Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 38:4 (2014) ► pp.896–955

Lexical coding vs. syntactic marking of homogeneity

Evidence from Spanish and Danish

| Copenhagen Business School
The purpose of this article is to substantiate the claim that the semantic feature of homogeneity manifests itself differently in different languages. By contrasting data from Spanish and Danish it is shown that homogeneity is lexically coded in Danish nouns, whereas Spanish nouns are lexically neutral to homogeneity. In Spanish the homogeneity interpretation of nouns is determined when they are inserted into a syntactic structure. The empirical relevance of this assumption is assessed by investigating syntactic and semantic aspects related to the occurrence of bare nominals in object position in the two languages under scrutiny. It is well-known that Spanish as a canonical pattern does not semantically license bare singular nouns with count interpretation (BNs) in object position, viz. #Juan repara coche [Juan repairs car], while in Danish the occurrence of BNs in object position is both possible and normal, viz. Ole maler hus [Ole paints house]. It is argued that this contrast is a predictable consequence of the premise that, in Spanish, transitive activity verbs impose a mass reading on any bare object noun whereas, in Danish, BNs maintain their lexically encoded denotation as inhomogeneous entities. However, contrasting with the leading pattern, the so-called HAVE-verbs (Borthen, 2003) actually license Spanish BNs in object position (cf., e.g., Espinal, 2010; Espinal & Mcnally, 2011), viz. Juan tiene perro [Juan has dog]. It is claimed that the occurrence of BNs in these cases is strongly related to the assumption that HAVE-verbs, contrary to activity verbs, are functionally non-eventive and, therefore, do not impose a specific homogeneity reading on the bare noun in object position.
Keywords: homogeneity, activity verbs, HAVE-predicates, bare nouns, event structure
Published online: 8 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.4.12mul
References (117)
Allan, K. 1980. Nouns and countability. Language 561. 541–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arsenejević, B. 2006. Inner aspect and telicity: The decompositional and the quantificational nature of eventualities at the syntax-semantics interface. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden dissertation.Google Scholar
Asudeh, A. & L.H. Mikkelsen. 2000. Incorporation in Danish: Implications for interfaces. In R. Cann, C. Grover & P. Miller (eds.), A collection of papers on head-driven phrase structure grammar. Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Bach, E. 1986. The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 91. 5–16.Google Scholar
Barner, D. & J. Snedeker. 2005. Quantity judgements and individuation: Evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition 971. 41–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. 2009. A constructional analysis of quasi-incorporation in Dutch. Gengo Kenkyu 1351. 5–28.Google Scholar
Borthen, K. 2003. Norwegian bare singulars. NTNU dissertation.
Borer, H. 2005. Structuring sense (vols. 1 and 21). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bosque, I. 1996. Por qué determinados sustantivos no son sustantivos determinados: Repaso y Balance. In I. Bosque (ed.), El sustantivo sin determinación. La ausencia de determinante en la lengua española, 13–119. Madrid: Visor Libros.Google Scholar
. 1999. El nombre común. In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española 11, 3–75. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
Bouchard, D. 1995. The semantics of syntax: A minimalist approach to grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bunt, H.C. 1980. On the why, the how, and the whether of a count-mass distinction among adjectives. In J. Groenendijk & M. Stokhof (eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, 51–77. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.Google Scholar
. 1985. Mass terms and model-theoretic semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, G.N. 1977. A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy 11. 413–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheng, C-Y. 1973. Comments on Moravcsik’s paper. In K.J.J. Hintikka, J.M.E. Moravcsik & P. Suppes (eds.), Approaches to natural language, 286–288. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G. 1998a. Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of ‘semantic parameter’. In S. Rothstein (ed.), Events and grammar, 52–103. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998b. Reference to Kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6(4). 339–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese 1741. 99–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christophersen, P. 1939. The articles: A study of their theory and use in English. Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Climent, S. 2001. Individuation by partitive constructions in Spanish. In P. Bouillon & F. Busa, (eds.). The language of word meaning, 192–215. The USA: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Contreras, H. 1996. Sobre la distribución de los sintagmas nominales no predicativos sin determinante. In I. Bosque (ed.), El sustantivo sin determinación. La ausencia de determinante en la lengua española, 141–168. Madrid: Visor Libros.Google Scholar
David, N. 2008. Mass nouns and plural logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 31(2). 211–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dayal, V. 2003. A semantics for pseudo incorporation. Ms., Rutgers University.
