Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:12:15.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Of nouns, and kinds, and properties, and why one D is null or not

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2016

Diana Guillemin
Diana Guillemin*
Affiliation:
Griffith University, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper assumes that the basic denotation of nouns can be that of kind or property and that the determiner system of a language is a direct consequence of this cross-linguistic variation. An analysis of how definiteness and specificity are marked across three languages with different determiner systems, namely, English, French and Mauritian Creole (MC), provides evidence of the co-relation between noun denotation and determiner system. Languages with kind denoting nouns (English and MC) admit bare nominal arguments, which are barred in French, whose nouns denote properties. However, English and MC differ in that English has an overt definite article, which is a lacking in MC. This null element requires licensing by an overt specificity marker in some syntactic environments. The English and MC definite articles are analyzed as operators that quantify over sets of kind denoting nouns, and they serve a different function from the French definite article, which is specified for number and selects properties.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article propose que les noms dénotent des espèces ou des propriétés et que le système des déterminants dans une langue donnée résulte de cette variation interlinguistique. En offrant une analyse des marqueurs de définitude et de spécificité dans trois langues avec des systèmes de déterminants différents, à savoir l’anglais, le français et le créole mauritien (CM), nous apportons des arguments en faveur de la co-relation entre la dénotation nominale et le système des déterminants. Les langues avec des noms dénotant des espèces (anglais et CM) autorisent les noms nus comme arguments; au contraire du français où les noms dénotent des propriétés. Cependant, l’anglais et le CM se distinguent par la présence d’un article défini visible en anglais, mais pas en CM. Cet élément nul est gouverné par la présence d’un marqueur visible de spécificité dans certains contextes syntaxiques. Les articles définis de l’anglais et du CM sont analysés comme des opérateurs sur des ensembles de noms qui dénotent des espèces et ils jouent un rôle différent de celui que joue l’article défini du français, qui est spécifié pour le nombre et qui sélectionne des propriétés.

Keywords

bare nounsdefinitenessdeterminerquantificationspecificitytype shiftingnoms nusdéfinitudedéterminantquantificationspécificitéconversion de type
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , November 2015 , pp. 259 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abney, Steven P. 1987. The English noun phrase and its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Barwise, Jon and Cooper, Robin. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4:159–219.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Judy B. 2001. The DP Hypothesis: Identifying clausal properties in the nominal domain. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, ed. Baltin, Mark and Collins, Chris, 536–561. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1981. Roots of language. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy 1:413—457.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N. 1978. Reference to kinds in English. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N. 1999. No lack of determination: On determinerless noun phrases. GLOT International 4(3):3–8.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6:339—405.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001a. Beyond explanatory adequacy. MMIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, No. 20, 1–25. Cambridge, MA: Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001b. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Kenstowicz, Michael, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 1999. The morphosyntax of demonstratives in synchrony and diachrony. Linguistic Typology 3:1—49.Google Scholar
Donnellan, Keith S. 1966. Reference and definite descriptions. The Philosophical Review 75:281–304.Google Scholar
Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22:1–25.Google Scholar
Givon, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Guillemin, Diana. 2011. The syntax and semantics of a determiner system: A case study of Mauritian Creole. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Guillemin, Diana. 2014. Marking definiteness or specificity, not necessarily both: Evidence of a principle of economy from Mauritian Creole. In Language description informed by theory, ed. Pensalfini, Rob, Turpin, Myf, and Guillemin, Diana, 193–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 1978. Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1983. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Meaning, use and interpretation of language, ed. Bäuerle, Rainer, Schwarze, Christoph, and von Stechow, Arnim, 165–189. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1988. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania. 2006. The changing languages of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2002. Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 19:245–274.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2001. Articles. In Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, eds. Haspelmath, Martin, König, Ekkehard, Oesterreicher, Wulf, and Raible, Wolfgang, 831–841. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ishane, Tabea and Puskás, Genoveva. 2001. Specific is not definite. Generative Grammar in Geneva 2:39–54.Google Scholar
Krámský, Jiří. 1972. The article and the concept of definiteness in language. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1989. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In Papers on quantification, ed. Bach, Emmon, Kratzer, Angelika, and Partee, Barbara. Amherst, MA: Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and Logical Form. Linguistic Inquiry 25:609–665.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1996. The syntax of N-raising: A minimalist theory. In OTS Working Papers. Utrecht: Research Institute for Language and Speech, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2001. The structure of DPs. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, ed. Baltin, Mark and Collins, Chris, 562–603. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1985. Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary. 1979. Existential sentences in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1986. Noun Phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, ed. Groenendijk, Jeroen, de Jongh, Dick, and Stokhof, Martin, 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1992. Adverbial quantification and event structures. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Parasession on the Grammar of Event Structures, 439—456. Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Perlman, Alan. 1969. “This” as a third article in American English. American Speech 44:76–80.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In The representation of (in)definiteness, ed. Reuland, Eric J. and Meulen, Alice G. B. ter, 98–129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1981. On the inferencing of indefinite-this NPs. In Elements of discourse understanding, eds. Joshi, Aravind K., Webber, Bonnie L., and Sag, Ivan A., 231–250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard V. 1960. Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth. 1992. Cross-linguistic evidence for Number Phrase. Canadian Journal of Linguistics / Revue canadienne de linguistique 37:197–218.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax, ed. Haegeman, Liliane, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1905. On denoting. Mind 14:479–493.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 1989. Subjects, specifiers, and X-Bar Theory. In Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, ed. Baltin, Mark and Kroch, Anthony S., 232–262. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 1991. Determiners in NP and DP. In Views on phrase structure, ed. Leffel, Katherine and Bouchard, Denis, 37–56. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter Frederick. 1950. On referring. Mind 59:320–344.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1987. Functional categories in the noun phrase. In Approaches to Hungarian, ed. Kenesei, István, 167–189. Szeged: JATE.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1989. Noun phrases and clauses: Is DP analogous to CP? In The structure of noun phrases, ed. Payne, John, 151–180. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zamparelli, Roberto. 2000. Layers in the determiner phrase. New York: Garland.Google Scholar