Cover not available
Part of
Boundaries, Phases and Interfaces: Case studies in honor of Violeta Demonte
Edited by Olga Fernández-Soriano, Elena Castroviejo Miró and Isabel Pérez-Jiménez
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 239] 2017
► pp. 129–150

On weak definites and their contribution to event kinds

| Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
| Universidade Estadual de Campinas
In this paper we focus on the meaning of definite DPs that allow a weak reading. We review three different proposals for weak definites, and we present a new analysis with special reference to Romance languages. We submit that the eventual weak reading of a definite DP and its contribution to a ‘familiar’ kind of activity is exclusively dependent on whether certain stereotypical information encoded on the N present in the DP is activated at the time of utterance interpretation. These DPs do not refer to kinds and do not correspond to incorporated objects. Hence, their interpretation is not compositionally driven, but rather pragmatically inferred. We predict that the identification of weak definites takes place beyond grammar and is constrained by encyclopedic information.
Keywords: weak definites, event kinds, property of kinds, telic stereotypical information, Romance
Article outline
  • 1.On weak definites
    • 1.1Aguilar-Guevara and Zwarts: WDs and reference to kinds
    • 1.2Carlson: WDs and semantic incorporation
    • 1.3Schwarz: WDs and a compositional account of event kinds
  • 2.Proposal: How WDs contribute to event kinds
  • 3.Conclusion and predictions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 June 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.239.07esp
References (56)
References
Aguilar-Guevara, Ana. 2014. Weak Definites: Semantics, Lexicon and Pragmatics. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Google Scholar
Aguilar-Guevara, Ana & Zwarts, Joost. 2010. Weak definites and reference to kinds. Proceedings of SALT 20: 1–15.
. 2013. Weak definites refer to kinds. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 42: 33–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beavers, John. 2011. On affectedness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 335–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Birner, Betty & Ward, Gregory. 1994. Uniqueness, familiarity and the definite article in English. Berkeley Linguistics Society 20: 93–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Borik, Olga & Espinal, M. Teresa. 2012. On definite kinds. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 41: 123–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Reference to kinds and to other generic expressions: Definiteness and number. The Linguistic Review 32(2): 167–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borthen, Kaja. 2003. Norwegian Bare Singulars. PhD Dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.Google Scholar
Carlson, Greg. 1977. References to Kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Published by Garland, New York 1980.Google Scholar
. 2006. The meaningful bounds of incorporation. In Non- Definiteness and Plurality [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 95], Svetlana Vogeleer & Liliane Tasmowski (eds), 35–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Generics and concepts. In Kinds, Things and Stuff: Mass Terms and Generics, Francis J. Pelletier (ed.), 16–35. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Carlson, Greg & Sussman, Rachel S. 2005. Seemingly indefinite definites. In Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Perspectives, Stephan Kepser & Marga Reis (eds), 71–85. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Greg, Sussman, Rachel S., Klein, Natalie M. & Tanenhaus, Michael K. 2006. Weak definite noun phrases. In NELS 36 Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, Christopher Davis, Amy Rose Deal & Youri Zabbal (eds), 179–196. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1984. Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
. 1995. Individual-level predicates as inherent generics. In The Generic Book, Carlson, Greg & Francis J. Pelletier (eds), 176–223. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6: 339- 405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christophersen, Paul. 1939. The Articles: A Study of their Theory and Use in English. Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra & Ladusaw, William. 2004. Restriction and Saturation. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Corblin, Francis. 2013. Weak definites as bound relational definites. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 42: 91–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cyrino, Sonia & Espinal, M. Teresa. 2015. Bare nominals in Brazilian Portuguese: More on the DP/NP analysis. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33(2): 471–521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 2003. A semantics for pseudo incorporation. Ms, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
. 2004. Number marking and (in)definiteness in kind terms. Linguistics & Philosophy 27: 393–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Hindi pseudo-incorporation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 29(1): 1–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen, Bleam, Tania & Espinal, M. Teresa. 2006. Bare nouns, number and types of incorporation. In Non−definiteness and Plurality [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 95], Svetlana Vogeleer & Liliane Tasmowski (eds), 51–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen & Pires de Oliveira, Roberta. 2007. Reference to kinds in Brazilian Portuguese: Bare singulars vs. definite singulars. Sinn und Bedeutung 12, Atle Grønn (ed.), 107–121. Oslo: Department of Literature, Area Studies and European Languages.Google Scholar
Doron, Edit & Meyr, Irit. 2013. Amount definites. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 42: 139–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3): 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Espinal, M. Teresa. 2010. Bare nominals in Catalan and Spanish. Their structure and meaning. Lingua 120: 984–1009. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Espinal, M. Teresa. (In press). Morphosyntactic defectiveness in complex predicate predication. In On Verb Valency Change: Theoretical and typological perspectives, Ía Navarro & Albert Álvarez (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Espinal, M. Teresa & Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 2006. Tipología semántica de los nombres escuetos. El caso particular de los nombres escuetos singulares contables. In Homenaje a Andolin Eguzkitza, Beatriz Fernández & Itziar Laka (eds), 269–285. Vitoria: Universidad del País Vasco.Google Scholar
Espinal, M. Teresa & McNally, Louise. 2007a. Bare singular nominals and incorporating verbs. In Definiteness, Specificity and Animacy in Ibero-Romance Languages, Georg Kaiser & Manuel Leonetti (eds). Arbeitspapier 122: 45–62. Konstanz: University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
. 2007b. Bare singulars: Variation at the syntax-semantics interface. Paper presented at the Workshop on Bare Nouns and Nominalizations , University of Stuttgart, June 22.
. 2011. Bare nominals and incorporating verbs in Catalan and Spanish. Journal of Linguistics 47: 87–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka & de Swart, Henriette. 2003. The Semantics of Incorporation: From Argument Structure to Discourse Transparency. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Grimm, Scott & Louise McNally. 2015. The -ing dynasty: Rebuilding the semantics of nominalizations. Proceedings of SALT 25, 82–102.
Hale, Kenneth. 1986. Notes on world view and semantic categories: Some Warlpiri examples. In Features and Projections, Peter Muysken, & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 233–254. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Ionin, Tania & Matushansky, Ora. 2006. The composition of complex cardinals. Journal of Semantics 23: 315–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, Natalie M., Gegg-Harrison, Whitney M., Carlson, Greg N. & Tanenhaus, Michael K. 2013. Experimental investigations of weak definite and weak indefinite noun phrases. Cognition 128: 187–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In The Generic Book, Greg Carlson & Francis J. Pelletier (eds), 125–175. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origins of telicity. In Events and Grammar, Susan Rothstein (ed.), 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred, Francis J. Pelletier, Greg Carlson, Alice ter Meulen, Godehard Link & Gennaro Chierchia. 1995. Introduction. In Greg Carlson & Francis J. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, 1–124. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names. Linguistic Inquiry 25(4): 609–665.Google Scholar
McNally, Louise & Boleda, Gemma. 2004. Relational adjectives as properties of kinds. In Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics, Olivier Bonami & Patricia Cabredo Hoffher (eds), 5: 179–196. <[URL]> Google Scholar
McNally, Louise & van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1998. Redefining the weak/strong distinction. Paper presented at the Second Paris Syntax and Semantics Colloquium.
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60(4): 847–894. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munn, Alan & Schmitt, Cristina. 2005. Number and indefinites. Lingua 115: 821–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1987. Noun phrase interpretability and type-shifting principles. In Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, Jeroen A.G. Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh & Martin J.B. Stokhof (eds), 115–144. Foris: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2011. On numberlessness and paucal numerals in Russian. Paper presented at Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 20. MIT, 13–15 May.
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Florian. 2014. How weak and how definite are weak definites? In Weak Referentiality [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 219], Ana Aguilar-Guevara, Bert Le Bruyn & Joost Zwarts (eds), 213–235. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stvan, Laurel S. 1998. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Bare Singular Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger & Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1992. The definite determiner and the inalienable constructions in French and in English. Linguistic Inquiry 23(4): 595–652.Google Scholar
Zamparelli, Roberto. 2002. Definite and bare kind-denoting nouns phrases. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 200. Selected Papers from Going Romance 2000 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 232], Frank Drijkoningen, Claire Beyssade, Paola Monachesi & Reineke Bok-Bennema (eds), 305–342. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwarts, Joost. 2014. Functional frames in the interpretation of weak nominals. In Weak Referentiality [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 219], Ana Aguilar-Guevara, Bert Le Bruyn & Joost Zwarts (eds), 265–285. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Real-Puigdollers, Cristina
2021. A minimalist approach to the syntax of p . Linguistic Variation 21:1 ► pp. 90 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 2024. 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.