Information structure and the referential status of linguistic expression : workshop as part of the 23th annual meetings of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft in Leipzig, Leipzig, February 28 - March 2, 2001

This volume comprises papers that were given at the workshop Information Structure and the Referential Status of Linguistic Expressions, which we organized during the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft (DGfS) Conference in Leipzig in February 2001. At this workshop we discussed the connection between information structure and the referential interpretation of linguistic expressions, a topic mostly neglected in current linguistics research. One common aim of the papers is to find out to what extent the focus-background as well as the topic-comment structuring determine the referential interpretation of simple arguments like definite and indefinite NPs on the one hand and sentences on the other

Introduction

Introduction to genericity in the nominal, verbal and sentential domain

Anaphoric Potential of Pseudo-Incorporated Nominals in Comparison with Compounds and Implicit Objects

Contribution to Linguistic Evidence 202

Specificity distinction

This paper is concerned with semantic noun phrase typology, focusing on the question of how to draw fine-grained distinctions necessary for an accurate account of natural language phenomena. In the extensive literature on this topic, the most commonly encountered parameters of classification concern the semantic type of the denotation of the noun phrase, the familiarity or novelty of its referent, the quantificational/nonquantificational distinction (connected to the weak/strong dichotomy), as well as, more recently, the question of whether the noun phrase is choice-functional or not (see Reinhart 1997, Winter 1997, Kratzer 1998, Matthewson 1999). In the discussion that follows I will attempt to make the following general points: (i) phenomena involving the behavior of noun phrases both within and across languages point to the need of establishing further distinctions that are too fine-grained to be caught in the net of these typologies; (ii) some of the relevant distinctions can be captured in terms of conditions on assignment functions; (iii) distribution and scopal peculiarities of noun phrases may result from constraints they impose on the way variables they introduce are to be assigned values. Section 2 reviews the typology of definite noun phrases introduced in Farkas 2000 and the way it provides support for the general points above. Section 3 examines some of the problems raised by recognizing the rich variety of 'indefinite' noun phrases found in natural language and by attempting to capture their distribution and interpretation. Common to the typologies discussed in the two sections is the issue of marking different types of variation in the interpretation of a noun phrase. In the light of this discussion, specificity turns out to be an epiphenomenon connected to a family of distinctions that are marked differently in different languages

Pseudo-Incorporated Antecedents and Anaphora in Persian: The Influence of Stereotypical Knowledge

There are different theories about the nature of pseudo-incorporated nouns (PINs), which feature a non-specific, number-neutral interpretation. For a proper analysis it is crucial to take their anaphoric potential into account. This paper investigates if and how PINs introduce discourse referents, with evidence from Persian, and which theory matches this behavior best. We report on experiments in which the stereotypical enrichment of the number-neutral interpretation was systematically varied with two types of biases — towards a singular or a plural interpretation — and in the neutral case, when such a bias is lacking. The results of the experiments are compatible with Krifka & Modarresi (2016), which considers PIN objects as dependent singular definites (similar to weak definites) within existential closure over an event variable

Plural pronominal anaphora in context : dynamic aspects of quantification

This dissertation presents a formal model of plural pronominal discourse anaphora. It focuses on the question of how to model the contextual interpretation of plural pronouns. Specifically, it develops a non-representational dynamic semantics of quantification. A quantificational sentence has several sets associated with it, each of which is a potential antecedent for a subsequent plural pronoun. Three such sets play an important role in the thesis. If `D(A)(B)' is a quantificational sentence, where `D' is the determiner, `A' the restrictor and `B' the nuclear scope, then we say that `A' is the maximal set, A^B is the reference set and A-B is the complement set. It is argued that one of these sets, the complement set, is only accessible through inference. This is in constrast to the other sets, which are contextually introduced by quantificational structures as salient antecedents. The formal model of context and context change presented in this work deals with these sets made salient by quantification and, as such, excludes the possibility of reference to the complement set. A complicating factor in constructing the model is that quantificational structures do not only introduce (singular or plural) individuals in the discourse; they also introduce dependencies. That is, pronouns have access to correspondences between salient sets. Accordingly, the notion of context has to involve structure. Furthermore, it turns out that a more complex account of the accessibility of (dependent) antecedents is also called for. Consideration of these and other issues ultimately leads to the development of an incremental dynamic semantics of quantification. Specifically, a variable-free formalism is proposed where the introduction of an individual in discourse boils down to incrementing a stack with this individual, following Van Eijck's 2001 framework of incremental dynamics. It is shown that adjusting the framework to enable it to deal with plurals succesfully solves some serious problems of more standard approaches. Moreover, as far as empirical coverage is concerned, the formalism is comparable to the popular discourse representation theory of plural reference in Kamp and Reyle 1993. In contrast to this theory, however, the formalism proposed here is in no need of operations on representations in order to obtain certain kinds of anaphora. In fact, it is in no need of a level of representation at all. This study is of interest to researchers concerned with the formal semantics of quantification, plurality and anaphora, and to scholars interested in more general issues concerning the semantics and pragmatics of discourse anaphora

Introduction

International audienceThis introductory chapter is organized into three parts. The first part focuses on the syntactic structure and compositional interpretation of determiner phrases, and frames the ontological issues related to reference to kinds in this context. It addresses a series of ontological issues relevant to the analysis of natural language: in order to account for linguistic data, must we postulate the existence of kinds, viewed as a type of entities, distinguished from particulars or tokens? What is the relationship between kinds and sets of entities, between kinds and properties, between kinds and sets of properties? The second part is comprised of three sections which are dedicated respectively to the stage-level/individual-level distinction, to the contribution of unboundedness and plurality, and to the dispositional reading of generic sentences. The questions addressed in this part pertain to the relationship between genericity, habituality, abilities, and dispositions. The third part examines the type of generic sentences, opposing analytic vs synthetic judgments, and raises the question of the notion of normality. It comprises two sections. The first section addresses the issue of the linguistic manifestation of the analytic/synthetic distinction and investigates the sources of the available interpretations for indefinite generic sentences, bare plurals, and definite plural generics. The second section discusses the notion of normality, comparing the view of normality as a statistical fact and the view of normality as a normative one

Context Dependence and Procedural Meaning: The Semantics of Definites

This thesis argues that there is a theoretically interesting connection between members of the intuitive category of context-dependent expressions, including "we", "tall", "local", "every man", "the woman", "it", "those donkeys" and so on. A treatment of the linguistic meaning of these expressions will be proposed based on the idea that their use raises issues for the audience about the proper understanding of the utterances in which they occur. The proposal will be developed in terms of a semantics for questions, which draws on the idea that to know the meaning of a question is to know what would count as an answer. It can be summarised along similar lines: to know the meaning of a context-dependent expression is to know what properties or relations (of the appropriate type) it could be used to express. The framework in which this idea will be developed can account for why the expressions that are given this issue-based treatment can also be given dependent, bound readings. The class of definite expressions, including descriptions and pronouns, is analysed in detail. A quantificational approach, where the determiner is existential, is assumed for all forms of definiteness. In all cases, the restrictor is interpreted by an atomic definite concept. The audience's grasp of the properties which definite concepts express is the result of inferential processes which take the linguistic meaning of a definite expression as input. These processes are constrained by pragmatic principles. The analysis of context-dependent expressions is extended to account for dependent interpretations. A treatment of donkey sentences that accounts for their variable quantificational force is shown to follow naturally from the analysis. A pragmatic account of infelicitous uses of definites is provided and shown to compare favourably with that provided by dynamic semantic theories. Also, a novel treatment of plural definites is provided which accounts for their variable quantificational force

Number and Gender Convergence : the Arabic Plurative

Morpho-syntactic and semantic properties of a specific plural/collective construction in Arabic, which I call the plurative, are examined and analysed. The plurative is shown to be a complex third entity, resulting from a convergence process of both Number and Gender features (and/or categories). It behaves as a syntactic expression denoting groups, which exhibits dual behaviour, licensing plural or single predication, anaphora, or alternating a feminine-singular with a masculine-plural agreement. In its strict sense, the plurative is shown to be both 'one' and 'many', denoting the whole-unity, but also allowing access to the (many) parts. Comparison is made with Slavic group numerals, as well as languages possessing group classifiers like Chinese. The singulative is also argued to be a complex entity, compared to kind collectives and normal singulars. DivP turns out to be too coarse to account for fine individuation differences, and is better split as atomP and unitP.En aquest article s'analitzen les propietats morfosintàctiques i semàntiques d'una construcció plural/col·lectiva de l'àrab, que anomeno pluratiu. S'hi mostra que el pluratiu és una tercera entitat complexa que resulta d'un procés de convergència dels trets (i/o categories) de nombre i gènere. Es comporta com una expressió sintàctica que denota grups i mostra un comportament dual, ja que legitima predicacions i anàfores singulars o plurals o alterna la concordança femenina singular amb la masculina plural. En aquest sentit estricte, el pluratiu es mostra com 'u' i 'molts' alhora: denota la unitat sencera, però també permet accedir a les (moltes) parts de la unitat. Establim una comparació entre el pluratiu i els numerals de grup eslaus, d'una banda, i les llengües amb classificadors de grup, com el xinès, de l'altra. S'argumenta que el singulatiu també és una entitat complexa que contrasta amb els col·lectius genèrics i els singulars normals. El sintagma SDiv resulta massa general per donar compte de les subtils diferències en la individualització i és millor dividir-lo en Sàtom i Sunitat