Tokyo,TodaiUniversity,September24,2004BarePlurals

Click to edit Master title style,Click to edit Master text styles,Second level,Third level,Fourth level,Fifth level,Tokyo, Todai University, September 24, 2004,Bare Plurals:Kind-referring, Indefinites, Both, or Neither?,Manfred Krifka,Humboldt-Universitt zu BerlinZentrum fr Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS), Berlin,Paper to this talk is published in the proceedings of SALT XIII, 2003, and can be downloaded at: .de/h2816i3x,Bare Plurals:Kind-referring, Indefinites, Both, or Neither?,Goals of talk:,Interpretations of bare plurals, bare mass nouns (mostly) in English,Theory of Carlson (1977),Revival of it: Chierchia (1998), Type Raising,Problems of Chierchia (1998),A revised theory,Appendix I: The role of information structure,Appendix II: Definite Generic NPs,Answer to the question:All of the above!(take this to be a ko-an of Zen Buddhism, for the time being.),Two Interpretations of Bare Noun Phrases in English,Two interpretations of bare NPs (bare plurals, bare mass nouns):,Existential:,Dogs are barking.,=,wxDOGS(w)(x) BARKING(w)(x),Gold was found in the river.,=,wxGOLD(w)(x) FOUND_IN_RIVER(w)(x),Bare NPs appear to denote indefinite quantifiers based on properties like,DOGS, =,w xx are dogs in w,e.g. ,dogs, =,wPxDOGS(w)(x) P(w)(x),Generic:,Dogs evolved 100,000 years ago.,=,wEVOLVED_100000_YEARS_AGO(w)(CANIS),Gold is a metal.,=,wMETAL(w)(AUREUM),Bare NPs appear to denote kind individuals, e.g. ,dogs, =,CANIS, the biological kind dogs, ,gold, =,AUREUM, the chemical kind gold.,Question: Are bare NPs basically - indefinites, - kind-referring, - or ambiguous between indefinite and kind reading?,Uniform Interpretation of Bare NPs as Kinds: Carlson (1977),Interpretation of bare NPs as denoting kind individuals,even in the “indefinite” interpretation:,Dogs are barking.,=,w,are barking,(w)(,dogs,),=,w yxR(x, y) BARKING(w)(x)(CANIS),=,w xR(x, CANIS) BARKING(w)(x),there is an x that is a,realization,R,(a specimen) of the kind Canis, and x is barking,Arguments for Kind-Referring Interpretation,First family of arguments (Carlson 1977): Bare NPs show only narrow scope interpretation, in contrast to true indefinites,Scope with respect to intensional context:,Minnie wants to talk to a psychiatrist.,(a) There is a psychiatrist x, and Minnie wants to talk to x. (“de re”)(b) Minnie wants that there be a psychiatrist x and she talks to x. (“de dicto”),Minnie wants to talk to some psychiatrists.,(a) and (b), as above.,Minnie wants to talk to psychiatrists.,(only b),Scope with respect to negation:,A dog is barking and a dog is not barking.,(No contradiction,=,w,x,DOG,(w)(x) BARKING(w)(y),as bare NP can have wide scope, w,x,DOG,(w)(x) ,BARKING(w)(y),with respect to negation),Dogs are barking and dogs are not barking.,(Contradiction,=,w,yxR(x, y) BARKING(w)(y)(CANIS),as bare NP has narrow scope, w,yxR(x, y) BARKING(w)(y)(CANIS),with respect to negation),=,w,x,R(x,CANIS,) BARKING(w)(y) w,xR(x,CANIS,) BARKING(w)(y),More Arguments for Kind-Referring Interpretation,Second family of arguments (Carlson1977, Rooth 1985, Schubert & Pelletier 1987) : Anaphoric reference across kind and object interpretation,#,At the meeting,some Martians,presented,themselves,as almost extinct.,(sortal conflict),At the meeting,Martians,presented,themselves,as almost extinct.,(o.k.),#,At the meeting,some Martians,claimed ,PRO,to be almost extinct,(sortal conflict),At the meeting,Martians,claimed ,PRO,to be almost extinct,(o.k.),=,w,_ claimed ,PRO,to be almost extinct,(w)(,Martians,),=,w ,y,x,R(,x,y,) CLAIM(w)(wALMOST_EXTINCT(w)(,y,)(,x,)(,MART.,),=,w xR(,x,MART.,) CLAIM(w)(wALMOST_EXTINCT(w)(,MART.,)(,x,),There are some specimens of Martians x, and x claimed that Martians (= the kind) are almost extinct.,Arguments for Ambiguity Hypothesis of Bare NPs(,Wilkinson 1991, Gerstner-Link & Krifka 1993), No definite kind referring NP in episodic sentences,The dog,/,Dogs,evolved 100,000 years ago.,The dog,is barking.,Dogs,are barking,., Parallel distribution with indefinites in rules-and-regulation statements (Carlson 1995),A gentleman opens doors for ladies.,Gentlemen open doors for ladies.,?,The gentleman opens doors for ladies., Parallel distribution with indefiniteswith respect to non-established kinds (Carlson 1977, attrib. to B. Partee):,The coke bottle / *The green bottle has a narrow neck.,(* on kind-referring