Reference to hierarchically ordered kinds in Dutch

Albert OosterhofGhent UniversityBelgium

Abstract

In this paper the results are presented of corpus research into thesubject-NPs of generic sentences in Dutch. In the literature aboutgenericity in English, it has been noted that definite singularsbecome less well-formed if they refer to a kind that is ‘toogeneral’. In this paper this intuition about English is compared tothe results of corpus research into the use of these NPs in Dutch.We argue that, contrary to definite singulars, bare plural subject-NPs of generic sentences are ambiguous : they can be interpreted askind-referring NPs or as object-referring NPs. Thus, we can explainthe fact that definite singulars in contrast to bare plurals appearless frequently when the category is located higher in thehierarchy. Moreover, this analysis is consistent with theconstraints on the use of bare plurals and definite singulars ingeneric contexts in Dutch.

1. Introduction1

In Dutch there are four common ways to express that a propertydoes not only apply to a single object or creature, but alsomore generally to individual instances of a kind. Thesepossibilities differ with respect to the form of the subject-NP. This NP can be a definite singular NP, a definite pluralNP, a indefinite singular NP or a bare plural NP. These optionsare illustrated in (1).

(1) a. De ijsbeer leidt een zwervend bestaan. (definite singular) 

1 I would like to thank Ariel Cohen, Johan De Caluwe, Peter Flynn, LilianeHaegeman, Jack Hoeksema, Kathy Rys, Johan Taeldeman, the audience at theTabu Day 2003 (University of Groningen) and three anonymous reviewers fortheir comments on the content and style of this paper.

Thepolar bear leads a roving life.b. De ijsberen leiden een zwervend

bestaan. (definite plural)Thepolar bears lead a roving life.

c. Een ijsbeer leidt een zwervend bestaan. (indefinite singular)A polar bear leads a roving life.

d. Ijsberen leiden een zwervend bestaan.(bare plural)Polar bears lead aroving life.

As sentence (1b) illustrates Dutch differs from English.According to the literature (see for example Chierchia 1998 :393), English definite plural NPs disallow generic or kind-oriented uses. There is, however, some inter-speaker variation.Therefore, definite singular NPs like the polar bear, bare pluralNPs like polar bears and indefinite singular NPs like a polar bearhave often been considered ‘the three main types of genericnoun phrases’ (cf. Krifka et al. 1995 : 10). In Dutch,however, we also have to take into account generic definiteplural NPs.

At first sight, there are no semantic differences betweenthe four types of NP in (1). They all state that polar bears ingeneral lead a roving life. When we take a closer look,however, there may be some semantic consequences of themorphosyntactical choices which are illustrated in (1). It hasbeen observed that the English singular definite NP cannotrefer to a kind that is ‘too general’ (see e.g. Carlson 1977 :433). The sentences in (2) show that the same holds for Dutch.Sentence (2a) is less well-formed than (2b), (2c) and (2d).According to my informants it is difficult to refer to thecategory of mammals with a definite singular because thiscategory is too general.

(2) a. ?Het zoogdier heeft tamelijk goede ogen.The mammal has rather goodeyes.

b. De zoogdieren hebben tamelijk goede ogen.The mammals have rather goodeyes.

c. Een zoogdier heeft tamelijk goede ogen.A mammal has rather goodeyes.

d. Zoogdieren hebben tamelijk goede ogen.Mammals have rather goodeyes.

In this paper I will examine whether these intuitions areconsistent with the results of corpus research into the use ofthese NPs in Dutch. I will provide explanations for themorphosyntactic differences between subject-NPs which refer tocategories at different levels in the taxonomic hierarchy.

Section 2 discusses some preliminary theoretical issues. Insection 3, I will examine the methodology and in section 4, Iwill set out the results of the study. In the fifth section, Iwill attempt an analysis of the results before reaching someconclusions in the final section.

2. Preliminaries

In this section I will discuss some general facts aboutterminology, logical representation and taxonomic hierarchies.

2.1 Terminology

In the literature a distinction has been made between twosubcategories of generic sentences. In the first place, thereare sentences such as (3a,b,d) which attribute a propertydirectly to a kind. A second group consists of sentences whichpredicate a property of instances of a kind (cf. (1a-d)). Wewill follow Heyer’s (1985) terminology in calling the firstcategory simple generics and the second category personal generics (cf.also Cohen 1999 : 40).

Predicates which are directly ascribed to a kind in simplegeneric sentences are called kind predicates. (3c) shows thatkind predicates cannot take indefinite singulars.

(3) a. De holenbeer is uitgestorven.The cave-bear is extinct.

b. De holenberen zijn uitgestorven.Thecave-bears are extinct

c. *Een holenbeer is uitgestorven.A cave-bear is extinct.

d. Holenberen zijn uitgestorven.Cave-bears are extinct.

We will sometimes refer to predicates which attribute aproperty of instances of a kind as characterizing predicates (cf.Krifka et al. 1995 : 2-5).

2.2 Logical representation

In spite of the differences between the sentences in (1) we cangive one temporary logical representation of characterizingsentences. In this paper, we will draw attention to the subtleconsequences of the different types of subject-NP. (4) GEN[x;] [Φ(x)]; [Ψ(x)]

The representation in (4) exemplifies the logicalrepresentation of personal generics in general. The genericoperator GEN may be seen as an implicit adverbial operator thatrelates one set of conditions (containing one or morevariables) to another set of conditions (containing one or morevariables). These sets of conditions are called the restrictor(cf. [Φ(x)] in (4)) and the nuclear scope (cf. [Ψ(x)] in (4))respectively. The restrictor restricts the instances which theexpression quantifies over and the nuclear scope specifies theproperties which are ascribed to these instances.

If we want to represent personal generics in general, wecannot simply assume that the generic operator binds every freevariable (see for further argumentation Krifka et al. 1995 :23-30). Therefore, it is assumed that the operator indicateswhich variables it binds and which variables are to be boundexistentially in the nuclear scope. The variables to the leftof the ‘;’ are the variables to be bound by GEN, and thevariables which are bound existentially in the nuclear scopecan be placed to the right of the ‘;’.

These representations are, however, not applicable to simplegenerics. In this paper, I will follow Link’s (1988, 1995)notation in using ↑p to indicate the kind denoted by the commonnoun whose meaning is p. This notation makes it possible toattribute a predicate directly to a kind. The translation of(2a,b,d) is given in (5).

(5) uitgestorven(↑holenbeer)

Cohen (1999 : 40-41) argues that definite singulars and bareplural NPs not only refer to kinds when there is a kindpredicate attributed to the subject-NP, but also when thepredicate is characterizing. This prospect seems appealing forreasons of economy. There is, however, a stronger reason thanmere parsimony that allows us to assume this. The same definitesingular or bare plural NP may be combined with acharacterizing predicate and a kind predicate, as cases ofcoordination, relativization, and anaphora indicate :

(6) a. Cave-bears lived in Europe and (they) became extinctduring the Würm Ice Age.

b. The cave-bear, which lived in caves in winter, is an extinct species.

It appears from (7) that the same situation holds in Dutch. :

(7) a. Holenberen leefden in Europa en (ze) stiervenuit in de Würm IJstijd.

Cave-bears lived in Europe and (they) died out in the Würm Ice Age.

b. De holenbeer, die in de winter in grottenleefde, is een uitgestorven The cavebear, which in the winter in caves lived, is an extinctdiersoort.species.

According to Cohen (1999 : 40) we can explain these phenomenaby assuming that generic bare plurals and definite singularsrefer to kinds unambiguously. This, however, results in a type mismatch : the restrictor

ought to be an open formula, rather than a kind. Therefore, wehave to make use of a realization relation: a relation which linksthe individual instances of a kind with the kind itself. Someproposals have been made in the literature (cf. for exampleCarlson 1977, Krifka et al. 1995 : 85-93 and Cohen 1999 : 42-47). In this paper I will make use of Cohen’s proposal (1999).

Cohen (1999 : 46) argues that the sets of instances whichare relevant for the interpretation of a generic sentence varyfrom case to case. Sometimes, as in the sentences in (1), thesentence generalises about single individuals; in the case of

(8), however, groups of polar bears are relevant for theinterpretation. There are some other possibilities as well.

(8) Polar bears gather along the water’s edge.

So, instead of a unitary realization relation, we need amultiplicity of such relations. Cohen (1999 : 46) refers toeach realization relation as a coordinate. Let C(κ) be theproperty of being an instance of the kind κ with respect to thecoordinate C; C may be the specimen coordinate, decomposing akind into its individual instances, or the group coordinate,decomposing a kind into the groups of its instances, etc. ThenC(κ)(x) would hold only in case x is an instance of κ withrespect to the coordinate C.

Cohen’s (1999) proposal is illustrated in (9). Arepresentation of the personal generic sentence in (9a) isgiven in (9b).

(9) a. The polar bear hibernates.b. GEN[x;] [C(↑polar bear)(x)];[hibernate(x)]

In the rest of this paper, I will only speak of ‘kinds’ whenthe logical representation involves reference to kinds. If thisis not the case, I will use the term ‘category’.

To conclude this section, it can be noted that there arethree possible representations of generic sentences (4, 5 and9b). I will investigate which representations correspond witheach of the four types of subject-NP in (1) in section 5.

2.3. Taxonomic hierarchies

An example of a taxonomic hierarchy is given in (10) (cf.Krifka et al. 1995 : 76). The observation that definitesingular NPs that refer to kinds like the mammal (which are‘too general’) are less-well formed than singular definite NPsthat refer to categories like the polar bear, gives rise to thefollowing generalization: when an NP refers to a category thatis located higher in the taxonomic hierarchy than a certainlevel, we expect that the singular definite NP is lessfrequently used to refer to that category. In the next sectionswe will examine whether corpus research confirms this general

hypothesis.

(10) mammal

marsupial carnivore primate

dasyure kangaroo bear hyena ape lemur

Tasmanian devilgrey kangaroo polar bear brown hyena gorillagrey bamboo lemur

3. Methodology

In this paper I will present the results of a case study. Inthis study I examined the frequency of use of the four types ofNP in relation to four hierarchically ordered taxonomiccategories (polar bear, bear, carnivore and mammal). Dutch usescommon nouns in (11) to refer to these kinds :

(11) ijsbeer (‘polar bear’)beer (‘bear’)(land-)roofdier / carnivoor (‘carnivore’)zoogdier (‘mammal’)

I created a corpus of texts about polar bears, bears,carnivores and mammals. I selected 66 text fragments from theInternet and 45 fragments from 24 books, encyclopaedias andpapers. All fragments are written in Dutch, but there arestylistic differences. The corpus contains 9 fragments whichwere adapted from English. Table 1 gives a survey of theIjsbeer/Beer/Roofdier/Zoogdier-corpus and the sources:

Table 1 : Survey of the sources of the Ijsbeer/Beer/Roofdier/Zoogdier-corpussource language

(originallperiod style number

of number of words

y Dutch/ translated)

publica-tions /websites

number of fragments/ lemmas2

internet variable (often unknown)

descriptive (sometimesslightly informal)

42 38 987 words

66 fragments

books, papers andlemmas from encyclopaedias

originallyDutch

1959-1975 encyclopaedic

3 11400 words8 lemmas

1976-1990 encyclopaedic

5 24837 words10 lemmas

scientific 2 3397 words

1991-2003 encyclopaedic

5 5294 words11 lemmas

in a non-specialistway

5 6153 words

adapted from English

1976-1990 encyclopaedic

2 3104 words7 lemmas

1991-2003 in a non-specialistway

2 15168 words

total of books, etc.

originally Dutch 20 51081 words29 lemmas + 7 complete publications

adapted from English 4 18272 words7 lemmas + 2 complete publications

total of internet and books, etc. 90 108340 words 36 lemmas + 9 complete publications

There are some syntactic and semantic factors which do havean effect on the form of the subject-NP. Firstly, the clause

2 Sometimes the number of fragments/lemmas is not specified. In those cases the text was copied in its entirety.

can be either a subordinate or a main clause. Moreover, thepresence of frequency adverbs (e.g. typically or normally) oradjectives (typical, average) could make a difference. Finally, atleast eight different types of generic predicates have beendistinguished in the literature (cf. Krifka et al. 1995 : 78).However, for the results presented in this paper, it holds thatthe subject-NPs appeared in full main clauses withcharacterizing predicates without frequency adverbs. Simplegeneric sentences were not included. These decisions were madebecause the corpus is too small to allow for reliableconclusions about the influence of these syntactic and semanticfactors.

There are some additional methodological problems. I willdiscuss two issues here. Firstly, the presence of a temporal,locative or circumstantial PP probably has consequences for thesubject-NPs of generic sentences. An example is given in (12).

(12) (...) in Alaska, wanneer de zalmen de rivierenoptrekken, schept de ijsbeer de in Alaska, when thesalmons therivers go up scoops

thepolar bear the vissen uit hetwater op dezelfde wijze als de bruine beer pleegt tedoen.fishes out of the water in the same way asthebrownbear tends to do.‘In Alaska, when the salmon goes up the rivers, the polar bearscoops the fish out of the water in the same way as the brownbear tends to do.’

(From : De Reader’s Digest Grote Geïllustreerde Dierenatlas. 1986.Reader’s Digest. Brussels. Translated from English. p. 26-27.)

In this sentence, a property is assigned to the polar bears inAlaska, but not to polar bears in general. We cannot interpretthis sentence in the following informal manner (cf. Krifka etal. 1995 : 24-25) :

(13) For polar bears it holds: (when the salmon go up therivers,) the polar bear scoops the fish out of the water.

Sentence (13) expresses a generalization about all members ofthe kind, while (12) only applies to specimens in Alaska. Thefact that the NP does not ascribe a property to the category ingeneral or to all objects of the category could influence the

form of the NP. In order to avoid contamination of the data,these sentences should be left aside.

There are, however, other temporal, locative orcircumstantial PP that do not cause such problems. An exampleis given in (14).

(14) Buiten de paartijd leven de ijsberen solitair.Outside themating season live the polar bears solitary.‘Outside the mating season, polar bears live a solitary life.’

(From : Dr. Philip Whitfield (ed.). 1984 Encyclopedie van hetDierenrijk. Alle gewervelde Dieren in Woord en Beeld. Areopagus.Translated from English. p. 82.)

This sentence does assign a property to the category. Theutterance can be interpreted as follows :

(15) For polar bears it holds : They live solitary lives outsidethe mating season.

We do not wish to ingnore sentences like (14). So, itdepends on the meaning of the PP whether a sentence should bedeleted. We can formulate the following criterion: when asentence (i) contains a locative, temporal or circumstantial PPand (ii) the consequence of this PP is that the property is notassigned to objects of the category in general, then we do notinclude the sentence in our results.

Secondly, there is a group of generic predicates whichdenote a property that might also be attributed to the objectsof a kind, but which nevertheless differs from standardcharacterizing predicates. An example is given in (16).Although the truth of (16) implies that the objects of the kindalso belong to the genus Ursus, this sentence first of allplaces the kind in that genus. This is a general characteristicof sentences which ascribe a taxonomic property to a kind. Wecannot consider these sentences as belonging to the samecategory as standard simple generics. Perhaps we even have toconsider the relevant predicates as kind predicates. So, I leftthese sentences aside.

(16) De Noordamerikaanse zwarte beer (Euarctos americanus) was tot voor

The Northamerican black bear (Euarctos americanus) was untilrecently

kort ook ondergebracht in het geslacht Ursus. also classified in the genus Ursus.

‘Until recently, the North American black bear (Euarctos americanus) was classified in the genus Ursus as well.’

(From : Kleine Winkler Prins Dieren Encyclopedie. In tien delen. 1980. dr. Maurice Burton and Hermann Friedhoff (eds.). Elsevier.Amsterdam/Brussels. p. 164-169.)

4 Results

In this section I present the results and I will brieflydiscuss the influence of the original language of the text andthe period in which it was written.

The results are given in table 2.

Table 2 : the results.category

source originallanguage

totalnumber ofsentences

type of the NPsingular pluraldefinite indefini

tedefinite bare

ijsbeer books Dutch 43 12 3 6 22English 22 10 6 6

internet 67 31 12 8 16 total 132 53 21 14 44

beer books Dutch 27 1 1 6 19English 24 9 2 13

internet 18 2 16total 69 10 5 6 48

roofdier books Dutch 13 2 2 9English

internet 12 1 2 9total 25 2 1 4 18

zoogdier books Dutch 6 6English 18 1 3 14

internet 5 5total 29 1 3 25

total books Dutch 89 15 17% 4 4% 14 16% 56 63%English 64 19 30% 9 14% 3 5% 33 51%

internet 102 31 30% 15 15% 10 10% 46 45%total 255 65 25% 28 11% 27 11% 135 53%

The most interesting difference between the results gleanedfrom the publications which were originally written in Dutchand those which were adapted from English is the fact thatdefinite plurals are more frequently used in the former. In theintroduction we already noted that English plural definite NPsdisallow generic or kind-oriented uses. So, themorphosyntactical properties of the original language seem tohave an influence on the choices of the translator.

This means that we have to be careful when considering ourresults as representative for Dutch. However, our corpus givesus a picture of which morphosyntactic consequences a taxonomiccategory can have in natural language.

In table 3 the results are given for three time spans. Herewe do not find relevant statistically reliable correlations. Inthe rest of this paper it will be my purpose to discuss theresults from a synchronic point of view.

Table 3: the results, from a diachronic point of viewcategory

source originallanguage

totalnumber ofsentences

type of the NPsingular pluraldefinite indefini

tedefinite bare

totaal books 1959-1975

29 8 28% 1 3% 1 3% 19 66%

1976-1990

45 7 15% 4 9% 8 18% 26 58%

1991-2003

79 19 24% 8 10% 8 11% 44 55%

internet 102 31 30% 15 15% 10 10% 46 45%total 255 65 25% 28 11% 27 11% 135 53%

5. An analysis of the results

In this section I will analyse the results given in table 2.Section 5.1 discusses definite singulars. In 5.2 I will lookmore closely at bare plurals. Finally, section 5.3 brieflydiscusses the behaviour of definite plurals and indefinitesingulars.

5.1 Definite singulars

5.1.1 Observations

Definite singular NPs can be used to refer to categoriesthat are located higher in the hierarchy than polar bear orbear. We found 2 sentences in which a definite singularsubject-NP refers to carnivores. An example is given in (17).

(17) Het roofdier vervult in de levensgemeenschap

waarvan het deel uitmaakt, een Thecarnivore plays in the community ofwhich it is part, anonontbeerlijke rol bij het bewaren van het natuurlijkevenwicht. indispensable role in themaintaining ofthe naturalbalance.‘The carnivore plays an indispensable role in maintaining thenatural balance in the ecological community of which it is apart.’

Although it is not impossible that definite singular subject-NPs may refer to higher categories, there is clearly a tendencyfor these NPs to be used less frequently when the category islocated higher in the hierarchy. This result is presented intable 3.

Table 3 : The correlation between the use of definite singulars andcommon nouns.↓common noun / type ofthe NP →

[+definite singular] [-definite singular]

ijsbeer 53 79beer 10 59roofdier 2 23zoogdier 0 29

The correlation between these two variables is statisticallysignificant : p < 0,001.

5.1.2 Explanations

In recent literature (cf. e.g. Cohen 1999 : 38-52 and Krifkaet al. 1995 : 88-93) it is assumed that there is a semanticdifference between the characterizing sentences given in (18).According to Cohen (1999 : 40-41) : “(…) it is reasonable toconclude that, when interpreted generically, definite singularsand bare plurals refer to kinds, whereas indefinite singularsdo not” (cf. also section 2).

(18) a. The polar bear leads a roving life.b. Polar bears lead a roving life.c. A polar bear leads a roving life.

The most important piece of evidence for the claim thatdefinite singulars and bare plurals denote kinds, whereasindefinite singulars do not refer to kinds, is the fact thatkind predicates can be assigned to these two types of NP andnot to indefinite singulars. This has been demonstrated forDutch in (3a,c,d). These sentences are repeated here as(19a,b,c).

(19) a. De holenbeer is uitgestorven.Thecave-bear is extinct.

b. *Een holenbeer is uitgestorven.A cave-bear is extinct.

c. Holenberen zijn uitgestorven.Cave-bears are extinct.

In section 2.2 we discussed Cohen’s (1999) representation ofpersonal generic sentences with kind-referring subject-NPs. Inthis proposal, (18a) and (18b) can be represented as (20):

(20) GEN[x;] [C(↑polar-bear)(x)];[lead-a-roving-life(x)]

A possible explanation for the behaviour of definitesingulars can be found if we could reason that it issemantically anomalous to consider categories that are locatedhigher in the hierarchy as kinds. Although, from a theoreticalpoint of view no restrictions on the operation ‘↑’ need to bepostulated, we do not expect that in language use all commonnouns can be used as kind-denoting terms with the same ease. Itis, however, probably impossible to give an exact definition ofkinds. To a certain degree it is open to the language user toconsider any category as a kind. Chierchia (1998 : 348) puts it

this way : “What counts as kind is not set by grammar, but bythe shared knowledge of a community of speakers. It thusvaries, to a certain degree, with the context, and remainssomewhat vague.”

Intuitively, kinds are generally seen as groups ofindividuals or objects that can be distinguished from otherindividuals or objects by common characteristics. From thispoint of view, it is not illogical that there could be acorrelation between the place in the taxonomic hierarchy andthe tendency of common nouns to denote a kind. If a category islocated higher in the hierarchy, the members of the categoryshare less attributes. Consequently, it becomes more difficultto distinguish the members of the group from other objects orindividuals.

In the literature (cf. Krifka et al. 1995 : 46-48),attention has been drawn to the connection between genericityand prototypical information. The prototype approach assumesthat from among the entities which are categorised as being aninstance of a certain concept, we can choose entities which arethe “best” representations of that concept (Hempel & Oppenheim1936). The most typical representatives of a concept are called‘prototypes’. These prototypes can help language users toconsider bears as a kind. Prototypical bears are large animalswith short legs, a stub of a tail, small, round ears andforward facing eyes. However, it is more difficult to do thesame for carnivores or mammals, because there are fewer commonfeatures. In general, when the category is located higher inthe taxonomic hierarchy, it becomes less easy to consider it asa kind. If definite singular subject-NPs do refer to kindsunambiguously, then it is to be expected that they appear lessfrequently if the category is located higher in the taxonomichierarchy.

Here I pass over the fact that, according to thepsychological literature, it should be possible that categoriesare “too low” as well. In the literature, categories that areeasiest to consider as distinguished from others are calledbasic level categories. For biological categories, Rosch(1978 : 32) formulates the hypothesis that the basic level isthe level of the folk generic. So, according to thishypothesis, it is actually bear, not polar bear, which is basiclevel (cf. Krifka et al. 1995 : 76). It is difficult to pointout exactly how relevant the findings taken from the

psychological literature are for our analysis. Future researchwill have to make clear whether our conclusions will beconsistent with the psychological literature.

Thus, we have not given a formal semantic, but rather apragmatic explanation for the correlation between the definitesingular NP and the location of the category in its taxonomichierarchy. It is impossible to formulate formal restrictions onthe use of generic definite singulars, because at least inDutch definite singulars that refer to higher categories aresometimes possible. In these sentences the language userabstracts from the properties that discriminate betweensubcategories of a kind.

5.2 Bare plurals

5.2.1 Observations

Although in the literature there is an emphasis on thesimilarities between bare plurals and definite singulars (cf.e.g. Cohen 1999 : 40-41), the behaviour of bare plurals differsfrom definite singulars. In table 4 the results for bareplurals are contrasted with the results for other NPs. Bareplurals become more frequent when the category is locatedhigher in the taxonomic hierarchy. This result is statisticallysignificant : p < 0.001.

Table 4: The correlation between the use of bare plurals andcommon nouns.↓category / type ofthe NP →

[+bare plural] [-bare plural]

Ijsbeer 44 88Beer 48 21Roofdier 18 7Zoogdier 25 4

5.2.2 Explanations

Does this mean that bare plurals do not refer to kinds inpersonal generics? The answer should be no. We have already

seen that a kind predicate can be attributed to a bare plural(cf. e.g. (19c)) and that a characterizing predicate can beattributed to the same NP in some constructions (cf. (6a) and(7a)). This means that we have to assume that bare plurals canrefer to kinds, even in personal generics.

If we want to explain the somewhat ambivalent behaviour ofbare plurals, we have to assume two possible representationsfor personal generics with a bare plural as subject-NP: (22a)and (22b). These are two possible representations of sentence(21). In both cases, the bare plural introduces a variable,which is bound by the generic operator (cf. Diesing 1992), butonly in (22a) is this used with reference to kinds.

(21) Ijsberen houden een winterslaap.Polar bears hibernate.

(22) a. GEN[x;] [C(↑ijsbeer)(x)];[een-winterslaap-houden(x)]b. GEN[x;] [ijsbeer(x)];[een-winterslaap-houden(x)]

There are three independent reasons why it is attractive toassume that bare plurals can take the representations given in(22).

Firstly, there is a well-known example (cf. (23)) whichillustrates that it is not an isolated observation that bareplurals have broader application possibilities than definitesingulars. According to Cohen (2002) “the definite generic isoften more acceptable when the descriptive content of thecommon noun is richer”. The oddness of (23a) (as genericreading) and the acceptability of (23b) illustrate this claim.Bare plurals are used in (24), and both sentences areacceptable. The same situation holds in Dutch.

(23) a. ?The politician never misses a photo opportunity.b. The successful politician never misses a photoopportunity.

(24) a. Politicians never miss a photo opportunity.b. Successful politicians never miss a photo opportunity

A possible explanation for these observations is that it ispragmatically more difficult to consider ↑politician as a kindthan it is to consider ↑successful-politician as a kind. In theliterature it has been argued that generic sentences expressstereotypes (cf. Geurts 1985 and Declerck 1986). At firstsight, the fact that successful politicians have different

properties could make it difficult to consider this category asa kind. Stereotypical information, however, makes it possibleto consider the category of successful politicians as a kind.We could define a stereotypical succesful politician as arepresentative of this kind which has all stereotypicalproperties that are ascribed to it: a person who debates orreads documents deep into the night, gives the truth a twist,never misses a photo opportunity, and so on.

However, if the descriptive content of the common noun isless rich, it becomes less easy to construct a stereotype. Wedo not expect unsuccessful politicians to meet thecharacteristics of successful politicians. It is difficult tofind stereotypical features of politicians in general. Thismakes it less easy to consider ↑politician as a suitable kind.Probably, that is why (23a) is odd. Bare plurals do not have tosatisfy the restrictions that definite singulars have to. So,it seems appealing to assume that the representation for bareplurals does not necessarily involve reference to kinds.

Secondly, it would be interesting to examine whether so-called representative object interpretations are possible with bareplural, definite singular and indefinite singular subject-NPs.This interpretation is illustrated in (25) (cf. Krifka et al.(1995 : 78)). In this sentence a property is projected from theobject to the kind. According to Krifka et al. (1995 : 83),this is possible “if the object in the situation described isonly relevant as a representative of the whole kind”. Cohen’s(1999) analysis makes it possible to represent sentence (25) as(26). Here, we abstract from tense. I assume that the spatialexpression in Alaska relates to the verb via a Davidsonianargument l. In (26) there is no generic operator (nor arestrictor), because the sentence does not express ageneralization (cf. Kratzer 1995). Sentence (25), then, wouldbe true if there is an object which is an instance of the kindgrizzly and which is filmed by John in Alaska.

(25) In Alaska, John filmed the grizzly.(26) x,l [C(↑grizzly)(x) & in-Alaska(l) & film(John,x,l)]

In (27), the definite singular is replaced by an indefinitesingular. This sentence cannot be given a representative objectinterpretation. The indefinite singular is interpretedexistentially and the sentence does not imply that the grizzly

which was filmed by John “is only relevant as a representativeof the whole kind”. So, sentence (27) can be adequatelyrepresented as (28).

(27) In Alaska, John filmed a grizzly.(28) x,l [grizzly(x) & in-Alaska(l) & film(John,x,l)]

Now, the question is: how do we interpret (29), in which abare plural is used. If bare plurals refer to kindsunambiguously, we expect that the only possible reading for(29) is the representative object interpretation. This turnsout to be incorrect. Sentence (29), contrary to (25), can takean existential, non-kind-referring reading. The representationin (28) corresponds minimally with a possible interpretation of(29). The same situation holds in Dutch.

(29) In Alaska, John filmed grizzlies.

Now I come to the third reason. Zamparelli (2002 : 24)indepently comes to the conclusion that “the existentialmeaning of English bare plurals might come from more than onesource : from an original kind-denotation, or from an originalobject-level denotation.” Cross-linguistic evidence shows thatit is plausible that English bare plurals can acquire thelatter interpretation, just like Italian bare plurals.

Zamparelli’s argumentation runs as follows. English bareplurals are similar to Italian definite plurals in that bothcan denote kinds. Zamparelli (2002) uses the operation DerivedKind Predication (DKP), to acquire an existential meaning forkind-denoting entities (cf. Cohen’s realization relation C). Heraises the question: in what conditions is this possible forItalian definite plurals? One of his observations is that in(30), where a predicate of ‘coming-into-being’ is used, theonly reading possible is a universal one: generically-allhurricanes arise in this area. If the predicate is not ‘coming-into-being’, comparable sentences may be reporting the habitualeffects of some random hurricanes (cf. the examples given inZamparelli (2002 : 21)).

(30) [Gli uragani] hanno origine in quest’ area del Pacifico.the hurricanes arise in this partof_the Pacific.

(from : Zamparelli 2002 : 21)

According to Zamparelli the lack of an existential readingis striking when compared with English bare plurals, which canhave a universal and an existential reading. In (31a) the samephenomenon is illustrated for Dutch. The paraphrase in (31b)corresponds to the universal reading, while (31c) correspondsto the existential reading of the bare plural (cf. Carlson1989). Sentence (31a) can have both readings (although theuniversal interpretation of the subject-NP is far more probableif orkanen is topicalized).

(31) a. In dit gedeelte van de Stille Oceaan ontstaan orkanen.

In this part of the Pacific arisehurricanes.

‘Hurricanes arise in this part of the Pacific.’b. “Hurricanes are tempests which have the property of

arising in this part of the Pacific.”c. “It is a fact about this part of the Pacific that

some hurricanes arise in it.” (adapted from : Zamparelli 2002 : 22)

The question is why the second interpretation is notavailable for the Italian definite plural in (30). Zamparelli’s(2002 : 21-22) answer derives from two considerations. First,the Italian equivalent of (31a), given in (32), does have anobligatory existential reading. Second, the existentiallyinterpreted bare plurals in (31) and (32) have a specialintonational contour, which is different from that in Italiansentences with definite singulars. Zamparelli draws theconclusion that when the bare plural in (31a) is interpretedexistentially, it is not derived from a kind, but it patternswith the Italian bare plural in (32) and is a ‘born object-level indefinite’. English and Dutch would thus be languages“with a double route to the existential meaning : in somepositions the DKP is not applicable, but the indefinite routemay still be available”.

(32) Spaventosi uragani hanno origine in questa parte del Pacifico.Frightful hurricanes arise in this part of_the

Pacific.

In (33), where a definite singular is used in the samesyntactic position as the bare plural in (31a), the universalinterpretation is the only possibility. So, in this contextdefinite singulars do not pattern with the Italian bare pluralin (32). Our analysis, which holds that definite singulars(originally) refer to kinds, seems to be correct.

(33) In dit gebied ontstaat de Föhn.Inthis areaarise the Föhn.‘The Föhn arises in this area’

5.3 Definite plurals and indefinite singulars

The most important conclusion that we can draw about Dutchdefinite plural NPs is that they can be used as subject-NPs ofpersonal generics. An example is given in (34). According tothe literature, this is impossible in English (cf. Chierchia1998 : 393).

(34) De ijsberen leiden een uitgesproken zwervend leven en soms worden Thepolar bears leadan explicitly roving life and

sometimes areze ontdekt op ijsschotsen die 300 km ver in zee

drijven.they detected on ice floes which 300 km far in sea

drift.‘Polar bears lead an explicitly roving life and sometimes theyare detected on ice floes drifting at sea, 300 km off thecoast.’

(From : Maurice Burton and Hermann Friedhoff (eds.).1980. Kleine Winkler Prins Dieren Encyclopedie. In tien delen. Elsevier.Amsterdam/Brussel. p. 1859-1865.)

Statistical tests do not render any further significantcorrelations between the frequency of definite plurals andtheir taxonomic category.

There is no evidence that indefinite singulars refer tokinds in personal generics. Statistical tests do not rendersignificant correlations between their frequency and thetaxonomic category. This corresponds to the observation that

indefinite singulars are not compatible with kind predicates.So, only one representation corresponds with indefinitesingular subject-NPs in personal generics. This representationis given in (36). This is the representation of sentence (1c),repeated here as (35).

(35) Een ijsbeer leidt een zwervend bestaan.(36) GEN[x;] [ijsbeer(x)];[een-zwervend-bestaan-leiden(x)]

6.Conclusion and suggestions for further research

In this article, we observed that definite singular NPsappear less frequently when the category is located higher inthe hierarchy. Bare plurals on the other hand appear morefrequently when we get a step up in the taxonomic hierarchy.

We can explain these findings by assuming that definitesingular subject-NPs of personal generics refer to kindsunambiguously, while bare plurals are ambiguous between a kind-referring and a non-kind-referring reading.

The fact that definite singulars appear less frequently whenthe category is located higher in the hierarchy can now beascribed to the fact that it is semantically anomalous toconsider particular categories as kinds. If a category islocated higher in the hierarchy, it is more difficult to findthe common features, whether or not based on prototypical orstereotypical information, which make it possible to considersomething as a kind.

Our proposal that bare plurals are ambiguous allows us toaccount for the fact that these NPs do not appear lessfrequently when the category is located higher in thehierarchy. This proposal has some additional advantages.Firstly, it explains that it is not an isolated finding thatbare plurals have broader application possibilities thandefinite singulars. Secondly, this proposal is compatible withthe fact that existential readings of bare plurals obtain insentences which allow a representative object interpretation.Thirdly, Zamparelli (2002) shows that there is cross-linguisticevidence from Italian that English bare plurals can be given apurely object-level denotation. I have demonstrated that thesame point can be made for Dutch bare plurals.

In future research, it is important to go more deeply into

definite plurals and indefinite singulars. Furthermore, itwould be interesting to compare the results for Dutch with theresults of corpus research into generic sentences and subject-NPs in other languages. Finally, it would be beneficial tocreate corpora with texts about other taxonomic categories.This would allow us to gain a better understanding of thefactors that influence the form of the NP. In this way, we maytry to determine the influence of frequency adverbs, thesyntactic function of the relevant NPs and their place in thesyntactic structure.

Bibliography

Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. Reference to Kinds in English. Ph. D.dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Published by Garland Press, New York.

Carlson, Gregory. N. 1989. ‘The Semantic Composition of EnglishGeneric Sentences.’ In : Gennaro Chierchia, Barbara Parteeand Raymond Turner (eds.), Properties, Types and Meaning, vol. 2:Semantic Issues, 167-191. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Carlson, Gregory N. and Francis Jeffry Pelletier. 1995. TheGeneric Book. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago/London.

Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. ‘Reference to kinds across languages’Natural Language Semantics 6 , 339-405.

Cohen, Ariel. 1999. Think Generic! The Meaning and Use of GenericSentences. CSLI Publications, Stanford, California.

Cohen, Ariel. 2002. `Genericity' Linguistische Berichte 10:59-89. Declerck, Renaat. 1986. ‘The Manifold Interpretations of

Generic Sentences.’ Lingua 68:149-188.Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Geurts, Bart. 1985. ‘Generics’. Journal of Semantics 4 : 247-255.Haeseryn, W., K. Romijn, G. Geerts, J. de Rooij and M.C. van

den Toorn. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. 2 Volumes.Martinus Nijhoff publishers, Groningen.

Hempel, Carl and Robert Oppenheim. 1936. Der Typos begriff im Lichteder neueren Logik. Sijhoff, Leiden.

Heyer, Gerhard. 1985. ‘Generic Descriptions, Default Reasoningand Typicality.’ Theoretical Linguistics 11 : 33-72.

Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. ‘Stage-Level and Individual-LevelPredicates.’ In : Carlson, Gregory N. and Francis Jeffry

Pelletier eds., The Generic Book., 125-175. The University ofChicago Press, Chicago/Londen.

Krifka, Manfred, Francis Jeffry Pelletier, Gregory N. Carlson,Alice ter Meulen, Godehard Link and Gennaro Chierchia. 1995.‘Genericity: An introduction’ In: Carlson, Gregory N. andFrancis Jeffry Pelletier eds., The Generic Book., 1-124. TheUniversity of Chicago Press, Chicago/London.

Link, Godehard, 1988. ‘Dependency in the theory of Generics.’In : M. Krifka, ed. Genericity in Natural Language, 313-335. SNS-Bericht 88-42, University of Tübingen.

Link, Godehard. 1995. ‘Generic Information and DependentGenerics’. In: Carlson, Gregory N. and Francis JeffryPelletier eds. The Generic Book, 358-382. The University ofChicago Press, Chicago/Londen

Rosch, Eleonor. 1978. ’Principles of Categorization.’ In : E.Rosch and B. B. Lloyd, eds., Cognition and Categorization, 27-48.Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N. J.

Zamparelli, Roberto. 2002. ‘Definite and Bare Kind-denotingNoun Phrases’. To appear in Proceedings of Going Romance2000, Oxford University Press, 2002 (Page numbers refer to amanuscript).

Albert OosterhofBlandijnberg 29000 GhentBelgiumtel. : 00 32 9 223 51 69e-mail : albert.oosterhof@ugent.be