Paris, Workshop Languages with and without articles February 28 - March 1, 2013 Indefiniteness, NP- type and Information Structure * Ljudmila Geist (University of Stuttgart) * This research was funded by the German Science Foundation (project Case and Referential Context in the SFB 732 Incremental Specification in Context ). 1
Introduction In some Slavic languages such as Russian, bare NPs are used as arguments: (1) Anna uvidela devočku. Anna saw (the/a) girl However, not every bare NP allows an indefinite interpretation. First, there seems to be a restriction with respect to the lexical type of the noun. (2) Ona vstretila otca. She met (the/*a) father 2
Introduction Second, there is a restriction with respect to the position of the respective NP. (3) Devočka poljačka. (the/*a) girl is Polish (4) indefinite: (There are many children...) Odna / kakaja-to devočka One Indef / wh-to girl A / Some girl is Polish. poljačka. is Polish The goal: to determine the conditions for the indefinite interpretation of bare NPs in Russian and build them into the theory of NP interpretation. 3
NP-type (6) Definiteness as uniqueness the definite article indicates uniqueness of the referent in the domain of discourse, the indefinite article indicates neutrality with respect to uniqueness Sortal nouns project an NP of a predicate type e,t (cf. Chierchia 1998), as shown in (7a). Since verbs need arguments of type e or e,t,t, this leads to a mismatch, which can be solved by type-shift operators (cf. Partee 1987). (7) a. [ NP dovočka] girl : x girl(x) b. [ D OP ]: P Q x (P(x) & Q(x)) indefinite interpretation c. [ D iota OP ]: P x (P(x) definite interpretation 4
NP-type In his theory of concept types and determination, Löbner distinguishes four basic concepts, cf. Table 1. Type Examples Uniqueness sortal flower, stone relational tire (of the car), friend functional mother, roof + individual pope, temperature + Table 1: lexical types of nouns (Löbner 2011) devočka girl sortal noun; the definite or indefinite interpretation of sortal nouns in Russian depends on the context, it is not pre-determined by the lexical type of the noun. 5
NP-type Relational nouns are expected to behave like sortal nouns, i.e. to allow both interpretations. (8) U ego mašiny opjat lopnulo koleso. at his car again blew up (the/a) tire Type Examples Uniqueness sortal flower, stone relational tire (of the car), friend functional mother, roof + individual pope, temperature + The noun father in example (2) is a functional noun. Since such nouns express unique concepts, bare NPs with this noun as a head are definite. An indefinite interpretation can only be achieved by adding of an indefiniteness marker. (2) a. Ona vstretila otca. She met (the/*a) father b. Ona vstretila odnogo otca. she met one Indef father 6
NP-type Individual nouns can also only be interpreted as definite. The indefiniteness marker odin some may shift such individual concepts to relational ones. Type Examples Uniqueness sortal flower, stone relational tire (of the car), friend functional mother, roof + individual pope, temperature + (9) a. On chočet govorit s rimskim papoj. he wants to-speak with (the/*a) Pope b. Na kartine izobražen odin rimskij papa. in picture is-represented one Indef Pope (10) Povysilas temperatura. increased (the/*a) temperature To conclude, in Russian, bare NPs formed of individual and functional nouns can only receive a definite interpretation because of their inherent uniqueness. Sortal and relational nouns are lexically underspecified. 7
Indefinite Topics Many scholars point to some dependency of the interpretation of bare NPs on the word order and the theme-rheme dichotomy, cf. Brun (2001), Hauenschild (1993). the theme: the starting point of the utterance, old information, the rheme: contributes highlighted information about the theme, is new. According to the literature, bare NPs in the theme have to be interpreted as definite. (11) [Kniga] Theme [ležit na tom stole] Rheme (the /*a) book is-lying on that table The book is lying on that table. (12) [Na tom stole] Theme [ležit KNIga] Rheme on that table is-lying (a/the) book A/The book is lying on that table. 8
Indefinite Topics However, the notion of theme-rheme is problematic since the distinction between two aspects is disregarded: the aboutness aspect and the highliting aspect. Two levels of IS (cf. e.g. Krifka 2007): topic-comment: the partitioning of a sentence with respect to aboutness focus-background: the partitioning with respect to information highlighting Geist (2010): the focus-background structure is irrelevant for the restriction on indefinite interpretation, it is the topic-comment structure, which is relevant. Topic-comment (13) a. [/John] T [called \MAX] C. b. /John T, he called \MAX. (14) Hypothesis : Bare NPs in Russian can be interpreted as indefinite only if they belong to the comment. They cannot be interpreted as indefinite if they serve as aboutness topics. 9
