Claire Beyssade

Bare Noun Phrases

Chapter 2 offers a detailed presentation of bare NPs in both argumental and predicational positions. It is argued that the use of bare NPs in argument positions should not be viewed as being related to the use of bare NPs in predicate positions. This observation strongly suggests that the property-analysis of argumental bare plurals is misguided. We remain open to the possibility of analyzing count bare singulars in Spanish, Romanian or Catalan as property-denoting. Carlson’s (Linguistics and Philosophy 1:413–457, 1977a; Reference to kinds in English, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, 1977c) observations regarding the differences between BPs and singular indefinites can be attributed to the fact that, due to the absence of an overt Det, BPs are necessarily weak (in the sense of Milsark (Linguistic Analysis 3:1–29, 1977)), whereas singular indefinites are both weak and strong. The main theoretical proposal of this chapter is that argumental BPs (as well as bare mass NPs) should be analyzed as generalized existential quantifiers over amounts, which are defined in such a way that they need to combine with existential predicates. Turning now to predicate positions the differences between copular sentences built with bare singulars as opposed to indefinite singulars point to a necessary distinction between two types of copular sentences (and two types of copulas), which we have labeled attributive and identity sentences. In identity sentences, the postcopular indefinite denotes an individual, just as it does in argumental positions. In attributive sentences, the postcopular noun denotes a property, which explains why indefinite singulars are disallowed and bare singulars allowed, on a par with adjectives.

Bare nouns in predicate position in French

In this paper we examine the differences between bare singular nouns and indefinite singular NPs in predicate position in French. Our claim is that the semantic value of the singular indefinite determiner is not empty in French and that various interpretative contrasts between bare singular nouns and indefinite nouns in predicate position can be accounted for if a distinction between two rules of predication supported by copular sentences is introduced. We assume that bare nouns denote properties, which can be attributed to individuals, while indefinite noun phrases denote entities, which can be identified with an individual in context. This distinction between two types of statements, attributive ones and identificational ones, takes its source in Higgins typology, and will be compared with Roys and Heller and Wolters works on predicative and specificational sentences.

Prosodic Realizations of Information Focus in French

In this chapter, we provide empirical evidence on the prosodic marking of information focus (IF) in French. We report results from an elicitation experiment and two perception experiments. Based on these experiments, we propose that phrases that resolve a question are set off by two types of intonational markers in French: they host the nuclear pitch accent (NPA) on their right edge and/or they are intonationally highlighted by an initial rise (IR). These intonational markers are very often realized conjointly but can also be applied separately thus leading to considerable variation in our elicitation data. We will propose that some of the variation can be explained by differences in the function of NPA and IR: NPA placement is sensitive to the informational/illocutionary partitioning of the content of utterances, while IRs are sensitive to different types of semantic or pragmatic salience. We also suggest that “question/answer” pairs provide a criterion to identify the IF only if the answer is congruent. Answers may, however, contribute to implicit questions resulting in different prosodic realizations.

Dependent Indefinites in Donkey Sentences

This chapter revisits the problems raised by donkey-sentences without resorting to an analysis in terms of scope. We show the limits of the quantificational approach on the one hand and of DRT analyses on the other hand. These accounts are problematic because they treat indefinite DPs on a par with quantified expressions. Pursuing the line of analysis developed in Chap. 6, we show that by implementing dependency relations in functional terms and by treating both indefinite DPs and pronouns occurring in donkey-sentences as functional terms, we can solve the proportion problem, we can account for the whole range of available readings of donkey-sentences (symmetric/asymmetric, weak/strong) and we can predict when and why an indefinite DP can or cannot serve as the antecedent of an anaphoric pronoun.

The Ambiguity of Indefinites: Towards a Denotational Definition of the Weak/Strong Distinction

This chapter proposes a refinement of Milsark’s (Linguistic Analysis 3:1–29, 1977) weak vs strong distinction: in addition to the weak reading, two types of strong readings, a quantificational and a non-quantificational one, are distinguished. Distinct representations will be proposed for each of these three readings: (i) weak indefinites refer to non specific amounts and must combine with an existential predicate. According to our implementation weak indefinites are generalized existential quantifiers over amounts; (ii) non-quantificational strong indefinites are referential expressions that are represented as Skolem terms; (iii) quantificational strong indefinites are generalized quantifiers, which we have represented in terms of tripartite configurations.

The Scope of Indefinites

In contexts where indefinite DPs co-occur with quantificational DPs, intensional predicates, negation or quantificational adverbs, they generate interpretive effects that have been traditionally analyzed in terms of scope. In this chapter, we show that so-called scope effects in fact depend on the denotation of indefinite DPs: weak indefinites take obligatory narrow scope, intermediate and wide scope being allowed only for individual-denoting indefinites. We propose to analyze scope interpretive effects in terms of dependency relations and we show that only referential indefinites (i.e. e-type indefinites) can be dependent. We represent dependent indefinites as Skolem terms, the reference of which co-varies with the quantificational DPs on which they depend. As for e-type indefinite DPs which are not dependent, they are specific and function as constants.

Genericity, (In)Definiteness and Bare Nouns

Chapter 7 assumes the current account of the generic reading of singular indefinites, relying on an LF representation in which a Q-adverb binds the variable supplied by the indefinite. This type of LF is argued to be illegitimate for plural and mass indefinites (due to a violation of an individuability constraint on quantification), which explains why French plural and mass indefinites (introduced by des and du/de la, respectively) cannot take generic readings (unless they occur in sentences that express generalizations over events). The generic reading of plural indefinites built with symmetric nouns is allowed because these expressions introduce variables over groups and therefore the individuability constraint on quantification is obeyed. An important conclusion of the chapter is that English bare plurals and bare mass NPs can take generic readings not because they are indefinite-like expressions but rather because they can be names of kinds.