1932

Abstract

Determiners and bare nouns raise questions about the interface between morphosyntax and semantics. On the syntactic side, the primary issue is whether bare nouns have a null determiner making all noun phrases structurally uniform. On the semantic side, the primary issue involves determining and deriving the range of permissible readings. Of primary significance are the availability of definite and indefinite readings for bare nouns and how such readings relate to the presence or absence of lexical exponents of (in)definiteness in a language. Further refinements include the special scope properties of kind terms versus regular indefinites, differences between singular and plural kind terms, number distinctions within the noun phrase, and the role of incorporation. We present the theoretical and typological advances that have been made in addressing these issues and identify which considerations are purely syntactic or purely semantic in nature and which considerations have implications for the interface.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-011958
2020-01-14
2024-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/6/1/annurev-linguistics-011718-011958.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-011958&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abney S. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect PhD Diss. Mass. Inst. Technol Cambridge:
  2. Aguilar-Guevara A, Zwarts J. 2010. Weak definites and reference to kinds. Proceedings of SALT 20:pp. 17996 Washington, DC:: Linguist. Soc. Am.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Asudeh A, Mikkelsen LH. 2000. Incorporation in Danish: implications for interfaces. A Collection of Papers on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar R Cann, C Grover, P Miller 1–15 Stanford, CA: CSLI Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker M. 2003. Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  5. Bhattacharya T. 1999. Structure of the Bangla DP PhD Diss Univ. Coll London:
  6. Biswas P. 2016. Number marking and definiteness in Bangla PhD Thesis Univ. South Calif., Los Angeles:
  7. Bittner M. 1994. Case, Scope and Binding Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer
  8. Borer H. 2005. Structuring Sense, Vol. 1: In Name Only Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  9. Bosch P, Cieschinger M. 2010. “Weak definites”: linguistic evidence for cognitive constraints Talk presented at Cognitive Science Research Training School, Univ. Osnabrück Osnabrück, Ger:.
  10. Bošković Z. 2008. What will you have, DP or NP?. NELS 37: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society101–14 Amherst: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc., Univ. Mass.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bošković Ž, Gajewski J. 2011. Semantic correlates of the NP/DP parameter. NELS 39: Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society Amherst: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc., Univ. Mass.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Carlson GN. 1977. Reference to kinds in English PhD Diss. Univ. Mass Amherst:
  13. Carlson GN. 1996. A note on belladonnas Talk presented at LSA Annual Meeting San Diego, CA:
  14. Carlson GN. 2006. The meaningful bounds of incorporation. Non-Definiteness and Plurality S Vogeleer, L Tasmowski 35–50 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Carlson GN, Sussman R. 2005. Seemingly indefinite definites. Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives S Kepser, M Reis 71–85 Berlin: De Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Chacón D. 2012. Head movement in the Bangla DP. J. South Asian Linguist. 4:3–24
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Cheng D, Sybesma R. 1998. yi-wan tang, yi-ge Tang: classifiers and massifiers. Tsing-Hua J. Chin. Stud. New Ser. 28:385–412
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Cheng LL-S, Sybesma R. 1999. Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguist. Inq. 30:4509–42
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Chierchia G. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Nat. Lang. Semant. 6:339–405
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Chung S. 2000. On reference to kinds in Indonesian. Nat. Lang. Semant. 8:157–71
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Condoravdi C. 1997. Descriptions in Context New York: Garland Publ.
  22. Contreras H. 1986. Spanish bare NP's and the ECP. Generative Studies in Spanish Syntax I Bordelois, H Contreras, K Zagona 25–49 Dordrecht, Neth.: Foris
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Davis H, Gillon C, Matthewson L 2014. How to investigate linguistic diversity: lessons from the Pacific Northwest. Language 90:4e180–226
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Dayal V. 1992. The singular-plural distinction in Hindi generics. OSU Work. Pap. Linguist. 40:39–58
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Dayal V. 1999. Bare NP's, reference to kinds, and incorporation. Proceedings of SALT 934–51 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Dayal V. 2003. Bare nominals: non-specific and contrastive readings under scrambling. Word Order and Scrambling S Karimi 67–90 Oxford, UK: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Dayal V. 2004. Number marking and (in)definiteness in kind terms. Linguist. Philos. 27:4393–450
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Dayal V. 2011a. Bare noun phrases. Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning K von Heusinger, C Maienborn, P Portner 1088–109 Berlin: De Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Dayal V. 2011b. Hindi pseudo-incorporation. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 29:1123–67
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Dayal V. 2012. Bangla classifiers: mediating between kinds and objects. Ital. J. Linguist. 24:2195–226
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Dayal V. 2013. On the existential force of bare plurals across languages. From Grammar to Meaning: The Spontaneous Logicality of Language I Caponigro, C Cechetto 49–80 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Dayal V. 2014. Bangla plural classifiers. Lang. Linguist. 15:147–87
    [Google Scholar]
  33. de Hoop H. 1992. Case configuration and noun phrase interpretation PhD Thesis Univ. Groningen Groningen, Neth:.
  34. Deal AR. 2017. Countability distinctions and semantic variation. Nat. Lang. Semant. 25:2125–71
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Doetjes J. 2017. The count/mass distinction in grammar and cognition. Annu. Rev. Linguist. 3:199–217
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Dryer MS. 2013a. Definite articles. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online MS Dryer, M Haspelmath Leipzig, Ger: Max Planck Inst. Evol. Anthropol http://wals.info/chapter/37
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Dryer MS. 2013b. Indefinite articles. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online MS Dryer, M Haspelmath Leipzig, Ger.: Max Planck Inst. Evol. Anthropol http://wals.info/chapter/38
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Dryer MS. 2014. Competing methods for uncovering linguistic diversity: the case of definite and indefinite articles (commentary on Davis, Gillon, and Matthewson). Language 90:4e232–59
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Espinal MT, McNally L. 2011. Bare nominals and incorporating verbs in Spanish and Catalan. J. Linguist. 47:187–128
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Farkas D, de Swart H 2003. The Semantics of Incorporation: From Argument Structure to Discourse Transparency Stanford, CA: CSLI Publ.
  41. Fukui N. 1986. A theory of category projection and its applications PhD Thesis Mass. Inst. Technol Cambridge:
  42. Fukui N, Takano Y. 2000. Nominal structure: an extension of the symmetry principle. The Derivation of VO and OV P Svenonius 321–62 Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Geist L. 2010. Bare singular NPs in argument positions: restrictions on indefiniteness. Int. Rev. Pragmat. 2:2191–227
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Hawkins J. 1991. On (in)definite articles: implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. J. Linguist. 27:405–42
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Heim I. 2011. Definiteness and indefiniteness. Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning K von Heusinger, C Maienborn, P Portner 996–1025 Berlin: De Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Jiang L. 2012. Nominal arguments and language variation PhD Thesis Harvard Univ Cambridge, MA:
  47. Jiang L. 2018. Definiteness in Nuosu Yi and the theory of argument formation. Linguist. Philos. 41:11–39
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Kallulli D. 1999. The comparative syntax of Albanian: on the contribution of syntactic types to propositional interpretation PhD Diss. Durham Univ. Durham, UK:
  49. Klein N, Gegg-Harrison W, Carlson G, Tanenhaus M 2013. Experimental investigations of weak definite and weak indefinite noun phrases. Cognition 128:2187–213
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Kiparsky P. 2005. Blocking and periphrasis in inflectional paradigms. Yearbook of Morphology 2004 G Booij, J van Marle 113–35 Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Kratzer A. 1980. Die Analyse des bloßen Plural bei Gregory Carlson. Linguist. Ber. 70:47–50
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Krifka M, Modarresi F. 2016. Number neutrality and anaphoric update of pseudo-incorporated nominals in Persian (and weak definites in English). Proceedings of SALT 26874–91 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Krifka M, Pelletier FJ, Carlson GN, ter Meulen A, Link G, Chierchia G 1995. Genericity: an introduction. The Generic Book GN Carlson, FJ Pelletier 1–124 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Kurafuji T. 2004. Plural morphemes, definiteness, and the notion of semantic parameter. Lang. Linguist. 5:1211–42
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Law JH-K, Syrett K. 2017. Experimental evidence for the discourse potential of bare nouns in Mandarin. NELS 47: Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society A Lamont, K Tetzloff 231–40 Amherst: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc., Univ. Mass.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Li Y-HA. 1998. Argument determiner phrases and number phrases. Linguist. Inq. 29:4693–702
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Lima S. 2014. The grammar of individuation and counting PhD Diss. Univ. Mass Amherst:
  58. Longobardi G. 1994. Reference and proper names: a theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguist. Inq. 25:609–65
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Longobardi G. 2000. “Postverbal” subjects and the mapping hypothesis. Linguist. Inq. 31:4691–702
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Longobardi G. 2001. How comparative is semantics? A unified parametric theory of bare nouns and proper names. Nat. Lang. Semant. 9:4335–69
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Lyons C. 1999. Definiteness Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  62. Massam D. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 19:153–97
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Mithun M. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60:847–94
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Montague R. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. Approaches to Natural Language KJJ Hintikka, JME Moravcsik, P Suppes 221–42 Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Müller AL. 2002. The semantics of generic quantification in Brazilian Portuguese. PROBUS 2:14279–98
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Munn A, Schmitt C. 2005. Number and indefinites. Lingua 115:821–55
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Park S-Y. 2008. Plural marking in classifier languages: a case study of the so-called plural marking -tul in Korean. Tor. Work. Pap. Linguist. 28:281–95
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Partee B. 1986. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers J Groenendijk, D de Jongh, MBJ Stokhof 115–44 Dordrecht, Neth.: Foris
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Partee B, Rooth M. 1983. Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language R Bauerle, C Schwarze, A von Stechow 361–83 Berlin: Walter de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Pereltsvaig A. 2007. The universality of DP: a view from Russian. Stud. Linguist. 61:159–94
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Pires de Oliveira R, Rothstein S 2011. Bare singular noun phrases are mass in Brazilian Portuguese. Lingua 121:2153–75
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Rothstein S. 2017. Semantics for Counting and Measuring Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  73. Sağ Y. 2018. The semantics of Turkish numeral constructions. Proceedings of Sinn & Bedeutung 22307–24 Berlin: ZAS
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Sağ Y. 2019. The semantics of number marking: reference to kinds, counting, and optional classifiers PhD Diss. Rutgers Univ New Brunswick, NJ:
  75. Schwarz F. 2014. How weak and how definite are weak definites?. Weak Referentiality A Aguilar-Guevara, B Le Bruyn, J Zwarts 213–35 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Seidel E. 2019. Anaphoric potential of pseudo-incorporated nouns in Turkish. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference in Turkish Linguistics (ICTL 18) H Sofu, D Abik, MY Özezen, C Can, A Kilimci. Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Simpson A. 2005. Classifiers and DP structure in Southeast Asia. The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax G Cinque, R Kayne 806–38 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Simpson A, Wu Z. 2002. Agreement, shells and focus. Language 78:287–313
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Stowell T. 1991. Determiners in NP and DP. Views on Phrase Structure K Leffel, D Bouchard 37–55 Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Stvan LS. 1998. The semantics and pragmatics of bare singular noun phrases PhD Diss. Northwest. Univ Chicago, IL:
  81. Syed S, Simpson A. 2017. On the dp/np status of nominal projections in Bangla: consequences for the theory of phases. Glossa 2:168
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Szabolcsi A. 1987. Functional categories in the noun phrase. Approaches to Hungarian: Theories and Analyses I Kenesei 167–90 Szeged, Hung.: Jate
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Tang C-C. 1990. A note on the DP analysis of the Chinese noun phrase. Linguistics 28:337–54
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Trinh T. 2011. Nominal reference in two classifier languages. Proceedings of Sinn & Bedeutung 15629–44 Saarbrücken, Ger.: Saarl. Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  85. van Geenhoven V. 1998. Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions Stanford, CA: CSLI Publ.
  86. Watanabe A. 2006. Functional projections of nominals in Japanese: syntax of classifiers. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 24:241–306
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Wilhelm A. 2008. Bare nouns and number in Dëne Sųłiné. Nat. Lang. Semant. 16:39–68
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Wu Y, Bodomo A. 2009. Classifiers ≠ determiners. Linguist. Inq. 40:487–503
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Wu Z. 2004. Grammaticalization and Language Change in Chinese: A Formal View London: Routledge
  90. Yang R. 1998. Chinese bare nouns as kind-denoting terms. RuLing Papers 1 R Artstein, M Holler 247–88 New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Yang R. 2001. Common nouns, classifiers, and quantification in Chinese PhD Thesis Rutgers Univ. New Brunswick, NJ:
  92. Yanovich I. 2007. Incorporated nominals as antecedents for anaphora, or how to save the thematic arguments theory. Proceedings of the 31st Penn Linguistics Colloquium J Tauberer, A Eilam, L MacKenzie 267–80 Philadelphia: Pa. Work. Pap. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-011958
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-011958
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error