Article published in:
Weak Referentiality
Edited by Ana Aguilar-Guevara, Bert Le Bruyn and Joost Zwarts
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 219] 2014
► pp. 213–235

How weak and how definite are Weak Definites?

This paper explores the potential for a unified analysis of Weak Definites and regular definites. I first consider and argue against assimilating Weak Definites to co-varying interpretations of regular definites via general mechanisms. Next, I present a new proposal for analyzing Weak Definites, which sees them as regular definites occurring in verb phrases that denote kinds of events. This has the promise of allowing us to maintain a unified analysis of definites in terms of uniqueness while at the same time capturing the special properties of Weak Definites.
Published online: 03 December 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.219.09sch
References

References

Aguilar-Guevara, A. & Zwarts, J.
2011 Weak definites and reference to kinds. In Proceedings of SALT 20, N. Li & D. Lutz (eds),179–196. Vancouver BC.Google Scholar
Asic, T. & Corblin, F.
2012 Telic definites and their preposition (s): French vs. Serbian. Talk presented at the Workshop on ‘Languages with and without articles’, Paris, France.
Axelrod, M.
1990 Incorporation in Koyukon Athapaskan. International Journal of American Linguistics 56(2): 179–195. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barker, C.
2005 Possessive weak definites. In Possessives and Beyond: Semantics and Syntax, J. Kim, Y. Lander & B.H. Partee (eds), 89–113. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Borthen, K.
2003 Norwegian Bare Singulars. PhD dissertation, NTNU, Trondheim.
Bosch, P.
2010. Weak definites and German preposition-determiner contraction. Talk presented at the Workshop on ‘Specificity from theoretical and empirical points of view’, University of Stuttgart.
Bosch, P. & Cieschinger, M.
2010. Weak definites. Linguistic evidence for cognitive constraints. Talk presented at the Cognitive Science Research Training School, Universität Osnabrück.
Carlson, G.
2006 The meaningful bounds of incorporation. In Nondefiniteness and Plurality [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 95], S. Vogeleer & L. Tasmowski (eds), 35–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1977 Reference to Kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Carlson, G., Sussman, R., Klein, N. & Tanenhaus, M.
2006 Weak definite noun phrases. In Proceedings of NELS 36, C. Davis, A.-R. Deal & Youri Zabbal (eds), 179–196. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G.
1984 Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
1995 Dynamics of Meaning. Anaphora, Presupposition and the Theory of Grammar. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998 Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6(4): 339–405. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H.H.
1975 Bridging. In Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing, R.C. Schank & B.L. Nash-Webber (eds), 169–174.New York NY: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
Dayal, V.
2004 Number marking and (in)definiteness in kind terms. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(4): 393–450. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Hindi pseudo-incorporation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(1):123–167. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Elbourne, P.
2005 Situations and Individuals. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
von Fintel, K.
1994 Restrictions on Quantifier Domains. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Hawkins, J.A.
1978 Definiteness and Indefiniteness. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Heim, I.
1991 Artikel und Definitheit. In Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (eds), 487–535. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kadmon, N.
1987 On Unique and Non-unique Reference and Asymmetric Quantification. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Kratzer, A.
1989 An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(5): 607–653. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996 Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, J. Rooryck & L. Zaring (eds), 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007a On the plurality of verbs. In Event Structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation, J. Dölling, T. Heyde-Zybatow & M. Schäfer (eds), 269–300. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2007b Situations in natural language semantics. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, E.N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Krifka, M., Pelletier, F.J., Carlson, G.N., ter Meulen, A., Chierchia, G. & Link, G.
1995 Introduction to genericity. In The Generic Book, G.N. Carlson & F.J. Pelletier (eds), 1–124. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Landman, F.
1996 Plurality. In The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, S. Lappin (ed.), 425–457. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2000 Events and Plurality. The Jerusalem Lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M.
1984 The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60(4): 847–894. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Partee, B.H.
1986 Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, J. Groenendijk, D.H.J. Jongh & M. Stokhof, 115–144. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Poesio, M.
1994 Weak definites. In Proceedings of SALT IV, M. Harvey & L. Santelmann (eds), Vol. 4, 282–299. Ithaca CA: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Postal, P.M.
1969 On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English. In Modern Studies in English, D. Reibel & S. Schane (eds), 201–224. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Prince, E.F.
1981 Toward a taxonomy of given/new information. In Radical Pragmatics, P. Cole (ed), 223–255. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J.
1995 The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
de Reuse,. J.
1994 Noun incorporation in Lakota (Siouan). International Journal of American Linguistics 60(3):199–260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, C.
2003 Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 6(3): 287–350. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, S.
1995 Adverbial quantification over events. Natural Language Semantics 3(1):1–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scholten, J. & Aguilar-Guevara, A.
2010 Assessing the discourse referential properties of weak definite NP’s. In Linguistics in the Netherlands, Vol. 27, J. van Kampen & R. Nouwen (eds),115–128. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, F.
2009 Two Types of Definites in Natural Language. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
2012a Different types of definites crosslinguistically. Ms, University of Pennsylvania.
2012b Situation pronouns in determiner phrases. Natural Language Semantics 20(4): 431–475. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Aguilar-Guevara, Ana & Maartje Schulpen
2014.  In Weak Referentiality [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 219], ► pp. 237 ff. Crossref logo
Dayal, Veneeta & Yağmur Sağ
2020. Determiners and Bare Nouns. Annual Review of Linguistics 6:1 ► pp. 173 ff. Crossref logo
Gehrke, Berit & Cristina Marco
2014. Different by-phrases with adjectival and verbal passives: Evidence from Spanish corpus data. Lingua 149 ► pp. 188 ff. Crossref logo
Klein, Natalie M., Whitney M. Gegg-Harrison, Greg N. Carlson & Michael K. Tanenhaus
2013. Experimental investigations of weak definite and weak indefinite noun phrases. Cognition 128:2 ► pp. 187 ff. Crossref logo
Koring, Loes
2020.  In Producing Figurative Expression [Figurative Thought and Language, 10], ► pp. 237 ff. Crossref logo
Schumacher, Petra B. & Hanna Weiland
2014.  In Weak Referentiality [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 219], ► pp. 365 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 december 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.