1. 1 Article use across languages: an OT typology Henriëtte de Swart & Joost Zwarts Utrecht University

2. 2 In languages like English, the indefinite article is used to set up (discourse) referents (Kamp, Heim, etc.). In languages like English, the indefinite article is used to set up (discourse) referents (Kamp, Heim, etc.). A student i came to my office. He i had a question about the exam. A student i came to my office. He i had a question about the exam. Discourse pronoun picks up discourse referent introduced by indefinite. Discourse pronoun picks up discourse referent introduced by indefinite. Referents in conversational space

3. 3 Determined reference The definite article is used with unique/maximal referents, or in anaphoric contexts: determined reference (Farkas). The definite article is used with unique/maximal referents, or in anaphoric contexts: determined reference (Farkas). I love you more than the sun and the stars. (uniqueness/maximality) I love you more than the sun and the stars. (uniqueness/maximality) A child was playing in the park. The funny little creature wore a green hat, and purple socks. (anaphoricity) A child was playing in the park. The funny little creature wore a green hat, and purple socks. (anaphoricity)

4. 4 Plural morphology In English, plural morphology is sufficient to introduce a discourse referent. In English, plural morphology is sufficient to introduce a discourse referent. Mary bought *apple/an apple/apples/some apples. Mary bought *apple/an apple/apples/some apples. Farkas and de Swart (2003): plural morphology introduces a presupposed plural discourse referent (binding of dr by determiner, or accomodation). Farkas and de Swart (2003): plural morphology introduces a presupposed plural discourse referent (binding of dr by determiner, or accomodation).

5. 5 Correspondences in nominal domain Dr: A determiner (form) corresponds with the presence of a discourse referent (meaning). Dr: A determiner (form) corresponds with the presence of a discourse referent (meaning). Def: A definite article (form) corresponds with a discourse referent with determined reference (meaning). Def: A definite article (form) corresponds with a discourse referent with determined reference (meaning). Plur: Plural morphology on the noun (form) corresponds with a predication of plurality on a presupposed discourse referent (meaning). Plur: Plural morphology on the noun (form) corresponds with a predication of plurality on a presupposed discourse referent (meaning).

6. 6 Language variation Generality of article interpretation: definite and indefinite articles, and plural morphology in other languages make roughly the same contributions to discourse meaning. Generality of article interpretation: definite and indefinite articles, and plural morphology in other languages make roughly the same contributions to discourse meaning. But: we don’t find plural morphology and article use in all languages. But: we don’t find plural morphology and article use in all languages. Many languages use bare nominals. Many languages use bare nominals.

7. 7 Example: Chinese Wò kànjiàn xióng le. [Mandarin Chinese] Wò kànjiàn xióng le. [Mandarin Chinese] I see bear Asp I see bear Asp ‘I saw a bear/some bears.’ ‘I saw a bear/some bears.’ Gou hen jiling. Gou hen jiling. Dog very smart. Dog very smart. ‘The dog is intelligent/dogs are intelligent.’ ‘The dog is intelligent/dogs are intelligent.’

8. 8 Two questions What is the distribution of articles across languages? What is the distribution of articles across languages?  OT typology of article use (correspondence rules) What is the interpretation of bare nominals? What is the interpretation of bare nominals?  Cross-linguistic semantics

9. 9 Universal cognition Assumption: setting up referents in discourse space, and referring to them involves general cognitive operations, which are related to the way we organize our conversational space around the individuals that we talk about. Assumption: setting up referents in discourse space, and referring to them involves general cognitive operations, which are related to the way we organize our conversational space around the individuals that we talk about.

10. 10 Central question Central question: why do certain languages (e.g. English) encode these cognitive operations in the functional structure of nominals, whereas other languages (e.g. Chinese) do not. Central question: why do certain languages (e.g. English) encode these cognitive operations in the functional structure of nominals, whereas other languages (e.g. Chinese) do not. Possible answer: parametrization. Possible answer: parametrization.

