IncorporationIncorporation

Henriëtte de Swart

Barcelona, May 2005

CombinatoricsCombinatorics

Assume: all weak NPs have a type <e,t> denotation.

Do weak readings of NPs in ‘normal’ contexts have a type <e,t> denotation? If so, how do they combine with a verb that also takes GQs?

Susan ate an apple/two apples/no apples/ every apple/neither apples/most apples

Two optionsTwo options

(i) change the interpretation of the verb (lexical ambiguity, Van Geenhoven 1996, van Geenhoven & McNally 2005).

(ii) change the combinatorics: different closure operations (de Swart 2001)

We’ll see the same debate in incorporation constructions.

Bare nominalsBare nominals

Bare plurals are special because they:(i) refer to kinds (Carlson 1977)(ii) denote properties (not GQs) (Van

Geenhoven 1996)(iii) introduce a discourse referent by

accomodation (Farkas & de Swart 2003).

Thematic arguments in DRTThematic arguments in DRT

Farkas and de Swart (2003): enrich DRT.Distinction between thematic arguments

and discourse referents.Common nouns, verbs: lexical expressions

that involve thematic arguments.Determiners: introduce discourse referents

by instantiating thematic arguments.

Instantiation IInstantiation I

A student left. Input syntactic structure:

[S [DP [D a [NP student(z)]][VP leave(x)]]

u [S [DP [D u [NP student(z)]][VP leave(x)]]

Introduction of dr by determiner

Instantiation IIInstantiation II

u[S [DP [D u [NP student(u)]][VP leave(x)]]

D-instantiation u[S [DP [D u [NP student(u)]][VP leave(u)]]

A-instantiationFinal output: same as in ‘standard’ DRT.

Questions about SpanishQuestions about Spanish

Do bare plurals and NPs with unos both license discourse anaphora?

Is there a contrast between bare plurals and unos in the possibility of the plural getting free scope (e.g. scope out of scope islands)?

More in general: relation between unos NPs and bare plurals, distribution of labor?

Discussion IIIDiscussion III

Are property denoting: bare plurals and incorporated nominals (Van Geenhoven 1996).

Explains narrow scope of bare plurals:I didn’t see a spot on the floor. or I didn’t see spots on the floor. not Bare plurals and incorporated nominals are

somehow ‘deficient’.

IncorporationIncorporation

Incorporation in West Greenlandic, Hindi, Hungarian, etc; direct relation between verb and object.

Arnajarq eqalut-tur-p-u-q. [WG]

A.abs salmon-eat-Ind-[-tr]-3sg.

‘Arnajaraq eats salmon/is a salmon-eater.’

Lexical ambiguityLexical ambiguity

Van Geenhoven (1996): transitive verbs denote relations between individuals; incorporating verbs take a property denoting expression as their object.

Transitive verb: y x [V(x,y)]Incorporating verb: Px y [V(x,y) P(y)]Existential closure induced by the verb!

Discourse anaphora IDiscourse anaphora I

A.abs dogi-have-ind-[-tr]-3sg.

Miki-mik ati-qar-p-u-q.Miki-inst name-have-ind-[-tr]-3sg.‘Aani has a dogi. Iti is called Miki.’

Aani qimmi-qar-p-u-q. VG: dynamic interpretation of .

Discourse anaphora IIDiscourse anaphora II

Discussion: is incorporation a morphological or a syntactic process?

Sadock (1980): discourse anaphora indicate syntax. Unlike English:

Mary and Bill went berryi picking. #Theyi were very good.

Mary was babyi sitting. #Iti was crying.

Bare and numberBare and number

In WG: incorporation of bare singulars only; no determiners, no plurality, no case.

Plural interpretation allowed:Aani qimmi-qar-p-u-q. A.abs dogi-have-ind-[-tr]-3sg.

Kusana-q-a-a-t.Theyi are very nice.

EvaluationEvaluation

Advantage: unified analysis of narrow scope weak NPs, bare plurals and incorporation.

Disadvantage: incorporating verbs much more restricted (bare nominals only).

Claim: property denotation usefuly, but not enough to account for incorporation.

Incorporation of plurals IIncorporation of plurals I

In Hindi (Dayal 1999, 2005) and Hungarian (Farkas & de Swart 2003): incorporation of bare singulars and bare plurals; with case.

Mari verset olvas. [hungarian]Mari poem.Acc read.Mari is reading a poem/poems.Mari verseket olvas.Mari poem.Pl.Acc read.

Incorporation of plurals IIncorporation of plurals I

In Hindi (Dayal 1999, 2005) and Hungarian (Farkas & de Swart 2003): incorporation of bare singulars and bare plurals; with case; no determiners.

Interpretation of bare singulars: number neutral (sg or pl, depending on context).

Interpretation of bare plurals: semantically plural.

Incorporation of plurals IIIncorporation of plurals II

‘Natural’ plural interpretation of bare singular: Mari bélyeget gyüjt. Mari stamp.Acc collect. ‘Mari collects stamps.’ ‘Odd’ plural interpretation of bare plural: Feri feleségeket keres. Feri wife.Pl.Acc seek. ‘Feri is looking for wives’

Discourse anaphora IDiscourse anaphora I

Incorporated singulars are discourse opaque, incorporated plurals are discourse transparent.

Jánosi betegetj vizsgált a rendelöben.

J.i patientj.acc examined the office.in.

#Proi Túl sulyosnal találta ötj és

Proi too severe.dat found hei.acc

Discourse anaphora IIDiscourse anaphora II

Jánosi betegeketj vizsgált a rendelöben.

J.i patientj.pl acc examined the office.in.

Proi Túl sulyosnal találta öketj és

Proi too severe.dat found hei.acc

Similar contrast between incorporated singulars and plurals in Hindi.

Implicit argumentsImplicit arguments

After the talk, we all went to a local bar.The vase was broken.Koenig and Mauner (2000): implicit agent.(i) A ship was sunk.(ii) A ship sank... to collect settlement money from the

insurance company.

Discourse anaphoraDiscourse anaphora

K&M: implicit arguments do not license discourse anaphora.

(i) The vase was broken.(ii)The vase was broken by someone.(iii) He must have been very clumsy.(iii) continues (ii), not (i).Kamp and Rossdeutscher (1994): schematic

dr ~ our thematic arguments.

Schematic drSchematic dr

Koenig & Mauner: schematic discourse referents in final representation:

Starting point for analysis of incorporation.

u

Vase(u)Break(x,u)

Incorporation as unificationIncorporation as unification

Unification of thematic arguments: replace the relevant thematic argument y of a verbal predicate with the thematic argument z contributed by a nominal argument of the verb.

Az orvos beteget vizsgált.The doctor patient examined.

Unification IUnification I

Representation after interpretation of subject.

Unification identifies thematic arguments z and y.

u Doctor(u)[S [DP u][[V’ [NP patient(z)][V examine(x,y)]]]]

Unification IIUnification II

Representation after unification.

Final representation: uninstantiated thematic argument.

u Doctor(u)[S [DP u][[V’ [NP patient(z)][V examine(x,z)]]]]

Final representationFinal representation

uDoctor(u)Patient(z)Examine(u,z)

Semantic properties ISemantic properties I

Incorporated nominals take narrow scope: uninstantiated thematic arguments are scopally inert (end up being existentially closed by the embedding function).

Semantic properties IISemantic properties II

Claim: uninstantiated thematic arguments do not license discourse anaphora.

Not in implicit argument structures.Not in incorporation.

Discourse anaphora Discourse anaphora

Incorporated singulars are discourse opaque.

Jánosi betegetj vizsgált a rendelöben.

J.i patientj.acc examined the office.in.

#Proi Túl sulyosnal találta ötj és

Proi too severe.dat found hei.acc

CaveatCaveat

True for incorporated singulars in Hungarian and Hindi; not in West Greenlandic.

Possibly: difference in pronouns (overt/covert). At least: that plays a role in Hungarian.

What about plurals?What about plurals?

Dual nature: they presuppose plural discourse referent, that can be accomodated. Thus, bare plurals in regular argument position (English, Hungarian).

But also: involve thematic argument at NP level before presupposition resolution.

Consequence: can participate in incorporation if NP projection allowed.

Bare plurals in FdS IIBare plurals in FdS II

Cats were playing in the garden. K K’ ux

[S [NPpl cats(x)][VP play(z)]] plural(ux)

K assertion; K’ presuppositionPresupposition resolution by accomodation

Result: bare plurals OK in full argument position.

Incorporated plurals IIncorporated plurals I

Az orvos betegeket vizsgált.The doctor patient.pl.acc examined.

We can apply unification before resolving the presupposition.

[S [DP the doctor] uz

[[V’ [NPpl patient(z)][V examine(x,y)]]]] plural(uz)

Incorporated plurals IIIncorporated plurals II

Az orvos betegeket vizsgált.The doctor patient.pl.acc examined.

We can apply unification before resolving the presupposition.

[S [DP the doctor] uz

[[V’ [NPpl patient(z)][V examine(x,z)]]]] plural(uz)

Incorporated plurals IIIIncorporated plurals III

We can resolve the presupposition after unification.

The dr introduced by accomodation licenses discourse anaphora.

v, uz

Doctor(v)Plural(uz)Patient(uz)Examine(v,uz)

Discourse anaphora Discourse anaphora

Jánosi betegeketj vizsgált a rendelöben.

J.i patientj.pl acc examined the office.in.

Proi Túl sulyosnal találta öketj és

Proi too severe.dat found hei.acc

Similar contrast between incorporated singulars and plurals in Hindi.

ExtensionsExtensions

Use semantic incorporation in non-incorporating languages for similar kinds of interpretations.

E.g. bare object constructions with idiomatic readings in Romance (Espinal 2004).

Objects of idioms IObjects of idioms I

Fer denteta [Catalan]Make tooth.dim ‘show off’Battere cassa [Italian]Beat box ‘ask for money’Conter fleurette [French]Say flower.dim ‘woo (someone)’

Objects of idioms IIObjects of idioms II

Espinal (2004): bare singulars not accepted in Romance in regular, productive syntax, but frequent in idioms.

Objects of idioms look like mass nouns, are interpreted as abstract objects.

Assume interpretation in terms of unification of thematic arguments

Lack of referential force.

New questionsNew questions

Questions about the distinction between bare singulars and bare plurals.

Implications for predicative constructions and generic reference.