Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2009.pleonastic Determiners

    Uploaded by

    Aviv Schoenfeld
    20 views15 pages

    Original Title

    2009.pleonastic determiners

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    20 views15 pages

    2009.pleonastic Determiners

    Uploaded by

    Aviv Schoenfeld

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 15
    (Central Institute of Indian Languages THE FIFTH ASIAN GLOW: CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS ated BY Nguyen Chi Duy Khuong Richa Samar Sinha cm. Fosssit New ELH NA ‘Tue rina Asan Glow: Conference Froceeiags TASRERASAE SS iene ee see int Pubs ber 3009 ‘sty 1952 © Catal tno nan Langues, Mor 2008 . be eee af em ny a ey my man hon, mince tie ry, tern ray rs Sh Prt nae acters icra cing Contains af ian Langage “Mazsagaet. Mjaore 370006, INDIA ons .21.251529 Dives ‘Exmaitrajesh@il spy sofi.net ” Fax 0091-82-2513032 PABX-On912 12345000 Website: iors or fare iran cst: eae ork Siaasacarya sit sinascaryeaelstpmy sae vases spy alec Re 400.00 Paid by Prof. Rajesh Scher, Dist in che Cena esti onda Langues Mice Prin by Me SB Biswas, Manager CL Printing Press. Mangan, Mysore 06 ide Cover Desi H. Manoir FOREWORD "Then en snc ede of unue! “The Generative Linguists ofthe Old world (GLOW inspired by the pioneering work of Chomsky sn his many outstanding flowers seo he abe, believe that to unravel he abstract properties of human Languages i 0 Inovéforvadin heir quest to understand the human mind ad its generative ‘ipuiy for language I is theefore heartening fo note tat in 2005, GLOW. tno is India, where Well oer two thousand yeas ago Linguists as a Science teas founded and where Grammar (Vyaaran) was considered. the mest Spat ofthe sic branches of knowlege (at ofthe four Inguag> rated branches; Phonetis, Prosody and Ebmology being he oes thee) which men tho aspired for wisdom were expeted 1 lear. Panis astounding werk on Sansint gammar found meatien in Noam Chomsky’s 1965 profice 10 ‘Aspects ofthe Thcory of Syst” as en example ofthe generative enterprise. ‘Porto thatthe Disover of Sanskrit had enhaned India's corbin othe ‘uly of comparative grammar (which was the evolutionary siete padi ‘of linguist ogury a thet ofthe let cary), and inthe pst generative ‘rammar phase it was agin contact wih India as a “Socilingusie gin Which stengihened the socoinguisic enterprise 1 link competence with performance IIL asthe apoe body on language mates ofthe county is commited to fake forward ail those who. ae engaged in the scholly. pursuit of ‘iertanding human lrguage ih general and Iaian languages in paticul. [ven scurry Took at the paper te volume wll bring to the fre tat ‘several repaid researches anf teachers fom actos te world had come lopsher in ths endeavour al Dath, where represeatatives ‘fom both Jawaharlal Neha University and Delhi Univers ad led the proceedings, sfen though somewhat delayed, wil conuibute in some manner "0 revitalization of lings sodes inthe cout and foster more enduring Davin in fire tat would make findings ofthe OM Worl relevant 0 {he emerging New World aran Aero. Rajesh Sachdeva Director Icharge ‘Cena tute of indian Languages Mysore es ah 19.00 he Re “neon ne et Pty of he a ‘earn in Lat“ Le Ry" oe Un Som Ten tig 204 (8). Te Src of CP ad I The Cooly of Src Tea Wace Ot Eanes te Thy of Aer Depenecs, MED. Ta WT Dy 998. “On Lei Ce” Ju 6 a do nai, 8 9 "a Tin Dn, Te Hs flo i The Wi Hn UT ekg evan fon ema aa ta ‘na, Wir Tle icy Vays Chm 0 "Tonys hao A Toit Sh fal ip aye he Ung Tae Pte ‘Wnt, 192 sub ad Sse ovens of whi" of East “ie Lge, 1229951 ssid ‘Semantic Variation and Pleonastic Determin the Plural Definite Generic The Case-of Veneta Dayal Departent of Linguistics, Rutgers University ‘pe ste ct ee ses en oecteeetrpcaae emttams trees Se arma eee cece ee ae Bivsag aa eceacte meee Save Pirie ees BES Syste ein fa Sete 1 ttn Sct ok ii Se eon of Maen Gm = ‘mec Sii nechs d Gein ese oe say cose st pe pn ee ee ee ies ser on a ar at wn tne ae ‘evestony abun onl eta tn se oe ope ee ae ee Sein rma ona ne ag cae ‘ces cuns es Shr oh et sep tO yo wn sc po wom lye a on ‘eeu erate Dern Gin Tos elnch ar ‘spent ears Sa tinct Ca “1 Ee ae ek ote Grint, tee adrian Gow Ve sop Vatinon at Wathigon Unvety m S.Lacs he SURGE a Seg oak ‘hinge ine Sei 4 Spec! tts fo Reta Ma eae ls str ep rhe lst ine. ales enn sesh cron ad eae noun phrase denotaton (Chiecia, 198). “These inves proved extrely