interpretation),Coke bottles / Green bottles have a narrow neck.A coke bottle / A green bottle has a narrow neck.,The Theory of Chierchia (1998),Reference to Kinds across Languages, NLS,Goals:,Account for interpretations of bare NPs by general principles of type shift,Account for differences between languages(Germanic, Romance, Slavic, Chinese)by blocking of type shifts due to the presence of overt operators.,Claims:,Bare mass nouns always refer basically to kinds.,Bare plurals are basically properties,but they are always (!) type-shifted to kinds.,Apparently non-kind-referring uses of bare nounsare due to various type shifts.,Chierchia (1998): Ontological Requirements,Domain forms a join semi-lattice,a,b,c,d,Chierchia (1998): Ontological Requirements,Domain forms a join semi-lattice, with join operation,a,b,c,d,b,c,Chierchia (1998): Ontological Requirements,Domain forms a join semi-lattice, with join operation,part relation,a,b,c,d,b,c, ,Chierchia (1998): Ontological Requirements,Domain forms a join semi-lattice, with join operation,part relation,a,b,c,d,b,c,Chierchia (1998): Ontological Requirements,Domain forms a join semi-lattice, with join operation,part relation,a,b,c,d,b,c,a,bc,a,bcd,Chierchia (1998): Ontological Requirements,Domain forms a join semi-lattice, with join operation,part relation, set of atoms,AT,.,a,b,c,d,b,c,a,bc,a,bcd,atoms,Chierchia (1998): Nominal meanings,Extension of singular count noun, in world w:,dog,(w),=,DOG(w), a set of atoms.,Chierchia (1998): Nominal meanings,Extension of plural count noun, in world w:,dogs,(w),=,DOGS(w),=,x,DOG(w)(x),y,xAT(y),DOG(w)(y),DOGS,is a cumulative property: If,DOGS(w)(x),and,DOGS(w)(y),then,DOGS(w)(xy),Chierchia (1998): Nominal meanings,Meaning of definite article,:,DOGS(w) =,the maximal individual that falls under,DOGS(w),DOGS(w),exists because,DOGS(w),is a cumulative predicate.,Chierchia (1998): Kinds,Kinds,have a hybrid nature:,They are individual concepts(functions from worlds to individuals),They are systematically related to properties(applying to the specimens),Mapping of properties to kinds by,Down Operator,If,P,is a property, hence describable by,w,x.,then,P =,w,P(w), that is,P,picks out the maximal individual in,P(w),for every world,w,.,Cf. ter Meulen (1980), hybrid nature of mass nouns: Predicate use,This ring is gold., Referring use,Gold is a metal.,Chierchia (1998): Kinds,Not every property is related to a kind:,For every world,w,P(w),must be defined;this is the case with cumulative properties like,DOGS,but not necessarily with non-cumulative properties like,DOG,.,Chierchia restricts the down operator further:,If,P,is a property, then,P =,w,P(w), provided this is an element of the set,K,AT,of kinds.,(reason:,dogs in this building,does not correspond to a kind),Note:We must allow for partial properties and individual concepts,otherwise we cannot handle extinct kinds or imaginary kinds,like the dodo or the unicorn.,dodos, =,wDODOS(w),defined only in worlds,DODOS,=,w,DODOS(w),in which dodos exist,Up operator,maps kinds to the property that applies to their specimens:,If,k,K, then,k =,w,xx,k(w),Chierchia (1998): Type Shifting,Noun phrase interpretation by type shifting,Partees type shifting operators:,Individual type shift,:,P,=,w,P(w),Existential type shift,:,P,=,w,P,xP(w)(x),P,(w)(x),Predicational shift,BE,:,w,P,xP(w)(x),P,(w)(x),=,P,Type shift may be indicated overtly, by articles:,Individual type shift:,the dog,Existential type shift:,a dog, as in,a dog barked,.,Type shift may happen covertly, by coercion:,Predicational type shift:,a dog, as in,Fido is a dog,.,Definite and indefinite interpretation of bare NPs in Slavic.,Blocking principle:If a language has an overt operator to express a type shift, it has to be used, i.e. covert type shift is blocked.,Chierchias operators as type shifters:,Down shift,:,P,=,w,P(w), if,w,P(w),K, else undefined.,Up shift,:,k,=,w,xx,k(w), if,k,K, else undefined.,There are no strictly generic determiners, hence these shifts are always covert, never blocked.,Chierchia (1998): Three Predication Types,Regular Kind Predications:,Dodos are extinct.,Characterizing Statements:,Lions have a mane.,Derived Kind Predications:,Dogs are barking.,Chierchia (1998): Regular Kind Predications,With bare mass terms:,Gold is a metal.,wMETAL(w)(AUREUM),Mass terms are names of kinds, no type shift reqired.,- With bare plurals:,Dodos are extinct.,(type shift,),wEXTINCT(w)(,DODOS),Bare plurals are basically properties, that are shifted to kind individuals by,to satisfy type and sort requirements of the predicate. Bare singulars cannot be shifted, as they are not cumulative, hence,*Dodo is extinct.,Chierchia (1998): Characterizing Statements,Characteristic Statements Kind predication,Dogs have a tail.Dogs evolved 100,000 years ago.A dog has a tail.