Determiners, Bare Nouns, and Donkey Sentences
in Numeral Classifier Languages
Peter Jenks
[email protected]
Some unresesolved questions:
• How is definiteness encoded in languages which lack definite articles, for example, in numeral
classifier languages? (Chen 2004, Simpson et al. 2011)
• Are putatively definite nominals in classifier languages DPs or NPs? (Chierchia 1998, Cheng and
Sybesma 1999, Wu and Bodomo 2009)
Claims in this paper:
• Definiteness associated with bare nouns vs. determiners in classifier languages is semantically distinct, licensed by either uniqueness or familiarity, respectively (cf. Schwarz 2009).
• The uniqueness associated with bare nominal definiteness follows from the lexical semantics of
nouns in classifier languages, meaning determiners are not needed.
• The familiarity associated with DP definiteness demonstrates that what is common to determiners
in across languages is the introduction of a discourse index or variable for binding, not argument
creation (pace Longobardi 2005).
• These claims straightforwardly predict the distribution of these expressions in donkey sentences in
numeral classifier languages.
Structure of the talk
Act I: Bare nouns in classifier languages
Act II: Two types of definites in classifier languages
Act III: Covarying interpretations of noun phrases
1 Background: Bare Nouns in Numeral Classifier Languages
Three readings of bare nouns in Mandarin Chinese and Thai:
1. Kind-based readings (1)
2. Scopeless indefinite readings (2)
3. Definite readings (3)
1
LSA Annual Meeting, January 8, 2015
(1)
Kind-level readings
✞
a.
☎
✝shīzi ✆hěn kuài jiù huı̀ juézhǒng
lion
very quick then will be.extinct
‘Lions will be extinct very soon.’
b.
☎
✞
✝nǔu ✆klâi
(Mandarin, Cheng and Sybesma 2012, ex. (6a))
sǔunphan
mice nearly extinct
(Thai, Piriyawiboon 2010, p. 42)
‘Mice are nearly extinct.’
(2)
Scopeless indefinite readings
✞
☎
a. Yuehan zai zhao
yisheng
✝
✆
John
PROG
looking-for doctor
i. ‘John is looking for a(ny) doctor.’
ii. *‘There’s a specific doctor that John is looking.’
iii. ‘John is looking for the doctor.’
b.
chǎn kamlaN hǎa
1 SG
PROG
(Mandarin, cf. Yang 2000, p. 26)
☎
✞
mǑO
✝
✆yùu
looking-for doctor IMPF
i. ‘I’m looking for a doctor.’
ii. *‘There’s a specific doctor that I’m looking for.’
iii. ‘I’m looking for the doctor.’
(3)
(Thai)
Definite readings
✞
☎
a. ✝Gou ✆yao guo malu.
dog
want cross road
‘The dog wants to cross the road.’
b.
(Cheng & Sybesma 1999:510)
✞
☎
mǎa
✝
✆kamlaN hàw.
dog
PROG
bark
‘The dog(s) are barking.’
(Piriyawiboon 2011:43)
However, specific indefinite readings emerge with numerals/indefinite articles:
(4)
Specific indefinite readings
✞
☎
a. Yuehan zai zhao
yi-ge
yisheng
✝
✆
John
PROG
looking-for one-CLF doctor
i. ‘John is looking for a(ny) doctor.’
ii. ‘There’s a specific doctor that John is looking for.’
b.
chǎn kamlaN hǎa
1 SG
PROG
✞
☎
✝
✆
mǑO khon n1N
looking-for doctor CLF
(Mandarin)
yùu
INDEF IMPF
i. ? ‘I’m looking for a doctor.’
ii. ‘There’s a specific doctor that I’m looking for.’
(Thai)
ą The ‘true’ indefinites in (4) resist the kind level readings in (1).
ą Interpretive differences between bare nouns and indefinites have been argued to follow from analyses
of bare nouns as bare NPs (Carlson 1977, Chierchia 1998, Yang 2000, Piriyawiboon 2010, Jenks 2011).
