The journal Cadernos de Estudos Linguísticos opens the call for submissions of original works for the thematic dossier: methodological and theoretical aspects of the study of (in)definiteness for volume 67 of 2025. The deadline for the submission of articles is 02 May 2025. The articles can be written in Portuguese, English or Spanish.
About the topic of the dossier “Methodological and theoretical aspects of the study of (in)definiteness”
There is a long tradition in relation to the study of indefiniteness and, in particular, to bare nouns. In semantic theory, the research on bare nouns has its origins at Carlson's work (1977), who notes that (unlike indefinite phrases) bare nouns refer to some type of entity that can be realized in several places at the same time (Dogs are everywhere vs. # A dog is everywhere) (see Pires de Oliveira, 2021 for a history of bare nouns). From this observation, Carlson proposed that bare nouns are not equal to indefinites. They denote kinds, are of type e, and name kinds directly (thus, they work as proper names). These names can also be realized in individuals if combined with episodic or stage-level predicates (Dogs are barking).
Another fundamental contribution for the development of the research in the nominal environment was Chierchia (1998). He explains DP linguistic variation in relation to semantic parameters. There would, then, be three types of languages: i, the ones that do not have determiners or plural markers, and bare nouns cannot appear in argumental positions ([+arg, -pred]), such as Chinese; ii. languages that always have a determiner, even when it can sometimes be phonologically null, and when there are bare nouns they can only appear in predicative positions ([-arg, + pred]), such as French; and the ones with determiners and plural marker, and bare nouns can appear in argumental positions ([+arg, +pred]), like in English.
In the case of languages [-arg, +pred] (for example, French), once the names denote properties, an expressed operator in the determiner is necessary for them to appear in argumental positions. On the contrary, in the case of languages [+arg, -pred] (for example, Chinese), in which bare nouns occupy argumentative positions, names denote kinds and an up operator will be necessary so that they can denote properties (instances of that kind). In languages [+arg, +pred] (such as English), on the other hand, names can denote entities of type e or properties <e,t>. A relevant aspect of this proposal is that the change of type between properties for kinds (and vice-versa) must occur in cumulative predicates and cannot occur in atoms, since kinds involve generalizations. This implies that, in languages such as Chinese, kinds change to plural properties, specifically for mass nouns, and that would explain why this type of language does not present plural marking (mass nouns in Chierchia, 1998, are inherently plural).
Chierchia's work (1998) was fundamental in the area and allowed a series of subsequent research on languages that did not seem to fit into the proposed typology, such as Brazilian Portuguese. This language has bare plurals and bare singulars (Minhoca(s) cava(m) buraco/ ‘Worm(s) dig(s) hole’ [Pires de Oliveira e Rothstein, 2011]) in argumental positions, and that would not be compatible with the Chierchia model, in which the down operator (the one that changes to kinds) applies only to plural properties.
In relation to this type of research, and this type of problems, there is a need for empirical data that show through languages what are, in fact, the ways in which (in)definitiness is expressed in languages with no article. This has to do with whether we can establish if Chierchia’s proposal can be empirically supported or whether there are other languages, such as Brazilian Portuguese, that lead us to seek an alternative semantic proposal. The goal is to understand how to map bare and non bare nouns in the tests of (in)definiteness already present in the literature and that appear, for example, in the questionnaire prepared by Dayal (2023).
This dossier aims to address methodological and theoretical questions that arise from the study of (in)definiteness in underrepresented languages. An example is the questionnaire by Veneeta Dayal (2023), which aims to determine whether a language has articles or just bare nouns, and also whether bare nouns, those that do not have overt determiners, can be interpreted as definite, indefinite or both. It is a known fact that languages present differences in behavior: some prefer determined phrases, such as River Plate Spanish, but also allow bare nouns in restricted positions (such as 1), others do not seem to present any kind of determiners (such as em 2), and others seem to present a differentiated behavior in relation to bare nouns (like in 3).
- Estrenaron obra el viernes pasado.
(3pl) opened play the Friday last
(Example of Rioplatense Spanish by Oggiani, 2021, 314)
- Chea-hechakuatia haipyreyvy-pe.
1sg1-see paper.written.by.somenonefloor-posp
(example of Kaiowá by Ramires and Vicente Guerra, 2018, 60)
- Macaco comeu uma banana.
Monkey ate a banana.
(example of Portunhol Polakof et al, in press)
The dossier pretends to contribute to the presentation of original data in the languages to be analyzed, using different methodologies. This brings, from a methodological perspective, problems in relation to what is the best methodological approach: an introspective approach, an experimental approach or an approach that uses fieldwork semantics (Matthewson, 2004, 2022; Sanchez Mendes, 2014). This problem is without a doubt a problem that any semantic researcher must face, which is why it is important that it be addressed in this volume. On the other hand, from a theoretical perspective, problems arise in relation to how to explain the possibilities of having bare nouns which are definite and indefinite, particularly in episodic readings such as 2 and 3, but also in readings that can be analyzed as pseudo-incorporation, as in 1. Thus, this dossier may be of interest to any linguist who is working with these phenomena, both from a theoretical and a methodological perspective.
References
Carlson, G. N. 1977. Reference to Kinds in English. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Chierchia, G. (1998). Reference to kinds across language. Natural language semantics , 6 (4), 339-405
Dayal, V. (2023). Highlights from the Hitchhiker's Guide to Bare Nominals. Presentation at SALT 33, available at: https://saltconf.github.io/salt33/abstracts/Dayal-slides.pdf
Matthewson, L. (2004). On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International journal of American linguistics, 70 (4), 369-415.
Matthewson, L. (2022). Semantic fieldwork: How experimental should we be? Semantic Fieldwork Methods , 4 (2)
Oggiani, C. (2021). “Escribir artículo”: Brief singular nouns in object position in Rioplatense Spanish. Borealis–An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics , 10 (2), 313-333.
Pires de Oliveira, R. & Rothstein, S. (2011). Bare singular noun phrases are mass in Brazilian Portuguese. Lingua, 121 (15), 2153-2175.
Pires de Oliveira, R. (2021). A history of two names: Brazilian Portuguese and Brazilian indigenous languages. Letters Magazine , (104), 164-185.
Polakof, A., Oggiani, C, Zugurramurdi, C, Custodio, C and Almonacid, c. (in press). “Brief singular names in Portuñol and Spanish: an experimental approach”, in Quintu Quintum.
Organizers of the dossier:
Ana Clara Polakof (Universidad de la República, Uruguai)
Romina Trebisacce (Universidad de Buenos Aires)