Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 393–450 | Cite as

Number Marking and (in)Definiteness in Kind Terms

  • Veneeta Dayal


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.


Crucial Role Artificial Intelligence Computational Linguistic Number Marking Universal Scale 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baker, M.: in press, Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives: Their Universal Grammar, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  2. Barker, C.: 1992, 'Group Terms in English: Representing Groups as Atoms', Journal of Semantics 9, 69–93.Google Scholar
  3. Carlson, G.: 1977, Reference to Kinds in English, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Chierchia, G.: 1982, 'Bare Plurals, Mass Nouns, and Nominalization', in Proceedings of WCCFL 1.Google Scholar
  6. Chierchia, G.: 1998, 'Reference to Kinds Across Languages', Natural Language Semantics 6, 339–405.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, A.: 1998, 'Generics, Frequency Adverbs, and Probability', Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 221–253.Google Scholar
  8. Condoravdi, C.: 1997, Descriptions in Context, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  9. Dayal, V.: 1992, 'The Singular-Plural Distinction in Hindi Generics', Proceedings of SALT II, OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 40, 39–58.Google Scholar
  10. Dayal, V.: 1999, 'Bare NP's, Reference to Kinds, and Incorporation', in Proceedings of SALT IX, Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  11. Dayal, V.: in preparation, Bare Noun Phrases, Genericity and (In)definiteness: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Diesing, M.: 1992, Indefinites, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  13. Doron, E.: 2003, 'Bare Singular Reference to Kinds', in Proceedings of SALT XIII, Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  14. Farkas, D. and H. de Swart: 2003, The Semantics of Incorporation: From Augmented Structure to Discourse Transparency, CSLI.Google Scholar
  15. Fine, K.: 1985, Reasoning with Arbitrary Objects, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  16. Gambhir, V.: 1981, Syntactic Restrictions and Discourse Functions of Word Order in Standard Hindi, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Gerstner-Link, C.: 1988, Über Generizität: Generische Nominalphrasen in singulären Aussagen und generischen Aussagen, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Munich, Munich.Google Scholar
  19. Glinert, L.: 1989, The Grammar of Modern Hebrew, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  20. Graff, D.: 2001, 'Descriptions as Predicates', Philosophical Studies 102(1), 1–42.Google Scholar
  21. Greenberg, Y.: 1998, 'Temporally Restricted Generics', in Proceedings of SALT VIII.Google Scholar
  22. Guerts, B.: 2001, 'Genericity, Anaphora and Scope', Paper presented at the Workshop on Genericity, University of Cologne.Google Scholar
  23. Heim, I.: 1982, The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite NP's, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  24. Jesperson, O.: 1927, A Modern English Grammar, Carl Winter's Universitätsbuchhandlung, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Kay, P.: 1971, 'Taxonomy and Semantic Contrast', Language 47(4), 862–887.Google Scholar
  27. Kleiber, G.: 1990, L'article le generique: La genericité sur la mode massif, Librairie Droz, Geneva.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Kratzer, A.: 1998, 'Scope or Pseudoscope? Are there Wide Scope Indefinites?', in S. Rothstein (ed.), Events and Grammar, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. Kuroda, S.-Y.: 1972, 'The Categorical and the Thetic Judgment', Foundations of Language 9, 153–185.Google Scholar
  34. Laca, B.: 1990, 'Generic Objects: Some More Pieces of the Puzzle', Lingua 81, 25–46.Google Scholar
  35. Landman, F.: 1986, Towards a Theory of Information: The Status of Partial Objects in Semantics, GRASS 6, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  36. Landman, F.: 1989, Groups I, Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 559–605.Google Scholar
  37. Lewis, D.: 1975, 'Adverbs of Quantification', in E. Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Languages, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  38. Li, A.: 1997, 'Structures and Interpretations of Nominal Expressions', manuscript, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Linsky, B. and J. Pelletier: 2000, 'Comments on Dayal's “The Singular-Plural Distinction in Kind Terms”', The Semantics Workshop, RuCCS, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  41. Löbner, S.: 1985, 'Definites', Journal of Semantics 4, 279–326.Google Scholar
  42. Longobardi, G.: 1994, 'Reference and Proper Names', Linguistic Inquiry 25(4), 609–665.Google Scholar
  43. Longobardi, G.: 1999, 'How Comparative is Semantics? A Unified Parametric Theory of Bare Nouns and Proper Names', Unpublished University of Trieste manuscript.Google Scholar
  44. Markman, V.: 2002, 'Aspect in the Interpretation of Bare Nominals', Unpublished Rutgers University manuscript.Google Scholar
  45. Mohanan, T.: 1995, 'Wordhood and Lexicality', NLLT 13, 75–134.Google Scholar
  46. 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.Google Scholar
  47. Ojeda, A.: 1991, 'Definite Descriptions and Definite Generics', Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 367–398.Google Scholar
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. 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.Google Scholar
  51. Porterfield, L. and V. Srivastav: 1988, 'Indefiniteness in the Absence of Articles: Evidence from Hindi and Indonesian', in Proceedings of WCCFL 7.Google Scholar
  52. Prince, A. and P. Smolensky: 1993, Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar, RuCCS-TR-2, MIT Press, Cambridge, to appear.Google Scholar
  53. Robinson, H.: forthcoming, Unexpected (In)definiteness: Romance Plural Determiners in Generic Contexts, Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University, New Brunswick.Google Scholar
  54. Schmitt, C. and A. Munn: 1999, 'Against the Nominal Mapping Parameter: Bare Nouns in Brazilian Portuguese', NELS 29.Google Scholar
  55. Schwarzschild, R.: 1996, Pluralities, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  56. Szabolcsi, A.: 1997, 'Strategies for Scope Taking', in A. Szabolcsi (ed.), Ways of Scope Taking, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  57. Van Geenhoven, V.: 1998, Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions, CSLI.Google Scholar
  58. Van Geenhoven, V.: 1999, 'Pro Properties, Contra Generalized Kinds', in Proceedings of SALT X, CLC Publications, Ithaca.Google Scholar
  59. Vergnaud, J. R. and M. L. Zubizarreta: 1992, 'The Definite Determiner in French and in English', Linguistic Inquiry 23(4).Google Scholar
  60. Verma, M. K.: 1966, The Noun Phrase in Hindi and English, Motilal, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  61. Wilkinson, K.: 1991, Studies in the Semantics of Generic NP's, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  62. Yang, R.: 2001, Common Nouns, Classifiers, and Quantification in Chinese, Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University, New Brunswick.Google Scholar
  63. 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.Google Scholar
  64. Zucchi, A. and M. White: 2001, 'Twigs, Sequences and Temporal Sequences of Predicates', Linguistics and Philosophy 24(2), 223–270.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Veneeta Dayal
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickU.S.A. E-mail

Personalised recommendations