Chapter published in:
Points of Convergence in Romance Linguistics: Papers selected from the 48th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL 48), Toronto, 25-28 April 2018
Edited by Gabriela Alboiu and Ruth King
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 360] 2022
► pp. 193–206

Chapter 11
Value and cardinality in the evaluation of bare singulars in Brazilian Portuguese

| University of Toronto
| Massey University

Previous studies have explored two semantic features – cardinality and volume – to shown that bare singulars such as banana in Eu comi banana (I ate banana) allows a count and a mass interpretation in Brazilian Portuguese. In this chapter we explore whether other features such as value impact the interpretation of such nouns. The results of our priming and judgment studies indicate that cardinality is grammatically more relevant than value when interpreting Brazilian Portuguese bare singulars. However, we found a significant increase in reaction times when value was primed early. Therefore, value plays a role in the processing of bare singulars.

Keywords: bare singulars, Brazilian Portuguese, priming, semantics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Dimensions of comparison beyond cardinality
  • 3.Studies
    • 3.1Study 1: Truth value judgment task
      • 3.1.1Materials and methods
      • 3.1.2Results
    • 3.2Study 2: Priming task
      • 3.2.1Materials and methods
      • 3.2.2Results
    • 3.3Control items
      • 3.3.1Materials and methods
      • 3.3.2Results
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 March 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.360.11lim
References
Barner, David & Jesse Snedeker
2005 Quantity judgments and individuation: Evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition 97(1). 41–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beviláqua, Kayron & Roberta Pires de Oliveira
2014 Brazilian bare phrases and referentiality: Evidences from an experiment. Revista Letras 90(2). 253–275. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beviláqua, Kayron, Suzi Lima & Roberta Pires de Oliveira
2016 Bare Nouns in Brazilian Portuguese: An experimental study on grinding. Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 11(1). 2. 1–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Doetjes, Jenny Sandra
1997 Quantifiers and selection: On the distribution of quantifying expressions in French, Dutch and English. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Giralt, Nuria, & Paul Bloom
2000 How special are objects? Children’s reasoning about objects, parts, and holes. Psychological Science 11(6). 497–501. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gleason, Henry Allan
1965 Linguistics and English grammar. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Grimm, Scott & Beth Levin
2012 Who has more furniture? An exploration of the bases for comparison. Paper presented at Communication au colloque Massif/comptable en linguistique, philosophie et sciences, Paris, France, December 19–21.
Gutheil, Grant, Paul Bloom, Nohemy Valderrama & Rebecca Freedman
2004 The role of historical intuitions in children’s and adults’ naming of artifacts. Cognition 91(1). 23–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lima, Suzi
2014 The grammar of individuation and counting. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.
2019 Processing coercion in Brazilian Portuguese: grinding objects and packaging substances. In Katy Carlson, Charles Clifton, Jr. & Janet Dean Fodor (eds.), Grammatical approaches to language processing – Essays in honor of Lyn Frazier, 209–224. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lima, Suzi Oliveira & Ana Paula Quadros Gomes
2016 The interpretation of Brazilian Portuguese bare singulars in neutral contexts. Revista Letras 93. 193–209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Menuzzi, Sérgio de Moura, Maria Cristina Figueiredo Silva & Jenny Doetjes
2015 Subject bare singulars in Brazilian Portuguese and information structure. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 14(1). 7–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oggiani, Morgas C.
2011 On discourse referential properties of bare singulars in Spanish. Utrecht, Netherlands: Utrecht University Master’s thesis.
Paraguassu-Martins, Nize & Ana Müller
2007 A distinção contável-massivo e a expressão de número no sistema nominal. Revista Delta 23. 65–83. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pelletier, Francis Jeffrey
1979 Non-singular reference: some preliminaries. In Francis Jeffrey Pelletier (ed.), Mass terms: Some philosophical problems, 1–14. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pires de Oliveira, Roberta
2014 Dobras e redobras do singular nu: costurando a semântica através das línguas. Porto Alegre: EDIPUC-RS.Google Scholar
Pires de Oliveira, Roberta & Luisandro Mendes De Souza
2013 ‘O singular nu e a comparação: uma proposta de derivação semântica’. Revista LinguíStica 9(1). 31–54.Google Scholar
Pires de Oliveira, Roberta & Susan Rothstein
2011 Bare singular noun phrases are mass in Brazilian Portuguese. Lingua 121(15). 2153–2175. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Santana, Raíssa Silva & Elaine Grolla
2018 The acceptability of subject bare singulars in Brazilian Portuguese. Revista LinguíStica 14. 194–214. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger
2011 Stubborn distributivity, multiparticipant nouns and the count/mass distinction. In Suzi Lima, Kevin Mullin & Brian Smith (eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), Volume 2, 661–678. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistics Students Association, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Shipley, Elizabeth F., & Barbara Shepperson
1990 Countable entities: Developmental changes. Cognition 34(2). 109–136. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Srinivasan, Mahesh, Eleanor Chestnut, Peggy Li & David Barner
2013 Sortal concepts and pragmatic inference in children’s early quantification of objects. Cognitive psychology 66(3). 302–326. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wiese, Heike & Joan Maling
2005 Beers, kaffi, and schnaps: Different grammatical options for restaurant talk coercions in three Germanic languages. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 17(1). 1–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar