Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:13:16.837Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bare nouns in Danish with special reference to the object position

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

Henrik Høeg Müller
Henrik Høeg Müller*
Affiliation:
Purreskovvej 49, st.tv., 5874 Hesselager, Denmarkhhm.msc@cbs.dk
Get access

Abstract

Based on a discussion of correlations between syntactic position, prosodic cues, aspect and generic vs. non-generic interpretations, this paper substantiates that Danish Bare Plural count nouns (BPs) have a wider distribution than Bare Singular count nouns (BSs). BPs, unlike BSs, can occur in subject position, function as both generic and existential arguments, and appear with all aspectual verb classes. However, BPs and BSs expressing a non-generic, modificational meaning concur in object position of activity verbs and stative verbs with a possession relation implicature. These V+BP and V+BS structures, it is suggested, form a progressive continuum of three different subtypes of pseudo-incorporation (PI), namely (i) PI of BPs (low integration as in spise æbler ‘eat apples’), (ii) PI of type 1 BSs (medium integration as in male hus ‘paint house’), and (iii) PI of type 2 BSs (maximum integration as in spille violin ‘play violin’).

Keywords

anaphoric referencebare nounsnumber neutralitypredication and predicate typesprosodypseudo-incorporationscopetelicityword order
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , May 2017 , pp. 37 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asudeh, Ash & Mikkelsen, Line Hove. 2000. Incorporation in Danish: Implications for interfaces. In Cann, Ronnie, Grover, Claire & Miller, Philip (eds.), A Collection of Papers on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 1–15. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2009. A constructional analysis of quasi-incorporation in Dutch. Gengo Kenkyu 135, 5–28.Google Scholar
Borik, Olga & Gehrke, Berit. 2015a. An introduction to the syntax and semantics of pseudo-incorporation. In Borik & Gehrke (eds.), 1–43.Google Scholar
Borik, Olga & Gehrke, Berit (eds.). 2015b. The Syntax and Semantics of Pseudo-incorporation (Syntax and Semantics 40). Leiden & Boston, MA: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borthen, Kaja. 2003. Norwegian Bare Singulars. Ph.D. dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N. 1977a. Reference to Kinds in English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N. 1977b. A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 413–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 1999. Bare NPs, reference to kinds and incorporation. In Matthews, Tanya & Strolovitch, Devon (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistics Theory 9 (SALT IX), 35–51. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 2003. A semantics for pseudo incorporation. Ms., Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 2011. Hindi pseudo-incorporation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29 (1), 123–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 2015. Incorporation: Morpho-syntactic vs. semantic considerations. In Borik & Gehrke (eds.), 47–87.Google Scholar
de Swart, Henriëtte & Zwarts, Joost. 2009. Less form – more meaning: Why bare singular nouns are special. Lingua 119 (2), 280–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diderichsen, Paul. 1946. Elementær dansk grammatik [Elementary Danish grammar]. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 2009. Existential bare plurals: From properties back to entities. Lingua 119, 296–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen, Bleam, Tonia & Espinal, M. Teresa. 2006. Bare nouns, number and types of incorporation. In Tasmowski, Liliane & Vogeleer, Svetlana (eds.), Non-definiteness and Plurality, 51–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen & Laca, Brenda. 2003. Les noms sans déterminant dans les langues romanes. In Godard, Danièle (ed.), Les langues Romanes. Problèmes de la Phrase Simple, 235–281. Paris: Editions du CNRS.Google Scholar
Doetjes, Jenny Sandra. 1997. Quantifiers and Selection: On the Distribution of Quantifying Expressions in French, Dutch and English. Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67 (3), 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espinal, M. Teresa. 2010. Bare nominals in Catalan and Spanish: Their structure and meaning. Lingua 120, 984–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espinal, M. Teresa & McNally, Louise. 2007. Bare singular nominals and incorporating verbs. In Kaiser, George & Leonetti, Manuel (eds.), Proceedings of the III NEREUS International Workshop. Definiteness, Specificity and Animacy in Ibero-Romance languages (Arbeitspapier 122), 45–62. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
Espinal, M. Teresa & McNally, Louise. 2008. Spanish and Catalan bare singular nominals at the syntax–semantics interface. Presented at the XXXVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, University of Indiana, Urbana–Champaign.Google Scholar
