Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

English One and Ones as Complex Determiners

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Perspectives on the Architecture and Acquisition of Syntax

Abstract

One and ones are complex determiners whose relation to their antecedent, when they have one, is mediated by a silent noun. They are never themselves nouns taking an antecedent directly. All instances of non-numeral one are associated with a classifier, plus an indefinite article. Numeral one is in addition associated with an element akin to single. The analysis proposed unifies prenominal one with the one of a blue one and blue ones. The syntax of one and ones is best understood if all nonlocal syntactic relations necessarily involve internal merge.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cf. Stirling and Huddleston (2002: 1515), Payne et al. (2013: 798, 812).

    Payne et al. (2013: 812) suggest that bare *ones is “preempted by …some”. This does not seem descriptively correct (quite apart from the absence of a clear notion of preemption). Consider, for example:

    1. (i)

      Bicycles have wheels and unicycles have wheels/*ones, too.

    Here, ones is bad, as usual, but some is inappropriate:

    1. (ii)

      ?…and unicycles have some, too

    with (ii) rather having the status of:

    1. (iii)

      ?…and unicycles have some wheels, too.

  2. 2.

    In standard English as opposed to the dialects discussed in McDonald and Beal (1987: 48) and Beal et al. (2012: 57). Stirling and Huddleston (2002: 1513n) give You’re a one! as idiomatic. (It would be of interest if these exceptions had no counterpart with plural ones.) The general impossibility of bare *a one was noted by Perlmutter (1970: 236).

  3. 3.

    As noted by Perlmutter (1970: 236) and Lakoff (1970: 630). Halliday and Hasan (1976: 97) say that one hears two ones especially in children’s speech; this needs to be looked into. As does the fact that a Google search yields a number of examples with completely bare ones, which may point to the existence of an as yet unstudied variety of English.

  4. 4.

    Llombart-Huesca’s arguments were not taken into account by Payne et al. (2013).

  5. 5.

    Cf. also the multiple definite articles of Greek, as discussed by Alexiadou and Wilder (1998) among others.

  6. 6.

    Schibsbye (1970: 285) had noted a half a dozen eggs. Probably also belonging here are a helluva good show and a gem of a film. On other Germanic languages, see, for example, Barbiers (2005) and Wood (2013) and references cited there.

  7. 7.

    Left open by this emphasis on phonology is the fact that English sometimes allows a stressed indefinite article, as in:

    1. (i)

      I can’t give you the book, but I can give you a book,

    in which a rhymes with say. This stressed a does not license NP-ellipsis:

    1. (ii)

      *…but I can give you a.

    suggesting that Borer’s (2005: 111n) primarily phonological account of the impossibility of (ii) with unstressed a is not general enough.

  8. 8.

    He suggests generic a might perhaps derive from any one, but note:

    1. (i)

      Any/*A spider whatsoever would be able to eat that insect.

    2. (ii)

      Hardly any/*a spider would eat that insect.

    3. (iii)

      Not just any/*a spider could have done that.

  9. 9.

    Cf. Simpson et al. (2011: 188) on Vietnamese; also Simpson and Biswas (2015: 7) on Bangla.

  10. 10.

    An alternative that I will not pursue might be to take one to be monomorphemic and to cooccur with a silent classifier.

  11. 11.

    Cf. Leu (2015: 116) on German ein being moved across.

  12. 12.

    Cf. Kayne (2002a; 2005a).

  13. 13.

    Why one acts differently here from demonstratives remains to be understood. Relevant to the formulation of the prohibition in question is:

    1. (i)

      two (beautiful) (*the) seventh inning home runs

    versus

    1. (ii)

      ?two (beautiful) top of the seventh inning home runs.

  14. 14.

    On the complexity of (most) determiners, see Leu (2015).

  15. 15.

    As noted by Jespersen (1961, Sect. 10.12).

  16. 16.

    If the final consonant of these and those is the plural -s, then demonstratives fall outside the text statement (cf. Kayne 2010a). Alternatively, Bernstein (2015) has argued that the final consonant in these and those is a genitive -s.

  17. 17.

    In students that age, there is probably a silent preposition intervening between students and that age.

  18. 18.

    On en corresponding most closely to English thereof, see Kayne (2004). On the subject–object asymmetry at issue in the text, see Pollock (1998).

  19. 19.

    This differs in part from Kayne (2008a, Sect. 7).

  20. 20.

    There might also be a link here to Kayne’s (2002b) idea that antecedents need to be reached via movement.

  21. 21.

    Why lesquels acts differently in nonrestrictive relatives remains to be understood. Cf. Grevisse and Goosse (2011: §619).

  22. 22.

    A remaining question is why French does not then allow:

    1. (i)

      *Quels les linguistes as-tu invités?

  23. 23.

    Cf. Greenberg (1966), Cinque (2005) though neither attempted to integrate articles. A separate question is whether their “Dem Num Adj N” reflects external merge alone, or whether internal merge is also involved. See also Shlonsky (2004).

    Barbiers (2005: 172) has the idea that DP moves, triggered by focus, to spec of one in Northern Brabantish, in a partially similar way.

  24. 24.

    With a possible link to:

    1. (i)

      A group of three/?two students is waiting in your office.

    2. (ii)

      *A group of one student is waiting in your office.

      and/or to:

    3. (iii)

      all three of Mary’s three children.

    4. (iv)

      *every single one of Mary’s (one) child.

  25. 25.

    Cf. Tat (2011) for a similar proposal on Turkic languages.

  26. 26.

    Many acts like few here, as opposed to numerous: (i) We’ve bought?numerous/*many ones. The reason is that numerous is not a modifier of NUMBER in the way that few and many are. For more details, see Kayne (2002a).

  27. 27.

    Payne et al. (2013: 814) give, without appreciating the nonunicity of English, two examples of definite the five ones… which are for me only marginally acceptable, probably in a way related to the discussion in Section “The” below.

  28. 28.

    Cf. Pollock (1998, note 24).

  29. 29.

    In French, this de can also be licensed by a following determiner, as in:

    1. (i)

      Vous avez acheté des (bons) vins. (“you have bought of-the (good) wines”) in which case an adjective is no longer necessary.

  30. 30.

    For recent discussion of this kind of French de, see Ihsane (2008).

  31. 31.

    An example of licensing by a pre-ones reduced relative in English is: (i) There are a few old letters on the chair and a few recently arrived ones on the table.

    On adjectives and reduced relatives more generally, see Cinque (2010). The text cases are to be distinguished from cases in which the licensing modifier need not be prenominal; see Longobardi (1994, note 12) on determinerless nouns in preverbal subject position.

  32. 32.

    The indefinite article requires licensing by an adjective in:

    1. (i)

      You must have spent a *(good, beautiful) three weeks in Italy.

    2. (ii)

      You should invite a*(n other) four people.

  33. 33.

    And similarly for: (i) too long (of) a book

    In the cases he discusses, Leu (2015: 92) has the determiner and adjective forming a constituent. Extended to ones, this would mean that (at the point of licensing) ones + adjective is a constituent.

  34. 34.

    Cf. note 2.

  35. 35.

    As opposed to:

    1. (i)

      We bought a recently published one

    with a reduced relative that is prenominal.

  36. 36.

    For another case of a silent adjective with no antecedent, see Kayne (2005a, Sect. 7) on GOOD. Possibly the English that accepts not a one has it as:

    1. (i)

      …not SINGLE a one

    with SINGLE preceding, rather than following, the indefinite article, with this position for SINGLE licensed by the presence of not (via movement of the phrase “not SINGLE” from postnominal position directly to pre-a position)—cf. Troseth (2009) on not very good of a book.

  37. 37.

    With 1000, French has:

    1. (i)

      (*un) mille linguistes (“a thousand linguists”)

    Possible, with a complex numeral containing one as a subpart, is:

    1. (ii)

      trente-et-un mille linguistes (“thirty and one thousand linguists”).

  38. 38.

    Though there may be a silent one present, to judge by the obligatory pronunciation of the final consonant of vingt in 22, 23…

  39. 39.

    There is a point of similarity here with Borer’s (2005: 196) proposal that Hebrew ‘exád (“one”) is an adjective interpreted as “single”.

  40. 40.

    As mentioned in an earlier footnote, this view of one faces a challenge dealing with stressed a, as in:

    1. (i)

      We don’t need some chocolates, we need a chocolate

    with a pronounced to rhyme with say.

  41. 41.

    On once, see Kayne (2014).

  42. 42.

    Cf. Leu (2007; 2015, Chap. 2).

  43. 43.

    As noted by Halliday and Hasan (1976: 97).

  44. 44.

    As noted by Halliday and Hasan (1976, 96).

  45. 45.

    Cf. Leu (2005).

  46. 46.

    The first example has a DP apparently case-licensed by wonder, in contrast to Pesetsky (1991: 6) Note the contrast with adjectives, for example:

    1. (i)

      *We’re sure it’s time to leave and they’re sure the same thing.

    It may be that the property of thing at issue is (to some extent) limited to abstract, as opposed to object, thing, a distinction that some languages make explicit; cf. Zepeda (1983: 53, 55) on double counterparts of nothing and what.

  47. 47.

    Though “thing” seems to be compatible with various classifiers in Cantonese, see Matthews and Yip (1994: 106).

  48. 48.

    On “immediately,” note:

    1. (i)

      They spent a beautiful three weeks/*ones in France last year.

  49. 49.

    Conceivably there is a point of contact here with:

    1. (i)

      Someone(*s) else called.

  50. 50.

    Cf. especially Leu (2015: 32) on Norwegian.

  51. 51.

    Another kind of example with something adjectival, but not strictly speaking an adjective is:

    1. (i)

      John makes lots of remarks, including lots of over-the-top ones.

    Note also:

    1. (ii)

      *I’ve read neither John’s papers nor Mary’s ones

    versus

    1. (iii)

      ?I’ve read neither yesterday’s newspapers nor today’s ones

  52. 52.

    There may or may not be a link to:

    1. (i)

      The plates were piled one on top of the other.

    2. (ii)

      *The plates were piled ones on top of the other(s).

  53. 53.

    The extent to which this kind of analysis should be extended to French on, or to Italian si, or to German man is left open here; for relevant discussion, see Cinque (1988), Malamud (2013).

  54. 54.

    An arguably similar sensitivity to the presence of a determiner is shown in (nonstandard):

    1. (i)

      Let’s go somewheres (else).

    2. (ii)

      *Wheres (else) should we go?

    For relevant discussion, see Kayne (2007a, Sect. 3).

  55. 55.

    Cf. the nonequivalence of somewhere and someplace discussed in Kayne (2007a) Also:

    1. (i)

      He’s living in the middle of nowhere/*noplace.

  56. 56.

    This way of looking at things makes sense of nobodies vs. *noones, while leaving open the contrast between They’re nobodies and

    1. (i)

      *They have nobodies else.

  57. 57.

    Note that the “head” of the relative here contains not just ones but also at least one silent NOUN.

  58. 58.

    As opposed to some special cases like:

    1. (i)

      John and Mary have both signed up, but so far they’re the only ones.

    These may involve a deleted relative—cf. Stirling and Huddleston (2002: 1513n), and for a sustained proposal, (Collins 2014).

  59. 59.

    Possibly via a silent prenominal THERE that might be relevant to the contrast between English and Dutch concerning “the…one…” noted by Barbiers (2005: 163). Jespersen (1961, Sect. 10.12) notes that some Jutland dialects allow a counterpart of definite that abominable one, as opposed to standard Danish.

  60. 60.

    As opposed to adding some in:

    1. (i)

      Mary has published some twenty papers/*ones in the last five years.

  61. 61.

    Cf Koopman and Szabolcsi (2000), Julien (2002).

  62. 62.

    Cf Kayne (2003).

  63. 63.

    The impossibility of this kind of example was noted by Stirling and Huddleston (2002: 1524), who did not, however, draw the conclusion that other is always an adjective. Their reason was that the others is possible, combined with the belief that adjectives never take plural -s in English.

    British and American English seem to differ in that only British English has, with a simple numeral:

    1. (i)

      Mary has three millions in the bank,

    in which the -s is likely associated with silent POUND. In (my) American English, this -s does not appear:

    1. (ii)

      Mary has three million in the bank.

    though DOLLAR(S) is presumably present. Her and Tsai (2015: 592) note the existence of doublets like:

    1. (iii)

      There are three grand pianos/grands in the storeroom,

    which they interpret as showing that grand in (iii) is a noun. Alternatively, it is an adjective occurring with either piano or PIANO. The monetary grands (possible for some speakers) that they discuss in their Sect. One is not a noun is compatible with monetary grand being an adjective, in the same way. The question whether the specific analysis of monetary grand proposed in Kayne (2012) is on the right track is beyond the scope of this chapter.

  64. 64.

