On the existential force of bare plurals across languages

Dayal, Veneeta

doi:10.1017/cbo9781139519328.006

Cited by 56 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While the view that bare plurals have indefinite interpretations is intuitively easy to grasp, there is a closer affinity between kind terms and definites than is usually recognized. This point is argued at some length in Dayal (2013) for English bare plurals, but to present those arguments here would take us beyond the scope of the present work. Instead I will focus on Hindi and Mandarin Chinese, where bare nominals are known to allow both kind reference and definite interpretations.…”

Section: The Plural Marker -Ramentioning

confidence: 86%

“… 6 In this paper I follow this general approach, though there are specific points that are open to debate. See Dayal (2012, 2013) for some discussion.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 7 See Dayal (2013) for an approach to episodic readings that does not involve ∃ quantification of any kind.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 24 In fact, there can be situations in which there are no instantiations of the kind at all and we do not want the kind term to be undefined in such situations. This is stipulated in the definition of nom , but see Dayal (2013) for an alternative.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Bangla Plural Classifiers

Dayal¹

2014

Language and Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the expression of plurality in Bangla. Like other languages that use classifiers in cardinal constructions, Bangla does not mark the singular-plural distinction on the noun. However, like other classifier languages, Bangla has expressions that convey reference to pluralities: -gulo and -ra. The first can combine with nouns that denote animate as well as inanimate entities, while the other only combines with animate nouns. The first entails reference to more than one entity while the other seems to merely implicate plural reference. The first is incompatible with kind reference but the other is, for the most part, the preferred form for reference to kinds. A formal account of their semantics is provided, analyzing them both as classifiers and relating them to an analysis of the basic classifier -TA used in cardinal constructions. The analysis of -ra is somewhat tentative since there some of the key facts remain unclear at this point.Key Words: Bangla/Bengali, classifiers, kind terms, plurality, mass-count, (in)definiteness Section 1: Background on BanglaIn this section we introduce the basic facts about nominal reference in Bangla, noting its status as a classifier language, in a region not generally known for this phenomenon. We also summarize here the details of the analysis of Bangla classifiers that is adopted in this paper.

show abstract

Section: The Plural Marker -Ramentioning

confidence: 86%

“… 6 In this paper I follow this general approach, though there are specific points that are open to debate. See Dayal (2012, 2013) for some discussion.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 7 See Dayal (2013) for an approach to episodic readings that does not involve ∃ quantification of any kind.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Bangla Plural Classifiers

Dayal¹

2014

Language and Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In order to do so, we minimally modify the non-uniqueness presupposition in (17), as in (19a), to allow its satisfaction in a larger situation: 12 We are importing the notion of widening, proposed by Kadmon and Landman (1993) to explain the polarity item any, for the satisfaction of the non-uniqueness condition in (19a). Domain widening has also been used by Dayal (2013) to explain the indefiniteness typically associated with bare plurals in episodic contexts. On the opposite side of the spectrum, D-linked expressions like each are thought to resist such widening (Kadmon and Landman 1993: 378-379, Dayal 2016: 122-124).…”

Section: The Anti-uniqueness Of Demonstrativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Puzzle of Anaphoric Bare Nouns in Mandarin: A Counterpoint to Index!

Dayal

Jiang

2022

Linguistic Inquiry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Jenks (2018) argues that Mandarin bare NPs cannot be classified as definites simpliciter. Adopting the distinction between weak and strong article definites in Schwarz (2009), he proposes that Mandarin makes a lexical distinction between the two types of definites: bare nouns are weak definites, demonstratives are strong definites. He further proposes that their distribution is regulated by a principle called Index!. In this article we first point out some problems with the empirical generalizations presented in Jenks’ description of Mandarin and then sketch out an alternative approach to the distinction between Mandarin demonstratives and bare nouns. We end with some comments about the kind of further empirical work that needs to be done before definitive claims can be made about the competition between demonstratives and other types of definites.

show abstract

On Chierchia’s “Reference to Kinds Across Languages”

Dayal

2021

Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On the existential force of bare plurals across languages

Cited by 56 publications

References 32 publications

Bangla Plural Classifiers

Bangla Plural Classifiers

The Puzzle of Anaphoric Bare Nouns in Mandarin: A Counterpoint to Index!

On Chierchia’s “Reference to Kinds Across Languages”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About