Telicity features of bare nominals

1. Telicity features of bare nominals Henriëtte de Swart Paris, Oct 2010

2. Bare plurals and telicity • Mary ate an/the apple in/*for an hour. [telic] • Mary ate apples for/*in an hour. [atelic] • Mary ate the apples in/*for an hour. • It took Mary an hour to eat an apple/*apples. • He continued to eat #an apple/#the apple/apples. • English bare plurals lead to atelicity (unbounded process), most other nominal arguments to telicity (event with inherent endpoint).

3. Entailment relations • Mary was eating apples  Mary ate apples. (cumulativity: parts of an atelic situation are of the same nature as the whole). • Mary was eating an apple/the apple/the apples -/-> Mary ate an apple/the apple/the apples (parts of a telic situation are not of the same nature as whole). • Mary ate the apple, #but she didn’t finish it. (culminated telic event requires completed object) • Mary ate apples, but she didn’t finish them.

4. Iterative durativity/bare habituality • John found #a flea/fleas on his dog for a week. • John repairs #a bicycle/bicycles. • Every day, John repairs a bicycle/bicycles. • Sg indefinite does not allow multiple event reading, even if one object is involved per event; no bare habituality. • Sg indef OK under quantifier scope.

5. Aspectual composition • Semantics of nominal argument determines aspectual nature of VP (S). • Verkuyl (1972/1993): [±SQA] feature on NPs • Krifka (1989): quantized/non-quantized objects. • Mapping objects events/path structure. • Quantized object maps onto quantized event/ bounded path (Mary ate an apple) • Cumulative object maps onto cumulative event/ unbounded path (Mary ate apples)

6. Quantized and cumulative reference • QUA(P) =defab [P(a)  P(b) (a  b)] (extension does not extend to proper parts). • CUM(P) =def ab [P(a)  P(b)  ab  ab [P(a)  P(b)  P(ab)]] (extension contains at least two objects, and is closed under sum formation) • Definitions apply to events and objects ~ mapping relation (Krifka 1989).

7. Iterative durativity • With count noun interpretations, cumulative reference requires plurality (Scha 1984). • Van Geenhoven (2004, 2005): pluractionality explains combination of accomplishment/ achievement with for-adverbial: bare plural distributes internal argument over events.

8. Bare habituality • Fereira (2005): HAB operator is plural definite. • De Swart (2006) on bare habituality: bare plural behaves like dependent plural on set of events. • Unicycles have wheels. • John repairs bicycles. • EeventXind is a bijection; one-one relation requires cumulativity.

9. Inherent telicity • The dog ate up a/the cake that I baked for the party. • The dog ate up the cakes/ *cakes I baked for the party. • He drank up (all) the water/*water in the tap. • Particle verb inherently telic: mapping from object to event requires object to be quantized  incompatible with bare plural/mass noun.

10. Role of thematic relation • Thematic relation between dynamic verb and object: mapping requires incremental theme. • He pushed the rock/rocks for/*in an hour. He pushed the rock up the hill for/in an hour. (object does not measure out event: spatial path requires optional directional argument). • He loved his cat/cats for/*in many years. (stative verb does not induce event structure).

11. Cross-linguistic support (Spanish) • Escribió dos artículos en/*durante tres meses. He wrote two articles in/*for three months. • Escribió artículos *en/durante tres meses. He wrote articles *in /for three months. • El zorro siguió matando gallinas/*varias gallinas The fox continued killing chickens/several chickens. • Dobrovie-Sorin & Laca (2003), Dobrovie-Sorin & Beyssade (2004).

12. Cross-linguistic support (Italian) • Ha stirato molte camicie in due ore / *per due ore di seguito. He ironed many shirts in two hours/*for two hours. • Ha stirato camicie *in due ore / per due ore di seguito. He ironed shirts *in two hours/for two hours. • Dobrovie-Sorin & Laca (2003).

13. Broadening our view • Do bare plurals in all languages lead to atelicity? If so, why? If not, why not? • What about bare singular (count) nominals (in languages in which they occur)? Predictions about telicity? • If we want to investigate the telicity features of bare nominals, where do we start?

14. Bare nominal semantics • BN: nominal without a determiner ~ no info about quantity, discourse reference. • Intuition: bare nominals convey (covertly) what is not expressed (overtly) by determiners (cf. Chierchia 1998, blocking). • What features of the language come into play in determining the aspectual nature of configurations with bare nominals?

15. A typology of bare nominals • Cross-linguistic variation in the semantics of bare nominals correlates with variation in number marking and article use. • Number: sg/pl distinction leads to BS/BPl distinction ~ investigate number neutrality. • Article use: definite/indefinite article blocks definite interpretation/discourse reference. • De Swart & Zwarts (2009, 2010): OT typology.

16. OT typology of number/articles • *FunctN: Avoid functional structure in the nominal domain (markedness constraint). • FPl: Parse sum reference in the functional projection of the nominal (faithfulness constr.) • FDef: Parse dynamic uniqueness by means of a functional layer above NP. • Fdr: Parse a discourse referent by means of a functional layer above NP.

17. No sg/pl, no articles: Mand. Chinese • *FunctN >> {faith constraints number, articles} • Wò kànjiàn xióng le. [Mandarin Chinese] I see bear Asp ‘I saw a bear/bears.’ • Gou juezhong le. Dog extinct Asp. ‘Dogs are extinct.’ • Gou hen jiling. Dog very smart. ‘The dog/dogs are intelligent.’

18. Induced telicity in Mandarin • Wo he-guan le tang. I drink-up asp soup ‘I drank up the soup/*soup.’ • Wo mai-zhao le shu. I buy-get asp book I managed to buy the books/*books.’ • Sybesma (1999): RV construction requires definite/specific interpretation of bare nominal.

19. Telicity features of Mandarin BN • BNn:  quantized (‘indef’, ‘specific’, ‘definite’),  cumulative (‘unbounded plurality’) • No blocking of form/meaning combination: telic/atelic interpretation for number neutral BN.

20. Sg/pl distinction, no article: Slavic • FPl >> *FunctN >> {faithfulness constraints definiteness/discourse reference} • On ot-krylperfokno. [Russian] he open.past.perf window.acc ‘He opened (the/a) window.’ • Petja čitalimp stat’i/literaturu Peter read-imp-past.sg. articles/literature-acc ‘Peter was reading articles/the articles/ literature/the literature/read articles/literature.’

21. BS in Slavic semantically singular BSs in Slavic languages have atomic reference: complement of BPl under bidirectional optimization (Farkas & de Swart 2010).

22. Bare habituality with BPl • Cumulativity of count noun depends on plurality (Scha 1984) ~ no cumulative interpretation for BSs. • Petja čitaet lekcii v universitete [Russian]Peter read-IMP-pres lectures in university ‘Peter gives lectures (is a lecturer) at the university • Petja zavtra čitaet lekciju v universitete Peter tomorrow read-IMP-pres.3sg lecture in university ‘Tomorrow, Peter is giving (will give) a lecture at the university’ Borik (2002: 140).

23. BPl definite/indefinite in Slavic • Petja pro-čital stat’i/literaturu Peter perf-read-past.sg articles/literature-acc ‘Peter read the articles/the literature’ • No definite article, no competition: BPl underspecified ~ adapts under contextual pressure to define inherent endpoint by taking up definite/specific interpretation: Filip (1999), Piñón (2001), Gehrke (2008),..

24. Perfectivity induces telicity • Piñón (2001): Perfective prefix requires quantized (not cumulative) object. • Czytaći: Imp(Read) = yxe [Read(e,x,y)] • Prze-czytaćp: Perf(Imp(Read)) = PQe[Q(e,xe’[P(e’, xe” [Read(e”,s,y)])])  x[CUM(Q(xe’[Read(e’,x,y)]))]  y[CUM(P(xe’[Read(e’,x,y)]))]] • PQ[CUM(Perf-Imp-Read(P )(Q))]

25. Slavic BS/BPl and telicity • BSs:  quantized (‘indef’, ‘specific’, ‘definite’)  cumulative • BPl:  quantized (‘specific’, ‘definite’)  cumulative (‘unbounded plural’)

26. Sg/pl distinction, no article: Hindi • FPl 0 *FunctN >> {faithfulness constraints definiteness/ discourse reference} • anu botal/botaleN ika TThaa kartii hai Anu bottle/bottles collects [Hindi] ‘Anu collects bottles.’ Dayal (2009) • aNgaN me kutta bhaunk rahaa hai yard in dog bark prog pres ‘The dog/a dog is barking in the yard.’ • BSn (number neutral) underspecified for definite

27. Telicity features of BS in Hindi • Anu-ne tiin ghanTe meN/tak kitaab paRhii Anu-erg three hours in/ for book read ‘Anu book-read in three hours’ = exactly one book ‘Anu book-read for three hours’ = one/more books. • Anu puure din cuuhaa pakaRtii rahii Anu whole day mouse kept-catching ‘Anu kept catching (different) mice the whole day.’ • Telic/atelic interpretation for both BSn and BPl. Acc case ~ quantized interpretation, Dayal (2009).

28. Telicity features of BS/BPl in Hindi • BSn:  quantized (‘indef’, ‘specific’, ‘definite’)  cumulative (‘unbounded plurality’) • BPl:  quantized (‘specific’, ‘definite’)  cumulative (‘unbounded plurality’) • Overlapping constraints lead to ‘weak’ contrast between BSn and BPl: no restriction to atomic reference for BSn. • BSn tolerates cumulative reference ~ allows for iterative durativity.

29. Definite article (Hebrew) • {FPl, Fdef} >> *FunctN >> Fdr • ra’iti kelev. hu navax/ #hem navxu I-saw dog. It barked/ #they barked ‘I saw a dog. It barked/ #they barked.’ • novxim klavin. Bark dogs ‘Dogs are barking.’ • Doron (2003). Strong contrast sg/pl ~ BS has atomic reference: BSs. Fully discourse referential. Restricted to indefinite interpretation under bidirectional optimization.

30. BS in Hebrew semantically indefinite Blocking by DefSg restricts BSs in Hebrew to indefinite interpretation. Idem for BPl (non-definite only)

31. Telicity features of Hebrew BS/BPl • hu kara sefer be-ša’a/ be-mešex ša’ahe read book in-hour/ for hour ‘He read a book in an hour/for an hour.’ (weak telicity features, no cumulative reading) • hu nipeax balonim bemešex šaa he blew balloons for an hour • hu nipeax et ha-balonim tox 5 dakot.he blew acc the balloons in 5 minutes • Cabredo Hoffher (2009), Yitzhaki (2003)

32. No iterative durativity for Hebrew BS • Lack of plurality blocks iterative durativity/bare habituality of Hebrew BSs • John me’ašen sigariya John smokes cigarette  John is smoking a cigarette (episodic)  John smokes cigarettes (habitual) • Cabredo Hoffher (2009)

33. Telicity features of Hebrew BS/BPl • BSs:  quantized (‘indefinite’)  cumulative • BPl:  quantized (‘specific’, ‘definite’)  cumulative (‘unbounded plural’)

34. Definite and indefinite article: Brazilian Portuguese, Papiamentu, Norwegian • Fdef >> {FPl, Fdr} 0 *FunctN • Tem criançana sala. There is child in the room. E ela está/elasestão ouvindo [Braz. Port]And she is/ they are listening. • Munn & Schmitt (1999). Strong contrast bare/definite: BS/BPl indefinite. • Weak contrast BS/BPl ~ number neutrality: BSn • Weak contrast BS/SgIndef: both disc. ref.

35. Telicity features of BS/Sl • Ele leu *novella/ uma novella em uma hora He read *novel/ a novel in an hour. • Eu matei iguana/*un iguana por duas horas. I killed iguana/*an iguana for two hours ‘I killed iguanas for two hours.’ [BrPort] • Mi a mata yuana/#un yuana pa dos ora largu I past killed iguana/#an iguana for two hour long ‘I killed iguanas/#an iguana for two hours.’ [Pap]

36. Telicity features of BS/SI • Number neutrality licenses cumulativity ~ bare habituality. • João fuma cigarro João smokes cigarette ‘João smokes cigarettes.’ • Munn & Schmitt (1999), Schmitt & Kester (2007): strong aspectual constrast BS (atelic)/ SgIndef (telic) in Braz. Port, Papiamentu. Why?

37. Telicity features of BS/BPl • BSn: quantized (‘indefinite’)  cumulative • BPl:  quantized (‘specific’, ‘definite’)  cumulative (‘unbounded plural’)

38. Def/indef article (Romance, Hungarian) • {Fpl, Fdef, Fdr} >> *FunctN • Morphological sg/pl contrast, def/indef sg, and bare/indef plural (depending on discourse role plural morphology, cf. Farkas & de Swart 2003). • Strong contrast BS  everything else: BS does not satisfy Fdr ~ restricted to constructions with ‘weak’ discourse referentiality features: object position of ‘have’ verbs, bare predication, bare coordination, bare PPS..

39. Number neutrality of BS • Busco pis. Un a Barcelona i un a Girona. [Catalan] look.for-1sg appartment. One in B. and one in G. ‘I’m looking for an apartment. One in Barcelona and one in Girona.’ Espinal & Mcnally (2010) • Mari belyeget gujt. [Hungarian] Mari stamp-acc collect ‘Mari collects stamps.’ • BS in Romance/Hungarian number neutral: BSn. • Farkas & de Swart (2003): number defined for discourse referents, not for thematic arguments (DRT). Weak referentiality ~ number neutrality.

40. Bare singulars with ‘have’ verbs • Spanish, Catalan, Romanian: fairly liberal use of bare singulars in object position of ‘have’ verbs, cf. Dobrovie-Sorin, Bleam & Espinal (2006), Espinal & McNally (2010). • Lleva sombrero. [Sp] / Porta barret. [Catalan] wears hat wears hat ‘(S)he wears a hat.’ • Ion are casă [Romanian] Ion has house. ‘Ion has a house.’ • But: mostly stative verbs  no telicity effects.

41. Dynamic verbs: telicity? • Ha buscat pis #en una setmana /durant una setmana. has looked.for flat in a week /during a week ‘(S)he has looked for a flat for a week.’ [Catalan] • Ha buscat pisos #en una setmana /durant una setmana. has looked.for flats in a week / during a week ‘(S)he has looked for flats for a week.’ • Ha buscat un pis en una setmana / durant has looked.for a flat in one week / 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.’ • Espinal & McNally (2010): bare sg atelic ~ different from both sg indefinite and bare plural. But is this enough?

42. Accomplishment verbs: telicity • Encontraron aparcamento (en diez minutos) [Sp] Found parking (in ten minutes) ‘They found a parking place in ten minutes • Espinal (2009): there could be more than one parking place if more than one driver (NN). • Telic interpretation of bare nominal possible, at least with certain verbs. Espinal (p.c.): BSn must be aspectually inert (property interpretation).

43. No iterative durativity in Spanish • [Context: Lola left the Netherlands and moved to Spain, but felt homesick for a long time.] • Lola se consiguió (un) novio holandés durante el primer año. (= one boyfriend, relationship lasted for one year). [Mex. Spanish] • Lola se consiguió novios holandeses durante el primer año. (= several boyfriends throughout the period of one year). • Lola found herself Dutch boyfriend/ a Dutch boyfriend/ Dutch boyfriends for the first year. • Note: Not all Spanish speakers like the BS in this environment (Espinal p.c.).

44. No iterative durativity in Catalan • En Joan va trobar *puça / puces en el gos det Joan past find flea/ fleas in the dog durant una setmana for a week Espinal (p.c.) ‘Joan found fleas on his dog for a week.’ • *Els nuvis han comprat anell the bride and groom have bought ring els uns als altres the ones to.the others. Espinal (2010)

45. Bare habituals with BPl • Limpio *coche/coches. [Spanish] clean car/cars ‘I clean/am cleaning cars.’ • Mata cucarachas (non-inclusive reading) kills.3.sg roaches ‘She kills roaches.’ • Laca (1990): contrast between bare plurals and definite plurals in object position of generic statements. • Espinal (2009): BSn infelicitous (not a ‘have’ verb).

46. Bare sg and telicity in Romanian • Dobrovie-Sorin, Bleam and Espinal (2006): restriction to ‘have’ verbs/‘prototypical’ objects. • Ion şi-a compărat casă în doi ani. Ion sedat-has bought house in two years ‘Ion has bought a house in two years.’ • *Ion şi-a compărat casă timp de doi ani. Ion sedat-has bought house time of two years • Telic interpretation compatible with bare sg, at least with certain verbs.

47. Romanian for-adverbials • Maria si-a trantit (un) prieten olandez timp de un an. M. refl-has banged (a) boy-friend Dutch time of one year ‘Maria got herself a Dutch lover for one year’ (=one boy-friend, relationship lasted for one year) • Maria si-a tras (tot) iubiti olandezi timp de un an M. refl-has (tot) lovers Dutch time of one year. ‘Maria kept getting herself Dutch lovers for one year’ (=multiple lovers over a period of one year). • Gianina Iordachioaia (2010, pc)

48. Iterative durativity/bare habituals • Ion vinde motociclete/*motocicleta.John sells motorcycles/*motorcycle ‘John sells motorcycles.’ • Anul trecut, cand a tinut cainele in casa, Maria a Year last, when has kept dog.the in house, M. has (tot) gasit purice/purici in pat timp de cateva zile. (all-PO) found flea/fleas in bed time of few days 'Last year, when she had her dog in the house, Mary kept finding fleas in the bed for a few days' • Gianina Iordachioaia (2010, p.c.)

49. Collectivity vs. iteration in H. • Ma delutan szaraz levelet szedtem ossze a haz korul. This afternoon dry leaf gathered together the house around ‘This afternoon, I gathered dry leaves around the house.’ • Ma delutan szaraz leveleket szedtem ossze egy-es-è-vel This afternoon dry leaves gathered together one-by-one a haz korul [Hungarian] the house around ‘This afternoon, I gathered dry leaves one by one around the house.’ • Number neutrality in object position ‘collect’ verbs, but no iterative durativity. Dayal (2009).

50. No iterative durativity in H • János (*egy hétig) bolhát talált a utyáján. John(*one week-till) flea.acc found the dog-3sg-on. John found some fleas on his dog (on one occasion). [Hungarian] Not: John found fleas on his dog for a week (iterative durative reading), Bende-Farkas (2001). • Number neutrality in Romance/Hungarian does not lead to atelicity via plurality (no cumulativity).