1. Bare coordination: a new case for cross-linguistic availability of covert type- shifting

2. Recoordinating bare coordination Bert Le Bruyn & Henriëtte de Swart

3. 3 Spoon was The phenomenon of bare coordination I saw catsdogsandI saw Context We had to set the table for the queen. We arranged one crystal goblet, one silver spoon, two antique gold forks and two platinum knives. Forks and knives were equally dirty indefinite interpretation definite interpretation Plurals Singulars was set to the right of the plate * set to the right of the plate * Gobletspoonwereandonly definite interpretation Heycock & Zamparelli (2003) ??? There were goblet and spoon on the table.

4. 4 The phenomenon of bare coordination Heycock & Zamparelli (2003) coordinatednot coordinated bare singulars bare plurals indefinitedefiniteindefinitedefinite

5. 5 The phenomenon of bare coordination  Why is it bare singulars cannot occur bare whereas coordinated bare singulars can ?  When and why do bare coordinated nouns get a definite reading?

6. 6 New facts Previous analyses Our analysis in a nutshell Our analysis in OT The semantics of and Roadmap

7. 7 New facts Previous analyses Our analysis in a nutshell Our analysis in OT The semantics of and Roadmap

8. 8 New facts coordinatednot coordinated bare singulars bare plurals indefinitedefiniteindefinitedefinite

9. 9 New facts: English We had to set the table for the queen. We arranged one crystal goblet, one silver spoon, two antique gold forks and two platinum knives. Goblet and spoon were set on the right of the plate. (Heycock & Zamparelli 2003) We had to set the table for the queen. We arranged one crystal goblet, one silver spoon, two antique gold forks and two platinum knives. Forks and knives were equally dirty. (Heycock & Zamparelli 2003) He had pad and pencil to picture the whole event. There were forks and knives on the table. (Heycock & Zamparelli 2003)

10. 10 Recap Basic data Coordination lifts all semantic constraints on the absence of articles.

11. 11 Can you replicate the data for your language?

12. 12 New facts Previous analyses Our analysis in a nutshell Our analysis in OT The semantics of and Surprise Bonus Roadmap

13. 13 New facts Previous analyses Our analysis in a nutshell Our analysis in OT The semantics of and Surprise Bonus Roadmap

14. 14 Roodenburg (2004) The analysis in a nutshell  Premise 1: Bare Coordinated NPs are plural.  Conclusion: Bare coordinated NPs are allowed in argument position.  Premise 2: Bare Plural NPs are allowed in argument position. > Cat and dog were fighting.

15. 15 Roodenburg (2004) The analysis in a nutshell  As for the definite readings: they’re akin to functional readings of bare plurals (Condoravdi 1994) > Ghosts haunted the campus. Students were aware of the danger.

16. 16 Roodenburg (2004) Problem  Roodenburg predicts bare coordination always to behave on a par with bare plural. > Ghosts haunted the campus and we had to warn the students, the faculty and the rest of the staff. ??It turned out though that students were already aware of the danger. > Ghosts haunted the campus and we had to warn the students, the faculty and the rest of the staff. It turned out though that students and faculty were already aware of the danger.

17. 17 Heycock & Zamparelli (2003) The analysis in a nutshell  Focus on deriving the definite reading of bare coordinated nominals.  Proposal: allow for N-to-D raising of the coordinated phrase. DP CoordP NP1 and NP2

18. 18 New facts Previous analyses Our analysis in a nutshell Our analysis in OT The semantics of and Roadmap

19. 19 New facts Previous analyses Our analysis in a nutshell Our analysis in OT The semantics of and Roadmap

20. 20 Our analysis in a nutshell coordinatednot coordinated bare singulars bare plurals indefinitedefiniteindefinitedefinite > Classic blocking account: indefinite bare singulars are blocked by definite bare singulars are blocked by definite bare plurals are blocked by the definite plural article the definite singular article the indefinite singular article

21. 21 Our analysis in a nutshell coordinatednot coordinated bare singulars bare plurals indefinitedefiniteindefinitedefinite > Not so classic blocking account: A, the sing and the plural don’t apply at the coordination level. As a consequence they cannot be taken to block indefinite or definite readings of coordinated bare nominals.

