Transcript Bare predication

Bare predication
Bert Le Bruyn
BKL Taaldag
Topic
I am a linguist.
Facts
Marie is een meisje.
Marie est une fille.
Mary is a girl
Marie is meisje.
??? Marie est fille.
???
Mary is a girl
Most nouns seem to require the indefinite
article in predicate position.
Facts
Sil is beenhouwer.
Sil est boucher.
Sil is butcher
There is a class of nouns that, on their
unmarked use, do not take the indefinite
article in predicate position.
Research questions
Why do most nouns need the indefinite
article ?
 What is so special about nouns like
‘butcher’?
Silent hope:
The answer to the second question might lead
to an answer to the first question.

Facts
‘Butcher’ nouns typically include professions,
‘religion names’ and nationalities:


Jan is moslim.
Jean est musulman.
John is muslim


Marie is Belg.
Marie est Belge.
Mary is Belgian
Cross-linguistic validity (SWZ 2007)
SPANISH
 Es negrero.
is trader_in_black_slaves
PORTUGUESE
 João é médico.
John is doctor
Cross-linguistic validity (SWZ 2007)
ITALIAN
 Gianni è dottore.
John is doctor
DANISH
 Olivier var skuespiller.
Oliver was actor
Cross-linguistic validity (SWZ 2007)
SWEDISH
 Herr Weber är katolik.
Mr Weber is catholic
NORWEGIAN
 Han er lærer.
he is teacher
Claims



‘bare
predication
nouns’ cannot be
distinguished from ‘non-bare predication
nouns’ by temporal means
the distinction between ‘bare predication
nouns’ and ‘non-bare predication nouns’ is
not lexical
the distinction between bare predication and
non-bare predication is one between
‘accidental’ and ‘inherent’ predication.
Claims



‘bare predication nouns’ cannot be
distinguished from ‘non-bare predication
nouns’ by temporal means
the distinction between ‘bare predication
nouns’ and ‘non-bare predication nouns’ is
not lexical
the distinction between bare predication and
non-bare predication is one between
‘accidental’ and ‘inherent’ predication.
Bare predication and time
Two proposals:
 Bare predication is transient whereas nonbare predication is permanent.
 Bare predication is linked to ‘splittable’
events whereas non-bare predication is
linked to ‘non-splittable’ events (Roy 2006)
Bare predication and time
Two proposals:
 Bare predication is transient whereas
non-bare predication is permanent.
 Bare predication is linked to ‘splittable’
events whereas non-bare predication is
linked to ‘non-splittable’ events. (Roy 2006)
(Roy 2006, SWZ 2007)
Transient vs. permanent
(a)
Paul was dokter.
Paul était médecin.
(c)
Marie is een kind.
Marie est un enfant.
Paul was doctor
Mary is a child
(b)
Paul was een dokter.
Paul était un médecin.
Paul was a doctor
Bare predication and time
Two proposals:
 Bare predication is transient whereas nonbare predication is permanent.
 Bare predication is linked to ‘splittable’
events whereas non-bare predication is
linked to ‘non-splittable’ events. (Roy
2006)
Roy (2006)
No difference between nouns, everything is in the syntax.
Roy (2006)
All nouns come with an event argument that has to be bound
- by Tense
Signals that the predication is linked to the
reference time (in the broad sense)
- by Indefinite article
Signals that the predication is linked to the
reference time (in the broad sense) and
that the reference time cannot be split up
into smaller intervals.
|
|
|
|
Roy (2006)
Jean est professeur le jour, danseur la nuit.
John is teacher by day, dancer at night
*Jean est un professeur le jour, un danseur la nuit.
John is a teacher by day, a dancer at night
day | night | day | night |…
Paul est devenu chanteur.
Paul has become singer
*Paul est devenu un chanteur.
Paul is become singer
not singer | singer
Roy (2006)
Marie is meisje.
Marie est fille.
Mary is a girl
These sentences are strange because the
property of being a girl is not likely to change
within the time of reference.
Semantics
+
world knowledge
Roy (2006)
event-non-splittability ~ indefinite article
Prediction
Predication with the indefinite article can never appear in by
day / by night and become sentences…
… and pragmatic plausibility does not play a role.
Falsification
La chenille est devenue un papillon.
The caterpillar has become a butterfly
In Lady Hawke is Rutger Hauer ‘s nachts een wolf en overdag een mens.
In Lady Hawke is Rutger Hauer by night a wolf and by day a man
Claims



‘bare predication nouns’ cannot be
distinguished from ‘non-bare predication
nouns’ by temporal means
the distinction between ‘bare predication
nouns’ and ‘non-bare predication nouns’ is
not lexical
the distinction between bare predication and
non-bare predication is one between
‘accidental’ and ‘inherent’ predication.
Claims



‘bare
predication
nouns’ cannot be
distinguished from ‘non-bare predication
nouns’ by temporal means
the distinction between ‘bare predication
nouns’ and ‘non-bare predication nouns’
is not lexical
the distinction between bare predication and
non-bare predication is one between
‘accidental’ and ‘inherent’ predication.
Bare predication and the lexicon
(i) All nouns can appear in non-bare
predication.
(ii) All nouns can appear in bare predication.
Even though this does not exclude a lexical
approach it makes it less appealing.
(SWZ 2007)
Bare predication and the lexicon
‘bare predication nominals’


Sil is beenhouwer.
Sil est boucher.
Sil is butcher


Sly is een beenhouwer.
Sly est un boucher
Sly is a butcher
Bare predication and the lexicon
‘non-bare predication nominals’
Only +human nouns are allowed to occur in bare predication.
(Matushansky & Spector 2005, SWZ 2007)
‘Kind nouns’ can never occur in bare predication.
(Kupferman 1991, Roy 2006)
wolf
ex.
White Fang is een wolf.
Croc-Blanc est un loup.
ex.
Ik ben wolf.
Je suis loup.
WF is a wolf
I am wolf
“WF belongs to the kind wolf”
“I play the part of wolve”
Bare predication and the lexicon
‘They usually [...] denote specific roles in
society: professions, religions or nationalities.
Other nominals (non-human or human) that
are not related to such roles generally resist
taking up a bare nominal position.’ (SWZ
2007)
→ World knowledge seems to be a better
candidate than the lexicon.
Claims



‘bare
predication
nouns’ cannot be
distinguished from ‘non-bare predication
nouns’ by temporal means
the distinction between ‘bare predication
nouns’ and ‘non-bare predication nouns’
is not lexical
the distinction between bare predication and
non-bare predication is one between
‘accidental’ and ‘inherent’ predication.
Claims



‘bare
predication
nouns’ cannot be
distinguished from ‘non-bare predication
nouns’ by temporal means
the distinction between ‘bare predication
nouns’ and ‘non-bare predication nouns’ is
not lexical
the distinction between bare predication
and non-bare predication is one between
‘accidental’ and ‘inherent’ predication.
The proposal
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
-Kind-membership and bare predication
ex.
White Fang is een wolf.
Croc-Blanc est un loup.
WF is a wolf
“WF belongs to the kind wolf”
Background on kinds
If at least two individuals show the same non-accidental
behaviour they qualify as a kind in a given world.
Non-accidental behaviour
giraffes
the giraffes that come and eat
here every day
At least two
Intuitive but not unproblematic.
Dodos are extinct.
→ can be avoided if we take into account possible worlds
Background on articles
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
Background on articles
Bare vs. article
both constructions are unmarked for uniqueness
both pragmatically imply non-uniqueness
wherever both (i.e. in predicate position) are possible the
construction with the indefinite article marks non-uniqueness
(marked form linked to marked meaning)
Why kind-membership has to go with
the indefinite article
Kinds are sets of at least two elements.
Kind-membership predication is sensitive to the
uniqueness / non-uniqueness contrast.
Bare predication is unmarked for uniqueness / non-uniqueness.
bare predication
indefinite article
Kind-membership and bare predication
-wolf
-teacher
-dog
-plumber
-sock
-jew
-building
-catholic
-...
-...
+ indefinite article
Non-accidental
- indefinite article
Accidental
Constraint on kinds!
Further research

Mijn vader is diabeticus.
My father is diabeticnoun
Google: 56 bare vs. 7 non-bare
 Mijn vader is alcoholieker.
My father is alcoholic
Google: 43 bare vs. 8 non-bare
 Mijn vader is drugsverslaafde.
My father is drug addict
Google: 171 bare vs. 172 non-bare
 Mijn vader is drinker.
My father is drinker
Google: 6 bare vs. 364 non-bare