1 bare predication bert le bruyn 1. 2 i am linguist.a

1

Bare predication

Bert Le Bruyn

1

2

I am linguist.a

3

Importance

Widespread assumption:

Articles are markers of argumenthood.

Why can’t we do without in predicate position ???

4

Dutch/ French/ Norwegian/ …

Sometimes with indefinite article

Sometimes without indefinite article

→ might help us to get a better understanding of why the indefinite article appears

5

Organization of the talk

-The facts

-What an analysis should look like

-Previous analyses

-My analysis

-Theoretical implications

6

-The facts

-What an analysis should look like

-Previous analyses

-My analysis

-Theoretical implications

7

Standard observations

another set of nouns usually takes the indefinite article

one set of nouns usually doesn’t take the indefinite article

= non-capacity nouns

= capacity nouns

Professions Religions Nationalitiesteacher

dictator

…

jew

christian

…

Belgian

American

…

The rest

ex. Hitler was dictator. H was dictator

ex. White Fang is a wolf. WF is a wolf

2

8

Advanced observations

capacity nouns can occur with the indefinite article

Marie is een dictator.M is a dictator

“Mary has characteristics that we associate with dictators”

non-capacity nouns can occur without the indefinite article

Ik ben wolf.I am wolve

“I play the part of wolve”

MARKED USES

2

9

CAPACITY NOUNS NON-CAPACITY NOUNS

NO

IN

DE

FIN

ITE

AR

TIN

DE

FIN

ITE

AR

T

Hitler was dictator.Hitler was dictator

Marie is een dictator.Marie is a dictator

Ik ben wolf.I am wolve

White Fang is a wolf.WF is a wolf

10

-The facts

-What an analysis should look like

-Previous analyses

-My analysis

-Theoretical implications

11

The ideal analysis

Non-capacity nouns are lexically marked.

Non-capacity nouns need the indefinite article…

Capacity nouns don’t need the indefinite article…

The coercions are linked to some contribution of the indefinite article.

SETUP

MEANING

…and undergo some coercion in its absence.

…and undergo some coercion in its presence.

4

12

-The facts

-What an analysis should look like

-Previous analyses

-My analysis

-Theoretical implications

13

Previous analysesMatushansky & Spector (2005)

Non-capacity nouns have a scalarity argument slot.

The scalarity argument slot has to be saturated.

Syntactic marking of saturation = article.

“[This] entails that the indefinite article contributes no meaning, but is only a reflex of a syntactic operation”

This might account for:

The existence of two types of nouns.

Coercion of non-capacity nouns.

This cannot account for:

Coercion of capacity nouns. SET-UP IS W

RONG

5

14

Beyssade & Dobrovie-Sorin (2007)

Two kinds of predicates.

Problem: nothing inherent to the set and property view on predicates predicts the meaning differences.

SEMANTICS IS

UNDERDEFINED

6

sortal and non-sortal

“set-like” “property-like”

lexical feature that forcesthem to take the indefinitearticle

15

-The facts

-What an analysis should look like

-Previous analyses

-My analysis

-Theoretical implications

General idea: the indefinite article is a marker of kind-membership predication

-Background on kinds

-Background on articles

-Why kind-membership predication has to go with the indefinite article

-The analysis

16

-Background on kinds

-Background on articles

-Why kind-membership predication has to go with the indefinite article

-The analysis

17

Kinds: first attempt

giraffes

the giraffes that come and eat here every day

If at least two individuals show the same non-accidental behaviour they qualify as a kind in a given world.

Non-accidental behaviour

18

At least two

Very intuitive idea.

I made an electrogalvanic-powered diaper wetness sensor.

Dodos are extinct.

19

Kinds: second attemptKinds are sets of at least two individuals showing the same behaviour in all worlds in which they exist (past, present and future).

Other diaper sensors may follow.

The non-accidental criterion is maintained:

There have been many dodos and they might resurface.

Once they exist individuals belonging to a kind must behave in the same way across worlds.

The at least two criterion is maintained but the diaper sensor and dodo case are no longer problematic:

20

Kinds: recap

Kinds are sets of at least two individuals showing the same behaviour in all worlds (past, present and future) in which they exist.

7

21

-Background on kinds

-Background on articles

-Why kind-membership predication has to go with the indefinite article

-The analysis

22

ArticlesMarking argumenthood

In languages that have articles they are obligatory in argument position.

*I have cat.*Man came to see me.

Marking uniqueness

In languages that distinguish between a definite and an indefinite article the definite article (in the singular) is marked for uniqueness whereas the indefinite article is unmarked.

I saw the teacher.I saw a teacher.

Absence of articles

Only possible in predicate position.

Absence of articles: unmarked for uniqueness

8

23

Indefinite vs. bare

both constructions are unmarked for uniqueness

both pragmatically imply non-uniqueness

wherever both are possible the construction with the indefinite article marks non-uniqueness

(marked form linked to marked meaning)

9

24

Use of articlesConstraint I:

Mark uniqueness.

In argument positionConstraint II:

Use articles.

In predicate positionConstraint III:

Don’t use articles...

…unless the predication is sensitive to the uniquenessnon-uniqueness distinction

10

25

-Background on kinds

-Background on articles

-Why kind-membership predication goes with the indefinite article

-The analysis

26

Kinds and the indefinite article

Kinds are sets of at least two elements.

Bare predication is unmarked for uniqueness / non-uniqueness.

Kind-membership predication is sensitive to the uniqueness / non-uniqueness contrast.

bare predication

indefinite article

11

27

-Background on kinds

-Background on articles

-Why kind-membership predication has to go with the indefinite article

-The analysis

28

Analysis: the gistTwo kinds of nouns

kind non-kind

+ indefinite article - indefinite article

White Fang is een wolf. Jan is dictator.

ex. ex.

WF is a wolf J is dictator

How to check this ?

12

29

-teacher

-plumber

-jew

-catholic

-American

-…

-wolf

-dog

-sock

-building

-lamp

-…

+ indefinite article - indefinite article

Non-accidental Accidental

Constraint on kinds!

13

30

Analysis: the details

Nouns with a KIND feature

Nouns without a KIND feature

needs checking

Lexicon:

KIND feature can only be checked by a –UNIQUE determiner.

= indefinite singular article in predicate position

14

31

If the kind feature is not checked…

…when there is no –UNIQUE determiner available

→ restriction of the kind to contextually relevant instances

…despite the availability of a – UNIQUE determiner

→ coercion into a non-kind noun

(in argument position)

(in predicate position)

non-accidental → accidental

15

32

Use of indefinite article in predicate position with non-kind nouns:

→ coercion into a kind noun

accidental → non-accidental

16

33

The ideal analysis

Non-capacity nouns are lexically marked.

Non-capacity nouns need the indefinite article…

Capacity nouns don’t need the indefinite article…

The coercions are linked to some contribution of the indefinite article.

SETUP

MEANING

…and undergo some coercion in its absence.

…and undergo some coercion in its presence.

34

Organization of the talk

-The facts

-What an analysis should look like

-Previous analyses

-My analysis

-Theoretical implications

35

Theoretical implications

languages that don’t allow their articles to appear in predicate position(e.g. Salish)

languages that (virtually) don’t allow predicates to appear without articles (e.g. English)

languages that allow for both bare and non-bare predicates(e.g. Dutch)

choice depends on uniqueness considerations that are independent from marking argumenthood

some syntactic accident

17

3618