22. 22 Our analysis in a nutshell A, the sing and the plural don’t apply at the coordination level. >Indirect evidence un homme et une femme (a male man and a female woman)1760000 un homme et femme (a male man and woman)696 une femme et une fille (a female woman and a female girl)885 une femme et fille (a female woman and girl)15 les hommes et les femmes (the men and the women)3030000 les hommes et femmes (the men and women)361000 yahoo.fr 11/11/2010 Generalization:  Strong preference for repetition of the determiner;  Suggests that the repetition of the determiner is the default;  Suggests that the cases in which there is no repetition involve elided Ds.

23. 23 Our analysis in a nutshell A, the sing and the plural don’t apply at the coordination level. >Direct evidence Dog and cat were fighting.> bare coordination can trigger plural agreement > there is a level of syntactic representation at which CoordPs have to have plurality specified (see also de Vries 1992) > If Ds were to apply to CoordPs we would predict CoordPs to be able to take a plural article, even if both conjuncts are singular. > This is however not the case. *Dog and cat was fighting.

24. 24 Our analysis in a nutshell les hommes et les femmes the men and the women3030000 les hommes et femmes the men and women361000 les homme et femme the man and woman99 les hommes et les garçons the men and the boys2570 les hommes et garçons the men and boys175 les homme et garçon the man and boy1 les femmes et les filles the women and the girls164000 les femmes et filles the women and girls16000 les femme et fille the woman and girl18 yahoo.fr 11/11/2010

25. 25 Recap Basic data Coordination lifts all semantic constraints on the absence of articles. Basic insight Determiners don’t apply at the coordination level. Implementation Classic blocking...

26. 26 New facts Previous analyses Our analysis in a nutshell Our analysis in OT The semantics of and Surprise Bonus Roadmap

27. 27 New facts Previous analyses Our analysis in a nutshell Our analysis in OT The semantics of and Surprise Bonus Roadmap

28. 28 From ‘informal’ blocking to OT DP NumP CoordP AND NumP NP N NumP NP N DP N-domain CoordP-domain N.B. Coordination can apply at the DP, NumP or NP-level. NN

29. 29 From ‘informal’ blocking to OT a. Fdr Mark discourse referents b. Fpl Mark reference to a group For each type of functional projection we have a faithfulness constraint. DP NumP c. Fdef Mark definiteness We add an extra one for D projections. DP For the two domains we add a markedness constraint. d. *FunctN Don’t mark functional structure in the N-domain e. *FunctCoordP Don’t mark functional structure in the CoordP-domain. N-dom CoordP-dom

30. 30 From ‘informal’ blocking to OT a. Fdr Mark discourse referents b. Fpl Mark reference to a group For French and English the following ranking holds: c. Fdef Mark definiteness e. *FunctCoordP Don’t mark functional structure in the CoordP-domain. d. *FunctN Don’t mark functional structure in the N-domain.

31. 31 From ‘informal’ blocking to OT Depending on the level at which coordination applies the ranking derives the following possibilities: the cats and the dogsDP level coordination cats and dogsNumP level coordination cat and dogNP level coordination Testable illegal structures: I saw *(a) cat.Bare singular arguments several cat and dog Ds applying at CoordP Untestable (?) illegal structures: I saw cat and dogs (?) (meaning I saw cats and dogs) Number at CoordP

32. 32 Recap Basic data Coordination lifts all semantic constraints on the absence of articles. Basic insight Determiners don’t apply at the coordination level. Implementation Classic blocking...and its formalization in OT.

33. 33 New facts Previous analyses Our analysis in a nutshell Our analysis in OT The semantics of and Roadmap

34. 34 New facts Previous analyses Our analysis in a nutshell Our analysis in OT The semantics of and Roadmap

35. 35 The semantics of coordination  We assume the basic semantics of coordination at the level of sets is that of set intersection. XY  Bare coordination never has this basic semantics. X and Y > Bride and groom were extremely happy.  There was an extremely happy person who was both bride and groom.

36. 36 The semantics of coordination  Two types of coordination: > coordination with ‘joint’ readings > coordination with ‘split’ readings  Bare coordination always concerns coordination with ‘split’ readings.  Our challenge will be to derive split readings without giving up the basic intuition of coordination being an instance of set intersection.

37. 37 The semantics of coordination How to go about this? > Enrichment of and > First enrichment: turn and into a ‘matchmaker’ P Q  ( ) PQ x E E x()() > Based on a proposal by Yoad Winter (p.c.)

38. 38 The semantics of coordination bride groom (, )

39. 39 The semantics of coordination (, ) QxEExP

40. 40 The semantics of coordination > Enrichment of and > First enrichment: turn and into a ‘matchmaker’ P Q  ( ) PQ x E E x()() > Second enrichment: add a function that turns (singular) couples into plural individuals. > Based on a proposal by Yoad Winter (p.c.) P Q  ( ) PQ x E E x()() RtoI Relations to Individuals RtoI(R) = {x  y : R(x,y)} How to go about this?

41. 41 The semantics of coordination bride and groom

42. 42 The semantics of coordination bride and groom > Bride and groom were extremely happy. > the unique plural individual consisting of a bride and groom was extremely happy > extremely_happy(  )

43. 43 Recap Basic data Coordination lifts all semantic constraints on the absence of articles. Basic insight Determiners don’t apply at the coordination level. Implementation Classic blocking...and its formalization in OT. The semantics of bare coordination Enriched version of an intersective semantics.

44. 44 New facts Previous analyses Our analysis in a nutshell Our analysis in OT The semantics of and Roadmap

45. 45 New facts Previous analyses Our analysis in a nutshell Our analysis in OT The semantics of and Surprise Bonus Roadmap shortcut to conclusion

46. 46 Why cat and dog is ‘definite’ by default coordinatednot coordinated bare singulars bare plurals indefinitedefiniteindefinitedefinite coordinatednot coordinated bare singulars bare plurals indefinitedefiniteindefinitedefinite

47. 47 Cat and dog were fighting. > Implicature of uniqueness If there had been more cats and dogs, we could have told you so. Given that we did not tell you, you can assume that there was only one cat and one dog. > The effect of this implicature is almost indistinguishable from the contribution of the definite article. Even though our semantic account predicts both a definite and an indefinite reading, pragmatically the indefinite reading is so close to the definite reading that one gets the impression there’s only a definite reading. Why cat and dog is ‘definite’ by default

48. 48 Predictions... coordinated bare plurals should not have any preference for definite readings.... the preference for definite interpretations should be cancelable. Given that the implicature depends on the nouns being singular... Given that we assume the default definite interpretation is an implicature... > This is arguably what we find (see Heycock & Zamparelli). > This is what we have demonstrated for existential contexts. Why cat and dog is ‘definite’ by default

49. 49 More predictions... the definiteness effect should not only be found for coordinated nouns but also for uncoordinated singular nouns in languages that have a singular/plural distinction but no articles Given that the implicature arises because of the competition between bare singulars and plurals... > Languages like Hindi and Russian have indeed been argued to only allow for definite readings for bare singulars, despite their acceptability in existential environments (see Dayal 2004). Why cat and dog is ‘definite’ by default

50. 50 More predictions... the definiteness effect should not only be found for coordinated nouns but also for uncoordinated singular nouns in languages that have a singular/plural distinction but no articles... uncoordinated plural nouns in these languages should not show any preference for definite readings Given that the implicature arises because of the competition between bare singulars and plurals... > Languages like Hindi and Russian have indeed been argued to only allow for definite readings for bare singulars, despite their acceptability in existential environments (see Dayal 2004, Geist 2010). > Uncoordinated bare plurals in Hindi and Russian have indeed been argued to allow both definite and indefinite readings (see Dayal 2004). Why cat and dog is ‘definite’ by default

51. 51 One more prediction... there should be no definiteness effect in Chinese comparable to the one in Hindi and Russian Given that the implicature arises because of the competition between bare singulars and plurals... > Bare nominals in Chinese have indeed been argued to freely allow both for a definite and an indefinite reading (see Yang 2001). N.B. This implicature account can be formulated both under the analysis of the singular/plural contrast of Farkas & de Swart (2010) and the one in the tradition of Krifka (1989) (see a.o. Sauerland et al. 2005). Why cat and dog is ‘definite’ by default

52. 52 New facts Previous analyses Our analysis in a nutshell Our analysis in OT The semantics of and Surprise Bonus Roadmap

