Longobardi (2001): A Unified Parametric Theory of Bare Nouns and Proper Names #
@cite{longobardi-2001}
Natural Language Semantics 9: 335--369.
Core Thesis #
Crosslinguistic variation in bare noun (BN) semantics and proper name (PN)
syntax reduces to two DP-internal parameters: whether D has 'strong'
referential features (strongD), and whether N-raising crosses adjectives
transparently (transparentAlpha). The paper establishes:
- Romance BNs are always indefinites — quantificational variables (existentially or generically bound), never kind-denoting constants.
- English BNs are ambiguous — they can be referential (kind names, in the spirit of @cite{carlson-1977}) OR quantificational (indefinite variables, like Romance BNs).
- Two types of genericity (supporting @cite{gerstner-krifka-1987}):
- Indefinite/quantificational generics: variables bound by GEN
- Definite/referential generics: kind-denoting constants (via D)
- Typological generalization: PN syntax (N-to-D raising) and BN semantics (kind reference) are parametrically linked — object-referring nouns may occur without phonetically filled D iff kind-referring nouns can.
Connection to Existing Theory #
Longobardi's ArgumentType distinction (referential vs quantificational)
cross-cuts @cite{chierchia-1998}'s Nominal Mapping Parameter:
- Chierchia's NMP captures which denotation types are available
- Longobardi's parameters capture why the denotation types vary, grounding the variation in DP-internal syntax (N-to-D raising)
The DPParameter structure unifies Chierchia's three-way typology
into a 2×2 parametric space that also predicts PN syntax.
The semantic type of a nominal argument.
@cite{longobardi-2001} §2: All nominal arguments denote entities from Carlson's ontology (objects and kinds). They divide into two types:
- Referential: constants — denote directly through the lexical referring potential of the head noun. Proper names and kind names. Rigid designators with widest scope (@cite{kripke-1980}).
- Quantificational: variables — denote via a variable bound by a (possibly covert) operator, with the noun's kind-naming meaning serving as predicative restrictor. Overt indefinites and Romance BNs.
- referential : ArgumentType
Constants: denote directly via lexical reference (proper names, kind names). No variable, no operator binding.
- quantificational : ArgumentType
Variables: denote via a variable bound by Ex or Gen. The noun's kind-naming meaning provides the restrictor.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The DP-internal parametric system from @cite{longobardi-2001} table (61).
Two binary parameters on the nominal projection:
strongD: Whether D has 'strong' referential features requiring visible association with referential items. In Romance, D is strong: referential nouns must be introduced by a phonetically filled D (either by N-to-D raising for PNs or by an expletive article). In English/Germanic, D is weak: referential readings are available without overt D.transparentAlpha: Whether the α constituent (between D and N) is transparent to N-raising. In Romance, α is transparent: N can raise across adjectives to D. In English/Germanic, α is opaque: N cannot raise past adjectives. This is visible from adjective position: Romance has postnominal adjectives (N raises past them), English has prenominal adjectives (N stays in situ).
Note: transparentAlpha affects only DP-internal syntax (adjective
position, N-raising), not BN semantics directly. BN semantics is
determined by strongD alone. The two parameters are independent
but co-vary in the unmarked cases (Romance: both +; English: both −).
Greek (§9.5) shows they can be set independently (+strong, −transparent).
- strongD : Bool
D has strong referential features (Romance +, English −)
- transparentAlpha : Bool
α is transparent to N-raising (Romance +, English −)
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Romance (Italian, French, Spanish): strong D, transparent α.
Equations
Instances For
English (Germanic): weak D, opaque α.
Equations
Instances For
Greek: strong D, opaque α — the intermediate case. BNs pattern like Romance (quantificational only). PNs require overt definite article (cannot raise to D through opaque α, and D is strong so must be overtly filled).
Equations
Instances For
Celtic (speculative): weak D, transparent α — the other intermediate. @cite{longobardi-2001} fn. 35: "The other intermediate pair of values ('weak' D and transparent α) is likely to be instantiated by Celtic languages and is irrelevant to the present reasoning." Included for completeness of the 2×2 table; not empirically developed in the paper.
Equations
Instances For
Whether bare nouns can be referential (kind-denoting constants) in a given language's parametric setting.
@cite{longobardi-2001} (44): English BNs can be referential (kind names) because D is weak — referential status doesn't require overt D. Romance BNs are always quantificational because D is strong — referential status requires overt D (only definite plurals achieve it).
The derivation: BN referentiality requires that a kind-naming meaning can reach D without overt material. With weak D, no overt association needed. With strong D, the noun would need to raise to D (N-to-D) or an expletive article is needed — but BNs by definition lack both.
Note: this depends only on strongD, not transparentAlpha. The α
parameter affects whether N can raise to D (relevant for PNs), but
BN referentiality is about whether D requires overt filling at all.
Instances For
Whether bare nouns are always quantificational (indefinites).
Instances For
Available argument types for BNs in a language.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Generic reading type, following @cite{gerstner-krifka-1987} as adopted by @cite{longobardi-2001}.
The paper shows that 'genericity' is an epiphenomenon covering two structurally distinct interpretive strategies.
- indefiniteGeneric : GenericType
Quantificational generalization over objects of a kind. The nominal is an indefinite (variable) bound by GEN. Available in characterizing environments only. Romance BNs, overt indefinites (both Romance and English).
- definiteGeneric : GenericType
Kind denotation — the nominal is a referential expression (a kind name, like a proper name). Available in all environments. Only through overtly definite DPs in Romance (definite generics), or through bare plurals in English (which can be kind names).
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Which generic types are available for bare nouns in a language.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Whether proper names require overt D (an article or N-to-D raising).
@cite{longobardi-2001} (52): In some languages (Romance), argument PNs must undergo N-to-D raising or appear with an expletive article. In others (English), they need neither.
This is derived from strongD: if D must be overtly associated with
referential items, PNs (prototypical referential items) need overt D.
If D is weak, PNs can occur bare.
Equations
Instances For
Whether proper names require an overt article specifically (as opposed to satisfying strong D by N-to-D raising).
@cite{longobardi-2001} §9.5: In Romance (strong D, transparent α), PNs can satisfy strong D by N-raising across the transparent α constituent. In Greek (strong D, opaque α), N cannot raise past α, so PNs MUST appear with an overt definite article. This is the paper's key prediction confirmed by (65): all Greek object-referring arguments require an overt determiner.
This is the only prediction that uses transparentAlpha directly,
making the 2×2 parametric table genuinely non-redundant.
Equations
Instances For
Romance PNs can N-raise to D (transparent α), so they don't need an article. Greek PNs cannot raise (opaque α), so they do.
Typological generalization (56) from @cite{longobardi-2001}: Object-referring nouns may occur without a phonetically filled D iff kind-referring nouns may.
Both PN syntax (bare PNs allowed?) and BN semantics (kind reference
without overt D?) are controlled by the same parameter: strongD.
When D is weak, both bare PNs and referential BNs are licensed.
When D is strong, neither is.
The four nominal types considered by @cite{longobardi-2001}.
The paper's key empirical observation (p.355, table) is that three of these four pattern identically (as quantificational indefinites), while English BNs are the outlier — they can also be referential.
| Romance overt indef | Romance BN | ← same (quantificational) | English overt indef | English BN | ← English BN is different
- romanceOvertIndef : NominalClass
- romanceBN : NominalClass
- englishOvertIndef : NominalClass
- englishBN : NominalClass
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Whether a nominal class can be referential (kind-denoting).
@cite{longobardi-2001} (5): Three of four nominal types are purely quantificational. Only English BNs have the additional referential (kind-denoting) reading.
Equations
- Phenomena.Generics.Studies.Longobardi2001.nominalClassReferential Phenomena.Generics.Studies.Longobardi2001.NominalClass.romanceOvertIndef = false
- Phenomena.Generics.Studies.Longobardi2001.nominalClassReferential Phenomena.Generics.Studies.Longobardi2001.NominalClass.romanceBN = false
- Phenomena.Generics.Studies.Longobardi2001.nominalClassReferential Phenomena.Generics.Studies.Longobardi2001.NominalClass.englishOvertIndef = false
- Phenomena.Generics.Studies.Longobardi2001.nominalClassReferential Phenomena.Generics.Studies.Longobardi2001.NominalClass.englishBN = true
Instances For
Generalization (5a): Italian BNs = Italian overt indefinites in distribution of Ex/Gen readings.
Generalization (5b): Italian BNs ≠ English BNs.
The natural class: three of four types are quantificational only. English BNs are the outlier.
Italian BN reading datum.
@cite{longobardi-2001} §3--7: Italian BNs distribute their readings identically to overt indefinites (generalization (5a)).
- sentence : String
- gloss : String
- exOK : Bool
Available readings: Ex, Gen, or both
- genOK : Bool
- kLevelPred : Bool
Kind-level predicate (K-level)?
- notes : String
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Italian definite generics can appear in ALL environments where Italian BNs cannot — including with K-level predicates and in episodic contexts with generic readings. @cite{longobardi-2001} examples (34)--(37).
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
@cite{longobardi-2001} §5: The anaphoric binding test distinguishes referential from quantificational BNs.
English (22): "Cats think very highly of themselves." → Ambiguous: 'themselves' refers to the species (kind anaphora, non-distributive) OR to each individual cat (distributive).
Italian (24): "Gatti di grandi dimensioni hanno un'alta opinione di se stessi." → Distributive only: each big cat thinks highly of itself. The species reading is unavailable because Italian BNs cannot denote kinds (quantificational variables lack kind reference).
The kind-anaphora reading requires referential (kind-denoting) status. Only English BNs, which can be referential, provide it.
- sentence : String
- gloss : String
- language : String
- speciesReadingOK : Bool
Species (kind anaphora, non-distributive) reading available?
- distributiveReadingOK : Bool
Distributive (each individual) reading available?
- notes : String
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
The anaphoric binding test aligns with bnCanBeReferential:
kind anaphora requires referential status.
@cite{longobardi-2001} §§4,9.1: English BNs can be generic with predicates where Italian BNs cannot — episodic S-level, K-level, and stative I-level predicates. The contrast arises because English BNs can be referential (kind names), while Italian BNs cannot. The six contrast environments are summarized in §9.3.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
@cite{longobardi-2001} §9.5: Greek has strong D + opaque α. This predicts:
- BNs are quantificational only (like Romance) → no K-level predicates
- PNs require overt definite article (strong D + opaque α blocks both N-raising and bare referential D)
Greek examples (62)-(65) confirm both predictions.
- sentence : String
- gloss : String
- grammatical : Bool
Is the sentence grammatical (under any reading)?
- kindReadingOK : Bool
Is a kind/generic reading available?
- notes : String
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Greek confirms the strongD prediction: BN kind reference is
blocked, and PNs require overt D — same as Romance for both.
Map Longobardi's DPParameter to Chierchia's NominalMapping.
Only strongD determines the mapping; transparentAlpha is irrelevant
because it controls DP-internal word order (adjective position), not
the argument/predicate denotation types available to nouns.
- Strong D → nouns are predicates (need D for argumenthood) →
predOnly - Weak D → nouns can be arguments without D →
argAndPred
argOnly (Chinese) is not addressed by Longobardi's parameters —
it would require a separate parameter for classifier systems.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Romance parameters yield Chierchia's predOnly.
English parameters yield Chierchia's argAndPred.
Greek parameters yield predOnly (same as Romance for BN semantics).
English BNs can denote kinds (without overt D).
Derived: weak D → argAndPred → canDenoteKind = true without D.
Italian BNs cannot denote kinds (without overt D).
Derived: strong D → predOnly → canDenoteKind = false without D.
Italian definite plurals can denote kinds (with overt D).
Even in a predOnly language, overt D restores kind denotation.
Greek BNs cannot denote kinds.
Same as Romance: strong D → predOnly → no kind without D.
@cite{longobardi-2001} (43) recovers @cite{carlson-1977}'s original insight: English generic BNs (outside characterizing environments) are kind-referential expressions — proper names of kinds.
Carlson analyzed ALL bare plural readings as kind-denoting. Longobardi refines this: English BNs are AMBIGUOUS between kind-referential (Carlson's analysis) and quantificational (like Romance BNs). The referential reading is the one that behaves like proper names — rigid, scopeless, opaque-only.
When a BN is referential, its semantics is @cite{carlson-1977}'s
barePluralTranslation: λP.P{k}.
Romance BNs are never referential — contra Carlson's universal claim but consistent with his observations about English specifically.
Referential BNs denote kinds via @cite{carlson-1977}'s λP.P{k}.
The bare plural "dogs" denotes the kind d; applying any predicate P just evaluates P at d — no quantificational structure. This is what makes referential BNs scopeless and opaque-only: proper names don't take scope.
Kind-level predicates apply directly to a referential BN via
@cite{carlson-1977}'s genericDerivation. This is why English BNs
(which can be referential) appear with kind-level predicates
("Dogs are extinct") while Italian BNs (always quantificational) cannot.
Existential readings of referential BNs arise via
@cite{carlson-1977}'s existentialDerivation: the predicate
introduces ∃ over stages, not the NP.
"Dogs are in the yard" = ∃y[R(y,d) ∧ in-yard'(y)]
The existential is part of the predicate semantics, which is why it always takes narrowest scope.
Longobardi's romance parameters correctly predict the Italian
fragment's independently-declared mapping parameter.
Longobardi's english parameters correctly predict the English
fragment's independently-declared mapping parameter.
Longobardi's greek parameters correctly predict the Greek
fragment's independently-declared mapping parameter.
All three fragment bridges together: DPParameter predicts
the independently-stipulated NominalMapping in each fragment.
The derivation chain is:
DPParameter (Longobardi syntax) → toNominalMapping → NominalMapping
and each fragment independently declares the same NominalMapping,
so the bridge theorems verify the prediction.
Longobardi's analysis explains WHY Italian bare plurals are not licensed: strong D means BNs are always quantificational variables, and these variables need licensing (characterizing environments for Gen, VP-internal position for Ex). General bare argument use is restricted because BNs cannot function as referential (kind) names.
English bare plurals are licensed (weak D allows referential BNs).
Greek bare plurals are not licensed (same as Italian: strong D).
Longobardi's theory predicts the Italian vs English BP denotation
data in KindReference.lean.
English BPs: kind denotation available (weak D → referential OK) Italian bare plurals: kind denotation unavailable (strong D) Italian definite plurals: kind denotation available (overt D fills D)
Full parametric table (61) from @cite{longobardi-2001} with derived properties.
| Language | Strong D | Transp. α | BN ref. | PN needs D | PN needs art. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Romance | + | + | no | yes | no |
| English | − | − | yes | no | no |
| Greek | + | − | no | yes | yes |
| Celtic | − | + | yes | no | no |
The "PN needs article" column is the only prediction that uses
transparentAlpha directly, making the 2×2 table non-redundant.
@cite{longobardi-2001} (45)-(46): The two mapping systems.
English BNs have two sources of Ex/Gen ambiguity:
- Referential → Gen (in all environments, kind-level)
- Quantificational → Gen (characterizing) / Ex (S-level)
Romance BNs have only one source:
- Quantificational → Gen (characterizing) / Ex (S-level)
- characterizing : BNEnvironment
Characterizing: habitual aspect, Q-adverb, I-level pred
- episodic : BNEnvironment
Episodic: S-level predicate with non-habitual aspect
- kindLevel : BNEnvironment
Kind-level: predicate applies to kinds (extinct, widespread)
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Whether a generic reading is available for a BN in a given environment.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
- Phenomena.Generics.Studies.Longobardi2001.bnGenericAvailable dp Phenomena.Generics.Studies.Longobardi2001.BNEnvironment.characterizing = true
Instances For
English BNs are generic in all environments.
Romance BNs are generic only in characterizing environments.
The environments where English and Italian BNs contrast are exactly those requiring referential (kind) denotation.
Maps @cite{carlson-1977}'s PredicateLevel to Longobardi's
BNEnvironment for the purpose of determining whether referential
(kind) denotation is needed.
- Individual-level predicates (properties) create characterizing environments where quantificational Gen suffices
- Stage-level predicates (states) in episodic aspect create environments where only referential BNs get generic readings
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Individual-level predicates yield characterizing environments where both English and Italian BNs get generic readings.
Stage-level predicates in episodic aspect yield environments where only referential BNs (English) get generic readings. Italian BNs are stuck with the existential reading.
The full chain: @cite{carlson-1977}'s PredicateLevel determines
BNEnvironment, which together with @cite{longobardi-2001}'s
DPParameter determines whether a generic reading is available.
| PredicateLevel | Environment | English BN Gen | Italian BN Gen |
|---|---|---|---|
| individualLevel | characterizing | yes | yes |
| stageLevel | episodic | yes | no |
| (kind-level pred) | kindLevel | yes | no |
The Italian/English contrast arises only in non-characterizing environments — exactly where @cite{carlson-1977}'s referential kind-denotation is needed.