Cover not available
Part of
Brazilian Portuguese, Syntax and Semantics: 20 years of Núcleo de Estudos Gramaticais
Edited by Roberta Pires De Oliveira, Ina Emmel and Sandra Quarezemin
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 260] 2020
► pp. 191–212

Chapter 8
Brazilian bare nouns in quantity judgments

Kinds and atomicity

| Universidade Federal do Paraná | CNPq | Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina
| Universidade Federal do Paraná | Instituto Federal de Santa Catarina
The chapter reports the results of applying quantity judgment tests to bare nouns in Brazilian Portuguese. The results show that the bare singular and sentences with no nouns (no cues to atomicity, as argued in Scontras et al. 2017) behave alike, in contrast with plural nouns. Brazilian bare singulars allow for cardinal and volume readings. We show that this is explained by the fact that they carry no linguistic cues to atomicity. Finally, we argue that the difference between English and Brazilian Portuguese may be explained by Chierchia’s (2010, 2014) nominal parameter: English is a predicate language, whereas Brazilian Portuguese is a kind language. The conclusion explores some consequences of this semantic parameter.
Keywords: atomicity, bare singulars, Brazilian Portuguese, kinds, quantity judgments
Article outline
  • 1.The state of the art on mass and count
  • 2.The bare singular in Brazilian Portuguese
  • 3.Two outliers in Scontras et al. (2017)
  • 4.The bare singular in BrP, another outlier?
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Design and methods
    • 4.3Description of the results
  • 5.Bare nouns in BrP and the absence of linguistic cues to atomicity
  • 6.Semantic parameters?
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.260.08oli
References (33)
References
Bale, Alan C. & Barner, David. 2009. The interpretation of functional heads: Using comparatives to explore the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics 26(3): 217–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barner, David & Snedeker, Jesse. 2005. Quantity judgments and individuation: Evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition 97: 41–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beviláqua, Kayron, Lima, Suzi & Pires de Oliveira, Roberta. 2016. Bare Nouns in Brazilian Portuguese: An experimental study on grinding. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, Vol. 11: Cognitive, Semantic and Crosslinguistic Approaches. Kansas KS: New Prairie Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beviláqua, Kayron & Pires de Oliveira, Roberta. 2014. Brazilian bare phrases and referentiality: Evidences from an experiment. Revista Letras 90: 253–275. Curitiba.Google Scholar
. 2017. Brazilian bare nouns in comparatives: Experimental evidence for non-contextual dependency. Revista Letras 96: 354–376. Curitiba, UFPR.Google Scholar
. 2018. What do bare nouns mean cross-linguistically? Preliminary results. The count-mass distinction – A linguistic misunderstanding? May 7–9, Bochum, Germany.Google Scholar
Carey, Susan, Xu, Fei. 2001. Infant’s knowledge of objects: Beyond object files and object tracking. Cognition 80: 179–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Gregory Norman. 1977. Reference to Kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa L.-S. & Sybesma, Rint. 1998. Yi-wan tang, yi-ge tang: Classifiers and massifiers. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese studies 28(3): 385–412.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6(4): 339–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese 174: 99–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. How universal is the mass/count distinction? Three grammars of counting. In Chinese Syntax in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Audrey Li, Andrew Simpson & Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai (Eds.). Oxford Scholarship Online, November. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2017. Countability distinctions and semantic variation. Natural Language Semantics 25(2), 125–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen & Pires de Oliveira, Roberta. 2008. Reference to kinds in Brazilian Portuguese: Definite singulars vs. bare singulars. Proceedings of SuB12. Oslo: ILOS, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Marcelo. 2017. Bare nominals in Brazilian Portuguese: An overview. Conference New Perspectives on the Form and Meaning of (Bare) Nominals. Universidade de São Paulo, 27–28 April, São Paulo, Brazil.
Grimm, Scott & Levin, Beth. 2012. Who has more furniture? An exploration of the bases for comparison. Mass/Count in Linguistics, Philosophy and Cognitive Science Conference, Ecole Normale Supérieure, December 20–21, Paris, France.
Huntley-Fenner, Gavin, Carey, Susan & Solimando, Andrea. 2002. Objects are individuals but stuff doesn’t count: Perceived rigidity and cohesivenss influence infants’ representations of small groups of discrete entities. Cognition 85: 203–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kulkarni, Ritwik, Rothstein, Susan & Treves, Alessandro. 2010. Computational constraints on composition interpretation: Refocusing the debate on language universal. Lingua 120(12): 2717–2722. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landman, Fred. 2011. Count nouns, mass nouns, neat nouns, mess nouns. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic, and Communication, Vol. 6: Formal Semantics and Pragmatics. Discourse, Context and Models. Kansas KS: New Prairie Press.Google Scholar
Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, Rainer Bauerle, Christoph Schwartze & Arnim von Stechow (eds), 302–323. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lima, Suzi. 2014. The Grammar of Individuation and Counting. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Lima, Suzi & Gomes, Ana Paula Quadros. 2016. The interpretation of Brazilian Portuguese bare singulars in neutral contexts. Revista Letras 93: 193–209. Curitiba.Google Scholar
Müller, Ana. 2002. Genericity and the denotation of common nouns in Brazilian Portuguese. Probus 1(14): 279–298.Google Scholar
Pelletier, Francis Jeffrey. 2012. Lexical nouns are both +mass and +count but they are neither +mass nor +count. <[URL]> (11 December 2019). DOI logo
Pires de Oliveira, Roberta & Rothstein, Susan. 2011. Bare singular noun phrases are mass in Brazilian Portuguese. Lingua 121: 2153–2175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pires de Oliveira, Roberta & Carturani, Tiago. 2014. The semantics of plural in Brazilian Portuguese. X Workshop on Formal Linguistics, 28–29 August, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Pires de Oliveira, Roberta & Chierchia, Gennaro. In press. Contemporary issues in natural language semantics. To be published in DELTA.
Rothstein, Susan. 2010. Counting, measuring and the mass distinction. The Journal of Semantics 27(3): 343–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Semantics for Counting and Measuring. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, Cristina & Munn, Alan. 1999. Against the nominal mapping parameter: Bare nouns in Brazilian Portuguese. In NELS 29: Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, Nancy Hall, Masako Hirotani & Pius Tamanji (eds), 339–353. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Scontras, Gregory, Davidson, Kathryn, Deal, Amy Rose & Murray, Sarah E. 2017. Who has more? The influence of linguistic form on quantity judgments. In Proceedings of Linguistic Society of America, Vol. 2, 41: 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soja, Nancy N., Carey, Susan & Spelke, Elizabeth S. 1991. Ontological categories guide young children’s inductions of word meaning: Object terms and substance terms. Cognition 38(2): 179–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilhelm, A. (2008). Bare Nouns in Dëne Sułine. Natural Language Semantics, 16, 39–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar