Cover not available

Article published In: Linguistic Variation: Online-First Articles

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

A feature-based approach to nominal predicates

ORCiD logo with link | University of Cambridge
Published online: 2 May 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.24028.yan
Abstract
This article proposes a feature-based model to derive nominal predicates. I take the position that nouns denote abstract properties and can enter the derivation readily being definite via bearing uniqueness presuppositions. The countability feature [+Count] on the classifier turns abstract properties into countable atoms. The quantifying force [+/−Quant] on the numeral head (for the case of English) either creates set-memberships and formalises indefinite predicates or performs a Max function that does not alter the number of its complement and formalises definite predicates. The morphemes that are traditionally associated with D, i.e., the, a, -s (Abbott, Barbara. 2006. Definiteness and indefiniteness. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 122–149. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar i.a.) are formal results of feature checking. These features also successfully derive superlatives and weak definites in English and capture the major facts in Mandarin Chinese with variations in allocation and lexically endorsed specifications. Consequently, D is disassociated from introducing (in)definiteness and is reduced to a pure type-shifter with zero lexical exponents.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.N are predicative and the/a are not D
    • 2.1Nouns are abstract
    • 2.2A/the are not D
  • 3.Deriving the/a/-s in English
    • 3.1Predicates
    • 3.2Deriving superlatives and weak definites
  • 4.Deriving predicates in Mandarin Chinese
    • 4.1Fundamental oddities in MC predicates
    • 4.2Analysis
      • 4.2.1No classifier in definite predicates
      • 4.2.2Impossible >1 numerals and insignificant 1 in Cl.SG/PL predicates
      • 4.2.3Number neutral bare predicates?
      • 4.2.4Answering who-questions
      • 4.2.5Dem-CL.CAT-N (Dem-led) predicates
    • 4.3Summary
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (53)
References
Abbott, Barbara. 2006. Definiteness and indefiniteness. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 122–149. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aguilar-Guevara, Ana & Carolina Oggiani. 2023. Weak definite nominals. Language and Linguistics Compass 17(6), e12503, [URL]. (4 June, 2024.)
Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense. Vol. 1, In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2023. Merge, Move, and Contextuality of Syntax: The Role of Labeling, Successive Cyclicity, and EPP Effects. In The Cambridge Handbook of Minimalism. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bowers, John. 2001. Predication. In M. Baltin & C. Collins (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, 299–333. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bremmers, David, Jianan Liu, Martijn van der Klis & Bert Le Bruyn. 2022. Translation mining: Definiteness across languages (a reply to Jenks 2018). Linguistic Inquiry 53(4), 735–752. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brogaard, Berit. 2007. Descriptions: Predicates or quantifiers? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85(1), 117–136. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Campbell, R. 1996. Specificity operators in SpecDP. Studia Linguistica, 161–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carlson, Greg N. 1977. A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(3), 413–456. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carlson, Greg N., N. Klein Sussman & Michael K. Tanenhaus. 2006. Weak definite noun phrases. North Eastern Linguisitc Society, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, Ping. 2004. Identifiability and definiteness in Chinese. Linguistics 42(6), 1129–1184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, Caroline Heycock & Roberto Zamparelli. 2017. Two levels for definiteness. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics GLOW in Asia XI, Singapore.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 61, 339–405. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth & David Beaver. 2012. Weak uniqueness: The only difference between definites and indefinites. SALT 22.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Definiteness and determinacy. Linguist and Philos 381, 377–435. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crisma, Paola. 1997. Functional categories inside the noun phrase: A study on the distribution of nominal modifiers [MA Thesis, Università di Venezia].
. 2015. The “indefinite article” from cardinal to operator to expletive. In G. Chiara, J. Agnes & P. Doris (eds.), Language change at the syntax-semantics interface, Vol. 2781, 125–152. Germany: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta & Li Julie Jiang. 2021. The puzzle of anaphoric bare nouns in Mandarin: A conterpoint to Index! Linguistic Inquiry, 147–167.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Donnellan, Keith. 1966. Reference and definite descriptions. The Philosophical Review 75(3), 281–304. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana. 1997. The categorial status of determiners. In L. Haegeman (ed.), The new comparative syntax, Vol. 95–123. New York: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. The functional structure of noun phrases: A bare phrase structure approach. In G. Cinque (ed.), Functional structure in DP and IP, 54–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graff, Delia. 2001. Descriptions as predicates. Philosophical Studies(102), 1–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 2012. Specification, equation, and agreement in copular sentences. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 57(2), 209–240. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. The syntax of predication. In M. den Dikken (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of generative syntax, 322–352. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, Shi-Zhe. 1996. Quantification and predication in Mandarin Chinese: A case study of Dou [PhD Thesis, University of California, Los Angeles].
Jenks, Peter. 2018. Articulated definiteness without articles. Linguistic Inquiry 491, 501–536. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klein, Natalie M., Whitney M. Gegg-Harrison, Greg N. Carlson & Michael K. Tanenhaus. 2013. Experimental investigations of weak definite and weak indefinite noun phrases. Cognition 128(2), 187–213. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lejewski, Czeslaw. 1960. A re-examination of the Russellian theory of descriptions. Philosophy 35(132), 14–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1989. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lisa Lai-Shen, Cheng & Rint Sybesma. 1999. Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry 30(4), 509–542. [URL]
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2005. Toward a unified grammar of reference. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 24(1), 5–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Reference to individuals, person and the variety of mapping parameters. In A. Klinge & H. H. Müller (eds.), Essays on nominal determination: From morphology to discourse management, 189–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line. 2004. Specificational subjects — a formal characterization and some consequences. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 361, 79–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moro, Andrea. 1997. The raising of predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1987. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In J. Groenendijk, D. D. Jong & M. Stokhof (eds.), Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, 115–143. Dordrect: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2010. Specificational copular sentences in Russian and English. In A. Grønn & I. Marijanovic (eds.), Russian in Constrast, Oslo studies in language, Vol. 21, 25–49. Oslo: University of Oslo. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 2003. Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistic and Philosophy 261, 287–350. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robinson, Heather Merle. 2005. Unexpected (in)definiteness: Plural generic expressions in Romance [PhD Thesis, The State University of Newn Jersey].
Roy, Isabelle. 2013. Nonverbal predication: Copular sentences at the syntax-semantics interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1905. On denoting. Mind(14), 479–493. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1919. Descriptions. In Introduction to mathematical philosopgy. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwarz, Florian. 2013. Two kinds of definites cross-linguistically. Language and Linguistics Compass 71, 534–559. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. How weak and how definite are Weak Definites? In A. Aguilar-Guevara, B. Le Bruyn & J. Zwarts (eds.), Weak referentiality, 213–235. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sharvit, Yael & Penka Stateva. 2002. Superlative expressions, context, and focus. Linguistic and Philosophy 251, 453–504. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stanley, J. 2002. Nominal restrictions. In G. Peters & G. Preyer (eds.), Logical form and language, 365–388. Oxford: Oxford Univerisy Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. 1950. On Referring. Mind LIX(235), 320–344. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1986. Comparative superlatives. MIT WPL 81, 245–266.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1994. Thematic structure in syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winter, Yoad. 2002. Flexibility principles in Boolean semantics: The interpretation of coordination, plurality, and scope in natural language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. On some problems of (in)definiteness within flexible semantics. Lingua 115(6), 767–786. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yuan, Yulin. 2005. The summative function of “dou” and its distributive effect. Contemporary Linguistics 7(4), 289–304. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zamparelli, Roberto. 2000. Layers in the determiner phrase. London: Garland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue