Non-definiteness and Plurality

368 Pages·2006·1.667 MB·English

by  Svetlana Vogeleer, Liliane Tasmowski

<DOCINFOAUTHOR""TITLE"Non-definitenessandPlurality"SUBJECT"LinguistikAktuell/LinguisticsToday,Volume95"KEYWORDS""SIZEHEIGHT"240"WIDTH"160"VOFFSET"4">
Non-definitenessandPlurality
LinguistikAktuell/LinguisticsToday
LinguistikAktuell/LinguisticsToday(LA)providesaplatformfororiginalmonographstudies
intosynchronicanddiachroniclinguistics.StudiesinLAconfrontempiricalandtheoretical
problemsasthesearecurrentlydiscussedinsyntax,semantics,morphology,phonology,and
systematicpragmaticswiththeaimtoestablishrobustempiricalgeneralizationswithina
universalisticperspective.
SeriesEditors
WernerAbraham EllyvanGelderen
UniversityofVienna ArizonaStateUniversity
AdvisoryEditorialBoard
CedricBoeckx IanRoberts
HarvardUniversity CambridgeUniversity
GuglielmoCinque KenSafir
UniversityofVenice RutgersUniversity,NewBrunswickNJ
GüntherGrewendorf LisadeMenaTravis
J.W.Goethe-University,Frankfurt McGillUniversity
LilianeHaegeman StenVikner
UniversityofLille,France UniversityofAarhus
HubertHaider C.Jan-WouterZwart
UniversityofSalzburg UniversityofGroningen
ChristerPlatzack
UniversityofLund
Volume95
Non-definitenessandPlurality
EditedbySvetlanaVogeleerandLilianeTasmowski
Non-definiteness and Plurality
Editedby
Svetlana Vogeleer
InstitutLibreMarieHaps,UniversitéLibredeBruxelles
Liliane Tasmowski
UniversityofAntwerp
JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany
Amsterdam(cid:2)/(cid:2)Philadelphia
TM Thepaperusedinthispublicationmeetstheminimumrequirements
8
ofAmericanNationalStandardforInformationSciences–Permanence
ofPaperforPrintedLibraryMaterials,ansiz39.48-1984.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Non-definitenessandplurality /editedbySvetlanaVogeleer,Liliane
Tasmowski.
p. cm.(LinguistikAktuell/LinguisticsToday,issn0166–0829;v.95)
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindexes.
1.Definiteness(Linguistics)2.Grammar,Comparativeandgeneral--
Number3.Grammar,Comparativeandgeneral--Numerals.4.Grammar,
Comparativeandgeneral--Aspect.I.Vogeleer,Sv.(Svetlana)II.
Tasmowski,Liliane.III.Series.
P299.D43.N66 2006
401’.43--dc22 2006049883
isbn9027233594(Hb;alk.paper)
©2006–JohnBenjaminsB.V.
Nopartofthisbookmaybereproducedinanyform,byprint,photoprint,microfilm,or
anyothermeans,withoutwrittenpermissionfromthepublisher.
JohnBenjaminsPublishingCo.·P.O.Box36224·1020meAmsterdam·TheNetherlands
JohnBenjaminsNorthAmerica·P.O.Box27519·Philadelphiapa19118-0519·usa
Table of contents
Introduction 1
SvetlanaVogeleerandLilianeTasmowski
PartI. Non-definiteness,Plurality,andIncorporation
Themeaningfulboundsofincorporation 35
GregCarlson
Barenouns,numberandtypesofincorporation 51
CarmenDobrovie-Sorin,ToniaBleamandM.TeresaEspinal
Theunmarkeddeterminer 81
DonkaF.Farkas
BareobjectsinKorean:(Pseudo-)incorporationand(in)definiteness 107
Song-NimKwonandAnneZribi-Hertz
Barepluralsinobjectposition:Whichverbsfailtogiveexistential
readings,andwhy? 133
SheilaGlasbey
PartII. AlternativestotheIncorporationApproach:
RelatingNon-definitenessandPluralitytoAspect
Aspectualimplicationsofthesemanticsofpluralindefinites 161
HenriëttedeSwart
Indefinites,quantifiersandpluractionals:
Whatscopeeffectstellusabouteventpluralities 191
BrendaLaca
Genericsentencesandbareplurals 219
JacquelineGuéron
 Tableofcontents
PartIII. NumericalNon-definites
Indefinitetimephrases,insituscope,anddual-perspectiveintensionality 237
FredLandman
Identityofthedomainofquantificationfornumerals 267
ManaKobuchi-Philip
Scopeshiftwithnumeralindefinites:Syntaxorprocessing? 291
TanyaReinhart
Take‘five’:Themeaninganduseofanumberword 311
BartGeurts
Thesemanticsofparanumerals 331
FrancisCorblin
Index 355
Introduction
SvetlanaVogeleerandLilianeTasmowski
InstitutLibreMarieHaps&LTPC(UniversitéLibredeBruxelles)/
UniversiteitAntwerpen&KVAB
The articles gatheredin this volume1 deal with the interaction of two properties
ofnominals:non-definitenessandplurality.Thepropertyofbeingnon-definiteis
common to indefinite plurals, such as des-indefinites in French, and those plu-
rals that are not introduced by a determiner.Of the latter, two subgroups are of
concernhere:barepluralnominalsandnon-definitenumericalnounphrases.
By itself, the very use of the term ‘bare plurals’ (henceforth BPs) in non-
determinerless languages suggests some kind of deficiency, more specifically in
connection with the existentialreadingof bare forms:theyseemto be devoidof
referentialpotentiality.Giventhisassumption,itisratherstraigthforwardtosup-
pose that their presumed lack of referentialforce must be compensated by their
governingpredicate,generallytheverb:theverbwillsyntacticallyand/orseman-
tically ‘incorporate’ the BP. In Part I, various aspects of the problems raised by
thiskindofapproach–howtodefinethenotionof‘incorporation’,inwhatkind
of contexts it is allowed, what are its effects, where to set its boundaries – and
related matters are tackled on. The papers in Part II provide alternatives to the
incorporationapproach inrelatingnon-definitenessandpluralitytoaspect. Part
IIIconcentratesonissuesrelatedtonon-definitenumericalnounphrases:these-
manticsofnumericaltime-phrases,therepresentationofnumericalsinclassifier-
andnon-classifierlanguages,scopeinteractionsofnumericalNPs,theatleast-and
exactly-readingofnumericals,andreferentialpropertiesoftheirexplicitcounter-
parts.
 SvetlanaVogeleerandLilianeTasmowski
. Non-definiteness,plurality,andincorporation
. Peculiaritiesofbareplurals
Non-definitenounphrases,unlikedefiniteones,arenotboundtoaconstant,sta-
blereferent.Thispropertyexplainsthefactthattheydonotgiverisetoanytrouble
intermsofcontradiction(1a)orexcludedmiddle(1b):
(1) a. Somechildrenareinthegardenandsomearenot.
a(cid:1). #Thechildrenareinthegardenandthechildrenarenot.
b. Moststudentsfailedtheexaminationormostdidnot.(cid:2)=
b(cid:1). Thestudentsfailedtheexaminationorthestudentsdidnot.
aswellastheirsensitivitytoscopeeffects:
c. Everystudentinthisroomknowstwolanguages(thesameornot).
c(cid:1). Everystudentknowsthetwolanguages.
Amongnon-definitenounphrases,somenecessarilytriggerdistributivereadings:
(2) Everyman/Mostmenliftedapiano.
which indicates that they do not create groups (see Section 3). These noun
phrases–quantificationalNPs–arenotconsideredinthisvolume.
Some non-definitepluralNPs(some,three)are ambiguousbetween a ‘weak’
anda‘strong’reading.TheseNPsallowdere–readings(3a),oppositiontoothers
(3b), and, in some rather exceptional cases, an inverse-scope readings (3c) (see
Section3.3):
(3) a. Heisaskingfortworesearchassistants. (possiblytwospecificones)
b. Johnbroughtsome/threebooksandMarybroughtothers.
c. Look!Twoflagsarehangingonthreebuildings!Theotherbuildingsonly
haveoneflag. (six-flagreading)
Contrastingly,barepluralNPsreactnegativelytotheseenvironments:
(4) a. Heisaskingforresearchassistants. (nospecificreading)
b. #IcarriedbooksandMarycarriedothers.
c. Twoflagsarehangingonthreebuildings. (noinverse-scopereading)
BPsdonotcontributequantitativelimitationstotheirreferent(Guéron,thisvol-
ume).Thisenablesthemtotriggerdurativeoriterative(5a)andhabitualcharac-
terizingaspectualeffects(5b)(deSwart,thisvolume),andtocombinewith‘crowd’
predicates(5c):
Introduction 
(5) a. Hecouldwriteletters/plantbegonias/killrabbitsforhours.
b. Shepaintslandscapes.
c. ParticipantsflockedfromeverywheretotheMarketsquare.
Furthermore,theyrefusefloatingdistributivequantifiers,whichconfirmsthatby
themselvestheydonothaveaccesstoindividualatoms.
(6) a. #Theywrotearticleseach.
b. Theywrotetwoarticleseach.
TheseobservationsgobackatleasttoCarlson(1980),whoformulatedthemand
captured their significance. Carlson showed at the same time that BPs cannot
be regardedassimple pluralcounterpartofindefinitesingularNPs,asindefinite
singularsandBPsdonotreactinthesameway.
Although GermanicandRomance BPs differin that Romance BPs normally
only give rise to existential readings whereas Germanic BPs productively allow
generic reading, Romance BPs can by and large be equated with Germanic BPs
with respect to the abovementionedproperties (see Dobrovie, Bleam & Espinal,
anddeSwart,thisvolume,andthereferencestherein).
French,however,exhibitsaspecificpattern.InFrench,asarule,thereisnoau-
dibledifferencebetweenpetitgarçon(‘littleboy’)andpetitsgarçons(‘littleboys’),
andmoreoftenthannot,adjunctionofaverbdoesnothaveanydisambiguating
effect:petit(s)garçon(s) mange(nt)(‘little boy(s) eat(s)’). WhereasaRomance or
Germanicbare pluralnoun can generallyfunction as a full-fledgedcomplement
inasentence,thisisnotthecaseinFrench:
(7) a. Vendecasas(Span.‘S/hesellshouses’);Repara˘ scaune (Roman.‘S/here-
pairs chairs’); Hij heeft vijanden (Dutch ‘He has enemies’); He has got
enemies(En).
a(cid:1). *Ilvendmaisons (French‘Hesellshouses’).
In French, number is no longer signaled by case marking on the noun but is
encliticallyexpressedonanovertdeterminer:
b. {L-,c-,m-,d-}esgarçons(‘theboys’,‘theseboys’,‘myboys’,‘boys’)
Suchadeterminerisrequiredtomanifestthepluralandhencethefunctioningof
thepluralnouninanargumentalposition:
c. Ilvenddesmaisons.
SincebarepluralshavedesN asacounterpartinFrench(Bosveld-deSmet1998),
itisexpectedthatbarepluralsanddesN willhavethesamerangeofuses.Thisis
notentirelytrue,whichsuggeststhatdesmaybeevolvingfrompluraltoindefinite