* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Financial support Basic data Outline of the talk BNs in object position
Lithuanian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Udmurt grammar wikipedia , lookup
Germanic strong verb wikipedia , lookup
Old Irish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Portuguese grammar wikipedia , lookup
Japanese grammar wikipedia , lookup
Modern Hebrew grammar wikipedia , lookup
Ojibwe grammar wikipedia , lookup
Grammatical number wikipedia , lookup
Ancient Greek grammar wikipedia , lookup
Modern Greek grammar wikipedia , lookup
Ukrainian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Lexical semantics wikipedia , lookup
Romanian nouns wikipedia , lookup
Italian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Yiddish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Scottish Gaelic grammar wikipedia , lookup
Swedish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Polish grammar wikipedia , lookup
French grammar wikipedia , lookup
Old Norse morphology wikipedia , lookup
Spanish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Old English grammar wikipedia , lookup
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