Relational nouns and existential have

1. prefinal version Relational nouns and existential have Bert Le Bruyn, Henriëtte de Swart, Joost Zwarts SALT 23

2. Our perspective The Weak Referentiality Project The Weak Referentiality project focuses on nominal expressions that do not set up individual discourse referents and more generally on 'non-standard' arguments > bare nominals (John is in jail, John had pen and paper to picture the whole event, ...) > weak definites (John was brought to the hospital, John is doing the dishes, ...) Henriëtte de Swart, Martin Everaert, Joost Zwarts, Ana Aguilar-Guevara & Bert Le Bruyn

3. Our perspective With and without One of the subprojects we have been working on is the analysis of bare nominals and weak definites in PPs. Two prepositions that stand out across the languages we have looked at (Dutch, French, Norwegian, Spanish, English) are with and without. They take bare nominals more productively than other prepositions.

4. Our perspective Link with have verbs In a number of languages have verbs fairly productively take bare nominals: >Tengo coche (Spanish) I-have car See Dobrovie-Sorin, Bleam & Espinal (2006), Espinal & McNally (2011) > Similar phenomenon in all Romance languages, Norwegian (Borthen 2003), Greek (Lazaridou-Chatzigoga & Alexandropoulou to appear)

5. Our perspective The start of this paper >By looking at the literature on have with bare nominals we hoped to find some deeper insight into why have verbs productively take bare nominals so that we could recycle it for with and without. >Despite the detailed analyses provided in the literature, there didn't appear to be such a deeper insight. >This is when we started to look for a link between two parts of the literature that developed independently, hoping to find this insight... Have verbs and bare nominals Existential have

6. A proposal on the basis of the literature on existential have

7. Existential HAVE Mary has a brother. John has a friend. relational indefinite

8. The basic intuition in the literature Mary has a brother. This sentence is not about a 'possession' relation holding between Mary and a brother. It's about a brother relation holding between Mary and someone. > The brother relation - in some way or other - has to make it to a higher level so that it can directly combine with Mary.

9. Partee (1999) Gist of the analysis Direct connection between brother and Mary through quantifying-in. have Mary a brother z v(exist(v)) xy(brother of (y,x)) y(brother of (y,z)) Py(brother of (y,z)&P(y)) y(brother of (y,z)&exist(y)) z y(brother of (y,mary)&exist(y))

10. Landman (2004) Gist of the analysis Direct connection between brother and Mary by: > adopting a modifier semantics for a > analyzing have as a verb that selects relations and binds their internal argument have Mary a brother Rpq(R(p)(q)) xy(brother of (y,x)) xy(brother of (y,x)) pq(brother of (q,p)) q(brother of (q,mary))

11. Summary > Both analyses make sure the indefinite article and have don't stand in the way of Mary and brother. > Existential quantification in Partee's analysis comes from the indefinite article. This is less easily transposable to constructions without indefinite article. > Landman's analysis puts the existential quantification at the level of the verb. We will - for the moment - follow his insight that have is a verb that mediates between relations at the nominal level. > We will however not adopt Landman's modifier semantics of the indefinite article as this would eliminate the difference between bare and non-bare nominals.

12. Putting things together Our question was why have verbs would take bare nominals more productively than other verbs. It turns out that a potential answer has been in the literature on existential have at least since 2004: As a mediator between relations at the nominal and the verbal level, have doesn't select normal arguments but relational predicates. We consequently expect the indefinite article to be a mere complication of the derivation.

13. Why this isn't good enough If the have we find with bare nominals is indeed a mediator between relations at the nominal and the verbal level... ... we would predict relational nouns to be the preferred class of nouns to occur bare with have. This prediction is not borne out. >E.g. the nouns that combine (and combined) with tener in Spanish don't exhibit a clear relational bias.

14. Our proposal

15. Our proposal Landman's proposal Existential have selects relations and consequently mediates between relations at the nominal and the verbal level. Our proposal Existential have is not a mediator between relations but rather a relation builder. Pzn(transitivize(P)(z)(n)) It selects a one-place predicate and returns a two-place predicate with an existentially bound internal argument.

16. Our proposal Our proposal Existential have is not a mediator between relations but rather a relation builder. > If this is the correct analysis we no longer expect to find relational nouns to be the preferred class of nouns to occur bare with have.

17. Sample derivations John has a book. Mary has a brother.

18. John has a book have John a book Pzn(transitivize(P)(z)(n)) PQy(P(y)&Q(y)) x(book(x)) Qy(book(y)&Q(y)) Pzn(transitivize(P)(z)(n)) Qy(book(y)&Q(y)) BE(Qy(book(y)&Q(y))) x(book(x)) zn(transitivize(x(book(x)))(z)(n))

19. The transitivization step in John has a book input: a set of individuals ex. x(book(x)) the set of pairs of which the first member... output: 1) ... belongs to the input set 2) ... stands in a pragmatically inferred relation to the second member ex. wx(book(x) & belonging to (x,w))

20. John has a book have John a book john Pzn(transitivize(P)(z)(n)) PQy(P(y)&Q(y)) x(book(x)) Qy(book(y)&Q(y)) Pzn(transitivize(P)(z)(n)) Qy(book(y)&Q(y)) BE(Qy(book(y)&Q(y))) x(book(x)) zn(transitivize(x(book(x)))(z)(n)) zn(wx(book(x)&belonging to (x,w))(z)(n)) zn(book(n)&belonging to (n,z)) n(book(n)&belonging to (n,john))

21. Mary has a brother have Mary a brother xy(B of(y,x)) PQz(P(z)&Q(z)) Pqn(transitivize(P)(q)(n)) PQz(P(z)&Q(z)) xy(B of(y,x)) detrans(xy(B of(y,x))) yx(B of(y,x)) Qz(x(B of(z,x))&Q(z)) Qz(x(B of(z,x))&Q(z)) Pqn(transitivize(P)(q)(n)) BE(Qz(x(B of(z,x))&Q(z))) z(x(B of(z,x))) qn(transitivize(z(x(B of(z,x)))(q)(n))

22. The transitivization step for Mary has a brother input: a set of individuals the set of individuals that stand in a brother relation to someone the set of pairs of which the first member... output: 1) ... belongs to the input set 2) ... stands in the brother relation to the second member (= lexico-pragmatically inferred relation)

23. Mary has a brother have Mary a brother xy(B of(y,x)) PQz(P(z)&Q(z)) mary Pqn(transitivize(P)(q)(n)) PQz(P(z)&Q(z)) xy(B of(y,x)) detrans(xy(B of(y,x))) yx(B of(y,x))) Qz(x(B of(z,x))&Q(z)) Qz(x(B of(z,x))&Q(z)) Pqn(transitivize(P)(q)(n)) BE(Qz(x(B of(z,x))&Q(z))) z(x(B of(z,x))) qn(transitivize(z(x(B of(z,x)))(q)(n)) qn(rs(B of(s,r)&x(B of(s,x)))(q)(n)) qn(B of(n,q)&x(B of(n,x))) n(B of(n,mary)&x(B of(n,x)))

24. Recap Our proposal Relational HAVEis not a mediator between relations but rather a relation builder. Pzn(transitivize(P)(z)(n)) It selects a one-place predicate and returns a two-place predicate with an existentially bound internal argument. Given that have requires an <e,t> expression as input, the indefinite article is nothing more than a complication of the derivation. We consequently expect the indefinite article - at least semantically speaking - to be redundant.

