Cover not available
Part of
Reference: From conventions to pragmatics
Edited by Laure Gardelle, Laurence Vincent-Durroux and Hélène Vinckel-Roisin
[Studies in Language Companion Series 228] 2023
► pp. 27–51

Anaphoric potential of bare nominals, incorporated objects and weak definites in German

Experimental results and theoretical modeling

| Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS), Berlin | Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
| Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS), Berlin

In many languages, syntactic objects can be realized in a variety of ways, from maximally distinct DPs to morphologically integrated nominal stems. For example, German allows for viele Fische fangen, Fische fangen, am Fischefangen sein, beim Fischfang sein and fischen. We also find strong definite and weak definite DPs, e.g., in das Kino gehen vs. ins Kino gehen, and bare singular nouns such as Zeitung lesen. While the syntactic differences between these examples are obvious, their semantic differences and their functions in discourse are less clear. We present experimental evidence about differences in the likelihood of anaphoric uptake of such expressions. We suggest semantic representations that help explain the options of anaphoric potential of these expressions within a version of Discourse Representation Theory (DRT).

Keywords: anaphora, incorporation, weak definites, bare plurals, discourse representation theory
Article outline
  • 1.Accessibility of discourse referents
  • 2.Anaphoric reference to incorporated antecedents
  • 3.Varieties of incorporation in German
  • 4.Anaphoric potentials: Experimental results
    • 4.1Antecedent choice experiments: Indefinites, bare plurals, incorporated and implicit objects
    • 4.2Antecedent choice experiment: Indefinite vs. bare singulars
    • 4.3Free discourse completion experiments: Weak definites
    • 4.4Interpretation of anaphors: Weak definites vs. indefinites
  • 5.An explanative account of anaphoric uptake
    • 5.1Anaphoric uptake in standard DRT
    • 5.2Anaphoric uptake of indefinite and bare plural objects
    • 5.3Anaphoric uptake of incorporated objects in compounds
    • 5.4Anaphoric uptake with bare singulars
    • 5.5Anaphoric uptake of weak definites
    • 5.6Anaphoric uptake with implicit objects
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 February 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.228.02kri
References
Aguilar-Guevara, Ana & Zwarts, Joost
2010 Weak definites and reference to kinds. SALT 20: 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira
2001 Accessibility theory: An overview. In Text Representation. Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects [Human Cognitive Processing 8], Ted J. M. Sanders, Joost Schilperoord & Wilbert Spooren (eds), 29–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asudeh, Ash & Mikkelsen, Line
2000 Incorporation in Danish: Implications for interfaces. In Grammatical Interfaces in HPSG, Ronnie Cann, Claire Grover & Philip Miller (eds), 1–15. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Björkelund, Anders, Eckart, Kerstin, Riester, Arndt, Schauffler, Nadja & Schweitzer, Katrin
2014 The extended DIRNDL corpus as a resource for coreference and bridging resolution. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14), Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Hrafn Loftsson, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk & Stelios Piperidis (eds), 3222–3228. Reykjavik: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Borik, Olga & Gehrke, Berit
(eds) (2015) The Syntax and Semantics of Pseudo-Incorporation. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borthen, Kaja
2003 Norwegian Bare Singulars. PhD dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Brocher, Andreas, Weeber, Frederike, Hoek, Jet & von Heusinger, Klaus
2020 Referent management in discourse: The accessibility of weak definites. CogSci 2020: 2829–2835.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N.
1977 Reference to Kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
Carlson, Gregory & Sussman, Rachel Shirley
2005 Seemingly indefinite definites. In Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives, Stefan Kepser & Marga Reis (eds), 26–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H.
1977 Bridging. In Readings in Cognitive Science, Philip Nicholas Johnson-Laird & Peter Cathcart Wason (eds), 411–420. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Crawley, Rosalind A., Stevenson, Rosemary J. & Kleinman, David
1990 The use of heuristic strategies in the interpretation of pronouns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 19: 245–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta
2011 Hindi pseudo-incorporation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 123–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Swart, Henriette & Zwarts, Joost
2009 Less form – more meaning: Why bare singular nouns are special. Lingua 119: 280–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diesing, Molly
1992 Indefinites. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka & de Swart, Henriette
2003 Semantics of Incorporation. From Argument Structure to Discourse Transparency. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Frey, Werner
2015 NP-Incorporation in German. In The Syntax and Semantics of Pseudo-Incorporation, Olga Borik & Behrit Gehrke (eds), 225–261. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Fukumura, Kumiko & van Gompel, Roger P. G.
2011 The effect of animacy on the choice of referring expression. Language and Cognitive Processes 26: 1472–1504. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Peter C., Randall, Hendrick, Ledoux, Kerry & Yang, Chin Lung
1999 Processing of reference and the structure of language: An analysis of complex noun phrases. Language and Cognitive Processes 14: 353–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane
1990 Argument Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy & Zacharski, Ron
1993 Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69: 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene
1982 The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
Kamp, Hans
1981 A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Formal Methods in the Study of Language [Mathematical Centre Tracts 135], Jeroen A. G. Groenendijk, Theo M. V. Janssen & Martin J. B. Stokhof (eds), 277–322. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans & Reyle, Uwe
1993 From Discourse to Logic. Introduction to Model Theoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic, and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
2011 Discourse representation theory. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language and Meaning, Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds), 923–945. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri
1976[1969] Discourse referents. In Notes from the Linguistic Underground, James D. McCawley (ed.), 363–385. New York NY: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kehler, Andrew, Kertz, Laura, Rohde, Hannah & Elman, Jeffrey L.
2008 Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics 25: 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
1980 Die Analyse des blossen Plural bei Gregory Carlson. Linguistische Berichte 70: 47–50.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred & Modarresi, Fereshteh
2016 Number neutrality and anaphoric uptake of pseudo-incorporated nominals in Persian (and weak definites in English). Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 26: 874–891. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Law, Jess H.-K. & Syrett, Kristen
2017 Experimental evidence for the discourse potential of Mandarin. In 47th Annual North East Linguistics Society (NELS 47), Andrew Lamont & Katerina Tetzlo (eds), 231–240. Amherst MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane
2001 Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19: 153–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 Incorporation and pseudo-incorporation in syntax. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Mark Aronoff (ed.), Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meinschaefer, Judith
2005 Event-oriented adjectives and the semantics of deverbal nouns in Germanic and Romance. The role of boundedness and the mass/count distinction. In La Formazione delle Parole, Maria Grossmann & Anna M. Thornton (eds), 355–368. Rome: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Modarresi, Fereshteh
2015 Discourse properties of bare noun objects. In The Syntax and Semantics of Pseudo-Incorporation, Olga Borik & Berit Gehrke (eds), 189–221. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Modarresi, Fereshteh, Fortmann, Jette & Krifka, Manfred
2019 Weak definites vs. implicit entities vs. indefinites in German. Presentation at the 41st Annual Meeting, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft, Bremen.
Modarresi, Fereshteh & Krifka, Manfred
2021a Pseudo incorporation and anaphoricity: Evidence from Persian. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 6(1): 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021b Pseudo-incorporated antecedents and anaphora in Persian: The influence of stereotypical knowledge. In Proceedings of ELM (Experiments in Linguistic Meaning), Beltrama Andrea, Florian Schwarz & Anna Papafragou (eds), 224–236. [URL] (13 July 2022). DOI logo
To appear. In Linguistic Evidence by Experimental Data. Proceedings of Linguistic Evidence 2020, Sam Featherston, Robin Hörnig, Andreas Konietzko & Sophie Wietersheim eds
Nübling, Damaris
2005 Von in die über in’n und ins bis im. Die Klitisierung von Präposition und Artikel als “Grammatikalisierungsbaustelle”. In Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen, Torsten Leuschner, Tanja Mortelmans & Sarah Groodt (eds), 105–131. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poesio, Massimo, Di Eugenio, Barbara, Stevenson, Rosemary & Hitzeman, Janet
2004 Centering: A parametric theory and its instantiations. Computational Linguistics 30: 309–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul
1969 Anaphoric islands. Chicago Linguistic Society 5: 205–239.Google Scholar
Ramelli, Christian
2013 The am+INF construction in German varieties. In Current Approaches to Limits and Areas in Dialectology, Ernestina Carrilho, Magro Catarina & Álvarez Xose (eds), 367–398. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Scholten, Julien & Aguilar-Guevara, Ana
2010 Assessing the discourse referential properties of weak definite NPs. Linguistics in the Netherlands 27(1): 115–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schumacher, Petra B., Backhaus, Jana & Dangl, Manuel
2015 Backward and forward-looking potential of anaphors. Frontiers in Psychology 6. [URL] (13 July 2022). DOI logo
Schwarz, Florian
2009 Two Types of Definites in Natural Language. Amherst MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
2013 Two kinds of definites cross-linguistically. Language and Linguistic Compass 7: 534–559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Smith
2009 Semantic incorporation as an account for some bare singular count noun uses in English. Lingua 119: 314–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Geenhoven, Veerle & McNally, Louise
2005 On the property analysis of opaque complements. Lingua 115: 885–914. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk
1989 Movement and regeneration. In Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar, Paolo Benincà (ed.), 105–136. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus & Schumacher, Petra B.
2019 Discourse prominence: Definition and application. Journal of Pragmatics 154: 117–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ward, Gregory, Sproat, Richard & McKoon, Gail
1991 A pragmatic analysis of so-called anaphoric islands. Language 67: 439–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Adina
2019 A morpho-semantic account of weak definites and bare institutional singulars in English. In Definites across Languages, Ana Aguilar-Guevara, Julia Pozas Loyo & Vazquez-Rojas Maldonado (eds), 319–345. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Wittenberg, Eva & Trotzke, Andreas
2021 Semantic incorporation and dis-course prominence: Experimental evidence from English pronoun resolution. Journal of Pragmatics 186: 87–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yanovich, Igor
2008 Incorporated nominals as antecedents for anaphora, or How to save the thematic arguments theory. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 367–379.Google Scholar