Transcript Document 7432110

Article use across languages:
an OT typology
Henriëtte de Swart & Joost Zwarts
Utrecht University
1
Referents in conversational space



In languages like English, the indefinite
article is used to set up (discourse)
referents (Kamp, Heim, etc.).
A studenti came to my office. Hei had a
question about the exam.
Discourse pronoun picks up discourse
referent introduced by indefinite.
2
Determined reference



The definite article is used with
unique/maximal referents, or in anaphoric
contexts: determined reference (Farkas).
I love you more than the sun and the
stars. (uniqueness/maximality)
A child was playing in the park. The funny
little creature wore a green hat, and
purple socks. (anaphoricity)
3
Plural morphology



In English, plural morphology is sufficient
to introduce a discourse referent.
Mary bought *apple/an apple/apples/some
apples.
Farkas and de Swart (2003): plural
morphology introduces a presupposed
plural discourse referent (binding of dr by
determiner, or accomodation).
4
Correspondences in nominal
domain



Dr: A determiner (form) corresponds with the
presence of a discourse referent (meaning).
Def: A definite article (form) corresponds with a
discourse referent with determined reference
(meaning).
Plur: Plural morphology on the noun (form)
corresponds with a predication of plurality on a
presupposed discourse referent (meaning).
5
Language variation



Generality of article interpretation: definite
and indefinite articles, and plural
morphology in other languages make
roughly the same contributions to
discourse meaning.
But: we don’t find plural morphology and
article use in all languages.
Many languages use bare nominals.
6
Example: Chinese
Wò kànjiàn xióng le. [Mandarin Chinese]
I
see
bear Asp
‘I saw a bear/some bears.’
 Gou hen jiling.
Dog very smart.
‘The dog is intelligent/dogs are intelligent.’

7
Two questions




What is the distribution of articles across
languages?
OT typology of article use
(correspondence rules)
What is the interpretation of bare
nominals?
Cross-linguistic semantics
8
Universal cognition

Assumption: setting up referents in
discourse space, and referring to them
involves general cognitive operations,
which are related to the way we organize
our conversational space around the
individuals that we talk about.
9
Central question


Central question: why do certain
languages (e.g. English) encode these
cognitive operations in the functional
structure of nominals, whereas other
languages (e.g. Chinese) do not.
Possible answer: parametrization.
10
Parametrization
Chierchia (1998): article use is related to a
(semantic) parameter of universal
grammar, which opposes e.g. English to
Chinese.
 Wò kànjiàn xióng le. [Mandarin Chinese]
I
see
bear Asp
‘I saw a bear/some bears.’
 John bought *(a) kitten.

11
Bare singular constructions






Prediction: English never uses bare
(count) singulars.
John is in hospital
the way to use knife and fork
Mary is chair of the department
He found door after door closed
She is playing piano for the choir
(Location)
(Coordination)
(Predication)
(Reduplication)
(Incorporation)
12
Growing interest in bare singulars





Location: Stvan (1998)
Coordination: Heycock & Zamparelli (2003)
Predication: Matushansky & Spector (2005),
de Swart, Winter & Zwarts (2005)
Reduplication: Jackendoff (2005)
Incorporation: Van Geenhoven (1998), Dayal
(1999), Farkas & de Swart (2003)
13
Bare singulars are special



Construction specificity (in bed/*eat apple)
Restricted modification (in bed/*in double bed)
Non-referentiality (no antecedent for discourse
pronoun)

Number neutrality (Jan en Marie zijn leraar,

‘Jan and Marie are teacher’)
Stereotypical interpretation (in jail means
incarcerated, not visiting, cf. in the jail).
14
Taking stock


Conclusion: we need a more fine-grained
system of interacting constraints, to
distinguish more languages classes, and
account for exceptions.
Alternative: we can capture the generalizations
of a parameter-based approach in an OT
typology. Furthermore, bi-directional OT
accounts for the special use of bare nominal
constructions in English.
15
OT typology of article use


Typology based on
conflicting forces, pulling
languages in different
directions (economy in
form vs. faithfulness to
discourse meaning).
Bare form most
economical form
16
Language classes (i)-(iii)



(i) no plural morphology, no article use
(Chinese)
(ii) singular/plural distinction, but no
articles (Hindi, Slavic languages)
(iii) definite article, but no indefinite one
(Hebrew).
17
Language classes (iv)-(vi)



(iv) no definite/indefinite contrast, presence of
determiner on all nominals in argument position
(St’át’imcets)
(v) definite and indefinite article in singular, but
only definite article in the plural; definite plurals
contrast with bare plurals (English)
(vi) definite and indefinite articles in singular as
well as in plural (French).
18
WYSIWYG (in syntax)





What You See Is What You Get:
syntactic projections must be motivated.
[DP [NumP [NP]]].
If no number distinctions, no NumP.
If no article (determiner), no DP.
Higher projections license lower ones: if
DP, then also NumP.
19
Markedness constraints




*FunctN: Avoid functional structure in
the nominal domain.
*Art: Avoid Article
{*FunctN, *Art} >> {faithfulness
constraints governing number, articles}
Language without number, articles
(Chinese).
20
Chinese


{*Art, *FunctN} >> {constraints for
number, article use}
Wò kànjiàn xióng le.
[Chinese]
I

see
Gou juezhong le.
Dog extinct

bear Asp ‘I saw a bear/bears.’
Asp.
‘Dogs are extinct.’
Gou hen jiling.
Dog very smart. ‘The dog/dogs are intelligent.’
21
FPl



FPl: plural must be expressed in the
functional projection of the nominal.
FPl >> {*Art, *FunctN}: language
projects NumP, but no articles.
burtebi
goravs[Georgian]
balls:pl:nom
roll:3sg
‘Balls/The balls are rolling.’
22
FDef




FDef: determined reference must be
expressed.
FDef >> *Art: definite/bare contrast.
dan ra’a namer
[Hebrew]
Dan saw tiger ‘Dan saw a tiger’
namer/ha-namer hu xaya torefet
tiger/ the-tiger
is animal carnivorous
‘the tiger is a carnivorous animal’
23
FDr



Fdr: Parse a discourse referent by means
of a functional layer above NP.
{Fdr, FPl} >> {*Art, *FunctN}
No
bare singulars in argument position.
Salish languages (Matthewson 1998): in
argument position determiner always
required.
24
St’at’imcets



tecwp-mín-lhkan ti púkw-a
lhkúnsa
Buy.appl-1sg.sub det book-det today
‘I bought a/the book today.’
No determiner in predicative construction.
kúkwpi7 kw s-Rose
Chief
det nom-Rose
‘Rose is a chief’

*ti kúkwpi7-a kw s-Rose
det chief-det
det nom-Rose
25
Def/indef contrast





{Fdr, FDef, FPl} >> {*Art,*FunctN}
With strong number morphology on noun,
either Num or D can introduce dr.
No bare singulars in regular argument
position. Bare plurals OK.
I bought *(a) book/books.
[English]
*(The) dinosaur is/dinosaurs are extinct.
26
Indefinite singular (English)
book
Fdr
FPl
*Art *FuncN
[-def, -pl]
book
 a book
*
*
*
27
Bare plural (English)
book
Fdr
FPl
*Art *FuncN
[-def, +pl]
book
*
*
 books
indef_pl
books
*
*
*
28
French


Weak number morphology does not
introduce discourse referent; only D
introduces dr.
J’ai lu *(un) livre/ *(des) livres. [French]
I read *(a) book/ *(indef-pl) books.
I read a book/books.
29
Typology in OT I
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
No number, no articles (Chinese):
{*Art, *FunctN} >> {FPl, FDef, Fdr}
Number, but no articles (Hindi, Slavic):
FPl >> {*Art, *FunctN} >> {FDef, Fdr}
Number and definite article (Hebrew):
{FDef, FPl} >> {*Art, *FunctN} >> Fdr.
30
Typology in OT II
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Number and general determiner (Salish):
{FPl, Fdr} >> {*Art, *FunctN} >> FDef
+ deficient number morphology.
Number and articles in sg (English):
{FDef, FPL, Fdr} >> {*Art, *FunctN}.
Number and articles in sg/pl (French):
{FDef, FPL, Fdr} >> {*Art, *FunctN} +
deficient number morphology.
31
From typology to semantics



So far: OT typology provides alternative for
parameter-based approach. More language
classes, because of interacting constraints.
Cross-linguistic semantics of bare nominals: Why
do bare nominals in different languages have
different meanings?
Answer: bi-directional OT links semantics to
ranking of syntactic constraints
32
English bare plurals are indefinite
Non-definite
meaning
Bare plural
Definite
meaning


Definite
plural



Strong bidirectional OT: English bare plurals are non-definite,
because definiteness is explicitly encoded in the definite article.
33
Definite/indefinite bare nominals


Bare nominals are indefinite in all
languages that have an overt definite
article (English, Hebrew)
Bare nominals in languages that have no
definite/indefinite contrast are neutral with
respect to determined reference (Hindi,
Chinese)
34
Discourse referentiality of bare
nominals



Fdr >> *Art (English, French, Salish)
implies: no bare singulars in argument position.
Arg: parse an XP in argument position
as a discourse referent (where X = N,Num,D).
In argument position, Fdr (syntax) and Arg
(semantics) work together: An XP that is parsed
as a discourse referent must be marked as such.
35
Indefinite singulars in English
Nonreferential
Bare sg
Discourse
referential


Indefinite
sg



36
Bare singulars in English



Prediction 1: bare singulars in languages
like English do not occur in regular
argument positions.
I saw *bear/a bear/the bear/bears/the
bears.
Prediction 2: bare singulars in English can
occur if we escape Arg (nominal in nonreferential position).
37
Non-referential bare singulars





John is in hospital
the way to use knife and fork
Mary is chair of the department
He found door after door closed
She is playing piano for the choir
(Location)
(Coordination)
(Predication)
(Reduplication)
(Incorporation)
38
No antecedent for discourse
pronoun



Pat is in prison. ?It is a 3-story concrete
building. (Stvan 1998)
Door after door was closed. ?It was
securely locked.
Ik weet dat Peter viool speelt. ?Kan hij ‘m
meenemen? (I know that Peter plays the
violin. Can he take it along?)
39
Number neutrality


If bare singulars lack a Num projection, no
singular/plural semantics.
Jan en Sofie zijn leraar
[Dutch]
Jan and Sofie are teacher
‘Jan and Sofie are teachers’

Mari bélyeget
gyüjt.
[Hungarian]
Marie stamp.Acc collect
‘Marie collects stamps.’
40
Restricted modification






If adjectives do not attach to NP, but
higher, modification is restricted.
*in American hospital
*He bought black hat and checkered shirt
*Annie is experienced head of department
*miserable day after awful day
*Peter is playing attuned guitar
41
Bare consequences





Arguments ~ referents ~ projections
No arguments  Construction specificity
No discourse referent  Non-referentiality
No projections  Number neutrality
No projections and no discourse referent
 Restricted modification
42
Stereotypicality




Stereotypical meanings are enrichments
of underspecified lexical meanings
driven by convention, encyclopedic
knowledge, cultural models, qualia,
frames, scripts and scenarios,
defining what is normal, natural, typical,
customary, institutionalized.
43
Strongest meaning hypothesis

Strength favours stronger, more
informative, richer meanings.
in (a/the) jail
Strength
x [ in(x,y) & jail(y)
*!
 x [ in(x,y) & jail(y) &
of(y,x) ]
44
Strength and *Art together
 in jail, x
*Art
Strength


[ in(x,y) & jail(y) & of(y,x) ]
in the jail,
*
x [ in(x,y) & jail(y) & of(y,x) ]
in jail, x [ in(x,y) & jail(y) ]

 in the jail, x [ in(x,y) & jail(y)] *

*
*
45
Strength and *Art together
 slager zijn,
x CAP(butcher’)(x)
een slager zijn,
x CAP(butcher’)(x)
slager zijn,
x REL(butcher’)(x)
 een slager zijn,
x REL(butcher’)(x)
*Art

Strength

*


*
*
*
Where CAP represents the stronger professional, capacity reading, and REL the
weaker, Carlsonian realization reading (de Swart, Winter and Zwarts 2007)
Typological results


Not all languages use plural morphology and
articles, but they all convey the same discourse
meanings.
The OT typology links the presence/absence of
morpho-syntactic structure in the nominal
domain to the tension between markedness
constraints (preference for bare forms) and
faithfulness constraints (correspondence
between discourse meanings and form).
47
Semantic results


Strong bi-directional OT links the crosslinguistic semantics of bare nominals to
the constraint ranking of the grammar.
Weak bi-directional OT accounts for the
exceptional distribution and interpretation
of bare (count) singular constructions in
languages like English.
48