2
Jenks, Determiners and bare nouns in classifier languages
Additionally, the claim that demonstratives are not definite articles in classifier languages comes from the
lack of consistency effects (Löbner 1985):
(5)
dèk khon nán nOOn yùu tÈE dèk khon nán mâi.dâi nOOn yùu
child CLF that sleep
IMPF
but child CLF that
NEG
sleep
IMPF
‘That child is sleeping but that child is not sleeping.’ (cf. #the)
(Piriyawiboon 2011:49)
Thus, Jiang (2012:15) claims that “most [classifier languages] do not have marked definiteness. . . .”
In this light, two views of definite bare nouns:
1. Definite bare nouns are NPs; definiteness arises somehow via semantics (e.g. Chierchia 1998, Yang
2000, Piriyawiboon 2010)
2. Definite bare nouns are full DPs, or some equivalent (Cheng and Sybesma 1999, Visonyanggoon
2000, Simpson 2005, Wu and Bodomo 2009)
View 2 assumes that bare definites are semantically equivalent to definite descriptions in, e.g., English.
ą Yet definite bare nouns are only available for some readings that are available for definite descriptions.
2 Two Types of Definites in Numeral Classifier Languages
Two competing views of definiteness in the semantics literature:
Uniqueness Definite descriptions are used for referents that are unique (e.g. Russell 1905):
(6)
a.
b.
The sun is hot.
The woman that John went out to dinner with last night was brilliant.
Familiarity Definite descriptions are used for referents that are familiar, or are anaphoric to referents that
have been mentioned earlier (e.g. Heim 1982):
(7)
John bought a book and a magazine. The magazine was expensive.
Recent cross-linguistic work has established that both notions might be needed in different languages:
• Schwarz (2009): ‘Strong’ vs. ‘weak’ definite articles in German dialects licensed by familiarity or
uniqueness, respectively.
• Arkoh and Matthewson (2013): Describe the Fante determiner nU, licensed only by familiarity.
• Schwarz (2013): Reviews a number of other languages where a similar distinction holds.
The same kind of generalization applied to numeral classifier languages:
(8)
Category
Bare definites
Indexical definites
Definition
Licensed by
Bare nouns with definite translations in English
Uniqueness
Pronouns, demonstrative descriptions, complex definites Familiarity
3
LSA Annual Meeting, January 8, 2015
2.1
Bare definites must be unique
Four environments license bare definites (I will illustrate these just with Thai, but in all the cases I have
checked, they hold for Mandarin as well):
Environment 1 Globally unique definites:
(9)
✞
☎
✝
✆
duaN-can (#duaN nán) sàwàaN mâak
(CLF
moon
that) bright
very
‘The moon is very bright.’
(Thai)
Likewise, ‘unique kinds’ are translated with bare nouns: (NB: Thai provinces get one Senator, two MPs)
(10)
a.
☎
✞
sǑO-sǑO chiaN-mày #(khon nán) gròot mâak
✝
M.P.
Chiang Mai
CLF
that
✆
angry very
‘#The/That MP from Chiang Mai is very angry.’
b.
✞
(Thai)
☎
sǑO-wOO chiaN-mày (#khon nán) gròot mâak
✝
senator Chiang Mai
CLF
✆
angry very
that
‘The/#That Senator from Chiang Mai is very angry.’
(Thai)
Environment 2 Weak definites (Poesio 1994, Carlson et al. 2006):
(11)
a.
✞
☎
Sùthêep phaa Sǒmchay pay (thı̂i) ✝rooN-phayabaan ✆
Su.
take So.
go
to
hospital
‘Suthep took Somchai to the hospital.’
(Thai)
☎
✞
b. #Sùthêep phaa Sǒmchay pay *(thı̂i) ✝t1̀k ✆
Su.
take So.
go
to
building
‘Suthep took Somchai to the building.’
(Thai)
ą (11b) requires a context to be natural, but not (11a).
ą Schwarz (2014) provides an analysis of weak definites which relies on uniqueness relevant to an event.
Environment 3 Bridging/associative definites:
(12)
thâa cà
pay klinik khǑN mǑO sǒmchay nÉnam
If
go clinic
PROSP
POSS
doctor S.
wâa khuan cà
recommend COMP should
PROSP
✞
☎
kh1̂n ✝banday ✆
ascend stairs
‘If your going to Dr. Somchai’s clinic, I recommend that you take the stairs.’
(13)
rót khan nán thùuk
tamrùat sàkàt
car
police
CLF
that
ADV. PAS
phrÓP mâj dâj tı̀t
intercept because
NEG PST
(Thai)
✞
☎
satik@@ wáj thı̂i ✝thábian ✆
attach sticker keep at
license
‘That car was intercepted by the police because there wasn’t a sticker on the license plate.’ (Thai)
ą These bridging contexts can be taken to be situationally unique.
4
Jenks, Determiners and bare nouns in classifier languages
Environment 4 High animate referents; these are also exceptional, apparently allowing bare definite uses
even when familiar:
(14)
a.
S1: Haan sǎmpaat phÔO lûuk khûu
H.
interview father son
n1N.
CLF:pair INDEF
‘Hans interviewed a father-son pair.’
b.
✞
☎
S2: kháw khı́t wâa ✝(tua)-phÔO (#khon nán) ✆mây nâa-sǒncay
He
think COMP
SELF-father
CLF
that
NEG
interesting
‘He didn’t think the father was interesting.’
(15)
a.
S1: Haan sǎmpaat nák-khǐan khon n1N
H.
interview writer
CLF
(Thai)
kap nák-kaanm1aN khon n1N.
INDEF
and politician
CLF
INDEF
‘Hans interviewed a writer and a politician.’
b.
S2: kháw khı́t wâa
He
✞
☎
nák-kaanm1aN #(khon nán) mây nâa-sǒncay
✝
think COMP politician
CLF
that
✆
NEG
interesting
‘He didn’t think the politician was interesting.’
(Thai)
ą Basic human terms like ‘man’ or ‘woman’ see optional use of the demonstrative; these have formed the
basic examples in the literature, but they are exceptional relative to other kinds of nouns.
ą Following Zwarts (2014), these ‘high animacy’ definites may be seen as instantiating unique roles in
functional frames (in fact, this generalization would subsume the earlier two cases as well).
S UMMARY: Bare nouns are restricted to uniqueness definites once uniqueness is relativized to situations/events/frames.
2.2
Indexical definites must be anaphoric
Indexical definites must be anaphoric or strongly familiar in the sense of Roberts (2003).
✞
(16)
a.
☎
.
S1: zuótiān wǒ yù-dào ✝yī ge xuéshēng ✆
Yesterday 1 SG meet
one-CLF student
‘Yesterday I met a student.’
b.
☎✄
✞
S2i: ✝nà ge xuéshēng ✆/ ✂✄tā ✁ hěn cōngmı́ng.
that CLF student
/ ✂3 SG ✁very clever
‘That student/(s)he was very clever.’
✞
☎
c. #S2ii: ✝xuéshēng ✆hěn cōngmı́ng.
student
clever very
‘Students are clever.’
(Mandarin)
5
LSA Annual Meeting, January 8, 2015
(17)
a.
✞
☎
S1: m1awaan phǒm c@@ kàp nákrian khon n1N .
✝
Yesterday 1 ST
meet with student CLF
INDEF
✆
‘Yesterday I met a student.’
b.
✞
☎✞
☎
S2i: ✝(Nákrian) khon nán ✆/ ✝kháw ✆chalàat mâak.
/ 3 SG
student CLF that
clever
very
‘That student/(s)he was very clever.’
✞
☎
c. #S2ii: ✝nákrian ✆chalàat mâak.
student
clever
very
‘Students are clever.’
(Thai)
Indexical definites are discourse-anaphoric rather than directly referential:
(18)
De dicto definites (cf. ‘Hob-Nob sentences,’ e.g. Elbourne 2005: p. 6)
☎
✞
a. S1: phûu-chaay khon n1N khâa Suthêep.
✝
✆
man
kill
CLF INDF
Suthep.
‘A mani killed Suthepj .’
b.
✞
☎✞
☎
S2i: tamruat sǒNsǎy wâa ✝phûu-chaay khon nán ✆/ ✝khǎw ✆dây-ráp bàat-cèp tÔOn-nán
police
suspect
COMP
man
CLF
/ 3 SG
that
receive injury
time-that
‘Police suspect that that mani / hei was injured at the time.’
c.
✞
☎
S2ii: tamruat sǒNsǎy wâa ✝phûu-chaay ✆dây-ráp bàat-cèp tÔOn-nán
police
suspect
COMP
receive injury
man
time-that
‘Police suspect that a mank was injured at the time.’
(Thai)
Indexical definites must pick out the reference of the antecedent, rather than its sense:
(19)
‘Paycheck sentences’ (cf. Elbourne 2005, p. 21)
a. S1: pii-nı́i naayók
pen samǎachı́k ph0̂a-Thai.
year-this Prime Minister PRED member
pro-Thai.
‘This year the prime ministeri is a pro-Thai party member.
b.
✞
☎
☎✞
S2i: Pii-nâa ✝khǎw ✆/ ✝naayók khon nán ✆cà pen samǎachı́k pràchaathı́pàt.
year-next 3sg
/ P. M. CLF that
FUT PRED
member
democrat
‘Next year hei will be a democratic party member.’
c.
✞
☎
S2ii: Pii-nâa ✝naayók ✆
cà pen samǎachı́k pràchaathı́pàt.
year-next Prime Minister FUT
PRED
member
democrat
‘Next year hej will be a democratic party member.’
A puzzle: Why are indexical definites ‘strongly anaphoric’ in Thai/Mandarin?
2.3
(20)
Analysis: Uniqueness versus familiarity
a.
b.
Bare definites = Bare, kind-denoting NPs, saturated with a situation variable.
Indexical definites = Full, presuppositional DPs which introduce an index.
6
(Thai)
Jenks, Determiners and bare nouns in classifier languages
Bare Definites
• Bare nouns are kinds, functions from situations to individuals (cf. Krifka 1995, Chierchia 1998).
• Definiteness arises by saturating the kind with the default ‘topic situation’ (Schwarz 2009):
(21)
a.
NP
NP
s1
mǎa
‘dog’
b.
c.
rrmǎassg = λs.DOGpsq
‘the total set of dog(s) in some situation’
• Situation variables are freely adjoined to major syntactic constituents.
• Situation Restriction returns the largest set of dogs in a particular situation (the supremum) (Jiang
2012, a.o.).
• Weak and uniqueness uses of definites follow directly provided some adequate theory of situations
Kratzer (cf. 1989), Elbourne (cf. 2013).
Indexical Definites
• Demonstratives are choice functions (fc ) (Reinhart 1998).
• Demonstratives introduce an additional argument which corresponds to a discourse markers (dynamic indices = un ) (Groenendijk and Stokhof 1990, Chierchia 1995, Schwarz 2009).
• Demonstratives presuppose existence, but not uniqueness (explaining (5)).
(22)
a.
DP4
s1
DP4
u4
DP
ClfP
b.
c.
D
NP
Clf
nákrian
“student”
khon
nán
‘that’
CLFperson
rrDPi ssg = λs.fc x : DxY STUDENTpxqpsqrY STUDENTpxqpsq ^ x = gpu4 qs
‘that student who is discourse referent 4 in some situation’
• In actual deictic/pointing uses of indexical definites the discourse marker is identified with a realworld object.
• The reliance on an index explains the ‘rigid’ properties of indexical definites: The variable assignment is held constant across situations.
• Paycheck readings for English definites are available because uniqueness licenses the in English but
not indexical definites in classifier languages; this effect bleeds over into pronominal reference.
7
LSA Annual Meeting, January 8, 2015
3 Covarying interpretations of noun phrases
(23)
Two more generalizations:
a. Indexical definites freely receive covarying (bound) interpretations.
b. Bare nouns cannot receive covarying interpretations1
(24)
Donkey anaphora in Mandarin (loosely based on Cheng and Huang 1996)
☎
✞
a. ruguo ni kandao [yi ge xuesheng]1 , qing jiao ✝na ge xuesheng1 ✆/
if
b.
you see
one CLF student
‘If you see a student, please tell her to come see me.’
☎
✞
ruguo ni kandao [yi ge xuesheng]1 , qing jiao xuesheng∗1{gen lai
if
you see
one CLF student
☎
(ta) lai jian wo.
✝ 1✆
3SG come see me
please tell that CL student
✝
✞
jian wo.
✆
come see me
please tell student
‘If you see a student, please tell students to come see me.’
(25)
(Mandarin)
Donkey anaphora in Thai
☎✄
✞
a. [chaawnaa thúk khon thı̂i mii khwaay1 ] tii ✝khwaay tua nán1 ✆/ ✂man1 ✁
farmer
b.
every CLF that have buffalo
hit buffalo CLF that
/ it
‘Every farmer that has a buffalo hits it.’
☎
✞
[chaawnaa thúk khon thı̂i mii khwaay1 ] tii khwaay∗1{gen
farmer
✝
every CLF that have buffalo
hit buffalo
✆
‘Every rice farmer that has a buffalo hits buffalo.’ (a generic claim)
(Thai)
The same effects arise in the absence of a unique referent for the donkey anaphor:
(26)
[bâan thúk lǎN thı̂i mii òoN1
house every CLF
?man1 / òoN
it
REL
] jà
have water.basin
PROSP
mii òoN
ı̀ik baj táN yùu khâN-khâN H1 /
have water.basin
ADD CLF
set
IPFV
next.to
EC
/
baj nán1 / *òoN1
water.basin CLF that
water.basin
‘Every house that has a water basin has another water basin sitting next to it.’
(Thai)
Two analyses of donkey anaphora:
Situation Binding Donkey anaphora are not bound like regular variables, but receive covarying interpretations via bound situation variables (Elbourne 2005, 2013)
Dynamic Binding Donkey anaphora are interpreted as regular bound variables, and mechanisms allow
indefinites to escape their typical scopal restrictions (e.g. Groenendijk and Stokhof 1990, Chierchia
1995).
In this section I show:
1. Bare nouns are problematic for the situational approach.
2. No apparent problems for the dynamic approach.
ÝÑ The crucial difference between these theories is that in dynamic approaches, but not in ‘pure’ situationbased approaches, donkey anaphora are instances of normal variable binding.
ÝÑ My basic claim, then, is that DPs, but never NPs, supply a variable for binding.
1
Again, there are systematic exceptions to this generalization involving bridging contexts which refer to part-whole relationships
as well as high animacy individuals. Cf. Schwarz (2009) for similar facts once again in German article systems.
8
Jenks, Determiners and bare nouns in classifier languages
3.1
Problems for the situational approach to donkey anaphora
Elbourne (2001, 2005): Pronouns are concealed definite DPs; definite DPs are bindable under all the same
configurations as pronouns:
(27)
Every man who owns a donkey beats the donkey.
Elbourne (2013): Covarying interpretations of definites arise purely through situation semantics:
(28)
a.
b.
Every man who owns a donkey beats the donkey.
‘In every situation s1 where a man owns a donkey, there is another situation s2 , where s2 is
a subpart of s1 and in s2 a man beats the unique donkey in s1 .’
ą Because s1 is restricted to donkey-owning situations, only the donkeys in s1 can be beaten.
But if the bare noun khwaay ‘buffalo’ in (29) denotes the unique student or set of students in a particular
situation, Elbourne’s analysis incorrectly predicts it should allow bound interpretations:
(29)
✞
☎
✝
✆
[chaawnaa thúk khon thı̂i mii khwaay1 ] tii khwaay∗1{gen
farmer
every CLF that have buffalo
hit buffalo
‘Every rice farmer that has a buffalo hits buffalo.’ (a generic claim)
3.2
(Thai)
Dynamic approaches to donkey anaphora
G&S 1990: “The essential feature of [Dynamic Predicate Logic] is that it allows an existential quantifier
to bind occurrences of variables outside its scope. . . ”
(30)
Every man who owns a donkey beats it.
a. @xrmanpxq ^ Dyrdonkeypyq ^ ownspx, yqss Ñ beatpx, yq
b. @x@yrrmanpxq ^ donkeypyq ^ ownspx, yqs Ñ beatpx, yqs (DRT-derived meaning)
c. @xrrmanpxq ^ Dyrdonkeypyq ^ ownspx, yqss Ñ Dyrdonkeypyq ^ ownspx, yq ^ beatpx, yq ]]
(Chierchia 1995, p. 124)
The dynamic approach makes the right prediction: because donkey anaphora are normal bound variables,
indices should be necessary for binding.
(31)
✞
☎✄
[chaawnaa thúk khon thı̂i mii khwaay1 ] tii ✝khwaay tua nán1 ✆/ ✂man1 ✁
farmer
every CLF that have buffalo
hit buffalo CLF that
/ it
‘Every farmer that has a buffalo hits it.’
(32)
a.
b.
c.
(Thai)
(simplified from (22b))
rrkhwaay tua nán1 ss = THATxrY BUFFALOpxq ^ x = ys
rrp34qss = @xrrfarmerpxq^Dyrbuffalopyq^ownpx, yqss Ñ DyrTHATzrY BUFFALOpzq^z =
ys ^ ownspx, yq ^ beatpx, yqss
“For all x such that x is a farmer and there is some y such that y is a buffalo and x owns y,
then there exists some y such that y is identical to some buffalo z and x beats y.”
Bare nouns cannot be bound because they lack the variable characteristic of indexical definites.
9
LSA Annual Meeting, January 8, 2015
4 Conclusions
(33)
Implications for theories of definiteness and determiners:
a. Familiarity and uniqueness are both necessary components of a theory of definiteness, confirming Schwarz (2009).
b. The UG-encoded contribution of determiners in is of an index for variable binding rather
than argument formation.
c. A Prediction: Uniqueness definites are expressible without determiners, but anaphoric definites may never be.
(34)
Implications for analyses of numeral classifier languages:
a. The distribution of definite interpretations in classifier languages conforms to cross-linguistic
patterns of definite marking.
b. Bare nominals are different from English definite descriptions; their semantics follows from
a kind-based meaning. Hence, there is no compelling semantic reason to think that definite
bare nouns are DPs.
c. Viewing indexical definites as strictly anaphoric accounts for puzzles in the ‘strict’ interpretation of pronouns in numeral classifier languages. If pronouns and demonstratives are
determiners (and there are good reasons to think they are), numeral classifier languages can
project DP.
d. Numeral classifiers themselves are somewhat irrelevant to definiteness (pace Cheng and
Sybesma 1999, 2005, 2012, but Cantonese and Vietnamese must be closely examined along
these lines to be sure); numeral classifiers simply produce sets from kinds that can then
combine with choice functions.
References
Arkoh, Ruby, and Lisa Matthewson. 2013. A familiar definite article in akan. Lingua 123:1 – 30.
Carlson, Gregory, Rachel Sussman, Natalie Klein, and Michael Tananhaus. 2006. Weak definite noun
phrases. In Proceedings of NELS 36, ed. Chris Davis, Amy Rose Deal, and Youri Zabbal, 179–196.
GLSA.
Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. Doctoral Diss., University of Massachusetts.
Chen, Ping. 2004. Identifiability and definiteness in Chinese. Linguistics 42:1129–1184.
Cheng, Lisa L.-S., and C.-T. James Huang. 1996. Two types of donkey sentences. Natural Language
Semantics 4:121–163.
Cheng, Lisa L.-S., and Rint Sybesma. 1999. Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic
Inquiry 30:509–542.
Cheng, Lisa L.-S., and Rint Sybesma. 2005. Classifiers in four varieties of Chinese. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax, ed. Guglielmo Cinque and Richard Kayne, 259–292. Oxford University
Press.
Cheng, Lisa L.-S., and Rint Sybesma. 2012. Classifiers and DP. Linguistic Inquiry 43:634–650.
Chierchia, G. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. NLS 6:339–405.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995. Dynamics of meaning.
Elbourne, P. 2001. E-type anaphora as NP-deletion. Natural Language Semantics 9:241–288.
Elbourne, P. 2005. Situations and individuals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Elbourne, Paul. 2013. Definite descriptions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof. 1990. Dynamic Montague grammar. In Proceedings of the
second symposion on logic and language, ed. L. Kalman and L. Polos, 3–48. Eotvos Lorand University
Press.
10
Jenks, Determiners and bare nouns in classifier languages
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Doctoral Diss., University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Jenks, Peter. 2011. The hidden structure of Thai noun phrases. Doctoral Diss., Harvard University.
Jiang, Li. 2012. Nominal arguments and language variation. Doctoral Diss., Harvard University.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1989. An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12:607–
653.
Krifka, Manfred. 1995. Common nouns: A contrastive analysis of Chinese and English. In The generic
book, ed. Gregory N. Carlson and Francis Jeffry Pelletier. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Löbner, Sebastian. 1985. Definites. Journal of Semantics 4:279–326.
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2005. Toward a unified grammar of reference. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft
24:5–44.
Piriyawiboon, N. 2010. Classifiers and determiner-less languages: The case of Thai. Doctoral Diss., U.
of Toronto.
Poesio, Massimo. 1994. Weak definites. In Proceedings of SALT IV, ed. M. Harvey and L. Santelmann,
282–299. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1998. Wh-in-situ in the framework of the Minimalist Program. Natural Language
Semantics 6:29–56.
Roberts, Craige. 2003. Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 26:287–350.
Russell, Bertrand. 1905. On denoting. Mind 14:479–493.
Schwarz, Florian. 2009. Two types of definites in natural language. Doctoral Diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Schwarz, Florian. 2013. Two kinds of definites cross-linguistically. Language and Linguistics Compass
7:534–559.
Schwarz, Florian. 2014. How weak and how definite are weak definites? In Weak referentiality, ed. Ana
Aguilar-Guevara, Bert Le Bruyn, and Joost Zwarts, 213–235. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Simpson, A. 2005. Classifiers and DP structure in Southeast Asia. In The Oxford handbook of comparative
syntax, ed. G. Cinque and R. Kayne, 806–838. Oxford University Press.
Simpson, Andrew, Hooi Ling Soh, and Hiroki Nomoto. 2011. Bare classifiers and definiteness. Studies in
Language 35:168–193.
Visonyanggoon, S. 2000. Parallellism between noun phrases and clauses in Thai. Doctoral Diss., Michigan
SU.
Wu, Yicheng, and Adams Bodomo. 2009. Classifiers ‰ determiners. Linguistic Inquiry 40:487–503.
Yang, Rong. 2000. Common nouns, classifiers, and quantification in Chinese. Doctoral Diss., Rutgers
University.
Zwarts, Joost. 2014. Functional frames in the interpretation of weak nominals. In Weak referentiality, ed.
Ana Aguilar-Guevara, Bert Le Bruyn, and Joost Zwarts, volume 219 of Linguistik Aktuell, 265–286.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
11