Abstract
Chapter 2 offers a detailed presentation of bare NPs in both argumental and predicational positions. It is argued that the use of bare NPs in argument positions should not be viewed as being related to the use of bare NPs in predicate positions. This observation strongly suggests that the property-analysis of argumental bare plurals is misguided. We remain open to the possibility of analyzing count bare singulars in Spanish, Romanian or Catalan as property-denoting. Carlson’s (Linguistics and Philosophy 1:413–457, 1977a; Reference to kinds in English, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, 1977c) observations regarding the differences between BPs and singular indefinites can be attributed to the fact that, due to the absence of an overt Det, BPs are necessarily weak (in the sense of Milsark (Linguistic Analysis 3:1–29, 1977)), whereas singular indefinites are both weak and strong. The main theoretical proposal of this chapter is that argumental BPs (as well as bare mass NPs) should be analyzed as generalized existential quantifiers over amounts, which are defined in such a way that they need to combine with existential predicates. Turning now to predicate positions the differences between copular sentences built with bare singulars as opposed to indefinite singulars point to a necessary distinction between two types of copular sentences (and two types of copulas), which we have labeled attributive and identity sentences. In identity sentences, the postcopular indefinite denotes an individual, just as it does in argumental positions. In attributive sentences, the postcopular noun denotes a property, which explains why indefinite singulars are disallowed and bare singulars allowed, on a par with adjectives.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The label ‘bare singulars’ used in some of the current literature (Schmitt and Munn 1999; Munn and Schmitt 2005; Farkas and de Swart 2003) and taken up here is somewhat misleading because: (i) there is no singular marking on bare count nouns and therefore they can be viewed as ‘non plural’ rather than as ‘singular’; (ii) they are not semantically singular but rather number-neutral. Nevertheless we have decided to adopt this label, in order to bring out the contrast between BPs and these other unmarked count nouns. What we call ‘bare singular’ is called ‘count bare noun’ by some authors (Müller 2002; Dobrovie-Sorin 2010; Espinal and McNally 2011.
- 2.
BMNs and BPs can appear in the preverbal subject position provided that they are modified (by an adjective, PP or relative clause), coordinated or contrastively stressed (Longobardi 1994 among others).
- 3.
We will leave aside the use of bare NPs after prepositions.
- 4.
Note that this characterization of Number is compatible with the view that Number is not a functional category but rather a feature that attaches to another (functional or lexical) category (Bouchard 1998; Dobrovie-Sorin (to appear b)). Note also that Det does not necessarily subcategorize for Number (see Munn and Schmitt (1999) on BSs in Brazilian Portuguese).
- 5.
Alternatively, one may assume a type-shifting operation for bare NPs in argument positions. Note however that such a type-shifting operation cannot be assumed to be general across languages.
- 6.
Note that French and Italian indefinite plurals headed by des and dei, respectively, are exceptional in this respect, i.e., they resemble BPs insofar as they can induce atelicity effects. Cf. Dobrovie-Sorin and Laca (2003):
(i)
Jean a écrit des articles pendant trois ans/*en trois ans.
Jean has written des articles during three years/ *in three years.
‘Jean wrote articles during three years/*in three years.’
- 7.
Count bare singulars, which are not allowed in English (see Sect. 2.3.2 below), were neglected in the post-carlsonian literature (with the notable exception of Kallulli’s (1999) analysis of Albanian) and came to the foreground only recently, since 2003, due to work on Hungarian (Farkas and de Swart 2003), Hindi (Dayal 2003, 2004), Norwegian (Borthen 2003) and Romance languages (Dobrovie-Sorin et al. 2005, 2006).
- 8.
There is a use of count bare singulars where they are interpreted as masses, in which case they are allowed freely, as are other mass nouns (John was eating apple/meat/goulash).
- 9.
It should also be noted that English allows bare singulars to appear productively inside N-V compounds (or synthetic compounds of the form N-V + er).
