Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 339–405 | Cite as

Reference to Kinds across Language

  • Gennaro Chierchia

Abstract

This paper is devoted to the study of bare nominal arguments (i.e., determinerless NPs occurring in canonical argumental positions) from a crosslinguistic point of view. It is proposed that languages may vary in what they let their NPs denote. In some languages (like Chinese), NPs are argumental (names of kinds) and can thus occur freely without determiner in argument position; in others they are predicates (Romance), and this prevents NPs from occurring as arguments, unless the category D(eterminer) is projected. Finally, there are languages (like Germanic or Slavic) which allow both predicative and argumental NPs; these languages, being the ‘union’ of the previous two types, are expected to behave like Romance for certain aspects of their nominal system (the singular count portion) and like Chinese for others (the mass and plural portions). This hypothesis (the ‘Nominal Mapping Parameter’) is investigated not just through typological considerations, but also through a detailed contrastive analysis of bare arguments in Germanic (English) vs. Romance (Italian). Some general consequences of this view, which posits a limited variation in the mapping from syntax into semantics, for current theories of Universal Grammar and acquisition are considered.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Barker, C.: 1992, ‘Group Terms in English: Representing Groups as Atoms’, Journal of Semantics 9, 69–93.Google Scholar
  2. Barwise, J. and R. Cooper: 1981, ‘Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language’, Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 159–219.Google Scholar
  3. Benincà, P.: 1980, ‘Nomi senza Articolo’, Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 5, 51–63.Google Scholar
  4. Berman, S.: 1991, The Semantics of Open Sentences, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  5. Cardinaletti, A. and G. Giusti: 1992, ‘Partitive Ne and the QP-Hypothesis’, in E. Fava (ed.), Proceedings of the XVII Meeting of Generative Grammar, Rosenberg and Sellier, Turin.Google Scholar
  6. Carlson, G.: 1977, Reference to Kinds in English, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Published in 1980 by Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Carlson, G.: 1996, ‘A Note on Belladonnas’, paper delivered at the 1996 LSA Annual Meeting.Google Scholar
  8. Carlson, G. and J. Pelletier (eds): 1995, The Generic Book, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  9. Cheng, L. and R. Sybesma: 1996, ‘yi-wan Tang, yi-ge Tang: Classifiers and Massifiers’, ms., UC Irvine and HIL, Leiden; forthcoming in Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, Tsing-Hua University, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  10. Chierchia, G.: 1984, Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Published in 1988 by Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Chierchia, G.: 1995a, ‘Individual Level Predicates as Inherent Generics’, in G. Carlson and J. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  12. Chierchia, G.: 1995b, Dynamics of Meaning, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  13. Chierchia, G.: 1996, ‘Plurality of Mass Nouns and the Notion of “Semantic Parameter”’, DIPSCO Working Papers, Milan. A revised version appeared in S. Rothstein (ed.), Events and Grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1998.Google Scholar
  14. Chierchia, G.: 1998, ‘Partitives, Reference to Kinds and Semantic Variation’, in Proceedings of SALT VII, Cornell University, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Chierchia, G. and R. Turner: 1988, ‘Semantics and Property Theory’, Linguistics and Philosophy 11, 261–302.Google Scholar
  16. Cinque, G: 1990, Types of A'-Dependencies, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  17. Cinque, G: 1994, ‘On the Evidence for Partial N-movement in the Romance DP’, in G. Cinque, J. Koster, J-Y. Pollock, L. Rizzi and R. Zanuttini (eds.), Paths Towards Universal Grammar, Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  18. Chomsky, N.: 1995, The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  19. Contreras, H.: 1986, ‘Spanish Bare NP's and the ECP’, in I. Bordelois, H. Contreras and K. Zagona (eds.), Generative Studies in Spanish Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  20. Dayal, V.: 1992, ‘The Singular-Plural Distinction in Hindi Generics’, in Proceedings of SALT II(OSU Working Papers in Linguistics), The Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
  21. Delfitto, D. and J. Schroten: 1992, ‘Bare Plurals and the Number Affix in DP's’, OTS Working Papers, OTS, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  22. De Villiers, J. and P. De Villiers: 1973, ‘A Cross-sectional Study of the Acquisition of Grammatical Morphemes in Child Speech’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2, 267–278.Google Scholar
  23. Diesing, M.: 1992, Indefinites, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  24. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. and B. Laca: 1996, ‘Generic Bare NP's’, ms, University of Paris.Google Scholar
  25. Evans, G.: 1980, ‘Pronouns’, Linguistic Inquiry 11, 337–362.Google Scholar
  26. Fox, D.: 1995, ‘Economy and Scope’, Natural Language Semantics 3, 283–341.Google Scholar
  27. Frege, G.: 1891, ‘Funktion und Begriff’, Pohle, Jena; English translation in P. Geach and M. Black (eds.), Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  28. Geenhoven, V. van: 1996, Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  29. Gerstner, C. and M. Krifka: 1993, ‘Genericity’, in J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld and Th. Venneman (eds.), Handbuch der Syntax, de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  30. Gillon, B.: 1992, ‘Towards a Common Semantics for English Count and Mass Nouns’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 15, 597–640.Google Scholar
  31. Giorgi, A. and G. Longobardi: 1991, The Syntax of Noun Phrases, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  32. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof: 1984, Studies in the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers, Akademisch Proefschrift, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  33. Heim, I.: 1982, The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite NP's, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Published in 1989 by Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  34. Heim, I.: 1991, ‘Artikel und Definitheit’, in A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich (eds.), Handbuch der Semantik, de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  35. Higginbotham, J.: 1994, ‘Mass and Count Quantifiers’, Linguistics and Philosophy 17, 447–480.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Kleiber, 1990, L'article ‘le’ generique: La genericite sur la mode massif, Librarie Droz, Geneva.Google Scholar
  38. Kratzer, A.: 1989, ‘An Investigation of the Lumps of Thought’, Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 607–653.Google Scholar
  39. Kratzer, A.: 1995, ‘Individual Level Predicates vs. Stage Level Predicates’, in G. Carlson and J. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  40. Kratzer, A.: 1996, ‘Scope or Pseudoscope? Are There Wide Scope Indefinites?’, ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Also in S. Rothstein (ed.), Events and Grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1998.Google Scholar
  41. Krifka, M.: 1988, ‘The Relational Theory of Generics’, in M. Krifka (ed.), Genericity in Natural Language, SNS-Bericht 88–42, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  42. Krifka, M.: 1989, ‘Nominal Reference, Temporal Constitution and Quantification in Event Semantics’, in J. van Benthem, P. van Emde Boas and R. Bartsch (eds.), Semantics and Contextual Expressions, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  43. Krifka, M.: 1995, ‘Common Nouns: A Contrastive Analysis of Chinese and English’, in G. Carlson and J. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  44. Krifka, M. et al.: 1995, ‘Genericity: An Introduction’ in G. Carlson and J. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  45. Kripke, S.: 1972, ‘Naming and Necessity’, in D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  46. Lahiri, U.: 1991, Embedded Interrogatives and the Predicates that Embed Them, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  47. Landman, F.: 1989, ‘Groups I’, Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 559–605.Google Scholar
  48. Landman, F.: 1991, Structures for Semantics, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  49. Landman, F.: 1996, Events and Plurality: The Jerusalem Lectures, ms., Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
  50. Lewis, D.: 1975, ‘Adverbs of Quantification’, in E. Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  51. Li, Y-h. A.: 1997, ‘Structures and Interpretations of Nominal Expressions’, ms., University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  52. Link, G.: 1983, ‘The Logical Analysis of Plural and Mass Nouns: A Lattice Theoretic Approach’, in R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze and A. von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, de Gruyer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  53. Longobardi, G.: 1994, ‘Reference and Proper Names: A Theory of N-Movement in Syntax and Logical Form’, Linguistic Inquiry 25, 609–665.Google Scholar
  54. Longobardi, G.: 1996, ‘The Syntax of N-Raising: A Minimalist Theory’, OTS Working Papers, OTS, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  55. McNally, L.: 1992, An Interpretation of the English Existential Construction, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
  56. McNally, L.: 1995, ‘Bare Plurals in Spanish Are Interpreted as Properties’, ms, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
  57. Milsark, G.: 1974, Existential Sentences in English, Ph.D. dissertation, MITGoogle Scholar
  58. Moro, A.: 1996, The Raising of Predicates, Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  59. Ojeda, A.: 1993, Linguistic Individuals, CSLI, Stanford.Google Scholar
  60. Partee, B. H.: 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
  61. Partee, B. H. and M. Rooth: 1983, ‘Generalized Conjunction and Type Ambiguity’, in R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze and A. von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  62. Quine, W. v. O.: 1939, ‘Designation and Existence’, Journal of Philosophy 36, 701–709.Google Scholar
  63. Quine, W. v. O.: 1960, Word and Object, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  64. Reinhart, T.: 1997, ‘Quantifier Scope: How Labor is Divided between QR and Choice Functions’, Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 335–397.Google Scholar
  65. Rizzi, L.: 1990, Relativized Minimality, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  66. Rizzi, L.: 1996, ‘On the Fine Structure of the Left Periphery’, ms., University of Geneva.Google Scholar
  67. Schwarzschild, R.: 1990, ‘Against Groups’ in M. Stokhof and L. Torenvliet (eds.), Proceedings of the VIIth Amsterdam Colloquium, ITLI, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  68. Schwarzschild, R.: 1996, Pluralities, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  69. Selkirk, L.: 1977, ‘Some Remarks on Noun Phrase Structure’, in P. Culicover, T. Wasow and A. Akmajian (eds.), Formal Syntax, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  70. Sharvy: 1980, ‘A More General Theory of Definite Descriptions’, The Philosophical Review 89, 607–624.Google Scholar
  71. Stowell, T.: 1978, ‘What Was There Before There Was There’, in D. Farkas et al. (eds.), Proceedings of CLS 14, Chicago.Google Scholar
  72. Stowell, T.: 1991, ‘Determiners in NP and DP’, in K. Leffel and D. Bouchard (eds.), Views on Phrase Structure, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  73. Torrego, E.: 1989, ‘Unergative-Unaccusative Alternations in Spanish’, MIT Working Papers, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  74. Wexler, K. and R. Manzini: 1987, ‘Parameters and Learnability’, in T. Roeper and E. Williams (eds.) Parameter Setting, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  75. Wilkinson, K.: 1991, Studies in the Semantics of Generic NP's, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at AmherstGoogle Scholar
  76. Wilkinson, K.: 1995, ‘The Semantics of the Common Noun Kind’, in G. Carlson and J. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  77. Winter, Y.: 1997, ‘Choice Functions and the Scopal Semantics of Indefinites’, Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 399–467.Google Scholar
  78. Zamparelli, R.: 1995, Layers in the Determiner Phrase, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Rochester.Google Scholar
  79. Zucchi, A.: 1995, ‘The Ingredients of the Definiteness Effect’, Natural Language Semantics 3, 33–78.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gennaro Chierchia
    • 1
  1. 1.Istituto di glottologia e lingue orientaliUniversità degli studi di MilanoMilanoItaly, E-mail: Email

Personalised recommendations