Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Number Marking and (in)Definiteness in Kind Terms

  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores the link between number marking and(in)definiteness in nominals and their interpretation. Differencesbetween bare singulars and plurals in languages without determinersare explained by treating bare nominals as kind terms. Differencesarise, it is argued, because singular and plural kinds relatedifferently to their instantiations. In languages with determiners,singular kinds typically occur with the definite determiner, butplural/mass kinds can be bare in some languages and definite inothers. An account of singular kinds in terms of taxonomic readingsis proposed, with number marking playing a crucial role inexplaining the obligatory presence of the determiner. The variationbetween languages with respect to plural/mass kinds is explained bypositing a universal scale of definiteness, with individual languageschoosing different cut-off points for lexicalization of the definitedeterminer. The possibility of further cross-linguistic variation isalso considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baker, M.: in press, Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives: Their Universal Grammar, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  • Barker, C.: 1992, 'Group Terms in English: Representing Groups as Atoms', Journal of Semantics 9, 69–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, G.: 1977, Reference to Kinds in English, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, G.: 1989, 'The Semantic Contribution of English Generic Sentences', in G. Chierchia, B. Partee, and E. Turner (eds.), Properties, Types and Meaning, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, G.: 1982, 'Bare Plurals, Mass Nouns, and Nominalization', in Proceedings of WCCFL 1.

  • Chierchia, G.: 1998, 'Reference to Kinds Across Languages', Natural Language Semantics 6, 339–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A.: 1998, 'Generics, Frequency Adverbs, and Probability', Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 221–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Condoravdi, C.: 1997, Descriptions in Context, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.

  • Dayal, V.: 1992, 'The Singular-Plural Distinction in Hindi Generics', Proceedings of SALT II, OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 40, 39–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dayal, V.: 1999, 'Bare NP's, Reference to Kinds, and Incorporation', in Proceedings of SALT IX, Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics.

  • Dayal, V.: in preparation, Bare Noun Phrases, Genericity and (In)definiteness: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Blackwell Publishers.

  • Diesing, M.: 1992, Indefinites, MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doron, E.: 2003, 'Bare Singular Reference to Kinds', in Proceedings of SALT XIII, Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics.

  • Farkas, D. and H. de Swart: 2003, The Semantics of Incorporation: From Augmented Structure to Discourse Transparency, CSLI.

  • Fine, K.: 1985, Reasoning with Arbitrary Objects, Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambhir, V.: 1981, Syntactic Restrictions and Discourse Functions of Word Order in Standard Hindi, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Gerstner, C. and M. Krifka: 1993, 'Genericity', in J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld, and T. Venneman (eds.), Handbuch der Syntax, de Gruyter, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerstner-Link, C.: 1988, Über Generizität: Generische Nominalphrasen in singulären Aussagen und generischen Aussagen, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Munich, Munich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glinert, L.: 1989, The Grammar of Modern Hebrew, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graff, D.: 2001, 'Descriptions as Predicates', Philosophical Studies 102(1), 1–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, Y.: 1998, 'Temporally Restricted Generics', in Proceedings of SALT VIII.

  • Guerts, B.: 2001, 'Genericity, Anaphora and Scope', Paper presented at the Workshop on Genericity, University of Cologne.

  • Heim, I.: 1982, The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite NP's, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jesperson, O.: 1927, A Modern English Grammar, Carl Winter's Universitätsbuchhandlung, Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H.: 1981, 'A Theory of Truth and Discourse Representation', in J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Mathematical Centre, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, P.: 1971, 'Taxonomy and Semantic Contrast', Language 47(4), 862–887.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleiber, G.: 1990, L'article le generique: La genericité sur la mode massif, Librairie Droz, Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A.: 1995, 'Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates', in G. Carlson and J. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A.: 1998, 'Scope or Pseudoscope? Are there Wide Scope Indefinites?', in S. Rothstein (ed.), Events and Grammar, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M.: 1989, 'Nominal Reference, Temporal Constitution and Quantification in Event Semantics', in J. van Benthem, R. Bartsch, and P. van Emde Boas (eds.), Semantics and Contextual Expression, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 75–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M.: 1995, ‘Common Nouns: A Contrastive Analysis of English and Chinese’, in Carlson and Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M., F. Pelletier, G. Carlson, A. ter Meulen, G. Chierchia, and G. Link: 1995, 'Genericity: An Introduction', in G. Carlson and F. J. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuroda, S.-Y.: 1972, 'The Categorical and the Thetic Judgment', Foundations of Language 9, 153–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laca, B.: 1990, 'Generic Objects: Some More Pieces of the Puzzle', Lingua 81, 25–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landman, F.: 1986, Towards a Theory of Information: The Status of Partial Objects in Semantics, GRASS 6, Foris, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landman, F.: 1989, Groups I, Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 559–605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D.: 1975, 'Adverbs of Quantification', in E. Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Languages, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, A.: 1997, 'Structures and Interpretations of Nominal Expressions', manuscript, University of Southern California.

  • Link, G.: 1983, 'The Logical Analysis of Plural and Mass Nouns: A Lattice Theoretic Approach', in R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, de Gruyter, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linsky, B. and J. Pelletier: 2000, 'Comments on Dayal's “The Singular-Plural Distinction in Kind Terms”', The Semantics Workshop, RuCCS, Rutgers University.

  • Löbner, S.: 1985, 'Definites', Journal of Semantics 4, 279–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longobardi, G.: 1994, 'Reference and Proper Names', Linguistic Inquiry 25(4), 609–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longobardi, G.: 1999, 'How Comparative is Semantics? A Unified Parametric Theory of Bare Nouns and Proper Names', Unpublished University of Trieste manuscript.

  • Markman, V.: 2002, 'Aspect in the Interpretation of Bare Nominals', Unpublished Rutgers University manuscript.

  • Mohanan, T.: 1995, 'Wordhood and Lexicality', NLLT 13, 75–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, A.: 2001, 'Genericity and the Denotation of Common Nouns in Brazilian Portuguese', Proceedings of Semantics of Under-Represented Languages: UMOP Vol. 25, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, pp. 72–80.

  • Ojeda, A.: 1991, 'Definite Descriptions and Definite Generics', Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 367–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B.: 1987, 'Noun Phrase Interpretation and Type-Shifting Principles', in J. Groenendijk et al. (eds.) Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, Foris, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B. and M. Rooth: 1983, 'Generalized Conjunction and Type Ambiguity', in R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, de Gruyter, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelletier, F. J. and L. Schubert: 1989, 'Mass Expressions', in D. Gabbay and F. Guenther (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. IV, pp. 327–407.

  • Porterfield, L. and V. Srivastav: 1988, 'Indefiniteness in the Absence of Articles: Evidence from Hindi and Indonesian', in Proceedings of WCCFL 7.

  • Prince, A. and P. Smolensky: 1993, Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar, RuCCS-TR-2, MIT Press, Cambridge, to appear.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, H.: forthcoming, Unexpected (In)definiteness: Romance Plural Determiners in Generic Contexts, Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University, New Brunswick.

  • Schmitt, C. and A. Munn: 1999, 'Against the Nominal Mapping Parameter: Bare Nouns in Brazilian Portuguese', NELS 29.

  • Schwarzschild, R.: 1996, Pluralities, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szabolcsi, A.: 1997, 'Strategies for Scope Taking', in A. Szabolcsi (ed.), Ways of Scope Taking, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Geenhoven, V.: 1998, Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions, CSLI.

  • Van Geenhoven, V.: 1999, 'Pro Properties, Contra Generalized Kinds', in Proceedings of SALT X, CLC Publications, Ithaca.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vergnaud, J. R. and M. L. Zubizarreta: 1992, 'The Definite Determiner in French and in English', Linguistic Inquiry 23(4).

  • Verma, M. K.: 1966, The Noun Phrase in Hindi and English, Motilal, New Delhi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, K.: 1991, Studies in the Semantics of Generic NP's, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, R.: 2001, Common Nouns, Classifiers, and Quantification in Chinese, Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University, New Brunswick.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zamparelli, R.: 1998, 'A Theory of Kinds, Partitives and Of/Z Possessives', in Alexiadou and Wilder (eds.). Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase, John Benjamins, Linguistics Today, 22 pp.

  • Zucchi, A. and M. White: 2001, 'Twigs, Sequences and Temporal Sequences of Predicates', Linguistics and Philosophy 24(2), 223–270.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, Rutgers University, 18 Seminary Place, New Brunswick, NJ, 08901, U.S.A. E-mail

    Veneeta Dayal

Authors
  1. Veneeta Dayal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dayal, V. Number Marking and (in)Definiteness in Kind Terms. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 393–450 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LING.0000024420.80324.67

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LING.0000024420.80324.67

Keywords

Search

Navigation