Abstract
This paper explores the semantics of bare singulars in Turkish, which are unmarked for number in form, as in English, but can behave like both singular and plural terms, unlike in English. While they behave like singular terms as case-marked arguments, they are interpreted number neutrally in non-case-marked argument positions, the existential copular construction, and the predicate position. Previous accounts (Bliss, in Calgary Papers in Linguistics 25:1–65, 2004; Bale et al. in Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20:1–15, 2010; Görgülü, in: Semantics of nouns and the specification of number in Turkish, Ph.d. thesis, Simon Fraser University, 2012) propose that Turkish bare singulars denote number neutral sets and that morphologically plural marked nouns denote sets of pluralities only. This approach leads to a symmetric correlation of morphological and semantic (un)markedness. However, in this paper, I defend a strict singular view for bare singulars and show that Turkish actually patterns with English where this correlation is exhibited asymmetrically. I claim that bare singulars in Turkish denote atomic properties and that bare plurals have a number neutral semantics as standardly assumed for English. I argue that the apparent number neutrality of bare singulars in the three cases arises via singular kind reference, which I show to extend to the phenomenon called pseudo-incorporation and a construction that I call kind specification. I argue that pseudo-incorporation occurs in non-case-marked argument positions following Öztürk (Case, referentiality, and phrase structure, Amsterdam, Benjamins, Publishing Company, 2005) and the existential copular construction, whereas kind specification is realized in the predicate position. The different behaviors of bare singulars in Turkish and English stem from the fact that singular kind reference is used more extensively in Turkish than in English. Furthermore, while there are well-known asymmetries between singular and plural kind reference cross-linguistically, Turkish manifests a more restricted distribution for bare plurals than English in the positions where pseudo-incorporation and kind specification are in evidence. I explain this as a blocking effect, specific to Turkish, by singular kind terms on plural kind terms.
Highlights
Turkish nouns, like English nouns, come in two forms
This paper has explored the semantics of bare singulars in Turkish which have singular readings in some cases and number neutral readings in other cases
We have seen that while in case-marked argument positions Turkish bare singulars are interpreted as strictly singular, they yield a number neutral interpretation in non-case-marked argument positions, the existential copular construction, and the predicate position. This dual nature of Turkish bare singulars separates them from English singular nouns which behave as singular terms in a more systematic way
Summary
Like English nouns, come in two forms. One is unmarked for number (Turkish kitap; English book) and one is morphologically marked plural (Turkish kitap+lar; English book+s). I further argue that Turkish resorts to this relation in the grammatical component, establishing it as part of the phenomenon called pseudo-incorporation in non-case-marked argument positions and existential statements (cf Öztürk 2005; Dayal 2011, 2015), and as part of a phenomenon that I call kind specification in the predicate position. The establishment of this relation ensures a number neutral reading in these constructions and this extensive use of singular kind reference is what separates Turkish from English in terms of their unmarked nouns.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
