Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 38:4 (2014) ► pp.896–955

Lexical coding vs. syntactic marking of homogeneity

Evidence from Spanish and Danish

| Copenhagen Business School

The purpose of this article is to substantiate the claim that the semantic feature of homogeneity manifests itself differently in different languages. By contrasting data from Spanish and Danish it is shown that homogeneity is lexically coded in Danish nouns, whereas Spanish nouns are lexically neutral to homogeneity. In Spanish the homogeneity interpretation of nouns is determined when they are inserted into a syntactic structure. The empirical relevance of this assumption is assessed by investigating syntactic and semantic aspects related to the occurrence of bare nominals in object position in the two languages under scrutiny. It is well-known that Spanish as a canonical pattern does not semantically license bare singular nouns with count interpretation (BNs) in object position, viz. #Juan repara coche [Juan repairs car], while in Danish the occurrence of BNs in object position is both possible and normal, viz. Ole maler hus [Ole paints house]. It is argued that this contrast is a predictable consequence of the premise that, in Spanish, transitive activity verbs impose a mass reading on any bare object noun whereas, in Danish, BNs maintain their lexically encoded denotation as inhomogeneous entities. However, contrasting with the leading pattern, the so-called HAVE-verbs (Borthen, 2003) actually license Spanish BNs in object position (cf., e.g., Espinal, 2010; Espinal & Mcnally, 2011), viz. Juan tiene perro [Juan has dog]. It is claimed that the occurrence of BNs in these cases is strongly related to the assumption that HAVE-verbs, contrary to activity verbs, are functionally non-eventive and, therefore, do not impose a specific homogeneity reading on the bare noun in object position.