aspiring, with the result that ess Linguistic studies have now become cial in the development of semantic theory. Among the domains in which tis hasbeen mast evident re analyses lof PolaityFree Choice items and scnricty. This paper deals withthe notion ‘st plconastc oc expletive elements in ight of ur iereased knowledge ofthe ‘rossingite expression of geneity and is based largely on Dayal (200). ‘Consider the following examples, all of which can or mist be understood © ‘oe guneie teens about the species as a whole ater chan particule tements about a specifi group of individuals. (1b) is Malan nd means ‘scaly what (le) means in English: () & The dog barks (when tis hungry) bod ann abbsiano theplucl dogs bark Dogsbark ‘Wen we ee porais where dsinet forms map onto similar meds, “whet inthe sume language ori diferent langusges, ts mata wondet ‘iethr the lous of ference isin the semis or te syt,In the case of steely, oneview isto consider the determiners in (Ia) and (1b) tbe leone, taking the “steminerles form in (Ie) have the elvait trutre fora kind tem, Under this view, apparent dferences in frm ae ‘Goethe level of epesentton tat feeds nto the semantics {she [oe] [ean => [gh (can) = fogs. Whatever assamptons we make forthe Interpretation of English bare pliale at Kind denoting tems transer over feamlssly 10 the singular dete gence in English andthe plural definite ere in Romance. The ase of semantic variaon becomes moot ‘hs alteroative approach would be to main the diference i ems and defo te mesg in sich a way that thse umate seman consbatons ‘ormerpe: he's dog) = ri esi T) = 7 (gssD = 1°? A rior, Toth positions are reasonable but hey ave diferent consequences. The fst “eps some semiotics ny be etd io eo (Ua Fr mr cana se Daa 209 pprach predicts complete synonymy while the later allows for overlap rather than identity i meaning this paper Iwill argue for an approach of the second type, one hat, ‘maintains morpho-synctic difeences in semantic interpretation. This ‘oston wil be argued for onthe basis of linguini evidence relating tothe Romance plural define and the English bare plural. The English singulse efit generic is not discussed in detail for teasns of space (se Dayal, 2004), But fit 1 would Iie to make asaiologial comment onthe use of ‘the notion pleonasti in Tinguitic analyses, using data fom another domain. ‘The situation we see with plonaste generic determines is reminiscent of ‘onitoversy tht has been associated wih the scope markngfartal wh (2) & [Who [does Car ink [Maria tatked w ‘. [Was glaub Kar [mit wemy Maria gesprochen hat J} ‘vit thine Kar ith whom Mari paken hae ere to, there is a perceived synonyiy between (23) the more fiir construction, and 2), an exes” suueture found ia Geman, Hind, Romani ‘mong many other languages. The vie that (2) has the same soot t LE {5 (2), that taking Geman war and it cotnterpars in other scope marking lingunges tobe pleonatc, has the inmoedte advanage of being able 10 spply an avalablo semantic analysis to a new constnetion. The altratve spyroach iso teat afb) onthe own ems, taking 2a) © havea stuctue Jn which an embedded whexpresson takes wide scope, and (28), o have a structure in which two eontentul whexpressions combine in unexpected ‘va toyed meaning smart (23) Tes aat my intention to reargue the eae of scope marking hare, but imply to point ou thatthe original ingest teat was sa pleonasc eam from the desir to bring an unfair consrton i ine witha beter understood onstruction But loser comparison of the two constutions soon revealed ube diferences between them that gave the edge to an approach tht yan me ended dente mening ht my or yt ee bat wot alee cowpea spears rmantaiaed observable stucturaldisinetions (see Dayal, 2000 for specific argument). The idea that thre sre plonastic generis determiners, 1 would like to suggest, may have asim geneis. tis interesting to speculate how ‘ve woud view the English bare pal had Cartons (1977) highly inet wrk on generics sted withthe Romance defiite generic instead ofthe English bare plural. Would we have been tempsed 19 post nll definite ‘deteminer fr English bare paral since our fame of reference wo hve ‘ben languages in which the definite determine did double duty a standard etn anda peneie?™ Infact, one coud go Furs, and speculate how we would view the regular English dtite determine ad Frege nd Russll sted with South Asian languages. In thos languages Bare nominal re used to pick oat conexally salen ents and to refer anaphorically,fnstios staadadly assoisted with definite determiner. Coming from sich a perspective, would they not have been temped to eat English she ab pleontie? 1 ill not purse these counefactals any further but leave ther on the ible as 9 somewhat Ligh hearted noe of exuton on methodological assumptions tht may beat wrk when we coaidr constructions where distin fens converge on meaning. Inthe rest ofthis paper, dows ways in which dfints and bare nonnals Yield generic readings, and. make s conerete propos about the ers Fnguistie varntons that hve been noted in this domain, My claims ae limited tothe phenomena under discussion here [leave open the question of ‘whether natura languages can have oe pleat expressions. 2. GeneresKind Terms, Definite and Indefinite, ‘Allanguages distinguish between generic and paricul scents adj all Janguages geneity depends poo te ineraction of popes of the Yhal andthe nominal systems. As aleeady indisted the focus of thie fp ie on the nominal system. Since the tems deint, indefinite apd geetc are Somitimes'wed to tk about the form and sometimes 16 ta aboot the “yi tg wa ten we ref tree, on rcp ae etre plo ea sec whi re ans) dtc dese oe ‘rl mero somal vache ne Gh frig Ponty ‘meanings stociated with those forms, it might be welt evew the basic sumptions and terminology. In gency I use the tems defie. and indefinite to refer w the form, and the tems contextually anchored and tvistenal readings to refer to meaning Use bare nominal to refer 1 the fn, reserving the terms kad dnotaton reading and gener reading to refer to meaning. A kind tem, inpincpe, can have ay form, bare nominal, ett or ndfnit, as long ast denotes kind entity. 2 English Kind Terms Cation (1972) proposed some diagnosis to separate out Kind tems from ‘other nominls tat also may yield gence readings (alo (Kriha etal 1995)), The examples in 3) and (4) use predicates that apply meaning ‘nly tothe species us whole, nt to invidual ofthe oinry sor objects inbis teams! ©) a Dinosaurs aw extnet, "The daseus ae extinct © Some dinosues ae extn 41 Fido and Roy ae esti, The dinosaur inex, *A dasa sexe, Fido extinct. 4. "Dinos is extinct. o Theres as we can se, vary between the plural nd the singular fom, Using this dingo, we can say tht English hs wo Kind deboing terms, the tare plrl andthe singular definite. Iwill ot go ino the differences beeen these two inthis paper, or wil {discuss st any lng he satus of ‘masses ike water o ce whic Behav ike singulrterms for purposes of syactic agreement, but like plural tent for purpscs of definiteness ‘marking I ee the eader to Dayal (2004 for discussion of these ses, ‘When object feel predcies occur in inperfectve aspect, bare plas, Singular defies aswell as singular indefntes yield generic readings The {SBR de Scie cnn of Eg nea tnesoic eto, hes yr abpsso ei singular definite, becanse tan function as kind term ora regular refering term, senbiguous between generic anda habit reading. English nes a bore singulr: (©) a: Dogsbark (hen they ae hungry). 1. Adog barks when tis hung). © Thedog barks (when tis hungry) ‘We take English to have only two gemine kind terms the Bare pra an the singular definite, based on th diagnostic of kindlevel preicaton rather than ‘on gener tatements involving objet evel predicate" "To complete the discussion we note that lnough the bare purl and the singular definite ae bot kind terms, their behavior éifers in satements ‘where aspect supports an episodic interpretation. The baeplral lens sel 0 ‘essa iferpetation while the definite singsr kind rm doesnt. Itis ‘only astatment bout a contetully salient do. (© Dogsare barking. = Some dogs are barking. bb Thedogisharking, 2 Adog x Barking ‘The point dat I hope to fave ighlghied inthis discusion is tat the colton between form and meaning is not perfect. Bare plurals are kind terms, ax demonstrated by thee compatibility with Kind-evel predation, but canbe wed to make puriulr statements about members ofthe species. And Indefinite singular terms, which are not Kinddeooing, can be wsed in stuements about the whole species. This distinction between form and ‘meaning wl be important when we ty to look a the ways in which different ‘trl anguapes navigate the divide 22. Analyses of Kind Terms CCarion’s well-knowa weatment of bare plurals kes them to be names of ‘Tae edge shy laos Bark he inal sing an be de ss Thow a ia antral salt dogo teh of Baring. A ad ‘ani eset nde neal ding ‘eal th ue of tlt empire pais 1 fw ‘once na cal (09 ines rat kind ong So Daal 00 sed ‘Macnee forsee nl kins, where kinds ae individuals ofa special sort They diflerfom oninary individuals in ving instanations catered over weeldlsinatons, a shown sehemataly below 0, "Dogs = dogs aI Fidouy Boxster Rovers Seti ‘This view of kinds is fly well-established and tore ie gensral agreement ‘hat knd-evelpredicaon requis king-eve argument. Iti ls probably ‘ot controversial tha these kin individuals are bull up from basic proper} level meanings. That i, a commen noun typically denotes a opty, & funtion from worldstatons to ses of individuals that have the propery. ‘Tho wick isto get fom thee tothe typeof meaning associted with noun phrases, an enty-aype meaning that woul! cape the ontological view of ‘Kinds given in (7), This has been formalized in a rystem such as Chirhia (1998) where the kind Sormtion operat NOM is defined asa fintion frm ‘worldlsinatons to the maximal entty tht instattes the property ttt ‘worden: @)aNOMC): Weraer bso (P 60)) ' Dinos af ent = extn dinsmars) [Note thatthe operation NOM: has the same type as oninary determiners, & faction frm property meanings (>) 10 NP type meanings, (<8). ‘While its posited by Chiereia a a ever type si, euld as easily be the ‘mesning of exe! determiner I for example, we had good reason to posit an empty determiner in (6), we could define is meaning as NOM with no Aitecnce in eesuls, Semantic commitment to this way of deriving kind terms, therefore, is independent of syntactic comments to treating bar plurals as NPs rater than DP, We retro this question ltr inthe pape, ‘The second sipet of Carlson's proposal fr bare plurals has received less. ‘ives acceptance, According to him, even chect level. predision involving bare plarals makes reference to Kinds. That hae plurals aways eooie kinds but they allow semantic operations access to the individual instantiations ofthe Kind and the lei! and aspect speiiaion onthe verb eterines whether the quaniifeaion over those insantitons will be universal or existential ‘Again, we ean we Chicria's formalization, given in (8), to make things comer. The base ide i hat kind argument is of the sight ype (oun phrase te: <5) but the wrong sr kind ater than an objec, to be used with predicates that apply 1 ordinary individuals, The repair operation Derive Kind Pedicaton (DKP) appeals to the inverse of NOM: Le. PRED: "Uwe kes a kind teem ar given nde, word o ston, arta the ‘tof individuals that are par ofthe maximal catty denoted there, Deft existential quanifcaton then comes into ply and, depending on the sept, ‘site geerc or existent quantiitionl fone” (©) & DAP: 1FP applies wo objects (.. oti individ) and denotes ‘kind then P00 = 3x PA) a PCO] be PRED) Akos fe] (40) Dogs bark, Gens, x dogs] [bark (11) a Dogsare barking b. BeL"dous(s) & tasking) ‘The alemative view of bare plurals, ispined bythe Discourse Representation ‘Theory (DRT) approach to init is that they sre ambiguous (Wikinson, 1994; Diesing, 1992; Gerstner & Kf, 1993 for example). They ae kad denoting tems and ean therefore be arguments of Knlevel predates. And they ae ordinary indefntes so they can be arguments of objec level predicates. Like ter indefnies they introduce discourse referent, hich an be caught by genee operators or exists closure depending onthe specication on the vet, (12a. Gens. (ops fark), "Nw ati how's systen eel quar nef sed ithe reece agnor The ese Sea dey ns he be, Se fdogsta) & takings) Foc present purpose, it snot rial choos hetwcen thee two approaches We wil make our cae based on Kindlevel prediction, en wich the two spproaches agree (ee Krifka et al, 1995); Dayal, 2008 for fre discussion. 24. Analyses of Defines and Indefnes {Lecus tum now to dfinites and indefinite and consider tsi contribution semantes. A very standard view of defini tht they ree to the maxi ait that mees the desvpion. We ake the domain of invduals wo inte tom individu swell as their sums and ass that singulsr morphology ‘ests the domain of quantifeation to the set of stom individual, while ual morphology brings in plural individuals ito the set We tke he 0 ‘denote a function IOTA which tesa set of enites and rts the unique ‘maximal eatin hat set. A maximal entity sone that incles ll thers ce Link, 1983; Landen, 1989). 03) 5 DRS. BR BIS RES Bower Rowe Suttle The dogs™= ({B, R,S, BAR, BPS, RéS, BFRVS)) = BERS The dog"? (8, 8))~ undefined 4 The dog"'=1((F})= F As We ean se the miximaityYequrement ence hat pial definite wil bck out the whole group wile singular defines ill denote the unique individual wih the relevant propery of be undefined. la (135) BERS i the ‘only individual hat includes al thers inthe set 50 thei defined. In (136) no such indvidal exits since B, R and S ae all atomic and none of than ince the oters. The maximaltyeequrement delivers the ntton tht the ‘aly sition in which a singular definite wil be dine sone in which thre ‘ony oe inva in he domain ‘The claim that maximal is part ofthe meaning ofthe definite determines ‘sed on examples like (1408), based on diagnostic in Lochner (1985). Indefines ifr from éetnites in not requiiog maximaliy. The semanis operation asocatod with indefinite is EXIST: which simpy picks out some ey rom the domain’ (14) a. *The dogs are sleeping hut th dogs are at, ‘+The dogs sleeping bu the dogs ot (15). Some dogs are slesping but some dogs are not 1s. Some dogs sleeping but ome dog is ot (16), 3Some dogs" =3 ((B,R,$, BR, BIS, ReS, BeRIS) BHR or BIS or RSS or BARS. . 3Some dop”*=3 (B,R,$))=B or Sor R it page rh pining ott cil st pa the emacs of donates, ich we teed veal oe en ‘arse ct hv te deems sv the dgosi a isiealy oso” ts ain minal, nis ‘snd ities ak ie in ti slson 0 dane Kapp HN; Hc, 1). Denies, eps fein, nets owl, snd in pasa acy apr Coie flowing (07) 1s some dps The dogs "Some dogs were baking. ‘There are many attempts in the Hieature to sreemline the semis of efntenes by eliminating one ofthese parameters, keeping only maximalty only fiiiisynovely but in his paper Fill resin bot. As noted ia ¥ orca ela on of msn ete aso te fac it ee te Stns een nen heya enn Ti toes he oe 2 (1) ‘lcs twp rte ey sl ts rp oni ‘lees wpe wl a ete he matin ety in he hw he enans stort Rea pate tat sy de vay Sri ere asc vento ey hdd Se Steet eae ‘See Reine (2005) a ie vw it dents may ole 4 winsinty Dayal (2004, Hind bare nominals can be considered defies slong the mension of maximaliy, but not along the dimension of discourse fairy. We wil se further evidence of the need to keep both aspect of the definite determiner in play when we extine roslinguns ates in sections 3 ad ‘What we ive s0 fr, then, isthe following able of coreations terme {orm and meaning in English. Only bare pls and singular defines yield ‘ind eadings, all forms excep the defi paral yield gene readings, only defines yield contexually anchoted or anaphoric’ readings and ae ‘acompaible wit existential readings" OF course, there are places whet the tines betwen te various cells blur and we wll discuss some of thm in the next seston, Bu this simplified pice of the distinction between form and meaning is wf to have as we proceed. ons | “simp evenic “CANCHORED xsrENnAL Bestia |v Tv v Dette Set | xv z Pla v ry z i Table I Form Mecring Corcationsn Brlish ‘One fina pont is worth making. We hve sen tat bare plural Kind tems ‘nse 3 readings in episodic contexts and ae essentially synonymous with ‘regular inefnites in those coments: And this synonymy is what the analyses presented for them capture. Though the eo-Cirsolan approach represents them diferent, the way the operations ae define, the satement wth bare ‘lr as identical truth conitns tothe statment with an indie. The DRT based approaches, of couse, do not even posit a ailleence atthe "epresenational evel, However, ther isa diference betwecn them hat shows ‘pia the folowing conte {TA fein: ips i ee oe pry ne kind ee expan with be canny secs can tsa eh a (18) a: Dogs ae barking ouside # Their ames ae Fido and Bost Some dog are barking. Ths names an Fido en Bone. (29) Dogs, mamey Fido and Boss, are barking uti 'b. Some dogs, numely Fido and Boxer, are barking ouside This ditnetion between kind terms and regular indefnites has nt featured in discussions of genevcty and inefnteness but the resistance of bare pls to specication is sigiian in that tlle hatte is resi of “kind like properties tha remain ia bare paris even wen they occur in episode stalemants abou the here ad now 3. Crossinguistie Varation Moving beyond English, even the biafst survey of other languages shows that the cortation between form and messing oulined in table 1 doesnot hol universally. In this section we will deal some generalizations about the pts tat emerge when we look a ober languages and propose ‘famewrk for accounting fr those pater, 4. Some Generalizations The fst rather sthing