Cover not available
Part of
Weak Referentiality
Edited by Ana Aguilar-Guevara, Bert Le Bruyn and Joost Zwarts
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 219] 2014
► pp. 129–156

Predicate nominals in Papiamentu

a comparison with Brazilian Portuguese and other languages

This paper presents a comparative analysis of number in predicate nominals in Papiamentu and Brazilian Portuguese. While Papiamentu predicate nominals do not show plural agreement when the subject is plural, Brazilian Portuguese shows agreement in spite of the fact that both languages allow number neutral bare count nouns to appear in argument position. Using tools from Distributed Morphology, we provide an analysis that can explain why number morphology is not always realized in determinerless predicate nominals. We argue that the variation between the two languages arises from a difference between their respective vocabulary items. Papiamentu plural marker - nan cannot behave as a simple agreement marker, because it contains an additional definite feature (Schmitt & Kester 2005; Kester & Schmitt 2007). In Brazilian Portuguese, however, overt morphological number marking is the result of agreement with the subject DP.
Published online: 3 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.219.06sch
References (38)
References
Adger, D. 2003. Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Anscombre, J.-C. 1991. Lárticle zéro en français: quelques proprieties. Langage 102: 103–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
den Besten, H. 1996. Associative DPs. In Linguistics in the Netherlands, C. Cremers & M. den Dikken (eds), 13–24, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. 2005. In Name Only. Structuring Sense, Vol. I. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bosque, I. 1996. Por qué determinados sustantivos no son sustantivos determinados. In El sustantivo sin determinación. La Ausencia de Determinante en la Lengua Española, I. Bosque (ed.). 13–120. Madrid: Visor Libros.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. & Starke, M. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In Clitics in the Languages of Europe, H. van Riemsdijk (ed.), 145–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Carlson, G. 1977. A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 413–457. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6: 339–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Déchaine, R.-M. & Wiltschko, M. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 409–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doetjes, J. 1997. Quantifiers and Selection: On the Distribution of Quantifying Expressions in French, Dutch and English. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden.The Hague: HAG [HIL Dissertations 32].
Dijkhoff, M. 1983. The process of pluralization in Papiamentu. In Studies in Caribbean Language, L.D. Carrington (ed.), 217–229. Trinidad: Society of Caribbean Linguistics.Google Scholar
Espinal, M.T. & McNally, L. 2009. Characterizing ‘have’ predicates and indefiniteness. In Proceedings of the IV NEREUS International Workshop [Arbeitspapier 124], M.T. Espinal, M. Leonetti & L. McNally (eds). Konstanz: University Konstanz.Google Scholar
Farkas, D. & de Swart, H. 2003. The Semantics of Incorporation. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 2010. The semantics and pragmatics of plurals. Semantics and Pragmatics 3(6): 1–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández Laborans, M.J. 1999. La predicación: Las oraciones copulativas. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, I. Bosque & V. Demonte (eds), 2357- 2460. Madrid: Real Academia Española, Colección Nebrija y Bello.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Marantz, A. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, K. Hale & S.J. Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heim, I. 1988. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Higgins, F.R. 1979. The Pseudo-cleft Construction In English. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Kester, E.-P. 1996. The Nature of Adjectival Inflection. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.
Kester, E.-P. & Schmitt, C. 2007. Papiamentu and Brazilian Portuguese: A comparative study of bare nominals. In Noun Phrases in Creole languages: A Multi-faceted Approach [Creole Language Library 31], M. Baptista & J. Guéron (eds), 107–143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kupferman, L. 1979. Les constructions Il est un médecin/ Cést un médecin: Essai de solution. Cahier de Linguistique 9: 131–164. Montréal: Press de l’Université du Québec. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Structure événementielle de l’alternance un/Ø devant les noms humains attributs. Langages 101: 52–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, C. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matushansky, O. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1): 69–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munn, A. & Schmitt, C. 2001. Bare nominals and the morphosyntax of number. In Current Issues in Romance Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 220], T. Satterfield, C. Tortora & D. Cresti (eds), 225–239. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Number and indefinites. Lingua 115: 821–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nakanishi, K. & Tomioka, S. 2004. Japanese plurals are exceptional. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13: 113–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naro, A.J. & Scherre, M.M.P. 2003. A trend study of number agreement in Brazilian Portuguese: Social dimensions. New Ways of Analyzing Variation 32. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Odijk, J. 1992. Uninflected adjectives in Dutch. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 9, R. Bok-Bennema & R. van Hout (eds), 197–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roy, A. 2006. Non-verbal Predications: A Syntactic Analysis of Predicational Copular Sentences. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.
Sauerland, U., Anderssen, J. & Yatsushiro, J. 2005. The plural is semantically unmarked. In Linguistic Evidence, S. Kepser & M. Reis (eds), 413–434. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scherre, M.M.P. & Naro, A.J. 1991. Marking in discourse: 'Birds of a feather'. Language Variation and Change 3: 23–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, C. & Munn, A. 1999. Against the nominal mapping parameter: Bare nouns in Brazilian Portuguese. In Proceedings of NELS 29, P. Tamanji, M. Hirotani & N. Hall (eds), 339–353. University of Delaware.Google Scholar
. 2003. The syntax and semantics of bare arguments in Brazilian Portuguese. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2: 185–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, C. & E.-P. Kester 2005. Bare nominals in Papiamentu and Brazilian Portuguese: An exo-skeletal approach. In Theoretical and Experimental Approaches to Romance Linguistics. Selected Proceedings of the 34th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, R. Gess & E.J. Rubin (ed.), 237–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Swart, H. 2001. Weak readings of indefinites: Type shifting and closure. The Linguistic Review 18: 69- 96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Swart, H.E., Winter, Y. & Zwarts, J. 2007. Bare nominals and reference to capacities. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25(1): 195–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vassilieva, M.B. 2005. Associative and Pronominal Plurality. PhD dissertation, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar