Referential expressions Readings: Portner, Ch. 5 1. Definite NPs Consider (1) and (2). (1) Crookshanks is fluffy. (2) The cat is fluffy. Crookshanks and the cat seem to play the same role in the two sentences; they both saturate the predicate is fluffy. We already know how to compositionally derive sentences with names like (1). How do we then derive sentences with definite NPs like (2)? Let s start by drawing a tree for a simpler version of (2): (3) the cat is fluffy Since the cat as a whole needs to be able to saturate the predicate is fluffy, it d better denote an entity. Cat is a property, so the has to combine with a property to return the specific entity described by that property. For the to be able to do its job, there has to exist one and only one relevant entity in the context. In other words, the comes with a presupposition that there exists a unique salient referent it can retrieve. (NB: We ll talk more about presuppositions later in the course.) 2. Indefinite NPs Consider the two sequences: (4) A cat walked into the Great Hall. The cat meowed. (5) A cat walked into the Great Hall. A cat meowed. We said that definite NPs presuppose a unique salient referent in the context. In (4) this presupposition is satisfied, because a cat introduces a salient referent for the cat. We thus understand that a cat and the cat refer to the same entity. In (5), however, we understand that the two occurrences of a cat can t refer to the same cat (unless by accident). This suggests that indefinite NPs come with a presupposition, too, that they denote something new. 1
Irene Heim called the contrast above the novelty familiarity condition: indefinites introduce new referents into the discourse, definites refer to existing referents. However, sometimes indefinites seem to introduce entities that are not very novel: (6) I ran into a certain grumpy professor today. You know who I mean. (6) says that the grumpy professor is known to the addressee, so how can it be new? Some people believe such indefinites are a separate variety, called specific indefinites, which are exempt from the novelty condition, or at least subject to a weaker version of it. 3. Proper names What is the link between names, like Scott, and the actual individuals they refer to? Let s discuss some theories. 3.1. Names as concealed definite descriptions One idea is that names are semantically equivalent to definite descriptions. E.g., Scott could mean something like the author of Waverley. But then all the sentences in (7) should mean the same thing. However, while all these sentences are true, only (7a) is informative. (7) a. Scott is the author of Waverley. b. Scott is Scott. c. The author of Waverley is the author of Waverley. Furthermore, suppose we find out that Scott wasn t the one who wrote Waverley. (7a) would then become false, but (7b) and (7c) would still be true. More generally: the referent of a definite description can differ across possible worlds, but the referent of a name stays the same. Thus, names are what we call rigid designators. In-class Exercise 1 Come up with a name and a definite description that (as far as you know) refer to the same individual in the actual world. Now come up with a (partial) description of a possible world in which the two no longer refer to the same individual. 3.2. Names as directly referential An alternative view is that names lack any descriptive content and are directly referential: 2
Saul Kripke: a name originates with the act of naming and then the knowledge about what it refers to gets transmitted from a name-user to a name-user. I.e., the history of a name is responsible for its meaning. Gareth Evans: the practice and beliefs of the community that uses a certain name are responsible for its meaning. Some empirical arguments in favor of Evans s view: We can use a name to refer to something/someone we are not acquainted with. E.g., imagine you are not well-versed in French history, but you know something about naming practices for royalty in Europe, and you also know that France had kings Louis XII and Louis XIV. You might then conclude that Louis XIII existed, too, and utter, for example: (8) I wonder if Louis XIII was a good ruler. Names can change their referents. E.g., Madagascar originally referred to a part of the African mainland, but due to a mistake by Marco Polo, people started applying it to the island, which is now the norm. In-class Exercise 2 Come up with your own example showing the role of the community in a name s reference (e.g., an example of someone using a name without knowing the referent or a name changing its referent). 4. Plural and mass nouns So far we ve only looked at singular countable NPs. In this section we ll look at plural NPs, such as two cats, and mass NPs, such as much gold. 4.1. Pluralities in terms of sums Godehard Link proposed to think about pluralities in terms of sums. Any two individuals A and B can be summed to make a plural individual A B. This plural individual has A and B as its parts. If a common noun denotes a set of entities, the corresponding plural noun denotes the set of all plural individuals made up of those entities, e.g.: (9) a. cat = {Crookshanks, Mrs Norris, Tufty} b. cats = {Crookshanks Mrs Norris, Crookshanks Tufty, Mrs Norris Tufty, Crookshanks Mrs Norris Tufty} In the example above Crookshanks, Mrs Norris, and Tufty are atoms of a part-whole structure shown in (10). The other parts of that structure are plural individuals. 3
(10) C N T cats C N C T N T two cats C N T cat What about NPs with numerals, like two cats? The numeral two combines with the plural noun cats and returns the set of all plural individuals in the denotation of cats that consist of two atoms: (11) two cats = {Crookshanks Mrs Norris, Crookshanks Tufty, Mrs Norris Tufty} In-class Exercise 3 Assuming the denotation in (12), write the denotations in (13). (12) student = {Hermione, Ron, Luna} (13) a. students = b. three students = 4.2. Mass nouns as pluralities Mass nouns, like gold, are also associated with part-whole structures like in (10), only there are no basic units, or atoms, of things like gold (that is, not in natural language). Indeed, mass nouns share some properties with plurals. E.g.: (14) a. If A cats and B cats, A B cats. b. If A gold and B gold, A B gold. c. If A cat and B cat, A B cat. However, because their structure lacks atoms, mass nouns can t be quantified without adding measurement units or classifiers/classifier-like words: (15) a. three cats b. *three cat c. *three golds d. *three gold e. three ounces / pieces of gold 4
Some mass nouns, however, can be shifted into a countable interpretation quite easily, without adding any overt measure units/classifiers: (16) three beers 5. Kinds 5.1. What can bare plurals mean? Bare plural NPs are plurals that lack a determiner. English bare plurals are vastly ambiguous: (17) a. Wombats are rare. (as a group) b. Wombats are marsupials. (all) c. Wombats have long claws. (almost all) d. Wombats give birth in the spring. (many of the females) e. Wombats were digging burrows in my backyard. (some) However, this ambiguity can t be lexical ambiguity of the word wombats itself, or we d expect every sentence in (17) to have every possible reading, which is clearly not the case. 5.2. Kinds, objects, stages Greg Carlson proposed bare plurals have a uniform denotation, but (i) individuals have a more complex structure, (ii) different predicates target different levels of that structure. More specifically: Kind: an abstract entity; e.g., the species of wombat. Bare plurals always denote kinds. Object: specific instances of a kind; e.g., specific wombats. Individual: a term covering both kinds and objects. Stage: a spatiotemporal slice of an object; e.g., the wombat Patrick lived for almost 32 years, but we can focus just on the part of his existence lasting from 6am to 6pm on April 17, 2017. In the diagram below K is the kind of wombats; W 1, W 2, and W 3 are individual wombats (objects); and S 1, S 2,... are stages of individual wombats: (18) K Kind Individuals W 1 W 2 W 3 Objects S 1 S 2 S 3... S 4 S 5 S 6... S 7 S 8 S 9... Stages Predicates vary in which level of the structure in (18) they target: Predicates like rare are kind-level. 5
Predicates like have long claws are object-level; they talk about more or less permanent properties of objects. In order to combine with a kind NP like wombats, they need to first combine with a generic operator, so that to start denoting a property that is true of a kind iff it s true of typical instances of that kind. Predicates like were digging burrows in my backyard are stage-level; they talk about temporary properties of objects. Such a predicate is true of an individual (object or kind), iff that individual has a stage of which that predicate is true. In-class Exercise 4 Come up with an example of each of the three categories of predicates: kind-level, object-level, and stage-level. 6. Pronouns and anaphora 6.1. Introducing pronouns Pronouns refer, too. In (19) it is natural to assume that he refers to Crookshanks, so it s Crookshanks who saturates the predicate is fluffy. (19) Crookshanks is Hermione s cat. He is fluffy. Like definites, pronouns can refer to different things in different contexts and require a salient individual that meets their descriptive part ( male individual for he), but that individual doesn t have to be unique: (20) Crookshanks saw Ron. He sniffed him. If salience and the obvious descriptive content of a pronoun aren t enough to determine its referent, how do we do that? Either the context gives us more information than salience, or a pronoun s descriptive content is richer than meets the eye. Let s review both options. 6.2. Pronouns as variables 6.2.1. Pronouns and assignment functions One view is that pronouns are variables whose values are supplied by the assignment function. E.g., in (20) it is natural to assume that the assignment function maps the first pronoun he to Crookshanks and the second pronoun him to Ron. Thus, assuming a model M 12 = D 12, I 12 in (21) and an assignment function g 6 in (22), we could compute the value of He sniffed him from (20) as in (23): (21) a. D 12 = {Crookshanks, Ron} 6
b. I 12 (c) = Crookshanks, I 12 (r) = Ron I 12 (Sniffed) = { Crookshanks, Ron } (22) g 6 (x) = Crookshanks, g 6 (z) = Ron (23) Sniffed(x, z) M 12,g 6 = Sniffed(c,r) M 12,g 6 = 1 The relationship between an anaphor (such as a pronoun) and its antecedent is called anaphora. (NB: The term anaphor is used differently in semantics than in syntax!) 6.2.2. Bound variable pronouns In examples like (20) the nature of the anaphoric link might as well be pragmatic, but in many other cases it s clearly semantic: (24) Every witch likes her cat. (25) Only Harry likes his father. a. Other people don t like Harry s father. (strict reading) b. Other people don t like their respective fathers. (sloppy reading) Under the most natural reading of (24), we cycle through all the individuals in our domain who are witches, and the referent of her changes with each cycle. Under the sloppy reading of (25), the referent of his also shifts for each negated alternative. In-class Exercise 5 Come up with a sentence containing only NP and a pronoun coindexed with the NP. Describe two scenarios: one corresponding to the strict reading of the pronoun, and the other corresponding to the sloppy/bound variable reading. It would be tempting to say that anaphora always involves variable binding, but: Not all pronouns have overt antecedents: 7
(26) Context: Professor Binns is giving a lecture. Ron turns to Hermione and says: He is boring. Every/only NP can t bind across sentences, but anaphora to names or indefinites is OK: (27) a. Crookshanks 1 / [A cat] 1 walked in. He 1 yawned. b. [Every cat] 1 walked in. *He 1 yawned. c. Only Crookshanks licked his tail. His fur is tatty. Only Crookshanks licked his tail and has tatty fur. 6.3. Pronouns as concealed definite descriptions Pronouns can also be viewed as concealed definite descriptions. E.g., He sniffed him from (20) would be a shorthand for: (28) The individual named Crookshanks sniffed the individual named Ron. Pronouns analyzed as definite descriptions are called E-type pronouns. They aren t meant to replace the variable-based approach, but to complement it. But do we need them? Here s an famous example in support of the existence of E-type pronouns: (29) Only one politician is courageous and she is very junior. What you need to know Key notions: definite NP, salience, presupposition, indefinite NP, novelty familiarity condition, specific indefinite, rigid designator, plural NP, mass NP, sum, part, atom, bare plural NP, kind, object, individual, stage, kind-level predicate, object-level predicate, stage-level predicate, generic operator, pronoun, anaphora, anaphor, antecedent, strict vs. sloppy reading, logical form, bound variable pronoun, binder, E-type pronoun Answers to the following questions: Why is the view that names are concealed definite descriptions problematic? What are the two sub-views of the view that names are directly referential? What are some empirical arguments in favor of one of them? How are plural and mass nouns alike? How are they different? What readings can English bare plural NPs have? What is the gist of Carlson s approach to this ambiguity? How are pronouns empirically different from definites? What is the gist of the pronouns as variables approach? Why would it be problematic to say that all anaphora is binding? Why do some people believe we need E-type pronouns? Skills: Informally describe the compositional process behind definite NPs like the cat. 8
Give denotations to plurals (wombats) and plurals combined with numerals (two wombats) according to Link s sum-based theory of pluralities. Represent sentences with pronouns like He sniffed him in predicate logic and compute their values, given a model and an assignment function. Draw trees of sentences with only NP binders (Only Harry likes his father under the sloppy reading) and informally describe the compositional process behind them. 9