53. 53 The phenomenon of bare coordination  Why is it bare singulars cannot occur bare whereas coordinated bare singulars can ?  When and why do bare coordinated nouns get a definite reading? > Articles don’t apply at the coordination level > No blocking of bare coordinated forms > Semantically, definite/indefinite readings are available through type-shifting > Pragmatically, bare singulars prefer ‘definite’ readings

54. 54 Current work  How to account for cases like the following:  We hinted at a covert D in front of woman but this has been challenged in the literature. this man and woman

55. 55 References  Dayal, 2004, ‘Number marking and (in)definiteness in kind terms’, Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 393-450.  Farkas & de Swart, 2010, “The semantics and pragmatics of plurals”, Semantics and Pragmatics 3.  Geist, 2010, “Indefinite NPs without indefinite articles”, presentation at SUB 2010.  Heycock & Zamparelli, 2003, “Coordinated bare definites”, Linguistic Inquiry 34, 443-469.  Heycock & Zamparelli, 2005, “Friends and colleagues”, Natural Language Semantics 13, 201-270.  Krifka, 1989, “Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics”, in: Bartsch, van Benthem & van Emde Boas (eds.), Semantics and contextual expression, Foris.  Roodenburg, 2004, Pour une approche scalaire de la déficience nominale, Ph.D. Dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam.  Sauerland, Anderssen & Yatsushiro, 2005, “The plural is semantically unmarked”, in: Kepser & Reis (eds.), Linguistic evidence, de Gruyter.  Yang, 2001, Common nouns, classifiers, and quantification in Chinese, Ph.D. Dissertation, Rutgers University.  Zwarts, 2009, Bare constructions in Dutch, Ms., Utrecht University.

56. Writing abstracts

57. How semanticists derive narrow scope

58. 58 Carlson Come1 Come2 Not x[come(x)] y k  x[R(x,y k )&come(x)] P -P / S t -S t shorthand!

59. 59 Shorthand convention In principle negation is of type. The, > variant can be obtained as follow: come(k) S -S come(k) -come(k) x-come(x) function application lambda abstraction In these slides, the notation x(-come(x)) obtained through negation of the type, > is shorthand for the above process. back

60. 60 Carlson Come1 Come2 Not Some children Children Some children didn’t come. x[come(x)] y k  x[R(x,y k )&come(x)] P -P / S t -S t P  x[children(x)&P (x)] children k P  x[children(x)&P (x)],t> x[come(x)] P -P / S t -S t, > (1) x[come(x)] P  x[children(x)&P (x)]  x[children(x)&come(x)] S t -S t - (2) P -P x[come(x)] x[-come(x)] P  x[children(x)&P (x)]  x[children(x)&-come(x)] shorthand!

61. 61 Chierchia Come1 Not Some children Children Children didn’t come. e x[come(x)] children k x[come(x)] P -P / S t -S t P  x[children(x)&P (x)] children k x[come(x)] children k come(children k ) S t -S t -come(children k ) =- ( come(children k ) ) =- (  x[R(x,children k )&come(x)] ) =-  x[R(x,children k )&come(x)]

62. 62 Van Geenhoven Come1 Not Some children Children Children didn’t come. x[come(x)] x[children(x)] x[come(x)] P -P / S t -S t P  x[children(x)&P (x)] x[children(x)] x[come(x)] x[children(x)] x[come(x)] P -P x[-come(x)] x[children(x)] = P-  x[come(x)&P(x)] x[children(x)] = -  x[come(x)&children(x)] ?

63. 63 Carlson Come1 Come2 Not Some children Children Children didn’t come.,t> x[come(x)] P -P / S t -S t, > (1) (2) children k x[come(x)] y k  x[R(x,y k )&come(x)] P -P / S t -S t P  x[children(x)&P (x)] children k y k  x[R(x,y k )&come(x)] x[come(x)] P -P (3) (4) P -P y k  x[R(x,y k )&come(x)] x[-come(x)] y k -  x[R(x,y k )&come(x)] children k -come(children k ) -  x[R(x,children k )&come(x)] x[come(x)] y k  x[R(x,y k )&come(x)] children k come(children k )  x[R(x,children k )&come(x)] S t -S t -come(children k ) -  x[R(x,children k )&come(x)]

64. 64 Krifka Come1 Not Some children Children Children didn’t come. x[come(x)] x[children(x)] x[come(x)] P -P / S t -S t P  x[children(x)&P (x)] x[children(x)] x[come(x)] x[children(x)] x[come(x)] P -P x[-come(x)] x[children(x)] = -come( x[children(x)]) = - ( come( x[children(x)]) ) = -  x[children(x)&come(x)] not allowed in standard Montague grammar!!!

65. 65 Conclusion > Narrow scope is always accounted for by local type-shifting and doesn’t presuppose that bare nominals always refer to kinds. Carlson builds type-shifting into predicates. Van Geenhoven applies local type-shifting to predicates. Krifka applies local type-shifting to nouns. Chierchia applies local type-shifting to nouns with a small detour via kinds. > General constraint on covert type-shifting: apply it as locally as possible.

66. The empirical validity of a locality constraint on type- shifting

67. 67 Do bare nouns take wide scope? YES! NO! Min Que The rest of the world If they do, there is no reason to assume a locality constraint on type-shifting... The answer... English (Carlson), Spanish (Espinal and McNally 2010 and references therein), Hungarian (Farkas and de Swart 2003), Russian (Geist 2010), Albanian (Kalluli 2001), Hebrew (Doron 2003), Hindi (Dayal 2003, 2004), Mandarin Chinese (Yang 2001, Rullmann & You 2006), Indonesian (Chung 2000, Sato 2008), Javanese (Sato 2008), Turkish (Bliss 2003), Brazilian Portuguese (Schmitt & Munn 1999)

68. 68 How to go about testing scope? > A first attempt Every boy read a book. a. There is a book that every boy read. b. Every boy is such that he read a book. Why is this not a good format for test items? wide narrow Because every situation that makes a. true will also make b. true.

69. 69 How to go about testing scope? > A better attempt John didn’t read a (single) book. a. There is a book that John didn’t read. b. John read no book. Why is this a better format for test items? wide narrow Because a. can be true in situations in which b. is not true.

70. 70 A small classroom experiment Deze diagnose heeft ons doen inzien waarom hij sommige dwangideeën heeft, zoals altijd de eerste willen zijn (op de trap, in bad, aan tafel...) of woedebuien (omdat hij dingen niet begrijpt) of irrationele angsten (zoals steeds denken dat er bijen rond zoemen, terwijl het soms maar een grasmaaier is). Hoe ouder hij wordt, hij is nu bijna acht jaar, hoe duidelijker het autisme wordt. Ik vind het absoluut niet leuk dat hij moet huilen vanwege mij. En dat is wel een aantal keren op een dag, omdat hij dingen niet mag of dat hij juist iets moet (naar bed gaan bijvoorbeeld). Ik weet dat het er bij hoort, maar leuk is anders. Nu kan ik er weer even tegen. omdat hij dingen niet begrijpt because he things not understand omdat hij dingen niet mag because he things not may Does this necessarily mean that he doesn’t understand anything? Does this necessarily mean that he’s not allowed to do anything?

71. The set-up of the English experiment

72. 72 Setting-up the bare nominal test items A. B. A. B. This last sentence is truth-conditionally only compatible with a wide scope reading of colleagues. Task: judge the naturalness of the last utterance with respect to the rest of the dialogue on a scale from 0 to 5. Rationale: subjects should not accept a continuation in which Flynn contradicts himself.

73. 73 Further design of the experiment An experiment that would only look at the acceptability of bare nominal items would be meaningless. Why? Because we wouldn’t know what the numbers meant. Our baseline Given that we were testing whether bare nominals could scope above negation, we needed an item that could not. > Negative Polarity Items

74. 74 An example of an NPI test item

75. 75 Further design of the experiment Experiments also need control items and fillers. Why? Control items are used to check whether people are actually sensitive to the phenomenon one is testing. Our control items > Singular indefinites Filler items are used to try to distract subjects in such a way that they don’t discover what the experiment is really about. Our fillers> See example

76. 76 An example of a singular indefinite

77. 77 Examples of filler items

78. 78 Further design of the experiment > Overview of the number of items: 2 NPI items 2 Singular indefinite items 3 Bare plural items 5 Fillers > Participants and procedure:  Questionnaire was put online.  Included a number of questions that would allow us to weed out non-native speakers.  Total number of relevant questionnaires: 63.

79. Results of the English experiment

80. 80 Results: Means and SD

81. 81 Results: Means and SD

82. 82 Results: statistics There’s a (significant) difference between the NPI items and the BP items. There’s a (significant) difference between the BP items and the SI items.  There’s a (significant) difference between BP1 and BP2.  / Paired t-tests

83. Conclusion of the English experiment

84. 84 Do bare nouns take wide scope? There is ground to assume that bare nouns can take wide scope. > This means that the general narrow scope behaviour cannot be derived solely by forcing covert type-shifting to apply locally. > Covert type-shifting turns out to be less constrained than might seem at first sight.

85. Questions/discussion

86. 86 General comment

87. 87 Content objection 1

88. 88 Content objection 2

89. For those interested in contributing to the discussion

90. 90 An alternative clever way of testing > Ionin 2010 There is a reviewer that is such that every teenager watched every movie he recommended. Every teenager is such that he watched every movie that was recommended by a reviewer. > Remaining problem:Which item could serve as a baseline?

91. A syntactic interludium

92. 92 Boskovic (2005) He saw expensive cars. *Expensive he saw cars. (English) Expensive he saw cars. (Serbo-Croatian) Some preliminary facts

93. 93 Boskovic (2005) You like friends of Peter. [Who] do you like friends of. (Eng) [Who] do you like friends of. (SC) Some preliminary facts

94. 94 Boskovic (2005) Serbo-Croatian doesn’t have covert Ds whereas English does.  How does this explain the facts?  Why is this relevant for us? the generalization

95. 95 Boskovic (2005) PIC Phase Impenetrability Condition: “only the Spec of a phase is accessible for movement outside the phase” explaining the facts

96. 96 Boskovic (2005) XP SpecX’ X XP SpecX’ X XP SpecX’ XComp DP XP SpecX’ X NP SpecX’ X SpecX’ XComp DP XP explaining the facts NP

97. 97 Boskovic (2005) Anti-Locality hypothesis “movement shouldn’t be too short, it should at least cross a full phrasal boundary” explaining the facts

98. 98 Boskovic (2005) DP SpecD’ D NP AdjunctNP explaining the facts NCompl NP DP

99. 99 Boskovic (2005) Serbo-Croatian doesn’t have covert Ds whereas English does. explaining the facts DP SpecD’  NP expensiveNP carsCompl expensiveNP carsCompl English Serbo-Croatian NP DP Expensive he saw cars. 1. PIC 2. Anti-Loc 1. PIC 2. Anti-Loc XP NP ()

100. 100 Boskovic (2005) Serbo-Croatian doesn’t have covert Ds whereas English does. explaining the facts SpecD’  friendsof John friendsof John English Serbo-Croatian NP DP Who do you like friends of. 1. PIC 2. Anti-Loc 1. PIC 2. Anti-Loc XP NP ()

101. 101 Boskovic (2005) If Boskovic is right there is no a priori reason for arguments to have a D projection. This goes against Longobardi who assumes argumenthood requires the presence of a (covert or overt) D. More in line with a type-shifting approach that does more in the semantics and less in the syntax. relevance

102. 102 Boskovic (2005) If you’re interested in exploring this line further, you can visit Boskovic’s website (download section). He extends the ideas developed above to a great number of languages and a great deal of different constructions. http://web2.uconn.edu/boskovic/ remark

103. 103 Borer (2005) Wants to pursue an alternative to type-shifting. (i) I bought cookies. (ii) John bought ?(a) cookie. both –s and a are countability markers; without them cookie would get a mass reading (iii) Wo mai le quqi(Mandarin) I buy LE cookie (iv) Wo mai le yi ge quqi(Mandarin) I buy LE one CL cookie

104. 104 Borer (2005) syntax of a (count) indefinite on its existential reading: [ DP e [ #P a e [ CL a e [ NP girl]]]] Indefinites like a in English do double duty: they function as classifiers and counters. They don’t necessarily do triple duty though: the existential force associated with them on their existential reading comes from existential closure over the variables in the C-command domain of the verb.  No need for type-shifting! the enterprise

105. 105 Borer (2005) If you want to explore this line of thinking further, read Borer (2005) and make sure to complement it with Krifka (2004). In name only‘Bare NPs: Kind- referring, Indefinites, Both or Neither?’