*A dog evolved 100,000 years ago.,(o.k. only in taxonomic reading),Treatment of characterizing statements by dyadic generic operator (Krifka e.a. 1995):,A dog has a tail, =,wGEN(w) (,w,xDOG(w)(x) (,w,x,yTAIL(w)(y),HAS(w)(y)(x),Generally, if x is a dog, there is a tail y that x has.,Characterizing statements with bare NPs:,- With bare mass terms: ,Gold is shiny., =,wGEN(w)(,AUREUM)(SHINY),Type shift by,to create property.,- With bare plurals: ,Lions have a mane., =,wGEN(w)(,LIONS)(HAVE_A_MANE),Type shift by,of already shifted,LIONS,(!), not just,wGEN(w)(LIONS)(HAVE_A_MANE), as this would also allow for,*Lion has a mane,wGEN(w)(LION)(HAVE_A_MANE),But how could this derivation be prevented?),Chierchia (1998): Derived Kind Predications,Example:,Dogs are barking.,DKP rule:If the verbal predicate,P,basically applies to objects, and,k,denotes a kind, then interpret,wP(w)(k),as,wx,k(w)(x) P(w)(x),Dogs are barking.,* wBARKING(w)(,DOGS), not interpretable due to sort mismatch,=,wx, ,DOGS(w)(x) BARKING(w)(x), by DKP rule,Narrow scope interpretation, if DKP rule is triggered locally:,John didnt see dogs.,LF, style of Heim & Kratzer 1998 :,dogs,1,John didnt see,t,1,interpretation (after type shift by,:,DOGS,=,DOGS,):,w xSEE(w)(x)(JOHN)(,DOGS),after application:,w SEE(w)(,DOGS)(JOHN),local application of DKP rule:,w x,DOGS(w)(x) SEE(w)(x)(JOHN),Notice:,x,has arrow scope over,due to local triggering of DKP rule.,Chierchia (1998): Problems with the DKP rule,Problems of the DKP rule:, DKP rule not couched in type shift format,Remedy: Assume a sequence of type shifts,DOG,=,DOGS,=,DOGS,=,DOGS,=,DOGS,pluralization type requirement DKP-rule DKP-rule,But now some type shifts are unmotivated:,- Shift,DOGS,=,DOGS,unmotivated, as the resulting structure is not interpretable,- Shift,DOGS,=,DOGS,unmotivated, as the resulting structure is not interpretable, There is a simpler derivation in which every step is motivated:,DOG,=,DOGS,=,DOGS,pluralization type requirement,Dogs are barking.,*,wBARKING(w)(DOGS),- type clash!,after existential shift,DOGS,=,DOGS,:,wDOGS(w)(BARKING(w),=,wxDOGS(w)(x) ,BARKING(w)(x),Chierchia argues that existential shift is dispreferred because it has existential impact (i.e. a more specific meaning). But Chierchias DKP type shift sequence has existential impact as well!,A Revised Type Shift Theory for Bare NPs,Goals:,Assume locally coerced type-shifting and blocking principle.,Replace DKP rule type shifting in accordance with general principles.,Give semantics for regular kind predications, characterizing statements and non-generic statements.,Account for differences between languages.,Type Shifts and Interpretation,Shakenbake Semantics (Emmon Bach).,Convention:,A, B,=,A(B),or,B(A),whatever is well-formed.,Interpretation of binary branching constituents, :, ,=,w,(w),(w),or,w,(w),w,(w),w, whatever is well-formed,If this fails:, ,=,w,TS,(w),(w),or,w,TS,(,w),(w),w,(w),TS,(w),w,(w),TS,(w),whatever is well-formed,where,TS,is a possible type shift operation not blocked by overt operators,If this fails:Iterate the last step (i.e. apply more type shifts),Important type shifts:,Max Individual,:,Predicate,P,=,P,Existence,: Predicate,P,=,PxP(x) P(x),Property,BE,:Existential quantifier,P,xP(x),P(x),=,P,Kind,:,Property,P,=,P, =,wP(w),Semantics of Count Nouns,Krifka (1995), comparative study of English / Chinese,Mass nouns are properties of individuals,gold, =,GOLD, =,w xGOLD(w)(x),Count nouns are relations between numbers and individuals,dog, =,DOG,=,w,n,xDOG(w),(n),(x),The number argument can be filled by a number word:,one dog,=,w,dog,(w)(,one,(w),=,wnxDOG(w)(n)(x)(1),=,wxDOG(w)(1)(x),Count noun relations are extensive measure functions:,- If,DOG(w)(n)(x),and,DOG(w)(m)(x), then,n,=,m,- If,DOG(w)(n)(x),and,DOG(w)(m)(y),and,x,y,do not overlap, i.e.,zzx zy,then,DOG(w)(n+m)(xy),With this,DOG(w)(n),is a quantized predicate, i.e. if,DOG(w)(n)(x),and,y,(P), with,a choice function, to be bound existentially.,This type shift is blo