Espinal, M. Teresa & McNally, Louise. 2011. Bare nominals and incorporating verbs in Catalan and Spanish. Journal of Linguistics 47, 87–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka F. & de Swart, Henriëtte. 2003. The Semantics of Incorporation. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka F. & de Swart, Henriëtte. 2004. Incorporation, plurality, and the incorporation of plurals: A dynamic approach. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 3, 45–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Bach, Emmon & Harms, Robert T. (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane & Vikner, Sten. 1993. Obligatory adjuncts and the structure of events. In Reuland, Eric & Abraham, Werner (eds.), Knowledge and Language, vol. II: Lexical and Conceptual Structure, 143–155. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Aage. 1927. Bestemt og ubestemt substantiv. Bidrag til dansk substantivsyntaks [Definite and indefinite noun: Contribution to Danish noun syntax]. Copenhagen: Arnold Busck.Google Scholar
Hansen, Erik. 2001[1974]. De nye der-konstruktioner. En øjenvidneberetning [The new der-constructions: An eyewitness account]. In Jacobsen & Jørgensen (eds.), 115–131. [First published in 1974 in Festskrift til Kristian Hald. Navneforskning. Dialektologi. Sproghistorie. På halvfjerdsårsdagen 9.9.1974, 391–404. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag]Google Scholar
Hansen, Erik. 2001[1994]. Generisk substantiv [Generic nouns]. In Jacobsen & Jørgensen (eds.), 274–282. [First published in 1994 in Språkbruk, grammatik och språkförädring. En festskrift till Ulf Teleman 13.1.1994, 137–144. Lund: Institutionen för nordiska språk, Lunds universitet.]Google Scholar
Hansen, Erik & Heltoft, Lars. 2011. Grammatik over det Danske sprog [Grammar of the Danish language]. Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab [The Danish Language and Literature Society]. Copenhagen: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Hansen, Erik & Lund, Jørn. 1983. Sæt tryk på. Syntaktisk tryk i dansk [Put on accentuation: Syntactic accentuation in Danish] (DLH forskningsserien 6). København: Lærerforeningens Materialeudvalg.Google Scholar
Hellberg, Staffan. 1970. On Existential Sentences (Gothenburg Papers in Theoretical Linguistics). Ms., University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Herslund, Michael. 1994. La notion d'incorporation en danois et en français. Travaux de Linguistique et de Philologie XXXII, 7–18.Google Scholar
Herslund, Michael. 1995. The object relation and the notion of incorporation. In Schøsler, Lene & Talbot, Mary (eds.), Studies in Valency 1, 1–18. Odense: Odense University Press.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun. 1988. Small clause results. Lingua 74, 101–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobsen, Henrik Galbjerg & Jørgensen, Henrik (eds.). 2001. Glæden ved grammatik. Udvalgte artikler og afhandlinger [The joy of grammar: Selected articles and dissertations]. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1934. Modersmålets fonetik [The phonetics of the mother tongue], 3rd edn. Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandel, Nordisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Johns, Alana. 2009. Additional facts about noun incorporation (in Inuktitut). Lingua 119, 185–198 Google Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög. 2009. Peas and pancakes: On apparent disagreement and (null) light verbs in Swedish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 32, 35–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög. 2010. ‘Disagreeing’ pronominal reference in Swedish and the interplay between formal and semantic gender. Lingua 120 (9), 2095–2120.Google Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög. 2012. ‘Disagreeing’ doubling det . Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 90, 111–140.Google Scholar
Kallulli, Dalina. 1997. Bare singulars and bare plurals: Mapping syntax and semantics. In Langeveld, Tina Cambier, Costa, Joao, Goedemans, Rob & van de Vijver, Ruben (eds.), Proceedings of ConSole V, 153–168. Leiden: SOLE.Google Scholar
Kearns, Katherine Susan. 1991. The Semantics of the English Progressive. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc. 1994. Noun incorporation in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 40 (1–2), 149–177.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul & Kiparsky, Carol. 1971. Fact. In Jakobovits, Leon & Steinberg, Danny (eds.), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader, 345–369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klaiman, Miriam H. 1990. The prehistory of noun incorporation in Hindi. Lingua 8, 327–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In van Benthem, Johan, Bartsch, Renate & van Emde Boas, Peter (eds.), Semantics and Contextual Expression, 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Sag, Ivan A. & Szabolcsi, Anna (eds.), Lexical Matters, 30–52. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred, Pelletier, Francis Jeffry, Carlson, Gregory N., ter Meulen, Alice, Chierchia, Gennaro & Link, Godehard. 