Quantification Without Quantifiers: Number Sensitivity in Articleless Constructions

这个项目涉及裸名词性结构的语义变化。英语中的裸复数在类、类属和存在主义解读中各不相同。印地语有单数和复数的裸名词，在两个方面有所不同。印地语的纯单数并不允许在英语或印地语的纯复数的所有上下文中进行存在主义解读。 印地语的裸名词有一个额外的明确的阅读，不适用于英语裸复数。 驱动调查的研究问题是预测裸名词在语言内部和跨语言解释的变化的可能性。主要主张是单数种类构成不同于复数种类构成，不允许对其实例进行预测。 这就解释了印地语的单数和复数之间的差异，以及英语的定（单数）类属和复数之间的差异。 虽然类的形成策略是普遍的，但自然语言在定冠词和编码数字敏感性方面有所不同。 负责各种阅读的语义操作相互作用，并在两种语言中的词汇选项，以创建所观察到的效果。该项目还涉及其他两种语言类型，一种没有数字区分或冠词（韩语），另一种有数字区分但只有一个冠词（希伯来语）。其中的理论问题解决如下：是指种类的一个组成部分的语义裸名词或他们只是不确定的？自然语言中是否存在空限定词，或者类型转换理论能否解释这些事实？ 与句法学和音系学的当前发展相一致的方法的总路线是，如果语义操作受到一组相互作用的约束，则可以解释语义变化。 这项研究的结果应该是感兴趣的语言学家，哲学家，计算语言学家和其他认知科学家以及那些工作在第二语言习得。

This project deals with semantic variation in bare nominal constructions. English bare plurals vary between kind, generic and existential readings. Hindi, which has singular and plural bare nominals, differs in two respects. Hindi bare singulars do not admit existential readings in all contexts where English or Hindi bare plurals do. Hindi bare nominals have an additional definite reading, not available to English bare plurals. The research question driving the investigation is the possibility of predicting variations in the interpretation of bare nominals within and across languages.The main claim is that singular kind formation differs from plural kind formation in not allowing predication to its instantiations. This explains differences between Hindi bare singulars and plurals, as well as between English definite (singular) generics and bare plurals. Though kind formation strategies are universal, natural languages differ in having the definite article and in encoding number sensitivity. Semantic operations responsible for various readings interact with each other and lexical options in the two languages to create the observed effects. The project also deals with two other language types, one without number distinction or articles (Korean) and one with number distinction but only one article (Hebrew). Among the theoretical questions addressed are the following: Is reference to kinds an integral part of the semantics of bare nominals or are they simply indefinites? Are null determiners available in natural language or can a theory of type-shifts explain the facts? The general line of approach, consonant with current developments in syntax and phonology, is that semantic variation can be explained if semantic operations are subject to a set of interacting constraints. The results of this research should be of interest to linguists, philosophers, computational linguists and other cognitive scientists as well as to those working on second language acquisition.