Bare Noun Phrases

Abstract

AbstractChapter 2 offers a detailed presentation of bare NPs in both argumental and predicational positions. It is argued that the use of bare NPs in argument positions should not be viewed as being related to the use of bare NPs in predicate positions. This observation strongly suggests that the property-analysis of argumental bare plurals is misguided. We remain open to the possibility of analyzing count bare singulars in Spanish, Romanian or Catalan as property-denoting. Carlson’s (Linguistics and Philosophy 1:413–457, 1977a; Reference to kinds in English, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, 1977c) observations regarding the differences between BPs and singular indefinites can be attributed to the fact that, due to the absence of an overt Det, BPs are necessarily weak (in the sense of Milsark (Linguistic Analysis 3:1–29, 1977)), whereas singular indefinites are both weak and strong. The main theoretical proposal of this chapter is that argumental BPs (as well as bare mass NPs) should be analyzed as generalized existential quantifiers over amounts, which are defined in such a way that they need to combine with existential predicates. Turning now to predicate positions the differences between copular sentences built with bare singulars as opposed to indefinite singulars point to a necessary distinction between two types of copular sentences (and two types of copulas), which we have labeled attributive and identity sentences. In identity sentences, the postcopular indefinite denotes an individual, just as it does in argumental positions. In attributive sentences, the postcopular noun denotes a property, which explains why indefinite singulars are disallowed and bare singulars allowed, on a par with adjectives.KeywordsExistential QuantifierMass NounArgument PositionRomance LanguageBare PluralThese 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.