Eckhard Bick - VISL

As can be seen, plural forms are indifferent to position (pre- and postnominal position
alternate freely), and imply added definiteness, usually, but not necessarily, provided by
the definite article or a demonstrative, or by a definite expression, that doesn’t permit an
article, like in ‘todo Portugal’, ‘todo ele’.
Lack of added definiteness (i.e., mostly cases where 'todo' is followed
immediately by its NP-head) implies both singular and prenominal position, which is
why I assign it its own classification, enumerative distributive.
The third group comprises singular forms with added definiteness, with free
position alternation ('toda a vida' and 'a vida toda' are equivalent terms).
My distributional distinction between "enumerative" and "integrative" can be
semantically interpreted as being about "how many" and "how much", respectively, and
the tagger's lexicon provides two corresponding tags, and , for
disambiguation. For 'todo', the distinction is clearly related to the feature of
countability, with enumeratives being countable, and integratives not. Rather than say
(for reasons of logical semantics) that enumerative distributives ('toda casa' - 'each
house') are countable but, as existential quantifiers, do not have a plural form, I prefer to
view them as the singular form of plural enumeratives ('todas as casas' - 'all [the]
houses') - which otherwise would be countables without a same-lexeme singular. Unlike
English, Portuguese - using the same lexeme for both cases - provides morphological
evidence for this view.
Integrative 'todo' ('todo o bolo' - 'all of the cake'), on the other hand, when
pluralised morphologically ('todos os bolos' - 'all cakes'), is no longer a mass expression
('how much'), and the concept of 'whole cakes' can only be expressed by means of a
different lexeme, the adjective inteiro ('whole'): 'bolos inteiros'. Thus, what I mean with
the term integrative ('how much'), is uncountable only for the lexeme 'todo', not for
'inteiro'. Interestingly, 'inteiro' not being polysemous, it is the ambiguous 'todo' that
exhibits such strict morphological-distributional limitations, allowing, as a translational
bonus, the automatic distinction between 'all', 'each' and 'whole'.
(2b) is a special case. According to my systematics, it should only have an
enumerative distributive meaning, but is, in fact, usually employed in alternation with
(1c), possibly because of semantic interference, - ‘todo o mundo’ analytically means
‘the whole world’ (), but is metaphorically used to mean ‘everybody’. Under
the semantic influence of ‘every’, the expression might then have been
shortened to ‘todo mundo’, not usually meaning ‘every world’ but ‘everybody’. As an
exception and a metaphor, ‘todo mundo’ must enter the tagger's lexicon as a fixed
expression.
Note also that ‘todo’ is the only Portuguese determiner allowed to modify personal
pronouns (3c-d). Since it also is the only modifier allowed before the definite article, an
explanation may be that personal pronouns replace whole definite NPs, and that "added
definiteness" is exactly what distinguishes the two meanings of 'todo' seen in
- 295 -