Keywords: homogeneity, activity verbs, HAVE-predicates, bare nouns, event structure
Published online: 8 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.4.12mul
References (117)
Allan, K
1980 Nouns and countability. Language 561. 541–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arsenejević, B
2006 Inner aspect and telicity: The decompositional and the quantificational nature of eventualities at the syntax-semantics interface. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden dissertation.Google Scholar
Asudeh, A. & L.H. Mikkelsen
2000 Incorporation in Danish: Implications for interfaces. In R. Cann, C. Grover & P. Miller (eds.), A collection of papers on head-driven phrase structure grammar. Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Bach, E
1986 The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 91. 5–16.Google Scholar
Barner, D. & J. Snedeker
2005 Quantity judgements and individuation: Evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition 971. 41–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G
2009 A constructional analysis of quasi-incorporation in Dutch. Gengo Kenkyu 1351. 5–28.Google Scholar
Borthen, K
2003 Norwegian bare singulars. NTNU dissertation.
Borer, H
2005 Structuring sense (vols. 1 and 21). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bosque, I
1996 Por qué determinados sustantivos no son sustantivos determinados: Repaso y Balance. In I. Bosque (ed.), El sustantivo sin determinación. La ausencia de determinante en la lengua española, 13–119. Madrid: Visor Libros.Google Scholar
1999 El nombre común. In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española 11, 3–75. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
Bouchard, D
1995 The semantics of syntax: A minimalist approach to grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bunt, H.C
1980 On the why, the how, and the whether of a count-mass distinction among adjectives. In J. Groenendijk & M. Stokhof (eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, 51–77. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.Google Scholar
1985 Mass terms and model-theoretic semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, G.N
1977 A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy 11. 413–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheng, C-Y
1973 Comments on Moravcsik’s paper. In K.J.J. Hintikka, J.M.E. Moravcsik & P. Suppes (eds.), Approaches to natural language, 286–288. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G
1998a Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of ‘semantic parameter’. In S. Rothstein (ed.), Events and grammar, 52–103. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998b Reference to Kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6(4). 339–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese 1741. 99–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christophersen, P
1939 The articles: A study of their theory and use in English. Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Climent, S
2001 Individuation by partitive constructions in Spanish. In P. Bouillon & F. Busa, (eds.). The language of word meaning, 192–215. The USA: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Contreras, H
1996 Sobre la distribución de los sintagmas nominales no predicativos sin determinante. In I. Bosque (ed.), El sustantivo sin determinación. La ausencia de determinante en la lengua española, 141–168. Madrid: Visor Libros.Google Scholar
David, N
2008 Mass nouns and plural logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 31(2). 211–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dayal, V
2003 A semantics for pseudo incorporation. Ms., Rutgers University.
de Swart, H. & J. Zwarts
2009 Less form – more meaning: Why bare singular nouns are special. Lingua 119(2). 280–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, C
2009 Existential bare plurals: From properties back to entities. Lingua 1191. 296–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, C., T. Bleam & M.T. Espinal
2006 Bare nouns, number and types of incorporation. In L. Tasmowski & S. Vogeleer (eds.), Non-definiteness and plurality 51–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doetjes, J
1997 Quantifiers and selection: On the distribution of quantifying expressions in French, Dutch and English. Leiden: Leiden University dissertation.Google Scholar
Dowty, D
1979 Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engelberg, S
1999 Punctuality and Verb Semantics. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 6(1). Article 10.Google Scholar
2000 The magic of the moment: What it means to be a punctual verb. BLS 251. 109–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Espinal, M.T
2010 Bare nominals in Catalan and Spanish: Their structure and meaning. Lingua 1201. 984–1009. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Espinal, M.T. & J. Mateu
2011 Bare nominals and argument structure in Catalan and Spanish. The Linguistic Review 281. 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Espinal, M.T. & L. McNally
2007 Bare singular nominals and incorporating verbs. In G. Kaiser & M. Leonetti (eds.), Proceedings of the III NEREUS International Workshop. Definiteness, Specificity and Animacy in Ibero-Romance languages, Arbeitspapier 122, 45–62. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
2008 Spanish and Catalan bare singular nominals at the syntax–semantics interface. In paper presented at the XXXVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. University of Indiana, Urbana-Champaign.
2011 Bare nominals and incorporating verbs in Catalan and Spanish. Journal of Linguistics 471. 87–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farkas, D. & H. de Swart
2004 Incorporation, plurality, and the incorporation of plurals: A dynamic approach. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 31. 45–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrido, J
1996 Sintagmas nominales escuetos. In I. Bosque (ed.), El sustantivo sin determinación. La ausencia de determinante en la lengua española, 269–338. Madrid: Visor Libros.Google Scholar
Geenhoven, V. van
1996 Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions: Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Noun Incorporation in West Greenlandic. Tübingen: University of Tübingen dissertation.Google Scholar
Gillon, B.S
1992 Towards a common semantics for English count and mass nouns. Linguistics and Philosophy 151. 597–639. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodman, N
1966 The structure of appearance, 2nd edn. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J
1990 Argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, E
2001(1994) Generisk substantiv. In H. Galbjerg Jacobsen & H. Jørgensen (eds.), Glæden ved grammatik. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar
Hansen, E. & Heltoft, L
2011 Grammatik over det Danske Sprog. Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab. København: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Heine, B
1997 Possession, cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 Ways of explaining possession. In I. Baron, M. Herslund & F. Sørensen (eds.), Dimensions of possession, 311–328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herslund, M
(ed.) 1997 Det franske sprog, Chapter I: Grundlag, preliminary version. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar
(ed.) 1999 Det franske sprog, Chapter VI: Nominalsyntagmet, preliminary version. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar
2002 Incorporation and transitivity in romance. In O. Nedergaard Thomsen & M. Herslund (eds.), Complex predicates and incorporation: A functional perspective. Travaux du cercle linguistique de Copenhague, vol. XXXII1, 175–206. Copenhagen: C. A. Reitzel, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J
1985 On Semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 161. 547–593.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, T
1988 Small clause results. Lingua 741. 101–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992 Aspect and Theta theory. In I.M. Roca (ed.), Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar, 145–174. Berlin: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O
1924 The philosophy of grammar. London: Georges Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R
1991 Parts and boundaries. Cognition 411. 9–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johns, A
2009 Additional facts about noun incorporation (in Inuktitut). Lingua 1191. 185–198 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joosten, F
2003 Accounts of the count-mass distinction: A critical survey. In A. Dahl, K. Bentzen, P. Svenonius (eds.), Proceedings of SCL 19 / Nordlyd 31(1). 216–229.Google Scholar
Josefsson, G
2013 Pancake sentences and the semanticization of formal gender in Mainland Scandinavian. Handout for the 46th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea , Split, September 18.
Kallulli, D
1996 Bare singulars and bare plurals: Mapping syntax and semantics. In Proceedings of ConSole 5. Leiden: University of Leiden Press.
1999 The comparative syntax of Albanian: On the contribution of syntactic types to propositional interpretation. Durham: University of Durham dissertation.Google Scholar
Kearns, K
1991 The semantics of the English progressive. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
2000 Semantics. New York: St. Martin’s.Google Scholar
Kiefer, F
1994 Noun incorporation in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 40(1-2). 149–177.Google Scholar
Kleiber, G
1989 Comment traiter LE générique? In M. Wilmet (ed.), Génerécité, spécificité et aspect (Travaux de linguistique 19), 145–169. Paris: Duculot.Google Scholar
1990 L’article LE générique: La généricité sur le mode massif. Geneva/Paris: Droz.Google Scholar
1994 Nominales: Essais de sémantique référentielle. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Korzen, I
2008 Determination in endocentric and exocentric languages. In H. Müller & A. Klinge (eds.), Essays on nominal determination. From morphology to discourse management (Studies in Language Companion Series 99), 79–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koslicki, K
2006 Nouns, mass and count. In Donald M. Borchert (ed.), Encyclopedia of philosophy, 2nd edn. USA: MacMillan Reference.Google Scholar
Krifka, M
1989 Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In J. van Benthem, R. Bartsch & P. van Emde (eds.), Semantics and contextual expression, 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992 Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In I. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (eds.), Lexical Matters, 30–52. Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Laca, B
1990 Generic objects: Some more pieces of the puzzle. Lingua 811. 25–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996 Acerca de la semántica de los plurales escuetos del español. In I. Bosque (ed.), El sustantivo sin determinación. La ausencia de determinante en la lengua española, 241–268. Madrid: Visor Libros.Google Scholar
1999 Presencia y ausencia de determinante. In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (eds.), Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, I, 891–928. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
2004 Romance “Aspectual” Periphrases: Eventuality modification versus “Syntactic” aspect. In J. Guéron & J. Lecarme (eds.), The syntax of time, 425–440. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K
1984 Formulaicity, frame semantics and pragmatics in German binomial expressions. Language 601. 753–796. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landman, F
1989 Groups, I. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(5). 559–605. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991 Structures for semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W
1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991 Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Leonetti, M
1999 El artículo. In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (eds.). Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, I, 787–890. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Link, G
1983 The logical analysis of plural and mass nouns: A lattice-theoretic approach. In R. Bäuerle, et al. (eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, 302–323. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe
2001 How comparative is semantics? A unified parametric theory of bare nouns and proper names. Natural Language Semantics 91. 335–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J
1977 Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,.Google Scholar
Lönning, J.-T
1987 Mass terms and quantification. Language and Philosophy 10(1). 1–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, J.E
2006 The syntax of inner aspect. Stony Brook: Stony Brook University dissertation.Google Scholar
2008 The syntactic nature of inner aspect: A minimalist perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mardale, A
2013 Romanian complex adnominal prepositional phrases. The example of de-Phrases. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics XV(1). 57–69.Google Scholar
Martin, R
1989 La référence “massive” des unités nominales. In J. David & G. Kleiber (eds.), Termes massifs et termes comptables, Recherches Linguistiques 131, 37–46. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
McNally, L
1995 Bare plurals in Spanish are interpreted as properties. In G. Morrill & R. Oehrle (eds.), Formal Grammar, 197–222. Barcelona: Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya.Google Scholar
Mithun, M
1984 The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60(4). 847–894. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, F
1997 Parts and wholes in semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morreale, M
1971/1973 Aspectos gramaticales y estilísticos del número. BRAE 51. 83-138. & BRAE 531. 99–206.Google Scholar
Mourelatos, A
1978 Events, processes, and states. Linguistics and Philosophy 21. 415–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nedergaard Thomsen, O. & M. Herslund
2002 Complex predicates and incorporation – An introduction. In O. Nedergaard Thomsen & M. Herslund (eds.), Complex predicates and incorporation: A functional perspective (Travaux du cercle linguistique de Copenhague XXXII) 7–47. Copenhagen: C. A. Reitzel.Google Scholar
Olsen, M.B
1994 The semantics and pragmatics of lexical aspect features. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 241. 361–375.Google Scholar
1997 A semantic and pragmatic model of lexical and grammatical aspect. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Pelletier, F.J
1979 Non-singular reference. In F.J. Pelletier (ed.), Mass terms: Some philosophical problems, 1–14. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pelletier, F.J. & L.K. Schubert
1989 Mass expressions. In G. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic, vol. 41, 327–407. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, J
1991 The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics 171. 409–441.Google Scholar
1995 The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V.O
1960 Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Renzi, L
1988 Grande grammatica italiana de consultazione, vol. 11. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, J
2002 The noun phrase (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rischel, J
1983 On Unit Accentuation in Danish – and the distinction between deep and surface phonology. Folia Linguistica XVII1. 51–97.Google Scholar
Rothstein, S
2010 Counting and the mass count distinction. Journal of Semantics 27(3). 343–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarzschild, R.S
1996 Pluralities. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, C
1991 The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stark, E
2008 Typological correlations in nominal determination in Romance. In H.H. Müller & A. Klinge (eds.), Essays on nominal determination: From morphology to discourse management (Studies in Language Companion Series 99), 45–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suñer, M
1982 Syntax and semantics of Spanish presentational sentence-types. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
de Swart, H. & J. Zwarts
(2009) Less form – more meaning: Why bare singular nouns are special. Lingua 119(2). 280–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tenny, C
1994 Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tenny, C. & J. Pustejovsky
2000 A history of events in linguistic theory. In C. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky (eds.), Events as grammatical objects. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Travis, L
1991 Inner aspect and the structure of VP. ms. McGill University.Google Scholar
Tsoulas, G
2006 Plurality of mass nouns and the grammar of number. Paper presented at the 29th GLOW colloquium in Barcelona .
Vendler, Z
1967 Verbs and times: Linguistics in philosophy, 97–121. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vikner, C
1994 Change in Homogeneity in verbal and nominal reference. In C. Bache, et al. (eds.), Tense, aspect and action: Empirical and theoretical contributions to language typology, 141–164. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A
1988 The semantics of grammar (Studies in Language Companion Series 18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zamparelli, R
2008 Bare predicate nominals in Romance languages. In H.H. Müller & A. Klinge (eds.), Essays on nominal determination: From morphology to discourse management (Studies in Language Companion Series 99), 101–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by 1 other publications

Müller, Henrik Høeg
2017. Bare nouns in Danish with special reference to the object position. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 40:1 ► pp. 37 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.