Bare arguments: Part II

1. Bare arguments: Part II Semantic Structures ‘10

2. Chierchia Chierchia & Longobardi Longobardi: Italian common nouns need a D to be able to appear in argument position. English common nouns don’t need a D to be able to appear in argument position. Chierchia: Italian common nouns are of type <e,t> and cannot be type-shifted (at least not without a covert D). [-arg; +pred] English common nouns are of type <e,t> and can be type-shifted to type e or type <<e,t>,t>. [+arg; +pred]

3. Chierchia English bare plural How does he derive the narrow-scope behaviour of the English bare plural? e <<e,t>,t> KIND  <e,t> Realization

4. Chierchia Italian bare plural How does he derive the narrow-scope behaviour of the Italian bare plural? e <<e,t>,t> KIND  <e,t> Realization

5. Chierchia Typology [-arg; +pred] [+arg; +pred] [-arg; -pred] [+arg; -pred] Does he have anything to say about other languages? Italian English No language Chinese

6. Chierchia What Chierchia adds to type-shifting: - typology (extra constraint on type-shifting) - all argumental uses of bare nominals across all languages pass through kinds (and therefore only take narrow scope) => NEO-CARLSONIAN ANALYSIS

7. Dayal Dayal & Chierchia There’s a small problem in Hindi: #caaro taraf bacca khel rahaa thaa four ways child play PROG PAST ‘A (same) child was playing everywhere.’ If bare nominals are always kind-referring and always take narrow-scope the above sentence should be fine...but it’s not... Does this endanger the generalization that bare nominals always refer to kinds and that they always take narrow scope?

8. Dayal Dayal & Chierchia NO! Hindi distinguishes between singular and plural kinds. Singular kinds do not allow access to their instantiations. two of these whales -> two of this type of whale two of this whale -> two of this type of whale The only way to derive a reading for bacca is through the  type-shift. The apparent indefinite reading arises because the covert  type-shift doesn’t carry any familiarity requirement.

9. Overview • Longobardi -> syntax Italian, English • Chierchia -> semantics Italian, English, Chinese languages vary along the pred and arg parameters all bare noun arguments refer to kinds and take narrow scope • Dayal -> semantics Hindi all bare noun arguments refer to kinds but only plural kinds allow access to their instantiations

11. What about your language? a. Walvissen zijn zoogdieren. whales are mammals ‘Whales are mammals.’ b. De walvissen zijn zoogdieren. the whales are mammals ‘Whales are mammals.’ c. Zij werkt niet samen met collega’s. she works not together with colleagues ‘She doesn’t collaborate with colleagues.’

12. What about your language? a. Ballenas son mamíferos. whales are mammals b. Las ballenas son mamíferos. the whales are mammals ‘Whales are mammals.’ c. A la reunión no asistieron profesores. at the meeting not attended professors ‘No professors attended the meeting.’

13. What about your language? Amharic Whale is mammal. The whale is mammal. He didn’t buy house. He didn’t buy houses.

14. What about your language? Chinese

16. A syntactic interludium Boskovic (2005): ‘What will you have, DP or NP?’ Borer (2005): In name only

17. Boskovic (2005) Some preliminary facts He saw expensive cars. *Expensive he saw cars. (English) Expensive he saw cars. (Serbo-Croatian)

18. Boskovic (2005) Some preliminary facts You like friends of Peter. [Who] do you like friends of. (Eng) [Who] do you like friends of. (SC)

19. Boskovic (2005) the generalization Serbo-Croatian doesn’t have covert Ds whereas English does.  How does this explain the facts?  Why is this relevant for us?

20. Boskovic (2005) explaining the facts PIC Phase Impenetrability Condition: “only the Spec of a phase is accessible for movement outside the phase”

21. Boskovic (2005) explaining the facts XP DP DP Spec X’ Spec X’ XP NP NP X X Spec X’ Spec X’ X XP X XP XP Spec X’ Spec X’ X Comp X Comp

22. Boskovic (2005) explaining the facts Anti-Locality hypothesis “movement shouldn’t be too short, it should at least cross a full phrasal boundary”

23. Boskovic (2005) explaining the facts DP DP Spec D’ NP D Adjunct NP NP N Compl

24. Boskovic (2005) explaining the facts Serbo-Croatian doesn’t have covert DPs whereas English does. Expensive he saw cars. ( ) DP DP 1. PIC 2. Anti-Loc English XP Spec D’ Serbo-Croatian NP NP  expensive NP NP expensive NP 1. PIC cars Compl cars Compl 2. Anti-Loc

25. Boskovic (2005) explaining the facts Serbo-Croatian doesn’t have covert DPs whereas English does. Who do you like friends of. ( ) DP 1. PIC 2. Anti-Loc English XP Spec D’ Serbo-Croatian NP NP  friends of John friends of John 1. PIC 2. Anti-Loc

26. Boskovic (2005) relevance If Boskovic is right there is no a priori reason for arguments to have a D projection. This goes against Longobardi who assumes argumenthood requires the presence of a (covert or overt) D. More in line with a type-shifting approach that does more in the semantics and less in the syntax.

27. Boskovic (2005) remark If you’re interested in exploring this line further, you can visit Boskovic’s website (download section). He extends the ideas developed above to a great number of languages and a great deal of different constructions. http://web2.uconn.edu/boskovic/

28. Borer (2005) Wants to pursue an alternative to type-shifting. (i) I bought cookies. (ii) John bought ?(a) cookie. both –s and a are countability markers; without them cookie would get a mass reading (iii) Wo mai le quqi (Mandarin) I buy LE cookie (iv) Wo mai le yi ge quqi (Mandarin) I buy LE one CL cookie

29. Borer (2005) the enterprise syntax of a (count) indefinite on its existential reading: [DPe [#Pa e [CLa e [NPgirl]]]] Indefinites like a in English do double duty: they function as classifiers and counters. They don’t necessarily do triple duty though: the existential force associated with them on their existential reading comes from existential closure over the variables in the C-command domain of the verb.  No need for type-shifting!

30. Borer (2005) If you want to explore this line of thinking further, read Borer (2005) and make sure to complement it with Krifka (2004). In name only ‘Bare NPs: Kind-referring, Indefinites, Both or Neither?’

32. Questions, answers and more questions...

33. Intermediate scope How does intermediate scope differ from wide scope? My first thought is that arguments can be referential or not. How do we interpret this difference in the example of the toys?

34. Intermediate scope the short answer Every boy didn’t want to play anymore with toys he had selected himself. Every boy  Not  Toys 

35. Intermediate scope the short answer Every boy didn’t want to play anymore with toys he had selected himself. Widest-scope reading: x(toys(x)&y(boy(y)play(y,x)) There are toys that are such that all the boys don’t play with them. Intermediate scope reading: y(boy(y)x(toys(x)&play(y,x)) For every boy there are toys that are such that he doesn’t play with them. ( )

36. Intermediate scope the short answer There are toys that are such that all the boys don’t play with them. For every boy there are toys that are such that he doesn’t play with them.

37. Intermediate scope the longer answer The existence of genuine intermediate/wide scope readings is not uncontroversial...

38. Intermediate scope the longer answer Every professor rewarded every student that read some book I had recommended. reading 1: There is a book I recommended that is such that every professor rewarded every student that read that book. reading 2: For every professor there is a book I recommended that is such that the professor rewarded every student that read that book. reading 3: Every professor is such that he rewarded every student that was such that (s)he read a book I recommended. WIDE ?? INTERMEDIATE NARROW

39. Intermediate scope the longer answer • Fodor & Sag (1982) and Kratzer (1998) assume indefinites have: • a quantificational reading (like any other quantifiers they should then take scope locally) • a referential reading (this gives the wide scope flavour) • The non-availability of intermediate scope in many contexts is an important argument in their favour. • Question: how do they analyze intermediate scope when it is available?

40. Intermediate scope the longer answer • Kratzer (1998) Every man loves a woman. The wide scope reading of a woman is a referential reading. Kratzer assumes this reading should be analyzed in terms of choice functions. A choice function picks a unique individual from any non-empty set in its domain. In the case of a woman the set an individual is picked from is the set of women.

41. Intermediate scope the longer answer Every boy didn’t want to play anymore with toys he had selected himself. toys he had selected himself  gives rise to a non-empty set of toys for each boy  from this set a unique plurality of toys is picked  co-variation with the boys ~ intermediate scope flavour

42. Intermediate scope the longer answer Every professor rewarded every student that read some book I had recommended. books I had recommended  only one set (the sets of book I recommended)  only one book can be picked  no co-variation ~ no intermediate scope flavour

43. Intermediate scope the longer answer Further reading: Kratzer (1998) www.semanticsarchive.net

44. The variation in design Why was the Dutch setup different from the Mandarin? And which methods would you say was best, or is that language dependent? If so, how do you link the right method to the right language? Why are the two experiments different with respect to the tests they make use of? How comparable are the results? Is it not preferable to use the same design across all languages?

45. The variation in design Mandarin experiment scenario test, continuation test scenario test was well-established in the experimental literature continuation test was new  desire to use what was in the literature but also to explore new possibilities

46. The variation in design Dutch experiment only continuation test  one kind of test for all conditions should make the results of all conditions comparable

47. General setup (1) Regarding a wide-scope item: if participants rate a scenario/continuation high on the scale, does this mean they really have the wide scope reading? And, would they also have this reading without the context? I can imagine reading a scenario/continuation and trying very hard to come up with some particular case in which it could somehow fit the context, just because I am in an experimental setting where an experimenter is expecting something from me.

48. General setup (1) This is why the comparison with the NPI is so important: if what you suggest is true the same kind of accommodation should be applicable to the cases in which we used NPIs. It turns out though that NPIs are signifantly different from bare plurals. It is true though that you can never be sure what it is you’re testing...

49. General setup (2) Can it not be that participants see the context story as a whole (emphasis on meaning of the whole) instead of paying attention to the structure of one specific sentence (emphasis on form)? The scenario/continuation is always related to the context story and might thus be rated acceptable on a more global meaning level.

50. General setup (2) Here too, the comparison with NPIs is absolutely crucial. There are some important caveats though...