    With the indefinite article in place of one, we get the impossible:

    1. (i)

      *…but you prefer blue a’s

    Presumably, this is the same fact as:

    1. (ii)

      *John has a car and you have a, too.

    in turn akin to:

    1. (iii)

      John likes the *(car), too.

  65. 65.

    One here is associated with plural “CAR s,” contrary to:

    1. (i)

      We have one car(*s).

    Thinking of Heim (1987), van Riemsdijk (2005), and Leu (2008), this might suggest:

    1. (ii)

      … blue one KIND CAR -s.

    in which one goes with silent KIND (or some other additional NOUN) and -s with silent CAR. Pursuing this possibility would be beyond the scope of this chapter.

  66. 66.

    Cf. Stirling and Huddleston (2002: 1515) for judgments like Baker’s.

  67. 67.

    Cf. Kayne (2008b).

  68. 68.

    Payne et al. (2014) gave me the impression, perhaps wrongly, that they believe that there is one “English.” For a sharply opposing view, see Kayne (1996; 2013). On the richness of syntactic variation within what we call English, see Algeo (2006), Kortmann et al. (2005), Zanuttini and Horn (2014), and many other such works.

  69. 69.

    With a point of similarity to:

    1. (i)

      *their explanation away of the problem

    which must also involve noncontrastive scrambling, if Kayne (2008b) is on the right track.

  70. 70.

    Cf. Postal (1969), Harris (2006).

  71. 71.

    In the following:

    1. (i)

      John is a self-promoting scoundrel,

    the antecedent of self must not be John, but rather the silent subject of promote. The relation between that subject and scoundrel needs looking into.

    In:

    1. (ii)

      We’re having a three-wine dinner tonight,

    there may well be a silent KIND, as in Kayne (2003, note 26), but that KIND has no compound-external antecedent, just as SINGLE does not in the text discussion.

  72. 72.

    Cf. Kayne (2010b). As formulated, the text statement, which has implications for the derivation of relative clauses and tough-movement, also prohibits instances of Agree that do not also involve internal merge—cf. Koopman (2003; 2005), Kayne and Pollock (2012; 2014).

    On NPI-licensing as involving movement, see Chomsky (1973: 242) (for the particular case of not…many) and especially Collins and Postal (2014). On topicalization and (a certain kind of) left-dislocation, note the reconstruction effects that hold (for me) in:

    1. (i)

      His youngest daughter every man is especially fond of.

    2. (ii)

      As for his youngest daughter, every man is bound to think she’s a genius.

    Similarly:

    1. (iii)

      His youngest daughter is easy for a man to admire.

References

  • Algeo, J. 2006. British or American English?. A Handbook of Word and Grammar Patterns: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Alexiadou, A., and C. Wilder. 1998. Adjectival modification and multiple determiners. In Possessors, predicates and movement in the determiner phrase, ed. A. Alexiadou, and C. Wilder, 305–332. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, C.L. 1978. Introduction to generative-transformational syntax. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbiers, S. 2007. Indefinite numerals one and many and the cause of ordinal suppletion. Lingua 117: 859–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbiers, S. 2005. Variation in the morphosyntax of one. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 8: 159–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beal, J.C., L. Burbano-Elizondo, and C. Llamas. 2012. Urban north-eastern English: Tyneside to Teesside. Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, J. 2015. The expression of case across English demonstrative forms, talk presented at New York University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borer, H. 2005. In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardinaletti, A., and M. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, L.L.-S., and R. Sybesma. 1999. Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 509–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, L.L.-S., and R. Sybesma. 2012. Classifiers and DP. Linguistic Inquiry 43: 634–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cinque, G. 2010. The syntax of adjectives. A comparative study. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cinque, G. 2005. Deriving Greenberg’s universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 315–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cinque, G. 1988. On Si constructions and the theory of Arb. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 521–581.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, C. 2014. Relative clause deletion. New York: New York University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh, R. 2001. Some aspects of determiner phrase in Bangla and Asamiya. Doctoral dissertation, Tezpur University, Assam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J.H. 1966. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of language, 2nd ed, ed. J.H. Greenberg, 73–113. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grevisse, M. & Goosse, A. 2011. Le Bon Usage. 75 Ans, De Boeck Duculot, Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M.A.K., and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A.C. 2006. Revisiting anaphoric islands. Language 82: 114–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. 1987. Where does the definiteness restriction apply? Evidence from the definiteness of variables. In The representation of (in)definiteness, ed. E.J. Reuland, and A.G.B. ter Meulen, 21–42. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendrick, R. 1990. Operator binding in NP. In A. Halperin (ed.) Proceedings of the Ninth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Her, O.-S., and H.-C. Tsai. 2015. On silent elements: a case study of grand and its silent entourage. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33: 575–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ihsane, T. 2008. The layered DP. Form and meaning of French indefinites. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jespersen, O. 1961. A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part II. Syntax. First Volume. London and Ejnar Munksgaard, Copenhagen: George Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Julien, M. 2002. Syntactic heads and word formation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, R.S. 2014. Once and twice. In Inquiries into linguistic theory and language acquisition. Papers offered to Adriana Belletti, ed. C. Contemori and L. Dal Pozzo. CISCL Press: Siena (also in Studies in Chinese Linguistics (2015) 36, 1–20).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, R.S. 2013. Comparative syntax. Lingua 130: 132–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, R.S. 2012. A note on grand and its silent entourage. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 33: 71–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, R.S. 2010a. Why isn’t this a complementizer? In Comparisons and contrasts (also in Functional structure from top to toe: A Festschrift for Tarald Taraldsen, ed. P. Svenonius. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, R.S. 2010b. The DP-internal origin of datives, talk given at the 4th European Dialect Syntax Workshop in Donostia/San Sebastián.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, R.S. 2010c. Comparisons and contrasts. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, R.S. 2008a. Some preliminary comparative remarks on French and Italian definite articles. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. R. Freidin, C.P. Otero and M.L. Zubizarreta, 291–321. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press (reprinted in (2010c) Comparisons and Contrasts).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, R.S. 2008b. Antisymmetry and the lexicon. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 8: 1–31 (also in The Biolinguistic enterprise: New perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty, ed. A.M. di Sciullo and C. Boeckx, 329–353. London: Oxford University Press (2011)) (reprinted in Comparisons and Contrasts).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, R.S. 2007a. A short note on where verses place. In Miscellanea di Studi Linguistici offerti a Laura Vanelli da amici e allievi padovani, ed. R. Maschi, N. Penello and P. Rizzolatti, 245–257. Forum, Udine (reprinted in Comparisons and Contrasts).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, R.S. 2006. On parameters and on principles of pronunciation. In Organizing grammar. Linguistic studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, ed. H. Broekhuis, N. Corver, R. Huybregts, U. Kleinhenz and J. Koster, 289–299. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter (reprinted in (2010c) Comparisons and Contrasts).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, R.S. 2005a. On the syntax of quantity in English. In Movement and silence (also in Linguistic theory and South-Asian languages. Essays in Honour of K.A. Jayaseelan, ed. J. Bayer, T. Bhattacharya and M. T. Hany Babu, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, R.S. 2005b. Movement and silence. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, R.S. 2004. Here and there. In Syntax, lexis & lexicon-grammar, ed. C. Leclère, E. Laporte, M. Piot, and M. Silberztein, 253–273. Papers in Honour of Maurice Gross, John Benjamins, Amsterdam (reprinted in (2005b) Movement and Silence).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, R.S. 2003. Silent years, silent hours. In Grammar in focus. Festschrift for Christer Platzack, ed. L.-O. Delsing et al., vol 2, 209–226. Lund: Wallin and Dalholm (reprinted in Kayne (2005)).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, R.S. 2002a. On some prepositions that look DP-internal: English of and French de. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 1: 71–115 (reprinted in Movement and Silence).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, R.S. 2002b. Pronouns and their antecedents. In Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program, ed. S. Epstein and D. Seely, 133–166. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell (reprinted in (2005b) Movement and Silence).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, R.S. 1996. Microparametric syntax. Some introductory remarks. In Microparametric syntax and dialect variation, ed. J.R. Black and V. Motapanyaneix–xviii. Benjamins, Amsterdam (reprinted in Parameters and Universals).

    Google Scholar 

  • Koopman, H., and A. Szabolcsi. 2000. Verbal complexes. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornfilt, J. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kortmann, B., T. Herrmann, L. Pietsch, and S. Wagner (eds.). 2005. A comparative grammar of British English dialects. Agreement, gender, relative clauses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. 1970. Global rules. Language 46: 627–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leu, T. 2015. The architecture of determiners. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leu, T. 2008. What for internally. Syntax 11: 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leu, T. 2007. These HERE demonstratives. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, ed. T. Scheffler, J. Tauberer, A. Eilam and L. Mayol, vol 13(1), 141–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leu, T. 2005. Something invisible in English. UPenn Working Papers in Linguistics 11(1): 143–155 (Proceedings of PLC 28).

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao, W.-W.R. 2015. Once upon an Invisible TIME: On frequentative phrases in Chinese. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 36: 21–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Llombart-Huesca, A. 2002. Anaphoric one and NP-ellipsis. Studia Linguistica 56: 59–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longobardi, G. 1994. Reference and proper names. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malamud, S.A. 2013. (In)definiteness-driven typology of arbitrary items. Lingua 126: 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marušič, F., and R. Žaucer. 2006. The ‘definite article’ TA in colloquial Slovenian. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 14: 189–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, S., and V. Yip. 1994. Cantonese: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, C., and J.C. Beal. 1987. Modal verbs in Tyneside English. Journal of the Atlantic Provinces Linguistic Association 9: 43–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J., G.K. Pullum, B.C. Scholz, and E. Berlage. 2013. Anaphoric one and its implications. Language 89: 794–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perlmutter, D.M. 1970. On the Article in English. In Progress in linguistics, ed. M. Bierwisch, and K.E. Heidolph, 233–248. The Hague: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesetsky, D. 1991. Zero syntax, vol 2. Infinitives. MIT: Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J.-Y. 1998. On the syntax of subnominal clitics: Cliticization and ellipsis. Syntax 1: 300–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postal, P.M. 1966. On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English. In Report of the seventeenth annual roundtable meeting on linguistics and language studies, ed. F.P. Dineen, 177–206. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press (reprinted in Modern studies in English (1969), ed. D.A. Reibel and S.A. Schane. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall).

    Google Scholar 

  • Postal, P. 1969. Anaphoric Islands. Chicago Linguistic Society 5: 205–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riemsdijk, H. Van. 2005. Silent nouns and the spurious indefinite article in Dutch, in M. Vulchanova and T. Åfarli, Grammar & Beyond: Essays in honour of Lars Hellan, 163–178, Novus Press, Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schibsbye, K. 1970. A modern English grammar, 2nd ed. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shlonsky, U. 2004. The form of Semitic noun phrases. Lingua 114: 1465–1526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, A., and Biswas, P. 2015. Bare nominals, classifiers and the representation of definiteness in Bangla, handout of talk presented at FASAL-5, Yale University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, A., H.L. Soh, and H. Nomoto. 2011. Bare classifiers and definiteness. A cross-linguistic investigation. Studies in Language 35: 168–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, L., and R. Huddleston. 2002. Deixis and Anaphora. In The Cambridge grammar of the English language, ed. R. Huddleston, and G.K. Pullum, 1449–1564. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tat, D. 2011. APs as reduced relatives: The case of Bir in some varieties of Turkic. In Proceedings of WAFL7. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Troseth, E. 2009. Degree inversion and negative intensifier inversion in the English DP. The Linguistic Review 26: 37–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J.L. 2002. Much about Such. Studia Linguistica 56: 91–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J.L. 2013. Indefinite determiner doubling. Abstract of talk presented at the Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference, 19, SUNY Buffalo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zanuttini, R., and L.R. Horn. 2014. Micro-syntactic variation in North American English. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zepeda, O. 1983. A Papago grammar. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Earlier versions of this chapter were presented at the University of Cambridge, England, in June 2009; at the Workshop on Bare Nouns, Paris VII, in November 2009; at the Giornata di Dialettologia, University of Padua, in June 2010; at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, at the National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan, and at the University of Rome 3 in April 2013. I am grateful to all those audiences for useful comments and questions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. New York University, New York, USA

    Richard S. Kayne

Authors
  1. Richard S. Kayne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard S. Kayne .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Applied Linguistics and Translation Studies, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

    Gautam Sengupta

  2. Department of Linguistics and Contemporary English, The English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

    Shruti Sircar

  3. Department of Materials Development, Testing and Evaluation, The English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

    Madhavi Gayathri Raman

  4. Department of Computational Linguistics, The English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

    Rahul Balusu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kayne, R.S. (2017). English One and Ones as Complex Determiners. In: Sengupta, G., Sircar, S., Raman, M., Balusu, R. (eds) Perspectives on the Architecture and Acquisition of Syntax. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4295-9_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4295-9_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-4294-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-4295-9

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation