Predication:why we (sometimes) need a

Bert Le BruynSiN 2008

I am linguist.a

Outline

Outline

DUTCH & ENGLISH● Facts● Analysis of de Swart, Winter & Zwarts● A problem● A solution● An extension

Facts

Standard observations

another set of nouns usually takes the indefinite article

one set of nouns usually doesn’t take the indefinite article

= non-capacity nouns

= capacity nouns

Professions Religions Nationalitieslawyer

dictator

…

jew

christian

…

Belgian

American

…

The rest

ex. Hitler was dictator. H was dictator

ex. White Fang is een wolf. WF is a wolf

Advanced observations

capacity nouns can occur with the indefinite article

Marie is een dictator.M is a dictator

“Mary has characteristics that we associate with dictators”

non-capacity nouns can occur without the indefinite article

Ik ben wolf.I am wolve

“I play the part of wolve”

MARKED USES

“non-capacity use”

“capacity use”

CAPACITY NOUNS NON-CAPACITY NOUNS

NO

IN

DE

FIN

ITE

AR

TIN

DE

FIN

ITE

AR

T

Hitler was dictator.Hitler was dictator

Marie is een dictator.Marie is a dictator

Ik ben wolf.I am wolf

White Fang is een wolf.WF is a wolf

de Swart et al. (2007)

I. In the lexicon there are two kinds of nouns

non-capacity nouns

type e, subtype ‘kinds’

-> kind nouns

capacity nouns

I. In the lexicon there are two kinds of nouns

capacity nouns

kind nouns

type e, subtype ‘capacities’

type e, subtype ‘kinds’

eCapacities Kinds

capacity nouns kind nouns

II. When occurring in predicate position nounshave to shift to type <e,t>

To do this both have a special type-shift:

profession set of people performing the profession

religion set of followers

nationality set of citizens

Sometimes this shift is made explicit:

Hij is advocaat van beroep.He is lawyer of profession

non-capacity nouns

capacity nouns CAP

REL

kind set of instantiations of the kind

(cf. Carlson 1980)

<e,t>

REL

eCapacities Kinds

capacity nouns kind nouns

CAP

III. NumP selects kinds

Assumption:

The indefinite article in predicate position sits in NumP.

-> The combination of the indefinite article and a capacity noun leads to a sortal clash.

-> To solve this clash the capacity gets coerced into a kind.

-> The operator used to do this is called kind.

e

<e,t>

capacity nouns

Capacities [presence of NumP]Kinds

REL

III. NumP selects kinds

Assumption:

The indefinite article in predicate position sits in NumP.

-> The combination of the indefinite article and a capacity noun leads to a sortal clash.

-> To solve this clash the capacity gets coerced into a kind.

This coercion has a semantic effect:

KINDSkinds are different from capacities in that they not only group the individuals that perform a certain profession but also those that have the characteristics associated with the profession

-> The operator used to do this is called kind.

e

<e,t>

capacity nouns

Capacities [presence of NumP]Kinds

RELCAP

e

<e,t>

capacity nouns

Capacities

CAP

[presence of NumP]Kinds

REL

Facts central in de Swart et al. (2007)

● Special status of capacity nouns.● Unmarked reading of capacity nouns.

Hitler was dictator. Hitler was dictator

(Application of CAP that maps professions to the people that perform it)● Marked reading of capacity nouns.

Marie is een dictator.Mary is a dictator

(Coercion into kind + application of REL)

The problem

ObservationDe Swart et al. (2007) treat the “kind” reading of capacity nouns but don’t treat the “capacity” reading of kind nouns.

QuestionCan it be incorporated into their account ?

capacityindefinite article +cla

sh

kindindefinite article +

instantiations of the kind

indefinite article +

kind

REL

kindabsence of article +cla

sh

capacityabsence of article +

individuals having a capacity

absence of article +

cap

CAP

???

???

The problemThere is nothing for the capacity to clash with...and therefore no reason for coercion of any kind.

NO !

The solution: Part I

The problemThere is nothing for the capacity to clash with...and therefore no reason for coercion of any kind.

strategy

get a meaning for the indefinite article

-> exploit presence-> exploit absence

Marking argumenthood

In languages that have articles they are obligatory in argument position (in as far as they render the same semantics as the bare form)

*I have dog.*Woman came to see me.

Marking uniqueness

In languages that distinguish between a definite and an indefinite article the definite article (in the singular) is marked for uniqueness whereas the indefinite article is unmarked.

I saw the priest.I saw a priest.

A meaning for the indefinite article (1)

#

both constructions are unmarked for uniqueness

wherever both are possible (i.e. in predicate position) the construction with the indefinite article marks non-uniqueness

(marked form linked to marked meaning)

Indefinite article vs. bare form

A meaning for the indefinite article (2)

What does non-uniqueness really mean ?

A meaning for the indefinite article (3)

men

John

-> John belongs to the set of men and there is at least one other man.

[[John is a man.]]

-> John belongs to the set of men.[[John is man.]] TRUE

TRUE

Marc

Matthew

Lucas

What does non-uniqueness really mean ?

A meaning for the indefinite article (3)

men

John

-> John belongs to the set of men and there is at least one other man.

[[John is a man.]]

-> John belongs to the set of men.[[John is man.]] TRUE

FALSE

Interludium

What does it mean to be unique ?Supervisor:

What does it mean to be non-unique ?

What does she mean ?Me (to myself):

I already gave an explicit semantics...

past

men

John

Marc

Matthew

LucasTo decide whether John is a man...

it is completely irrelevant to know there are other men...

Marking non-uniqueness is therefore completely irrelevant and should be proscribed.

unless...

Mary saw cats.Mary saw tall cats.Mary saw taller cats.Mary saw tallest cats.*

even though the superlative guarantees uniqueness / maximality by itself the definite article has to be used

-> Mary saw the tallest cats.

despite the fact that marking definiteness is irrelevant we cannot but mark it

What is it that distinguishes DPs containing superlatives from all other DPs ?

they guarantee uniqueness / maximality independently of the model

Mary saw cats.Mary saw tall cats.Mary saw taller cats.Mary saw tallest cats.* -> Mary saw the tallest cats.

SuggestionIf uniqueness / maximality is guaranteed model-independently it has to be marked.-> this constraint overwrites the relevance criterion

ExtensionIf non-uniqueness is guaranteed model-independently it has to be marked.-> this constraint overwrites the relevance criterion

The solution: Part II

Kinds are regularities that occur in nature.(Chierchia 1998)

One important corollary for me:

-> they should – in potential – have more than one member

Background on kinds (1)

Background on kinds (2)

What does it mean to have “– in potential – more than one member” ?

+ KIND

# > 1A kind can only be a kind if it has at least two instantiations.

Background on kinds (2)

What does it mean to have “– in potential – more than one member” ?

KIND

# > 1It is model-independently guaranteed that kinds have at least two members.

+

<e,t>

REL

eCapacities Kinds

capacity nouns kind nouns

CAP

If we assume REL takes a kind and returns a set containing all members of the kind (including those of other worlds)...

... it is model-independently guaranteed that the obtained set contains at least two members.

# members > 1

Pulling things together (1)

Whenever REL applies non-uniqueness has to be marked.

This has to be marked (for the singular) with the indefinite article.

Pulling things together (2)

In as far as CAP doesn’t necessarily give rise to sets with at least 2 members......the relevance criterion tells us that non-uniqueness should never be used with capacity nouns.

The indefinite article ends up being unambiguously connected to REL and its absence to CAP.

Whenever REL applies non-uniqueness has to be marked.

This has to be marked (for the singular) with the indefinite article.

<e,t>

REL

eCapacities Kinds

capacity nouns kind nouns

CAP

IND. ARTICLEØ

An extension

Nitty-gritty facts about Dutch

Paul was journalist toen Parijs werd aangevallen.Paul was journalist when Paris was being attacked“Paul was a journalist when Paris was under attack.”

Paul was een journalist toen Parijs werd aangevallen.Paul was a journalist when Paris was being attacked“Paul was a journalist when Paris was under attack”

Marie is een meisje in de eerste jaren van haar leven.Marie is a girl in the first years of her life“Marie is a girl during the first years of her life.”

Paul was meisje in het spel dat we gisteren speelden.Paul was girl in the game that we yesterday played“Paul played the role of girl in our game yesterday.”

??

??

Feeling of “what?! / why?! / how?!” when adding adverbial modification to predication with the ind. art.

capacity noun / bare

capacity noun / non-bare

non-capacity noun / non-bare

non-capacity noun / bare

<e,t>

REL

eCapacities Kinds

capacity nouns kind nouns

CAP

no contextual restrictioncontextual restriction

Nitty-gritty facts about English

Henry is treasurer.

Mary is deputy leader of the party.

Ann is head of the department.

They refer to ‘unique professions’.

Two assumptions

1. English has a general ban on bare singulars. I take this to be a syntactic ban.

2. The indefinite article in English is the default way of avoiding bare singulars.

An account

The indefinite singular can only be used as a way to avoid bare nominals...

... insofar as its use does not clash with its semantics.

Given that sets originating in capacities always come with a contextual restriction...

we expect a possible clash between the indefinite singular as the default way to avoid bare nominals...

and its semantics.

In those cases we expect bare nominals to be possible in English.

-> predicts the behaviour of “unique professions” in English !-> strong confirmation of the fact that the indefinite article marks non-uniqueness !