25. Comparing the proposals

26. A new piece of data Mary has the only nice brother.  Mary is the only one with a nice brother. the only quantificational (non-presuppositional) the cf. e.g. McNally (2008) xy(nice_brother_of(y,x)) nice brother

27. Step 1 An analysis à la Landman A modifier semantics for the: for non-relational predicates the man x (man(x) &y(man(y) y=x)) for relational predicates the brother zx(brother of (x,z)&y(brother of (y,z)y=x))

28. Step 2 An analysis à la Landman have Mary the only nice brother mary Rpq(R(p)(q)) zx(nice_brother_of (x,z)&y(nice_brother_of (y,z)y=x)) pq(nice_brother_of (q,p)&y(nice_brother_of (y,p)y=q)) q(nice_brother_of (q,mary)&y(nice_brother_of (y,mary)y=q))

29. Evaluation An analysis à la Landman have Mary the only nice brother mary Rpq(R(p)(q)) zx(nice_brother_of (x,z)&y(nice_brother_of (y,z)y=x)) pq(nice_brother_of (q,p)&y(nice_brother_of (y,p)y=q)) q(nice_brother_of (q,mary)&y(nice_brother_of (y,mary)y=q)) > Mary has a nice brother and all nice brothers of Mary are identical to this brother. > This doesn't exclude that other people have nice brothers too. > This is a non-existing interpretation.

30. Evaluation An analysis à la Landman have Mary the only nice brother mary Rpq(R(p)(q)) zx(nice_brother_of (x,z)&y(nice_brother_of (y,z)y=x)) pq(nice_brother_of (q,p)&y(nice_brother_of (y,p)y=q)) q(nice_brother_of (q,mary)&y(nice_brother_of (y,mary)y=q)) > What crucially goes wrong is that Mary is specified as the internal argument of brother. > Given that this is the gist of Landman's whole analysis, it would appear to be impossible to remedy. > The same holds for an analysis à la Partee.

31. The derivation Our analysis have M the only nice brother xy(n_b_of(y,x)) mary PQz(P(z)&v(P(v)z=v)&Q(z)) Pqn(transitivize(P)(q)(n)) detrans(xy(n_b_of(y,x))) PQz(P(z)&v(P(v)z=v)&Q(z)) yx(n_b_of(y,x)) Qz(x(n_b_of(z,x))&v(x(n_b_of(v,x))z=v)&Q(z)) Pqn(transitivize(P)(q)(n)) Qz(x(n_b_of(z,x))&v(x(n_b_of(v,x))z=v)&Q(z)) BE(Qz(x(n_b_of(z,x))&v(x(n_b_of(v,x))z=v)&Q(z))) z(x(n_b_of(z,x))&v(x(n_b_of(v,x))z=v)) qn(transitivize(z(x(n_b_of(z,x))&v(x(n_b_of(v,x))z=v)))(q)(n)) qn(x(n_b_of(n,x))&v(x(n_b_of(v,x))n=v)&R(n,q))) n(x(n_b_of(n,x))&v(x(n_b_of(v,x))n=v)&R(n,mary)))

32. Evaluation Our analysis n(x(n_b_of(n,x))&v(x(n_b_of(v,x))n=v)&R(n,mary))) > There's a single nice brother and it's Mary's. > This is the required interpretation.

33. Evaluation Our analysis n(x(n_b_of(n,x))&v(x(n_b_of(v,x))n=v)&R(n,mary))) > The reason this goes right is because we build a new relation on top of the original one. > Let's look at which assumptions are crucial to ensure that this is the only option.

34. Evaluation Our analysis Quantifying-in would eliminate the need to detransitivize. (the Partee problem) Having a determiner that is compatible with relations would also eliminate the need to detransitivize. > Especially quantifying-in has important applications in other parts of the literature. It's consequently undesirable to assume that it would be unavailable here. (the Landman problem)

35. Last step Our analysis > In order to maintain quantifying-in as a generally available mechanism we propose to analyze relational nouns - at least in English - not as expressions of type <e,<e,t>> but as expressions of type <e,t>. yx(brother of (y,x)) xy(brother of (y,x))

36. Implications (1) > We have to reconsider the (few) restrictions that have been ascribed to the distinction between relational and non-relational nouns. *the pen of John the mother of John A refinement however seemed necessary anyway on the basis of (attested) examples like the following: the church of the monastery of Asteri the café of the old harbour

37. Implications (2) > We open up a new avenue for the analysis of different kinds of relational nouns within languages closely related to English: Those nouns that are like mother in coming with an existentially closed internal argument. Those nouns that were analyzed as relational before but could actually also get a purely non-relational semantics. Hand would be an example (an object consisting of a palm and five fingers). This might help to lead to a better understanding of the kinship/body-part split we find in inalienable possession constructions in e.g. French.

38. Implications (3) > We open up a new avenue for cross-linguistic variation: Languages like English in which relational nouns are non-relational and are consequently not expected to come with an obligatorily realized internal argument. Languages like e.g. Dakaaka (von Prince 2012) in which relational nouns are relational and are consequently expected to come with an obligatorily realized internal argument.

39. Implications (4) > Assuming relational nouns to be non-relational allows us to restore type-shifting within the relational domain to normalcy, i.e. type-shifting would only apply if required to avoid type-clashes. John's mother the mother that John is taking care of (not necessarily his own) If we assume relational nouns are non-relational, and we assume John's builds or selects relations, the fact that John's mother needn't refer to his actual mother is expected. This is due to the fact that relations would always have to be derived.

40. Implications (4) > Assuming relational nouns to be non-relational allows us to restore type-shifting within the relational domain to normalcy, i.e. type-shifting would only apply if required to avoid type-clashes. John's mother the mother that John is taking care of (not necessarily his own) If we however assume relational nouns are relational, we have to make an (unmotivated) detransitivization type-shift followed by a transitivization type-shift.

41. Summary and conclusion

42. Summary and conclusion > We have proposed a new analysis of existential have as a relation building verb > We have shown how the addition of an indefinite article is a mere complication of the analysis and we consequently have found a rationale behind the cross-linguistic tendency to allow for bare nominals behind have. > We have argued that relational nouns like mother are best analyzed as expressions of type <e,t> in which the internal argument of their traditional <e,<e,t>> interpretation is existentially closed.

43. Summary and conclusion > The analysis we proposed for have can easily be extended to (at least one of the senses of) with and without: hat with(out) feather with(out) PQy()x(Q(y)&P(x)&transitivize(y)(x)) with(out) feather Qy()x(Q(y)&feather(x)&present-with(y)(x)) hat with(out) feather y()x(Hat(y)&Feather(x)&Present-with(y)(x))

44. References

45. References > Borthen, K. (2003). Norwegian bare singulars (Doctoral dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Technology). > Dobrovie-Sorin, C., Bleam, T., & Espinal, M. T. (2006). Bare nouns, number and types of incorporation, in Vogeleer, S., & Tasmowski, L. (Eds.), Non-definiteness and plurality, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 51-79. > Espinal, M. T., & McNally, L. (2011). Bare nominals and incorporating verbs in Spanish and Catalan. Journal of Linguistics, 47(01), 87-128. >Landman, F. (2004). Indefinites and the Type of Sets. Blackwell.

46. References > Lazaridou-Chatzigoga, D. and Alexandropoulou, S. (2013). A corpus study of Greek bare singulars: implications for an analysis. Revista da Abralin/Associação Brasileira de Linguística, special issue “Weak Definiteness and Referentiality”, organized by Roberta PIRES DE OLIVEIRA, número XII/1, janeiro a junho de 2013. > McNally, L. (2008). DP-internal only, amount relatives, and relatives out of existentials. Linguistic Inquiry, 39(1), 161-169. > Partee, B. (1999). Weak NPs in have sentences. In JFAK [a Liber Amicorum for Johan van Benthem on the occasion of his 50th birthday], ed. J. Gerbrandy et al.

47. References > von Prince, K. (2012). Nominal possession in Daakaka: Transitivizing vs. linking. In Proceedings of AFLA (Vol. 18).