1. Genericity Conference May 11-13 2009 Min Que Femke Smits Bert Le Bruyn 1

2. Bare nominals 101 somepotatoes. 2 Definition Nominals without determiner. Mary ate

3. Bare nominals 101  Two prevailing views on the semantics of BNs: Kinds-only view: BNs unambiguously refer to kinds Ambiguity view: BNs are ambiguous between kinds and indefinites Potatoes were first cultivated in South-America. Mary ate potatoes. 3

4. - Briefly show that the main argument in favour of the kinds-only view is based on the assumption that bare nominals differ from indefinites in only taking narrow scope. - Discuss the scope behaviour of bare nominals on the basis of experimental data. 4 What we will do...

5. Help us improve the experimental design. 55

6.  Background  Experiment--- Mandarin Bare Nominals  Experiment--- Dutch Bare Plurals  Conclusions and Discussions 6

7.  Background  Experiment--- Mandarin Bare Nominals  Experiment--- Dutch Bare Plurals  Conclusions and Discussions 7

8. Carlson (1977) English bare plurals never behave as indefinites. English bare plurals behave like kind-referring DPs and should therefore be analyzed as such. 8

9. Minnie wishes to talk to a young psychiatrist. 1.  > want 2.want >  Minnie wishes to talk to young psychiatrists. 1.  > want 2.want >  Minnie wishes to talk with this kind of animal. 1.  > want 2.want >  Bare plurals don’t take wide-scope. 9

10. A dog was everywhere. 1.  > everywhere 2.everywhere >  Dogs were everywhere. 1.  > everywhere 2.everywhere >  This kind of animal was everywhere. 1.  > everywhere 2.everywhere >  Bare plurals can take scope lower than indefinites. 10

11. A flag was hanging in front of every building. 1.  > everywhere 2.everywhere >  Dogs were everywhere. 1.  > everywhere 2.everywhere >  This kind of animal was everywhere. 1.  > everywhere 2.everywhere >  Bare plurals can take scope lower than indefinites. 11

12. Harriet caught a rabbit yesterday, and Ozzie caught it today. 1.same rabbits 2.different rabbits Harriet caught rabbits yesterday, and Ozzie caught them today. 1.same rabbits 2.different rabbits Harriet caught this kind of animal yesterday, and Ozzie caught it/them today 1.same rabbit(s) 2.different rabbit(s) Bare plurals behave differently w.r.t. anaphors 12

13. Max caught very few rabbits yesterday, and Hiram caught them in great abundance today. 1.same rabbits 2.different rabbits Harriet caught rabbits yesterday, and Ozzie caught them today. 1.same rabbits 2.different rabbits Harriet caught this kind of animal yesterday, and Ozzie caught it/them today 1.same rabbit(s) 2.different rabbit(s) Bare plurals behave differently w.r.t. anaphors 13

14. lack of wide scope availability of very narrow scope anaphora To defend a kinds-only analysis of English bare plurals their lack of wide scope is crucial. The kinds-only analysis has been proposed to universally apply to bare nominals. To defend a unified kinds-only analysis of all bare nominals their lack of wide scope is crucial. Strangely enough their scope behaviour has never been experimentally tested... We want to change that! 14

15.  Background  Experiment--- Mandarin Bare Nominals  Experiment--- Dutch Bare Plurals  Conclusions and Discussions 15

16. Mandarin - introduction  Yang (2001) () Mulan zai-zhao zhentan. Mulan be-looking-for detective i. ‘Mulan is looking for detectives.’ -- opaque ii. ‘There’s a specific detective Mulan is looking for.’ --definite The question: What would happen if we set up an MBN as non-definite (non- familiar, non-unique) in a context? 16 Yang,R. (2001) Common Nouns, Classifier s, and Quantification in Chinese, PhD diss. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

17.  Two types of tests: Scenario Test Continuation Test 17

18. i. Scenario Test Intermediate reading of MBN (a revised test item) Context: The yearly witch championship is coming soon. Person A doesn’t know what the witches are going to compete for. But person B knows. So A asks B as follows: A: ‘Zhe-ci wushi dasai -de bisai neirong shi shenme?’ this-CL witch championship –DE competition content be what lit. ‘What are the witches going to compete for in this witch championship?' B: ‘Mei-ge wushi bixu biaoyan [shi-zhong buzhuo feilong -de wushu]’. every-CLwitch must perform 10-CL capture flying-dragon -DE witchcraft ‘Every witch must perform ten kinds of witchcraft to capture a flying- dragon (?).’ Scenario 1: The committee will assign each witch a flying-dragon. What the witches compete for is: every witch must perform ten kinds of witchcraft to capture that flying-dragon of his own. Question: Do you think scenario 1 suits what B means? If the scale is from 0 (no) 1,2,3,4, to 5 (yes), which score would you like to give? 18

19. ii. Continuation Test Wide scope over negation (a revised test item) Context: A and B are talking about the wedding Mulan is preparing for. A: ‘ Mulan -de weihunfu weishenme sheng ta de qi?’ ‘Why is Mulan’s fiancé mad at her?’ B: ‘ Ta meiyou yaoqing youqian -de qinqi lai canjia tamen de hunli.’ she not invite rich -DE relative come attend they -DE wedding ‘She didn’t invite a rich relative/ rich relatives(?) to attend their wedding.’ A: ‘ Wo tingshuo tamen yaoqing-le henduo qinqi. Ta meiyou yaoqing nage youqian de qinqi?’ ‘I’ve heard they’ve invited many relatives. Which rich relative(s) didn’t she invite?’ B: ‘Ta meiyou yaoqing ta wehunfu -de waipo.’ she not invite he fiancé -DE grandma ‘She didn’t invite her fiancé's grandma.’ Question: Do you think what B said in the end (italicized part) can follow the previous dialogue? If the scale is from 0 (no),1,2,3,4, 5 (yes), which score would you like to give? 19

20.  Four environments to test the scope behavior of MBNs Continuation test: Group 1 - MBNs interact with xiang ‘want’ test items: narrow, wide Group 2 – MBNs interact with meiyou negation test items: narrow, wide Group 3 – MBNs interact with mei ‘every’ test items: narrow, wide Scenario test: Group 4 – MBNs within a complex NP island test items: narrowest, intermediate, widest in total: 9 test items 20

21.  Questionnaire: 9 test items, 9 fillers  Subjects: 34 Mandarin native speakers, non-linguists  Task: continuation-test and scenario-test; subjects were asked to give ratings on a scale from 0 to 5. 21

22. 22 test itemsmean s.d opaque3.761.52 transparent3.971.42 negation> MBN (narrow)3.681.75 MBN>negation (wide)3.591.58 quantifier>MBN (narrow)4.530.75 MBN>quantifier (wide)4.291.17 every>complex NP>MBN (narrow)4.091.68 every>MBN>complex NP (intermediate)4.261.24 MBN>every>complex NP (wide)4.850.50

23. 23

24. 24

25.  Background  Experiment--- Mandarin Bare Nominals  Experiment--- Dutch Bare Plurals  Conclusions and Discussions 25

26. 1. Questionnaire with 10 test-items, 6 fillers 2.Subjects : 37 Dutch native-speakers, non-linguists 3.Task: continuation-test; subjects were asked to give ratings on a scale from 0 to 5 26

27.  Different set-up: NPIs as a baseline If bare plurals are better at taking wide-scope over negation than NPIs, we have serious ground to claim that bare plurals in Dutch can take wide scope.  Forced wide-scope readings: Last sentence of the continuation test is truth-conditionally incompatible with a narrow-scope reading. 27

28. 28

29.  Dutch allows bare plurals to scramble …omdat hij boeken niet gelezen had …because he books not read had -> W e included both scrambled and unscrambled bare plurals 29

30. 30

31.  Intermediate scope Given that wide-scope readings of bare plurals might be analyzed as referential readings we also tested the availability of intermediate scope. 31

32. 32

33. 33 ItemScopeMeanS.D. PPIPPI > Negation4.90.2 NPINPI > Negation1.41.3 NPINPI > Negation1.1 Indefinite SingularINDsg > Quant4.90.1 Indefinite SingularQuant > INDsg > Quant4.90.2 Indefinite SingularQuant > INDsg3.91.3 Bare Plural unscrambledBP unscr > Negation2.91.4 Bare Plural unscrambledQuant > BP unscr>Negation4.40.8 Bare Plural scrambledBP scr > Negation4.90.2 Bare Plural scrambledQuant > BP scr > Negation3.61.3

34. 34

35. 35

36. Statistics 36 ItemScopeMeanS.D. PPIPPI > Negation4.90.2 NPINPI > Negation1.41.3 NPINPI > Negation1.1 Indefinite SingularINDsg > Quant4.90.1 Indefinite SingularQuant > INDsg > Quant4.90.2 Indefinite SingularQuant > INDsg3.91.3 Bare Plural unscrambledBP unscr > Negation2.91.4 Bare Plural unscrambledQuant > BP unscr >Negation4.40.8 Bare Plural scrambledBP scr > Negation4.90.2 Bare Plural scrambledQuant > BP scr > Negation3.61.3 36

37. 37 Statistics NPIsBare Plurals 37

38. 38 Statistics

40.  Background  Experiment--- Mandarin Bare Nominals  Experiment--- Dutch Bare Plurals  Conclusions and Discussions 40

41. Crucial criticisms on the experimental design : I. In the MBN experiment, test items with quantification and opacity environments are not reliable due to the entailment between narrow–scope reading and wide-scope reading. Possible solution: discourse referent (caveat: modal subordination) 41

42. Crucial criticisms on the experimental design: II. In the negation environment in both MBN and DBP, the problem of entailment also exists. see example below: Mary didn’t see a cat. (ii ⇒ i) i. There is one cat Mary didn’t see. ii. Mary didn’t see any cats. Solution: make sure there are cats in the relevant context that Mary saw but there’s one she didn’t. 42

43. Intended Experimental Conclusion: Indefinite MBNs and DBPs may take narrowest, intermediate and widest scope. 43

44. Theoretical Conclusions  Under the assumption that true kind-denoting DPs are scopally inert, bare nominals don’t scopally pattern with them on their existential reading.  This eliminates the advantage the kinds-only view had over the ambiguity view for Mandarin and Dutch. 44

45. 45 Thank you !