1. A semantic intro

2. Intuition I

3. 3 John is playing guitar. individual predicate proposition

4. 4 The guy is playing guitar. individual predicate proposition

5. 5 A guy is playing guitar. individual predicate proposition

6. 6 The intuition that proper names, definite and indefinite DPs refer to individuals is very strong in semantic theories like DRT where we have a level of representation in which we keep track of the individuals that have been introduced.

7. The semantics of Ds and DPs in GQT

8. 8 John came in.x x = John come in(x) He saw a guy. y y = x z guy(z) see(x,z) The guy was happy. v v =z guy(z) happy(z)

9. Intuition II

10. 10 boy unhappy A creates a relation between two sets. A boy was unhappy It signals that there’s at least one element in the intersection.

11. 11 light burn Every creates a relation between two sets. It signals that all elements of the first set are also part of the second set. Every light (in the christmas tree) was burning.

12. 12 The intuition that determiners create relations between sets is the basis for Generalized Quantifier Theory. Unlike DRT, Generalized Quantifier Theory has no level of representation that keeps track of the individuals that have been introduced. We call DRT a dynamic theory of meaning whereas Generalized Quantifier Theory is taken to be a static theory of meaning.

13. The semantics of Ds and DPs in GQT

14. 14 A boy was unhappy.  x (boy(x) & unhappy(x)) There’s at least one individual x who is a boy and who is unhappy. There’s at least one individual x who is in the intersection of the set of boys and unhappy individuals.

15. 15 I II A boy was unhappy.  x (boy(x) & unhappy(x)) This is what lambda’s do for us!

16. 16 I II A boy was unhappy.  x (boy(x) & unhappy(x)) Q  x (boy(x) & Q(x))(unhappy) P Q  x (P(x) & Q(x))(boy) P Q  x (P(x) & Q(x))

17. 17 I II Every light was burning.  x (light(x) → burn(x)) Q  x (light(x) → Q(x))(burn) P Q  x (P(x) → Q(x))(light) P Q  x (P(x) → Q(x))

18. Comparing the two intuitions

19. 19 Individual x Predicate = Proposition Proposition / IndividualPredicate = entitytruth value??? “almost a proposition but it still needs an individual” “a function that takes an individual and returns a proposition” DRT

20. 20 Individual x Predicate = Proposition et input output Up till now we haven’t looked at predicates as being functions but rather as being sets. This is however a simple matter of perspective and we will assume that sets are of type. DRT

21. 21  x (boy(x) & unhappy(x)) Q  x (boy(x) & Q(x)) P Q  x (P(x) & Q(x)) t t A boy was unhappy A boy A <>, t <>, <,> GQT

22. 22 Discussion Whereas a DRT analysis takes a boy to be an expression of type e, a GQT analysis takes a boy to be an expression of type,t>. In both analyses a boy will be able to combine with predicates (of type ) and give rise to a proposition: e x = t,t> x = t How to decide which intuition is correct?

23. 23 Discussion We can assume that DPs like a boy have a basic type but can shift from one type to another on the basis of well defined type-shift rules. This is the basis for the theory of type-shifting to which we return after we discuss Longobardi. Do we have to decide?

24. 24 Recap Carlson > BPs refer to kinds and the context decides whether you get the kind or an existential reading. > BP is not the plural counterpart of a > BP is not even a normal indefinite > existential readings are obtained through a realization operation baked into predicates > the whole story hinges on scope facts

25. 25 Narrow and wide scope Assumption Negation can apply at the predicate level or at the sentence level. This allows us to derive a narrow and a wide scope reading for a boy in combination with the predicate to play and negation. N.B. The preferred realizations of the corresponding sentences differ: with narrow scope we would normally say No boy was playing whereas with wide scope we would probably say There was a boy who wasn’t playing. For the sake of illustration I will however present the analysis as if we were analyzing a boy wasn’t playing.

26. 26 Indefinites (predicate level negation) not to play(-play (x)) x a boy Q  y(boy(y)&Q(y)),t> Q  y(boy(y)&Q(y)) x (–play(x)) Q  y(boy(y)&Q (y)) x (–play(x))  y(boy(y)& x(-play(x )) (y)) x (–play(x)) y  y(boy(y)&-play(y))

27. 27 Indefinites (sentence level negation) to play x(play(x)) a boy Q  y(boy(y)&Q(y)),t> Q  y(boy(y)&Q(y)) x (play(x)) Q  y(boy(y)&Q (y)) x (play(x))  y(boy(y)& x(play(x )) (y)) x (play(x)) y  y(boy(y)&play(y)) not s t –s s t –s  y(boy(y)&play(y)) s t –s  y(boy(y)&play(y)) –  y(boy(y)&play(y))

28. 28 Bare plurals (predicate level negation) not to play x k (-  y(R(y,x k )&play(y)) boysboy k e x k (-  y(R(y,x k )&play(y)) boy k x k (-  y(R(y,x k )&play(y)) boy k (-  y(R(y,boy k )&play(y))

29. Longobardi (as treated in Dayal)

30. 30 Some background > syntactician > Italian (works at Trieste) > interested in the structure of DPs (cf. Abney 1987) DP NP N’ N DP D’ DNPD’ DN’ N

31. 31 Expletive articles > In certain contexts, the definite article doesn’t seem to add anything to the semantics. > The reason it appears in these contexts seems to be tied only to syntax. Longobardi assumes this to be the case with: > proper names The John, The Mary,... (Greek champions these uses) > kind referring nouns

32. 32 Italian proper names Il mio Gianni ha finalmente telefonato. the my John has finally called My Johnny finally called. *Mio Gianni ha finalmente telefonato. my John has finally called My Johnny has finally called. Gianni mio ha finalmente telefonato. John my has finally called My Johnny has finally called

33. 33 Italian proper names Il mio Gianni ha finalmente telefonato. the my John has finally called My Johnny finally called. *Mio Gianni ha finalmente telefonato. my John has finally called My Johnny has finally called. Gianni mio ha finalmente telefonato John my has finally called My Johnny has finally called Proposal: il occupies a position that...... has to be filled... cannot be filled by mio... but can be filled by moving Gianni to it def + poss + name poss + name

34. 34 Italian proper names Il mio Gianni ha finalmente telefonato. the my John has finally called My Johnny finally called. *Mio Gianni ha finalmente telefonato. my John has finally called My Johnny has finally called. Gianni mio ha finalmente telefonato John my has finally called My Johnny has finally called Proposal: il occupies a position that...... has to be filled... cannot be filled by mio... but can be filled by moving Gianni to it name + poss ! evidence for the DP hypothesis def + poss + name poss + name

35. 35 English proper names *The my Johnny ha finalmente telefonato. the my John has finally called My Johnny finally called. My Johnny ha finalmente telefonato. my John has finally called My Johnny has finally called. *Johnny my ha finalmente telefonato John my has finally called My Johnny has finally called Proposal: the occupies a position that...... hasn’t got to be filled... and therefore shouldn’t be filled... consequently the moving of Johnny to it is not allowed

36. 36 Italian vs. English proper names Proposal: il occupies a position that...... has to be filled... cannot be filled by mio... but can be filled by moving Gianni to it Proposal: the occupies a position that...... hasn’t got to be filled... and therefore shouldn’t be filled... consequently the moving of Johnny to it is not allowed ITALIANENGLISH parameter distinguishing between Italian and English type languages

37. 37 English kind referring nouns *The big dogs bark. Big dogs bark. *Dogs big bark. Proposal: the occupies a position that...... hasn’t got to be filled... and therefore shouldn’t be filled... consequently the moving of dogs to it is not allowed

38. 38 Italian kind referring nouns I grandi cani abbaiano the big dogs bark Big dogs bark. *Grandi cani abbaiano big dogs bark Big dogs bark. *Cani grandi abbaiano dogs big bark Big dogs bark. Proposal: i occupies a position that...... has to be filled... cannot be filled by grandi... cannot be filled by cani

39. 39 Italian proper names vs. kind referring nouns ITALIAN KIND REFERRING NsITALIAN PROPER NAMES Proposal: i occupies a position that...... has to be filled... cannot be filled by grandi... cannot be filled by cani Only proper names can raise to D. Proposal: il occupies a position that...... has to be filled... cannot be filled by mio... but can be filled by moving Gianni to it

40. 40 Longobardi: the bigger picture In order to refer (in argument position) NPs have to be associated with a D. The association with D can be made in syntax or at LF. This association can be made by adding an (overt or covert) D or by moving the noun to D. The latter option is only available for nouns that intrinsically refer to an individual (i.e. proper names). In Italian the association is made in syntax. In English the association is made at LF. UNIVERSAL PARAMETER SETTING

41. 41 Longobardi: a small caveat ! Ho mangiato biscotti. I_have eaten biscuits I ate biscuits. Proposal: In ‘properly governed positions’ a null determiner can be inserted into D. = everywhere except in preverbal subject position

42. Type shifting

43. 43 Type-shifting ? Types ? Types... two basic types: - individuals(type e) - truth values(type t) Hu Jintao type e president(s) type Hu Jintao is president. ex = t TRUE!

44. 44 Type-shifting ? Types ? Types... two basic types: - individuals(type e) - truth values(type t) Hu Jintao type e smile type Hu Jintao [smile]. ex = t TRUE!

45. 45 Type-shifting ? Types ? Types... two basic types: - individuals(type e) - truth values(type t) president(s) type smile type President(s) [smile]. x = ? OOPS...

46. 46 Type-shifting ? Types ? Type-shifting... president(s) type xPresident(x)  Q  x[President(x)&Q(x)] type,t> xPresident(x)  x[President(x)] type e xPresident(x)  KIND x[President(x)] type e

47. 47 Type-shifting ? Types ? Type-shifting... smile type Presidents [smile].,t>x = t Q  x[President(x)&Q(x)] type,t>  x[President(x)] type e KIND x[President(x)] type e ex = t

48. 48 Type-shifting ? Types ? Type-shifting... Can we do whatever we want? NO! Two constraints: THOU SHALT NOT shift unless needed. THOU SHALT NOT shift covertly if Thou hast a determiner that maketh the same shift overtly. = Blocking Principle

49. 49 Type-shifting ? Types ? Type-shifting... smile type Presidents [smile].,t>x = t Q  x[President(x)&Q(x)] type,t>  x[President(x)] type e KIND x[President(x)] type e ex = t

50. 50 Type-shifting ? Types ? Type-shifting... Hu Jintao type e the president type e Hu Jintao type e (is) the president type e x=?  xPresident(x)  y[y=  xPresident(x)] type Hu Jintao type e (is) the president type x= t IDENT

51. 51 Type-shifting ? Types ? Type-shifting... e,t>  KIND IDENT  Realization BE

52. 52 Type-shifting ? Types ? Type-shifting... Partee, B., 1987, ‘Noun phrase interpretation and type- shifting principles’, in J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh & M. Stokhof (eds.) Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, Dordrecht: Foris, 115-143.

53. Chierchia (as treated in Dayal)

54. 54 Some background > semanticist (works at Harvard) > Italian > sometimes the analysis is so beautiful that it simply has to be correct (even if the facts don’t seem to follow yet)

55. 55 Chierchia vs. Longobardi Longobardi: > Nouns always have to be associated with D to appear in argument position. > Italian common nouns need an overt D to be able to appear in argument position. > English common nouns don’t need an overt D to be able to appear in argument position. Chierchia: > Whether a noun needs to be associated with D depends on the language. > Italian common nouns are of type and cannot appear in argument position without a (covert) D. > English common nouns don’t need to be associated with D. They are of type but can freely shift to type e or,t>. [-arg; +pred] [+arg; +pred]

56. 56 Italian nouns are of type and cannot shift by themselves to type e or type,t>. English nouns are of type but can shift by themselves to type e or type,t>. THOU SHALT NOT shift unless needed. THOU SHALT NOT shift covertly if Thou hast a determiner that makes the same shift overtly. a the

57. 57 Chierchia Quiz > Italian common nouns are of type and cannot appear in argument position without a (covert) D. > English common nouns don’t need to be associated with D. They are of type but can freely shift to type e or,t>. [-arg; +pred] [+arg; +pred] Why aren’t there bare singular arguments in Italian? Why aren’t there bare singular arguments in English?

58. 58 Chierchia and narrow scope: English How does he derive the narrow-scope behaviour of the English bare plural? e,t> KIND  Realization

59. 59 Chierchia and narrow scope: Italian How does he derive the narrow-scope behaviour of the Italian bare plural? e,t> KIND  Realization

60. 60 Chierchia: beyond Italian and English Chierchia proposes the following typology: [-arg; +pred] [+arg; +pred] [-arg; -pred] [+arg; -pred] Italian English No language Chinese

61. 61 Chierchia and Chinese Extra assumption about Chinese: all nouns start life as kind-referring expressions -> predicts narrow-scope behaviour Extra trivia about Chinese: - language that doesn’t have number marking on nouns - language that doesn’t have articles

62. 62 Chierchia Quiz What are the possible English translations of xuesheng (‘student’)? a student the student students (existential) students (kind) the students Can xuesheng appear in a sentence like Hu shi xuesheng (‘Hu is student’)?

63. 63 Chierchia: recap > Makes heavy use of type-shifting. > Proposes a typology of languages constraining type- shifting options. > Assumes bare nouns cross-linguistically refer to kinds at least at some point in their derivation (and therefore only take narrow scope). > Rejects the idea that the D projection is necessary for argumenthood. => NEO-CARLSONIAN ANALYSIS

64. Dayal (as treated in Dayal)

65. 65 Some background > semanticist > Hindi (works at Rutgers) > When asked why she likes to be Neo-Carlsonian she replied: “I love kinds”.

66. 66 A small problem for Chierchia #caaro taraf bacca khel rahaa thaa four ways child play PROG PAST ‘A (same) child was playing everywhere.’ > If bare nominals are always kind-referring and always take narrow-scope the above sentence should be fine...but it’s not... > Does this endanger the generalization that bare nominals always refer to kinds and that they always take narrow scope?

67. 67 A small problem for Chierchia > Does this endanger the generalization that bare nominals always refer to kinds and that they always take narrow scope? Hindi distinguishes between singular and plural kinds. Singular kinds do not allow access to their instantiations. two of these whales -> two of this type of whale *two of this whale -> two of this type of whale The only way to derive a reading for bacca is through the  type-shift. The apparent indefinite reading arises because the covert  type-shift doesn’t carry any familiarity requirement. NO!!!

68. General recap

69. 69 General recap: history Carlson Semantics | English Longobardi Syntax | English/Italian Chierchia Semantics | all languages Dayal Semantics | esp. Hindi

70. 70 General recap: assumptions about D Carlson Longobardi Chierchia | Dayal no position in the syntactic debate crosslinguistically all arguments need a D arguments don’t need a D (whether or not there’s a D is an empirical question)

71. 71 Comparison with last week THOU SHALT NOT shift covertly if Thou hast a determiner that makes the same shift overtly. > What we saw last week is an extended, more fine- grained and to some extent modified version of type- shifting as it is used in Chierchia and Dayal. > It differs e.g. in not postulating that all bare nouns are basically kind denoting and in pursuing even more a wysiwyg account of bare nominals. > Today’s course concludes the background on the crosslinguistic semantics of bare nominals.