11. 11 Parametrization Chierchia (1998): article use is related to a (semantic) parameter of universal grammar, which opposes e.g. English to Chinese. Chierchia (1998): article use is related to a (semantic) parameter of universal grammar, which opposes e.g. English to Chinese. Wò kànjiàn xióng le. [Mandarin Chinese] Wò kànjiàn xióng le. [Mandarin Chinese] I see bear Asp I see bear Asp ‘I saw a bear/some bears.’ ‘I saw a bear/some bears.’ John bought *(a) kitten. John bought *(a) kitten.

12. 12 Bare singular constructions Prediction: English never uses bare (count) singulars. Prediction: English never uses bare (count) singulars. John is in hospital(Location) John is in hospital(Location) the way to use knife and fork(Coordination) the way to use knife and fork(Coordination) Mary is chair of the department(Predication) Mary is chair of the department(Predication) He found door after door closed(Reduplication) He found door after door closed(Reduplication) She is playing piano for the choir(Incorporation) She is playing piano for the choir(Incorporation)

13. 13 Growing interest in bare singulars Location: Stvan (1998) Location: Stvan (1998) Coordination: Heycock & Zamparelli (2003) Coordination: Heycock & Zamparelli (2003) Predication: Matushansky & Spector (2005), de Swart, Winter & Zwarts (2005) Predication: Matushansky & Spector (2005), de Swart, Winter & Zwarts (2005) Reduplication: Jackendoff (2005) Reduplication: Jackendoff (2005) Incorporation: Van Geenhoven (1998), Dayal (1999), Farkas & de Swart (2003) Incorporation: Van Geenhoven (1998), Dayal (1999), Farkas & de Swart (2003)

14. 14 Bare singulars are special Construction specificity (in bed/*eat apple) Construction specificity (in bed/*eat apple) Restricted modification (in bed/*in double bed) Restricted modification (in bed/*in double bed) Non-referentiality (no antecedent for discourse Non-referentiality (no antecedent for discoursepronoun) Number neutrality (Jan en Marie zijn leraar, Number neutrality (Jan en Marie zijn leraar, ‘Jan and Marie are teacher’) ‘Jan and Marie are teacher’) Stereotypical interpretation (in jail means incarcerated, not visiting, cf. in the jail). Stereotypical interpretation (in jail means incarcerated, not visiting, cf. in the jail).

15. 15 Taking stock Conclusion: we need a more fine-grained system of interacting constraints, to distinguish more languages classes, and account for exceptions. Conclusion: we need a more fine-grained system of interacting constraints, to distinguish more languages classes, and account for exceptions. Alternative: we can capture the generalizations of a parameter-based approach in an OT typology. Furthermore, bi-directional OT accounts for the special use of bare nominal constructions in English. Alternative: we can capture the generalizations of a parameter-based approach in an OT typology. Furthermore, bi-directional OT accounts for the special use of bare nominal constructions in English.

16. 16 OT typology of article use Typology based on conflicting forces, pulling languages in different directions (economy in form vs. faithfulness to discourse meaning). Typology based on conflicting forces, pulling languages in different directions (economy in form vs. faithfulness to discourse meaning). Bare form most economical form Bare form most economical form

17. 17 Language classes (i)-(iii) (i) no plural morphology, no article use (Chinese) (i) no plural morphology, no article use (Chinese) (ii) singular/plural distinction, but no articles (Hindi, Slavic languages) (ii) singular/plural distinction, but no articles (Hindi, Slavic languages) (iii) definite article, but no indefinite one (Hebrew). (iii) definite article, but no indefinite one (Hebrew).

18. 18 Language classes (iv)-(vi) (iv) no definite/indefinite contrast, presence of determiner on all nominals in argument position (St’át’imcets) (iv) no definite/indefinite contrast, presence of determiner on all nominals in argument position (St’át’imcets) (v) definite and indefinite article in singular, but only definite article in the plural; definite plurals contrast with bare plurals (English) (v) definite and indefinite article in singular, but only definite article in the plural; definite plurals contrast with bare plurals (English) (vi) definite and indefinite articles in singular as well as in plural (French). (vi) definite and indefinite articles in singular as well as in plural (French).

19. 19 WYSIWYG (in syntax) What You See Is What You Get: syntactic projections must be motivated. What You See Is What You Get: syntactic projections must be motivated. [DP [NumP [NP]]]. [DP [NumP [NP]]]. If no number distinctions, no NumP. If no number distinctions, no NumP. If no article (determiner), no DP. If no article (determiner), no DP. Higher projections license lower ones: if DP, then also NumP. Higher projections license lower ones: if DP, then also NumP.

20. 20 Markedness constraints *FunctN: Avoid functional structure in the nominal domain. *FunctN: Avoid functional structure in the nominal domain. *Art: Avoid Article *Art: Avoid Article {*FunctN, *Art} >> {faithfulness constraints governing number, articles} {*FunctN, *Art} >> {faithfulness constraints governing number, articles} Language without number, articles (Chinese). Language without number, articles (Chinese).

21. 21 Chinese {*Art, *FunctN} >> {constraints for number, article use} {*Art, *FunctN} >> {constraints for number, article use} Wò kànjiàn xióng le. [Chinese] Wò kànjiàn xióng le. [Chinese] I see bear Asp ‘I saw a bear/bears.’ I see bear Asp ‘I saw a bear/bears.’ Gou juezhong le. Gou juezhong le. Dog extinct Asp. ‘Dogs are extinct.’ Dog extinct Asp. ‘Dogs are extinct.’ Gou hen jiling. Gou hen jiling. Dog very smart. ‘The dog/dogs are intelligent.’ Dog very smart. ‘The dog/dogs are intelligent.’

22. 22 FPl FPl: plural must be expressed in the functional projection of the nominal. FPl: plural must be expressed in the functional projection of the nominal. FPl >> {*Art, *FunctN}: language projects NumP, but no articles. FPl >> {*Art, *FunctN}: language projects NumP, but no articles. burtebi goravs[Georgian] burtebi goravs[Georgian] balls:pl:nom roll:3sg balls:pl:nom roll:3sg ‘Balls/The balls are rolling.’ ‘Balls/The balls are rolling.’

23. 23 FDef FDef: determined reference must be expressed. FDef: determined reference must be expressed. FDef >> *Art: definite/bare contrast. FDef >> *Art: definite/bare contrast. dan ra’a namer[Hebrew] dan ra’a namer[Hebrew] Dan saw tiger ‘Dan saw a tiger’ Dan saw tiger ‘Dan saw a tiger’ namer/ha-namer hu xaya torefet namer/ha-namer hu xaya torefet tiger/ the-tiger is animal carnivorous tiger/ the-tiger is animal carnivorous ‘the tiger is a carnivorous animal’ ‘the tiger is a carnivorous animal’

24. 24 FDr Fdr: Parse a discourse referent by means of a functional layer above NP. Fdr: Parse a discourse referent by means of a functional layer above NP. {Fdr, FPl} >> {*Art, *FunctN} No bare singulars in argument position. {Fdr, FPl} >> {*Art, *FunctN} No bare singulars in argument position. Salish languages (Matthewson 1998): in argument position determiner always required. Salish languages (Matthewson 1998): in argument position determiner always required.

25. 25 St’at’imcets tecwp-mín-lhkan ti púkw-a lhkúnsa tecwp-mín-lhkan ti púkw-a lhkúnsa Buy.appl-1sg.sub det book-det today Buy.appl-1sg.sub det book-det today ‘I bought a/the book today.’ ‘I bought a/the book today.’ No determiner in predicative construction. No determiner in predicative construction. kúkwpi7 kw s-Rose kúkwpi7 kw s-Rose Chief det nom-Rose Chief det nom-Rose ‘Rose is a chief’ ‘Rose is a chief’ *ti kúkwpi7-a kw s-Rose *ti kúkwpi7-a kw s-Rose det chief-det det nom-Rose det chief-det det nom-Rose

26. 26 Def/indef contrast {Fdr, FDef, FPl} >> {*Art,*FunctN} {Fdr, FDef, FPl} >> {*Art,*FunctN} With strong number morphology on noun, either Num or D can introduce dr. With strong number morphology on noun, either Num or D can introduce dr. No bare singulars in regular argument position. Bare plurals OK. No bare singulars in regular argument position. Bare plurals OK. I bought *(a) book/books. [English] I bought *(a) book/books. [English] *(The) dinosaur is/dinosaurs are extinct. *(The) dinosaur is/dinosaurs are extinct.

27. 27 Indefinite singular (English) book [-def, -pl] FdrFPl*Art*FuncN book *   a book * *

28. 28 Bare plural (English) book [-def, +pl] FdrFPl*Art*FuncN book * *  books * indef_pl books * *

29. 29 French Weak number morphology does not introduce discourse referent; only D introduces dr. Weak number morphology does not introduce discourse referent; only D introduces dr. J’ai lu *(un) livre/ *(des) livres. [French] J’ai lu *(un) livre/ *(des) livres. [French] I read *(a) book/ *(indef-pl) books. I read *(a) book/ *(indef-pl) books. I read a book/books. I read a book/books.

30. 30 Typology in OT I Typology in OT I (i) No number, no articles (Chinese): {*Art, *FunctN} >> {FPl, FDef, Fdr} (ii) Number, but no articles (Hindi, Slavic): FPl >> {*Art, *FunctN} >> {FDef, Fdr} (iii) Number and definite article (Hebrew): {FDef, FPl} >> {*Art, *FunctN} >> Fdr.

31. 31 Typology in OT II Typology in OT II (i) Number and general determiner (Salish): {FPl, Fdr} >> {*Art, *FunctN} >> FDef + deficient number morphology. (ii) Number and articles in sg (English): {FDef, FPL, Fdr} >> {*Art, *FunctN}. (iii) Number and articles in sg/pl (French): {FDef, FPL, Fdr} >> {*Art, *FunctN} + deficient number morphology.

32. 32 From typology to semantics So far: OT typology provides alternative for parameter-based approach. More language classes, because of interacting constraints. So far: OT typology provides alternative for parameter-based approach. More language classes, because of interacting constraints. Cross-linguistic semantics of bare nominals: Why do bare nominals in different languages have different meanings? Cross-linguistic semantics of bare nominals: Why do bare nominals in different languages have different meanings? Answer: bi-directional OT links semantics to ranking of syntactic constraints Answer: bi-directional OT links semantics to ranking of syntactic constraints

33. 33 English bare plurals are indefinite Non-definitemeaningDefinitemeaning Bare plural   Definite plural  Strong bidirectional OT: English bare plurals are non-definite, because definiteness is explicitly encoded in the definite article.

34. 34 Definite/indefinite bare nominals Bare nominals are indefinite in all languages that have an overt definite article (English, Hebrew) Bare nominals are indefinite in all languages that have an overt definite article (English, Hebrew) Bare nominals in languages that have no definite/indefinite contrast are neutral with respect to determined reference (Hindi, Chinese) Bare nominals in languages that have no definite/indefinite contrast are neutral with respect to determined reference (Hindi, Chinese)

35. 35 Discourse referentiality of bare nominals Fdr >> *Art (English, French, Salish) implies: no bare singulars in argument position. Fdr >> *Art (English, French, Salish) implies: no bare singulars in argument position. Arg: parse an XP in argument position as a discourse referent (where X = N,Num,D). Arg: parse an XP in argument position as a discourse referent (where X = N,Num,D). In argument position, Fdr (syntax) and Arg (semantics) work together: An XP that is parsed as a discourse referent must be marked as such. In argument position, Fdr (syntax) and Arg (semantics) work together: An XP that is parsed as a discourse referent must be marked as such.

36. 36 Indefinite singulars in English Non- referential Discourse referential Bare sg   Indefinite sg 

37. 37 Bare singulars in English Prediction 1: bare singulars in languages like English do not occur in regular argument positions. Prediction 1: bare singulars in languages like English do not occur in regular argument positions. I saw *bear/a bear/the bear/bears/the bears. I saw *bear/a bear/the bear/bears/the bears. Prediction 2: bare singulars in English can occur if we escape Arg (nominal in non- referential position). Prediction 2: bare singulars in English can occur if we escape Arg (nominal in non- referential position).

38. 38 Non-referential bare singulars John is in hospital(Location) John is in hospital(Location) the way to use knife and fork(Coordination) the way to use knife and fork(Coordination) Mary is chair of the department(Predication) Mary is chair of the department(Predication) He found door after door closed(Reduplication) He found door after door closed(Reduplication) She is playing piano for the choir(Incorporation) She is playing piano for the choir(Incorporation)

39. 39 No antecedent for discourse pronoun Pat is in prison. ?It is a 3-story concrete building. (Stvan 1998) Pat is in prison. ?It is a 3-story concrete building. (Stvan 1998) Door after door was closed. ?It was securely locked. Door after door was closed. ?It was securely locked. Ik weet dat Peter viool speelt. ?Kan hij ‘m meenemen? (I know that Peter plays the violin. Can he take it along?) Ik weet dat Peter viool speelt. ?Kan hij ‘m meenemen? (I know that Peter plays the violin. Can he take it along?)

40. 40 Number neutrality If bare singulars lack a Num projection, no singular/plural semantics. If bare singulars lack a Num projection, no singular/plural semantics. Jan en Sofie zijn leraar [Dutch] Jan en Sofie zijn leraar [Dutch] Jan and Sofie are teacher ‘Jan and Sofie are teachers’ Mari bélyeget gyüjt. [Hungarian] Mari bélyeget gyüjt. [Hungarian] Marie stamp.Acc collect ‘Marie collects stamps.’

41. 41 Restricted modification If adjectives do not attach to NP, but higher, modification is restricted. If adjectives do not attach to NP, but higher, modification is restricted. *in American hospital *in American hospital *He bought black hat and checkered shirt *He bought black hat and checkered shirt *Annie is experienced head of department *Annie is experienced head of department *miserable day after awful day *miserable day after awful day *Peter is playing attuned guitar *Peter is playing attuned guitar

42. 42 Bare consequences Arguments ~ referents ~ projections Arguments ~ referents ~ projections No arguments  Construction specificity No arguments  Construction specificity No discourse referent  Non-referentiality No discourse referent  Non-referentiality No projections  Number neutrality No projections  Number neutrality No projections and no discourse referent  Restricted modification No projections and no discourse referent  Restricted modification

43. 43 Stereotypicality Stereotypical meanings are enrichments Stereotypical meanings are enrichments of underspecified lexical meanings of underspecified lexical meanings driven by convention, encyclopedic knowledge, cultural models, qualia, frames, scripts and scenarios, driven by convention, encyclopedic knowledge, cultural models, qualia, frames, scripts and scenarios, defining what is normal, natural, typical, customary, institutionalized. defining what is normal, natural, typical, customary, institutionalized.

44. 44 Strongest meaning hypothesis Strength favours stronger, more informative, richer meanings. Strength favours stronger, more informative, richer meanings. in (a/the) jailStrength x [ in(x,y) & jail(y) *!  x [ in(x,y) & jail(y) & of(y,x) ]

45. 45 Strength and *Art together *ArtStrength  in jail, x [ in(x,y) & jail(y) & of(y,x) ] in the jail, x [ in(x,y) & jail(y) & of(y,x) ] * in jail, x [ in(x,y) & jail(y) ] *  in the jail, x [ in(x,y) & jail(y)] **

46. Strength and *Art together *ArtStrength  slager zijn, x CAP(butcher’)(x) een slager zijn, x CAP(butcher’)(x) * slager zijn, x REL(butcher’)(x) *  een slager zijn, x REL(butcher’)(x) ** Where CAP represents the stronger professional, capacity reading, and REL the weaker, Carlsonian realization reading (de Swart, Winter and Zwarts 2007)

47. 47 Typological results Not all languages use plural morphology and articles, but they all convey the same discourse meanings. Not all languages use plural morphology and articles, but they all convey the same discourse meanings. The OT typology links the presence/absence of morpho-syntactic structure in the nominal domain to the tension between markedness constraints (preference for bare forms) and faithfulness constraints (correspondence between discourse meanings and form). The OT typology links the presence/absence of morpho-syntactic structure in the nominal domain to the tension between markedness constraints (preference for bare forms) and faithfulness constraints (correspondence between discourse meanings and form).

48. 48 Semantic results Strong bi-directional OT links the cross- linguistic semantics of bare nominals to the constraint ranking of the grammar. Strong bi-directional OT links the cross- linguistic semantics of bare nominals to the constraint ranking of the grammar. Weak bi-directional OT accounts for the exceptional distribution and interpretation of bare (count) singular constructions in languages like English. Weak bi-directional OT accounts for the exceptional distribution and interpretation of bare (count) singular constructions in languages like English.