de Swart, H. & J. Zwarts 2009. Less form – more meaning: Why bare singular nouns are special. Lingua 119(2). 280–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 2009. Existential bare plurals: From properties back to entities. Lingua 1191. 296–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, C., T. Bleam & M.T. Espinal. 2006. Bare nouns, number and types of incorporation. In L. Tasmowski & S. Vogeleer (eds.), Non-definiteness and plurality 51–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doetjes, J. 1997. Quantifiers and selection: On the distribution of quantifying expressions in French, Dutch and English. Leiden: Leiden University dissertation.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engelberg, S. 1999. Punctuality and Verb Semantics. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 6(1). Article 10.Google Scholar
. 2000. The magic of the moment: What it means to be a punctual verb. BLS 251. 109–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Espinal, M.T. 2010. Bare nominals in Catalan and Spanish: Their structure and meaning. Lingua 1201. 984–1009. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Espinal, M.T. & J. Mateu. 2011. Bare nominals and argument structure in Catalan and Spanish. The Linguistic Review 281. 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Espinal, M.T. & L. McNally. 2007. Bare singular nominals and incorporating verbs. In G. Kaiser & M. Leonetti (eds.), Proceedings of the III NEREUS International Workshop. Definiteness, Specificity and Animacy in Ibero-Romance languages, Arbeitspapier 122, 45–62. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
. 2008. Spanish and Catalan bare singular nominals at the syntax–semantics interface. In paper presented at the XXXVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. University of Indiana, Urbana-Champaign.
. 2011. Bare nominals and incorporating verbs in Catalan and Spanish. Journal of Linguistics 471. 87–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farkas, D. & H. de Swart. 2004. Incorporation, plurality, and the incorporation of plurals: A dynamic approach. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 31. 45–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrido, J. 1996. Sintagmas nominales escuetos. In I. Bosque (ed.), El sustantivo sin determinación. La ausencia de determinante en la lengua española, 269–338. Madrid: Visor Libros.Google Scholar
Geenhoven, V. van. 1996. Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions: Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Noun Incorporation in West Greenlandic. Tübingen: University of Tübingen dissertation.Google Scholar
Gillon, B.S. 1992. Towards a common semantics for English count and mass nouns. Linguistics and Philosophy 151. 597–639. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodman, N. 1966. The structure of appearance, 2nd edn. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, E. 2001(1994). Generisk substantiv. In H. Galbjerg Jacobsen & H. Jørgensen (eds.), Glæden ved grammatik. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar
Hansen, E. & Heltoft, L. 2011. Grammatik over det Danske Sprog. Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab. København: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Heine, B. 1997. Possession, cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Ways of explaining possession. In I. Baron, M. Herslund & F. Sørensen (eds.), Dimensions of possession, 311–328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herslund, M. (ed.). 1997. Det franske sprog, Chapter I: Grundlag, preliminary version. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar
. (ed.). 1999. Det franske sprog, Chapter VI: Nominalsyntagmet, preliminary version. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar
. 2002. Incorporation and transitivity in romance. In O. Nedergaard Thomsen & M. Herslund (eds.), Complex predicates and incorporation: A functional perspective. Travaux du cercle linguistique de Copenhague, vol. XXXII1, 175–206. Copenhagen: C. A. Reitzel, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. 1985. On Semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 161. 547–593.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, T. 1988. Small clause results. Lingua 741. 101–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. Aspect and Theta theory. In I.M. Roca (ed.), Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar, 145–174. Berlin: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1924. The philosophy of grammar. London: Georges Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1991. Parts and boundaries. Cognition 411. 9–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johns, A. 2009. Additional facts about noun incorporation (in Inuktitut). Lingua 1191. 185–198 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joosten, F. 2003. Accounts of the count-mass distinction: A critical survey. In A. Dahl, K. Bentzen, P. Svenonius (eds.), Proceedings of SCL 19 / Nordlyd 31(1). 216–229.Google Scholar
Josefsson, G. 2013. Pancake sentences and the semanticization of formal gender in Mainland Scandinavian. Handout for the 46th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea , Split, September 18.
Kallulli, D. 1996. Bare singulars and bare plurals: Mapping syntax and semantics. In Proceedings of ConSole 5. Leiden: University of Leiden Press.
. 1999. The comparative syntax of Albanian: On the contribution of syntactic types to propositional interpretation. Durham: University of Durham dissertation.Google Scholar
Kearns, K. 1991. The semantics of the English progressive. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2000. Semantics. New York: St. Martin’s.Google Scholar
Kiefer, F. 1994. Noun incorporation in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 40(1-2). 149–177.Google Scholar
Kleiber, G. 1989. Comment traiter LE générique? In M. Wilmet (ed.), Génerécité, spécificité et aspect (Travaux de linguistique 19), 145–169. Paris: Duculot.Google Scholar
. 1990. L’article LE générique: La généricité sur le mode massif. Geneva/Paris: Droz.Google Scholar
. 1994. Nominales: Essais de sémantique référentielle. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Korzen, I. 2008. Determination in endocentric and exocentric languages. In H. Müller & A. Klinge (eds.), Essays on nominal determination. From morphology to discourse management (Studies in Language Companion Series 99), 79–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koslicki, K. 2006. Nouns, mass and count. In Donald M. Borchert (ed.), Encyclopedia of philosophy, 2nd edn. USA: MacMillan Reference.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In J. van Benthem, R. Bartsch & P. van Emde (eds.), Semantics and contextual expression, 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In I. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (eds.), Lexical Matters, 30–52. Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Laca, B. 1990. Generic objects: Some more pieces of the puzzle. Lingua 811. 25–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. Acerca de la semántica de los plurales escuetos del español. In I. Bosque (ed.), El sustantivo sin determinación. La ausencia de determinante en la lengua española, 241–268. Madrid: Visor Libros.Google Scholar
. 1999. Presencia y ausencia de determinante. In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (eds.), Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, I, 891–928. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
. 2004. Romance “Aspectual” Periphrases: Eventuality modification versus “Syntactic” aspect. In J. Guéron & J. Lecarme (eds.), The syntax of time, 425–440. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 1984. Formulaicity, frame semantics and pragmatics in German binomial expressions. Language 601. 753–796. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landman, F. 1989. Groups, I. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(5). 559–605. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Structures for semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Leonetti, M. 1999. El artículo. In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (eds.). Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, I, 787–890. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Link, G. 1983. The logical analysis of plural and mass nouns: A lattice-theoretic approach. In R. Bäuerle, et al. (eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, 302–323. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2001. How comparative is semantics? A unified parametric theory of bare nouns and proper names. Natural Language Semantics 91. 335–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,.Google Scholar
Lönning, J.-T. 1987. Mass terms and quantification. Language and Philosophy 10(1). 1–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, J.E. 2006. The syntax of inner aspect. Stony Brook: Stony Brook University dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2008. The syntactic nature of inner aspect: A minimalist perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mardale, A. 2013. Romanian complex adnominal prepositional phrases. The example of de-Phrases. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics XV(1). 57–69.Google Scholar
Martin, R. 1989. La référence “massive” des unités nominales. In J. David & G. Kleiber (eds.), Termes massifs et termes comptables, Recherches Linguistiques 131, 37–46. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
McNally, L. 1995. Bare plurals in Spanish are interpreted as properties. In G. Morrill & R. Oehrle (eds.), Formal Grammar, 197–222. Barcelona: Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya.Google Scholar
Mithun, M. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60(4). 847–894. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, F. 1997. Parts and wholes in semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morreale, M. 1971/1973. Aspectos gramaticales y estilísticos del número. BRAE 51. 83-138. & BRAE 531. 99–206.Google Scholar
Mourelatos, A. 1978. Events, processes, and states. Linguistics and Philosophy 21. 415–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nedergaard Thomsen, O. & M. Herslund 2002. Complex predicates and incorporation – An introduction. In O. Nedergaard Thomsen & M. Herslund (eds.), Complex predicates and incorporation: A functional perspective (Travaux du cercle linguistique de Copenhague XXXII) 7–47. Copenhagen: C. A. Reitzel.Google Scholar
Olsen, M.B. 1994. The semantics and pragmatics of lexical aspect features. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 241. 361–375.Google Scholar
. 1997. A semantic and pragmatic model of lexical and grammatical aspect. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Pelletier, F.J. 1979. Non-singular reference. In F.J. Pelletier (ed.), Mass terms: Some philosophical problems, 1–14. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pelletier, F.J. & L.K. Schubert. 1989. Mass expressions. In G. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic, vol. 41, 327–407. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. 1991. The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics 171. 409–441.Google Scholar
. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V.O. 1960. Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Renzi, L. 1988. Grande grammatica italiana de consultazione, vol. 11. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, J. 2002. The noun phrase (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rischel, J. 1983. On Unit Accentuation in Danish – and the distinction between deep and surface phonology. Folia Linguistica XVII1. 51–97.Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. 2010. Counting and the mass count distinction. Journal of Semantics 27(3). 343–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarzschild, R.S. 1996. Pluralities. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. 1991. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stark, E. 2008. Typological correlations in nominal determination in Romance. In H.H. Müller & A. Klinge (eds.), Essays on nominal determination: From morphology to discourse management (Studies in Language Companion Series 99), 45–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suñer, M. 1982. Syntax and semantics of Spanish presentational sentence-types. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
de Swart, H. & J. Zwarts. (2009). Less form – more meaning: Why bare singular nouns are special. Lingua 119(2). 280–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tenny, C. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tenny, C. & J. Pustejovsky. 2000. A history of events in linguistic theory. In C. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky (eds.), Events as grammatical objects. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Travis, L. 1991. Inner aspect and the structure of VP. ms. McGill University.Google Scholar
Tsoulas, G. 2006. Plurality of mass nouns and the grammar of number. Paper presented at the 29th GLOW colloquium in Barcelona .
Vendler, Z. 1967. Verbs and times: Linguistics in philosophy, 97–121. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vikner, C. 1994. Change in Homogeneity in verbal and nominal reference. In C. Bache, et al. (eds.), Tense, aspect and action: Empirical and theoretical contributions to language typology, 141–164. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1988. The semantics of grammar (Studies in Language Companion Series 18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zamparelli, R. 2008. Bare predicate nominals in Romance languages. In H.H. Müller & A. Klinge (eds.), Essays on nominal determination: From morphology to discourse management (Studies in Language Companion Series 99), 101–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Müller, Henrik Høeg
2017. Bare nouns in Danish with special reference to the object position. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 40:1 ► pp. 37 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.