generalization, one that hasbeen. kasvn for some time, is that no language has a determiner tt sexcusvely iad devoting. ‘The variation is sry between bare and definite forms. The absence of edited kind determiner, namely one thats ied only for refering to kinds, is suprising given that it ia a semantic operation that fs widely if not ‘nivel, attested. To the best of my knowiedge, no explanation for this g:neaizat had been proposed il Dayal (2008), ‘Thee ae two oer stable cros-inguisie generalizations noted in Dayal (2004) and I pesea them here wih gesier explicines. Ie appear fiom the vb iterator that kad term vary betwen bare sominals and defies, ‘pending on two factors. One is whether the NP involved fs singular or ra in languapes that encode & numer dition inte non phase. The ‘ter the rm of the noun phrase used oe conextnly anchored eng. Noll possible combizations of form and meaning re tested.” Table 2 ays 5 Wed comer hs ans ems in i pe, hh ee ote with pal ‘nme: By ami imager nah ut pay ya eee out the ther atest language types with the intended readings inte left ‘mos column and the atest forms in the cmesponing rows ower Mined ptoraFull-detaie less tangages Tangeageslangiapes Hi nai aia Comex ‘are ‘elie ine Acre Singular Ri Ha Dette Data Para ind Bae a Def Table 2. Three dncicd Language Types ‘The tale above is derived fom examples diseased in earlier sections. 1 ‘repeat the relevant examples fn English (20) . Some cise ume in. The chide / citron st down, The on isan endangeced anima, © Dinosurs re extinct. ‘The tansliton of 20) i Hin would have & bare nomi in te relevant Poston, while is tansation into Hallan would have the determines. The Sane holds forthe tanslion of (20) where ithe singular version ofthe definite dteiner, would be used in fain. The treslton of (20e) ino ‘indi would havea bare nominal but the tention ito Han would have the pra definite determiner Fo cros-linguistic geneaations to be intsiting, however, iti esenal to consider not only What i atest bt, in sgn, what ist atest, “Table 3 includes possible language types that have nt Been documented a the iterates a. TET TEW WE a be ae Tnshored BD. D B_B DDB Sing Gen "BD. D. BD a BD Plural am 5 D DDB De ind Fag see Table 3. Possible Language Types ‘One generalization that emerges ftom a contiderion of Table 3 i that a Jinguage tht use the definite determiner fo plural kind formation alto see for contextually anchoroWaaphorc readings. ln ter words if language ‘uses bare nominal for conextwalyanchoreWanaporicreadigs then it aso ‘ss i for plural Kind formation, Language types (2) and (D, which donot adhere to this geveralization, sre nol atest, ‘Another generalization we see in Table 3. is tht contextually nchoredanphoric. readings and. singulsr kindfomation agree in lexcalization. Ether a language uses bare NPs fo bth or definite for bath Language types (b), (©) (@) and (0 which do. mot hereto this generalztn, ae not atest ‘To sum up, thee are toe sable crseingitie generalizations tht canbe identi 21) Generalization [ Notual languages have no dedisted kind determiner, Generatzaion 2: If a given language uses. bare nominal for contewally anchored/nephore reatngs, then it alo uses them for plural kind formation; if a language wes defies for plural kind Tormation it also uses them for contextually anchoredanaphoric readings Generalization 3: Contextually apchored/anphorie readings and singular kind fomation must agree in fexicaliati, na given language they wil either both be bare or both definite, ‘These generalizations are remarkably table and stiking because there ar no Independent logical reasons or them, 2.2. The Scale of Specificity and Linguistic Varlation “The explanation for Generalization | in QI) is remarkably simple If we onside te semantic operations associated with pra kind-mation snd regular defies, we see thatthe wo dle oly in inensionly NOM is ‘simply an intesionl version ofthe maximality operator associated with the etn determiner (22) Plural Kind Formation: NOM: APsaus As [Ps] ' RegularDefinteness: HOTA: APSSeO> [Ps GO] ‘There ae no dedicated kind determines, then, because languages do not lexclizeextensionaVntensional dsntions, The explanation, simple hough it captures deep connection betwen form and meaning ast relats to he ceapresson of generic. ‘The explanation for he send generalization tums on the cae tht thee ‘ale of specifiy tht grammatical phenomena ae genset. The 0 ‘operations we ar intrested in, OTA and NOM, Team, map slog this scale, with IOTA being more definite than NOM, in 2 sense to be clborated pon in section 3.3 TTA. NOM. Contexts Anchored Reading Plural Kind Formation Cucott for Cuvottfor Cutter ‘Type (ind) ‘Typell (English) Type (aon) Table 4 De Scale of Specify ‘ation aries because languages ean choose dint points on the sae ie lexcalization, proceding fom let wight Determiner less langues ae ‘trninr les because their iff pot sat the exteme lef. Both NOM snd JOTA function covertly in sich langiages. Mixed languages are mixed because ter cutoff point is in'the mide so that JOTA is lexiaizd but [NOM isa covert iype shift Fully definite languages ae those in which the ‘cutoffs a the extreme righ encoding both IOTA and NOM leialy. Language types a and are ruled out by the proposed diestion of lexicon. In order fo tem ts have lexical deteminer fr pla Kind mation, thir eto point would have &o be atthe exteme rahe. This would mean, according to the curt propos tht IOTA eould not be caver That i, the std languages ae tose where leicalzaton woul not onfom tthe salen Table 4. AAs mentioned carer, we will not go dato an explanation of the thid ‘sencralizaton in this paper for reasons of space. However, wl layout sme ‘ey features ofthe analysis here. Singular hid formation is nota by-product ‘of plural kind formation. As stated in Dayal (1992), singular morphology in combination with the mata requirement bulk into NOM would fre the ind to have augue isaniaton in every word omching tht clases with the conceptual notion ofa Kind (se also Chien, 1998. The cli hee is that singular Kinds are atomic entes tat belong in a tsonomie hier and are subject to nommal rules of quanifeaton, reting in. what we ‘eovgnie as txonomie readings, The singular kind tern is a pif instance ‘ofa txonomie reading,” We illustrate with wo concrete exp, (23) a. Every mammal gives ive bith The on isa manna (24) a. Manmal-Subkings ~ (DOG, LION, HORSE...) b Velxe (DOG, LION, HORSE...) > givelve-bitya)) {© ghvelivebinh(e ({DOG, LION, HORSE...) (23s) essentially says that every subkiad of = mammal has the property of ving live bi and (235) ays that the unique subkind thats DOG subind has that property. In ctber words, we recognize an ambiguity in common nouns with pad to whthe hey denote the regular dain of individuals or inthe taxonomic domain bat not in the ype of quatifatoninvaved There are several sues hat aise in connection wih this appeosch to sing kind formation which ar deat wih at greater length in Dayal 2004). Focusing on the croslinguisic, generalization hue, the explanation is ‘obvious. Languages, a8 we hve seen, may of may not exaize OTA. Those that do will use 4 lexical definite dteminer for contextually anchored readings. They wil also use it for singular kind terms, since the sane ‘operation sat issue, Those that donot wl ue eavert type shit regardless of wheter the domain of quantification consists of odinary indviuals oF Of taxonomic cates. In eich se, uniformity of lexialiation between Si a i A ed ct ‘so cenpte ith asa eos wi ein whe gr of Siseesnef = er retire oe ep contextually anchored and singular ind readings is predicted That is langunge pes), (), (2) nd (ei Table 3 ae ruled ou" 354 Motivating the Sete J the proceing subcestion, I placed IOTA atthe Ie of the Seale of ‘Specificity since NOM is define ia tes of IOTA. Tat i the sale ws ‘dated on the basis of theoretical considerations. However, we ean alo think ofthe sae ininmitive tems ab a ssl of diminishing spect, king foto account the ft that we rer 1 nvidia in two a}, in enti vind ays as well as proprtyorced ways. One diferente between He So is that identiy-riented reference allows for ap accidental exmecton ‘ween the property and the prediction wile peoperyaieted reference requis an essential conection between them, ‘8 definite description is an apt vehicle for Meniy-ovented ways of ‘ference A kind tem, on he other and cles denotes in proper ways the det, of the nvdun members ofthe kind team ena ue (ct 18 & 19), English defie deseptions, then, an be eontdeed more lint inthis sense than bare plurals. Ths, working our wy rom intone too, we come fo the same englision.IOTA, the seman operation involved in dent desrpions, st the fen ofthese of diminishing specify ‘wile NOM, the semantic operation ansciated with bare pura alls at the Fight ed ofthe scale” He say be worth ling that alough, definite deseripons are readily sed frien crened mods of reeeac, they arent limited to such ute ‘As ws pointed out by Donnella (196), deine descriptions ean also fave stiibave uss, where the ieniy of the inva is not parilry ‘evant In sch situsins, interestingly, definite descriptions may be ames Te ot utes in Wh nel rch eg ding nd om ie, wal rere msiaen be sues op Ld tase bch to i uot ee cn cstely mercer ees wig "Fi hae ma he mel Ci ne osc candy ah (17 comm Wi Oyen eee nana ak ASSL lord papal eee borne ee ssi ref The inten crcl flo a wie Ecos ot ea ‘ren In casing ese ives em pei donee synonymous with bare plurals. Consider for example, (253) stored by @ tardener whose letuce plans are under atack. She may equally eitously tse the bare paral othe definite esrption wo give ent to her fasion (25) a. The ground hog/Groundhogs are eating wp my Ite. by catiog-up-ny-enmee(aroundhogs()) © xP woundhogs(s) eating apemy-letets)] “The existence of groundings canbe easly accommodated in # cones aboxt gardening, incerta parts of Ameria least. The presupposition of OTA ‘sing satisfied i peks ou the maximal enti in the st of groundhogs, Unde the group reading of plural definites, it i not rue tht predistion Aistibote down to all individual groundhogs, The group can be beld responsible withoot any implication that each indvidval member is engaged inthe destructive act" Tuning to NOM, ic undrgoos sr ajusment snc @ ind term occur in an objet level stsmeat. This is accompanied by «xiseral quntfeaion over the instances of groundhogs inthe situation see section 2.2). The truth conitons ofthe vo coincide. “Another situation where the hae lial and the definite sem t converge Ins been discussed by Condorvdi (1997). She notes tht in & discourse lke (26, the tare plural has a sniversl rather than he existed reading expected in non-geneic contents. Condorsl call this functional rang ofthe bare plural. Note thatthe dfn ew near equivalent eption in these ese: Mention ofa campus alo forthe easy secommodation of sents king the deft felicitous in hese eases. NOM is, of couse, pouibl ince there aren specie studnts see, (25) Tere was. ghost on campus. The stdeosStudets wer ala ‘Regardless of whether thre i an independent funcional eadiag involved in such case, we can draw the following coacuson. We can casider IOTA more definite than NOM because it has the potent for ideniy-viented Sean Hi "AT he pst cones te per ed te Piet gun” inst te sonra eg lef, Vay ew pene el ie ed pti nod rset ee, Ts i eed el Se refeence but it isnot rested to such reference, There are station in which an atibuive plural defiite and a bare plural are both acepable. ‘These at stations in which the existential presupposition ofthe dette fe ssid without there beng the kad of speci reference that the Bae perl is incompale with. To sum up, ]OTA and NOM ate leated at discrete pins on the Seale of Specificity, but thir semantics does not predit ‘complementary disuibtion for expressions asad with them, 4: | Some Further Issues Jn dissection, we consider sme fre issues in connection with the view {at crosstinguisic varaion in geneity i peditble on the bass of lexialization options defined ona universal Seale of Specific 41. Variations in Plural Rnd Terms: A Refinement ‘The lain plural definite generic and the English at plural have claimed, encode the same semantic open, namely NOM, This woul led one to expect that they would hive iene! dstbaton, but thy do not. At expose, thy align on kind and generic readings but suring, hey pat company on existential readings, 27) only has te contextually anchored reading we asocite wih the regular definite determine. 21) a" cni sono dist the dogs are widespread “Dogs are widespread” 70) cant sbbsino ‘The dogs barks. ‘Dogs bk” 1 cant stanno abbaiando, thedogs are baking "The dogs ar barking” not“ Some) dogs ae baking” ‘The resistance to existent iterpcations als holds tie for re complex «cases were the sentence i gene but the bare plural is expected to map ino the micear sope. In (28) for example, the paral definite yields re ‘whereby the sume group of cts hbinaly runs crs the aden: (28) pati conono sul mio pro ogni giao ‘he cats run aeross my garden evenday “The eats rn aeross my garden every day” [NOT “Cats run aero my gnrden everyday” 1b. V sfday(] 3 x) & rum aeross-ny-paden int) Unc te acount sketched here we ean explin tis disparity between bate plurals and plural defiites ty appealing to the fact tht the definite

    You might also like