtec (San Miguel El Grande
Mixtec)
Western Otomanguean Otomí (Mezquital Otomi)
Pama-Nyungan Desert Nyungic Pitjantjatjara
Karnic Arabana/Wangganguru
Paman Kugu Nganhcara (Kuku-Uwanh)
Southeastern Pama-Nyungan Ngiyambaa
South-West Pama-Nyungan Martuthunira
Yimidhirr-Yalanji-Yidinic Djabugay (Dyaabugay)
Yidiɲ (Yidiñ)
Yuulngu Djapu (Dhuwal)
Panoan Mainline Panoan Shipibo-Konibo (Shipibo-Conibo)
Peba-Yagua Yagua
Pomoan Russian River and Eastern Eastern Pomo
(Continues)
34 of 35 MATTIOLA
Quechuan Quechua I Huallaga Huánuco Quechua
Sahaptian Nez Perce
Saharan Eastern Saharan Beria
Western Saharan Kanuri (Central Kanuri)
Salishan Bella Coola
Central Salish Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish)
Sentanic Nuclear Sentanic Sentani
Sepik Sepik Hill Alamblak
Sino-Tibetan Bodic Ladakhi (Leh-Kenhat)
Brahmaputran Garo
Burmo-Qiangic Burmese
Himalayish Lepcha
Karenic Eastern Kayah Li (Eastern Kayah)
Kuki-Chin-Naga Bawn (Bawn Chin)
Meithei (Manipuri)
Sinitic Cantonese (Yue Chinese)
Mandarin Chinese
Siouan Core Siouan Lakhota (Lakota)
Songhay Northwest Songhay Koyra Chiini (Koyra Chiini Songhay)
South Omotic Dime
Surmic South Surmic Murle
Pano-Tacanan Tacanan Araona
Tai-Kadai Kam-Tai Thai
Ta-Ne-Omotic Ometo Wolaytta
Tangkic Southern Tangkic Kayardild
Tsimshian Southern-Coastal Tsimshian Coast Tsimshian (Southern-Coastal
Tsimshian)
Tucanoan Eastern Tucanoan Barasano (Barasana-Eduria)
Tungusic Northern Tungusic Evenki
Tupian Maweti-Guarani Kokama-Kokamilla (Cocama-Cocamilla)
Guaraní (Paraguayan Guaraní)
Turkic Common Turkic Turkish
Uralic Hungarian
Finnic Finnish
Samoyedic Tundra Nenets
Uto-Aztecan Northern Uto-Aztecan Cahuilla
Comanche
Hopi
(Continues)
Ute (Ute-Southern Paiute)
Southern Uto-Aztecan Huichol

Northern Tepehuan
Sonora Yaqui
Wakashan Southern Wakashan Southern Wakashan/Nootkan
(Nuu-chah-nulth)
Western Daly Maranunggu-Ame-Manda Maranungku (Maranunggu)
Worrorran Ungarinjin (Ngarinyin)
Yangmanic Wardaman
Yanomam Sanuma (Sanumá)
Yeniseian Northern Yeniseian Ket
Yukaghir Kolymic Kolyma Yukaghir (Southern Yukaghir)
Isolate Africa Gumuz
Kunama
Sandawe
Asia Ainu
Burushaski
Nivkh
Oceania/Papunesia Kuot
Lavukaleve
Maybrat (Maybrat-Karon)
Tiwi
Europe Basque
North America Coahuilteco
Euchee (Yuchi)
Haida
Karok
Klamath (Klamath-Modoc)
Kutenai
Tunica
Zuni
South America Cayuvava (Cayubaba)
Pirah~a
Trumai
Warao

Mattiola Pluractionality

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mattiola Pluractionality

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 30 April 2017 Revised: 6 December 2019 Accepted: 23 December 2019

Pluractionality: A cross-linguistic perspective

valid category but should rather be regarded as a label,

the essential semantic characteristic of such verbs [pluractionals, SM] is almost

Pluractionality therefore involves a plurality of situations—a plurality connected with the

1. Konso (Afro-Asiatic, Cushitic)

FIGURE 1 Distribution of languages with and without pluractional markers

2 | S TATE O F THE ART

In Section 1, I stated that pluractionality remained an understudied phenomenon for a long

2.1 | Dressler (1968)

2. Types of aktionsarten in Dressler (1968)

2.2 | Cusic (1981)

3. Ratio parameter (Cusic, 1981, p. 61)

2.3 | Lasersohn (1995)

4. V-PA(X) , 8e∈X[V(e)] & card(X) ≥ n (Lasersohn, 1995, p. 242)

[a] detailed formalization of Cusic's relative measure parameter, concerned with

3.1 | Core functions of pluractional markers

7. Iterativity: plurality of the situations limited to a single occasion

8. Frequentativity: plurality of the situations extended to different occasions

9. Spatial distributivity: plurality of the situations occurring in different places

10. Participant plurality: plurality of situations that affects several participants

b. Nee waakana-ari ne-mec-uqɨɁii-ri eekɨ

3.2 | Additional functions of pluractional markers

Similar to event-internal plurality, continuativity is a situation that cannot be described as

12. Continuativity: externally singular situations that are extended in time

a. Frequentative reading of the Sandawe morpheme -wa “PL2”

field_in_to = 1SG go.SG-PL2

b. Generic imperfective reading of the Meithei morpheme -kən “REPEAT”

15. Intensity: a degree modification of the normal development of the situation

16. Completeness: Turkana (Nilotic, Eastern Nilotic)

b. “Complete” reading of Turkana verbal reduplication

An emphatic situation is associated with particular affectedness and involvement on the

17. Emphasis: Karo Batak (Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian)

18. Jóola Karon (Atlantic-Congo, North-Central Atlantic)

Cross-linguistically, pluractional markers show a broad multifunctionality. Perhaps, the best

19. Prefixation: Tukang Besi (Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian)

20. Infixation: Mupun (Afro-Asiatic, Chadic)

21. Suffixation: West Greenlandic (Eskimo, Inuit)

Reduplication is also a very frequent marking strategy, in particular in African languages.

22. Full reduplication: Shipibo-Konibo (Panoan, Mainline Panoan)

23. Partial reduplication: Paiwan (Austronesian)

24. Lexical alternation: Koasati (Muskogean, Alabaman-Koasati)

4.1 | Some issues in the morphosyntax of pluractionality

4.1.1 | Lexical alternation or suppletion?

In the strictest sense, suppletion refers to allomorphic alternation conditioned by a

An example in support of this statement is provided by Klamath (Isolate, North America), a

25. Klamath (Isolate, North America)

lvoy “give a round object”

4.1.2 | Participant plurality: Nominal or verbal number?

The second morphosyntactic issue to be discussed is the difficulty in distinguishing participant

26. Nisgha/Nass Tsimshian (Tsimshian, Nishga-Gitxsan)

27. Nisgha/Nass Tsimshian (Tsimshian, Nishga-Gitxsan)

28. Russian (Indo-European, Balto-Slavic)

[A ] number suppletive verb selects an argument of the appropriate number in

29. Navajo (Athapaskan-Eyak-Tlingit, Athapaskan-Eyak)

FIGURE 2 The conceptual space of pluractionality

5.1 | Linguistic correlations of the pluractional conceptual space

often through more grammatical/morphological strategies, such as those usually described

6 | THE GRAMM ATIC AL STATUS OF PLURAC TIONALITY

Consequently, the cross-linguistic comparison of linguistic phenomena should not be based

The most important consequence of the non-existence of pre-established categories

T A B L E 2 Marking strategies of the six Chadic languages of the sample

31. Eton (Atlantic-Congo, Volta-Congo)