Determiners, Bare Nouns, and Donkey Sentences in Numeral ...

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 dis-
tinct, 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
✞shi¯zi ☎
a. kua` i jiu` hu`ı jue´zhoˇng
heˇn
✝✆
lion very quick then will be.extinct

‘Lions will be extinct very soon.’ (Mandarin, Cheng and Sybesma 2012, ex. (6a))
(Thai, Piriyawiboon 2010, p. 42)
✞☎

b. ✝nuˇu ✆klaˆi suˇunphan

mice nearly extinct

‘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.’ (Mandarin, cf. Yang 2000, p. 26)
(Thai)
✞☎
b. chaˇn kamlaN haˇa ✝mˇOO ✆yu`u

1SG PROG 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) Definite readings (Cheng & Sybesma 1999:510)
(Piriyawiboon 2011:43)
✞☎

a. ✝Gou ✆yao guo malu.

dog want cross road

‘The dog wants to cross the road.’

✞☎

b. ✝maˇa ✆kamlaN ha`w.

dog PROG bark

‘The dog(s) are barking.’

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.’ (Mandarin)
(Thai)
b. chaˇn kamlaN haˇa ✞☎
mˇOO khon n1N yu`u
✝ ✆
1SG PROG looking-for doctor CLF IMPF
INDEF

i. ? ‘I’m looking for a doctor.’

ii. ‘There’s a specific doctor that I’m looking for.’

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 (Lo¨bner 1985):

(5) de`k khon na´n nOOn yu`u t`EE de`k khon na´n maˆi.daˆi nOOn yu`u (Piriyawiboon 2011:49)

child CLF that sleep IMPF but child CLF that NEG sleep IMPF

‘That child is sleeping but that child is not sleeping.’ (cf. #the)

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. The sun is hot.
b. 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 Definition Licensed by

Bare definites Bare nouns with definite translations in English Uniqueness

Indexical definites 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 na´n) s`awa`aN maˆak
✝ ✆(CLF that) bright very
moon

‘The moon is very bright.’ (Thai)

Likewise, ‘unique kinds’ are translated with bare nouns: (NB: Thai provinces get one Senator, two MPs)

✞☎
(10) a. sˇOO-sˇOO chiaN-ma`y #(khon na´n) gro`ot maˆak
✝ Chiang Mai CLF that ✆angry very
M.P.

‘#The/That MP from Chiang Mai is very angry.’ (Thai)
(Thai)
✞☎
b. sˇOO-wOO chiaN-ma`y (#khon na´n) gro`ot maˆak
✝ ✆angry very
senator Chiang Mai CLF that

‘The/#That Senator from Chiang Mai is very angry.’

Environment 2 Weak definites (Poesio 1994, Carlson et al. 2006):

✞☎
(11) a. Su`theˆep phaa Soˇmchay pay (thˆıi) rooN-phayabaan
✝ ✆
Su. take So. go to hospital

‘Suthep took Somchai to the hospital.’ (Thai)
(Thai)
✞☎
b. #Su`theˆep phaa Soˇmchay pay *(thˆıi) ✝t`1k ✆
Su. take So. go to building

‘Suthep took Somchai to the building.’

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) thaˆa ca` pay klinik khOˇN mˇOO soˇmchay nE´nam waˆa khuan ca` khˆ1n ✞☎

banday
✝ ✆
If PROSP go clinic POSS doctor S. recommend COMP should PROSP ascend stairs

‘If your going to Dr. Somchai’s clinic, I recommend that you take the stairs.’ (Thai)

✞☎

(13) ro´t khan na´n thu`uk tamru`at sa`ka`t phr´OP maˆj daˆj t`ıt satik@@ wa´j thˆıi ✝tha´bian ✆

car CLF that ADV.PAS police intercept because NEG PST 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 saˇmpaat phˆOO luˆuk khuˆu n1N.

H. interview father son CLF:pair INDEF

‘Hans interviewed a father-son pair.’

✞☎
b. S2: kha´w kh´ıt waˆa (tua)-phˆOO (#khon na´n) maˆy naˆa-soˇncay
✝ ✆
He think COMP SELF-father CLF that interesting
NEG

‘He didn’t think the father was interesting.’ (Thai)
(Thai)
(15) a. S1: Haan saˇmpaat na´k-khiˇan khon n1N kap na´k-kaanm1aN khon n1N.

H. interview writer CLF INDEF and politician CLF INDEF

‘Hans interviewed a writer and a politician.’

✞☎
b. S2: kha´w kh´ıt waˆa na´k-kaanm1aN #(khon na´n) maˆy naˆa-soˇncay
✝ ✆
He think COMP politician CLF that interesting
NEG

‘He didn’t think the politician was interesting.’

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).

SUMMARY: Bare nouns are restricted to uniqueness definites once uniqueness is relativized to situa-
tions/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: zuo´tia¯n woˇ yu`-da`o yi¯ ge xue´she¯ng .
✝✆
Yesterday 1SG meet one-CLF student

‘Yesterday I met a student.’

b. S2i: ✞ ge xue´she¯ng ☎ ✂✄✄ta¯   heˇn co¯ ngm´ıng.
✁
na` CLF student /  very clever
✂3SG ✁
✝ ✆/
that

‘That student/(s)he was very clever.’

✞☎
c. #S2ii: xue´she¯ng heˇn co¯ngm´ıng.
✝ ✆clever very
student

‘Students are clever.’ (Mandarin)

5

LSA Annual Meeting, January 8, 2015

✞☎
(17) a. S1: m1awaan phoˇm c@@ ka`p na´krian khon n1N .
✝ ✆
Yesterday 1ST meet with student CLF INDEF

‘Yesterday I met a student.’

b. ✞ ☎✞ ☎
S2i: (Na´ krian) khon na´ n / ✝kha´ w ✆chala` at maˆ ak.

✝ that ✆/ 3SG clever very
student CLF

‘That student/(s)he was very clever.’

✞☎ (Thai)

c. #S2ii: ✝na´krian ✆chala`at maˆak.

student clever very

‘Students are clever.’

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: phuˆu-chaay khon n1N khaˆa Sutheˆep.
✝ CLF INDF✆kill Suthep.
man

‘A mani killed Suthepj.’

✞ ☎✞ ☎
b. S2i: tamruat soˇNsaˇy waˆ a phuˆu-chaay khon na´n / ✝khaˇ w ✆daˆ y-ra´ p ba` at-ce` p tˆOOn-n´an

police suspect COMP ✝ ✆/ 3SG receive injury time-that
man CLF that

‘Police suspect that that mani / hei was injured at the time.’

✞☎
c. S2ii: tamruat soˇNsaˇy waˆa phuˆu-chaay daˆy-ra´p ba`at-ce`p tˆOOn-n´an
✝ ✆receive injury time-that
police suspect COMP man

‘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-n´ıi naayo´k pen samaˇach´ık ph0ˆa-Thai.

year-this Prime Minister PRED member pro-Thai.

‘This year the prime ministeri is a pro-Thai party member.

b. S2i: Pii-naˆ a ✞ ☎✞ ☎ pen samaˇ ach´ık
✝khaˇ w ✆/ naayo´k khon na´ n ca` pra` chaath´ıpa` t.
year-next PRED member
3sg / ✝ ✆ democrat
P. M. CLF that
FUT

‘Next year hei will be a democratic party member.’

✞☎
c. S2ii: Pii-naˆa naayo´k ca` pen samaˇach´ık pra`chaath´ıpa`t.
✝ ✆
year-next Prime Minister FUT PRED member democrat

‘Next year hej will be a democratic party member.’ (Thai)

A puzzle: Why are indexical definites ‘strongly anaphoric’ in Thai/Mandarin?

2.3 Analysis: Uniqueness versus familiarity

(20) a. Bare definites = Bare, kind-denoting NPs, saturated with a situation variable.
b. Indexical definites = Full, presuppositional DPs which introduce an index.

6

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

maˇa
‘dog’
b. rrmaˇassg = λs.DOGpsq
c. ‘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 (dy-
namic indices = un) (Groenendijk and Stokhof 1990, Chierchia 1995, Schwarz 2009).

• Demonstratives presuppose existence, but not uniqueness (explaining (5)).

(22) a. DP4

DP4 s1

DP u4

ClfP D

NP Clf na´n
‘that’

na´krian khon

“student” CLFperson

b. rrDPissg = λs.fcx : DxYSTUDENTpxqpsqrYSTUDENTpxqpsq ^ x = gpu4qs
c. ‘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 real-
world object.

• The reliance on an index explains the ‘rigid’ properties of indexical definites: The variable assign-
ment 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 / ✝(ta)1 lai jian wo.

if you see one CLF student please tell ✝ CL student ✆3SG come ✆see me
that

‘If you see a student, please tell her to come see m✞e.’ ☎
b. ruguo ni kandao [yi ge xuesheng]1, qing jiao xuesheng∗1{gen lai jian wo.
✝ ✆come see me
if you see one CLF student please tell student

‘If you see a student, please tell students to come see me.’ (Mandarin)

(25) Donkey anaphora in Thai ✞ ☎

a. [chaawnaa thu´ k khon thˆıi mii khwaay1 ] tii khwaay tua na´ n1 / ✄✂man1  
✁
farmer every CLF that have buffalo hit ✝ ✆/ it
buffalo CLF that

‘Every farmer that has a buffalo hits it.’ ✞ ☎

b. [chaawnaa thu´k khon thˆıi mii khwaay1 ] tii khwaay∗1{gen ✆
every CLF that have buffalo hit b✝uffalo
farmer

‘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) [baˆan thu´k lˇaN thˆıi mii o`oN1 ] ja` mii o`oN `ıik baj t´aN yu`u khˆaN-khaˆN H1 /

house every CLF REL have water.basin PROSP have water.basin ADD CLF set IPFV next.to EC /

?man1 / o`oN baj na´n1 / *o`oN1

it 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 interpre-
tations 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’ situation-
based 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.

1Again, 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. Every man who owns a donkey beats the donkey.

b. ‘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 thu´k khon thˆıi 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)

3.2 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) ✞ tua na´ n1 ☎ ✄✂man1  
[chaawnaa thu´ k khon thˆıi mii khwaay1 ] tii khwaay ✁
/ it
farmer every CLF that have buffalo hit ✝
buffalo CLF that ✆/

‘Every farmer that has a buffalo hits it.’ (Thai)

(32) a. rrkhwaay tua na´n1ss = THATxrYBUFFALOpxq ^ x = ys (simplified from (22b))

b. rrp34qss = @xrrfarmerpxq^Dyrbuffalopyq^ownpx, yqss Ñ DyrTHATzrYBUFFALOpzq^z =

ys ^ ownspx, yq ^ beatpx, yqss

c. “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, con-
firming 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 defi-
nites 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’ inter-
pretation 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 Hand-
book 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.
Lo¨bner, Sebastian. 1985. Definites. Journal of Semantics 4:279–326.
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2005. Toward a unified grammar of reference. Zeitschrift fu¨r 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 Mas-
sachusetts, 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