Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch1
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

4.1.1.3.Properties of N1

quickinfo

In Section 4.1.1.2 we distinguished the three types of N1s listed in (38), and in this section we will investigate the properties of these types. We will show that N1s of type (38a) are deficient in several respects, whereas N1s of type (38b) behave like regular nouns. N1s of type (38c) show mixed behavior: in some contexts they exhibit deficient behavior, whereas in other contexts they behave just like regular nouns.

Types of N1s:

purely quantificational: quantifier nouns

referential: container, part and collective nouns

mixed: measure nouns

I. Morphological properties
II. Syntactic properties: determiners and prenominal modifiers
III. Some semantic properties
IV. Some similarities between N1s and cardinal numerals

[+] I. Morphological properties

This subsection discusses the morphological properties of the different types of N1. We will first discuss their ability to undergo pluralization and diminutivization, and then their ability to enter into the process of nominal compounding.

[+] A. Pluralization

The primeless examples in (39) show that all N1s can be preceded by the indefinite determiner een'a'. This suggests that we are dealing with count nouns, and we therefore expect pluralization to be possible. The primed examples show that this is indeed possible with most N1s, but that the quantifier noun in (39a') resists the formation of a plural. Furthermore, (39b') shows that the plural marking on the measure noun liter is optional.

a.		een boel mensen
		a lot [of] people

a'.	*	vier boel(en) mensen	QN
		four lot(s) [of] people

b.		een liter melk
		a liter [of] milk

b'.		twee liter(s) melk	MN
		two liter(s) [of] milk

c.		een emmer peren
		a bucket [of] pears

c'.		vier emmers peren	ConN
		four buckets [of] pears

d.		een reep chocolade
		a bar [of] chocolate

d'.		vier repen chocolade	PartN
		four bars [of] chocolate

e.		een groep studenten
		a group [of] students

e'.		vier groepen studenten	ColN
		four groups [of] students

The general pattern in (39) is compatible with the classification in (38): quantifier nouns lack a plural form, whereas the referential nouns do allow plural formation. And, as expected, the measure nouns show mixed behavior: they may or may not take the plural suffix depending on whether they have a quantificational or a referential, package unit reading. Still, there are a number of complications that we will discuss in the following subsections.

[+] 1. Ambiguous N1s

Some nouns are ambiguous between a purely quantificational reading and a referential reading, and it will not come as a surprise that these can enter the constructions in two forms. The examples in (40) illustrate this for the collective noun paar'pair'. Example (40a) represents the—probably unmarked—quantificational reading: the QC refers to a quantity of eight shoes/books that consists of four sets of two shoes, which may or may not form a pair. Example (40b), of course, also refers to eight shoes, but now it is implied that the shoes make up four pairs; the markedness of (40b') is due to the fact that books normally do not come in pairs.

a.		vier paar	schoenen/boeken
		four pairs [of]	shoes/books

b.		vier paren	schoenen
		four pairs [of]	shoes

b'.	??	vier paren	boeken
		four pairs [of]	books

For completeness’ sake, note that whereas the QC in (40a) refers to exactly eight shoes/books, the QC een paar schoenen/boeken may refer to any small number of books; the cardinality can be equal or larger than 2.

[+] 2. Measure nouns involved in linear measurement

Measure nouns like liter in (39b') are ambiguous between a purely quantificational and a referential reading. On the quantificational reading the measure noun takes the singular form and the QC in (39b') simply refers to a certain quantity of milk without any implication about the packaging units of the milk; on the referential, package unit reading the measure noun takes the plural form and the QC refers to two separate units of milk of one liter each. In some cases, however, the referential reading seems to be blocked: this is illustrated in (41) for measure nouns involved in linear measurement.

a.		Er	viel	twee meter sneeuw.
		there	fellsg	two meter [of] snow

b.	*?	Er	vielen	twee meters sneeuw.
		there	fellpl	two meters [of] snow

The infelicity of (41b) is probably due to the fact that the noun phrase twee meter sneeuw does not refer to a fixed quantity of snow given that the quantity depends on the surface area that we are talking about: the noun phrase twee meter is related to the height of the snow, but the length and width of the area covered with snow is left open. When the N2 is such that only one dimension is considered relevant, the use of the measure phrase will give rise to an interpretation involving a certain, more or less fixed, quantity of a substance, and consequently the result improves greatly. This is illustrated in (42): whereas (42a) leaves open the question of how many pieces of rope we are dealing with, the noun phrase in (42b) refers to five pieces of rope of 1 meter each.

a.		Er	was vijf meter	touw	over.
		there	was five meter [of]	rope	left

b.	?	Er	waren	vijf meters	touw	over.
		there	were	five meters [of]	rope	left

The examples in (43) show that pluralization of measure nouns does not necessarily give rise to a referential, package unit interpretation: this is only the case if the measure noun is preceded by a numeral; if a numeral is lacking and the measure noun is given accent, a purely quantificational, in this case “high quantity”, reading is again possible. That the constructions in (43) are purely quantificational is also clear from the fact that the QCs trigger singular agreement on the verb. Observe that on the intended reading, the properties of N2 do not affect acceptability: in contrast to (41b), example (43b) is fully acceptable.

a.	Hij	dronk	liters	melk.
	he	dranksg.	liters [of]	milk
	'He drank many liters of milk.'

b.	Er	viel	meters	sneeuw.
	there	fellsg.	meters [of]	snow
	'there fell many meters of snow'

c.	Er	lag	meters	touw.
	there	laysg.	meters [of]	rope
	'Many meters of rope were lying there.'

The “high quantity” reading is also available with container nouns like emmer'bucket'. However, since example (44a) shows that a QC with this reading triggers plural agreement, it is clear that the container noun must still be considered a regular, referential noun. The part nouns and collective nouns do not allow this “high quantity” reading, which is indicated in (44b&c) by means of a number sign. This difference between the container nouns, on the one hand, and the part and collective nouns, on the other, again suggests that the division between quantificational and referential nouns is not sharp, but gradual.

a.	Er stonden	emmers	peren.
	there stood	buckets [of]	pears
	'There stood many buckets of pears.'

b.	#	Er lagen	repen	chocola.
		there lay	bars [of]	chocolate

c.	#	Er	liepen	groepen	studenten.
		there	walked	groups [of]	students

Finally, note that, unlike cardinal numerals, individuating quantifiers like enkele'some' and vele'many' always trigger the plural suffix on the measure noun. The agreement on the verb can be singular, just as with the numerals in (41). This is shown in (45).

a.		Hij	dronk	enkele/vele	liters/*liter	bier.
		he	drank	some/many	liters/liter [of]	beer

b.	Er	viel/*?vielen	enkele meters	sneeuw.
	there	fellsg/pl	some meters [of]	snow
	'There fell many meters of snow.'

[+] 3. Nouns involved in the measurement of time

Measure nouns involved in measuring time must be plural if preceded by a numeral, as shown by (46a). Nevertheless, we are dealing with a purely quantificational construction here: the QC does not refer to five separate units of vacation of a week each—in fact, there is no implication whatsoever about the temporal units involved.

a.		We	hebben	vijf weken/*week vakantie	per jaar.
		we	have	five weekpl/sg [of] vacation	per year

b.		Vijf weken vakantie per jaar	is/??zijn	eigenlijk	te weinig.
		five weeks [of] vacation per year	is/are	actually	too little

It is not clear to us whether the QC vijf weken vakantie should be treated on a par with QCs like twee liter melk. Apart from the difference in plural marking, the two constructions differ in that in the former the N2vakantie can be replaced by the adjective vrij'free/off' without any clear difference in meaning, whereas adjectives can never be combined with a measure noun like liter. This fact suggests that we are dealing with a second-order predicate in example (46b). This would also account for the fact that the binominal construction in (46b) triggers singular agreement on the verb despite the fact that N1 is plural: the verb always exhibits singular agreement if we are dealing with second-order predication.

		Vijf weken vrij	per jaar	is eigenlijk	te weinig.
		five weeks off	per year	is actually	too little

[+] B. Diminutive formation

The three types of N1s also differ with respect to diminutive formation. The examples in (48c-d) show that the referential nouns allow it, whereas (48a) shows that quantifier nouns do not. As expected, the measure nouns again show mixed behavior: diminutivization is possible if they are interpreted referentially, but not if they are interpreted quantificationally. That the diminutive is derived from the referential and not the quantificational measure noun is clear from the fact illustrated by (48b') that they must be pluralized if preceded by a cardinal numeral.

a.	*	een boeltje mensen
		a lotdim [of] people

b.		een litertje melk
		a literdim [of] milk

b'.		twee litertjes/*litertje melk	MN
		two litersdim/literdim [of] milk

c.		een emmertje peren
		a bucketdim [of] pears

c'.		twee emmertjes peren	ConN
		two bucketsdim [of] pears

d.		een reepje chocolade
		a bardim [of] chocolate

d'.		twee reepjes chocolade	PartN
		two barsdim [of] chocolate

e.		een groepje studenten
		a groupdim [of] students

e'.		twee groepjes studenten	ColN
		two groupsdim [of] students

Note that een beetje'a bit' in een beetje water'a bit of water' is only an apparent counterexample to the claim that quantificational N1s do not undergo diminutivization: een beetje is a lexicalized formation, which is clear from the fact that it does not have a counterpart without the diminutive suffix: *een beet water. The plural form ??twee beetjes water also seems degraded (although a number of rather forced cases can be found on the internet).

[+] C. Nominal compounds

The data discussed in Subsections A and B show that it is necessary to make a distinction between purely quantificational and referential N1s. Only the latter allow pluralization and diminutive formation. This distinction seems supported by data involving compounding. The denotation of a nominal compound is mainly determined by its second member, which can be considered the head of the compound; the first member only has the function of further specifying the denotation of the second one; cf. Section 1.4. This is clear from the fact that a tafelaansteker'table lighter' is a kind of lighter, not a kind of table. Given this, we predict that only referential nouns can appear as the head/second member of a compound.
The examples in (49) show that this prediction is indeed correct. The first prediction is that the container, part, and collective nouns can appear as the head of a compound, and the acceptability of (49c-e) shows that this is indeed the case, although we should note that perenemmer is a possible, but non-attested word. The second prediction is that the quantifier nouns cannot occur as the head of a compound given that they do not have a denotation, and (49a) shows that this is again the case. A problem is that we expect the measure nouns to exhibit mixed behavior, whereas they actually pattern with the quantifier nouns. This suggests that the referential reading of measure nouns is rather marked, and only arises under strong pressure from the context.

a.	*	mensenboel	QN
		people-lot

b.	*	melkliter	MN
		milk-liter

c.		perenemmer	ConN
		pears-bucket

d.		chocoladereep	PartN
		chocolate-bar

e.		studentengroep	ColN
		students-group

Note that the quantificational force of the container, part, and collective nouns has completely disappeared in the compounds in (49c-e). This also holds for nouns that are normally used as quantifier nouns. For example, in a compound like beestenboel'pig-sty', the head of the compound is not the quantifier noun boel but a noun denoting collections of things that need not necessarily belong together. Similarly, the meaning of the second member of compounds like studentenaantal'number of students' is not related to the quantificational interpretation of aantal, but to its referential interpretation; cf. the discussion of example (4).

[+] D. Conclusion

The findings in Subsections A to C, summarized in Table 2, have shown that we a distinction should be made between N1s that are purely quantificational and N1s that are more referential in nature. Quantifier nouns belong to the first kind; container, part and collective nouns all belong to the second type; and measure nouns are ambiguous between the first and the second type.

