Chapter published in:
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. 130–150

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
Published online: 14 June 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.239.07esp
References

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.
Aguilar-Guevara, Ana & Zwarts, Joost 2013 Weak definites refer to kinds. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 42: 33–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beavers, John
2011 On affectedness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 335–370. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Birner, Betty & Ward, Gregory
1994 Uniqueness, familiarity and the definite article in English. Berkeley Linguistics Society 20: 93–102. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 Reference to kinds and to other generic expressions: Definiteness and number. The Linguistic Review 32(2): 167–225. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Hindi pseudo-incorporation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 29(1): 1–45. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David
1991 Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3): 547–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Espinal, M. Teresa
2010 Bare nominals in Catalan and Spanish. Their structure and meaning. Lingua 120: 984–1009. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. http://​www​.cssp​.cnrs​.fr​/eiss5​/mcnally​-boleda​/index​_en​.html 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Munn, Alan & Schmitt, Cristina
2005 Number and indefinites. Lingua 115: 821–855. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Real-Puigdollers, Cristina
2020. A minimalist approach to the syntax of p . Linguistic Variation ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 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.