Bare nouns and the status of determiners in - University of Manitoba

Workshop on Determiners, University of Manitoba, November 25, 2006
Bare nouns and the status of determiners in the history of French
1. Introduction
Eric Mathieu
University of Ottawa
emathieu@uottawa.ca
(1) The Nominal Mapping Parameter: N ⇒ [±pred, ±arg]
(2) [–pred, +arg] every (lexical) noun is mass ⇒ Chinese
Mass/count languages
(3) [+pred, +arg] bare arguments allowed
(4) [+pred, –arg] bare arguments disallowed
no article ⇒ Slavic
articles ⇒ Germanic
∂ ⇒ Italian
no ∂ ⇒ French
Aim: The aim of the present paper is to assess whether Old French, often reported in traditional
grammars to have bare nouns (Foulet 1928, Moignet 1973), was [–pred, +arg], [+pred, +arg] or [+pred,
-arg].
Romance ? [+pred, –arg] (with null determiners?).
Germanic properties (e.g. V2, Adams 1987, among many others; Stylistic
Fronting, Cardinaletti and Roberts 2002, Dupuis 1989, Mathieu 2006b; Quirky
subjects, Mathieu 2006a; transitive expletive constructions and object shift,
Mathieu 2006c).
[+pred, +arg] Russian
According to Chierchia, the flexible behaviour of bare singulars in Russian is possible because that
language does not have lexicalized determiners.
(5) Blocking Principle (‘Type Shifting as last Resort’)
For any type shifting operation τ and any X:
*τ(X)
if there is a determiner D such that for any set X in its domain,
D(X) = τ(X) (Chierchia 1998:360)
(6) a.
∩
→ sort shifter
b.
∪
→ sort shifter
c. ι → type shifter
d. ∃ → type shifter
The problem that Old French creates for Chierchia’s classification is that Old French has
lexicalized determiners: ι and ∃ are thus not blocked.
determiners appear quite early in the history of Old French (contrary to what is usually
assumed in most of the literature)
the addition of a determiner to a nominal structure has two main roles that are
independent of argumenthood: i) they mark referentiality; ii) they encode focus.
Hypothesis: Instead of relying on the presence or the absence of determiners to determine whether a
nominal is a predicate or an argument, I will give an analysis according to which all nouns denote .
The present paper reviews many cases where (in languages where determiners are optional, e.g. Old
French) determiners simply encode referentiality or focus rather than any core semantic properties like
argumenthood.
I propose a compositional account based on the idea that syntactic structure builds some
(although not all) relevant architecture for the interpretation of bare nouns and nouns accompanied by a
determiner. The overall parameter that I will be put forward is closely related to the work of Déprez
(2005), Delfitto and Schroten (1991) and Bouchard (2002, 2003) in that it states that if nouns have
agreement morphology determiners are not necessary and bare nouns denoting objects are possible (an
insight which is already present in many traditional grammars since Port-Royal, see for example
Brunot and Bruneau 1956). If, on the other hand, nouns do not carry agreement morphology, then bare
nouns are not possible. In Old French, number agreement appeared on the nominal, but this is no longer
the case in Modern French. The technical way this is implemented is by way of φ-features and where
they surface. In Old French, φ-features surface on the noun and an Agree relation can be established
between the noun and the Num head that has been projected. In Modern French, the nominal is not
associated with φ-features (number features, to be more precise), therefore a determiner is needed. The
case of Modern French provides evidence that Agree is cyclic: the search space of the φ-features on
Num starts with the complement of Num, but because there is no match in the complement, it grows to
include the specifier of Num (for cyclic Agree, see Rezac 2003). Determiners are merged in Spec-Num
and since they carry interpretable φ-features, they are capable of satisfying the uninterpretable φfeatures
of Num.
2. The distribution of bare nouns in Old French
2.1 Bare plurals
2.1.1 Bare plurals in object position interpreted as existential
(7) Donez moi armes por le besoing qu’abonde.
give.IMP.2PL me weapons for the need that increase.PRES.3SG
‘Give me weapons because the need is pressing.’
(La Prise d’Orange, end of 12th century, line 964)
Through a systematic search in Frantext and Base de français médiéval, it appears that bare plurals are
more frequent when they are objects rather than subjects. It is not impossible, however, for bare plurals
that are subjects to appear in post-verbal positions. Cases such as those are rare, but not uncommon.
The example in (8) illustrates the phenomenon.
(8) Ce fu en mai, el novel tens d’esté :
it be.PAST.3SG in May the new time of-summer
Fueillissent gaut, reverdissent li pré,
blossom.PAST.3PL wood.PL green.PAST.3PL the prairie.PL
‘It was in May, at the beginning of summer: [The] woods were in bloom, the fields were
becoming green.’ (Charroi de Nîmes, 12th century, line 15)
This is a pattern that has been recognized for Romance languages:
(9) a. Juan vió películas.
Juan see.PAST .3SG movies
‘Juan saw movies.’
b. * Niños llegaron.
children arrive.PAST.3PL
‘Children arrived.’
(10) Merodeaban leones en la selva.
grind.PAST.3PL lions in the jungle
‘Lions were grinding in the jungle.’
The similarities between Modern Romance languages and Old French stop here however. There are
examples in Old French that show that bare plurals can appear as subjects in pre-verbal positions after
all.
(11) Chevalier vienent dis et dis
knights come.PAST.3PL ten and ten
‘[The] knights came in groups of ten.’
(Le Chevalier à la Charrette, year c. 1180, line 5610)
(12) Il avint que homes armez alerent
it turn.out.PAST.3SG that men armed go.PAST.3PL
a faire force against others
to do.INF force contre autres
‘[some] men with weapons came in order to commit violent acts.’
(JA chap. XLIX, in Carlier and Goyens 1998:100)
2

(13) La voie commença a estrecier et raim furent bas
the path begin.PAST.3SG to shrink.INF and branches be.PAST.3PL low
‘The path began to get narrower and [the] branches were low.’
(La fille du comte Pontieu, 13th century, p. 158)
It nevertheless appears that these bare plurals are possible in the subject position because they are
specific: they refer back to an entity already introduced in the discourse or they are identified via socalled
accommodation.
2.1.2 Bare plurals as kinds
Another major difference between Modern Romance languages (except Portuguese) and Old French is
that in Modern Romance languages bare plurals are not compatible with predicates that select kinds or
with i-individual predicates (Defiltto 2002, Dobrovie-Sorin and Laca 2003, Longobardi 2001).
(14) Dames en canbres fuit et het.
ladies in chambers flee.PRES.3SG and hate.PRES.3SG
‘He hates ladies in their chambers and keeps away from them.’
(Lai de Narcisse, year 1170, line 120)
(15) a. Et sachiez que ostour sont de .iij. manieres :
and know that vultures be.PRES.3PL of three kinds
petit, grant, meien.
small big average
‘Know that vultures come in three kinds: small, big, average.’
(Li livres dou tresor, year 1260-1267, CXLVIII De toutes manieres de
Ostours, p. 197)
b. Peisson sont sanz nombre
fishes be.PAST.3PL without number
‘Fishes are rare.’
(Li livres dou tresor, year 1260-1267, CXXXI, Ci comence de la nature des
Animaus et premierement des poissons, p. 184)
From this point of view, Old French fits quite nicely with Chierchia’s (1998) typology. The fact that in
Italian, Spanish and Romanian, (unmodified) bare plurals appear not to be able to combine with
predicates that select kinds or with i-individual predicates has been taken to be problematic for
Chierchia’s theory. Because of this, Dobrovie-Sorin and Laca (2003), Dobrovie-Sorin, Bleam and
Espinal (2005) thus argue for an analysis according to which bare plurals denote a property. On this
view, the kind or generic reading is not the basic interpretation from which others are derived contrary
to what Carlson (1977) and Chierchia (1998) have argued.
2.2 Bare singulars
2.2.1 Bare singulars as kinds
Another major difference between Romance languages on the one hand and Old French on the other.
(16) Taupe est une diverse beste (kind)
mole be.PRES.3SG a diverse animal
‘The mole is a diverse animal.’ (Li livres dou tresor, year 1260-1267, CC, De la Taupe, p. 252)
(17) Echinus est uns petit poissons de mer (subkind)
see urchin be.PRES.3SG a little fish of sea
‘The sea urchin is a small fish from the sea.’
(Li livres dou tresor, year 1260-1267, CXXXI, Ci comence de la nature des Animaus et
premierement des poissons, p. 184)
These examples are particularly problematic for Chierchia’s (1998), since according to him in a
language with a singular/plural contrast, bare singular nouns are not attested – to quote him: ‘In both
Germanic and Romance bare singular arguments are totally impossible (if the noun is not mass)’ p.
341. Moreover, bare singular nouns need to project a definite determiner in order to refer to kinds (e.g.
the case of Modern French, Italian, English, etc.). This claim is falsified by the data in (16). Dayal’s
solution? (atomic kinds).
The problem in turn with this idea is that in Old French the determiner with bare singulars
denoting kinds appears completely optional as we shall see in the next section. This is a situation which
is entirely parallel to the case of singular mass nouns. These can appear with or without a determiner as
the contrast between (18a) and (18b) illustrates.
3
(18) a. Jo vos durrai or e argent asez
I you give.FUT.1SG gold and silver enough
‘I will give much gold and silver.’ (La Chanson de Roland, year 1080, line 75)
b. De lur tresors prenent l’or e l’argent
of their treasures take.PRES.3PL the-gold and the-silver
‘They take gold and silver from their treasures.’
(La vie de Saint Alexis, year 1050, line 526)
2.2.2 Bare singulars interpreted generically
Since bare singulars can be interpreted as kinds in Old French, naturally they can receive a generic
reading as witnessed by the examples in (19) – at least, if one follows the Carlson/Chierchia view of
generics.
(19) a. Quant hom est viex, vet a bastons;
when man.SG be.PRES.3SG old carry.3SG to cane
‘When [a] man is old, it carries a cane.’
(Le Roman de Thèbes, year 1150, line 2933)
b. Com chiens abaie par costume ;
like dog.SG bark.PRES.3SG by habit
‘As the dog barks by habit.’
(Enéas, year 1150, line 2579)
c. Cocodrille est uns animaus a .iiij. piez et de jaune color
crocodile.SG be.PRES.3SG a animal at four feet and of yellow colour
‘The crocodile is a four-legged animal and is yellow.’
(Li livres dou tresor, year 1260-1267, V, Dou cocodrille, p.184)
2.2.3 Bare singulars as definites
In (20) by the time filie ‘daughter’ is used, a rich context is available, one in which moyler ‘wife’ has
been mentioned, therefore filie can be used without a determiner.
(20) or uolt que prenget moyler a son vivant ;
however want.PRES.3SG that take.PRES.3SG wife at his living
dunc li acatet filie d’un noble franc
thus him.DAT buy.PRES3SG daughter of-a noble man
‘he wants him to take [a] wife during his lifetime; so he buys him [the] daughter of a
nobleman.’ (Alex v. 39-40, Epstein, 1994, 68)
In (21) it is clear from the context that the violin and the bow belong to Nicolette. Therefore, the article
can be dropped.
(21) Es vous Nichole au peron,
and here Nichole at-the steps
trait vïele, trait arçon
take.out.PRES.3SG violin take.out.PRES.3SG bow
‘There is Nicolette on the steps, she takes out [her] violin, takes out [her] bow.’
(Aucassin et Nicolette, early 13th centuy, XXXIX, 11-12, in Epstein, )
Cases where the bare singular is definite, but does not refer a particular entity in the discourse are also
possible. This is when the substantive is sufficiently identified by the receiver as unique, pertaining to
one type sufficiently defined by a usual employment as in (22).
(22) Deus, reis de glorie…
God king of glory
Cel e terre fesis, e cele mer,
this.one and earth do.PAST.3SG and heaven sea
Soleil e lune, tut ço a comandé
sun and moon all this have.3SG ordered
‘God, king of glory who has created the heavens, the earth, the sea, the sun and the moon has
ordered all this.’ (Guillaume, 12 th century, 804-805)
2.2.4 Bare singulars interpreted existentially
While it is possible in Old French for bare singulars to be interpreted as definites, the opposite use of
bare singulars, i.e. as indefinites, is also possible. In (23), the bare singular is interpreted existentially.
4

(23) Ele respont : ‘Sire, mon pere
she reply.PRES.3SG Sir, my father
Prist fenme aprés la mort ma mere …
take.PAST.3SG wife after the death my mother
‘She replies : Sir, my father took [a] wife [i.e. married] after the death of my mother.’
(L’âtre périlleux, roman de la Table Ronde, year 1268, lines 1189-1190)
Low scope:
(24) n i remest palie ne neul ornement
not there remain.PAST.3SG tapestry nor none ornamen
‘there remained no tapestry nor any ornament.’
(La Vie de Saint Alexis, year 1050, line 24, in Epstein p. 66)
It is not the case that there remained a tapestry and an ornament.
*There is a tapestry and an ornament and it is not the case that there remained any.
Bare singulars typically occur in the scope of an operator. Apart from negative contexts such as the one
described in (24), bare singulars interpreted as low-scope indefinites can appear interrogative (25),
hypothetical (26) and comparative environments (27).
(25) Avés vous dont borse trovée ?
have.2PL you thus purse found
‘So have you found [any] purse?’ (in Foulet 1928 :58)
(26) Se vos volez ne chastel ne cité
if you want.PRES.2PL or castle or city
Ne tor ne vile, donjon ne fermeté
or tower or town, donjon or fortress
Ja vos sera otroié et graé
this you be.FUT.3SG given and agreed
‘If you want [a] castle or [a] city or [a] tower or [a] town, [a] dungeon or [a] fortress, this will
be granted and given to you.’ (Le Charroi de Nîmes, 12th century, lines 471-473)
(27) Plus est isnels que n’est oisel ki volet
more be.PRES.3SG fast than NE-be.PRES.3SG bird that fly.PRES.3SG
‘He is faster than [a] bird that flies.’ (La Chanson de Rolland, year 1080, line 1616)
The above facts lead to the conclusion that Old French cannot be assimilitated with Modern Romance
languages. Could Old French therefore be assimilated with Chinese type languages?
(28) cheval → chevaulx
(29) trois foiz l’apele par son nom
three times him-call.PRES.3SG by his name
‘He/she calls him by his name.’ (Enéas, year 1150, line 2168)
In view of the facts introduced above, one option worth exploring is the idea that Old French is like
Russian, i.e. a language with a mass/count distinction and a singular/plural contrast with no classifier
system, yet with the general availability of bare singulars. As a putative [+arg;+pred] language, it is
predicted that Old French tolerate bare singulars in predicate positions. The prediction is borne out as
example (30) shows.
(30) Bien i pert que vos estes fame
well there appear.PRES.3SG that you be.PRES.2PL woman
‘One can tell very well that you are a woman.’
(Yvain, Le Chevalier au Lion, year 1179, line 1654, dans Joly 1998:257)
3. The use of articles in Old French
It is generally claimed in the literature that determiners developed slowly in the history of French. The
problem with this view is that the definite article surfaces much earlier than commonly believed (there
thus must be a mismatch between the prescriptive description of grammarians and actual use). To
illustrate, in La Vie de Saint Alexis, a very early text dated 1050, hardly any bare nominals are
available. Instead, most nouns appear with a determiner.
5
‘L’expression de l’article dans ce vers prouve qu’il n’y a guère de ‘règle’ absolument
rigoureuse dans la syntaxe de l’ancienne langue.’ (Raynaud de Lage, Guy 1983 p. 46). ‘Il
arrive que les poètes du moyen âge semblent employer indifféremment le nom sans article,
le nom précédé de l’article et le nom précédé d’un démonstratif.’ (Brunot and Bruneau
1956 p. 218). The free variation between bare nouns and nominals with a determiner is also
reported by Carlier and Goyens (1998).
In La Cantilene de Sainte Eulalie, a text said to have been written around 878, an even earlier date,
presence and absence of the definite determiner alternate quite freely. In (31) a determiner is used
because the young girl has been discussed at great length in the previous verses.
(31) Niule cose non la pouret omque pleier
no thing not her can.PAST.3SG never give.up.INF
La polle sempre non amast lo Deo menestier
the young. girl always not love.PAST.3SG the God service
‘Nothing could make the young girl not appreciate the service God.’
(La Cantilene de Sainte Eulalie, year 878, lines 8-10)
This is a case, however, that does not necessarily go against the Blocking Principle of Chierchia
(1998), since it could be argued that the choice between the use of a bare noun and the use of a noun
with a determiner is between the non-referential/non-specific versus referential/specific use of the
noun. This is the view Baker (2003) takes on the role of determiners: their purpose is not to convert
nouns into arguments, but rather to contribute to the organization of discourse. Following the logic of
the Blocking Principle the determiner thus expresses more than ι. This is in the spirit of what is
proposed by Krifka (2003) for the optionality between bare nouns and the use of some in English (Dogs
are barking versus Some dogs are barking; I drank milk versus I drank some milk). The difference that
the determiner some makes in the structure is that it introduces a choice function, thus allowing for
wide scope interpretations.
There are nonetheless cases where the addition of a determiner is completely unexpected.
(32) Ad une spede li roveret tolir lo chieef.
with a spear her order.PAST.3SG cut.INF the head
‘He ordered for her head to be cut with a spear.’
(La Cantilene de Sainte Eulalie, year 878, line 22)
(33) Qued auuisset de nos Christus mercit
for have.SUBJ.3SG of us Christ mercy
Post la mort et a lui nos laist venir Par souue clementia.
after the death and to him us let.pres.3SG come.INF by his clemence
‘In order for Christ to have mercy on us after death and for him to let us come to him thanks to
his clemence.’ (La Cantilene de Sainte Eulalie, year 878, lines 27-29)
Here, I would like to follow a series of work by Richard Epstein (1993, 1994, 1995) who argues that, in
addition to their referential use, determiners in Old French can be used to express point of view.
Epstein works within a cognitive approach, but his idea of point of view can easily be translated as
what is known as ‘focus’ in other frameworks. When the speaker wants to insist on the importance of a
particular referent, a determiner is added so that the nominal is no longer bare.
(34) Et dit li cuens: ‘Vos dites voir, beau niés ;
and say.PRES.3SG the count you say.PRES.2PL true dear nephew
La leauté doit l’en toz jorz amers.’
the loyalty must.PRES.3SG it-one all days love.PRES.3SG
‘The count replied: ‘You speak the truth, dear nephew, one must always love loyalty.’
(Le Chevalier à la Charrette, year c. 1180, lines 441-442)
(35) Envie lor fait grant contraire
envy them.DAT make.PRES.3SG big contrary
‘Envy is not good for them.’ (Eracle, year 1180, line 1061)
It appears that it is in post-verbal positions that the addition of a determiner is crucial if one wants to
focalize a nominal. This idea may explain the fact that a bare singular can be used generically with or
without a determiner in the same sentence as the example in (36) shows.
6

(36) Fenme ne puet tant amer l’oume con li hom
woman not can.PRES.3SG as.much love.INF the-man as the man
fait le fenme
do.PRES.3SG the woman
‘Woman cannnot love man as much as man loves woman.’ (Aucassin et Nicolette, lines 21-22)
Being a general statement, suppose the speaker wants to insist on all nominals present in the sentence.
A determiner is needed in object positions (the first instance of ‘man’ and the second instance of
‘woman’), but is not crucial in subject positions: no determiner accompanies the first instance of
‘woman’. Yet, the presence of a determiner with the second occurrence of ‘man’ is tolerated.
Epstein is not the first to notice the expressive role of determiners in Old French. Brunot et
Bruneau (1956) note that: ‘l’article peut avoir une valeur expressive’ (p. 218). They give the following
example where articles are used in an otherwise prototypical environment where articles would be
dropped, i.e. an enumeration context.
(37) Quoi?...nostre avoir avés vous parti, dont nous avons souffert
what our stock have.3PL you shared of-which we have.1PL suffered
les grandes paines et les grans travaus, les fains et les sois et les
the big pains and the big works the hingers and the thirst and the
frois et les caus, si l’avés parti sans nous?
colds and the hots thus it-have.2PL shared without us
‘What? you shared our goods, this stock for which we have suffered great pain, for which we
have worked so much, for which we went through hunger and thirst, cold and heat, you shared it
without us?’ (La Conquête de Constantinople, c. 1212, p.100, lines 12-13), in Brunot and
Bruneau 1956:218)
It must be noted that, very early on, it is also possible for the indefinite determiner to appear with bare
nouns that are interpreted generically. The following example is from La Chanson de Roland, a text
dated 1080.
(38) Plus est isnels que uns falcuns
more be.PRES.3SG quick than a falcon
‘He is quicker than a falcon.’ (La Chanson de Roland, year 1080, line 1874)
German is another language that allows bare and definite plurals for kind reference. Krifka et al. (1995)
introduce the following example.
(39) (Die) Pandabären sind vom Aussterben bedroht.
the pandas be.PRES.3PL of extinction threatened
‘Pandas are facing extinction.’
German is also like Old French in allowing bare and definite mass terms for kind reference. Compare
(18) with (40).
(40) (Das) Gold steigt im Preis.
the gold increase.PRES.3SG in price
‘Gold is getting more expensive.’
The reason why I mention German at this point is because Old French can be grouped with other
languages (like German) which, unless given additional explanation, are a problem for the Blocking
Principle of Chierchia (1998). In order to account for the kind of data from German introduced above
and in order thus to save the Blocking Principle, Dayal (2004) makes a big deal of the fact that German
singular nominals must nevertheless, as shown by the examples in (41), be accompanied by a
determiner.
(41) a. Der Pandabär / *Pandabär ist vom Aussterben bedroht.
the panda / *panda be.PRES.3SG of extinction threatened
‘The Panda is facing extinction.’
b. Der Hund /*Hund bellt.
the dog/*dog bark.PRES.3SG
‘The dog is barking.’
The distinction between the canonical and non-canonical functions of the definite determiner that
Dayal introduces to account for the German facts is rather ad hoc, but the bottom line is this. In a
7
language where determiners are lexicalized, ∩ is still blocked in the case of bare singulars. This is taken
to be the default/canonical case. The problem, however, is that in Old French kind singulars can
definitely be bare as the example introduced in (16).
Although these generalizations appear to be all that is needed to account for the cross-linguistic
facts, the two generalizations in fact collapse in view of the Old French data introduced in this paper.
First, bare singular terms in Old French can appear without a determiner on the kind reading despite the
fact that a bare singular nominal (and a bare plural) can be interpreted as definite without the presence
of a definite determiner ((11)-(13) and (20)-(22)). Second, (42) shows that a bare singular kind term
can be determinerless in a post-verbal position. In (42) the bare noun dromedaire ‘dromedary’ appears
in a thetic position (it is the object of the preposition a ‘to’).
(42) Chamel ressamble a dromedaire
camel resemble.PRES.3SG to dromedary
Il sont auques tout d’un affaire, De condicion, de nature.
they be.PRES.3PL always all of-a kind of condition of nature
‘[The] camel resembles [the] dromedary. They are always of the same kind, with regard to their
condition and teir nature.’ (Bestiaire Marial, from the Rosarius, 14 th century, XIII Chameau,
book II, chapter XLVI, 266)
The only way to save the Blocking Principle as envisaged by Chierchia and his followers is to correlate
the use of determiners to different functions, one of which being the referential function, the other
being the expressiveness function. If these generalizations turn out to be solid in the long run, then
determiners will not automatically apply if available in a given language. Rather, competition between
various forms to match particular meanings will happen at a local level, i.e. it will depend on the
context/on the construction. In this tradition, Grønn (2005) argues that like weak bidirectionality
Blutner (1998, 2000) seems to be what is needed. ‘This version of Optimality Theory allows for partial
blocking, where the unmarked form (the bare singular) “survives” and is accorded its own unmarked
meaning. However, since the bare singular competes with different marked forms in different contexts,
the set of “unmarked meanings” assigned to the bare singular may become rather large and
heteroclite.’
Before the present section to a close, I would like to add one final set of facts from Old French
that suggest the Blocking Principle regardless of how hard we try to save it is nevertheless confronted
with optional data that are difficult to account for. It turns out that the presence of a determiner may
after all be totally gratuitious from the point of syntax and semantics. In Old French, phonological, i.e.,
metric, requirements can force the presence of a determiner in a particular verse. This explains the use
of the article in the first, but not the second verse of the following portion of text.
(43) Il fist le ciel et le soleil
he do.PAST.3SG the heaven and the sun
Et terre et mer et feu vermel
and earth and sea and fire red
‘He created the earth and the sun, and the earth and the sea and the fire all red.’
(Partonopeu de Blois, c. 1182-85,1553-1554)
What (43) shows is that it does not matter semantically whether or not an article is used. This fact
shows that the Blocking Principle ultimately breaks down at the level of the Phonological Form.
4. Analysis: everything starts with an
In Old French, a bare noun, i.e. an NP (whether singular or plural) starts out as an element denoting
. An NP can thus refer to a kind without the need for any further projection. Since this NP is
interpreted as mass, it is under-specified for (morphological) number, which means that NumP does not
project, giving us the structure in (44). If we follow Chierchia, kind terms are like mass nouns, i.e.
inherently plural, where plurality is a semantic property. Morphological number may or may not
surface depending on the language: kind-denoting NPs show no such morphology in languages like
Chinese while they do in the case of Old French. This simply follows from the fact that one language
may have a singular/plural contrast while another might not. Crucially, however, a language with a
singular/plural contrast can have bare nominals (plurals and singulars) denoting kinds.
(44) NP
|
N'
|
N
8

This structure accounts for examples such as those in (15) and (16). For all other cases, NumP
projects spelling out the configuration in (45). Num is associated with uninterpretable φ-features and
an Agree relation is established with the interpretable φ-features of the nominal. Semantically, NumP
denotes a property. The role of NumP is to retrieve instantiations of a kind (objects or sub-kinds). The
nominal carries a set of interpretable φ-features that enter into an Agree relation with the
uninterpretable φ-features associated with Num. Note that absence of NumP does not correlate with
singularity: for both plural and singular terms, it is the case that NumP projects.
(45) NumP
Numsing/pl NP
u[φ] |
N'
|
N
i[φ]
Agree
This accounts for examples such as (11) and (21). If the sentence is habitual as in (46), the habitual
aspect of the sentence is interpreted as the modal operator Gn together with the accommodation of a
contextual variable C. Here again the property quantified on is the property of being an instance of the
kind which is number-neutral.
(46) chien aiment plus home que beste dou monde generaument
dog.PL love. more man.PL than animal of world generally
‘Dogs like man more than any other animal.’
(Li livres dou tresor, year 1260-1267, CLXXXVI, Des chiens, p. 234-235)
When the nominal is interpreted existentially, as in (23), I assume this is achieved via Chierchia’s
(1998) Derived Kind Predication rule, which is basically the only source of existential quantification in
bare nouns.
When interpreted as a predicate as in (30), NumP is projected and the predicate takes a NumP
directly. No PredP need be projected as in Baker (2003). When a determiner is projected, I assume that
it is for referential purposes. Along with traditional wisdom, I assume that a speaker chooses a definite
determiner only if he supposes that the hearer has the means to pinpoint the the referent in question
among all the other referents of the same category in a given situation (the referent is unique, familiar
or identifiable). Thus, on my view, D in (47) encodes definiteness rather than ‘determinerness’.
Following Lyons (1999), I assume Dets appear in the specifier of DP. There are languages where
double determination is encoded: a determiner and an affix are possible (Danish and written Icelandic).
It is thus safe to assume that the determiner sits in the specifier of DP while the affix is on the head D 0 .
Since Old French does not have affixal determiners the head D 0 remains empty.
(47) DP
Det D'
D NumP
Numsing/pl NP
u[φ] |
N'
|
N
i[φ]
Agree
9
As for indefinite determiners, I assume that they project CardP (see Lyons 1999). The indefinite
articles un ‘a’ and uns ‘some’ clearly derive from the cardinal un. They are not determiners, but rather
‘indeterminers’ (as in traditional grammars).
(48) CardP
un Card'
Card NumP
Numsing/pl NP
u[φ] |
N'
|
N
i[φ]
Agree
The second dimension that determiners embody in Old French, as we have seen, is their capacity of
encoding focus. When the speaker wants to insist on a particular nominal, he/she adds an article. This is
especially relevant in object positions, since it is not a focus position in Old French. When an NP is in
an object position and the speaker wants to emphasize that NP, then a determiner is added to the
otherwise bare noun. For those cases, I assume that a Focus phrase is needed in the nominal domain as
represented in (49). The determiner sits in this case in the specifier of FocP.
(49) FocusP
Foc'
Foc NumP
Numsing/pl NP
u[φ] |
N'
|
N
i[φ]
Agree
So far, the mechanics laid out above for Old French appear to translate quite naturally to
Modern French. This is a problem since in contrast to Old French, Modern French does not tolerate
bare nouns, as can be seen from the examples in (50). Therefore, we must account for why a language
A, or a previous stage of a language A, can have bare nouns while a language B, or a previous version
of language B, does not.
(50) a. * Chien aime chat.
dog like.PRES.3SG cat
‘The dog likes the cat.’
b. * Hommes ont vu chiens.
men be.PRES.3PL seen dogs
‘Men saw dogs.’
10

Thus, the one question that remains to be addressed before the present article draws to a close is the
question as to why bare nouns disappeared from the grammar of Old French and why determiners
became obligatory in the modern variety of the language. I would like to argue that the use of definite
determiners as expressors of referentiality and of focus collapsed once plural morphology disappeared
from the morphological make-up of nominals. For object-level bare nouns to be possible at all in a
given language that has a singular/plural contrast, number marking on the noun is necessary. This is the
contention put forward in the remaining few pages of this article.
Whereas in Old French number could appear on the noun and on the determiner, in Modern
French number appears only on the determiner (‘le’ [l?] versus ‘les’ [le], ‘un’ [C] versus ‘des’ [de]). In
les pommes ‘the apples’, the ‘s’ cannot be heard. The disappearance of this final ‘s’ as dates back from
around 1300 (Fouché 1961, Joly 1995). Table 1 shows that in Old French the ‘s’ can not only mark
case, but also number. As Brunot and Bruneau (1956:193) point out, the ‘s’ became the mark of the
plural from the 13 th century onwards. This is because of the disappearance of (nominative) case: the ‘s’
has thus become the mark of the plural by accident. Importantly, the absence of form on the noun had
meaning: either it signified plurality or obliqueness.
Singular Plural
Nominative murs mur
Oblique mur murs
Table 1
In fact, in Old French the morphology necessary to distinguish beween singularity and plurality could
appear (be heard) on the noun but not necessarily on the determiner. In the nominative paradigm, li
could mean either ‘thesingular’ or ‘theplural’ as exemplified by the examples in (51). The only way to tell
whether the noun was singular or plural in this case was through the morphology on the noun. Here the
added ‘s’ signifies singularity; a fact that led to great confusion since that ‘s’ was also used to mark the
plural in the accusative paradigm. This might explain why final consonants on nouns disappeared in the
first place and why li disappeared as a determiner, since it was (now totally) ambiguous.
(51) a. li chevaliers ‘the knight’
b. li chevalier ‘the knights’
In sum, the obligatory presence of determiners with nominals in the French language is due to the
collapse of singular/plural marking on the noun. Formally, I want to argue that this correlates with N as
no longer being associated with φ-features. However, the question that immediately arises is how the
uninterpretable φ-features of Num are satisfied. Since they are uninterpretable, they cannot survive at
LF. I argue that the search space of the φ-features on Num starts with the complement of Num, but
because there is no match in the complement, it grows to include the specifier of Num (for the idea that
Agree is cyclic, see Rezac 2003). This means that determiners and cardinals are not merged in their
respective specifiers, rather in Modern French they are raised there (we thus have a change from Merge
to Move + Merge in the sense of Roberts and Roussou 2003). Suppose then that they are merged in
Spec-NumP, the interpretable features that they carry can satisfy the unintepretable features of Num
and the derivation converges.
(52) a. NumP ⇒ b. DP
Numsing/pl NP D'
u[φ] |
N'
|
N D NumP
11
Det Num'
i[φ]
Numsing/pl NP
u[φ] |
N'
|
N
Texts used/cited
La Prise d’Orange, end of 12th century, Charroi de Nîmes, 12th century, Le Chevalier à la Charrette,
year c. 1180, Lai de Narcisse, year 1170, Li livres dou tresor, year 1260-1267, La vie de Saint Alexis,
year1050, Alex v. 39-40, Aucassin et Nicolette, early 13th century, Guillaume, 12 th century, L’âtre
périlleux, roman de la Table Ronde, year 1268, La Chanson de Rolland, year 1080.
Enéas, year 1150, Yvain, Le Chevalier au Lion, year 1179, La Cantilene de Sainte Eulalie, year 878,
Eracle, year 1180, La Conquête de Constantinople, c. 1212, Bestiaire Marial, from the Rosarius, 14 th
century, Partonopeu de Blois, c. 1182-85.
Selected references
Atle, Grønn. 2005. Norwegian bare singulars: A note on types and sorts. Ms. University of Oslo.
Baker, Mark C. 2003. Lexical categories. Verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blutner, Reinhard. 1998. Lexical pragmatics. Journal of Semantics 15:115-162.
Blutner, Reinhard. 2000. Some Aspects of Optimality in Natural Language Interpretation. Journal of Semantics 17:189-216.
Borthen, Kaja. 2003. Norwegian Bare Singulars. PhD dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Bouchard, Denis. 2003. Les SN sans déterminant en français et en anglais. In Essais sur la grammaire comparée du
français et de l’anglais, eds. Miller, Philip, and Anne Zribi-Hertz, 55-95. Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de
Vincenne.
Bouchard, Denis. 1998. The distribution and interpretation of adjectives in French: A consequence of Bare Phrase Structure.
Probus 10:139-183.
Bouchard, Denis. 2002. Adjectives, number and interfaces: Why languages vary. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Brunot, Ferdinand, and Charles Bruneau. 1956. Précis de grammaire historique de la langue française. Paris: Masson.
Carlier, Anne, and Michèle Goyens. 1998. De l'ancien français au français moderne: régression du degré zéro de la
détermination et restructuration du système des articles. Cahiers de l'Institut Linguistique de Louvain 24:77-112.
Carlson, Gregory. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, and Rint Sybesma. 1999. Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry
30:509-542.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6:339-405.
Cinque, Giuglielmo. 1994. On the evidence for partial N movement in the Romance DP. In Paths towards Universal
Grammar: Studies in honor of Richard S. Kayne, eds. Cinque, Giuglielmo, et al, 85-110. Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown University Press.
Dayal, Veneeta. 2004. Number marking and (in)definiteness in kind terms. Linguistics and Philosophy 27:393-450.
Defiltto, Denis. 2002. Genericity in language. Issues of syntax, logical form and interpretation. Alessandria: Dell’Orso.
Delfitto, Denis, and Jan Schroten. 1991. Bare plurals and the number affix in DP. Probus 3:155-185.
Déprez, Viviane. 2005. Morphological number, semantic number and bare nouns. Lingua 115:857-883.
Epstein, Richard. 1995. L’article défini en ancien français: L’expression de la subjectivité. Langue Française 107:58-71.
Epstein, Richard. 1994. The development of the definite article in French. In Current issues in linguistic theory, 109.
Perspectives on grammaricalization, ed. Paglinca, William, 63-80. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Epstein, Richard. 1993. The definite article: Early stages of development. In Historical Linguistics 1991, ed. Van Marle,
Jaap, 111-134. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Johns Benjamins.
Espinal, M. Teresa. 2004. Lexicalization of light verb structures and the semantics of nouns. Catalan Journal of Linguistics
3:15-43.
Farkas, Donka, and Henriëtte de Swart. 2003. The semantics of incorporation: From argument structure to discourse
transparency. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Fouché, Pierre. 1961. Phonétique historique du français. Paris: Klincksieck.
Foulet, Lucien. 1928. Petite syntaxe de l'ancien français. Paris: Éditions Champion.
Fournier, Nathalie. 2002. Grammaire du français classique. Paris: Éditions Bélin.
Joly, Geneviève. 1995. Précis historique du français. Paris: Armand Colin.
Knittel, Marie-Laurence. 2005. Some remarks on adjective placement in the French NP. Probus 185-226.
Krifka, Manfred. 2003. Bare NPs: Kind-referring, indefinites, both or neither? Proceedings of SALT .
Krifka, Manfred, et al. 1995. Genericity: An introduction. In The Generic Book, eds. Carlson, Gregory, and Francis
Pelletier, 1-124. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Laenzlinger, Christopher. 2005. French adjective ordering: perspectives on DP-internal movement types. Lingua 115:645-
689.
Lamarche, Jacques. 1991. Problems for N 0 -movement to Num-P. Probus 3:215-236.
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2000. The structure of DPs: some principle, parameters, and problems. In The handbook of
contemporary syntactic theory, eds. Baltin, Mark, and Chris Collins, 562-603. Oxford: Blackwell.
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names. Linguistic Inquiry 25:609-665.
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2001. How comparative is semantics? A unified parametric theory of bare nouns and proper names.
Natural Language Semantics 9:335-369.
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mathieu, Eric. 2006a. Quirky subjects in Old French. Studia Linguistica 60:282-312.
Mathieu, Eric. 2006b. Stylistic Fronting in Old French. Probus 18: 219-266.
Mathieu, Eric. 2006c. On the Germanic properties of Old French. Ms.
Mathieu, Eric, and Ioanna Sitaridou. 2005. Split WH constructions in Classical and Modern Greek: A diachronic
perspective. In Grammaticalization and parametric change, eds. Batllori, Montserrat, and Francesc Roca, 236-250.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moignet, Gérard. 1973. Grammaire de l'ancien français. Morphologie - syntaxe. Paris: Klincksieck.
Raynaud de Lage, Guy. 1983. Manuel pratique d'ancien français. Paris: Picard.
Rezac, Milan. 2003. The fine structure of cyclic Agree. Syntax 6:156-182.
Roberts, Ian and Roussou, Anna. 2003. Syntactic change: A Minimalist approach to grammaticalisation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Stowell, Tim. 1989. Subjects, specifiers and X-bar theory. In Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, eds. Baltin, Mark,
and Anthony Kroch, 232-262. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1998. Semantic incorporation and indefinite descriptions: Semantic and syntactic aspects of noun
incorporation in West Greenlandic. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
12