Download Financial support Basic data Outline of the talk BNs in object position

Object bare nominals in Catalan
and Spanish within the typology
of indefinites
M. Teresa Espinal & Louise McNally
[email protected]
Financial support
[email protected]
MEC, HUM2006-13295-C02-01FILO
MEC, HUM2007-60599FILO
MEC, HF2007-0039
Fundació ICREA
Generalitat de Catalunya, 2009SGR-1079
Generalitat de Catalunya, 2009SGR-0763
1
2
Outline of the talk
Basic data
Spanish and Catalan productively allow
bare count nominals (BNs) in object
position of a restricted class of verbs.
1. Differences between BNs and other
(potentially) weak indefinites.
2. Analysis of object BNs from Espinal &
McNally (to appear).
(1) (a) Busco piso.
/ Busco pis.
(b) Necesito canguro. / Necessito cangur.
(c) Lleva sombrero.
/ Porta barret.
(d) Tiene apartamento. / Té apartament.
(e) Esta tarde hay partido. / Aquesta tarda hi ha partit.
3. Extension to facts involving eventrelated BNs.
3
BNs in object position
The data in (1) are not idiomatic or fixed. Any
BN can appear in the construction, as long as
two interpretative conditions are satisfied:
1.
The verb is a ‘have’-predicate.
2.
The resulting VP denotes a potentially
characterizing property of the entity in
subject position, in the context in question.
4
‘Have’-predicates
The class of predicates that license BNs includes:
Verbs of having (tener / tenir ‘have’, poseer /
posseir ‘possess’),
Intensional transitive verbs that entail a ‘have’
relation in some relevant possible world
(necesitar / necessitar ‘need’, buscar / buscar
‘look for’),
A small set of extensional verbs that entail a
possessive or locative relation (ponerse /
posar-se ‘put on (as in clothing)’, llevar / portar
‘carry’, usar / fer servir ‘use’, comprar /
comprar ‘buy’, encontrar / trobar ‘find’, obtener
/ obtenir ‘obtain’, recibir / rebre ‘receive’),
Existential haber / haver-hi ‘there be’.
5
6
‘Have’-predicates
‘Have’-predicates
(2) (a) Encontramos taxi.
found.1pl
taxi
‘We found a taxi.’
(b) Ha obtenido permiso de trabajo.
has obtained permit of work
‘(S)he has obtained a work permit. ’
(3) (a) M’ acabo
de comprar cotxe.
refl finish.1sg
of buy
car.
‘I just bought myself a car.’
(b) Ahir
finalment vaig
rebre carta.
yesterday
finally
past.1sg receive letter
‘Yesterday I finally received a letter.’
However, there is some arbitrariness in the
specific verbs involved (e.g. voler ‘want’ and
desitjar ‘desire’ are severely restricted).
(4) (a) ??Vull/*Desitjo taula de reunions al
despatx.
want/ wish.1sg table of meetings at+the office
‘I want/wish a meeting table at the office.’
(b) Al despatx, hi
vull/*desitjo taula de reunions.
at+the office there want/ wish.1sg table of meetings
‘In my office I want/wish there to be a meeting
table.’
7
8
‘Have’-predicates
‘Have’-predicates
BNs are excluded with most unaccusative verbs.
(5) (a) *Vam
aconseguir que arribés metge.
past.1ppl manage
that arrive doctor
(b) *Passa tren.
pass
train
(c) *Creix flor.
grows flower
(6) (a) *Pis
ha estat comprat. - periphrastic passive
apartment has been bought
(b) *Pis
s’ ha comprat.
- pronominal passive
apartment CL has bought
BNs cannot bear the Theme role, where x is a
Theme if x moves, changes position or condition, or
is acted upon by an Agent. Therefore, BNs are
excluded, for example, with causative transitive
verbs (Espinal & Mateu 2009).
(7) (a) Tengo coche.
have car
‘I have a car.’
(b) *Limpio coche.
clean
car
9
10
BNs vs. singular indefinites
BNs vs. singular indefinites
Contrast 1: Modification. BNs only combine with
modifiers that yield descriptions of subkinds of the
kind the BN describes.
(8) (a) Té parella estable / formal.
has partner stable
formal
‘(S)he has a long–term partner.’
(b) A escola portàvem bata blava de ratlles.
at school wore
smock blue striped
‘At school we wore a blue striped smock.’
(9) (a) *Té parella alta. → una parella alta
has partner tall
a
partner tall
(b) *A escola portàvem bata tacada. → una bata tacada
at school wore
smock stained
a
smock stained
11
Relatedly, unlike singular indefinites, BNs are
unable to host non-restrictive relative clauses which
describe a token individual.
(10)(a) *Per fi hem trobat pis, que començarem a reformar molt aviat.
for end have found flat that begin.fut
to renovate very soon
(b) Per fi hem trobat un pis, que començarem a reformar molt aviat.
for end have found a flat that begin.fut
to renovate very soon
‘At last we have found a flat, which we’ll begin to renovate very
soon.’
12
BNs vs. singular indefinites
BNs vs. singular indefinites
Note also that in (10a-b) the modifiers do not
apply to the token entities that have the
property contributed by the noun.
Contrast 2: Discourse Anaphora. BNs are limited in
their ability to serve as antecedents for personal
pronouns. The only pronoun that can be
systematically used to refer back to a BN is the
partitive pronoun.
(11)(a) Té parella estable / formal.
has partner stable
formal
‘(S)he has a long–term partner.’
(b) A escola portàvem bata blava de ratlles.
at school wore
smock blue striped
‘At school we wore a blue striped smock.’
(12)(a) Avui
porta faldilla. #La hi vam regalar l’ any passat.
today wears skirt
it to.her past give
the year last
(b) Avui porta una faldilla. La hi
vam regalar l’ any passat.
today wears a skirt
it to.her past give
the year last
‘Today she is wearing a skirt. We gave it to her last year.’
(c) Avui porta faldilla. Li’
n vam regalar una l’ any passat.
today wears skirt
to.her-part past give one the year last
‘Today she is wearing a skirt. We gave her one last year.’
BNs do not describe token entities.
13
BNs vs. singular indefinites
14
BNs vs. singular indefinites
These anaphora facts strongly suggest that BNs
have the same denotation as partitive pronouns
–i.e., that they denote properties of some kind–
and that they are not used to introduce
discourse referents to individual entities of the
sort that a personal pronoun picks up on.
Contrast 3: Scope. BNs (unlike singular indefinites,
though like BPs) only take the narrowest
possible scope w/r/t other operators.
(13)(a) No busco piso. / No busco
pis.
not look.for flat
not look.for flat
‘I’m not looking for any flat.’
(b) No busco un piso. / No busco un pis.
not look.for a flat
not look.for a flat
‘I’m not looking for any flat./There is a flat I am not
looking for.’
Behavior uncharacteristic of quantifiers or “Heimian”
indefinites.
15
BNs vs. singular indefinites
16
BNs vs. singular indefinites
Contrast 4: Atelicity. BNs (unlike indefinite
singulars, though like BPs) cannot induce a telic
reading on a verb otherwise unspecified for
telicity.
(14)(a) Ha buscat
pis #en / durant una setmana.
has looked.for flat in / during a
week
‘(S)he has looked for a flat for a week.’
(b) Ha buscat
un pis en / durant una setmana.
has looked.for a flat in / during a week
‘(S)he has looked for and found a flat in a week.’ /
(S)he has looked for a flat for a week.’
The lack of a telic reading suggests that the BN
does not provide a discourse referent (or
anything else) that could serve to quantize the
eventuality described by the sentence.
Additionally, note that a BN is not able to
induce atelicity on an inherently telic predicate
either:
(15) Encontraron aparcamiento en/*durante diez minutos.
found
parking
in
during ten minutes
‘They found parking in ten minutes.’
17
18
BNs vs. BPs
BNs vs. BPs
BNs and BPs contrast in that:
Contrast 1: Distribution. BPs are not restricted
to object position of ‘have’-predicates.
In object position BPs, like singular indefinites,
are not restricted in the class of predicates they
can combine with.
BPs (like indefinite singulars) can combine with
modifiers that apply to token individuals.
BNs are number neutral; BPs (like indefinite
singulars) are not.
(16) Creixen flors.
grow
flowers
‘Flowers grow.’
(17) Limpio coches.
clean cars
‘I clean cars.’
19
BNs vs. BPs
20
BNs vs. BPs
Contrast 2: Modification. As noted, BNs can only
combine with classifying expressions that
denote the (sub)type of entity which the N plus
modifier can be predicated of. Not so for BPs.
Contrast 3: Pronominalization. BNs require
accommodation to license a discourse referent,
whereas BPs do not.
(18)(a) #Ha tingut parella alta.
has had partner tall
(b) Ha tingut parelles altes.
has had partners tall
‘S/he has had tall partners.’
(19)(a) Avui
porta faldilla. #La hi
vam regalar l’ any passat.
today wears skirt
it
to.her past give
the year last
(b) Avui porta bracelets. Els hi
vam
regalar
l’ any
today wears bracelets. them to.her past.1pl give.present the year
passat.
last
‘Today she is wearing bracelets. We gave them to her as a
BPs, unlike BNs, must be able to describe token entities.
present last year.’
21
BNs vs. BPs
22
BNs vs. BPs
Contrast 4: Number Neutrality. Espinal (2010).
Singular indefinites carry a default implication
that an atomic individual is being described.
BPs carry a default implication that a nonatomic individual is being described.
BNs carry no implication concerning the
atomicity of the individual being described.
(20) (a) Busco un pis. {Un a Barcelona. / #Un a B. i un a Girona}
look.for a flat one in B.
one in B. and one in G.
‘I’m looking for a flat. One in Barcelona.’
(b) Busco pisos. {#Un a Barcelona. / Un a B. i
un a Girona}
look.for flats
one in B.
one in B. and one in G.
‘I’m looking for flats. One in Barcelona and one in Girona.’
(c) Busco pis. {Un a Barcelona. / Un a Barcelona i un a Girona}.
look.for flat one in B.
one in B.
and one in G.
‘I’m looking for an apartment. {One in Barcelona. / One in
Barcelona and one in Girona.}’
23
In this respect Catalan and Spanish BNs again resemble
those in Hungarian and Hindi.
24
The proposal
Why a description of a kind?
Within the typology of indefinites, BNs denote
properties of kinds of individuals (type <ek,t>).
(21)(a) Tenir carrera.
have degree
‘to have a degree’ (It could be one or more than one)
(b) Buscar parella estable
look.for partner stable
‘to look for a long term partner’
(22)(a) [carrera] = λxk [career(xk)]
(b) [parella estable] = λxk [partner(xk)] ∧ [stable(xk)]
Why not say the BN denotes a kind, as in Dayal
(2003)?
Kind terms in Catalan and Spanish, as in French,
are always marked with a determiner.
Kind terms differ from BNs in that they
pronominalize with 3rd person personal
pronouns.
(23) Alguna cosa va
exterminar el dodo, pero ¿què el
/#en
some thing PAST exterminate the dodo but what it.ACC/PART
va exterminar?
PAST exterminate
‘The dodo was exterminated by something, but what exterminated it?’
25
Why a description of a kind?
Why not say the BN denotes a kind, as in Dayal
(2003)?
26
Outline of the talk
1.
Differences between BNs and other (potentially)
weak indefinites.
Semantics: properties of kinds of individuals.
BNs in languages with determiners have to
denote properties anyway.
We argue that BNs are not semantic arguments
of the verbs they appear with. So no reason (of
the sort advanced in Chierchia 1984) to say that
they denote kinds or other entities.
Kind terms are not restricted in their
distribution in natural language in general. BNs
are.
2.
Analysis of object BNs from Espinal & McNally (to
appear).
Lexical rule: argument reduction.
Compositional semantic rule: predicate modification.
3.
Extension to facts involving event-related BNs.
27
28
Lexical rule
Compositional rule
(24)Input: λyλe[V(e) ∧ Ө(e)=y ∧
∃w[C(w)][∃e'[depend(e,e',w) ∧ have(e') ∧
havee(e')=y]]]
(25)If [V] = λe[V(e)] and Ө is an implicit role function
defined for events of type V,
Output: λe[V(e) ∧ ∃w[C(w)][∃e'[depend(e,e',w) ∧
have(e') ∧ havee(e')= Ө(e)]]]
and if [N] = N, a property,
then [vV N]= λe[V(e) ∧ N(xki) ∧ R(Ө(e), xki)]
Condition on use of output: The issue of whether the
referent introduced by the external argument
participates or does not participate in e must be crucial
for characterizing that referent in some way that is
immediately relevant in the context.
NB: The external argument is introduced separately as in Kratzer29
(1996); Ө(e) corresponds to the suppressed internal argument.
NB: R is Carlson’s (1977) Realization relation; we assume that
the kind identified by the BN is chosen indexically.
30
Examples
Compositional rule: comments
The nominal modifies the description of a situation
indirectly by describing the kind of object that fits a
particular thematic role related to that situation.
This resembles nominal modification rules in which
an adjective modifies the description of an
individual indirectly by describing an individual or
event implicitly related to that individual (Larson
1995, Pustejovsky 1995, McNally & Boleda 2004).
The rule preserves the intuition that the nominal is
semantically a modifier, not a verbal argument
(compare Farkas & de Swart 2003; contrast Dayal
2003).
The output of the lexical rule fits the input
requirements of the compositonal rule.
Example outputs of the compositional rule:
(26)(a) [portar motxilla] = λe[portar(e) ∧
∃w[C(w)][∃e'[depend(e,e',w) ∧ have(e') ∧
havee(e')= Ө(e)]] ∧ motxilla(xki) ∧ R(Ө(e), xki)]
(b) [tenir parella estable] =
λe[tenir(e) ∧ ∃w[C(w)][∃e'[depend(e,e',w) ∧
have(e') ∧ havee(e')= Ө(e)]] ∧ (λxk[parella(xk) ∧
estable(xk))(xki) ∧ R(Ө(e), xki)]
NB: portar motxilla ‘to carry a backpack’, tenir parella estable ‘to
have a stable partner’.
31
Event-related BNs with
‘have’-predicates
Outline of the talk
1.
32
Differences between BNs and other (potentially)
weak indefinites.
Semantics: properties of kinds of individuals.
2.
Analysis of object BNs from Espinal & McNally (to
appear).
Lexical rule: argument reduction.
Compositional semantic rule: predicate modification.
3.
Tenir and haver-hi can combine with a very
limited set of simple event (count) BNs
(Grimshaw 1990).
(27) (a) Tinc
partit / reunió / sopar / visita / casament.
have.1SG
game / meeting / dinner / visit / wedding
‘I have a game / meeting / dinner / visit / wedding.’
(b) *Tinc
disculpa / petó / abraçada / compliment.
have.1SG apology / kiss / hug / compliment
Extension to facts involving event-related BNs.
What explains the contrast in (27)?
33
Event-related BNs:
distributional correlates
34
Event-related BNs:
distributional correlates
Contrast 1: The acceptable BNs allow temporal
modification; the unacceptable ones do not.
(28) (a) Tinc partit / visita / casament {a les 8 / de 8 a 9}.
have game / visit / wedding {at the 8 / from 8 to 9}
‘a game / meeting / wedding {at 8 / from 8 to 9}.’
(b) *Tinc disculpa / petó / abraçada {a les 8 / de 8 a 9}.
A
apology / kiss / hug {at the 8 / from 8 to 9}
35
Contrast 2: The acceptable nouns can be the
subjects of temporal predications; the others
cannot.
(29) (a) El partit / sopar / casament és a les 8.
the game / dinner / wedding is at the 8
‘The game / dinner / wedding is at 8.’
(b) *La disculpa / el petó / l’abraçada és a les 8.
the
apology / kiss / hug is at the 8
36
Event-related BNs:
distributional correlates
BNs metonymically related
to event-related nouns
Contrast 3: The acceptable BNs allow topicalized
temporal adjuncts but not locative adjuncts.
(30) (a) A les 8 hi ha manifestació.
at the 8 loc have demonstration
‘At 8 there is a demonstration.
(b) ??A la Plaça Universitat hi ha manifestació.
at the Pl.
Universitat loc have demonstration
Contrast 4: Bare count nominals that are
metonymically related to the acceptable
event-related BNs nouns are also acceptable.
(31)(a) Tinc metge / dentista (cita
amb…)
have doctor / dentist (appointment with…)
(b) Tinc coral / orquestra (assaig
de…)
have chorus / orchestra (rehearsal of…)
(c) Tinc piano / violí (classe de…)
have piano / violin (class of…)
37
On the semantics of eventrelated nouns
38
Event-related nouns: proposal
Contrast 5: Only the acceptable BNs describe events
that have a certain internal complexity, often
with stereotypical participants…
This facilitates the metonymic phenomenon.
… and they are typically scheduled.
This should explain the temporal modification
facts.
Event-related nouns (like partit ‘game’) denote
relations between event kinds and times:
λekλt[partit(ek,t)]
Nouns describing punctual events (like petó ‘kiss’)
apparently denote simple properties of kinds of
events:
λek[petó(ek)]
This distinction is crucial to understanding why nouns
describing scheduled events are appropriate for
characterizing times but not locations, and nouns
describing punctual events are not.
39
First step towards a
compositional analysis
40
Second step: semi-modal voler
Espinal & McNally (2009) argue that semi-modal
voler ‘want’ allows BN objects iff there is a
situational argument for which an abstract HAVE
predication holds.
Espinal & McNally (to appear) argue that with
haver-hi the external argument is a situational
argument, as the subject is an expletive.
(32) A l’ hotel hi
ha piscina.
at the hotel there has swimming.pool
‘There is a swimming pool at the hotel.’
(34) (a) ??Vull
casament.
want.1sg wedding
‘I want a wedding.’
(b) A la pel·licula, hi
vull
casament.
at+the film
there want.1sg wedding
‘At the film I want there to have a wedding.’
(33) ∃e[haver-hi(e) ∧ ∃w[C(w)][∃e'[depend(e,e',w) ∧
have(e') ∧ havee(e')= Ө(e)]] ∧ haver(e)= li ∧
li = ιx.hotel(x) ∧ piscina(xki) ∧ R(Ө(e), xki)]
41
Note that (34b) resembles (30a).
42
Analysis of semi-modal voler
Final step: Event-related nouns
Espinal & McNally (2009) adopt a monoclausal
restructuring analysis on which the BN forms a VP
with an abstract predicate which is ascribed to a
situational argument.
(34)(b) hi
vull
casament.
there want.1sg wedding
(35)
[volerrestruct [vP hiSit [V HAVE N ]]]
(36)
λe[voler(e, λw∃e′[havew(e′) ∧ haver(e′)= li ∧
casament(eki) ∧ R(havee(e′), eki)])]
NB: the representation in (36) is simplified for expository
purposes.
(37)
A les 8 en Josep té partit.
at the 8 the Josep has game
‘At 8 Josep has a game.
(38) ∃e[tenir(e) ∧ ∃w[C(w)][∃e'[depend(e,e',w) ∧ have(e')
∧ havee(e')= Ө(e)]] ∧ haver(e)= j ∧ partit(eki, tj) ∧
R(Ө(e), eki) ∧ tj = 20h]
43
44
Conclusions
Selected references
Catalan and Spanish BNs
denote properties of kinds,
are syntactic arguments but
function as verb modifiers, and
are licensed via the effects of an argument
reduction rule plus predicate modification.
Event-related BNs
denote relations between event kinds and
times but
are licensed via the same operations.
45
Dayal, V., 2003. A semantics for pseudo-incorporation. Ms.
Rutgers University.
Espinal, M.T., 2010. Bare nominals in Catalan and Spanish.
Their structure and meaning. Lingua, 120.4, 984-1009.
Farkas, D., de Swart, H. 2003. The Semantics of Incorporation:
From Argument Structure to Discourse Transparency. Stanford:
CSLI Publications.
Espinal, M.T., McNally, L., 2009. Characterizing ‘have’
predicates and indefiniteness. Proceedings of the IV Nereus Int.
workshop Definiteness and DP structure in Romance languages.
Arbeitspapier (Konstanz), 124, 27-43.
Espinal, M.T., McNally, L., to appear. Bare nominals and
incorporating verbs in Spanish and Catalan. Journal of
Linguistics.
McNally, L. & Boleda, G., 2004. Relational adjectives as
properties of kinds. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics
5, 179–196.
46