(i)
a.
window washing, truck driving, deer hunting, pie baking
b.
truck driver, deer hunter, pie baker
In this case, bare singulars allow for modification by adjectives, similar to the Romance bare singulars in object position (e.g., Spanish (ii) or English (iii)):
(ii)
Necesita cocinero mexicano
needs cook Mexican
‘(S)he needs a Mexican cook.’
(iii)
a.
I went big-game-hunting.
b.
I’m going hot-babe-watching.
- 10.
See Munn and Schmitt (2005) for further data and discussion. In addition to argument and predicate positions, Munn and Schmitt examine BSs that occur as modifiers.
- 11.
In English, the predicative construction typically involves a nominal preceded by an indefinite article, whereas in Spanish and Romanian, among other Romance languages, there is a syntactic and a semantic distinction between (i) and (ii). See also De Swart et al. (2005) for an analysis of bare predicate nominals in Dutch. Sentence (i), with a bare predicate nominal, is interpreted intensionally as saying that John has the property associated with the profession ‘doctor’, whereas sentence (ii), with the indefinite article, is interpreted extensionally as saying that John belongs to the set of individuals that are doctors.
(i)
Juan es médico.
Juan is doctor
(ii)
Juan es un médico.
‘Juan is a doctor.’
- 12.
The use of niciun ‘neither.one.masc’ with verbs allowing BSs is marked:
(i)
N-am nicio maşină.
neg-have.1sg neither.one car.
‘I don’t have any car.’
Nu caut nicio secretară.
neg seek.1sg neither.one secretary
‘I don’t look for any secretary.’
Examples like (i)–(ii) are used when the speaker negates an explicit or implicit assertion, e.g., ‘You have a car/you look for a secretary’.
- 13.
Parts of the indefinite can be interpreted in the scope of the negation provided that they are contrastively stressed. The alternative must usually be explicitly asserted. When it is the indefinite article that is contrastively stressed, it is interpreted as the numeral ‘one’.
(i)
a.
N-am citit UN roman de Tolstoi, (ci două).
‘I haven’t read ONE novel by Tolstoy (but two).’
b.
N-am citit un ROMAN de Tolstoi, (ci o nuvelă).
‘I haven’t read a NOVEL by Tolstoy (but a short story).’
‘Not-have.1.sg. read a novel by Tolstoy, (but a short story).’
- 14.
Capitals indicate contrastive stress.
- 15.
We are not interested here in kind-referring BPs, which are found in English but not in Romance languages (other than Brazilian Portuguese). As argued in Sect. 2.4.1, the existential readings of Romance BPs cannot be derived from kind-reference.
- 16.
This hypothesis is adopted by most of the theoreticians that have examined both types of bare nouns (see in particular van Geenhoven 1996; Kallulli 1999; Carlson 2003; Chung and Ladusaw 2003; Dobrovie-Sorin et al. 2005, 2006). Dayal (2003) is one of the few authors who assumes a type distinction between bare singulars and bare plurals: existential bare singulars denote properties, whereas bare plurals (both existential and generic) rely on kind-reference (as in Carlson 1977a, c; Chierchia 1998). This analysis cannot be adopted here, given that bare plurals in Romance languages cannot denote kinds.
- 17.
Examples with postverbal subjects (see (54)–(55)) or postverbal objects (see (56)) are used here in order to avoid interference with another constraint, according to which unmodified bare nouns cannot appear in preverbal position in Spanish, Italian and Romanian.
- 18.
- 19.
On a classical analysis, we distinguish three types of conversion for terms of the lambda calculus.
α-conversion : replace λx A with λy A[y/x] if y does not appear in A.
β-conversion : replace (λx A) t with A[t/x]
η-conversion : replace A with (λx Ax) if A is of type a → b and x is of type a and if there is no instance of x in A.
These rules are all called lambda-conversion rules and by definition, two terms t and t′ are said to be lambda-equivalents if there is a sequence of lambda-conversions that allows reducing t to t′ or vice versa.
- 20.
- 21.
The narrow scope reading of the indefinite DP in (61a) can be analyzed either as (i) relying on the same representation as that of the BP in (61b), i.e., meet translates as an existential predicate and the indefinite DP denotes a property or (ii) the indefinite DP translates as a variable over entities and an existential operator is supplied below wish. The choice between these options is not relevant for the present discussion.
- 22.
Farkas and de Swart’s (2003) rule of Unification of thematic arguments and Chung and Ladusaw’s (2004) rule of Restrict are different implementations of the same type of analysis.
- 23.
See also Carlson (2003), according to whom the semantic composition of weak bare nominals deals with types of things and types of events (rather than tokens): ‘there are no times, no possible worlds, no truth, only types’.
- 24.
For a more precise definition of predicate-modification the reader is referred to Espinal and McNally (2011), where a refined characterization of the predicates that allow it can also be found.
- 25.
Although they occupy different argument positions, both te-indefinites in Maori and incorporated objects in Chamorro are weak (in the sense of Milsark (1977)), in particular they take obligatory narrow scope with respect to negation.
- 26.
- 27.
Note that the relevant lexical classes of predicates are difficult to characterize (see Sect. 2.5 below).
- 28.
Let us stress that Ind is not an identity relation (in which case the two terms of the identity should be interchangeable) but rather an oriented identification relation, which allows an amount, i.e., a not yet individualized entity, to be identified with an individual.
- 29.
- 30.
- 31.
The corresponding English examples are grammatical because English BPs and BMNs can refer to kinds. The Spanish and Romanian examples become grammatical if we use a definite mass Ns instead of bare mass nouns:
(i)
Juan adora el café.
Spanish
Juan loves the coffee
(ii)
Maria adoră cafeaua.
Romanian
- 32.
De-expressions followed by a definite article (du/de la/des) are different from de-expressions directly followed by a noun, which are required in negative contexts or when related to certain adverbs such as beaucoup ‘many’ or peu ‘few’ (je n’ai pas vu de fille(s) ‘I haven’t seen de girl(s)’, j’ai vu beaucoup / peu de filles ‘I have seen many / few de girls’). Here, we will leave aside this other kind of expression.
- 33.
In French, certain nouns, i.e., tomate ‘tomato’ can be interpreted, depending on the context, either as a mass or as a countable expression. We can thus have des tomates (countable plural) as well as de la tomate (mass, e.g., J’ai mangé de la tomate, or number neutral, e.g., Il y avait de la tomate sur le marché).
- 34.
Attal’s distinction is based on the observation that these plural des NPs can escape the scope of negation, have specific readings in intensional contexts, or occupy argument positions of certain verbs. Attal (1976: 142) leaves open the question of whether there is “one or two des”. More recent studies (for an overview, see Bosveld-de Smet 1997: 5–54) show that there are good reasons to assume the existence of the marked use of des.
- 35.
English does allow BSs in predicate positions but only if they have unique reference, e.g., with some functional nouns:
(i) Mary is chairwoman.
- 36.
According to Dobrovie-Sorin (to appear b), Number is a feature that attaches to little n in English and as such it is necessarily realized (as –s in the plural and as the indefinite article a in the singular) on nouns, even in predicate positions. In Romance languages, on the other hand, Number would attach to Det, which would allow nouns to show up without any Number marking.
- 37.
The notions of ‘defining’, ‘characterizing’ and ‘situation-descriptive’ predicates, which are defined in semantic terms, are assumed to entertain a one-to-one relation with distinct grammatical categories:
(i) Defining predicates are expressed by ISs.
(ii) Characterizing predicates are expressed by BSs.
(iii) Situation-descriptive predicates are expressed by adjectives.
- 38.
Beyssade and Dobrovie-Sorin’s hypothesis that equatives, identificationals and specificationals are all identity sentences builds on Heycock and Kroch’s (1999) view that specificationals are base-generated as equatives rather than derived via Predicate Inversion from a predicational configuration (Moro 1997; den Dikken 2006).
- 39.
Comorovski (2007) proposes to represent the attributive use of specificational subjects as intensional expressions of type < s,e > .
- 40.
The distinction between the identity and the predicational copula is a standard one. Less standard is the view that specificational, identificational as well as copular sentences built with ISs all rely on an identity copula. Although den Dikken’s (2006) account of copular sentences differs from ours insofar as it crucially relies on Predicate Inversion for the analysis of specificationals and refutes the existence of base-generated equatives, it is nevertheless similar to ours insofar as it recognizes only two types of copular sentences, Moro’s (1997) canonical and inverse predication. Correspondingly, den Dikken’s copulas are either ‘relators’ or ‘linkers’. Our approach in terms of identity predication (rather than Inverted Predication) is well motivated on semantic grounds (an identity predicate is needed for the semantic composition), whereas under den Dikken’s account, the ‘linker’-type of copula has nothing to do with identity, being syntactically triggered by the movement underlying Predicate Inversion. According to den Dikken, the Predicate Inversion analysis of specificationals and equatives has the advantage of explaining the ban on A’-extraction of the postcopular expression, e.g., *whose opinion of Smith do you think your opinion of Jones is? We leave it open for further research the objective of showing that this constraint can be explained as an effect of identity predication (as opposed to attributive prédication).
- 41.
Partee (1987) showed that a DP could be associated to several semantic types, which are related to each other by type-shifting rules. According to Beyssade and Dobrovie-Sorin, ce ‘that’ is special in that it is necessarily of type e, i.e., it can only denote an entity. Ad-hoc as it may seem, this characterization of ce seems natural: languages may resort to special lexical items in order to make reference to objects that are viewed as having no property at all, which means that they cannot be viewed as denoting sets of properties.
- 42.
Note however that when it refers to either a kind or a proposition (finite or not), ce can be the subject of attributive predication:
(i) La soupe, c’est bon. The soup that’s good, ‘Soup, that’s good.’
(ii) Que Jean fasse du jogging, c’est surprenant. That Jean do of jogging, that’s surprising, ‘That Jean jogg is surprising.’
(iii) Faire du jogging, c’est sain. doing of jogging, that’s healthy, ‘Jogging is healthy.’
References
Attal, P. 1976. A propos de l’indéfini des: Problèmes de représentation sémantique. Le français moderne 44(2): 126–142.
Beyssade, C., and C. Dobrovie-Sorin. 2005. A syntax-based analyis of predication. In Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory 15, ed. E. Georgala and J. Howell, 44–61. Ithaca: CLC Publications.
Beyssade, C., and C. Dobrovie-Sorin. 2009. Predication and identity in copular sentences, ms. CNRS-LLF and Institut Jean Nicod. Paper presented at LSRL 2009 and glow in Asia 2009.
Borthen, K. 2003. Norwegian bare singulars. Ph.D. thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Bosque, I., ed. 1996. El sustantivo sin determinación. Presencia y ausencia de determinante en la lengua española. Madrid: Visor.
Bosveld de Smet, L. 1997. On mass and plural quantification. The case of French des/du NPs. Thèse de doctorat, Gröningen.
Bouchard, D. 1998. The distribution and interpretation of adjectives in French: A consequence of bare phrase structure. Probus 10(2): 139–183.
Carlson, G.N. 1977a. A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 413–457.
Carlson, G.N. 1977b. Amount relatives. Language 55(3): 520–542.
Carlson, G. N. 1977c. Reference to kinds in English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
Carlson, G.N. 2003. Weak indefinites. In From NP to DP: On the syntax and pragma-semantics of noun phrases, vol. 1, ed. M. Coene and Y. D’Hulst, 195–210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chierchia, G. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6: 339–405.
Chung, S., and W. Ladusaw. 2003. Restriction and saturation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Comorovski, I. 2007. Constituent questions and the copula of specification. In Existence: Semantics and syntax, ed. I. Comorovski and K. von Heusinger, 49–77. Dordrecht: Springer.
Condoravdi, C. 1992. Weakly and strongly novel noun phrases. SALT 2.
Condoravdi, C. 1994. Descriptions in context. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale.
Dayal, V. 2003. A semantics for pseudo incorporation. Newark: Ms., Rutgers University.
Dayal, V. 2004. Number marking and (in)definiteness in kind terms. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 393–450.
de Swart, H., Y. Winter, and J. Zwarts. 2007. Bare nominals and reference to capacities. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 195–222.
Delfitto, D. 2002. Genericity in language. Issues of syntax, logical form and interpretation. Alessandria: Dell’Orso.
den Dikken, M. 2006. Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion and copulas. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Diesing, M. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1995. On the denotation and scope of indefinites, vol. 5, 67–114. Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, University of Venice.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1997a. Types of predicates and the representation of existential readings. In Proceedings of SALT VII, ed. A. Lawson, 117–134. Ithaca/New York: Cornell University Press.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1997b. Classes de prédicats, distribution des indéfinis et la distinction thétique-catégorique. Le Gré des Langues 12: 58–97.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 2007. Existential bare plurals: From properties back to entities. Lingua 117: 296–313.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 2010. Number neutral amounts and pluralities in Brazilian Portuguese. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 9(1): 53–74.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. to appear b. Number as a feature. In ed. A. Cardinaletti, N. Munaro, G. Giusti, and C. Poletto. Oxford University Press.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C., and C. Beyssade. 2004. Définir les indéfinis. Paris: Editions du CNRS.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C., and B. Laca. 1996. Generic bare NPs. manuscript. University of Paris 7/Strasbourg 2.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C., and B. Laca. 1999. La généricité entre la référence à l’espèce et la quantification générique. In Langues et grammaire III. Syntaxe, ed. P. Sauzet, 163–177. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C., and B. Laca. 2003. Les noms sans déterminant dans les langues romanes. In Les langues romanes, ed. D. Godard, 235–281. Paris: Ed. du CNRS.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C., and R.Pires de Oliveira. 2008. Reference to kinds in Brazilian Portuguese: Definite singulars vs bare singulars. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12, ed. A. Grønn, 107–121. Oslo: Department of Literature, Area Studies and European Languages, University of Oslo.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C., and R. Pires de Oliveira. 2010. Generic bare singulars in Brazilian Portuguese. In ed. K. Arregi, Z. Fagyal, S. Montrul, and A. Tremblay, 203–216.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C., T. Bleam, and M.T. Espinal. 2005. Noms nus, nombre et types d’incorporation. In Noms nus et généricité, ed. C. Dobrovie-Sorin, 129–157. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C., T. Bleam, and M.T. Espinal. 2006. Bare nouns, number and types of incorporation. In Non-definiteness and plurality, ed. S. Vogeleer and L. Tasmowski, 51–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dowty, D. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Espinal, M.T., and L. McNally. 2011. Bare singular nouns and incorporating verbs in Spanish and Catalan. Journal of Linguistics 47: 87–128.
Farkas, D., and H. de Swart. 2003. The semantics of incorporation: From argument structure to discourse transparency. Stanford: CSLI.
Glasbey, S. 1998. Progressives, states, and backgrounding. In Events and grammar, ed. S. Rothstein, 105–124. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Groenendijk, J., M. Stokhof, and F. Veltman. 1996. Coreference and modality. In The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. S. Lappin, 179–213. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Gupta, A. 1980. The logic of common nouns. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Heim, I. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Published in 1988, Garland, New York.
Heycock, C., and A. Kroch. 1999. Pseudocleft connectedness: Implications for the LF interface level. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 365–397.
Higgins, R.F. 1979. The pseudocleft construction in English. New York: Garland.
Kallulli, D. 1999. The comparative syntax of Albanian. On the contribution of syntactic types to propositional interpretation. Ph.D. thesis. University of Durham.
Kennedy, C. 1999. Gradable adjectives denote measure functions, not partial functions. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29(1): 65–80.
Kiss, K. 1994. Generic and existential bare plurals and the classification of predicates. Working Papers in the theory of grammar, vol 1. Budapest University (ELTE), Budapest.
Kleiber, G. 2001. Lecture existentielle et lecture partitive. In Typologie des groupes nominaux, ed. G. Kleiber, B. Laca, and L. Tasmowski, 47–99. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
Kratzer, A. 1988. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In ed. Krifka, 247–284.
Kratzer, A. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In The generic book, ed. G.N. Carlson and F.J. Pelletier, 125–175. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kupferman, L. 1979. Les Constructions Il est un médecin/C’est un médecin: Essai de solution. Cahiers linguistiques 9: 131–164.
Laca, B. 1990. Generic objects: Some more pieces of the puzzle. Lingua 81: 25–46.
Laca, B. 1996. Acerca de la semántica de los plurales escuetos en español. In El sustantivo sin determinación: la ausencia de determinante en la lengua española, ed. I. Bosque, 241–268. Madrid: Visor Libros.
Laca, B. 1999. Presencia y Ausencia de Determinante. In Nueva gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, ed. I. Bosque and V. Demonte, 891–928. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.
Laca, B., and L. Tasmowski. 1994. Le pluriel indéfini de l’attribut métaphorique. Lingvisticæ Investigationes 18(1): 27–47.
Longobardi, G. 1994. Reference and proper names. Linguistic Inquiry 25(4): 609–665.
Longobardi, G. 2002. How comparative is semantics? A unified parametric theory of bare nouns and proper names. Natural Language Semantics 9: 335–369.
Matushansky, O., and B. Spector. 2004. Tinker, tailor, soldier, spy. In Proceedings of SuB9, ed. E. Maier, C. Bary, and J. Huitink, 241–255. Nijmegen: Nijmegen Centre of Semantics.
McNally, L. 1995a. Bare plurals in Spanish are interpreted as properties. In ed. G. Morrill and R. Oehrle, 197–222.
McNally, L. 1995b. Stativity and theticity. Columbus: Ms, Center for Cognitive Science, Ohio State University.
McNally, L. 1998. Existential sentences without existential quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 353–392.
Milsark, G. 1977. Towards the explanation of certain peculiarities of existential sentences in English. Linguistic Analysis 3: 1–29.
Moltmann, F. 1997. Parts and wholes in semantics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Moltmann, F. 1998. Part structures, integrity, and the mass-count distinction. Synthese 116: 75–111.
Moro, A. 1997. The raising of predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: CUP.
Müller, A.P. 2002. The semantics of generic quantification in Brazilian Portuguese. Probus 14: 279–298.
Munn, A., and C. Schmitt. 2005. Number and indefinites. Lingua 115: 821–855.
Musan, R. 1997. Tense, predicates, and lifetime effects. Natural Language Semantics 5(3): 271–301.
Partee, B.H. 1987. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, ed. J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, and M. Stokhof, 115–144. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Roy, I. 2001. Predicate nominals in French. Los Angeles: Ms, University of Southern California.
Roy, I. 2006. Non verbal predications: A syntactic analysis of copular sentences, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.
Schmitt, C., and A. Munn 1999. Against the nominal mapping parameter: Bare nouns in Brazilian Portuguese. In Proceedings of NELS 29, University of Massachussetts, Amherst.
Simons, P. 1987. Parts. A study in ontology. Oxford: Clarendon.
van Geenhoven, V. 1996. Semantic incorporation and indefinite descriptions: Semantic and syntactic aspects of noun incorporation in West Greenlandic. Ph.D. dissertation, Tübingen. Published in 1998 by CSLI.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dobrovie-Sorin, C., Beyssade, C. (2012). Bare Noun Phrases. In: Redefining Indefinites. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 85. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3002-1_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3002-1_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-3001-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-3002-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)