Table 2: Morphological properties of N1s

	quantificational	mixed	referential
	QN	MN	ConN	PartN	ColN
plural	—	+/—	+	+	+
diminutive	—	+/—	+	+	+
compounding	—	+/—	+	+	+
referential	—	+/—	+	+	+

The pattern in Table 2 corresponds nicely with our findings in Table 1: that quantifier nouns are purely quantificational is in accordance with the fact that they cannot trigger agreement on the finite verb or a demonstrative; that measure nouns are ambiguous between a purely quantificational and a referential, package unit reading is in accordance with the fact that either they or N2 may trigger agreement; that container, part and collective nouns are referential is consistent with the fact that they block agreement between N2 and the finite verb or the demonstrative. The fact that all N1s have some quantificational force is consistent with the fact that in all cases, N2 can be interpreted as the semantic head of the construction.

[+] II. Syntactic properties: determiners and prenominal modifiers

Subsection I has shown that the classification in (38) into quantificational, referential and hybrid N1s is reflected by the morphological behavior of these nouns. This subsection shows that the classification is also reflected by their syntactic properties, especially in the type of determiners and (quantificational) modifiers they may have; the purely quantificational nouns are more restricted in this respect than the referential ones. For example, given that a definite article is used to identify a specific entity that is part of the denotation of the noun, we expect that they can only combine with referential nouns, which have such a denotation, and not with purely quantificational nouns, which lack such a denotation.

[+] A. Articles

Example (50) illustrates again that all N1s can be preceded by the indefinite article een. If we are dealing with a quantifier noun, however, the definite article cannot be substituted for the indefinite one. With measure nouns this is possible, although this results in the loss of the purely quantificational reading: het ons kaas refers to a certain piece or quantity of cheese that can be identified by the addressee. The remaining types of N1s can all be preceded by both the definite and the indefinite article. Observe that it is N1 that agrees in gender and number with the article: the N2s in (50) would all select the article de, not het; cf. the discussion of example (16) in Section 4.1.1.2, sub I.

a.		een boel studenten
		a lot [of] students

a'.	*	de boel studenten	QN
		the lot [of] students

b.		een ons kaas
		an ounce [of] cheese

b'.		het ons kaas	MN
		the ounce [of] cheese

c.		een kistje sigaren
		a boxdim. [of] cigars

c'.		het kistje sigaren	ConN
		the boxdim. [of] cigars

d.		een stuk zeep
		a piece [of] soap

d'.		het stuk zeep	PartN
		the piece [of] soap

e.		een groepje studenten
		a groupdim [of] students

e'.		het groepje studenten	ColN
		the groupdim [of] students

It should be noted, however, that many noun phrases that normally do not allow a definite article can be preceded by it if they are modified: a proper noun like Amsterdam, for example, normally cannot be preceded by the definite article, but if it is modified by, e.g., a relative clause the definite article is licensed: het Amsterdam *(dat ik zo goed ken)'the Amsterdam that I know so well'. The examples in (51) show that quantifier nouns exhibit ambiguous behavior in this respect: some, like boel in (51a), do not allow the definite determiner in these modified contexts either, while others, like paar'couple of' or stoot'lot of' in (51b), are compatible with the determiner in such contexts.

a.	*	de boel studenten	(die	ik	ken)
		the lot [of] students	that	I	know

b.		de paar/stoot boeken	*(die	ik	heb	gelezen)
		the couple/lot [of] books	that	I	have	read

Note, however, that the determiner in (51b) is probably not part of the noun phrase headed by N1, but of the noun phrase headed by N2. A reason for assuming this is that the noun paar is neuter (at least in its use as a collective noun), and should therefore select the definite determiner het, not deas is the case in (51b): het/*de paar schoenen'the pair of shoes'. This suggests that the construction in (51b) is similar to the quantified constructions in (52), where the article is undisputedly selected by the noun.

a.		de vijfentwintig boeken	??(die	ik	gisteren	heb	besteld)
		the twenty-five books	that	I	yesterday	have	ordered

b.		de vele boeken	??(die	ik	heb	gelezen)
		the many books	that	I	have	read

The fact that quantifier nouns normally cannot be preceded by a definite article may cast some doubt on the assumption that the element een in constructions with quantifier nouns is a “true” article. The idea that we are dealing with a spurious article should not be dismissed given that there are many contexts in which een clearly does not function as an article; cf. Section 4.2.1 for another example. For instance, een can also be used in examples such as (53) with a plural noun, where it seems to function as a modifier with an “approximative” meaning. It is tempting to relate this use of een to that in een boel mensen in (50a).

een	vijfentwintig	studenten
a	twenty-five	students
'approximately/about twenty-five students'

That we are dealing with a “spurious article” when the noun is purely quantificational can be indirectly supported by the fact illustrated in (54a) that German ein is not morphologically marked for case if it precedes a quantifier noun, as it would normally be if it were part of a referential noun phrase; cf. (54b), where the noun Paar is referential and the article ein has the dative ending -em.

a.		mit	ein	paar	kühlen	Tropfen	QN
		with	a	couple [of]	cool	drops

b.		mit	einem	Paar	schwarzen	Schuhen	ColN
		with	adat	pair [of]	black	shoes

Another reason for assuming that the element een in een boel mensen differs from the other occurrences of een in (50) is that it cannot be replaced by its negative counterpart geen'no'. This is illustrated in (55); note especially the difference between (55a) and (55e), which form a minimal pair (provided we abstract away from the agreement on the finite verb).

a.	*	Er	staan	helemaal	geen boel studenten	op straat.	QN
		there	stands	prt	no lot [of] students	in the.street

b.		Ik	heb	helemaal	geen ons kaas	gezien.	MN
		I	have	prt	no ounce [of] cheese	seen

c.	Ik	heb	helemaal	geen kistje sigaren	gestolen.	ConN
	I	have	prt	no box [of] cigars	stolen
	'I didnʼt steel any box of cigars'

d.	Ik	heb	helemaal	geen stuk zeep	gepakt.	PartN
	I	have	prt	no piece [of] soap	taken
	'I havenʼt taken any piece of soap.'

e.	Er	staat	helemaal	geen groep studenten	op straat.	ColN
	there	stands	prt	no group [of] students	in the.street
	'There is no group of students in the street.'

The data in this subsection suggest that quantifier nouns cannot be preceded by an article. In (50a), the element een is a spurious indefinite article, which is possibly related to the modifier een in examples such as (53). The other types of N1 occur both with the indefinite and the definite article.

[+] B. Demonstrative pronouns

Demonstrative pronouns exhibit a pattern similar to the definite article. Example (56a) shows that a quantifier noun like boel never occurs with a demonstrative pronoun, whereas other quantifier nouns, like paar in (56b), are more readily acceptable with demonstrative pronouns (especially the proximate ones). Note that it is not necessary to modify the QC in (56b), which may be due to the fact that the demonstratives themselves function as modifiers in the sense that they imply some partitioning of the set denoted by N2; cf. Section 5.2.3.

a.	*	Deze/Die	boel boeken	(die ik gelezen heb)	liggen	daar.
		these/those	lot [of] books	that I read have	lie	there

b.	Die/?Deze	paar euroʼs	(die hij me gaf)	maken	geen verschil.
	those/these	couple [of] euros	that he me gave	make	no difference
	'Those few euros he gave me make no difference.'

Recall from Section 4.1.1.2, sub I, that the demonstratives in (56b) do not agree in gender and number with N1 but with N2. This can be readily illustrated by means of the minimal pair in (57). In (57a), the QC refers to two shoes that form a pair: the neuter noun paar is therefore referential and the demonstrative agrees with it. In (57b), the QC refers to a set of two or more shoes: the neuter noun paar is therefore purely quantificational and the demonstrative agrees with N2.

a.		dit/dat	paar	schoenen	ColN