Pseudo Incorporation and Anaphoricity: Evidence from Persian

The paper investigates the discourse effects of bare nominal pseudo-incorporated objects in Persian. Contrary to claims that such nominals cannot be antecedents to anaphora, experimental results show that that their anaphoric potential is only somewhat reduced, compared to indefinites. This is consonant with Krifka & Modarresi (2016), according to which they are interpreted like functional definites that are dependent on the event denoted by the verb that undergo existential closure.

Variation in Classifier Languages

Chapter 5 develops a uniform account of bare nominal arguments (i.e., bare numeral classifier phrases, bare classifier phrases, bare nouns) in classifier languages. It achieves that by extending the scope of discussion to more classifier languages. It starts with three points on which Mandarin and Nuosu Yi differ and which make this comparison interesting from the perspective of building a theory of cross-linguistic variation. Their differences are: (i) whether or not they have the function category D in their grammar, (ii) whether or not they freely allow numeral-less classifier phrases to appear in argument positions, as a result of applying covert argument formation operations unrestrictedly, and (iii) whether or not they allow one-deletion from the [one Cl N] phrase in the PF. Three parameters based on these differences account for the variation.

Introduction

This chapter offers a brief introduction to the book. It provides general criteria for the definition of a “classifier language” and offers an overview of the properties along which classifier languages may vary. After briefly discussing two ongoing debates regarding nominal arguments—one is about the syntax of nominal arguments and the other is about the reference of bare nominal argument terms—this chapter provides a brief summary of each of the remaining chapters.

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

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).

Lidwoordomissie in Moroccan Flavored Dutch* : Kale nomina in eentalige Nederlandse uitingen

Article omission in Moroccan Flavored Dutch. Bare nouns in monolingual Dutch expressionsThe aim of this paper is to shed light on article omission in Moroccan Flavored Dutch (MFD), a language variety in which Moroccan linguistic material (mainly Berber and Arabic) is combined with Dutch. It is well-known that MFD speakers are often inclined to omit articles in nominal phrases, and by doing so expressions contain so-called bare nouns (nominals without articles, i.e. definite or indefinite articles). This raises the question what triggers article omission in MFD. This study focuses on Dutch expressions that are embedded in MFD discourse and provides an innovative explanation for bare noun constructions. In particular, we argue that article omission in MFD is the result of an interplay between identity marking (article omission indexes the belonging to an ethnic subgroup in contrast to outsiders) and information structure. We show that there is a correlation between the syntactic position of a constituent and the type of article (i.e. definite or indefinite) that is omitted. The direct object position yields an indefinite, discourse-new interpretation of the bare nominal phrase. Since the neutral surface order of a Dutch main clause is subject-initial, the direct object position is canonically a focus position that is associated with new information. Therefore, the information structure of Dutch clauses seems to be a trigger for article omission.

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

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.

Different Senses of ‘Referential’

There exist a range of different notions of referentiality in the literature. The cognitive status ‘referential’ on the Givenness Hierarchy means that the hearer can assign a unique representation to the speaker’s intended referent by the time the sentence is processed. This is distinct from definite referents, which are expected to be ‘uniquely identifiable’, a status that entails ‘referential’, on the basis of the definite noun phrase alone. In this chapter, it is argued that phrases that are ‘attributive’, as distinct from ‘referential’, in Donnellan’s 1966 sense are ‘referential’ in the Givenness Hierarchy sense, and are marked as such in languages that mark referentiality overtly via determiners or case marking. Furthermore, it is suggested that bare nominal phrases in languages that allow them are unspecified for referentiality, but that an implicature of non-referentiality for a bare nominal may be generated in languages that mark definiteness or referentiality morphologically.

Articulated Definiteness without Articles

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 Nominal Adjuncts

Larson (1985) and Emonds (1987) propose different mechanisms to account for English sentences in which a nominal acts as an adverbial but is not introduced by a preposition. We review their analyses and, in light of additional data, show that they are not tenable. Rather, we propose that the noun in such constructions is structurally deficient (hence does not need a preposition for Case) and has an inherent θ- role (hence does not need a preposition to assign one). Although in the same vein as Larson’s and Emonds’s proposals, ours accounts for a wider set of data and is thus preferable. It also has implications for the structure of θ-roles and for lexical entries.