100s of free ppts from

www.pptpoint.com library

The Generic Article

Henritte de Swart
Joint work with Donka Farkas

Bare plurals: Carlson

Carlson (77): bare plurals refer to
kinds.
Dinosaurs
are extinctto kinds
Direct reference
Generic
generalization
Dogs
are intelligent
Children were playing in the street.
Existential reading

Dutch: same paradigm

a. Dinosaurussen zijn uitgestorven.
Dinosaurs are extinct.
b.Honden zijn intelligent.
Dogs are intelligent.
c.Dieven hebben mijn laptop gestolen.
Thieves stole my laptop.

Indefinite singulars I
a. #A dinosaur is extinct.
Taxonomic reading only
b. A dog is intelligent.
Generic generalization
c. A child was playing in the street.
Existential reading

Generics in DRT
DRT analyses of generics focus on
indefinites (singulars/plurals)
A dog is intelligent
Dogs are intelligent
Farkas & Sugioka (1983), Diesing
(1992), Krifka et al (1995): indefinites
contribute variables that are bound by a
generic operator (GEN).

Definite singulars
Krfka et al. (1995), Chierchia (1998),
Dayal (2004): definite singulars refer to
atomic kinds.
The computer was invented by X.
The coca-cola bottle has a long neck.
The dinosaur is long extinct.

Cross-linguistic data I
Indefinite singulars in Romance behave
in the same way:
Un chien est intelligent.
[French]
A dog is intelligent
Un perro es inteligente.
[Spanish]

Cross-linguistic data II
Definite singulars in Romance behave
in the same way:
Le dinosaure a disparu.
[French]
The dinosaur is extinct.
El dinosaurio est extinguido. [Spanish]

Cross-linguistic data III

Article choice in the case of plural
generics is *not* the same in Romance
as in English/Germanic.
Generally: where English uses bare
plurals, Romance uses definite plurals.

Italian
Longobardi (2001): no generic bare plural in
Italian.
a. *Elefanti di colore bianco sono estinti.
Elephants of white color are extinct. *K
b.*Ucelli di zone paludose sono intelligenti.
Birds of marshlands are intelligent. *GG
c.Elefanti di colore bianco hanno creato in
passato grande curiosit.
White-coloured elephants have raised
great curiosity in the past.

Definite plural generics

Gli elefanti di colore bianco sono
estinti.
K
The white-coloured elephants are
extinct.
Gli ucelli di zone paludose sono
intelligenti.
GG
The birds from marshlands are
intelligent.

Rumanian
a. Dinosaurii au disprut. K def
Dinosaur.Pl.Def have disappeared
b. Cinii snt inteligenti.
GG def
Dogs.Pl.Def are intelligent
c. Se joac copii pe strad. bare
Refl. play child.Pl on street

French
a. Les dinosaures ont disparu.
The dinosaurs are extinct K def
b. Les chiens sont intelligents.
The dogs are intelligent. GG def
c. Des enfants jouent dans la rue.
Indef_pl children play in the street.

Spanish
Los dinosaurios se han extinguido
Los perros son inteligentes
Unos nios juegan en la calle

Questions
(i) Why is there variation in the use of
definite/indefinite (bare) plurals between
languages?
(ii) Why is there *no* variation in the use
of definite/indefinite singulars between
languages?

Episodic definites
Longobardi: Romance definites refer to kinds.
But: Rom. definites also in episodic contexts.
Copiii se joac pe strad. [Rumanian]
Child.Pl.Def. Refl. play in street.
Les enfants jouent dans la rue. [French]
The children play in the street.
Los nios juegan en la calle.

Idem in English, Dutch

a. The children are playing in the street.
b. De kinderen spelen op straat.
The children play on street.

No difference between Germanic and

Romance definites in episodic contexts.

expletive article
Vergnaud & Zubizaretta (1992): definite
article in Romance generics is
expletive.
Krifka et al. (1995): theme marker
Why contrast with episodic contexts?
Stipulate: expletive definite in generics
weird feature of Romance.

Not only Romance..

Same contrast in Greek (Longobardi):
a. *Asproi elephantes echoun
exaphanisthei.
*K bare
White elephants are extinct.
b.Oi asproi elephantes echoun
exafanisthei.
K def
The white elephants are extinct.

Hungarian
a. A dinoszauruszok eltntek. K def
the dinosaur.Pl disappeared
b. A kutyk okosak.
GG def
the dog.pl clever.Pl
c. Gyerekek jtszanak a kertben.
Child.Pl play.Pl the yard.In bare

Dayal (2004)
Neo-Carlsonian approach in terms of
type-shifting. Overt/covert type-shift.
Plural kind formation intensional
counterpart of -operation associated
with definite determiner.
Universal scale of definiteness: > .
Languages use different cut-off points
for lexicalization.

Analysis in three steps

Ground article use in generic contexts
on dynamic semantics of def/indef
articles in episodic contexts.
Typology: two classes of languages
(bare generics vs. definite generics).
Article choice relevant for syntax only:
no semantic differences.

Determined reference
Farkas (2002): Definites are marked,
indefinites are unmarked.
In DRT: definites and indefinities
introduce a discourse referent.
Verification: embedding function f from
DRS into model.
Definites dont offer choice in reference.

Singular definites
The planets revolve around the sun.
(Looking at a painting that depicts an
apple and two pears).
The apple is beautiful!
unique
A student came to see me. The poor
guy was in a panic.
anaphoric

Plural definites
a. The planets revolve around the sun.
b.(Looking at a painting that depicts an
apple and two pears).
The pears are beautiful! maximal
c.Mary bought applesi. The applesi
are
on the countertop.
anaphoric

Formally in DRT
If y is a discourse referent introduced by
a definite description, and f is function
that embeds the input DRS K, every f,
f that extends f relative to y is such that
f(y) = f(y).
Static: uniqueness (sg); maximality (pl)
Dynamic: familiarity (anaphora).

Two constraints
FMax (Faith Maximality)
Reflect maximality features of the input
in the output.
*Def/-Fam
Avoid non-familiar definites.

Episodic vs. generic

In episodic contexts, it is possible to
satisfy both constraints. Therefore, no
cross-linguistic differences.
Generic contexts provide a mixed case
in which the discourse referent bears
the features [+Max] [-Fam].
Both constraints cannot be satisfied.

Resolve conflict in OT
Conceive of FMax and *Def/-Fam as
violable constraints.
Order FMax >> *Def/-Fam leads to
definite generics.
Order *Def/-Fam >> FMax leads to bare
generics.
Cross-linguistic differences: ranking.

Dogs are intelligent GG

Meaning

form

*Def/-Fam

FMax

Genx(Dgx, Intx)
[+Max][-Fam]

Dogs are
intelligent
The dogs are
intelligent

*
*

The dogs.. in Hungarian

Meaning

form

FMax

*Def/-Fam

Genx(Dgx, Intx)
[+Max][-Fam]
Kutyk okosak

Dogs are intelligent

A kutyk
okosak.
The dogs are intelligent

Dinosaurs are extinct K

Meaning

form

*Def/-Fam

FMax

Dinxk & Extxk

[+Max][-Fam]

Dinosaurs are
extinct
The dinosaurs
are extinct

*
*

The dinos (Hungarian)

Meaning

form

FMax *Def/-Fam

Dinxk & Extxk

[+Max][-Fam]
Dinoszauruszok
eltntek

Dinosaurs are extinct

A dinoszauruszok
eltntek
The dinosaurs are extinct

Genericity in DRT
Genericity involves generalization over
events ( de Swart 1991, 1995).
Individual-level predicates: one-one
mapping events and individuals.
Fereira (2004): bare habituals involve
plural definite operator over events.
Extend Fereira to generic sentences.

Maximality
In one-one mapping situation: generic
operator over pairs event x individual.
Result: maximality of set of individuals
derived from maximality of set of events
(plural definite generic operator!).
Consequence: maximality of set of
individuals need not be asserted.

Bare plural generics

Dogs are intelligent in DRT
x,s,z
Dog(x)
Pl(x)
zx
zins

Gen
s

Intelligent(z,s)

Definite generics
The dogs are intelligent in DRT
!x,s,z
Dog(x)
Pl(x)
zx
zins

Gen
s

Intelligent(z,s)

Bare plural kind

reference
kinds top of intensionally defined lattice
(Ojeda 93, Chierchia 98, Dayal 04).
Dinosaurs are extinct.
xk,y
Pl(y)
xk=Dinosaur(y)
Extinct(xk)

Definite kind reference

The dinosaurs are extinct.
!xk,y
Pl(y)
xk=Dinosaur(y)
Extinct(xk)

Conclusions so far..
Genericity mixed case in terms of
features [+Max], [-Fam].
Conflict between constraints FMax and
*Def/-Fam resolved in OT.
Cross-linguistic differences in ranking
lead to two classes of generics: bare
and definite.

Two predictions
We should be able to obtain indefinite
generics in languages like Romance,
Greek, Rumanian, if input is [-Max].
We should be able to obtain definite
generics in languages like English,
Germanic, if input is [+Fam].
Non-standard generic sentences.

Pseudo-generics
Longobardi: in Italian bare plural OK in
generic contexts with modifier or modal.
Ucelli di zone paludose sono ghiotti di insetti.
Birds of marshlands are eager for insects.
Elefanti di colore bianco possono creare
grande curiosit
White-coloured elephants can raise great
curiosity.

French
Des gupes nerves sont un danger
terrible.
Indef_pl irritated wasps are a terrible
danger.
Des jeunes filles doivent se montrer
discrtes.
Young girls have to show discreteness.

Hungarian
Beteg gyerekek rosszkedvek.
Sick child.Pl grouchy.Pl
Sztrkolk tnkretehetnek egy
vllalatot.
Striker.Pl ruin.Poss.Pl a company.

Spanish
?Elefantes de colores claros pueden
crear gran curiosidad
?Pjaros de zonas pantanosas son
devoradores de insectos
?Chicas jvenes deben mostrar
discrecin

Non-maximality in DRT
Sick children are grouchy in DRT
x,s,z
Child(x)
Pl(x)
zx
Child(z)
Sick(z,s)

Gen
s

Grouchy(x,s)

Non-maximality in OT
No one-one relation between individuals
and events, no maximality.
FMax not violated, for no maximality.
*Def/-Fam becomes the highest
relevant constraint.
No definite article in Romance, Hung.
Bare generics as usual in English, etc.

Alternating sentences
Contrast between genericity and pseudogenericity very subtle.
Sometimes choice in presentation.
a. Les jeunes filles doivent tre
modestes.
descriptive/deontic
b. Des jeunes filles doivent tre
modestes.
deontic
Def/indef_pl girls have to be modest.

Anaphoric genericity
Encyclopedic contexts: introduce kinds,
then continue with anaphoric reference.
Saurischian Bipeds The
Saurischians were the first of the two
great groups to assume prominence.
[] From certain of these forms, the
Saurischians were certainly derived.
(Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1972, p. 456).

Familiar generics in OT
In English, Dutch: *Def/-Fam >> FMax.
Anaphoric genericity: [+Fam]
*Def/-Fam not violated.
FMax highest relevant constraint.
Use definite article even in English, etc.
Also use definite in Romance, etc.

Conclusions so far
Two facets of determined reference, two
constraints in OT.
Constraint ranking determines typology: bare
plural generics versus definite plural generics.
Non-standard genericity makes other form
available: change in feature configuration.
Advantage: integrated account of standard
and non-standard genericity (so far not
available in literature).

What about singulars?

If the cross-linguistic variation is based
on a general contrast in ranking, why
does this not affect the singulars?
In other words, why do generic plurals
show cross-linguistic variation, but not
singulars?

Definite singulars
Definite singulars: refer to atomic kinds.
Features: [+unique], [+fam]
Consequence: definite article is the best
choice in all languages.
Therefore: no difference in article
choice between Germanic and
Romance.

Indefinite singulars
Indefinite singulars: no kind reference
(for definite singular used for that).
Provides domain of quantification for
generic generalization.
Definite singular not appropriate for
that, because of uniqueness.
Singleton sets no domain of
quantification (de Swart 1991, 1995).

Conclusion
Lack of variation in the singular case is
the result of atomic denotation +
semantics of definites/indefinites.
Variation in the plural case is the result
of plural domain + semantics of
definites/indefinites with OT ranking.