1995. Genericity: An introduction. In Carlson, Gregory N. & Pelletier, Francis Jeffry (eds.), The Generic Book, 1–124. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William. 1994. Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, weak and strong. In Harvey, Mandy & Santelmann, Lynn (eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory IV, 220–229. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel. 2008. Typological correlations in nominal determination in Romance. In Müller, Henrik Høeg & Klinge, Alex (eds.), Essays on Nominal Determination: From Morphology to Discourse Management (Studies in Language Companion 99), 131–162. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manninen, Satu. 2001. A minimalist analysis of stage level and individual level predicates (The Department of English in Lund: Working Papers in Linguistics 1) . Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Massam, Diana. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19, 153–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massam, Diana. 2009. Existential incorporation constructions. Lingua 119, 166–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClure, William T. 1994. Syntactic Projections of the Semantics of Aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Kristian. 1975[1911]. Dansk Ordfojningslære [Danish syntax]. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag. [First published in 1911 in Copenhagen by Lehmann & Stages Forlag.]Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60 (4), 847–894.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1986. On the nature of noun incorporation. Language 62 (l), 32–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Henrik Høeg. 2014. Lexical coding vs. syntactic marking of homogeneity: Evidence from Spanish and Danish. Studies in Language 38 (4), 896–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Henrik Høeg. 2015. Nøgne objekter i dansk [Bare object nouns in Danish]. Ny forskning i grammatik 22, 197–214. [Published by Dansk Sprognævn [Danish Language Committee].]Google Scholar
Nedergaard Thomsen, Ole. 1991. Unit accentuation as an expression device for predicate formation in Danish. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia: International Journal of Linguistics 23, 145–196. Copenhagen: Reitzel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nedergaard Thomsen, Ole & Herslund, Michael. 2002. Complex predicates and incorporation: An introduction. In Thomsen, Ole Nedergaard & Herslund, Michael (eds.), Complex Predicates and Incorporation: A Functional Perspective (Travaux du cercle linguistique de Copenhague XXXII), 7–47. Copenhagen: C. A. Reitzel.Google Scholar
Petersen, Kathrine Thisted. 2010. Når verber taber tryk. Valens, referentialitet og aspektualitet i forbindelse med inkorporation og tryksvage verber i dansk [When verbs loose their accentuation: Valency, referentiality and aspectuality with reference to incorporation and weak stress verbs in Danish]. Arkiv för Nordisk Filologi 125, 155–181.Google Scholar
Petersen, Kathrine Thisted. 2011. Fokus på tryk [Focus on accentuation]. In Hansen, Inger Schoonderbeek & Widell, Peter (eds.), MUDS – Møderne om Udforskningen af Dansk Sprog 13, 251–260.Google Scholar
Petersen, Kathrine Thisted. 2013. Artikelbrug i inkorporationsforbindelser [The use of articles in incorporation structures]. In Borchmann, Simon, Inger Schoonderbeek Hansen, Hougaard, Tina Thode, Togeby, Ole & Widell, Peter (eds.), Gode ord er bedre end guld. Festskrift til Henrik Jørgensen [Wise words are more valuable than gold: Festschrift in honour of Henrik Jørgensen], 383–397. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitet. Institut for Æstetik og Kommunikation.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The syntax of event structure. Cognition 41, 47–81.Google Scholar
Rischel, Jørgen. 1983. On unit accentuation in Danish – and the distinction between deep and surface phonology. Folia Linguistica: Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae 17, 51–97. Haag: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheuer, Jan. 1995. Relevance and prosody in spoken Danish. Journal of Pragmatics 23, 421–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Carlota S. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Stvan, Laurel Smith. 2009. Semantic incorporation as an account for some bare singular count noun uses in English. Lingua 119, 314–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, Lisa deMena. 2000. Event structure in syntax. In Tenny, Carol L. & Pustejovsky, James (eds.), Events as Grammatical Objects: The Converging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax, 145–185. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1996. Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions: Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Noun Incorporation in West Greenlandic. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Verbs and times. In Vendler, Zeno (ed.), Linguistics in Philosophy, 97–121. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk J. 1972. On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar