Transcript Definiteness Mismatches in Swedish

Quasi-definites follow a productive pattern in Swedish.1
(3)
De vackra färgerna lyser upp den gråaste dag.
‘The beautiful colors light up the grayest day.’
(4)
Den som aldrig annars kan äta kakor blir överlycklig för den slätaste bulle.
‘Someone who can’t otherwise eat cookies gets overjoyed about the plainest bun.’
(5)
Radioteleskopen gjorde det möjligt att “se” sådant som inte kunde iakttas ens med
det starkaste teleskop.
‘The radiotelescope made it possible to “see” things that couldn’t be observed with
the strongest telescope.’
(6)
Hon visste att det kortaste ärende kunde ta ett par timmar.
‘She knew that the shortest errand could take a couple of hours.’
(7)
Uppenbarligen fyller dessa gamla gregorianska kyrkosångare ett behov som inte den
smartaste skivbolagsdirektör hade en aning om att det existerade.
‘Apparently these old Gregorian church singers fulfill a need that the smartest record
company director didn’t have any idea existed.’
(8)
Men som bekant har även de vildaste fester ett slut.
‘But as is known even the wildest parties have an end.’
Definiteness Mismatches in Swedish
Elizabeth Coppock and Elisabet Engdahl
LSA Annual Meeting, January 2014
1
Introduction
Swedish has not only a definite determiner but also a definite suffix that normally
co-occurs with it:
(1)
a.
det stora hus-et
the big house-def
‘the big house’
stora hus-et
← only name-like interpretation, not definite
big house-def
‘Big House’
b.
c.
*det stora hus
the big house
Question: Why does the determiner occur without the suffix? Is it because they reflect
di↵erent aspects of definiteness or relate to di↵erent parts of the meaning (or both)?
Exceptions:
Our proposal:
• definite suffix, no definite determiner
• §3.3: The definite determiner can occur within DegP and signify uniqueness with
respect to a property of degrees (in which case the DP as a whole is indefinite); the suffix
always signifies uniqueness with respect to a property of individuals. We thus explicate
Julien’s (2005) intuition that quasi-definites exhibit “a special kind of definiteness”
which is “confined to the adjectival phrase” (p. 41).
– whenever there’s no pre-nominal modifier (e.g. hus-et ‘the house’)
– with pre-nominal modifier: especially in namelike expressions and common collocations often involving superlatives, e.g. för sista gång-en ‘for the last time’
(Teleman et al., 1999; Dahl, 2007; Borthen, 2007, 2008)
• definite determiner, no definite suffix
• §4: The superlative adjectives that appear in quasi-definites have special pragmatic
properties making them sensitive to polarity and limiting their scopal flexibility.
– with relative clauses: common
– without relative clauses ← quasi-definites (our interest here)
Minimal pair from Delsing (1993):
(2)
a.
b.
Vi följer utvecklingen med det största intresse.
← quasi-definite
‘We are following the development with the greatest interest.’
Det största intresse-t riktades mot Allsvenskan.
‘The greatest interest-def was directed to Allsvenskan.’
1
2
Desiderata
2.1
Restriction to superlatives
We searched in tagged Swedish newspaper corpora for NPs with a definite determiner and
no suffix and coded a random sample. Results after filtering out irrelevant examples:
1
Most of the data come from the daily newspaper Göteborgs-Posten.
2
2.3
Polarity sensitivity
Some quasi-definites are NPIs (around 20%).
(13)
Justitieministern har *(inte) den blekaste aning om hur det är att sitta i fängelse.
‘The minister of justice does(n’t) have the faintest idea what it is like to go to prison.’
Fits with the fact that NPIs often denote very small entities (a drop of wine, a red cent) or
entities with very low values on a scale (lift a finger, bat an eyelash) (Krifka, 1995).
In other cases, adding negation can also make a sentence strange or change underlying
assumptions about what is more surprising than what:
(14)
a.
b.
Conclusion: All productively-formed quasi-definites contain superlatives.
2.2
Elative superlatives
?Färgerna lyser inte upp den gråaste dag.
‘The colors don’t light up the greyest day.’
(Implies that the greyest days should be the easiest to light up.)
So sentences with quasi-definites in general are a↵ected by polarity (i.e., in general, presence/absence of negation a↵ects interpretation, and can a↵ect acceptability).
Two readings for superlatives:
• ordinary: involves comparison class
• elative:2 no comparison class, just very high degree
Ordinary definite ⇒ ordinary superlative:
(9)
den slätaste bullen: ‘the bun that is plainer than all other relevant buns’
(10)
den slätaste bulle: ‘a bun of maximum plainness’
Quasi-definite ⇒ elative superlative (Teleman et al., 1999).
Diagnostic 1. Ordinary superlatives invoke a comparison class, which can be referred to with
de andra ‘the others’.
(11)
Färgerna lyser upp den gråaste dag.
‘The colors light up the greyest day.’
(Implies that the greyest days are the hardest to light up.)
a. #Eva blir överlycklig för den slätaste bulle men inte för de andra.
‘Eva gets overjoyed about the plainest bun but not about the others.’
b.
Eva blir överlycklig för den slätaste bulle-n men inte för de andra.
‘Eva gets overjoyed about the plainest bun-def but not about the others.’
2.4
2.4.1
Indefiniteness
Anaphora
No anaphora across negation:
(15)
Han har inte den minsta aning. #Hon har inte den heller.
‘He doesn’t have the faintest idea. #She doesn’t have it either.’
Unlike definites, like narrow-scope indefinites:
(16)
I didn’t see the movie last night. It looked boring.
(17)
I didn’t see a movie last night. #It looked boring.
(Bad on narrow-scope reading; OK on wide-scope reading.)
Note: No wide-scope reading option for quasi-definites, unlike indefinites.
Diagnostic 2. Ordinary superlatives involve a rank-ordering of items in the comparison class,
hence accept modification with näst ‘next’, as in ‘next/second best’.
But quasi-definites do license anaphora in conditionals!
(12)
(18)
a. #Eva blir överlycklig för den näst slästaste bulle.
‘Eva gets overjoyed about the second plainest bun.’
b.
Eva blir överlycklig för den näst slästaste bulle-n.
‘Eva gets overjoyed about the second plainest bun-def.’
2
Sometimes called ‘absolute’ following the Latin grammar tradition, but we avoid this term in order to
avoid confusion with what e.g. Heim (1999) calls ‘absolute’ readings of superlatives.
3
Har du den minsta fråga, ställ den här eller SMS:a till ...
‘If you have the slightest question, pose it here or text to ...’
Like indefinites:
(19)
If a farmer owns a donkey, then he beats it.
Conclusion: Quasi-definites have indefinite-like anaphoric potential.
4
2.4.2
3.3
Presentational constructions
Presentational constructions are subject to a definiteness restriction in Swedish, like in English. Quasi-definites can occur there.
(20)
Det sitter den vackraste prinsessa i tornet.3
‘There sits the most beautiful princess in the tower.’
(21)
Om det finns den minsta risk för detta eller osäkerhet om ...
‘If there is the slightest risk of that or uncertainty about ...’
(22)
Det rådde den allra största vänskap mellan de två skolmästarna.
‘There was friendship of the absolute greatest kind between the two schoolmasters.’
DP: e
◆x[telescope(x)]
D: ��e, t�, e�
P�e,t� [◆x[P (x)]]
Generalize it so that it can apply to �d, t� as well as �e, t� (inspired by Krasikova 2012):
(27)
den/det � P�⌧,t� [◆x⌧ [P (x)]]
(where ⌧ can be e or d)
NP: �e, t�
x[strong(x, d∗) ∧ telescope(x)]
(28)
Determiner as expletive?
en minsta avgift på
200 kr
a smallest fee
of [lit: ‘on’] 200 kronor
AP: �e, t�
x[strong(x, d∗)]
This pattern is also attested in Swedish newspaper text with högsta ‘highest’, lägsta ‘lowest’,
översta ‘topmost’, yttersta ‘outermost’, innersta ‘innermost’, and bästa ‘best’.4
3.2
A: �d, �e, t��
d x[strong(x, d)]
DegP: d
d∗
Determiner signals kind-level uniqueness?
a.
... som inte kan iakttas med det starkaste teleskop.
... which can’t be seen with the strongest telescope.
b.
... som inte kan iakttas med ett teleskop av den starkaste sorten.
... which can’t be seen with a telescope of the strongest kind.
But this paraphrase doesn’t work for NPI type examples:
(25)
a.
Han har inte den blekaste aning.
‘He doesn’t have the faintest idea’
b. ??Han har inte en aning av den blekaste sorten.
‘He doesn’t have an idea of the faintest kind.’
3
This example is stylistically marked (sagostil – the style of fairy tales).
The superlative adjective in (23) is in the weak form (minsta) rather than the strong form (minst), which
is suprising because singular indefinites normally have the strong form; the weak form usually signals definiteness in a singular context. See Stroh-Wollin (2011) and Stroh-Wollin & Simke (to appear) for discussion
of how the weak/strong distinction evolved historically in Swedish.
4
5
N: �e, t�
x[telescope(x)]
teleskop
Intuition: det starkaste teleskop means ‘a telescope of the strongest kind’.
(24)
telescope
the
Definite determiner always inserted before a superlative for morphosyntactic reasons? No.
(23)
NP: �e, t�
x[telescope(x)]
Analysis of quasi-definites (top degree d∗ ≡ ◆d[∀d′ [d > d′ ]]):
Hypotheses
3.1
(26)
(Delsing, 1993)
Conclusion for §2.4: Quasi-definites are semantically indefinite.
3
Determiner signals uniqueness wrt a property of degrees
Start with Fregean analysis of definite determiner:
��d, t�, d�
D�d,t� [◆d[D(d)]]
det
stark
�d, t�
d[∀d′ [d > d′ ]]
-aste el
Existential type-shift then applies: P � Q[∃x[P (x) ∧ Q(x)]]
(29)
det starkaste teleskop � Q[∃x[strong(x, d∗) ∧ telescope(x) ∧ Q(x)]]
‘a maximally strong telescope’
Results:
• Gets the truth conditions right (a maximally strong telescope)
• Predicts semantic indefiniteness (because ∃-shift applies)
• Unified analysis of the determiner
6
Bonus: Putting the definite determiner inside DegP allows for possibility that another determiner could co-occur with it. This actually exists in older varieties of Swedish. Teleman
et al. (1999) 3:59, 3:7↵ call this a complex indefinite noun phrase.
(30)
† en
den vackr-aste utsikt
a the beautiful-est view
‘a most beautiful view’
In (32a), the assertion is the strongest of the alternatives:
Eva can be satisfied with the plainest bun. (!!!)
Eva can be satisfied with a medium-plain bun. (!!)
Eva can be satisfied with a non-plain bun. (!)
In (32b), the assertion is the least strong (assuming that plain ⇒ bad):
Eva can’t be satisfied with a non-plain bun. (!!!)
Eva can’t be satisfied with a medium-plain bun. (!!)
Eva can’t be satisfied with the plainest bun. (!)
Why no suffix on this reading? We assume:
• The definite suffix has a uniqueness presupposition for a property of individuals (see
Appendix for more about the suffix)
Now change slätaste ‘plainest’ to godaste ‘most delicious’:
(33)
• With elative superlative, description is not inherently unique; there could in principle
be multiple maximally strong telescopes. (Indeed, elative most in English takes an
indefinite article: We had a most delightful dinner.)
a. #Eva
Eva
b.
Eva
Eva
blir nöjd med den godaste bulle.
can be satisfied with the most delicious bun.
blir inte nöjd med den godaste bulle.
can’t be satisfied with the most delicious bun.
In (33a), the assertion is the least strong:
4
Polarity and Emphasis
Eva can be satisfied with a non-delicious bun. (!!!)
Eva can be satisfied with a medium-delicious bun. (!!)
Eva can be satisfied with the most delicious bun. (!)
Nothing we have said so far explains why quasi-definites are not just like ordinary indefinites:
In (33b), the assertion is the strongest:
• scope restrictions
Eva can’t be satisfied with the most delicious bun. (!!!)
Eva can’t be satisfied with a medium-delicious bun. (!!)
Eva can’t be satisfied with a non-delicious bun. (!)
• polarity sensitivity
Proposal:
• Elative superlatives evoke expression-alternatives involving lower degrees.
• Elative superlatives are inherently emphatic, and therefore have to be interpreted using
Krifka’s (1995) emphatic assertion principle.
(31)
Emphatic assertion (adapted from Krifka 1995)
It is felicitous to assert emphatically in context c only if it is stronger than all of its
expression-alternatives in c.5
• a is ‘stronger’ than b approximately whenever a is more surprising than b
• expression-alternatives: alternative things the speaker could have said
(Horn-scale elements, Chierchia’s (2006) ‘scalar alternatives’).
5
5
Summary
We established these facts about quasi-definites:
1. They always contain superlatives, and in particular only with elative superlatives
2. They are sensitive to polarity
3. They are semantically indefinite but have limited scope options
where:
(32)
So rhetorical scale & degree scale must align in order for quasi-definites to be felicitous.
a.
Eva blir nöjd med den slätaste bulle.
Eva can be satisfied with the plainest bun.
b.
?Eva blir inte nöjd med den slätaste bulle.
Eva can’t be satisfied with the plainest bun.
Cf. what Kadmon & Landman (1993) proposed for any.
7
We accounted for these facts as follows:
1. The article can operate within DegP and signal uniqueness with respect to a property of
degrees rather than a property of individuals (unlike the definite suffix, which requires
individual/NP-level uniqueness).
2. Elative suffix provides appropriate input for degree version of determiner.
3. Elatives evoke expression-alternatives with smaller degrees and are inherently emphatic
in Krifka’s (1995) sense, hence must be part of a maximally strong assertion.
So quasi-definites exhibit definiteness that is “confined to the adjective phrase”, and have
NPI-like pragmatics.
8
A
Appendix: Does the suffix encode specificity?
Julien (2005): “the two aspects of definiteness reside in di↵erent heads, such that n [hosting
the suffix] encodes specificity while D [hosting the article] encodes inclusiveness [≈ uniqueness]” (p. 38, emphasis added).
• does not presuppose existence even in a wide sense ⇒ encodes ‘weak uniqueness’ (Coppock & Beaver, 2012, in preparation): zero or one satisfiers
(39)
-t/-n � P�e,t� xe ∶ �P � ≤ 1 ⋅ P (x)
Evidence from relative clauses (exx. from Dahl 1978, Delsing 1993, 119)
The elative superlative will not in general be compatible with the suffix because uniqueness
is not presupposed. Only the regular superlative can co-occur with it, giving:
(34)
(40)
(35)
a.
Student-en som har kört på den här skrivning-en är en idiot.
student-def that has failed this here exam-def is an idiot
‘The (particular) student who has failed this exam is an idiot’
b.
Den student som har kört på den här skrivning-en är en idiot.
the student that has failed this here exam-def is an idiot
‘Any student who has failed this exam is an idiot’
a.
[ Den sju-år-ig-e pojke [ som klarar detta ] ] finns inte.
‘[The seven-year-old boy(*-def) [ who can do this ] ] does not exist.’
b. #[ Den sju-år-ig-e pojke-n [ som klarar detta ] ] finns inte.
Doubt 1. If finns inte ‘does not exist’ creates an environment that is hostile to specifics, and
the definite suffix encodes specificity, then why is the definite suffix required in (36)?
(36)
[ Den perfekt-a kamera-n ] finns inte.
‘[ The perfect camera-def] does not exist.’
Doubt 2. Intensional verbs
(37)
Varje musiker söker [ det perfekt-a instrument-et ].
‘Every musician is looking for [ the perfect instrument-def].’
Not ‘specific’ in any of Farkas’s (2002) senses (epistemic, scopal, partitive).
Doubt 3. Anti-uniqueness e↵ects (Coppock & Beaver, 2012)
(38)
Mjölk är inte [ den enda källa-n till kalcium ] i kost-en.
‘Milk is not [ the only source-def of calcium ] in the diet.’
multiple sources of calcium
⇒ nothing satisfying the description ‘only source of calcium in the diet’
⇒ no existence
⇒ not epistemically, scopally, or partitively specific
Conclusions
• the suffix is not a marker of specificity (though it is admittedly still unclear why the
definite suffix is sometimes left out when the noun is modified by a relative clause)
9
det starkaste teleskop-et �
◆x∃d[strong(x, d)∧telescope(x)∧∀y ∈ C[x ≠ y → ¬[strong(y, d)∧telescope(y)]]]
‘the telescope that is stronger than all other telescopes in C’
References
Borthen, Kaja. 2007. The distribution and interpretation of Norwegian bare superlatives. In Working
papers ISK 4, Department of language and communication studies, Norwegian University of Science and
Technology.
Borthen, Kaja. 2008. Beste foredrag i manns minne? om nakne superlativer. Presentation (with hand-out)
at Språkdagen, Dragvoll, NTNU.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2006. Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of
language. Linguistic Inquiry 37(4). 535–590.
Coppock, Elizabeth & David Beaver. 2012. Weak uniqueness: The only di↵erence between definites and
indefinites. In Proceedings of SALT 22, eLanguage.
Coppock, Elizabeth & David Beaver. in preparation. Definiteness and determinacy. Ms., University of
Gothenburg and University of Texas at Austin.
Dahl, Östen. 1978. How do noun phrases refer? In John Weinstock (ed.), The nordic languages and modern
linguistics, Austin: University of Texas Press.
Dahl, Östen. 2007. Grammaticalization in the north: Noun phrase morphosyntax in Scandinavian vernaculars. Preliminary version.
Delsing, Lars-Olof. 1993. The internal structure of noun phrases in the Scandinavian languages. Malmö:
Team O↵set.
Farkas, Donka. 2002. Specificity distinctions. Journal of Semantics 19(3). 213–43.
Heim, Irene. 1999. Notes on superlatives. Ms., MIT.
Julien, Marit. 2005. Nominal phrases from a Scandinavian perspective, vol. 87 Linguistic Aktuell/Linguistics
Today. John Benjamins.
Kadmon, Nirit & Fred Landman. 1993. Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16. 353–422.
Krasikova, Sveta. 2012. Definiteness in superlatives. In Maria Aloni, Vadim Kimmelman, Floris Roelofsen,
Galit W. Sassoon, Katrin Schulz & Matthijs Westera (eds.), Logic, language and meaning, vol. 7218/2012,
411–420. Dordrecht: Springer.
Krifka, Manfred. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25. 209–257.
Stroh-Wollin, Ulla. 2011. A semantic approach to noun phrase structure and the definite-indefinite distinction
in Germanic and Romance. In Petra Sleeman & Harry Perridon (eds.), The noun phrase in Romance and
Germanic: Structure, variation and change, 127–140. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stroh-Wollin, Ulla & Rico Simke. to appear. Strong and weak adjectives in Old Swedish. In Freek Van
de Velde, Petra Sleeman & Harry Perridon (eds.), Adjectives in germanic and romance, Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Teleman, Ulf, Sta↵an Hellberg & Erik Andersson. 1999. Svenska Akademiens grammatik. Stockholm: Svenska
Akademien/Norstedts.
10