Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Theoretical Background and Questions
Participants
Procedure
Materials
Results and Discussion
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Languages and Linguistics
Semantics

Interpretation of Plural Definites in Discourse

Profile image of Nobuaki AkagiNobuaki Akagi

2014, Linguistics and the Human Sciences

https://doi.org/10.1558/LHS.V9I2.201
visibility

…

description

27 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

In this paper we offer a study on the interpretation of plural definites in discourse (‘the tank engines’) and their interaction with spatial adpositions (‘to’ and ‘at’). The novel empirical findings in the paper support the following assumptions on the contribution of spatial adpositions to the interpretation of plural definites. First, the interpretation of plural definites can be influenced by the lexical aspect type of adpositions. While ‘to’ as ‘telic’ predicate can license both a ‘collective’ and a ‘distributive’ reading for plural definites, ‘at’ as an ‘atelic’ predicate only licenses a ‘collective’ reading. Second, the precise lexical content of adpositions determines which interpretation is accessed. It is claimed that ‘at’ denotes a ‘general location’ relation between locatum and landmark object, and thus licenses a collective reading for plural definites.

Related papers

The typology and semantics of locative predication: Posturals, positionals and other beasts
Felix Ameka

2007

This special issue is devoted to a relatively neglected topic in linguistics, namely the verbal component of locative statements. English tends, of course, to use a simple copula in utterances like ''The cup is on the table'', but many languages, perhaps as many as half of the world's languages, have a set of alternate verbs, or alternate verbal a‰xes, which contrast in this slot. 1 Often these are classificatory verbs of 'sitting', 'standing' and 'lying'. For this reason, perhaps, Aristotle listed position among his basic (''noncomposite'') categories: Expressions which are in no way composite signify substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action, or a¤ection. To sketch my meaning roughly, examples of substance are 'man' or 'the horse', of quantity, such terms as 'two cubits long' or 'three cubits long', of quality, such attributes as 'white', 'grammatical'. 'Double', 'half ', 'greater', fall under the category of relation; 'in the market place', 'in the Lyceum', under that of place; 'yesterday', 'last year', under that of time.

View PDFchevron_right
The Meaning and Semantics of Singular Definite Noun Phrases
Paul Nichols

In my dissertation I develop a uniform, purely-referential account of all singular definite noun phrases. The first chapter (corresponding to the paper "Reference and Communication") argues that names, pronouns and definite description are used to accomplish a single communicative function: namely, to convey the identity of the entity to which they refer. The differences between these three types of singular definite noun phrase is attributed to the different communicative contexts in which they are used. The second chapter (corresponding to the paper, "Singular Reference and Generality") extends the account of the first chapter to generic, predicational, and so-called narrow-scope definite descriptions. The view defended is that generic, narrow-scope and predicational uses of definite descriptions refer to kinds, which have as members the individuals referred to by specific uses. The third chapter (corresponding to the paper, "Direct Reference in Indirect Discourse") applies the theory of definite noun phrases developed in the first two chapters to the semantics of indirect discourse. Once the semantics of definite noun phrases in simple sentences is properly understood, indirect discourse poses no new obstacles to a purely referential semantics.

View PDFchevron_right
Resolution of the Antecedent of a Plural Pronoun: Ontological Categories and Predicate Symmetry
Charles Clifton

Two questionnaire studies and two reading time experiments explored how readers determine the reference of the plural pronoun they. The questionnaire studies showed that readers were more willing to take an ontologically homogeneous (all humans) collection of entities as the antecedent of they than an ontologically heterogeneous collection, and that they were more willing to take the entities that fill the thematic roles of a "symmetric" verb like sing with as the antecedent of they than the entities that fill the role of a "nonsymmetric" verb like hit. The questionnaire studies also showed a preference for taking the maximally inclusive group as the referent of they. The reading time experiments showed that these effects occur on-line so that reading is slowed when a temporary ambiguity is resolved in a way that conflicts with the preferences as described. A theoretical framework was described in which two stages of processing, described by an "equivalence" and a "closure" principle respectively, take place.

View PDFchevron_right
The place of ad hoc categories within the typology of plural expressions
Edith Moravcsik

Language Sciences, 2020

In this paper, ad hoc categories are assigned a place among plurals. It is shown that they fall into the same subtypes that other plural expressions do: they may be based on similarity or contiguity and, like other plurals, at least some of their forms tend to involve humans. Ad hoc categories differ from other plurals in that they involve partial rather than complete lists and thus they fill a systematic gap in the typology of plurals.

