Abstract
In this paper we claim that Bare Nominals in Brazilian Portuguese come in two shapes. Real BNs, by which we mean bare count nouns not specified for number and definiteness, correspond to NPs that can only occur as objects of a reduced class of predicates (namely, those that express a have-relation) and are interpreted as property-type expressions. Other BNs can be definite and, although not morphophonologically specified for number, they are DPs with null Determiners morphosyntactically specified for Number features and are interpreted as entity-type expressions. We base our analysis on the distribution and meaning of BNs, by comparing BrP with other Romance languages, mainly (Old and Modern) French on the one hand, and Spanish and Catalan on the other.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Labov (1975) considers the alternation between different forms—standard and vernacular—a case of inherent variation, in the sense that this type of variation is due to the intrinsic properties of the linguistic system/dialect/variety itself, rather than to an irregular mixture of dialects.
There are at least two cases where the definite article is not optional in BrP. Preceding proper names in vocative constructions, it is obligatorily absent (Longobardi 1994; see Espinal 2013 for similar facts in Catalan). In combination with predicates that are usually said to require kind-referring objects (e.g., inventar ‘to invent’), it is obligatorily present. Consider (i) from Borik et al. (2012).
- (i)
See Beyssade (2005) for the proposal that objects of verbs like inventer ‘to invent’ in French refer to concepts/prototypes, which are different from kinds. We leave this topic for further research.
It has been pointed out in the literature that BrP has lost third person clitics (Cyrino 1997), which were replaced either by a null object or a full pronoun ele. We follow Galves (2001) and Kato (2002) for whom BrP third person pronouns in object position are different from clitics in other Romance languages.
Syntactically, third person pronouns are not strongly deficient as this term was defined by Cardinaletti and Starke (1999) and, accordingly, they may or they may not be adjacent to the verb, they can occur in coordinate structures when [+animate], and they may refer to a [−animate] antecedent. Semantically, third person pronouns cannot have a proposition/predicate as antecedent in the way clitics can.
See also Menuzzi (1994).
For bare plurals in BrP, we assume the traditional proposal that a null determiner is required for argumenthood in Romance (Longobardi 1994; Chierchia 1998):
- (i)
Bare plurals in other Romance languages, such as Catalan and Spanish, might be also claimed to have null determiners. On the other hand, French des and Italian dei/degli/delle, which precede what look like a bare plural in other Romance languages, are indefinite articles for which a complex determiner structure has been postulated (Gross 1967; Kayne 1977; Ihsane 2012), one that encodes plural semantics (Farkas 2006).
See von Heusinger (2011) for an overview of different approaches to definiteness.
Notice that the BNs in italics in (12) and (13) could both be preceded by an overt definite article, as was the case in examples (6) and (7) above in the text.
Additional attested examples of the unique atomic reference for postverbal BNs in object position are found in the online version of the magazine Almanaque Brasil. One such example is given in (i) where the BN aliança can only refer in the discourse to the object antecedent a minha aliança ‘my ring’ and to the DP seu anel de casamento ‘his wedding ring’.
- (i)
Similar examples are given by Mathieu (2009:126 (9)), who argues that Old French BNs can also be interpreted as definites.
- (i)
We acknowledge that there exists a well-established analysis of D-genericity (cf. Krifka et al. 1995) according to which nominal expressions that refer to kinds of individuals take the form of bare plurals, and more exceptionally of definite generics (cf. the ‘well-established’ kind restriction, Carlson 1977; but see Dayal 2004 for a criticism). For English, this neocarlsonian approach seems to account appropriately for the meaning of bare plurals in generic sentences and, in fact, it has deeply influenced most of the literature on kind reference in other languages (e.g., Chierchia 1998; Longobardi 2001, 2005; Zamparelli 2002, for Italian; and Schmitt 1996; Dobrovie-Sorin and Pires de Oliveira 2008, for Brazilian Portuguese, among others).
Our goal in this paper is to show that in BrP D is the category that is required for argumenthood and that this category encodes reference by specifying Number. Therefore, a bare plural in BrP cannot have kind reference by itself. We follow previous work by Borik and Espinal (2012, 2014, to appear) that shows that: (a) kind-referring nominal expressions are not uniform in their morphosyntactic appearance across languages; (b) definite kind terms, which we understand to denote abstract intensional entities, constitute the default way to refer to kinds in Romance (namely Spanish), since definite kinds do not refer to any instantiation of the kind due to the absence of Number; and (c) generic plural definites cannot arguably be assumed to be equivalent in meaning to bare plurals in English. This approach is in accordance with the well-known observations that bare plurals in Romance cannot obtain a kind reading, but only an existential one (cf. Laca 1990, 1999; Longobardi 1994, 2001; Dobrovie-Sorin and Laca 1996, 2003; Beyssade 2005; de Swart 2006), and that, by contrast, definite plurals are used in Romance to render a logically equivalent kind interpretation.
We assume that the indefinite reading of postverbal BNs also involves a null D (see also footnote 7). Note, however, that we are not going to study this indefinite reading in this paper.
See Krámský (1972) and Harris (1977, 1980) for an account of the obligatory insertion of determiners in Romance linked to the change in agreement morphology (e.g., from the noun in Old French to the determiner in Modern French). Mathieu (2009) proposes a minimalist account of the obligatory insertion of determiners in Modern French.
See more recently Dobrovie-Sorin (2012) for the claim that the features of Number do not project a syntactic category, and for the postulation of a parameter: in Romance, a Num feature attaches to D, whereas in English it attaches to little n.
See also Sauerland (2003) for the proposal that semantically contentful number is not interpreted on the Noun but in a syntactic category above the Determiner.
See Bouchard (2002) for additional sets of differences that follow from the fact that Number is realized on D in French (but on N in English).
We remind the reader that agreement on N is subject to variation. Thus, one could also find in BrP: os conta-gotas. Besides the form given in the main text, a formal variant of the compound N is: o conta-gotas.
We hereby refer exclusively to Num features, because we argue that determiners are the constituents capable of satisfying the [uNum] feature of the N. No mention will be made to other φ-features. See Picallo (2008) for the relationship between Gender and Number.
We are not convinced by the arguments given by Lazaridou-Chatzigoga (2011) that aim to show that the class of have-predicates is larger in Greek than in Spanish and Catalan, because the data this author provides include secondary predications, weak definites, and verbs of consumption whose objects have massified readings, for all of which a syntactic structure larger than NP should be postulated (Espinal and Mateu 2011).
In relation to the semantics of pronouns, with a special reference to Japanese, see Tomioka (2003).
We think that some data discrepancies that have been raised to us by native speaker reviewers are due to the NP/DP structure that can be attributed to BN objects of have-predicates.
As pointed out by Espinal and McNally (2011) the possibility of alternation between the Catalan property-type anaphora en ‘one’ and the entity type anaphora el ‘it’ does not necessarily imply that there is any direct anaphoric relation between the clitic el and the supposed BN antecedent. Consider the contrast in (i).
- (i)
The two pronouns seem to require different discourse rhetorical structures. The first sentence of each discourse introduces a BN that does not identify a discourse topic, it simply describes a specific having-relation. In the second sentence of each discourse we find a verb that in both cases also denotes a have-relation, either tenir ‘to have’ or portar ‘to wear’. So, where is the difference? The clitic en ‘one’ in (ia) refers back to the antecedent property denoted by the Noun mòbil, but cannot introduce a discourse reference to a particular mobile. By contrast, the third person accusative clitic el ‘it’ is licensed in the second discourse because it identifies a new discourse topic; for this possibility to arise the locative prepositional complements a la butxaca plays a crucial role. In other words, the third person accusative clitic is licensed as a result of accommodating information to the common ground at the time of utterance understanding, a process which increases the identifiability of a unique token referent by both speaker and hearer.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to explore the accommodation approach any further. We refer the reader to the following references on this topic: Lewis (1979), von Fintel (2000), Simons (2003), Beaver and Zeevat (2007), among others.
Additional support for the correlations presented here comes from the study in Casagrande (2010). Her results, although not conclusive, show that a third person weak pronoun, as opposed to the null object, is rejected by native speakers in sentences where the antecedent of the pronoun/null object is a BN in complement position of a have-predicate. It should be pointed out that the author did not rely on the classification of verbal predicates that we have presented in this section, but the sort of data she obtained supports our account of the data.
See note 22.
In contrast to (22a), a reviewer has suggested to us the example in (i). We attribute the well-formedness of this example to the structural ambiguity that can be associated with objects of have-predicates: the object complement of a have-predicate can be a DP, in addition to an NP (cf. Espinal and Mateu’s 2011 generalization).
- (i)
At this point the interpretation we are interested in for the preverbal BNs exemplified in (25) should be contrasted with the definite generic kind interpretation, which correlates with the pronominal form ele. An additional example of this correspondence has been given to us by one of the reviewers:
- (i)
See also Ionin et al. (2011) for an empirical investigation of NP interpretation in English, Spanish, and BrP in generic contexts. We postpone the discussion of preverbal BNs to Sect. 5.
For a technical implementation within minimalist terms of the notion of SHARE, see Ouali (2008).
The main characteristic of Inverse Agree is that “the goal may have an uninterpretable feature checked against a higher probe” (Zeijlstra 2012:491). A technical definition of Inverse/Reverse Agree is provided by Zeijlstra (2012:514):
- (i)
The operation of Inverse/Reverse Agree is further supported by the mechanics of Delayed Valuation (Carstens 2013), which guarantees that an unvalued feature with no match in its c-command domain can be valued either ex situ (by raising to c-command a matching feature in a higher phase) or in situ (by a matching feature within the same phase). We thank S. Tubau (p.c.) for this comment.
We tend to think that this analysis, proposed for BrP, is the right one for French as well, but a thorough study of other Romance languages considered in this paper, namely Catalan and Spanish, awaits further research. On the one hand, in these languages Number is obligatorily specified both on the Determiner and on the Noun, but, on the other hand, these languages share with French and BrP a significant number of the properties described by Bouchard (2002).
It is interesting to relate this claim to Ghomeshi’s (2003) analysis of plural nouns in Persian. She accounts for the fact that plural nouns in this language are construed also as definite, unless an overt marker of indefiniteness appears, and she postulates that nouns are contained within DP/QP structures with null Ds.
The Naked Noun Constraint was originally proposed for Spanish (Suñer 1982), and presumably it applies to other Romance languages like Catalan, Italian, and European Portuguese, which are languages that do not allow BNs in preverbal position unless they are modified, coordinated, or focused, and, at the same time, are languages which allow the VS order (cf. Contreras 1986, 1996). Since BrP does not allow VS order (this being only possible with unnaccusative verbs), one could think that the Naked Noun Constraint might not apply to this language.
The avoidance of indefinites is a tendency, not an absolute, as already pointed out by Kuroda (1972:167): “If one were to make a judgment according to which one assigns a certain attribute expressed by the predicate to the subject, he would in fact be assigning this property to an arbitrary individual entity that might be named by the particular attribute used to refer to it.” It is possible to express categorical judgements where the subject is a non-specific indefinite expression. See, for example, (41c) in the text.
In this way, we differ from Britto, who follows Figueiredo-Silva (1996) in that in BrP the null form of the pronoun only occurs in expletive and quasi-argument uses.
In contrast to those categorical judgments in (41) and (42), it is important to point out that BNs in BrP may also occur in preverbal position of thetic judgments. In that case they occur in subject position (Britto 2000), as proved by the fact that: (a) a resumptive pronoun is not possible, and (b) they have an existential interpretation, not a generic one. For these BNs we assume that they are DPs, internal arguments, first moved to a preverbal [Spec, IP] subject position, and later semantically reconstructed within the VP in order to guarantee their existential interpretation. Interestingly, it should be noticed that primary stress is on V (ia) or on a constituent within the VP (ib). We use the symbol ˈ to mark the syllable with primary stress.
- (i)
As pointed out by one of the reviewers, these examples are parallel to left dislocations associated with an existential interpretation in other Romance languages:
- (ii)
As we will see, this free variation is only possible for generic interpretations of the BN, and it is neither possible for the deictic interpretation of the definite determiner, nor for the existential interpretation of the indefinite determiner (Condoravdi 1994).
A reviewer has raised the question of how our analysis of preverbal BNs, as denoting maximal sums in intensional domains, can be made compatible with the well-known claim that definite plurals are underspecified with respect to the level of granularity (distributivity) and exhaustivity (maximality). As discussed by Malamud (2012), and references therein (Link 1983; Landman 1989; Schwarzschild 1991; Brisson 1998), the variation in collective/distributive and maximal/non-maximal interpretations is dependent on the semantics of the predicate, and also on pragmatic factors such as the speakers’ estimates on each other’s beliefs, and the participants’ goals on the computation of truth conditions, from which the optimal selection of entities within the NP denotation is driven.
See de Swart (2006) for an alternative analysis of French generic sentences with definite plurals. In her analysis a bijection one-to-one relationship stands between the atomic members of two intensionally defined sets of individuals considered at the group level.
- (i)
We thank O. Borik (p.c.) for making this comment to us.
As pointed out by one of the reviewers, it might be the case that these two readings should not be kept apart, because in both of them several factors as contrastiveness, topichood, intonation/stress, seem to intervene at the time of composing their meaning. We do not commit ourselves with this unification at this point.
We thank L. McNally (p.c.) for making this comment to us.
A reviewer points out that it is not impossible for a definite kind term to appear as the subject of a stage-level predicate as, for example, in The pig arrived in North American in 1600. However, in this example the pig does not seem to refer to a kind term, but to a prototypical representative of a kind. See Krifka et al. (1995), Dayal (2004), Borik and Espinal (2014, to appear), among others, for discussion on this issue.
The question that remains to be answered is why this preverbal BN cannot have a definite singular interpretation as the one that can be attributed to the definite description in (68a). The overt determiner seems to be responsible for this reading, but we leave this issue for further research since this might be related to more general phenomena of natural languages.
References
Beaver, David, and Henk Zeevat. 2007. Accommodation. In Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, eds. Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss, 503–538. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beyssade, Claire. 2005. Les définis génériques en français: noms d’espèces ou sommes maximales. In Noms nus et généricité, ed. Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin, 33–63. Paris: Presses Universitaires des Vincennes.
Biberauer, Theresa, and Ian Roberts. 2011. Negative words and related expressions: a new perspective on some familiar puzzles. In The evolution of negation: beyond the Jespersen Cycle, eds. Pierre Larrivée and Richard Ingham, 23–59. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Biberauer, Theresa, and Hedde Zeijlstra. 2012. Negative concord in Afrikaans: filling a typological gap. Journal of Semantics 29: 345–371.
Blanchette, Frances. 2012. Modelling negative concord and double negation simultaneously: a feature spreading approach. MACSIM (Mid Atlantic Colloquium of Studies in Meaning), University of Maryland, February 17, 2012.
Blanchette, Frances. 2013. Negative concord in English. Linguistic Variation 13: 1–47.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2008. Bare syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borik, Olga, Sonia Cyrino, and M. Teresa Espinal. 2012. On determiners in languages with and without articles. Paper presented at the Workshop on languages with and without articles. Paris: CNRS, Paris-8.
Borik, Olga, and M. Teresa Espinal. 2012. On definite kinds. Recherches Linguistique de Vincennes 41: 123–146.
Borik, Olga, and M. Teresa Espinal. 2014, to appear. Reference to kinds and to other generic expressions in Spanish: definiteness and number. The Linguistic Review.
Borthen, Kaja. 2003. Norwegian bare singulars. PhD diss., Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Bošković, Željko. 2005. On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica 59: 1–45.
Bošković, Željko, and Jon Gajewski. 2008. Semantic correlates of the NP/DP Parameter. Paper presented at NELS 39, Cornell University.
Bouchard, Denis. 1998. The distribution and interpretation of adjectives in French: a consequence of bare phrase structure. Probus 10: 139–184.
Bouchard, Denis. 2002. Adjectives, number and interfaces—why Languages vary. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Braga, Maria Luisa, and Maria Marta Pereira Scherre. 1976. A concordância de número no SN na área urbana do Rio de Janeiro. Anais do I Encontro Nacional de Lingüística—PUC-Rio de Janeiro, 464–477.
Brentano, Franz. 1862. Von der mannigfachen Bedeutung des Seienden nach Aristoteles. Freiburg: Herder.
Brentano, Franz. 1867. Die Psychologie des Aristoteles, insbesondere seine Lehre vom nous poietikos. Mainz am Rhein: Kirchheim.
Brisson, Christine. 1998. Distributivity, maximality, and floating quantifiers. PhD diss., Rutgers University.
Britto, Helena. 1998. Deslocamento à esquerda, resumptivo-sujeito, ordem SV e a codificação sintática de juízos categórico e tético no português do Brasil. PhD diss., University of Campinas.
Britto, Helena. 2000. Syntactic codification of categorical and thetic judgments in Brazilian Portuguese. In Brazilian Portuguese and the null subject parameter, eds. Mary Kato and Esmeralda Negrão, 183–208. Frankfurt am Main/Madrid: Vervuert/Iberoamericana.
Büring, Daniel. 1997. The meaning of topic and focus: the 59th Street Bridge accent. London: Routledge.
Cardinaletti, Anna, and Michael Starke. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency: a case study of the three classes of pronouns. In Clitics in the languages of Europe, ed. H. van Riemsdijk, 145–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Carlson, Greg. 1977. References to kinds in English. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Published by Garland, New York, 1980.
Carstens, Vicky. 2013. Delayed valuation. Ms., University of Missouri.
Casagrande, Sabrina. 2010. A correlação entre aspecto e objeto no PB: uma análise sintático-aquisicionista. PhD diss., University of Campinas.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6: 339–405.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: a life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowich, 1–53. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2005. Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 315–332.
Cohen, Ariel, and Nomi Erteschik-Shir. 2002. Topic, focus, and the interpretation of bare plurals. Natural Language Semantics 10: 125–165.
Condoravdi, Cleo. 1992a. Strong and weak novelty and familiarity. Proceedings of SALT 2: 17–37. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 10, Dept. of Linguistics, Ohio State University.
Condoravdi, Cleo. 1992b. Individual-level predicates in conditional clauses. Paper presented at the LSA meeting. Philadelphia, PA.
Condoravdi, Cleo. 1994. Descriptions in context. PhD diss., Yale University.
Contreras, Heles. 1986. Spanish bare NPs and the ECP. In Generative studies in Spanish syntax, eds. Ivonne Bordelois, Heles Contreras, and Karen Zagona, 25–49. Dordrecht: Foris.
Contreras, Heles. 1996. Sobre la distribución de los sintagmas nominales no predicativos sin determinante. In El sustantivo sin determinación, ed. Ignacio Bosque, 141–168. Madrid: Visor.
Costa, João, and Maria Cristina Figueiredo Silva. 2006. Nominal and verbal agreement in Portuguese: An argument for Distributed Morphology. In Studies on agreement, eds. João Costa and Maria Cristina Figueiredo Silva, 25–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cyrino, Sonia. 1997. O objeto nulo no português brasileiro: um estudo sintático-diacrônico. Londrina: Editora da UEL.
Cyrino, Sonia, and M. Teresa Espinal. 2011. Object BNs in Brazilian Portuguese. More on the NP/DP analysis. Paper presented at CSSP 2011, Le neuvième Colloque de Syntaxe et Sémantique à Paris. Paris: CNRS.
Cyrino, Sonia, and M. Teresa Espinal. 2012. Bare nominals in Brazilian Portuguese. More on the NP/DP analysis. Paper presented at 42th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. Utah: Southern Utah University.
Dayal, Veneeta. 2004. Number marking and indefiniteness in kind terms. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 393–450.
Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Martina Wiltschko. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 409–442.
Delfitto, Denis, and Jan Schroten. 1991. Bare plurals and the Number affix in DP. Probus 3: 155–185.
Déprez, Viviane. 2005. Morphological number, semantic number and bare nouns. Lingua 115: 857–883.
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1997. Types of predicates and the representation of existential readings. In Proceedings of SALT VII, ed. A. Lawson, 117–134. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 2012. Number as a feature. In Functional heads, eds. Laura Brugè, Anna Cardinaletti, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro, and Cecilia Poletto, 304–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen, Tonia Bleam, and M. Teresa Espinal. 2006. Bare nouns, number and types of incorporation. In Non-definiteness and plurality, eds. Svetlana Vogeleer and Liliane Tasmowski, 51–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen, and Brenda Laca. 1996. Generic BNPs. Ms., Paris VII/University of Strasbourg.
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen, and Brenda Laca. 2003. Les noms sans déterminants dans les langues romanes. In Les langues romanes: Problèmes de la phrase simple, ed. Danièle Godard, 235–281. Paris: Les Éditions du CNRS.
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen, and Roberta Pires de Oliveira. 2008. Reference to kinds in Brazilian Portuguese: definite singulars vs. bare singulars. In Proceedings of SuB12, ed. Atle Grønn, Oslo, ILOS 2008, 107–121.
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1997. The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information structure: the syntax-discourse interface. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Espinal, M. Teresa. 2010. Bare nominals in Catalan and Spanish. Their structure and meaning. Lingua 120: 984–1009.
Espinal, M. Teresa. 2013. On the structure of vocatives. In Vocative! eds. Barbara Sonnenhauser and Patrizia Noel, Trends in Linguistics Series, 109–132. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Espinal, M. Teresa, and Jaume Mateu. 2011. Bare nominals and argument structure in Catalan and Spanish. The Linguistic Review 28: 1–39.
Espinal, M. Teresa, and Louise McNally. 2007. Bare singular nominals and incorporating verbs. In Definiteness, specificity and animacy in Ibero-Romance languages, eds. Georg Kaiser and Manuel Leonetti. Vol. 122 of Arbeitspapier, 45–62. Konstanz: University of Konstanz.
Espinal, M. Teresa, and Louise McNally. 2011. Bare nominals and incorporating verbs in Catalan and Spanish. Journal of Linguistics 47: 87–128.
Farkas, Donka. 2006. The unmarked determiner. In Non-definiteness and plurality, eds. Svetlana Vogeleer and Liliane Tasmowski, 81–105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Farkas, Donka, and Henriette de Swart. 2003. The semantics of incorporation. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Ferreira, Marcelo. 2005. Bare habituals and plural definite descriptions. In Proceedings of SuB9, eds. Emar Maier, Corien Bary, and Janneke Huitink, 102–115. Nijmegen: Radboud University.
Ferreira, Marcelo. 2010. The morpho-semantics of number in Brazilian Portuguese bare singulars. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 91: 95–116.
Figueiredo-Silva, Maria Cristina. 1996. A posição do sujeito em português do Brasil: frases finitas e infinitivas. Campinas: Editora da Unicamp.
von Fintel, Kai. 2000. What is presupposition accommodation? Unpublished manuscript. MIT. http://mit.edu/fintel/fintel-2000-accomm.pdf.
Galves, Charlotte. 2001. Ensaios sobre as gramáticas do português. Campinas: Editora da Unicamp.
Ghomeshi, Jila. 2003. Plural marking, indefiniteness and the noun phrase. Studia Linguistica 57(2): 47–74.
Ghomeshi, Jila, Ileana Paul, and Martina Wiltschko, eds. 2009. Determiners. Universals and variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gross, Maurice. 1967. Sur une règle de cacophonie. Langages 7: 105–119.
Guy, Gregory. 1981. Linguistic variation in Brazilian Portuguese: aspects of the phonology, syntax, and language history. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania.
Hale, Ken, and Samuel-Jay Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Harris, Martin. 1977. The evolution of French syntax: A comparative approach. London: Longman.
Harris, Martin. 1980. The marking of definiteness in Romance. In Historical morphology, ed. Jasek Fisiak, 141–156. The Hague: Mouton.
Harves, Stephanie, and Richard Kayne. 2012. Having ‘need’ and needing ‘have’. Linguistic Inquiry 431: 120–132.
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2011. Definiteness. In Oxford bibliographies online: Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ionin, Tania, Silvina Montrul, and Hélade Santos. 2011. An experimental investigation of the expression of genericity in English, Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese. Lingua 121: 963–985.
Ihsane, Tabea. 2012. A clitic with several sources. Paper presented at the 42nd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Langues. Southern Utah University.
Kallulli, Dalina. 1999. The comparative syntax of Albanian: on the contribution of syntactic types to propositional interpretation. PhD diss., University of Durham.
Kato, Mary. 2002. Pronomes fortes e fracos na sintaxe do português brasileiro. Revista Portuguesa de Filologia 24: 101–122.
Kayne, Richard. 1977. Syntaxe du Français. Le cycle transformationnel. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
Krámský, Jir̆í. 1972. The article and the concept of definiteness in languages. The Hague: Mouton.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1989. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. Ms., University of Massachusetts. Amherst.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In The generic book, eds. Greg Carlson and Francis J. Pelletier, 125–175. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Krifka, Manfred, Francis J. Pelletier, Greg Carlson, Alice ter Meulen, Godehard Link, and Gennaro Chierchia. 1995. Introduction. In The generic book, eds. Greg Carlson and Francis J. Pelletier, 1–124. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1972. The categorical and the thetic judgment. Foundations of Language 9: 153–185.
Labov, William. 1975. Sociolinguistics patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Laca, Brenda. 1990. Generic objects: some more pieces of the puzzle. Lingua 81: 25–46.
Laca, Brenda. 1999. Presencia y ausencia de determinante. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, eds. Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte, 891–928. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.
Laca, Brenda. 2011. Bare nouns and information structure. Paper presented at the Workshop on sentence initial bare nouns in Romance, University of Tübingen.
Ladusaw, William A. 1994. Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, weak and strong. In SALT IV, eds. Mandy Harvey and Lynn Santelmann, 220–229. Ithaca: Cornell University.
Landman, Fred. 1989. Groups, I. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(5): 559–605.
Lazaridou-Chatzigoga, Dimitra. 2011. The distribution and interpretation of bare singular count nouns in Greek. Paper presented at the Workshop on weak referentiality, Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS.
Lemle, Miriam, and Anthony J. Naro. 1977. Competências básicas do português. Relatório final de pesquisa Fundação Movimento Brasileiro (MOBRAL) e Fundação Ford (‘Final research report on Fundação Movimento Brasileiro (MOBRAL) and Ford Foundation’). Rio de Janeiro.
Leonetti, Manuel. 1998. A relevance-theoretic account of the property predication restriction. In Current issues in relevance theory, eds. Villy Rouchota and Andreas H. Jucker, 141–167. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lewis, David. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 339–359.
Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plural and mass terms: a lattice theoretical approach. In Meaning, use and interpretation of language, eds. Rainer Bäuerle, Cristoph Schwarze, and Arnim von Stechow, 303–323. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609–665.
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1999. Bare nouns, proper names, and the syntax-semantics mapping: toward a unified parametric approach. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 24: 45–76.
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2000. The structure of DPs: some principles, parameters, and problems. In The Handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, eds. Martin Baltin and Chris Collins, 562–603. Oxford: Blackwell.
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2001. How comparative is semantics? A unified parametric theory of bare nouns and proper names. Natural Language Semantics 9: 335–369.
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2005. Toward a unified grammar of reference. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 24: 5–44.
Lopes, Ruth. 2006. Bare nouns and DP number agreement in the acquisition of Brazilian Portuguese. In Selected proceedings of the 9th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, eds. Nuria Sagarra and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio, 252–262. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Malamud, Sophia A. 2012. The meaning of plural definites. A decision-theoretic approach. Semantics and Pragmatics 5(3): 1–58.
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4: 201–225.
Marty, Anton. 1918. Gesammelte Schriften. Vol. II/1, Schriften zur deskriptiven Psychologie und Sprachphilosophie. Halle: Max Niemeyer.
Mateu, Jaume. 2002. Argument structure. Relational construal at the syntax-semantics interface. PhD diss., Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
Mathieu, Eric. 2009. From local blocking to Cyclic Agree: The role and meaning of determiners in the history of French. In Determiners. Universals and variation, eds. Jila Ghomeshi, Ileana Paul, and Martina Wiltschko, 123–157. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
May, Robert. 1985. Logical form: its structure and derivation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
McNally, Louise, and Veerle van Geenhoven. 1998. Redefining the weak/strong distinction. Paper presented at the Second Paris Syntax and Semantics Colloquium. Paris.
Menuzzi, Sérgio. 1994. Adjectival positions inside DPs. In Linguistics in the Netherlands, eds. Crit Cremers and Reineke Bok-Benema, 127–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Milsark, Gary. 1977. Towards an explanation of certain peculiarities in the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis 3: 1–30.
Müller, Ana. 2002. The semantics of generic quantification in Brazilian Portuguese. Probus 14: 279–298.
Müller, Ana. 2004. Tópico, foco e nominais nus no português brasileiro. In Sentido e significação, eds. Lígia Negri, Maria José Foltran, and Roberta Pires de Oliveira, 77–95. São Paulo: Contexto.
Müller, Ana, and Fátima Oliveira. 2004. Bare nominals and number in Brazilian and European Portuguese. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 31: 9–36.
Munn, Alan, and Cristina Schmitt. 2005. Number and indefinites. Lingua 115: 821–855.
Naro, Anthony Julius. 1981. The social and structural dimensions of a syntactic change. Language 57(1): 63–98.
Naro, Anthony Julius, and Maria Marta Pereira Scherre. 2013. Remodeling the age variable: Number concord in Brazilian Portuguese. Language Variation and Change 25(1): 1–15.
Ouali, Hamid. 2008. On C-to-T φ-feature transfer: the nature of agreement and antiagreement in Berber. In Agreement restrictions, eds. Toberta D’Alessandre, Gunnar Hrafnbjargarson, and Susann Fisher, 159–180. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Partee, Barbara. 1987. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, eds. Jeroen Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh, and Martin Stokhof, 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris.
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2006. Small Nominals. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24: 433–500.
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2007. The universality of DP: a view from Russian. Studia Linguistica 61: 59–94.
Picallo, Carme. 2008. Gender and Number in Romance. Lingue e Linguaggio VII.1: 47–66.
Pires de Oliveira, Roberta, and Susan Rothstein. 2011. Bare singular noun phrases are mass in Brazilian Portuguese. Lingua 121: 2153–2175.
Sauerland, Uli. 2003. A new semantics for number. In SALT XIII, eds. R. Young and Y. Zhou, 258–275. Ithaca: Cornell University.
Scherre, Maria Marta Pereira. 1988. Reanálise da concordância nominal em português. PhD diss., Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro.
Scherre, Maria Marta Pereira. 1994. Aspectos da concordância de número no português do Brasil. Revista Internacional de Língua Portuguesa 12: 37–49.
Scherre, Maria Marta Pereira, and Anthony Julius Naro. 1998a. Restrições sintáticas e semânticas no controle da concordância verbal em português. Fórum Linguístico 1(1): 45–71.
Scherre, Maria Marta Pereira, and Anthony Julius Naro. 1998b. Sobre a concordância de número no português falado do Brasil. In Dialettologia, geolinguistica, sociolinguistica (Atti del XXI Congresso Internazionale di Linguistica e Filologia Romanza), ed. Giovanni Ruffino, 509–523. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Schmitt, Cristina. 1996. Aspect and the syntax of noun phrases. PhD diss., University of Maryland.
Schmitt, Cristina, and Alan Munn. 1999. Against the Nominal Mapping Parameter: Bare nouns in Brazilian Portuguese. In Proceedings of NELS, eds. Pius Tamanji, Mako Hirotani, and Nancy Hall. Vol. 29, 339–353. Delaware: University of Delaware.
Schmitt, Cristina, and Alan Munn. 2003. The syntax and semantics of bare arguments in Brazilian Portuguese. In Linguistic variation yearbook 2, ed. Pierre Pica, 185–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1991. On the meaning of definite plural noun phrases. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts-Amherst.
Sharvy, Richard. 1980. A more general theory of definite descriptions. Philosophical Review 89(4): 607–624.
Simioni, Leonor. 2007. A concordância de número no DP: propostas minimalistas. Estudos Lingüísticos 36: 117–125.
Simons, Mandy. 2003. Presupposition and accommodation: understanding the Stalnakerian picture. Philosophical Studies 112(3): 251–278.
Suñer, Margarita. 1982. Syntax and semantics of Spanish presentational sentence types. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
de Swart, Henriette. 1998. Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16: 347–385.
de Swart, Henriette. 2006. Aspectual implications of the semantics of plural indefinites. In Non-definiteness and plurality, eds. Svetlana Vogeleer and Liliane Tasmowski, 161–189. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2003. The semantics of Japanese null pronouns and its cross-linguistic implications. In The interfaces: deriving and interpreting omitted structures, eds. Kerstin Schwabe and Susanne Winkler, 321–339. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tortora, Christina. 2009. Clausal domains and clitic placement generalizations in Italian dialects. Talk given at the 4th Cambridge Italian Dialect Syntax Meeting. University of Cambridge.
Tortora, Christina. 2012. Clausal domains and clitic placement generalizations in Romance. Talk given at the 2012 Going Romance Conference. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
Vallduví, Enric. 1990. The informational component. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania.
Ward, Gregory L., and Ellen F. Prince. 1991. On the topicalization of indefinite NPs. Journal of Pragmatics 15(8): 167–178.
Zamparelli, Roberto. 1995. Layers in determiner phrase. PhD diss., University of Rochester. Published by Garland, New York, 2000.
Zamparelli, Roberto. 2002. Definite and bare kind-denoting nouns phrases. In Romance languages and linguistic theory. Selected papers from Going Romance 2000, eds. Frank Drijkoningen, Claire Beyssade, Paola Monachesi, and Reineke Bok-Bennema, 305–342. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2012. There is only one way to agree. The Linguistic Review 29(3): 491–539.
Acknowledgements
Previous versions of this study were presented at the following international conferences: 9th CSSP (Paris, 2011), 42th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (Southern Utah University, 2012), 6th NEREUS Workshop (Köln, 2012), 6th Romania Nova (Natal, 2013), and 39th Incontro di Grammatica Generativa (Modena-Reggio Emilia, 2013). We also presented part of this work as a seminar at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra (Barcelona, 2012), at the University of Hamburg (Hamburg, 2012), and the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (Bellaterra, 2013). We would like to thank the audiences of all these conferences and seminars, as well as the anonymous reviewers for all their suggestions and comments. We specially thank Olga Borik, Jordi Fortuny, Susagna Tubau, Xavier Villalba, and the editor of NLLT for most helpful remarks and observations.
This research has been funded by the following research grants: Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (FFI1011-23356), Generalitat de Catalunya (2009SGR-1073, ICREA Acadèmia award), Brazilian CNPQ-Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (research grant 303006/2009-9), FAEPEX-UNICAMP, FAPESP-Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (research grant 2012/06078-9) and CAPES-Spanish Ministerio de Educación Cultura y Deportes (research grants CAPES/DGU-305/13 and 0214. 2013-2014).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cyrino, S., Espinal, M.T. Bare Nominals in Brazilian Portuguese: more on the DP/NP analysis. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 33, 471–521 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9264-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9264-6