Weak definites Semantics, lexicon and pragmatics Published by LOT phone: +31 30 253 6111 Trans 10 e-mail: [email protected] 3512 JK Utrecht http://www.lotschool.nl The Netherlands Cover illustration: Compagnie, by Isis Askobereta. ISBN: 978-94-6093-142-0 NUR: 616 Copyright c 2014 by Ana Aguilar-Guevara. All rights reserved. Weak definites Semantics, lexicon and pragmatics Zwakke definieten Semantiek, lexicon en pragmatiek (met een samenvatting in het Nederlands) Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Utrecht op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof. dr. G.J. van der Zwaan, ingevolge het besluit van het college voor promoties in het openbaar te verdedigen op vrijdag 27 juni 2014 des avonds te 6.00 uur door Ana Aguilar Guevara geboren op 12 augustus 1980 te México D.F, México Promotores: Prof. dr. H.E. de Swart Prof. dr. M.B.H. Everaert Co-promotor: Dr. J. Zwarts The research reported in this book was conducted as part of the project “Weak Referentiality: Bare nominals at the interface of lexicon, syntax and semantics” (Project number: 360-70-340), funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), awarded to Prof. dr. H.E. de Swart. a la familia, a los amigos (específicos y genéricos) Contents List of Figures .............................xiii List of Tables . ............................ xv Acknowledgments ............................xvii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 What this dissertation is about ............... 1 1.2 Research questions and approach .............. 3 1.3 Dissertation outline ...................... 4 2 Weak definiteness 7 2.1 Introduction .......................... 7 2.2 Brief story of definiteness . ............... 8 2.2.1 Uniqueness ...................... 8 2.2.2 Familiarity ...................... 10 2.2.3 Preliminary summary ................ 11 2.2.4 Problems with uniqueness and familiarity ..... 12 2.3 Weak definites ........................ 14 2.3.1 Non-unique reference . ................ 15 2.3.2 “Sloppy” identity in elliptical contexts . .... 15 2.3.3 “Narrow scope” interpretation ............ 16 2.3.4 Lexical restrictions .................. 17 2.3.5 Restrictions on modification ............. 19 2.3.6 Number restrictions ................. 19 2.3.7 Meaning enrichment ................. 20 2.3.8 Non-familiar reference ................ 20 viii 2.3.9 Discourse referential restrictions ........... 21 2.3.10 Occurrence in object position ............ 22 2.3.11 Resemblance with generic definites ......... 22 2.3.12 Weak definites and bare singulars . ........ 24 2.4 Conclusion ........................... 26 3 Weak definites and reference to kinds 27 3.1 Introduction .......................... 27 3.2 Theoretical assumptions ................... 29 3.2.1 Neo-Davidsonian event semantics .......... 31 3.2.2 Rapunzel chased Bambi ............... 33 3.3 The meaning of the definite article ............. 35 3.4 Reference to kinds ...................... 37 3.4.1 Generic definites and reference to kinds ...... 38 3.4.2 Weak definites and reference to kinds ........ 42 3.5 Kinds realized . ....................... 43 3.6 The logical form of weak definite sentences ......... 45 3.7 Stereotypical usages ..................... 48 3.8 Combining verbs with weak definites ............ 52 3.9 Discussion . ......................... 53 3.9.1 Summary of the proposal .............. 53 3.9.2 Properties accounted for by the proposal ...... 53 3.9.3 Properties that still need to be explained ..... 54 3.10 Conclusion . ......................... 59 4 Modified weak definites 63 4.1 Introduction .......................... 63 4.2 A prediction of the kind-reference analysis . ...... 64 4.3 Kind-level adjectives ..................... 65 4.3.1 Relational adjectives ................. 65 4.3.2 A semantics for RAs ................. 69 4.4 Testing modification and sloppy readings. ......... 72 4.4.1 Experiment 1. Testing I-adjectives ......... 72 4.4.2 Experiment 2. Testing K-adjectives ......... 76 4.4.3 General discussion .................. 81 4.5 Conclusions .......................... 84 ix 5 Weak nouns, weak verbs and stereotypicality 89 5.1 Introduction .......................... 89 5.2 Weak Nouns .......................... 91 5.2.1 Weak nouns are functional nouns .......... 91 5.2.2 Not every functional noun is a weak noun ..... 94 5.3 Weak verbs .......................... 95 5.3.1 Two classes of weak verbs .............. 96 5.3.2 Weak verbs support functions ............ 97 5.3.3 Not every verb supporting a function is a weak verb 98 5.4 Stereotypicality ........................ 99 5.4.1 Stereotypes and the interpretation of sentences . 99 5.4.2 Stereotypical usages and the emergence of weak readings ........................101 5.4.3 Stereotypical usages and the kind-reference analysis of weak definites ...................104 5.5 Weak nouns and weak verbs as lexical classes .......105 5.5.1 Weak verbs do not need a lexical class .......105 5.5.2 Weak nouns constitute a lexical class ........105 5.6 Representing the meaning of weak nouns ..........110 5.6.1 Generative Lexicon Theory .............110 5.6.2 Weak nouns represented in GLT ..........115 5.7 Conclusion ...........................120 6 Literal and enriched meaning of weak definites 123 6.1 Introduction ..........................123 6.2 Tests and meaning ontology .................126 6.2.1 Meaning properties . .................127 6.2.2 Meaning ontology ...................131 6.2.3 Summary of tests and meaning ontology ......145 6.3 The nature of literal meanings ................145 6.3.1 Properties of literal meanings . ..........146 6.3.2 Literal meanings are entailments ..........149 6.4 The nature of enriched meanings ..............151 6.4.1 Properties of enriched meanings . ..........152 6.4.2 Enriched meanings are both entailments and con- versational implicatures . ..............157 6.5 Conclusion ...........................160 x 7 Discourse reference and weak definites 163 7.1 Introduction ..........................164 7.2 Definites, indefinites and discourse reference ........165 7.3 Discussing the referential properties of weak definites . 166 7.4 Testing the discourse referential properties of weak definites168 7.4.1 Experiment 3. Comparing weak definites, bare sin- gulars and indefinites .................169 7.4.2 Experiment 4. Comparing weak definites, indefi- nites and regular definites ..............175 7.4.3 Discussion .......................177 7.5 Cooley’s (2013) follow-up study . ............179 7.6 Further research on referentiality and weak definites . 181 7.7 Conclusion ...........................183 8 Conclusion 185 8.1 Main results of this dissertation . ............185 8.2 Two directions for future research ..............192 8.2.1 Weak definites and bare singulars ..........192 8.2.2 Weak definites as names of kinds ..........194 8.3 Other accounts of weak definites ..............196 8.3.1 Strategy 1. Weak definites as pseudo-incorporated phrases ........................197 8.3.2 Strategy 2. Weak definites as individual-denoting definites . ......................198 8.3.3 Strategy 3. Weak definites refer to abstract objects 200 8.3.4 Final remarks . ...................201 A Experiment 5. Assessing the strength of typical activities203 A.1 Introduction ..........................203 A.2 Pretests . .........................204 A.2.1 Pretest 1. Locations and typical activities .....204 A.2.2 Pretest 2. Agents and typical activities .......205 A.3 Experiment 5. Assessing the strength of typical activities . 207 A.3.1 Materials .......................209 A.3.2 Method ........................210 A.3.3 Predictions . .....................210 A.3.4 Results ........................210 A.4 General discussion ......................211 A.5 Items used in Experiment 5 .................213 xi B Materials of Experiment 1 and 2 217 B.1 Introduction ..........................217 B.2 Materials of Experiment 1 ..................218 B.2.1 Items with non-modified weak definites .......218 B.2.2 Items with non-modified regular definites .....219 B.2.3 Items with I-modified weak definites ........220 B.2.4 Items with I-modified regular definites .......221 B.2.5 Fillers of Experiment 1 ................222 B.3 Materials of Experiment 2 ..................227 B.3.1 Items with K-modified weak definites ........227 B.3.2 Items with K-modified regular definites . 228 B.3.3 Fillers of Experiment 2 ................228 C Materials of Experiments 3 and 4 231 C.1 Introduction ..........................231 C.2 Items with weak definites ..................232 C.2.1 Items with weak definites in direct object position 232 C.2.2 Items with weak definites in prepositional object position ........................232 C.3 Items with bare singulars ..................233 C.3.1 Items with bare singulars in direct object position 233 C.3.2 Items with bare singulars in prepositional object position ........................234 C.4 Items with indefinites ....................235 C.4.1 Items with indefinites in direct object position . 235 C.4.2 Items with indefinites in prepositional object position237 C.5 Items with regular definites .................238 C.5.1 Items with regular definites in direct object position238 C.5.2 Items with regular definites in prepositional object position ........................239 C.6 Fillers .............................239 C.6.1 Items with the gap in subject position .......240 C.6.2 Items with the gap in prepositional object position 243 C.6.3 Items with the gap in object position ........246 Bibliography ..............................251 Samenvatting in het Nederlands 273 xii Curriculum Vitae 285