Definiten esssplits

Definiten esssplits
1. Observations
Sebastian Löbner
2. Concept Types
Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf,
Collaborative Research Centre 991
“The Structure of Representations in Language, Cognition and Science”
3. Uses
4. The scale
www.sfb991.uni-duesseldorf.de/en/sfb991/
5. Splits
Languages with and without articles
Paris, 15-16 March, 2012
UMR 7023 CNRS / Paris 8
1. Observations
2. Concept types
3. Uses
4. The scale
5. Splits
1. Observations about definite descriptions
For languages with definiteness marking:
!"
!"
!"
!"
Semantic theory is preoccupied with anaphoric uses of definites.
There are certain conceptual types of nouns for which the definite article is
(almost) obligatory ! and these types of definites are not anaphoric.
In almost all languages there are splits of marking definite NPs !
one split separates the domain of demonstratives from other definite NPs,
another one separates morphologically marked definites from unmarked ones.
In most cases, definite articles developed from demonstratives.
3
1. Observations
2. Concept types
3. Uses
4. The scale
2. Concept types
[ © stands for: “in need of support by special context”
! indicates: “felicitous without particular contextual support“]
individual concepts
(1) !The/©A pope will visit Switzerland in 2016.
(2) By 2030, the catholic church will have !a/*the different pope.
sortal concepts
(3) !A/©The cat killed !a/©the mouse.
(4) © Our cat caught a mouse yesterday. She killed !the/©a mouse.
functional concepts
(5) !The/©A mother of Jeanne consulted the teacher.
(6) Every person has !a/*the mother.
5. Splits
4
1. Observations
2. Concept types
3. Uses
4. The scale
5. Splits
1. Observations
5
2. Concept types
3. Uses
4. The scale
Conceptual noun types and their respective unmarked determinations
Conceptual noun types ! definite and possessive determination
[–U]
[+U] conceptually unique
[–U]
[+U] conceptually unique
sortal nouns
girl book water
! indefinite
! absolute
individual nouns
pope; Jeanne; she
! definite
! absolute
sortal nouns
girl book water
© definite
© possessive
individual nouns
pope; Jeanne; she
! definite
© possessive
logical type: <e,t>
logical type: <e>
logical type: <e,t>
logical type: <e>
relational nouns
daughter part kin
functional nouns
mother mouth amount
relational nouns
daughter part kin
functional nouns
mother mouth amount
! indefinite
! possessive
! definite
! possessive
© definite
! possessive
! definite
! possessive
logical type: <e,<e,t>>
logical type: <e,e>
logical type: <e,<e,t>>
logical type: <e,e>
1. Observations
5. Splits
6
2. Concept types
3. Uses
4. The scale
[–R]
[+R]
conceptually
relational
1. Observations
!"
sortal nouns
girl book water
individual nouns
pope; Jeanne; she
! indefinite
! absolute
logical type: <e,t>
© indefinite
! absolute
logical type: <e>
relational nouns
daughter part kin
! indefinite
© absolute
functional nouns
mother mouth amount
© indefinite
© absolute
logical type: <e,<e,t>>
logical type: <e,e>
2. Concept types
3. Uses
4. The scale
5. Splits
Concept types and determination
Conceptual noun types ! indefinite and absolute determination
[+U] conceptually unique
[+R]
conceptually
relational
5. Splits
7
[–U]
[–R]
The conceptual type of a noun or pronoun is lexically fixed (modulo polysemy):
The meaning of a sortal/relational/individual/functional [pro]noun
is a sortal/relational/individual/functional concept.
[–R]
!"
However:
When an NP is formed, the noun concept may undergo conceptual shifts,
!"
!"
!"
[+R]
conceptually
relational
!"
(overtly) by being combined with modifiers or arguments
(covertly) by undergoing a general meaning shift (e.g. metonymy)
(covertly) by being merged with contextual information on its referent
Simple determination ( = definite / indefinite / possessive / absolute without
further semantic content) fixes the conceptual type of the NP token.
Determination may coerce a type shift of the CNP (common noun phrase =
operand of determination).
8
1. Observations
2. Concept types
3. Uses
4. The scale
5. Splits
9
Definite determination
!"
