This article focuses on the controversy over whether complex numerals in English are constituents. Contra the traditional view (e.g. Hurford 1975; Greenberg 1990 [1978]), the cascading structure proposed in Ionin & Matushansky (2006, 2018) maintains that cross-linguistically a complex numeral does not form a constituent to the exclusion of the NP complement. The derivation of an additive complex numeral, e.g. twenty-two people, thus involves an underlying source form with a nominal conjunction, e.g. twenty people and two people. Based on the argumentation established in He (2015) and He et al. (2017) supporting complex numerals as constituents in Chinese and minority languages in southern China, this article first demonstrates that the non-constituency analysis is not viable for English, as the underlying forms of additive complex numerals may be ill-formed and also not semantically equivalent to the surface forms. We then offer evidence to support the constituency analysis from constituency tests and behavior of post-numeral and pre-numeral modifiers. Finally, we demonstrate that the extra mechanism of grafting, proposed by Meinunger (2015), is unnecessary for English complex numerals.

本文主要讨论英语中复数是否为成分的争论。与传统观点（例如 Hurford 1975；Greenberg 1990 [1978]）相反，Ionin & Matushansky (2006, 2018) 提出的层叠结构认为，跨语言复数不会构成排除 NP 补语的成分。因此，加法复数（例如二十二人）的推导涉及具有名词连词的基础源形式，例如二十人和两个人。基于 He (2015) 和 He等人建立的论证。(2017) 支持复数作为华南地区汉语和少数民族语言的成分，本文首先论证了非成分分析对英语不可行，因为加性复数的基本形式可能是错误的，也不是语义上的相当于表面形式。然后，我们提供证据来支持来自选区测试的选区分析以及后数字和前数字修饰符的行为。最后，我们证明了 Meinunger (2015) 提出的额外嫁接机制对于英文复数来说是不必要的。