The Generic Article

Donka Farkas and Henriëtte de Swart

Puzzle

Languages like English use bare plurals in generic contexts, e.g. ‘Dinosaurs are extinct or ‘Dogs are intelligent’.

Romance languages, Greek, Hungarian use definite plurals in those generic contexts.

Why this cross-linguistic variation in languages that both have singulars/plural distinctions and definite/indefinite NPs?

Approach

There is competition between definite and indefinite forms in generic contexts.

Conflicting constraints may be weighed differently in different languages.

An analysis in terms of Optimality Theory predicts both uniformity and cross-linguistic variation.

Structure of the talk

Discussion of data.

Background on genericity, number and the definiteness/indefiniteness contrast.

OT analysis

Predictions our analysis makes about non-standard cases of pseudo-genericity and anaphoric genericity.

Definites in episodic contexts

Uniqueness for singulars:

The moon is round. English

La lune est ronde. French

A hold kerek. Hungarian

Maximality for plurals:

The stars are shining. E

Les étoiles brillent. F

A csillagok csillognak. H

Familiarity I

A mani and a childj came in. The mani was tall. E

Un hommei et un enfantj sont entrés. L’hommei était très grand. F

Bejött egy férfii és egy gyerekj. A férfii magas volt. H

Familiarity II

Childreni and dogsj were playing in the street. The childreni were noisy. E

Des enfantsi et des chiensj jouaient dans la rue. Les enfantsi faisaient du bruit. F

Gyerekeki és kutyákj játszottak az utcán. A gyerekeki hangosak voltak. H

Genericity (sg) I

Direct kind reference: expressed by definite singulars.

The dinosaur is extinct. E

Le dinosaure a disparu. F

A dinoszaurusz kihalt. H

Genericity (sg) II

Generic generalizations: typically expressed by indefinite singulars.

A dog is dangerous when it is hungry. E

Quand il a faim, un chien est dangereux. F

Egy kutya veszélyes mikor éhes. H

Genericity (pl)

English type languages: indefinite (bare) plurals for direct kind reference and generic generalizations.

Romance/Hungarian type languages: definite plurals for direct kind reference and generic generalizations.

Direct kind reference

Dinosaurs are extinct. ELes dinosaures ont disparu FGli elefanti di colore bianco sono estinti.

ItalianDinosaurii au dispărut. RumanianA dinoszauruszok kihaltak. HOi asproi elephantes echoun exaphanisthei. Greek

Generic generalizations

Dogs are dangerous when they are hungry. E

Quand ils ont faim, les chiens sont dangereux.F

Gli ucelli di zone paludose sono intelligenti. I

Cînii sînt inteligenti. R

A kutyák veszélyesek mikor éhesek. H

Ta skillia einai eksipna. G

Bare plurals barred from generic contexts

*Elefanti di colore bianco sono estinti. I Elephants of white color are extinct. *K*Ucelli di zone paludose sono intelligenti. I

Birds of marshlands are intelligent. *GG*Kutyák veszélyesek mikor éhesek. H Dogs are dangerous when hungry. *GG*Asproi elephantes echoun exaphanisthei.G White elephants are extinct. *K

Issue

Why is there uniformity across languages in episodic contexts and in the expression of genericity with singulars, and a definite/indefinite contrast with plurals in generic contexts?

Literature

Vergnaud & Zubizarreta (1991): definite article is ‘expletive’ in generic contexts; Krifka et al. (1995): theme marker.Longobardi (1994, 2001): definites are kind referring in Romance.But: what about episodic contexts? Singular generics? If this a ‘quirk’ of Romance, why Greek, Hungarian?

Literature II

Dayal (2004): universal scale of definiteness: > . Plural kind formation : intensional counterpart of -operation associated with definite determiner.Different cut-off points for lexicalization in different languages.But: cross-linguistic semantics of the definite article? Cf. Robertson (2005).

Aim and claim

Aim: account for both uniformity and cross-linguistic variation in a theory on number and definiteness/indefiniteness.

Claim: generic environments impose conflicting claims on article choice for plurals; languages resolve conflict by different rankings of constraints.

Background assumptions

Farkas (2002) on def/indef contrast: definites are marked, indefinites are unmarked.Definites impose determined reference: don’t offer choice in reference. Realized by uniqueness/maximality, familiarity.By implicature: indefinites are non-unique, non-familiar (de Swart 2005).

Semantics of number

Farkas and de Swart (2003), Farkas (2005): singular nouns morphologically and semantically unmarked for number. Atomic interpretation by default.

Plural nouns: mophologically marked by [Pl]. [Pl] introduces a presupposed discourse referent that bears the predicate Pl (= semantic plurality).

Genericity

Genericity: Carlson (1977), Farkas and Sugioka (1983), Gerstner and Krifka (1989), Krifka et al. (1995), Chierchia (1998), Dayal (2004), etc.

Our analysis: framed in DRT (but neo-Carlsonian framework would also work).

Genericity in DRT

Genericity involves generalization over events ( de Swart 1991, 1996).Individual-level predicates: one-one mapping events and individuals, so equals unselective binding.Fereira (2004): ‘bare’ habituals involve plural definite operator over events.Extend Fereira to generic sentences.

Generic generalizations

‘Dogs are intelligent’ in DRT

x,s,zDog(x)Pl(x)z xz in s

Gen s

Intelligent(z,s)

Direct kind reference

kinds ‘top’ of intensionally defined lattice (Ojeda ’93, Chierchia ’98, Dayal ’04).

Dinosaurs are extinct.

xk, yPl(xk)xk = s,w Dinosaur(y,w)Extinct(xk)

Singular generic NPs

Atomic kinds are unique and familiar (well-established kinds): use definite singular for direct kind reference.

The dinosaur is extinct. (K)

A dinosaur is extinct. (*K, taxonomic)

Generic generalizations

Discourse referents bound by Gen are not familiar, not accomodatable (intensional).

Pragmatic restriction: Gen does not range over singleton sets (de Swart 1991, 1996).

The dog is dangerous when it is hungry. (spec, ?GG)

A dog is dangerous when it is hungry. (GG)

Plural generics

Claim: conflicting requirements imposed on plural generics.DR is [+Max] (because of /Gen), but [-Fam] (absence of familiarity and lack of accomodation: /Gen intensional).Turn referential and dynamic aspects of determined reference into violable constraints.

Two constraints

FMax (Faith Maximality)

Reflect maximality features of the input in the output.

*Def/-Fam

Avoid non-familiar definites.

Resolve conflict in OT

Conceive of FMax and *Def/-Fam as violable constraints.

Order FMax >> *Def/-Fam leads to definite generics (Romance, etc.)

Order *Def/-Fam >> FMax leads to bare generics (English, etc.)

Cross-linguistic differences: ranking.

Dogs are intelligent GG

Meaning form *Def/-Fam FMax

Genx(Dgx, Intx)

[+Max][-Fam]

Dogs are intelligent

*

The dogs are intelligent

*

The dogs.. in Hungarian

Meaning form FMax *Def/-Fam

Genx(Dgx, Intx)

[+Max][-Fam]

Kutyák okosakDogs are intelligent

*

A kutyák okosak. The dogs are intelligent

*

Dinosaurs are extinct K

Meaning form *Def/-Fam FMax

Dinxk & Extxk

[+Max][-Fam]

Dinosaurs are extinct

*

The dinosaurs are extinct

*

The dinos (Hungarian)

Meaning form FMax *Def/-Fam

Dinxk & Extxk

[+Max][-Fam]

Dinoszauruszok eltüntekDinosaurs are extinct

*

A dinoszauruszok eltüntek The dinosaurs are extinct

*

Conclusions so far..

Genericity ‘mixed’ case in terms of features [+Max], [-Fam].

Conflict between constraints FMax and *Def/-Fam resolved in OT.

Cross-linguistic differences in ranking lead to two classes of generics: indefinite/bare and definite.

Two predictions

(i) We should be able to obtain indefinite generics in languages like Romance, Greek, Rumanian, if input is [-Max].(ii) We should be able to obtain definite generics in languages like English, Germanic, if input is [+Fam].Pseudo-genericity (i) and anaphoric genericity (ii).

Pseudo-genericsLongobardi: in Italian bare plural OK in generic contexts with modifier or modal.Ucelli di zone paludose sono ghiotti di insetti. Birds of marshlands are eager for insects.Elefanti di colore bianco possono creare grande curiositàWhite-coloured elephants can raise greatcuriosity.

French

Des enfants malades sont grincheux.

Indef_pl sick children are grouchy.

Des jeunes filles doivent se montrer

discrètes.

Young girls have to show discreteness.

Hungarian

Beteg gyerekek rosszkedvüek.

Sick child.Pl grouchy.Pl

Sztrákolók tönkretehetnek egy vállalatot.

Striker.Pl ruin.Poss.Pl a company.

Greek

Asproi elefantes mporoun na prokalsoun periergia.

White elephants can raise curiosity.

Paidia arrosta einai enochlitika.

Kids sick are annoying.

*Arrosta paidia einai enochlitika.

Non-maximality in DRT

‘Sick children are grouchy’ in DRT

x,s,zChild(x)Pl(x)z xChild(z)Sick(z,s)

Gen s

Grouchy(x,s)

Non-maximality in OT

No one-one relation between individuals and events, no maximality.FMax not violated, for no maximality.*Def/-Fam becomes the highest relevant constraint.No definite article in Romance, Hung.Indefinite generics as usual in English, etc.

Anaphoric genericity

Encyclopedic contexts: introduce kinds, then continue with anaphoric reference.

Saurischian Bipeds – The Saurischians were the first of the two great groups to assume prominence. […] From certain of these forms, the Saurischians were certainly derived. (Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1972, p. 456).

Familiar generics in OT

In English, Dutch: *Def/-Fam >> FMax.

Anaphoric genericity: [+Fam]

*Def/-Fam not violated.

FMax highest relevant constraint.

Use definite article even in English, etc.

Also use definite in Romance, etc.

Conclusions

Uniform semantics for definites and indefinites in episodic and generic contexts across languages.Conflict between definite/indefinite forms for plural generics only.Two cases of ‘non-standard’ genericity confirm general pattern.No need for a generic article!

THE END