English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Using natural data and a set of clearly defined criteria to select 808 target examples, this study investigates several claims made by researchers concerning number interpretation in Japanese, including the claim that for noun phrases unmarked for number, if a number construal is possible in their interpretation, then in the majority of cases number is clearly determinable as either singular or plural (Jarkey and Moore 2001); that context plays a crucial role in determining number (Umegaki 1961, Tamamura 1986, Jarkey and Moore 2001, and Mizuguchi 2004) and hence there is little need for regular explicit number marking (Okutsu 1986, Tamamura 1986); and that nouns unmarked for number tend to be interpreted as referring to a single entity (Okutsu 1986 and Moore 2004). Among other things discussed, this study confirms the marginal proportion of readings having indeterminacy of number and the high proportion of singular readings of nouns unmarked for number. The study, however, suggests evaluating with caution the claim that number interpretation relies heavily on context, pointing out that the validity of such a claim depends on how ‘context’ is defined. Tamamura’s claim that explicit marking for plurality is rarely required in Japanese is also challenged on the basis of statistical data.

Marking or not marking? How is number construal understood in Japanese?