Indefinite Topics (15) (Why is it so noisy?) [ReBEnok plačet.] C (a) child is-crying A child is crying. Thetic statements like (15) lack an overt topic and the whole sentence is the comment. (16) indefinite: (There are many children.) #Devočka (a) girl poljačka is Polish In this sentence the predicate be Polish is the so-called individual-level-predicate. As Jäger (2001), among others, shows, subjects of individual-level-predicates are necessarily aboutness topics since such sentences exclude a thetic interpretation. 10
Indefinite Topics Are indefinite topics possible? Reinhart (1981), among others, assumes that indefinites are possible aboutness topics in English. (17) A man had two sons, and he came to the first, and said, [Matt 21:28-32 The Parable of The Two Sons New American Standard Version (1995)] However, other scholars point to the fact that plain indefinites cannot always serve as aboutness topics. (18) a. *A window, it s still open. (Gundel 1988) b. A window that we painted yesterday, it s still open. (19) A daughter of a friend of mine, she got her BA in two years. (Gundel 1985) 11
Indefinite Topics Erteschik-Shir (1997: 40) and Hallman (2010) note that in English subjects of individual-level-predicates, which always serve as aboutness topics, are ungrammatical without modifiers: (20) a. Are any firemen intelligent? (Hallman 2010) b. *Yes, a fireman is intelligent. c. Yes, a fireman in the third brigade is intelligent. Reinhart (1981) explains the exclusion of some indefinite DPs from topic positions by assuming that topics must be referential in order to provide an entity for an aboutness statement. What Reinhart calls referential is called specific in other approaches. (21) Felicity Condition on Indefinite Topics Indefinites can serve as aboutness topics if they are specific. 12
Indefinite Topics Specificity is often understood as identifiability by the speaker. Identifiability does not necessarily mean that the speaker is able to name the respective object. (22) Specificity condition The speaker is able to provide a property singling out the referent from other referents. Fodor and Sag (1982): a correlation between descriptive richness and specific interpretation. 13
Indefinite Topics To account for different types of specificity von Heusinger (2002) suggests general treatment of specificity as referential dependency or anchoring: (23) Referential anchoring for specific DPs (von Heusinger 2002) The referent of a specific NP is referentially anchored to another expression (the speaker or another discourse item). Implementations of the idea of referential anchoring (cf. von Heusinger 2011): a function variable for Skolem functions (Bende-Farkas and Kamp 2001, Hintikka 1986), choice functions (Chierchia 2001, von Heusinger 2002, Kratzer 1998, among others), plain functions (Onea & Geist 2011), anchored representations in DRT (Kamp and Bende-Farkas submitted). 14
Indefinite Topics Kratzer (1998): (24) a. [a girl]: P y (girl(y) & P(y)) b. [a girl/a certain girl]: P (P(f x (girl))) (Kratzer 1998) c. [a girl]: P (P(f SPEAKER (girl))) In general, we can assume that the choice function is an operator, which can apply to predicate NPs in languages without articles and turn them into specific indefinite DPs under certain conditions. (25) [ D CF OP ]: Q P (P(f x (Q))) To conclude, indefinites are banned from topic positions if they are not specific. Specificity can be understood as identifiability. For a specific NP the speaker is able to provide a property singling out the referent from other referents. The referent of a specific DP is referentially anchored to another expression. 15
Specificity Identifiability /Scope (26) a. Maša iščet gazetu. Mary is-looking-for (a) newspaper ACC b. #Continuation indicating identifiability: It was lying on the table. c. Continuation indicating non-identifiability: I have no idea, which one exactly she is looking for Scope (27) Každyj učenik vyučil stichotvorenie Puškina. Every pupil learned (a) poem by Pushkin i. * wide scope reading: DP > ii. ok narrow scope reading: > DP Since bare indefinite NPs in Russian do not indicate identifiability and have narrow scope, they can be assumed to be non-specific. 16
Specificity Are indefinite topics possible in Russian? Indefniteness marker odin (29) a. (*Odna) devočka ušla iz doma v les one Indef girl went from home into forest [Russian fairy-tail Tri medvedja Three bears.] b. [ D odin ]: Q P (P(f SPEAKER (Q))) NP-modification (Birkenmaier 1979, Zybatow and Junghanns 1998): (30) a. Starucha v nočnoj kofte otkryla protivopoložnuju dver i sprosila ego (an) old-woman in pyjamas opened opposite door and asked him An old woman in pyjamas opened the opposite door and asked him [Birkenmaier 1979: 68] b. [ D CF OP ]: Q P (P(f x (Q))) 17
Conclusion The lexical and information structural restrictions on the indefinite interpretation of bare NPs in Russian can be determined as follows: Lexical restrictions: Only sortal and relational nouns as bare NPs allow an indefinite interpretation. Individual and functinal nouns as heads of NPs can only have a definite interpretation because of their inherent uniqueness. Information-structural restrictions: Sortal and relational NPs can be interpreted as definite or indefinite in the position of comment. The indefinite interpretation is excluded for them if they serve as topics. This is, because bare singular NPs under their indefinite interpretation are not specific. Aboutness topics, however, must be specific. Specific interpretation of indefinite NPs in Russian can be achieved by adding specificity markers like odin or by adding descriptive material to it. The latter possibility can be explained by assuming that a choice functional type shift may apply to bare NPs if they contain modifiers. 18
Selected references Birkenmaier, Willy. 1979. Artikelfunktionen in einer artikellosen Sprache. Studien zur nominalen Determination im Russischen. München: Fink. Brun, Dina. 2001. Information structure and the status of NP in Russian. Theoretical Linguistics 27: 109-135. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6: 339-405. Cresti, Diana. 1995. Indefinite Topics. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Daneš, Frantisek. 1970. One instance of the Prague school methodology: functional analysis of utterance and text. In P. Garvin (ed.), Method and Theory in Linguistics, 132-146. The Hague: Mouton. Ebert, Christian and Cornelia Endriss. 2004. Topic interpretation and wide scope indefinites. Proceedings of the NELS 34, 203-214. Amherst: GLSA. Endriss, Cornelia. 2009. Quantificational Topics A Scopal Treatment of Exceptional Wide Scope Phenomena. Dordrecht: Springer. Fodor, Janet and Ivan Sag. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 355-398. Geist, Ljudmila. 2008. Specificity as referential anchoring: evidence from Russian. Proceedings of SuB12, 151 164. Oslo: ILOS. Geist, Ljudmila 2010. Bare Singular NPs in Argument Positions: Restrictions on Indefiniteness. International Review of Pragmatics 2.2, 191-227. Gundel, Jeanette. 1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. In M. Hammond, A. Moravcsik and J. Wirth (eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology, 209-239. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gundel, Jeanette and Thorstein Fretheim. 2004. Topic and focus. In L. Horn and G. Ward (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics, 174-196. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Hauenschild, Christa. 1993. Definitheit. In J. Jacobs and A. von Stechow (eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, 988-998. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 19
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2002. Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 19: 245-274. Ionin, Tania. in prep. Pragmatic Variation among Specificity Markers. Ionin, Tania. 2010. An experimental study on the scope of (un)modified indefinites. International Review of Pragmatics 2: 228-265. Jacobs, Joachim. 2001. The dimensions of topic-comment. Linguistics 39: 641-681. Jayez, J. and Tovena, L. 2006. Epistemic determiners, Journal of Semantics 23, 217 250. Jäger, Gerhard. 2001. Topic-comment structure and the contrast between stage level and individual level predicates. Journal of Semantics 18: 83-126. Junghanns, Uwe and Gerhild Zybatow. 1997. Syntax and information structure of Russian clauses. In W. Brown (ed.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 4: The Cornell Meeting, 289-319. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. Krifka (eds.), The Notions of Information Structure, 13-55. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag. Löbner, Sebastian. 1985. Definites. Journal of Semantics 4: 279 326. Löbner, Sebastian 2011. Concept types and determination. Journal of Semantics, 28, 2011: 279 333 Onea, Edgar & Geist, Ljudmila (2011). Indefinite Determiners and the Pragmatics of Referential Anchoring. International Review of Pragmatics 3, 192-225. Partee, Barbara. 1987. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh and M. Stokhof (eds.), Studies in Discourse Representation Th eory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifi ers, 115-143. Dordrecht: Foris. Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics. An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27, 53-94. 20
Appendix Fokus-Background and indefiniteness (1) A: U kogo est karandaš? Who has (a) pencil? B: [U NINY] F [jest karandaš] B. Nina has (a) pencil Nina has a pencil. (2) (What did Mary give the/a boy?) [Maša dala mal čiku] B [JABloko] F Mary gave (the/a) boy Dat (the/an) apple Acc Mary gave the/a boy the/an apple. 21