Hybrid Reasoning for Description Logics with Nominals and ...
Telicity features of bare nominals
description
Transcript of Telicity features of bare nominals
![Page 1: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Telicity features of bare nominals
Henriëtte de Swart
Berlin, Dec 2010
![Page 2: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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).
![Page 3: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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.
![Page 4: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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)
![Page 5: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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.
De Swart (2006) on bare habituality: bare plural behaves like dependent plural on set of events.
![Page 6: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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.
![Page 7: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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).
![Page 8: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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?
![Page 9: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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?
![Page 10: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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.
![Page 11: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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.
![Page 12: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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.’
![Page 13: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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.
![Page 14: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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.
![Page 15: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Sg/pl distinction, no article: Slavic
FPl >> *FunctN >> {faithfulness constraints definiteness/discourse reference}
On ot-krylperf okno. [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.’
![Page 16: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
BS in Slavic semantically singular
BSs in Slavic languages have atomic reference: complement of BPl under bidirectional optimization (Farkas & de Swart 2010).
at sum
BS
BPl
![Page 17: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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).
![Page 18: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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),..
![Page 19: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Perfectivity induces telicity
Piñón (2001): Perfective prefix requires quantized (not cumulative) object.
Czytaći: Imp(Read) = yxe [Read(e,x,y)] Prze-czytaćp: Perf(Imp(Read)) =
PQe[Q(e,xe’[P(e’, xe” [Read(e”,s,y)])]) x[CUM(Q(xe’[Read(e’,x,y)]))] y[CUM(P(xe’[Read(e’,x,y)]))]]
PQ[CUM(Perf-Imp-Read(P )(Q))]
![Page 20: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Slavic BS/BPl and telicity
BSs: quantized (‘indef’, ‘specific’, ‘definite’)
cumulative BPl: quantized (‘specific’, ‘definite’)
cumulative (‘unbounded plural’)
![Page 21: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
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.
![Page 22: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
BS in Hebrew semantically indefinite
Blocking by DefSg restricts BSs in Hebrew to indefinite interpretation.
Idem for BPl (non-definite only)
BS
DefSg
![Page 23: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Telicity features of Hebrew BS/BPl
hu kara sefer be-ša’a/ be-mešex ša’a he 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)
![Page 24: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
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)
John me’ašen sigariyot John smokes cigarettes John smokes cigarettes (habitual)
Cabredo Hoffher (2009), Yoad Winter (p.c.)
![Page 25: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Telicity features of Hebrew BS/BPl
BSs: quantized (‘indefinite’)
cumulative BPl: quantized (‘specific’, ‘definite’)
cumulative (‘unbounded plural’)
![Page 26: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
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..
![Page 27: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
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.
![Page 28: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
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.
![Page 29: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
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).
![Page 30: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
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).
![Page 31: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
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).
![Page 32: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Telicity features of BS/BPl in Romance/Hungarian
BSn: quantized (‘indefinite’, ‘definite’) cumulative (‘unbounded plurality’) BPl: quantized (‘specific’, ‘definite’) cumulative (‘unbounded plural’) Def/indef and sg/pl contrast do not apply to
non-referential arguments (require dr). Cumulative BSn requires (dr) plurality for event
distributivity: not available for BSn in Romance/ Hungarian.
![Page 33: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Recap: role of number in telicity
*FunctN >> FPl or FPl 0 *FunctN leads to number neutrality ~ BSn cumulative atelic, iterative durativity/bare habituality (Mandarin Chinese, Hindi, Braz. Portuguese)
FPl >> *FunctN leads to atomic reference for BSs ~ cumulative telic, no iterative durativity/bare habituality (Slavic, Hebrew).
![Page 34: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Recap: role of definite article
*FunctN >> Fdef makes definite/specific interpretations available for both BS and BPl ~ quantized telic interpretations available with BS and BPl (Mandarin Chinese, Hindi, Slavic).
Fdef >> *FunctN restricts BS/BPl to indefinite interpretation ~ BPl quantized atelic interpretation only for BPl (Hebrew, Brazilian Portuguese).
![Page 35: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Recap: role of indef. article
In Brazilian Portuguese, Papiamentu indefinite sg competes with BSn ~ BSn quantized atelic interpretation only, iterative durativity/ bare habituality OK. Why?
Fdr >> *FunctN: BS restricted to non-referential position, number and definiteness irrelevant, but no asserted plurality. BSn cumulative quasi telic interpretation verb driven, no iterative durativity/bare habituality (Romance, Hungarian).
![Page 36: Telicity features of bare nominals](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022081417/568144e7550346895db1b544/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Project Info
Weak referentiality: bare nominals at the interface of lexicon, syntax and semantics (2008-2012).
http://www.hum.uu.nl/medewerkers/b.s.w.lebruyn/weakreferentiality/index.htm