BARE NOUNS AND THE PROJECTION OF NUMBER

IN ENGLISH AND ROMANIAN

MIHAELA TANASE DOGARU

 

Introduction

The present paper analyzes bare singulars in different syntactic constructions in English and Romanian, with the aim of establishing some connections between the presence of such nouns and the projection of Number in the functional architecture of the nominal group. The first section represents a brief introduction to the study of the category of Number and its functional projection. The second section analyzes bare singulars in predicate position in English and Romanian, and the last section – bare singulars in argument position in English and Romanian, respectively.  

1.      The Projection of Number within the Nominal Group

The lines of investigation regarding the nominal group are, generally, of two basic kinds:

a.        The first line is represented by a purely syntactic approach, according to which the noun (N) was initially regarded as the head of the nominal group, as an entity capable of receiving a theta-role.

 

(1)           NP

                    2

                                 DP          N’

                    4        g 

                                 the     N⁰

                                                boy

Other syntactic approaches[1] consider the determiner (D⁰) to be the head of the nominal group, since it is a syntactic entity that binds the variable contained by the nominal group, thus turning it into a referential expression.

(2)                                   DP

                           3

                                 Spec                      D’                

                                  3

                                         D⁰              NP

                                the                 4

                                                boy

 

This functional structure of the nominal group can explain the two roles – predicative and argumental – which the noun can play at different levels of syntactic representation:

(3)        DP (argument) the fast runner

                2

                                                D’

                           2

                                          D⁰        NP (predicate) fast runner

                         g

                                                N⁰

The nominal group can be conceived of as having a complex structure because languages have complex systems of detereminers which are not always mutually exclusive.

(4)    the two fast walkers

art.hot. doi rapid alergători

“cei doi alergători rapizi”

This kind of examples led to the postulation of further functional projections placed between the D and N layers.

(5)    [DP D’ D⁰ the [QP Q’ Q⁰ two [NumP Num’ Num⁰ [NP runners]]]]

b.    The second line of investigation of the nominal group focused on the semantic analysis[2], operating with the saturated entities e and t. Thus, three types of nominal denotations have been established: individual/entity – e, generalized quantifier – <<e,t>>t> and property/predicate – e,t. These denotations can be correlated with syntactic positions (subject position, predicate position), so that the semantic description of the nominal group can be performed in terms of the distinction [+/- argumental].

Of all functional categories present in the functional architecture of the nominal group, the category of Number plays a major role in explaining a vast range of syntactic phenomena[3]:

–    Bare nouns are generally plural or mass nouns = the singular/plural asymmetry.

–    The most “interesting” cases of bare nouns are those that appear in argument position = the predicate/argument asymmetry.

 

(6)    a.   Dogs bark / He sells cars

*Câini(i) latră / El vinde maşini.

               b.   Water is flowing in the garden / He eats honey every day

*Apă (apa) curge în grădină / Mănâncă miere în fiecare zi.

 

(7)    Milk is good / He is a student

*Lapte(le) e bun / El este (*un) student.

In what follows, I will analyze bare singulars in predicate and argument positions in English and Romanian, while trying to demonstrate the role played in their syntax by the category of number.

2.         Bare Singulars in Predicate Position

2.1.   Bare Singulars in Predicate Position in English

English is clearly different from the Romance languages (Romanian included) by not allowing bare singulars in predicate position[4]:

 

(8)    John is a doctor / *doctor

John este *un doctor / doctor

John is a teacher / *teacher

John este *un profesor / profesor

In these cases, the role of the determiner is no longer that of binding the free variable of the noun, which is now projected as subject of the sentence.

This approach to bare singulars in English is advanced and maintained by Chierchia’s Nominal Mapping Parameter (1998), which divides languages into three semantic categories, function of their capacity of allowing bare singulars and bare plurals in argument or predicate position.

(9)    The Nominal Mapping Parameter (Chierchia, 1998)

a.       [+arg, -pred] Chinese

·   Bare nouns (singular and plural) in argument position

·   All nouns are mass nouns

·   Lack of plural morphology

b.       [-arg, +pred] French

·   No bare nouns in argument position

·   Distinction between count and mass nouns

·   Plural morphology

c.       [+arg, +pred] English

·   Bare plurals and bare mass nouns in argument position

·   No bare count singulars

·   Plural morphology

 

However, Chierchia’s hypothesis is not borne out by the data, since English is not supposed to have bare singulars either in predicate or in argument position. Yet, English does allow a number of syntactic conctructions where bare singular predicates emerge:

1.      predicative adjuncts (post-copular predicates – Schmitt & Munn, 2000)

(10)      We elected John president.

2.      bare singulars in adverbial prepositional groups

(11)      They went by car / they went on foot.

A syntactic proposal (Schmitt and Munn, 1999, 2000, 2001) that has been made in the literature in order to find an answer to the question: “what kind of parameter allows bare singulars in Romance but not in English?” is the one according to which this variation can be explained with the aid of two morpho-syntactic parameters. The first parameter stipulates that Romance languages have distinct Number and Agreement projections within the nominal group, while English do not. The second paramater postulates a null determiner for English. This proposal leads to the idea that number may be syntactically absent in Romance but not in English:

(12)         DP (English)

                    3

                     D            NumP/Agr P

                             3

                                   Num                NP

 

(13)      DP (Romance)

                 3

                     D               AgrP

                               3

                                       Agr            NumP

                                              3

                                                   Num             NP

An important consequence of this parameter is that, if a language has distinct Num and Agr projections, these projections can function independently of each other, i.e. the presence of one does not entail the presence of the other. If a number feature is not necessary in a position – like the predicate position – then it can be missing. In predicate position number can be missing, because number features are already present on the subject of the predication. Therefore, bare singulars may appear in predicate position only in thise languages that have distinct Num and Agr projections, i.e. Romance.

As for the two syntactic constructions in which bare singulars appear in predicate position in English, they can be accounted for in the following way:

 

1.      predicative adjuncts

 

The predicate ‘president’ in example (10) has a unique referent. When such a predicate has more than one referent, the bare singular is no longer acceptable.

 

(14)      *The president made Powell 5 star general (Schmitt and Munn, 2000)

 

We will assume, therefore, that these nouns are inherently specified for number, a feature with which they are taken out of the lexicon, and it is this number feature that turns them into Number Phrases. Thus, tthese nouns do not need a determiner to appear in predicate position[5].

 

2.      bare singulars in adverbial prepositional groups

 

Bare nouns in such predicative constructions cannot be modified by adjectives:

 

(15)      *They went by small car.

 

These nouns will be analyzed as simple NPs – without other functionl structure – which combine with the preposition to form the prepositional group. The presence of the preposition blocks the projection of number in these cases.

2.2.      Bare Singular Predicates in Romanian

Romanian, like other Romance languages, allows bare singulars in predicate position:

(16)      Ion e doctor / profesor

Ion is doctor / professor

Tu eşti copil / elev

You are child / pupil.

 

Besides the post-copular position, there are other predicative positions in which Romanian allows bare singulars[6]:

 

1.      part-whole constructions (cf. Schmitt & Munn)

 

(17)      Am cumpărat un câine cu coadă lungă / bot lung.

I bought a dog with a long tail / muzzle.

 

2.      reprise-commentaire constructions

 

(18)               Petre şi-a adus masa de camping, masă de care ne-am folosit pentru picnic.

Peter brought his camping table, a camping table that served for the picnic.

 

3.      “as”-constructions

 

(19)      Nimeni nu-l va putea folosi ca martor.

Nobody will be able to use him as a witness.

This distribution of bare singulars in predicate position in Romanian and other Romance languages can be accounted for by appealing to the morpho-syntactic parameter proposed by Schmitt and Munn, according to which the emergence of one of the distinct Num and Agr projections is not conditioned by the emergence of the other. In predicate position, the number feature is not necesary; therefore it can be missing from the functional architecture of the nominal group.

The parameter proposed by Schmitt and Munn cannot explain the following linguistic facts:

1.       unlike English, Romanian and French (and possibly other Romance languages) alternate the presence of bare singulars with the presence of singular indefinites in certain predicative constructions:

(20)      Ion este copil / Ion este un copil (R)

Jean est enfant / Jean est un enfant (F)

John is *child / a child.

2.       Romanian allows this alternation, which triggers different interpretations, both with nouns denoting human roles, professions, etc., and with object-denoting nouns, unlike English and other Romance languages:

(21)      Acesta este (un) scaun. (R)

*Ce-ci est chaise. (F)

*This is chair. (E)

 

(22)      Bobby este (o) pisică. (R)

*Bobby es gato. (S)

*Bobby is cat. (E)

The Romanian examples in (23) can be interpreted in two different ways (cf. De Swart et. al, 2004), which denotes two different modes of predication:

(23)      a.   Ion e clovn.

Ion is clown.

 

b.   Ion e un clovn.

Ion is a clown.

(23a) says that Ion is a clown in his capacity, i.e. a professional clown, while (23b) situates Ion in the extension of the predicate “clovn”, meaning “Ion acts like a clown”.  The two modes of predication can be designated as EXT (extension) şi CAP (capacity), and can be conceived of as logical operators functioning at different levels in the nominal group; EXT applies only to the level of the Number Phrase (NumP). Consequently, bare prediactes in Romanian are agreement projections (AgrP), the number projection missing from the functional structure of the nominal group. When the mode of predication EXT applies, number projects syntactically (so that EXT could apply to some level), and the singular indefinites in predicate position become “determiner phrases”.

To support this line of analysis, examples (24a, b) link the interpretation of an adjective within the nominal group to the presence of the Number Phrase:

(24)      a.   Ion e un avocat bun.

Ion is a lawyer good.

 

b.   Ion e avocat bun.

Ion is lawyer good

The adjective “bun” is ambiguous between a subject-oriented interpretation and a speaker-oriented interpretation. In this respect, the difference between (24a) and (24b) is paraphrasable as (25a, b):

(25)      a.   My opinion is that Ion is a good lawyer / I judge Ion’s professional achievements as being good.

b.   It is Ion’s capacity to function as a good lawyer.

What differentiates between the two interpretations is the appearance of the number projection. When number projects syntactically, “bun” gets a “speaker-oriented” interpretation; when the number projection is missing, and the nominal group is an Agreement Projection, “bun” gets a “subject-oriented” interpretation.

As a brief conclusion to this section, bare singular predicates in English will be considered Determiner Phrases, in which Number and Agreement projections are collapsed, while those in Romanian will project number function of the application of the two modes of predication, EXT and CAP.

3.         Bare Singulars in Argument Position

3.1.   Bare Singulars in Argument Position in English

In English, bare singular arguments are allowed in three contexts (cf. Schmitt & Munn, Heycock & Zamparelli, Travis):

 

1.      coordinated structures

(26)      a.    A black cat and a brown dog were fighting in the street. Cat and dog were equally fithy.

b.   He gave me a key, a letter for the landlord and some instructions. I have to give key and letter to the tenant and read the instructions myself.

2.      locative groups

 

(27)      a.   John went home.

b.   John went to church.

c.   John is in school.

 

3.      syntactic reduplication

 

(28)      a.   The butterfly was flying from flower to flower.

b.   John washed plate after plate for hours after the party.

 

Chierchia’s parameter excludes bare singular arguments in English. Schmitt and Munn’s morpho-syntactic parameter assumes that English has unified Num and Agr projections, as well as a null determiner, which explains the lack of bare singular arguments in general, but cannot account for their appearance in the above-mentioned contexts. In what follows, I will try to account for these positions, too:

1.      coordinated structures

These constructions have all the properties of definite nominal groups, since they can function anaphorically (as in (26)) and cannot appear in ‘there’-sentences (29):

(29)      There was fork and knife on the table.

Erau *cuţit şi farfurie pe masă.

As in the case of bare singular predicative adjunts, there is a restriction regarding the uniqueness of the referents:

 

(30)      a.    At the company meeting, president and vice-president gave an optimistic speech.

b.   *At the company meeting, employee and inspector talked about the weather.

 

Heycock and Zamparelli (2000) analyse these constructions as instances of NP-coordination, which raises to Spec DP, in other words as a structure lacking the specification of any number feature and without a number projection. Starting from the idea that two nouns obligatorily refer to two distinct entities, Schmitt and Munn suggest that the structure contains coordination at the Num level, and the singular need not be specified in this case. My proposal is that coordinated structures contain the number projection in English, a projection which contains the inherent feature [+pl].

 

2.      locative groups

 

As in the case bare ingular predicates, these examples are relatively rare and seem to have an inherently possessive meaning[7]. The sentence (31a) can only be understood as (31b):

 

(31)      a.    Every student went to school.

b.   Every student went to his/her school.

c.   *Every student went to a school.

 

Perez-Leroux and Roeper (1999) suggest that these nouns are bare singulars without any further functional structure but which contain an empty pronominal element. Thus, they will be analyzed as bare singulars without number projections.

 

3.      syntactic reduplication

Travis (2000) suggests that the preposition contains a quantitative feature which triggers reduplication – a form of syntactic copying, which entails the absence of number specification and absence of the syntactic projection. 

3.2.   Bare Singular Arguments in Romanian

 

The distribution of bare singular arguments in Romanian is considered to be fairly limited – even peripheral – and constrained by different semantic and pragma-stylistic factors. As will be seen, however, their distribution is far from being limited.

The distribution attested by the 1966 Gramatica Academiei is the one in (32):

 

(32)      a.    subject in constructions of the type:

mi-e sete,            mi-e foame,               e iarnă

I am thirsty,          I am hungry,               it is winter

b.   apposition

El, negustor, şi-a strâns bani din timp.

He, a tradesman, saved money.

c.   adverbial of manner

Vine glonţ, merge strună, se supără foc.

Although the distribution of bare singulars in subject or direct object position seems to be fairly limited, there are five argument positions of this kind:

 

(33)      a.    when the verb is one of “existence”

Carne se găseşte dar nu ştiu dacă vom găsi peşte.

One can find meat but I don’t know whether we will find fish.

b.   when the verb is one of possession

Are maşină.

He / she has a car.

c.   in enumerations

A părăsit slujbă, familie şi a plecat în străinătate.

He / she has left his job and his family and has gone abroad.

d.   in negative constructions

Strop de ploaie n-a căzut.

Not a drop of rain has fallen.

It is fairly obvious that the subject position is not generally available for bare singulars, this position being associated with a referential entity, a role which the noun can play only when it is accompanied by an article[8]. Dobrovie-Sorin (in press) reaches the conclusion that these singulars are legitimate only if they denote a property: after the copula, as a part of idiomatic expression, with light verbs, etc. the object position is, however, available for bare singulars in Romanian, a fact which is not easily accommodated by Chierchia’s semantic parameter or by Schmitt and Munn’.

Bare singulars in object position have the following distribution (Dobrovie-Sorin and Laca, 2003, Dobrovie-Sorin, in press):

 

Object of verbs selecting relational nouns

• a căuta, a găsi, a vrea, a dori

 

(34)      a.    Ion caută secretară/nevastă/femeie/profesor/bucătar.

b.   Ion doreşte nevastă tânără.

 

Object of light verbs

 

(35)      a avea timp/nevoie/obicei

a face sport/mâncare/baie/dragoste/amor/febră/scandal/curăţenie

a face front împotriva/caz de

a prinde curaj/ură/ciudă

a lua loc/parte/fiinţă/notă de

a da loc/exemplu

a ţine loc de

 

Object position of verbs of possession

 

(36)      Ion are casă/maşină/copil mic/carte de credit/paşaport/bucătăreasă.

Casa asta are lift/grădină/scară de serviciu .

Ne-au pus în sfârşit lift.

Ion şi-a cumpărat casă.

 

Object position of verbs imposing selectional restrictions

• a avea, a purta, conduce,

 

(37)      Ion are casă/maşină/copil mic/carte de credit/paşaport/bucătăreasă.

Casa asta are lift/grădină/scară de serviciu

Maria poartă pantalon/pălărie/uniformă/poşetă/cravată/cămaşă/rochie scurtă

Ion foloseşte stilou/creion

 

Proverbs

 

(38)      Cui pe cui se scoate.

Ban la ban trage.

Deal cu deal se întâlneşte, dar om cu om?

 

Because Romanian allows bare singular arguments – even in these limited contexts – we will suggest that – at least in these contexts – the number projection is missing from the functional architecture and the nouns can be considered agreement projections (AgrPs). In other words, bare singular arguments function as co-predicates and not as genuine arguments.

 

Conclusions

 

My paper tried to demonstrate the absence of the number projection with bare predicate singulars, when the CAP logical operator is present in the predication mode, and with bare singular arguments, which function as secondary predicates (co-predicates). In Romanian, bare singulars are considered agreement projections (Agr P), while in English they are determiner phrases with a null determiner.

 

 

SUBSTANTIVELE NUDE ŞI PROIECŢIA CATEGORIEI DE NUMĂR

ÎN ENGLEZĂ ŞI ROMÂNĂ

Rezumat

Lucrarea de faţă îşi propune să analizeze substantivele nearticulate aflate în poziţii argumentale şi predicative în limbile română şi engleză. Analiza pune accent pe importanţa proiecţiei categoriei de număr în arhitectura funcţională a grupului nominal şi încearcă să stabilească o corelaţie între prezenţa vs. absenţa acesteia şi apariţia substantivelor nearticulate. Apariţia acestui tip de substantive în limba română (şi în limbile romanice, în general) – şi mai ales apariţia singularelor nearticulate – este restricţionată de diverşi factori sintactici şi pragma-stilistici, pe care lucrarea încearcă să îi sistematizeze.

Prima secţiune a lucrării plasează proiecţia categoriei de număr în interiorul grupului nominal şi face o scurtă analiză a modului în care s-a ajuns la postularea acestei categorii funcţionale a grupului nominal. A doua secţiune investighează singularele nearticulate în poziţie poziţie predicativă (poziţie post-copulară, poziţie de element predicativ suplimetar, etc) în limbile engleză şi română, iar a treia secţiune analizează singularele nearticulate în poziţie argumentală (poziţie de subiect şi obiect direct) în aceleaşi limbi.

 

 

REFERENCES

 

 

1.     CHIERCHIA, G., “Reference to Kinds across Languages”, Natural Language Semantics, Vol. 6, No. 4, 1998.

2.     DE SWART, H., WINTER, Y. and ZWARTS, J., The Interpretation of Bare Predicate Nominals in Dutch, February 2004.

3.     DOBROVIE-SORIN, C., “Spec, DP and (In)definiteness Spread: From Romanian Genitives to Hebrew Construct State Nominals”, in Studies in Romanian Syntax, V. Motapanyane (ed.), The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.

4.     DOBROVIE-SORIN, C., and LACA, B., “Les noms sans déterminants dans les langues romanes”, in Les langues romanes, Éd. par D. Godard, Ed. du CNRS, 2003, pp. 235-281.

5.     DOGARU, M., “Bare Singulars in English and Romanian. The Predicate / Argument Asymmetry”, in National Conference on English and American Studies: Conference Papers, Braşov, 2003, Marinela Burada (ed.).

6.     DOGARU, M., “On the Syntax of Bare Singulars in English and Romanian”, in Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics, vol.5, nr. 1/2003.

7.     DOGARU, M., “Romanian Bare Singulars and Free DP Agreement”, in National Conference on English and American Studies: Conference Papers, Braşov, 2004.

8.     Gramatica Academei, vol. I, Bucureşti, 1966.

9.     HEYCOCK, CAROLINE, and ZAMPARELLI, ROBERTO, (2000), “Friends and Colleagues: Plurality and NP-Coordination”, in Hirotani et al (eds.), Proceedings of the 30^th Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Linguistic Society 30, Rutgers University.

10.  HEYCOCK, CAROLINE, and ZAMPARELLI, ROBERTO, (2003), “Coordinated Bare Definites”, in Linguistic Inquiry, 34: 443-469.

11.  SCHMITT, C., and MUNN, A., Against the Nominal Mapping Parameter: Bare Nouns in Brazilian Portuguese – NELS 29, 1999.

12.  SCHMITT, C., and MUNN, A., Bare Nominals, Morphosyntax, and the Nominal Mapping Parameter, 2000.

13.  SCHMITT, C., and MUNN, A., Bare Nouns and the Morphosyntax of Number.

14.  SCHMITT, C., MUNN, A., “The syntax and semantics of bare arguments in Brazilian Portuguese, Linguistic Variation Yearbook, vol. 2, 253-281, 2002.

15.  SCHMITT, C., and MUNN, A., “Number and Indefinites”, Lingua, 2004.

16.  TRAVIS, LISA DEMENA, (2000), The Syntax of Reduplication, Paper presented at NELS 31, Georgetown University, October 2000.