Another Note on Number

Cowper (2005) presents an intriguing theory of number features in which she suggests that plural is more marked than dual, contrary to traditional wisdom (Corbett, 2000). Cowper’s theory has been rebutted by Nevins (2007). In this squib I revisit the debate on number with data from Onondaga (Iroquoian), which support Cowper’s analysis of number. I do not show, however, that plural is more marked than dual in the traditional sense. The results of this investigation show, as Cowper did, that plural is structurally more complex than dual; however, this does not imply that plural is typologically more marked than dual. Thus, I tease apart the notion of structural markedness and typological markedness. Nevins’ arguments that dual is more typologically marked than plural still hold, even though plural is structurally more complex than dual. The broader implication here is that structural complexity and typological markedness are not necessarily correlated.