Predication: why we (sometimes) need a Bert Le Bruyn SiN 2008

I am linguist.a

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 ProfessionsReligionsNationalities lawyer 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 NOUNSNON-CAPACITY NOUNS NO INDEFINITE ART INDEFINITE ART 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’

e CapacitiesKinds capacity nounskind nouns

II. When occurring in predicate position nouns have to shift to type 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 nounsCAP REL kind set of instantiations of the kind (cf. Carlson 1980)

REL e CapacitiesKinds capacity nounskind 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 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: KINDS kinds 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 capacity nouns Capacities [presence of NumP] Kinds REL CAP

e 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

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

Question Can it be incorporated into their account ? capacityindefinite article+ clash kindindefinite article+ instantiations of the kind indefinite article+ kind REL kindabsence of article+ clash capacityabsence of article+ individuals having a capacity absence of article+ cap CAP ??? The problem There is nothing for the capacity to clash with... and therefore no reason for coercion of any kind. NO !

The solution: Part I

The problem There 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 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... pastpast men John Marc Matthew Lucas To 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.

Suggestion If uniqueness / maximality is guaranteed model- independently it has to be marked. -> this constraint overwrites the relevance criterion Extension If 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 # > 1 A 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 # > 1 It is model-independently guaranteed that kinds have at least two members. +

REL e CapacitiesKinds capacity nounskind 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.

REL e CapacitiesKinds capacity nounskind 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

REL e CapacitiesKinds capacity nounskind 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 !