Quantification Without Quantifiers: Number Sensitivity in Articleless Constructions

本课题研究的是名词性结构中的语义变异。英语裸复数在种类、类属和存在主义读法中各有不同。印地语有单数和复数的裸名词，有两个方面的不同。在英语或印地语裸复数存在的所有语境中，印地语裸单数并不接受存在主义读法。印地语的裸体名词有一个附加的限定读法，这是英语裸体复数没有的。推动这项研究的研究问题是预测语言内部和语言之间对裸名词解释的变化的可能性。主要主张单数种类结构不同于复数种类结构，这是因为不允许对其实例化进行谓词。这就解释了印地语单数和复数之间的区别，以及英语定(单)类和复数之间的区别。尽管种类形成策略是通用的，但自然语言的不同之处在于有定冠词和编码数字敏感度。负责各种阅读的语义操作和两种语言中的词汇选择相互作用，以产生观察到的效果。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)，另一种有数字区别但只有一种冠词(希伯来语)。涉及的理论问题如下：对种类的指称是裸词语义的一个组成部分，还是它们仅仅是不确定的？零限定词在自然语言中可用吗？或者类型转换理论能解释事实吗？与当前句法和音系学的发展相一致的是，如果语义操作受制于一组相互作用的约束，那么语义变异是可以解释的。这项研究的结果应该会引起语言学家、哲学家、计算语言学家和其他认知学家以及那些研究第二语言习得的人的兴趣。

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.