Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 195–222 | Cite as

Bare nominals and reference to capacities

  • Henriëtte de SwartEmail author
  • Yoad Winter
  • Joost Zwarts
Original Paper

This paper concentrates on the syntax and semantics of bare nominals in Germanic and Romance languages. These languages do not normally allow nominals to occur without an article. However, some syntactic configurations, including predicative constructions, supplementives and some prepositional phrases, allow bareness of certain nominals. We argue that bare nominals in these constructions refer to capacities: professions, religions, nationalities or other roles in society. Capacities are analyzed as entities of type e, sortally distinct from regular individuals as well as kinds. We further argue that the capacity interpretation is associated with NP—a layer within the DP that lacks number features. This accounts for the number-neutral status of bare nominals. We also show some patterns in languages other than Romance and Germanic that provide further cross-linguistic support for the postulation of capacities as a separate ontological category, specific to a low position within the DP.


Indefinite Bare nominal Predication Capacity Number DP structure 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allan R., Holmes P., Lundskær-Nielsen T. (1995). Danish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge, London and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Bobaljik J. (1995). Morpho-syntax:  the syntax of verbal inflection. Ph.D. dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. Borthen, K. (2003). Norwegian bare singulars. doctoral thesis, Trondheim.Google Scholar
  4. Broekhuis, H., Keizer, E., & den Dikken, M. (2003). Nouns and noun phrases, Modern grammar of Dutch. Occasional papers 4, Tilburg.Google Scholar
  5. Butt J., Benjamin C. (1988). A new reference grammar of modern Spanish. Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlson, G. (1980). Reference to kinds in English. New York: Garland. [Appeared in 1977 as a Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Reproduced by the IULC, Bloomington.]Google Scholar
  7. Chierchia G. (1998). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6, 339–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dayal V. (2004). Number marking and indefinites in kind terms. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(4): 393–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. den Dikken M. (2006). Relations and linkers. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. Déprez, V. (2001). On the nature of Haitian bare NPs. In: D. Cresti, C. Tortora, & T. Satterfield (Eds.), Current issues in Romance linguistics: Selected papers from the 29th Linguistics Symposium on Romance Languages (pp. 45–62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  11. Déprez V. (2005). Morphological number, semantic number and bare nouns. Lingua 115, 857–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Doron E. (2004). Bare singular reference to kinds. In: Young R., Zhou Y. (eds). Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 13. CLC Publications, Ithaca, NY, pp. 73–90Google Scholar
  13. Engel U. (1996). Deutsche grammatik. Julius Groos Verlag, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  14. Farkas D., de Swart H. (2003). The semantics of incorporation. CSLI Publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Farkas, D. & de Swart, H. (2006). Article choice in plural generics. To appear in Lingua.Google Scholar
  16. Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., de Rooij, J., & van den Toorn, M.C. (1997). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst (2nd edn.). Groningen/Deurne: Martinus Nijhoff uitgevers/Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar
  17. Holmes P., Hinchliffe I. (1994). Swedish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge, London and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Krifka M. (2004). Bare NPs: kind-referring, indefinites, both, or neither?. In: Young R., Zhou Y. (eds). Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 13. CLC Publications, Ithaca, NY, pp. 180–203Google Scholar
  19. Link G. (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: a lattice theoretical approach. In: Bauerle R., Schwarze C., von Stechow A. (eds). Meaning, use and interpretation of language. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 302–323Google Scholar
  20. Maiden M., Robustelli C. (2000). A reference grammar of modern Italian. Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Matushansky, O., & Spector, B. (2005). Tinker, tailor, soldier, spy. In E. Maier, C. Bary & J. Huitink (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn & Bedeutung 9 (pp. 241–255). Nijmegen: NCS.Google Scholar
  22. McNally, L., & Boleda Torrent, G. (2004). Relational adjectives as properties of kinds. In P. Cabredo-Hofherr & O. Bonami (Eds.), Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics 5 (pp. 179–196). Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
  23. Montague, R. (1974). Formal philosophy, selected papers of Richard Montague, R. Thomason (Ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Munn A., Schmitt C. (2005). Number and indefinites. Lingua 115, 821–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Partee, B. (1987). Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers (pp. 115–143). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  26. Pompilus, P. (1976). Contribution à l’étude comparée du créole et du français: morphologie et syntaxe. Port-au-Prince: Edition Caraibes.Google Scholar
  27. Ritter, E. (1991). Two functional categories in noun phrases: evidence from Modern Hebrew. In: Rothstein S. (eds). Perspectives on phrase structure: Heads and licensing, Syntax and Semantics 25 (pp. 37–62). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Roodenburg J. (2004a). French bare arguments are not extinct: the case of coordinated bare nouns. Linguistic Inquiry 35(2): 301–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roodenburg, J. (2004b). Pour une approche scalaire de la déficience nominale: la position du français dans une théorie des “noms nus”. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam/Paris 8.Google Scholar
  30. Strandskogen Á.-B., Strandskogen R. (1986). Norwegian: an essential grammar. Routledge, London and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. de Swart, H., Winter, Y., Zwarts, J. (2005). Bare predicate nominals in Dutch. In E. Maier, C. Bary, & J. Huitink (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 9 (pp. 446–460). Nijmegen: NCS.Google Scholar
  32. de Swart, & Zwarts, J. (2006). Less form, more meaning: why bare nominals are special. MS., Nias/Utrecht/Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  33. Zamparelli, R. (1996). Layers in the determiner phrase. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Rochester.Google Scholar
  34. Zamparelli, R., (Ed). (2005a). The structure of (in)definiteness: issues in the form and interpretation of noun phrases. special issue of Lingua, 115(6).Google Scholar
  35. Zamparelli R. (2005b). Introduction: some questions about (in)definiteness. Lingua 115, 759–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zimmermann E. (1993). On the proper treatment of opacity in certain verbs. Natural Language Semantics 1, 149–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henriëtte de Swart
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yoad Winter
    • 2
  • Joost Zwarts
    • 3
  1. 1.UiL-OTS/FrenchUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Computer ScienceTechnionHaifaIsrael
  3. 3.Department of LinguisticsRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations