This paper explores the semantics of bare singulars in Turkish, which are unmarked for number in form, as in English, but can behave like both singular and plural terms, unlike in English. While they behave like singular terms as case-marked arguments, they are interpreted number neutrally in non-case-marked argument positions, the existential copular construction, and the predicate position. Previous accounts (Bliss, in Calgary Papers in Linguistics 25:1–65, 2004; Bale et al. in Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20:1–15, 2010; Görgülü, in: Semantics of nouns and the specification of number in Turkish, Ph.d. thesis, Simon Fraser University, 2012) propose that Turkish bare singulars denote number neutral sets and that morphologically plural marked nouns denote sets of pluralities only. This approach leads to a symmetric correlation of morphological and semantic (un)markedness. However, in this paper, I defend a strict singular view for bare singulars and show that Turkish actually patterns with English where this correlation is exhibited asymmetrically. I claim that bare singulars in Turkish denote atomic properties and that bare plurals have a number neutral semantics as standardly assumed for English. I argue that the apparent number neutrality of bare singulars in the three cases arises via singular kind reference, which I show to extend to the phenomenon called pseudo-incorporation and a construction that I call kind specification. I argue that pseudo-incorporation occurs in non-case-marked argument positions following Öztürk (Case, referentiality, and phrase structure, Amsterdam, Benjamins, Publishing Company, 2005) and the existential copular construction, whereas kind specification is realized in the predicate position. The different behaviors of bare singulars in Turkish and English stem from the fact that singular kind reference is used more extensively in Turkish than in English. Furthermore, while there are well-known asymmetries between singular and plural kind reference cross-linguistically, Turkish manifests a more restricted distribution for bare plurals than English in the positions where pseudo-incorporation and kind specification are in evidence. I explain this as a blocking effect, specific to Turkish, by singular kind terms on plural kind terms.

本文探讨了土耳其语中单数的语义，这些单数在形式上没有标记，就像英语一样，但可以像单数和复数一样表现，不像英语。虽然它们作为带大小写的参数表现得像单数术语，但它们在不带大小写的参数位置、存在性连词结构和谓词位置中被中性地解释为数字。以前的记录（Bliss，在 Calgary Papers in Linguistics 25:1–65, 2004；Bale et al. in Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20:1–15, 2010；Görgülü, in: Semantics of nouns and the specification of number在土耳其语，博士论文，西蒙弗雷泽大学，2012 年）提出，土耳其语裸单数表示数字中性集，而形态学复数标记名词仅表示复数集。这种方法导致形态和语义（未）标记的对称相关。然而，在这篇论文中，我为裸单数辩护一个严格的单数观点，并表明土耳其语实际上与英语模式相关，这种相关性表现出不对称。我声称土耳其语中的单数表示原子属性，而单复数具有数字中性语义，就像英语中的标准假设一样。我认为，在三种情况下，裸单数的表观数中立性是通过单数类引用产生的，我将其扩展到称为 我声称土耳其语中的单数表示原子属性，而单复数具有数字中性语义，正如英语标准假设的那样。我认为，在三种情况下，裸单数的表观数中立性是通过单数类引用产生的，我将其扩展到称为 我声称土耳其语中的单数表示原子属性，而单复数具有数字中性语义，正如英语标准假设的那样。我认为，在三种情况下，裸单数的表观数中立性是通过单数类引用产生的，我将其扩展到称为伪合并和我称之为种类规范的构造. 我认为伪并入发生在 Öztürk（案例、指称性和短语结构，阿姆斯特丹，本杰明，出版公司，2005）和存在性连接结构之后的不带大小写标记的论证位置中，而种类规范在谓词位置实现. 土耳其语和英语中裸单数的不同行为源于这样一个事实，即单数种类指代在土耳其语中的使用比在英语中更广泛。此外，虽然在跨语言上单数和复数种类引用之间存在众所周知的不对称，但土耳其语在伪合并和种类说明明显存在的位置上表现出比英语更受限制的裸复数分布。我将其解释为一种阻塞效应，特定于土耳其语，用单数种类词对复数种类词。