{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023712183156173343, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003270645952575634, 'mean_word_length': 5.0594059405940595, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Bare plurals in object position: which verbs fail to give existential readings, and why?

We examine closely which predicates fail to allow existential readings for their bare plural objects. We show that, among the verbs, rather than it being the individual level predicates (Carlson 1977) that fail to allow existential readings, it is a narrower set of verbs, which we identify with the “psychological verbs with experiencer subjects” (the psych-ES verbs). We give an explanation which relies on the distinction between verbal predicates which have an eventuality argument and ones which do not. We propose that an existential reading is made possible by the presence of a localising situation, which may be provided either by the eventuality argument of the verb or by an appropriate context. We propose that the psych-ES verbs are distinctive among verbs in not possessing an eventuality argument, which accounts for their lack of existential readings for bare plural objects. We show, too, why psychological verbs which lack eventuality arguments tend to have experiencer subjects. . Finally, we offer a tentative proposal concerning the nature of psych-ES verbs which may explain their lack of eventuality arguments.