scholarly journals Definiteness, Uniqueness, and Maximality in Languages With and Without Articles

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 311-366
Author(s):  
Radek Šimík ◽  
Christoph Demian
Keyword(s):  
Null Hypothesis ◽  
Definite Descriptions ◽  
Bare Nominal ◽  
Bare Nominals ◽  
Type Shifting

Abstract We present a number of experiments testing influential hypotheses about the meaning of definite descriptions (in languages with articles, represented here by German) and bare nominals (in articleless languages, represented here by Russian). Our results are in line with the commonly entertained hypothesis that definite descriptions convey uniqueness (if singular) or maximality (if plural), but fail to support two hypotheses about bare nominal interpretation, namely that singular bare nominals convey uniqueness ( Dayal 2004) and that topical bare nominals convey uniqueness/maximality ( Geist 2010, among many others). Uniqueness or maximality inferences are expected to arise via covert type-shifting under these approaches. Our results are compatible with what we take to be the null hypothesis, namely that bare nominals in articleless languages are existential and free of presuppositional semantics, even if they correspond—in their use—to definite descriptions ( Heim 2011).

Articulated Definiteness without Articles

2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 501-536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Jenks
Keyword(s):  
Subject Position ◽  
Definite Article ◽  
Bare Nouns ◽  
Bare Nominal ◽  
Type Shifting

While it lacks a definite article, Mandarin makes a principled distinction between unique and anaphoric definites: unique definites are realized with a bare noun, and anaphoric definites are realized with a demonstrative, except in subject position. The following proposals account for these facts: (a) bare nouns achieve definite interpretations via a last-resort type-shifting operator ι, which has a unique definite meaning; (b) demonstratives can occur as anaphoric definites because they have a semantic argument beyond their nominal restriction that can be filled by an index; and (c) bare nominal subjects are topics. A principle called Index! requires that indexical expressions be used whenever possible. Mandarin is contrasted with Cantonese, which, like English, is shown to have access to an ambiguous definite article.

Bare Nominals

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bert Le Bruyn ◽  
Henriëtte de Swart ◽  
Joost Zwarts
Keyword(s):  
Definite Article ◽  
Count Nouns ◽  
Narrow Scope ◽  
Bare Plurals ◽  
Nominal Structure ◽  
Bare Nouns ◽  
Bare Nominal ◽  
Bare Nominals ◽  
Made In ◽  
Generic Sentences

Bare nominals (also called “bare nouns”) are nominal structures without an overt article or other determiner. The distinction between a bare noun and a noun that is part of a larger nominal structure must be made in context: Milk is a bare nominal in I bought milk, but not in I bought the milk. Bare nouns have a limited distribution: In subject or object position, English allows bare mass nouns and bare plurals, but not bare singular count nouns (*I bought table). Bare singular count nouns only appear in special configurations, such as coordination (I bought table and chairs for £182). From a semantic perspective, it is noteworthy that bare nouns achieve reference without the support of a determiner. A full noun phrase like the cookies refers to the maximal sum of cookies in the context, because of the definite article the. English bare plurals have two main interpretations: In generic sentences they refer to the kind (Cookies are sweet), in episodic sentences they refer to some exemplars of the kind (Cookies are in the cabinet). Bare nouns typically take narrow scope with respect to other scope-bearing operators like negation. The typology of bare nouns reveals substantial variation, and bare nouns in languages other than English may have different distributions and meanings. But genericity and narrow scope are recurring features in the cross-linguistic study of bare nominals.

pro as a Minimal nP: Toward a Unified Approach to Pro-Drop

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 487-526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pilar P. Barbosa
Keyword(s):  
Basic Mechanism ◽  
Null Subjects ◽  
Unified Approach ◽  
Argument Position ◽  
Null Subject ◽  
Null Arguments ◽  
Existential Closure ◽  
Bare Nominal ◽  
Null Element ◽  
Type Shifting