1. Observations
Definite determination means:
“Construe the NP token as a conceptually unique description, i.e. as [+U] ! ”.
!"
!"
Indefinite determination
!"
- The meaning/function of indefinite determination is the same
for singular, plural, and mass CNPs.
!"
[Possessive and absolute determination will be disregarded in this talk, but see Löbner 2011.]
3. Uses
4. The scale
5. Splits
11
a. choice of a lexical meaning variant
core semantics
b. compositional modification:
attributes, complements, adjuncts
Level 2
If the CNP is [+U],
indefinite determination coerces a type shift [+U] " [–U]
Determination is (in)congruent
iffdef
the CNP is (not) of the resulting type.
A NP is semantically definite
A DD is pragmatically definite
iffdef
iffdef
the CNP is [+U].
the CNP is [–U].
1. Observations
!"
Level 1
10
If the CNP is [–U],
definite determination coerces a type shift [–U] " [+U]
2. Concept types
3. Uses
4. The scale
5. Splits
3. Uses of definites
Levels of type shifts
Level 0
5. Splits
> cf. indefinite uses of individual or functional concepts
Indefinite determination means:
“Construe the NP token as a sortal description, i.e. as [–U] ! ”.
2. Concept types
4. The scale
> In particular, definite determination coerces a type shift on sortal CNPs
for anaphoric and deictic DDs
! Definiteness is neither a matter of extensional/accidental uniqueness
nor of familiarity.
1. Observations
3. Uses
Congruency and type shifts
- The meaning/function of definite determination is the same
for singular, plural, and mass CNPs
!"
2. Concept types
Congruent definite determination: individual and functional CNPs
If the CNP is [+U], definite determination is semantically redundant.
!" CNP = lexically [+U] individual or functional noun
(cf. the pope and mother examples)
general conceptual shifts
applying across semantic
subclasses of meanings
(such as “artefact“, “institution“,
“profession“, “attribute“, “property“)
dynamic lexicon
merging the concept for the referent of an
NP with extralinguistic information
pragmatic enrichment
!" CNP = lexically [–U] sortal or relational noun plus
a modifier that turns a [–U] concept into a [+U] concept, such as
level 0 shifts
level 1 shift
!"
adjectival only
!"
superlatives, last, next, favourite (Partee & Borschev), ordinals
!"
[+U] appositions, number 2, word ‘kinezumi’, rumour that …
!"
autophoric DDs: SC with “establishing relative clause”
!"
artefacts-in-exclusive-use-possessives my | the toothbrush
12
1. Observations
!"
2. Concept types
3. Uses
4. The scale
5. Splits
13
Incongruent definite determination: sortal and relational CNPs
If the CNP is [–U], definite determination is semantically functional;
it inevitably involves a type shift [–U] " [+U] (logically: <e,t> " e).
!" deictic use:
!" anaphoric use:
1. Observations
!"
The sentential and wider context of the antecedent
plus the sentential context of the anaphoric definite NP
yield an individual concept for the referent.
(8) Reinhold met a yeti. He took a picture of the snowman.
!"
2. Concept types
3. Uses
4. The scale
5. Splits
15
Functional concepts and definiteness (2)
!" The [U] value of a NP with possessor complement is the minimum of the [U]
values of the possessum concept and the possessor concept.
!" If the possessum is a functional concept (FC),
it inherits its [U] value from the possessor concept.
!" Referential transparency of FCs
If the possessum is an FC, it inherits the total determination
from the possessor concept, i.e. being (in)definite, possessive,
deictic, anaphoric, quantifying, generic etc.
4. The scale
5. Splits
14
Reinhold claims he saw [ [the footsteps]+U of [a yeti ]–U ]–U in the snow.
# Reinhold saw [ yeti footsteps ]–U in the snow.
$ Reinhold saw [ the yeti footsteps ]+U in the snow.
b.
Reinhold claims he saw [ [the footsteps]+U of [the yeti ]+U ]+U in the snow.
= Reinhold saw [ the yeti’s footsteps ]+U in the snow.
c.
Reinhold claims he saw [ [footsteps]–U of [a yeti ]–U ]–U in the snow.
# Reinhold saw [ yeti footsteps ]–U in the snow.
d.
Reinhold claims he saw [ [footsteps]–U of [the yeti ]+U ]–U in the snow.
!" Definite or indefinite determination applies only
to the immediate operand, not necessarily to the whole NP !
( > mismatch of constituent structure and semantic composition)
individual concept: “the x such that:
Reinhold met x; x is a yeti; (= antecedent context)
x is a snowman, x is photographable” (= anaphor context)
1. Observations
3. Uses
Functional concepts and definiteness (1)
(9) a.
The deictic gesture maps the sort described by the
[–U] CNP to a particular individual of the sort.
Note that “what Speaker points to” is an individual concept
(in deictic uses enriched with the sortal information
on the value of the function provided by the CNP)
2. Concept types
1. Observations
!"
2. Concept types
3. Uses
4. The scale
5. Splits
16
Functional concepts and definiteness (3)
!" A functional CNP in absolute use (i.e. with no explicit possessor specification)
with definite determination has an implicit [+U] possessor.
(10) special case: definite associative anaphor (DAA):
definite [+U][+R] CNP with implicit anaphoric possessor argument
a.“How much is this?” – “[The price]+U [= of this+U] is attached on the back.”
b. I’ve bought a car, but something’s wrong with [the clutch]+U [of the car+U].
!" A functional CNP in absolute use with indefinite determination has a [–U]
possessor.
(11) a. [A father]–U [of a student–U] came to my office hours the other day.
b. [A father]–U [of the student+U] came to my office hours the other day.
!" With functional CNPs in absolute use, explicit definite determination is
pragmatically not redundant, as it entails that the possessor argument is [+U].
1. Observations
2. Concept types
3. Uses
4. The scale
5. Splits
17
Evidence for the proposed theory of definiteness
!"
1. Observations
2. Concept types
3. Uses
4. The scale
5. Splits
18
Evidence (ctd.)
Statistical evidence:
Congruent uses of definite and indefinite determination are more frequent
than incongruent uses.
!"
50%
sortal
[–U]
zero
relational
[–U]
zero
individual (lex.)
[+U]
zero
functional
[+U]
def
indiv. (p.n., p.p.)
[+U]
indef
!"
Psycholinguistic evidence:
Incongruent determination requires more processing time.
(work in progress, Peter Indefrey)
Typological evidence:
Incongruent determination receives more salient marking. Some options:
!" Incongruent uses are marked, while congruent uses are not
!" Congruent uses receive reduced marking as compared to incongruent uses.
!" Definiteness splits:
> Existence of definiteness marking entails marking of pragmatic definiteness.
> Certain types of semantically definite NPs are left unmarked
from: Horn, Kimm & Gerland (to appear)
1. Observations
2. Concept types
3. Uses
4. The scale
5. Splits
19
4. The scale of uniqueness / definiteness
deictic definites
2. Concept types
3. Uses
4. The scale
5. Splits
4. The scale of uniqueness / definiteness
Types of definite NPs
< anaphoric definites
pragmatic definites
1. Observations
deictic
<
anaph.
autoph.
DAA
IC
proper names
pers.pron.
semantic definites
autophoric NPs
pragmatic def.
semantic definiteness
< definite associative anaphors (DAA)
< lexical IC, complex IC (SC with superlative, etc.)
Grammatical distinctions
< proper names
< personal pronouns
general nouns
with adnominal
demonstratives
proper names
pers.pron.
20
1. Observations
2. Concept types
3. Uses
4. The scale
5. Splits
21
5. Definiteness splits
!"
deictic
The standard uses of adnominal demonstratives – deictic and anaphoric –
require a [–U] CNP for enabling the deictic choice.
!"
!"
3. Uses
4. The scale
5. Splits
22
anaph.
autoph.
DAA
IC
proper n.
pers. pron.
zero definites
demonstratives
Demonstrative determination turns a [–U] CNP into a [+U] NP.
(13) Japanese (similarly: Chinese, Russian, Latin)
a. sono
hon wa
nani?
DEMADN
book TOP
what
‘what’s about this book?’
Demonstrative determination inevitably requires a level-2 type shift,
i.e. reference draws on extralinguistic information.
!"
2. Concept types
Split type A : no definiteness marking
Adnominal demonstratives
!"
1. Observations
Historically, anaphoric uses of demonstratives emerge from deictic uses.
b. kin!
katta
(*sono) hon wa tsumaranai
yesterday bought DEMADN book TOP boring
‘the book I bought yesterday is boring’
Some languages have separate anaphoric determiners
(e.g. Lakhota, Hausa. Lyons 1999: 53ff).
Adnominal demonstratives have the same range of application
as pragmatic definiteness, i.e. [–U] CNPs.
1. Observations
2. Concept types
3. Uses
4. The scale
anaph.
autoph.
DAA
demonstratives
IC
proper n.
autophoric
c. kin! hon o katta. (*sono) taitoru wa oboenai
DAA
DEMADN title TOP remember-NEG
‘I bought a book yesterday. I don’t remember the title’
5. Splits
23
Split type B : demonstratives extended to semantic definites
deictic
deictic, anaphoric
1. Observations
2. Concept types
3. Uses
4. The scale
5. Splits
Split type C : definite article different from demonstratives
pers. pron.
zero definites
deictic
anaph.
autoph.
DAA
IC
proper n.
pers. pron.
demonstratives
definite article
zero definites
Polish Upper Silesian [Czardybon 2010], West Slavic: Upper Sorbian [Breu 2004]
(14) a. Dej mi ta
flaszk-a.
give me that/the bottle
deictic
b. Dziy" pryndzy paczka przisz-#-a i jo ta paczka #odebra-#-a. anaphoric
day before parcel arrived and I the parcel collected
c. tyn
the
doktor co mie dzisiej
doctor who me examined
d. …cha!pa. … (tyn) dach
… house. … (the) roof
autophoric
DAA
English
(15) a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Is the dog yours?
the dog that attacked me the other day
… a car … the clutch …
The station is 10 minutes from here.
I’ll see her at school / at lunch.
(*The) John is visiting us tomorrow.
deictic
autophoric
DAA
IC (with article)
IC (without article)
proper name
24
1. Observations
2. Concept types
3. Uses
4. The scale
5. Splits
25
Split type D1 : demonstratives, strong def, weak def, no proper names, zeros
deictic
anaph.
autoph.
DAA
IC
proper n.
3. Uses
4. The scale
5. Splits
pers. pron.
deictic
zero definites
weak definites
Standard German (cf. Schwarz 2009)
(16) a. ?Am / An dem Tag, als ich geboren wurde, …
on the day when I was born
b. Er ist am / (*an dem) Kopf verletzt .
he is at the head injured
c. Ich gehe jetzt zur / (*zu der) Post.
I go now to the post office
d. Das ist das Buch *vom / von Peter.
that is the book of (the) Peter
anaph.
autoph.
DAA
2. Concept types
3. Uses
stong definites
IC
proper n.
pers. pron.
anaph.
autoph.
DAA
IC
German dialects:
North Frisian:
DAA
Alemannic (Switzerland, Studler [2004])
IC
(17) a. De Paul het es Ross gchouft. ... Das Ross laamt.
theweak P. has a horse bought. … thestrong horse is lame
4. The scale
5. Splits
proper n.
27
pers. pron.
zero definites
weak definites
Standard Dutch (cf. Ortmann, to appear)
strong die–dat vs. general de–het
weak def = weak article, or contraction [Studler 2004]
weak “a-article”, strong “d-article” (Fering) [Ebert 1971]
b. de
sterchscht Maa vo de
Wäut
theweak strongest man of theweak world
proper name
demonstratives
strong definites
zero
definites
weak definites
autophoric
Split type D3 : demonstratives, strong def, weak def, no proper names, zeros
also: Swedish (Stroh-Wollin 2003)
def. determiner vs. suffix (plus det.)
1. Observations
2. Concept types
3. Uses
proper name,
anaphor
IC, IC
4. The scale
5. Splits
Split type E : demonstratives, strong def, weak def, preproprial article, zeros
deictic
anaph.
autoph.
demonstratives
strong definites
DAA
IC
weak definites
proper n.
pers. pron.
preproprial
zero
definites
Swedish
(19) a.
det witte hus-et
white house-DEF
witte hus-et
‘the white house’
SC
‘the White House’
IC
DEF
(18) a. In
in
dat gedicht wilde ik de liefde vergelijken ...
thestr poem would I theweak love compare …
b. Jij was die
vrouw die ik zag (Google)
you were thestrong woman who I saw
c. Dit is
this is
26
demonstratives
full definites
deictic
2. Concept types
Split type D2 : demonstratives, strong def, weak def, proper names, zeros
demonstratives
1. Observations
1. Observations
anaphoric vs. IC
autophoric
de
vrouw die Osama verdedigte (Google) autophoric
theweak woman who Osama defended
b.
Swedish and Norwegian dialects
reduced 3rd person pronouns a–n with proper names as “preproprial” articles
are “obligatory with persons’ given names” (Dahl 2007: 91)
c.
a Brita
n Erik
proper name
28
1. Observations
Split type F :
deictic
2. Concept types
3. Uses
4. The scale
5. Splits
29
demonstratives, def. article, personal article
anaph.
autoph.
DAA
IC
proper n.
1. Observations
pers. pron.
!"
b. ka
kite
see
‘I saw him’
T/A
1. Observations
au i
1sg DO
a
PERSART
2. Concept types
ia
3sg
3. Uses
These are theories restricted to definites with sortal nouns/CNPs: [–U][–R]
By far the most general nouns are sortal.
!"
Only with [–U] nouns, definiteness marking is semantically fully functional.
autophoric, IC
!"
Linguistics preferably uses written data ! where anaphoric uses by far
prevail.
personal pronouns
!"
While relational nouns enjoy increasing attention in linguistic theory,
individual and functional nouns are hardly recognized as noun classes of
their own.
4. The scale
5. Splits
31
For languages with definiteness marking:
There are certain conceptual types of nouns for which the definite article is
(almost) obligatory: individual and functional nouns.
Exceptions are due to incongruent, i.e. indefinite, uses of [+U] nouns
(cf. (2) and (6) above). These decrease in frequency in the following order:
FN < IN < proper names < 3rd person < 2nd, 1st person
To the extent that there are incongruent uses, marking definiteness with these
subtypes of nouns is functional even if semantically redundant.
>
30
!"
1. Observations about definite descriptions revisited
!"
5. Splits
Probable reasons:
Maori [Bauer 2004: 114, 109]
whare kei te huringa
DEFART house at
the corner
‘the house at the corner’
4. The scale
Semantic theory is preoccupied with anaphoric uses of definites
(Russell, GQT, DRT, File Change Semantics, Heim & Kratzer).
!"
preproprial
zero definites
(19) a. te
3. Uses
1. Observations about definite descriptions revisited
demonstratives
general definite article
2. Concept types
The more frequent the incongruent uses are,
the more likely the congruent uses will be marked as definite.
1. Observations
!"
2. Concept types
3. Uses
4. The scale
5. Splits
For semantic definites, definiteness marking is semantically redundant.
Further reasons for the existence of definiteness marking of semantic
definites:
!" Indicating indexicality is functional even for semantically unique CNPs
(> situational argument for IC, FC)
!" Analogy pressure towards a uniform syntactic structure of NP/DP
motivates explicit determination for all general nouns.
!" Often articles carry nonsemantic functions:
marking of case, number, gender, or noun class
32
1. Observations
2. Concept types
3. Uses
4. The scale
33
5. Splits
Splits
!"
!"
2. Concept types
3. Uses
4. The scale
5. Splits
34
In most cases, definite articles developed from demonstratives.
!" Most general nouns are sortal (type <e,t>).
A universal split separates pragmatic from semantic definites.
additional splits
1. Observations
!" Demonstratives take sortal nouns and yield definite NPs !
they map a [–U] CNP on a [+U] NP.
> within pragmatic definites:
deictic vs. anaphoric
!" In the course of grammaticalization of definiteness markers from
demonstratives, the following steps are involved:
-" demonstratives are getting used without a deictic gesture
(cf. anaphoric uses, also “anamnestic” uses [Himmelmann 1997])
-" deictic distinctions are neutralized
(cf. anaphoric uses)
-" the requirement of [–U] input is dropped
(first: autophoric uses,
later “abstract situational uses” [Hawkins 1978] with IN and FN)
> within semantic definites
autophoric vs. other semantic definites
general nouns vs. proper names and personal pronouns
proper names vs. personal pronouns
!" Finally, demonstratives-turned-definiteness-markers
admit [±U] CNPs and just mark the result as a [+U] NP.
Selected references
35
Bauer, Winnifred (1993), Maori. Routledge London.
Breu, Walter (2004), Der definite Artikel in der obersorbischen Umgangssprache. In: Marion
Krause & Christian Sappok (eds.), Slavistische Linguistik 2002. Referate des XXVIII. Konstanzer Slavistischen Arbeitstreffens. Bochum, 10.-12.9.2002, 9–57. München: Sagner.
Czardybon, Adrian (2010), Die Verwendung des definiten Artikels im Oberschlesischen im
Sprachvergleich. Master Thesis, University of Düsseldorf.
Dahl, Östen (2007), Grammaticalization in the North: Noun Phrase Morphosyntax in Scandinavian
Vernaculars. Stockholm University. www2.ling.su.se/staff/oesten/downloads/Gram_north.pdf
Ebert, Karen H. (1971), Referenz, Sprechsituation und die bestimmten Artikel in einem
nordfriesischen Dialekt (Fering). Bredstedt: Nordfriisk Instituut.
Hawkins, John A. (1978), Definiteness and Indefiniteness. Croom Helm. London.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. (1997), Deiktikon, Artikel, Nominalphrase. Zur Emergenz syntaktischer
Struktur. Niemeyer. Tübingen.
Horn, Christian, Nicolas Kimm, Doris Gerland (to appear), Empirical Evidence for Concept Types
in German Texts. In Th. Gamerschlag, D. Gerland, R. Osswald, W. Petersen (eds.), Concept
types and frames - Applications in Language, Cognition and Philosophy.
Löbner, Sebastian (1985), Definites. Journal of Semantics 4: 279-326.
Löbner, Sebastian (2011), Concept types and determination. Journal of Semantics 28: 279-333.
Lyons, Christopher. (1999), Definiteness. CUP. Cambridge.
Selected references
36
Ortmann, Albert (to appear), Definite article asymmetries and concept types: semantic and
pragmatic uniqueness . In Th. Gamerschlag, D. Gerland, R. Osswald, W. Petersen (eds.),
Concept types and frames - Applications in Language, Cognition and Philosophy.
Partee, Barbara, & Vladimir Borschev (2002), Integrating lexical and formal semantics: Genitives,
relational nouns, and type-shifting. In Robin Cooper, Thomas Gamkrelidze (eds.),
Proceedings of the 2nd Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic and Computation. Tbilisi
State University. Tbilisi. 229–241.
Schwarz, Florian (2009), Two Types of Definites in Natural Language. PhD dissertation, University
of Massachusetts Amherst. Studler, Rebekka (2004). Voller und reduzierter Artikel in der
schweizerdeutschen DP. In: Bra%i%, S., &uden, D., Podgor'ek, S. & Poga%nik, V. (eds.),
Linguistische Studien im Europäischen Jahr der Sprachen. Akten des 36. Linguistischen
Kolloquiums in Ljubljana. Frankfurt a.M.: Lang. 625–635.
Stroh-Wollin, Ulla (2003), (Double) definiteness in Swedish. In: Hans-Olof Delsing et al. (eds.),
Grammatik i fokus Vol. 2: Festschrift for Christer Platzack, 335-342. Lunds universitet:
Institutionen för nordiska språk.
Studler, Rebekka (2004), Voller und reduzierter Artikel in der schweizerdeutschen DP. In: Bra%i%,
S., &uden, D., Podgor'ek, S. & Poga%nik, V. (eds.), Linguistische Studien im Europäischen
Jahr der Sprachen. Akten des 36. Linguistischen Kolloquiums in Ljubljana. Frankfurt a.M.:
Lang. 625–635.
Acknowledgements
37
The research underlying this talk was largely funded by the Deutsche Forschunggemeinschaft (DFG) grants Research Unit RU 600 “Functional Concepts and Frames”
and Collaborative Research Centre CRC 991 “The Structure of Representations in
Language, Cognition, and Science”.
I discussed matters of this talk with many colleagues including Adrian Czardybon,
Christian Horn, Nicolas Kimm, and Doris Gerland; I would like to thank Albert Ortmann
in particular for numerous discussions and for providing many of the data I quote.