ABSTRACT. This paper explores the link between number marking and (in)definiteness in nominals and their interpretation. Differences between bare singulars and plurals in languages without determiners are explained by treating bare nominals as kind terms. Differences arise, it is argued, because singular and plural kinds relate differently to their instantiations. In languages with determiners, singular kinds typically occur with the definite determiner, but plural/mass kinds can be bare in some languages and definite in others. An account of singular kinds in terms of taxonomic readings is proposed, with number marking playing a crucial role in explaining the obligatory presence of the determiner. The variation between languages with respect to plural/mass kinds is explained by positing a universal scale of definiteness, with individual languages choosing different cut-off points for lexicalization of the definite determiner. The possibility of further cross-linguistic variation is also considered.
INTRODUCTIONThere is a vast literature on the topic of kind-denoting terms that has accumulated in recent years. Although it is known that there are two types of nominals that can be used for such reference, the bare plural and the singular definite generic in English for example, research has centered mostly on the bare plural. In this paper, I focus on the role of number marking and show that taking singular as well as plural kinds into consideration I am grateful for helpful comments and discussion to
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.