In this article, I examine the properties of the partial null subject languages (NSLs) when compared with the consistent and the discourse pro-drop languages and argue that the same basic mechanism underlies pro-drop in partial as well as discourse pro-drop: namely, null NP anaphora, as originally proposed in Tomioka 2003 for discourse pro-drop. The two sets of languages show a correlation between the occurrence of null arguments and the availability of a bare nominal in argument position. I suggest that the null element is a default, minimally specified nominal—the same item that arguably appears as a complement of D in pronouns. It is a proform that minimally consists of the categorizing head n, lacking a root, the meaning of which is ‘entity’ (a property that is trivially true of any individual in the domain). nP introduces a variable that may be bound under Existential Closure, yielding the impersonal interpretation; otherwise, its denotation is type-shifted to an individual (ɩ) under the appropriate conditions. The crosslinguistic differences found in the interpretation of the null subject depend on the resources available in particular languages for application of ɩ type-shifting: the (bare NP) languages that lack such resources only have quasi-argumental and impersonal null subjects (semi pro-drop languages). Finally, I show that the idea that pro reduces to [nP e] can also be successfully extended to the consistent NSLs, provided it is assumed that, in this type of NSL, the head bearing agreement morphology bears a D-feature and interpretable ϕ-features.

scholarly journals The sensitivity of natural language to the distinction between class nouns and role nouns

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 438
Author(s):  
Sarah Zobel
Keyword(s):  
Natural Language ◽  
Definite Descriptions ◽  
Descriptive Content ◽  
Count Nouns ◽  
Copular Clauses ◽  
Type Shifting

This paper argues that language makes a distinction among individual count nouns between class nouns (e.g., man) and role nouns (e.g., judge). This is reflected in the effects of class nouns vs. role nouns in three positions: (i) the complement of as in restrictive role as-phrases, (ii) the descriptive content of definite descriptions in a certain type of logical argument, and (iii) the predicative expression in German copular clauses. To capture the sensitivity to this distinction formally, I introduce a domain of roles D_r and a type-shifting operator PLAY , which connects D_r to the domain of individuals D_e . Using these tools, I propose analyses of the contrasts arising in (i)–(iii) that account for the observed sensitivity to role nouns.

scholarly journals Bare nominals and optimal inference

2006 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-84
Author(s):  
Ariel Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Optimality Theory ◽  
Bare Nominal ◽  
Bidirectional Optimality Theory ◽  
Bare Nominals

In this paper I discuss four type of bare nominal, and note that, in some sense, all of them appear to imply stereotypicality. I consider an account in terms of Bidirectional Optimality Theory: unmarked (bare) forms give rise to unmarked (stereotypical) interpretations. However, it turns out that, while the form of bare numerals is unmarked, the interpretation sometimes is not. I suggest that the crucial notion is not unmarkedness, but optimal inference: unmarked forms give rise to interpretations that are best used for drawing inferences. I propose a revision of Bidirectional Optimality Theory to reflect this.  

An Alternative to Cohen's κ

2006 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander von Eye
Keyword(s):  
Simulation Study ◽  
Null Hypothesis ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Alternative Measure ◽  
Rater Agreement ◽  
Verbal Processing ◽  
Heavy Tailed ◽  
Applicant Selection

At the level of manifest categorical variables, a large number of coefficients and models for the examination of rater agreement has been proposed and used. The most popular of these is Cohen's κ. In this article, a new coefficient, κ s , is proposed as an alternative measure of rater agreement. Both κ and κ s allow researchers to determine whether agreement in groups of two or more raters is significantly beyond chance. Stouffer's z is used to test the null hypothesis that κ s = 0. The coefficient κ s allows one, in addition to evaluating rater agreement in a fashion parallel to κ, to (1) examine subsets of cells in agreement tables, (2) examine cells that indicate disagreement, (3) consider alternative chance models, (4) take covariates into account, and (5) compare independent samples. Results from a simulation study are reported, which suggest that (a) the four measures of rater agreement, Cohen's κ, Brennan and Prediger's κ n , raw agreement, and κ s are sensitive to the same data characteristics when evaluating rater agreement and (b) both the z-statistic for Cohen's κ and Stouffer's z for κ s are unimodally and symmetrically distributed, but slightly heavy-tailed. Examples use data from verbal processing and applicant selection.

Proving the null hypothesis.

1991 ◽  
Vol 46 (10) ◽  
pp. 1089-1089 ◽  
Author(s):  
John J. Bartko
Keyword(s):  
Null Hypothesis

The inscrutable null hypothesis.

1998 ◽  
Vol 53 (7) ◽  
pp. 796-796 ◽  
Author(s):  
Warren W. Tyron
Keyword(s):  
Null Hypothesis

Television and the Null Hypothesis

1975 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 212-213
Author(s):  
SEYMOUR FESHBACH
Keyword(s):  
Null Hypothesis
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document