View PDFchevron_right
The Interpretation of Plural Pronouns in Discourse: The Case of They
Francesco-Alessio Ursini

Proceedings of the Australasian Language Technology Workshop 2011., 140-147, 2011

"This paper presents an experimental study on the interpretation of plural pronoun they in discourse, and offers an answer to two questions. The first question is whether the anaphoric interpretation of they corresponds to that of its antecedent NP (maximal interpretation), or by the “whole” previous sentence (reference interpretation). The second question is whether speakers may access only one interpretation or both, although at different “moments” in discourse. The answers to these questions suggest that an accurate logical and psychological model of anaphora resolution includes two principles. A first principle finds a “default” interpretation, a second principle determines when the “alternative” interpretation can (and must) be accessed."

View PDFchevron_right
Plural Reference and Syntactic Three-Dimensionality (book outline, under contract with Oxford UP)
Friederike Moltmann

This book argues in favor of plural reference (as opposed to (singular) reference to a plural object) for the semantics of plurals and explores new motivations for plural reference from three-dimensional syntactic theories of coordination. It connects plural reference to alternative semantics for the purpose of the interpretation of three-dimensional coordinate structure for both conjunctions and disjunction.

View PDFchevron_right
Constraints on the formation of plural reference objects: The influence of role, conjunction, and type of description
Linda Moxey, Anthony Sanford

Journal of Memory and Language, 2004

This paper examines the use of singular and plural pronominal references to split antecedents such as John and Mary. Current opinion suggests that under the right circumstances, singular reference should be difficult, and plural reference facilitated, but currently only the first of the these predictions has been demonstrated. We report four experiments that explore the preferences for plural and singular pronouns following split antecedents, and through eyetracking data show predicted effects for plural references as well as for singular. Experiments 3 and 4 show that when one character is introduced by name and the other by role description, people produce less plural continuations, but do not show evidence of a reduction in the facilitation of reading plural pronouns. This suggests that the use of and forces the availability of a plural reference object. The results are consistent with the view that the assignment of characters to common thematic roles supports plural reference.

View PDFchevron_right
On Plural Descriptions
Nilanjan Bhowmick

Definite descriptions in the singular (The F is G) admit of unique readings and in the plural (The Fs are G) admit of universal readings. This view has been challenged by Szabo (2000, 2003, 2005), and Ludlow and Segal (2004). On their view, uniqueness or universal readings are really pragmatic and not semantic. Brogaard (2007b) offers a new theory of Plural Definite Descriptions, comparing them to partitive expressions. This view supports the idea that plural definite descriptions admit of universal readings semantically. This paper argues the new theory of plural descriptions does not establish that they admit of plural readings semantically.

View PDFchevron_right
Plurals, presuppositions and the sources of distributivity
Roger Schwarzschild

Natural Language Semantics, 1993

This paper begins with a discussion of CUMULATIVITY (e.g., 'P(a) & P(b) implies P(a+b)'), formalized using a verb phrase operator. Next, the meanings of distributivity markers such as each and non-distributivity indicators such as together are considered. An existing analysis of each in terms of quantification over parts of a plurality is adopted. However, together is problematic, for it involves a cancellation or negation of the quantification associated with each. (The four boys together owned exactly three cars could not be true if each of the boys owned three cars, though the same sentence without together could be.) A refinement of this idea of negated quantification over parts is proposed as an analysis for non-distributivity operators. It is then worked out in the system described in Cooper (1983), in which positive and negative extensions are assigned. Presuppositions connected with plural reference are considered at this point as well. Finally, the cumulativity operator is argued to be quantificational and therefore sensitive to contextual domain selection. This context sensitivity is claimed to be the source of distributive readings that appear in the absence of modifiers like each and non-distributive or collective readings that arise without together.

View PDFchevron_right
Generating plural NPs in discourse: Evidence from the GNOME corpus
Albert Gatt

2009

Abstract Research on the automatic generation of referring expressions has extended algorithms for the generation of full definite NPs to deal with anaphoric references. However, there has been relatively little work on the specific problems raised by plural anaphora. In particular, since plurals involve a reference to a set rather than an individual, one of the interesting questions concerns the extent to which elements of the set introduced by a plurality are salient, as compared to the plurality itself.

View PDFchevron_right

References (79)

  1. In this paper, we shall adopt the DRT convention and call 'referents' all model-theoretic entities that represent extra-linguistic entities at a linguistic level. See Kamp et al. (2005: 750- 760) for a basic discussion.
  2. Other labels for this reading are maximal (collective) vs. non-maximal or partitive (dis- tributive), as in Brisson (1998, 2003). We will only use the labels 'collective' and 'distributive' , to avoid confusion. See Le Bruyn (2007, 2008) for discussion, and Note 8 for a further clarification.
  3. Here we use rather neutral labels to define the located entity and the entity acting as a reference, but the most common terms are respectively figure and ground (e.g. Talmy, 1978, 2000).
  4. The label 'anaphoric' is sometimes considered synonymous with 'salient' in the litera- ture on definites. As we show in the remainder of the introduction, the two concepts are differ- ent, and in a sense saliency readings are only one type of anaphoric readings.
  5. We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for bringing this literature and exam- ples to our attention, in particular for pointing us to Schwarz (2009).
  6. In set-theoretic, extensional notation, the denotation of boy would be boy'={Mario, Luigi, Wario}, whereas the denotation of boys would be boys'={Mario, Luigi, Wario, {Mario, Luigi}, {Mario, Wario}, {Luigi, Wario}, {Mario, Luigi, Wario}}. The definite article would select the 'ideal' element in this power-set, i.e. we have the boys'={Mario, Luigi, Wario}. See e.g. Link (1998: ch. 1) for a more thorough introduction to theories of plurality, and Schwarzschild (1996: ch. 1) for a discussion between set-theoretic and lattice-theoretic notations.
  7. A distributive reading may be licensed, but only in the opportune implicit context. For instance, each boy may lift a toy piano, possibly light in weight. This aspect is immaterial, for our discussion.
  8. In the literature, this type of collective reading is often defined as a cumulative reading (e.g. Krifka, 1998; Rothstein, 2004). For the discussion at hand, our coarse-grained treatment of cumulativity and collectivity as virtually the same phenomenon, and their interplay with distrib- utivity, is precise enough, and refer the reader to the literature for a more thorough analysis of this property (e.g. Beck and Sauerland, 2000; Rothstein, 2004). We would like to thank an anon- ymous reviewer for bringing this aspect of the discussion to our attention.
  9. We thank an anonymous reviewer for raising the issue, and inviting us to discuss this aspect in detail.
  10. Although there is an intense debate on how children interpret 'every' and other 'logical' words (e.g. whether is similar or different to adults'), many current proposals suggest that their interpretation is adult-like, once they can access their processing resources are 'powerful' enough to understand such words. See Notley et al. (2008) for a recent analysis. References
  11. Abbott, B. (1999) Support for a unique theory of definite descriptions. In T. Matthews and D. Strolovitch, (eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory IX, 1-15. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
  12. Abbott, B. (2010) Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  13. Abbott, B. (2011) Reference: Foundational issues. In C. Maienborn, P. Portner, and K. von Heusinger (eds), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, 49-74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  14. Asher, N. and Lascarides, A. (1998) Bridging. Journal of Semantics, 15 (1): 83-113. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/15.1.83
  15. Beck, S. and Sauerland, U. (2000) Cumulation is needed: A reply to Winter (2000). Natural Language Semantics 8 (4): 349-371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1011240827230
  16. Brasovenau, A. (2008) Structured Nominal and Modal Reference. Newark, NJ: Rutgers Uni- versity PH.D, dissertation.
  17. Brisson, C. (1998) Distributivity, Nonmaximality, and Floating Quantifiers. Newark, NJ: Rutgers University Ph.D. dissertation.
  18. Brisson, C. (2003) Plurals, all, and the non-uniformity of collective predication. Linguistics and Philosophy 26 (1): 129-184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022771705575
  19. Chierchia, G. (1995) Dynamics of Meaning: Presuppositions, Anaphora and the Theory of Meaning. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780 226104515.001.0001
  20. Chierchia, G. (1998) Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6 (4): 339-405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008324218506
  21. Christophersen, P. (1939) The Articles: A Study of their Theory and use in English. Copen- hagen: Munksgaard.
  22. Crain, S, and Thornton, R. (1999) Investigations in Universal Grammar: A Guide to Experi- ments in the Acquisition of Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  23. Coventry, K. R. and Garrod, S. (2004) Saying, Seeing and Acting: The Psychological Seman- tics of Spatial Prepositions. Hove: Psychology Press.
  24. Feist, M. I. (2006) Where it's At. Paper presented at the 7th Conference of the High Desert Linguistics Society, Albuquerque, NM.
  25. Fintel, K. von (1994) Restrictions on Quantifier Domains. Amherst, MA: University of Mas- sachussetts Ph.D. Dissertation.
  26. Fong, V. (1997) The Order of Things: What Directional Locatives Denote. Stanford, CA: Stan- ford Ph.D. dissertation.
  27. Fong, V. (2001) 'Into doing Something': Where is the Path in Event Predicates?. Paper pre- sented at the Paths and Telicity in Event Structure (ESSLLI Workshop), Manchester.
  28. Fraurud, K. (1990) Definiteness and the processing of noun phrases in natural discourse. Journal of Semantics 7 (4): 395-433. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/7.4.395
  29. Frazier, L., Payton, J. and Rayner, K. (1999) Taking on semantic commitments, II: Col- lective versus distributive readings. Cognition 70 (1): 87-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0010-0277(99)00002-5
  30. Frisson S. and Frazier L. (2005) Carving up word meaning: Portioning and grinding. Journal of Memory and Language, 53 (2): 277-291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.03.004
  31. Grosz, B., Yoshi, A. K. and Weinstein, S. (1995) Centering: a framework for modelling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics 21(2): 203-225.
  32. Heim, I. (1982) The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Amherst, MA: Uni- versity of Massachussetts Ph.D. Dissertation.
  33. Herskovits, A. (1986) Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  34. Heusinger, K. von (2003) The double dynamics of definite descriptions. In J. Peregrin (ed.) Meaning in the Dynamic Turn, 150-168. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  35. Kamp, H., van Genabith, J. and Reyle, U. (2005) Discourse representation theory. In D. Gabbay and F. Guenther (eds), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 750-1000. Amster- dam: North Holland.
  36. Kartunnen, L. (1976) Discourse referents. In J. D. McCawley (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 7: Notes from the Linguistic Underground, 363-385, New York: Academic Press.
  37. Kratzer, A. (2003) The Event Argument and the Semantics of Verbs. To appear, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  38. Krifka, M. (1990) Four thousand ships passed through the lock: Object-induced mea- sure functions on events. Linguistics and Philosophy 13 (5): 487-520. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/BF00627291
  39. Krifka, M. (1992) Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal con- stitution. In I. Sag and A. Szabolcsi (eds), Lexical Matters, 29--53. Chicago, IL: CSLI Pub- lications, Chicago University Press.
  40. Krifka, M. (1996) Parametrized sum individuals for plural reference and partitive quanti- fication. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 555-598. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00632708
  41. Krifka, M. (1998) The origins of telicity. In S. Rothstein (ed.) Events and Grammar, 197- 235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  42. Le Bruyn, B. (2007) Partitivity in natural language. In V. V. Nurmi and D. Sustretov (eds) Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2007, Student Session, 35-47, FoLLI Publications.
  43. Le Bruyn, B. (2008) Bare predication and generic generalizations. In K. Balogh (ed.) Pro- ceedings of the ESSLLI 2008 Student Session, 37-47. FoLLI Publications.
  44. Landman, F. (1991) Structures for Semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3212-1
  45. Landman, F. (1997) Plurality. In S. Lappin (ed.) The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, 425-470. Maldon, MA: Blackwell.
  46. Landman, F. (2000) Events and Plurality. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4359-2
  47. Landman, F. (2004) Indefinites and the Type of Sets. London: Blackwell Studies in Seman- tics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470759318
  48. Link, G. (1983) The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In: R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze, and A. Von Stechow (eds) Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, 302-323. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  49. Link, G. (1998) Algebraic Semantics in Language and Philosophy. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
  50. Löbner, S. (1985) Definites. Journal of Semantics 4 (2): 279-326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ jos/4.4.279
  51. Löbner. S. (1998) Definite Associative Anaphora. In Simon Botley (ed.), Approaches to Dis- course Anaphora. Proceedings of DAARC96 -Discourse Anaphora and Resolution Collo- quium. Lancaster University, 17-18 July. Lancaster.
  52. Kracht, M. (2002) On the semantics of locatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 25 (1): 57-132.
  53. Meroni, L., A. Gualmini and Crain, S. (2006) Everybody knows. In V. van Geenhoven (eds) Semantics in Acquisition, 89-114. New York: Springer.
  54. Nam, S. (1995) The Semantics of Locative Prepositional Phrases in English, Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Ph.D. Dissertation.
  55. Nouwen, R. (2003) Plural Pronominal Anaphora in Context. Utrecht: Utrecht University Ph.D. Dissertation.
  56. Parsons, T. (1990) Events in the Semantics of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  57. Poesio, M. (2003) Incrementality and Underspecification in Semantic Processing. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
  58. Poesio, M. and Vieira, R. (1998) A corpus-based investigation of definite descriptions use. Computational Linguistics 24 (2): 183-216.
  59. Poesio, M., Cheng, H., Henschel, R. Hitzeman, J. Kibble, R. and Stevenson, R. (2000) Spec- ifying the parameters of centering theory: A corpus-based evaluation using text from application-oriented domains, In Proceedings of the 38th ACL, Hong Kong.
  60. Poesio, M., Stevenson, R., Di Eugenio, B. and Hitzeman, J. (2004). Centering: A paramet- ric theory and its instantiations. Computational Linguistics 30 (3): 309-363. http://dx.doi. org/10.1162/0891201041850911
  61. Pylkkänen, L. and McElree, B. (2006) The syntax-semantic interface: On-line composi- tion of sentence meaning. In M. Traxler and M. A. Gernsbacher (eds), Handbook of Pyscholinguistics, 2nd edition, 537-577. New York: Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ B978-012369374-7/50015-8
  62. Rothstein, S. (2004) Structuring Events: A Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect. Oxford: Blackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470759127
  63. Russell, B. (1905) On Denoting. Mind 14 (4): 479-493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mind/ XIV.4.479
  64. Scha, R. (1981) Distributive, collective and cumulative quantification. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language Part 2, 483- 512. Mathematical Centre Tracts 136, University of Amsterdam.
  65. Schwarz, F. (2009) Two Types of Definites in Natural Languages, Ph.D. thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
  66. Schwarzschild, R. (1996) Pluralities. Dordrecht: Kluwer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94- 017-2704-4
  67. Schwarzschild, R. (2009) Stubborn distributivity, multiparticipant nouns and the count/ mass distinction. In S. Lima, K. Mullin and B. Smith (eds), Proceedings of NELS 39, 1-18.
  68. Talmy, L. (1978) Figure and ground in complex sentences. In J. E. Greenberg (ed.) Univer- sals of Human Language, vol. 4: Syntax, 625-49. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  69. Talmy, L. (2000) Towards a cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  70. Vieira, R. and Poesio, M. (2000) An empirically-based system for processing definite descriptions. Computational Linguistics 26 (4): 539-593. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/089 120100750105948
  71. Verkuyl, H. (1993) A Theory of Aspectuality. The Interaction between Temporal and Atem- poral Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO 9780511597848
  72. Ursini, F.-A. (in press) On the syntax and semantics of Spanish spatial prepositions. Borea- lis: An International Journal of Spanish Linguistics.
  73. Ursini, F.-A. and Akagi, N. (2013) The interpretation of spatial ' At': An experimental study. Journal of Cognitive Science 14 (1): 47-76.
  74. Verkuyl, H. (2008) Binary Tense. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
  75. Winter, Y. (2001) Flexibility Principles in Boolean Semantics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  76. Winter, Y. (2002) Atoms and sets: A characterization of semantic number. Linguistic Inquiry, 33 (4): 493-505. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/002438902760168581
  77. Zwarts, J. (2005) Prepositional aspect and the algebra of paths. Linguistic and Philosophy 28 (6): 699-740. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-2466-y
  78. Zwarts, J. (2008) Aspects of a typology of direction. In Susan Rothstein (ed.) Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspects, 79-106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  79. Zwarts, J. and Winter, Y. (2000) Vector space semantics: A model-theoretic analysis of loc- ative prepositions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9 (2): 169-211. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008384416604

Related papers

The interpretation of plural definites in discourse: the case of spatial adpositions
Francesco-Alessio Ursini

Linguistics and the Human Sciences 9 (2): 200-226., 2013

In this paper we offer a study on the interpretation of plural definites in discourse (the tank engines) and their interaction with spatial adpositions (‘to’ and ‘at’). The novel empirical findings in the paper support the following assumptions on the contribution of spatial adpositions to the interpretation of plural definites. First, the interpretation of plural definites can be influenced by the lexical aspect type of adpositions. While ‘to’ as ‘telic’ predicate can license both a ‘collective’ and a ‘distributive’ reading for plural definites, ‘at’ as an ‘atelic’ predicate only licenses a ‘collective’ reading. Second, the precise lexical content of adpositions determines which interpretation is accessed. It is claimed that ‘at’ denotes a ‘general location’ relation between locatum and landmark object, and thus licenses a collective reading for plural definites.

View PDFchevron_right
Topic, Focus, and the Interpretation of Bare Plurals
Nomi Erteschik-Shir

Natural Language Semantics, 2002

In this paper we show that focus structure determines the interpretation of bare plurals in English: topic bare plurals are interpreted generically, focused bare plurals are interpreted existentially. When bare plurals are topics they must be specific, i.e. they refer to kinds. After type-shifting they introduce variables which can be bound by the generic quantifier, yielding characterizing generics. Existentially interpreted bare plurals are not variables, but denote properties that are incorporated into the predicate.The type of predicate determines the interpretation of its bare plural subject. The individual/stage-level distinction, though important, is not sufficient: since only arguments can be topics, only those stage-level predicates which have locative arguments can have existential bare plural subjects.Certain verbs (e.g., hate) fail to incorporate their bare plural objects; therefore no existential reading of the object is available. We provide a novel solution to this puzzle based on the following two claims: (i) incorporated bare plurals do not introduce discourse referents; (ii) nonincorporating verbs are presuppositional.

View PDFchevron_right
Interplay Between Position and Interpretation : An Experimental Study of Russian Bare Plurals 1
Daria Seres

2019

This article presents an experimental study of the correlation between the linear syntactic position and the interpretation of plural bare nominal external arguments of intransitive verbs in Russian. We present two experiments (pilot and main), where participants gave their acceptability judgements regarding sentences with preand postverbal subjects in contexts that suggest definiteness or indefiniteness of the bare nominal in question. The obtained results confirm that the preverbal position correlates with a definite interpretation, whereas the postverbal position with an indefinite interpretation. However, we found that the acceptability rate of preverbal indefinites is also reasonably high. We propose an explanation for the appearance of indefinites in preverbal subject position in terms of lexical accessibility, construed more generally as D-linking. The experiments also showed that indefinite subjects have a higher acceptability rate in any position, which may be explained by ...

View PDFchevron_right
On how we interpret plural pronouns
Kaja Borthen

Journal of Pragmatics, 2010

This paper presents a text-based study of reference assigned to definite, plural personal pronouns in Norwegian. The purpose of the investigation is to contribute to our understanding of the encoded meaning of these pronouns and of how they achieve their intended interpretation in context. The pronouns that are investigated are de ('they'), dem ('them'), deres ('their'), vi ('we'), oss ('us'), vår ('our'), and dere ('you'.PL). I conclude that these pronouns differ from their singular counterparts in that they do not signal that their referent is recently activated or in focus of attention. Rather, I argue, they signal the cognitive status 'uniquely identifiable'. In addition, this study reveals cases where the pronouns' lexically encoded person and/or number features would appear to be incompatible with the interpretation they achieve in context. I argue that these examples are not due to lexical ambiguity or underspecification, but follow from what I call the 'representative element' reading, meaning that the predicate that applies to a group does not necessarily apply to each element in the group referred to. I also show that plural pronouns are often vague, and I argue that vague reference is consistent with Relevance Theory's presumption of optimal relevance.

View PDFchevron_right
Introduction: The typology and semantics of locative predicates: posturals, positionals, and other beasts
Felix Ameka

Linguistics, 2007

This special issue is devoted to a relatively neglected topic in linguistics, namely the verbal component of locative statements. English tends, of course, to use a simple copula in utterances like ''The cup is on the table'', but many languages, perhaps as many as half of the world's languages, have a set of alternate verbs, or alternate verbal a‰xes, which contrast in this slot. 1 Often these are classificatory verbs of 'sitting', 'standing' and 'lying'. For this reason, perhaps, Aristotle listed position among his basic (''noncomposite'') categories: Expressions which are in no way composite signify substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action, or a¤ection. To sketch my meaning roughly, examples of substance are 'man' or 'the horse', of quantity, such terms as 'two cubits long' or 'three cubits long', of quality, such attributes as 'white', 'grammatical'. 'Double', 'half ', 'greater', fall under the category of relation; 'in the market place', 'in the Lyceum', under that of place; 'yesterday', 'last year', under that of time.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Sociology
  • Cognitive Science
  • Spatial Analysis
  • Sentence Processing
  • Anaphora Resolution
  • Spatial semantics
  • Lexical aspect
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved