INTERPRETATION OF RUSSIAN BARE PLURALS IN OBJECT POSITION

Daria Seres

Univeristat Autònoma de Barcelona 08.03.2018

AG 11 Specificty, definiteness and article systems

across languages |40.DGfS-Jahrestagung Universität Stuttgart

The research is funded by the project ICREA Acadèmica 2015_Espinal and is part of the project “Compositionality of meaning: Theoretical and empirical perspectives” (FFI2014-52015-P) at Centre for Theoretical Linguistics of UAB

Preliminary remarks

• Russian is an article-less language; nominals typically appear as bear (without any overt determiners).

• Bare nominal expressions are found in all syntactic positions.

• Article-less languages can still express the meaning of (in)definiteness and genericity.

2

Focus of inquiry • Bare plurals (BPls) in object position of

imperfective predicates.

• Different kinds of interpretation (cf. the English translation)

(1) Sobaki jedjat kosti.

Dogs.NOM eat bones.ACC

“Dogs eat the bones.”

“Dogs eat (some) bones.”

“Dogs are bone-eaters.”

3

Main questions

• What are the possible interpretations of BPl objects in Russian?

• How are these interpretations obtained?

4

Main claims

• Russian BPl objects may be interpreted not only definitely, existentially or generically; they may also be pseudo-incorporated.

• The interpretation depends on:

- the discourse context;

- type of predicate;

- type of sentence (characterising or episodic).

5

Outline

• Definite interpretation

• Existential interpretation

• Generic interpretation

• Pseudo-incorporation

6

Definite interpretation

• Discourse context (anaphoricity); familiarity or bridging

(2) (Context: On Sundays we eat lamb. We don’t throw

bones away because there’s a dog shelter nearby.)

Sobaki jedjat kosti s udovolstvijem.

Dogs eat bones with pleasure.

“The dogs eat the bones with pleasure”

7

• Definite nominals may be anchors for explicative relative clauses

(3) Sobaki jedjat kosti, na kotoryh eščo mnogo mjasa,

Dogs eat bones on which still much meat

s udovolstvijem.

with pleasure

“Dogs eat bones, which still have a lot of meat, with

pleasure”.

8

Outline

• Definite interpretation

• Existential interpretation

• Generic interpretation

• Pseudo-incorporation

9

Existential interpretation • Discourse context (lack of anaphoricity);

novelty. (4) (Context: Stray animals feed on what they find in

the street)

a. Sobaki jedjat kosti, koški – staryi xleb...

Dogs eat bones cats old bread

“Dogs eat bones, cats eat old bread...”

b. Sobaki jedjat kakie-to kosti...

Dogs eat some bones

“Dogs eat some bones...”

10

Outline

• Definite interpretation

• Existential interpretation

• Generic interpretation

• Pseudo-incorporation

11

Generic interpretation

• BPls in internal argument position of psychological subject experiencer verbs (SEVs) (see Pesetsky 1995, Glasbey 2006, Fábregas & Marín 2015).

• Generic reading of plural nominals is construed as a reference to a maximal sum of individual entities (Borik & Espinal 2015), the sum of all instances of the kind (Chierchia 1998) (cf. inclusive reading by Laca (1990)).

12

(5) Sobaki ljubjat kosti. generic / #existential

Dogs love bones

“Dogs love bones.”

(6) Sobaki edjat kosti. #generic / existential

Dogs eat bones

“Dogs eat bones.”

13

Subject experiencer verbs (SEVs)

• The only verbs that may trigger the generic interpretation of BPls in object position.

• They are i(ndividual)-level; they are stative (Fábregas & Marín 2015); unlike most imperfective verbs in Russian, they do not shift between s-level and i-level (cf. Glasbey (2006): they lack eventuality argument)

• They create an intensional context for their objects (Carlson 1977: 113).

14

Russian SEVs • ljubit’ “love” +ACC. , nenavidet’ “hate” +ACC.,

uvlekat’sja “be keen on” +INSTR., ispytyvat’ otvraščenije k “have aversion to” +DAT., cenit’ “appreciate” +ACC., etc

• Trigger a generic or specific interpretation fo BPls; admit singular nominals with a specific interpretation or proper names; but not definite kinds (i.e. abstract entities directly referring to kinds, Borik & Espinal 2015)

15

(7) a. Maša ljubit sobak generic / specific

Masha loves dogs

“Masha loves (the) dogs.”

b. Maša ljubit sobaku / zolotogo retrivera specific

Masha loves dog / golden retriever

“Masha loves the dog / the golden retriever.”

• SEVs presuppose the existence of two individual entities involved in the psychological relationship, so the internal argument (target-of-emotion) cannot be a definite kind (Seres&Espinal 2018, submitted)

16

Cross-linguistic data • Overt morphosyntactic contrast between

objects of SEVs (definite plurals only) and other verbs (bare plurals) in Romance languages (Catalan and Spanish)

(8) a. El meu gat odia els ratolins

The my cat hates the mice

“My cat hates mice.”

b. El meu gat menja ratolins

The my cat eats mice

“My cat eats mice.”

17

Outline

• Definite interpretation

• Existential interpretation

• Generic interpretation

• Pseudo-incorporation

18

Generic subject. What is the reading of the obejct?

(9) Koška jest myšej / Koški jedjat myšej.

Cat eats mice / Cats eat mice

“The cat eats mice.” / “Cats eat mice.”

• If the subject is generic (refers to an abstract entity), the object cannot be definite or existential.

• It’s a characterizing statement about the kind.

19

Characterizing statements

• Generalizations about sets of entities / situations; the property described by the predicate is an “essential”, not “accidental” property of the entity mentioned in the sentence (Krifka et al. 1995)

• The subject may be a kind entity (type <ek>). or an individual entity (type <eo>).

• My claim: the BPl object in characterizing statements is non-referential.

20

Pseudo-incorporation (PI)

• Objects are PI-ed in characterizing statements, i.e. objects do not have a reference of their own; they modify the predicate.

• BPl objects in characterising statements denote properties, not entities, even though syntactically they function as internal arguments.

21

Characterizing vs. episodic

(10) Moja koška jest myšej.

My cat eats mice

a. “My cat is a mice-eater.”

b. “My cat eats / is eating mice”

• (10) may have two readings: a. characterizing sentence; an alethic modality (possibility) is expressed (cf. Maier 2018); no existential entailment or presupposition of existence for mice and b. an episodic sentence: mice is interpreted either existentially or definitely

22

Pseudo-incorporated nominals

• They are characterised by narrow scope w. r. t. negation, number neutrality, restrictions on modification, establishedness effects (cf. some cross-linguistic characteristics of (pseudo-)incorporated nominals in Borik & Gerke, 2015).

23

Narrow scope

(11) Moja koška ne jest myšej.

My cat not eat mice

“My cat doesn’t eat mice.”

“It is not the case that my cat eats mice.”

Not: “There are mice that my cat doesn’t eat.”

24

Number neutrality

(12) Ya dumaju, moja koška jest myšej, hotja,

I think my cat eats mice however

vozmožno, ona ih nikogda ne probovala.

possible she them never not tried

“I think my cat eats mice, however, it’s possible that it has never tried them.”

• How many mice? Zero, one, more than one?

There’s no plurality or singularity entailment.

25

Restrictions on modification • The NP in object position in (13a) does not

allow for modification by a relative clause.

• However, if it is interpreted existentially or definitely, modification is possible (13b).

(13) a. Moja koška jest myšej, *kotorye živut u nas doma. non-referential; characterizing sentence

“My cat is a mouse-eater *that live in our house.”

b. Moja koška jest myšej, kotorye živut u nas doma. existential / definite; episodic sentence

“My cat eats (the) mice that live in our house.”

26

Establishedness effects • Sometimes the interpretation of a BPl object

depends on the world knowledge, stereotypes, established concepts.

(14) Koški jedjat myšej. “Cats are mouse-eaters.”

• If it’s a stereotype about cats (“essential” characteristics), the object is pseudo-incorporated; the sentence is characterizing.

(15) Koški jedjat višni “Cats eats cherries”

• The sentence is episodic, the object is interpreted existentially.

27

PI-ed BPl objects

• BPl objects in characterising sentences show several characteristics of incorporated nominals. However, they are not syntactically incorporated: they manifest morphosyntactic Number and Case (typically accusative); they may trigger overt pronominal discourse anaphora.

• So, they are pseudo-incorporated: they are syntactic internal arguments, but semantically they are predicate modifiers (they are non-referential).

28

To sum up:

• BPl nominals in object position in Russian are interpreted definitely or existentially, depending on the discursive context (presence or lack of anaphoricity, familiarity, etc.).

• The generic reading is only obtained when BPls are found in object position of SEVs; in this case they refer to a maximal sum of individuals, which represent the kind.

• In characterizing sentences BPl internal arguments are pseudo-incorporated.

29

Selected references BORIK, O., ESPINAL, M.T. 2015. Reference to kinds and to other generic expressions in Spanish:

definitveness and number. Linguistic review 2015; 32 (2): 217-275. BORIK, O., GEHRKE, B. 2015. The Syntax and Semantics of Pseudo-Incorporation. Introduction.

Syntax & Semantics, Vol. 40, Leiden / Boston: Brill, 1 – 43. CARLSON, G. 1977. A Unified Analysis of the English Bare Plural. Linguistics and Philosophy (1):

413 – 457. CHIERCHIA, G. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6, 339-405.

ESPINAL, M.T. 2010. Bare nominals in Catalan and Spanish. Their structure and meaning. Lingua 120: 984 – 1009.

FÁBREGAS, A. & MARÍN, R. 2015. Deriving individual-level and stage-level psych verbs in Spanish. The Linguistic Review 32 (2), 227-275.

GLASBEY, S. 2006. Bare plurals in object position. Which verbs fail to give existential readings, and why? In S. Vogeleer & L. Tasmowski (eds.) Non-definiteness and Plurality. Linguistik Aktuell, Vol. 95, Amsterdam /Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Publishing, 133 – 157.

KRATZER, A. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In G. Carlson & F.J. Pelletier (eds.) The Generic Book. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.

KRIFKA, M., PELLETIER, F.J., CARLSON, G., ter MEULEN, A., LINK G., CHIERCHIA, G. 1995. Genericity: An Introduction. In G. Carlson and F.J. Pelletier (Eds) The Generic Book. Chicago University Press.

LACA, B. 1990. Generic objects: some more pieces of puzzle. Lingua 81: 25-46. MAIER, J. 2018. Ability, modality, and genericity. Philos Stud 175: 411–428.

PESETSKY, D. 1995. Zero Syntax, Cambirdge MA: MIT Press. SERES D., ESPINAL M.T. 2018 (submitted) Psychological verbs and their arguments

30

Thank you!

Daria.Seres@uab.cat

31