24.01.2013 Views

Weak Definites and Generics - Cognitive Science

Weak Definites and Generics - Cognitive Science

Weak Definites and Generics - Cognitive Science

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>Weak</strong> <strong>Definites</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Generics</strong><br />

Bachelor Thesis<br />

by<br />

Steffen Vogel<br />

svogel@uni-osnabrueck.de<br />

September 21, 2011<br />

Institute of <strong>Cognitive</strong> <strong>Science</strong><br />

Albrechtstraße 28<br />

49069 Osnabrück, Germany<br />

office@ikw.uni-osnabrueck.de<br />

Supervisors: Prof. Dr. Peter Bosch, MS Maria Cieschinger


Table of Contents<br />

1 <strong>Weak</strong> definites 4<br />

1.1 <strong>Weak</strong> <strong>and</strong> strong definites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4<br />

1.2 Properties of weak definites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5<br />

1.3 <strong>Weak</strong> definites <strong>and</strong> other nominal expressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7<br />

1.3.1 Idioms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7<br />

1.3.2 Bare singulars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8<br />

2 Formalization by Aguilar-Guevara <strong>and</strong> Zwarts 10<br />

2.1 Realization relation R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10<br />

2.2 Usage predicate U . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11<br />

2.3 Kind Lifting Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13<br />

2.4 Kinds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14<br />

2.4.1 Nature of kinds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14<br />

2.4.2 Restrictions on kinds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15<br />

3 Problems with the formalization 16<br />

3.1 Blockage by discourse referent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16<br />

3.2 Blockage by modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16<br />

3.3 Extension of the set of stereotypical usage events . . . . . . . . . . . . 18<br />

3.4 Scope of the formalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19<br />

3.5 Intermediate conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20<br />

4 <strong>Weak</strong> definites <strong>and</strong> concepts 21<br />

5 <strong>Weak</strong> definites in the German language 23<br />

5.1 Prepositional phrases headed by contracted forms . . . . . . . . . . . . 23<br />

5.2 Prepositional phrases headed by non-contracted forms . . . . . . . . . . 27<br />

5.3 Semantic enrichment subclass in German . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28<br />

5.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29<br />

References 30<br />

2


Abstract<br />

In this thesis, we discuss different approaches to weak definites as introduced by Carlson<br />

& Sussman (2005). These nominal expressions are characterized by the lack of<br />

a uniqueness presupposition <strong>and</strong> by enriched meaning. Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts<br />

(2010) suggest that weak definites refer to kinds <strong>and</strong> not to specific objects <strong>and</strong> that<br />

uniqueness is given on the kind-level. Their suggestion is that semantic enrichment<br />

occurs due to stereotypical usages of kinds. In this thesis, we point out problems with<br />

this approach <strong>and</strong> ask whether a theory of weak definites focussed on kinds is plausible.<br />

Since semantic enrichment does not occur with weak definites alone but only<br />

in the context of certain verb phrases, we suggest that a theory that relies heavier on<br />

the context is more plausible. Such an approach by Bosch (2010) is outlined in which<br />

semantic enrichment is explained based on the availability of concepts. In the final<br />

section of this thesis, we look at weak definites in German. <strong>Weak</strong> definites similar to<br />

those in English exist in German as well but the availability of different syntactic forms<br />

reveals another use of definites pointed out by Cieschinger & Bosch (2011). They show<br />

that definites which normally receive a weak reading can be used as so-called common<br />

ground definites <strong>and</strong> receive a strong reading when the set of possible referents is a<br />

singleton. We end this thesis with the conclusion that both the kind <strong>and</strong> the concept<br />

approach still leave some questions open.<br />

3


1 <strong>Weak</strong> definites<br />

1.1 <strong>Weak</strong> <strong>and</strong> strong definites<br />

In this thesis, we focus on those definite noun phrases (NPs) that begin with the<br />

definite determiner the. Such definite NPs are traditionally interpreted as referring<br />

to an entity which is unique or at least salient in a discourse context. If the entity<br />

is not unique, that is, there are either more than one or no entities at all matching<br />

the description, any sentence in which these NPs occur is either always false (Russell<br />

1905) or cannot be assigned any truth value due to a presupposition failure (Strawson<br />

1950). For example (1), this traditional uniqueness approach yields the desired result.<br />

(1) Anna is putting the book on the table.<br />

The meaning of (1) is clear in a context where there are exactly one book <strong>and</strong> exactly<br />

one table. If there are several books or tables or none at all, the intended meaning is<br />

not apparent <strong>and</strong> truth value assignments are problematic. These cases in which the<br />

uniqueness of the entity is an actual presupposition are referred to as strong definites.<br />

In contrast, there are other cases in which the uniqueness presupposition is too strong.<br />

These definite NPs are referred to as weak definites.<br />

(2) Anna is reading the newspaper.<br />

Proposition (2) is not only true in situations in which there is exactly one newspaper<br />

which is read by Anna. It is also true when there are several newspapers lying<br />

around <strong>and</strong> Anna is reading one or several of them. Reading the newspaper has a<br />

special, somehow idiomatic nature which is further analyzed later in this thesis. For<br />

now, it is sufficient to state that the newspaper does not need to refer to a unique entity.<br />

To find out whether or not an NP has a weak reading in a certain context, two tests<br />

are applicable. The first one by Carlson & Sussman (2005) is a verb phrase (VP)<br />

ellipsis test which consists of two sentences. The second sentence contains an elliptic<br />

VP which takes its meaning from the VP of the first sentence. The verb in the first<br />

sentence has a definite NP as its direct object. If the object of the elliptic VP has to<br />

refer to the same entity as the object of the first one, the reading of the definite is<br />

strong, otherwise it is weak.<br />

(3) a) Anna read the newspaper <strong>and</strong> John did, too.<br />

b) Anna read the book <strong>and</strong> John did, too.<br />

In situation (3a), it is possible that Anna <strong>and</strong> John read different newspapers <strong>and</strong> the<br />

newspaper receives a weak reading. The reading of the book in (3b) is strong because<br />

Anna <strong>and</strong> John had to read the same book.<br />

The VP ellipsis test, however, is not flawless. There are situations in which it justifies<br />

a weak reading while it is actually blocked. Therefore, it is only a necessary but not<br />

a sufficient test. After introducing the second test, we will use that test to give an<br />

example by Cieschinger (2011) to indicate the shortcomings of the VP ellipsis test.<br />

4


The second test is concerned with the knowledge about an entity that is introduced<br />

using a definite NP. If the definite is strong, the identity of the entity should be known<br />

due to the uniqueness presupposition. If it is weak, there is no such presupposition<br />

<strong>and</strong> the lack of further knowledge is not an issue. In fact, if the identity of the entity is<br />

known, the otherwise available weak reading of a definite gets blocked <strong>and</strong> it receives<br />

a strong reading (see (6b)).<br />

The store in (4a) is a weak definite, the school in (4b) is a strong one. When asked<br />

to further specify the identity of the object, the inability to do so is unproblematic in<br />

case of the store. The identity of the school in (4b), in contrast, must be known.<br />

(4) a) John is going to the store. I don’t know which one.<br />

b) John is going to the school. ?I don’t know which one.<br />

For an example where the VP ellipsis test fails, imagine a reading club. Every member<br />

of the club is assigned one book per month <strong>and</strong> no two members read the same book.<br />

This situation seems to establish the book as a new weak definite, justified by the VP<br />

ellipsis test in (5a). However, (5b) shows that A must know about the identity of the<br />

book, thus blocking the weak reading.<br />

(5) a) John is reading the book <strong>and</strong> Anna does, too.<br />

b) A: “John is reading the book.”<br />

B: “Which one?”<br />

A: “The one assigned to him.” vs. “?I don’t know.”<br />

It is important to note that the weak reading can be blocked in most situations by<br />

adding more context. While the newspaper receives a weak reading in (2) (here repeated<br />

as (6a)), only the strong reading is accessible in (6b). The additional context in<br />

(6b) establishes an anaphoric relationship between the newspaper <strong>and</strong> its antecedent,<br />

a newspaper. This determines the identity of the newspaper <strong>and</strong> only allows the strong<br />

reading.<br />

(6) a) Anna is reading the newspaper.<br />

b) They can read a book or a newspaper. While John has picked the<br />

book, Anna is reading the newspaper.<br />

One of the few weak definites in English that cannot be turned into a strong definite<br />

is the pokey, a colloquial term for prison. 1<br />

1.2 Properties of weak definites<br />

In this thesis, we focus on weak definites as introduced by Carlson & Sussman (2005)<br />

<strong>and</strong> formalized by Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts (2010). While the non-uniqueness as<br />

shown in (2) is the characterizing property of weak definites in general, the weak definites<br />

of Carlson & Sussman show in addition some distributional restrictions as well<br />

as a semantic peculiarity. Because of this peculiarity, we will refer to Carlson & Sussman’s<br />

weak definites as the semantic enrichment subclass or, for simplicity reasons,<br />

as weak definites in the following.<br />

1 Example from Carlson & Sussman (2005).<br />

5


The semantic peculiarity is a semantic enrichment that takes place for the weak reading<br />

of definites. It can be regarded as the characterizing property of this subclass.<br />

Whenever the weak reading is accessible, a sentence carries both the literal meaning<br />

of the definite as well as some stereotypical addition.<br />

The event described in (7a) 2 is not only a physical movement of John to a building<br />

which serves medical purposes. It also implies that John went there to get medical<br />

treatment or to work as a doctor or a nurse himself. If the context excludes these<br />

stereotypical circumstances, the weak reading gets blocked. In (7a), it is sufficient<br />

that John went to any hospital. The non-stereotypical action of (7b) blocks the weak<br />

reading <strong>and</strong> makes it necessary for him to go to a specific hospital.<br />

(7) a) John went to the hospital.<br />

b) John went to the hospital because he had to pick up his wife.<br />

Any theory of weak definites must capture this stereotypical enrichment. Yet, it can<br />

also use it to explain the distributional restrictions on weak definites. Just like not all<br />

definites in all contexts evoke additional meaning, not all definites can have a weak<br />

reading in all contexts.<br />

<strong>Weak</strong> definites are restricted to the object position of certain verbs <strong>and</strong> prepositions.<br />

(8) a) Anna called the doctor. vs. Anna sued the doctor.<br />

b) John went to the store. vs. John went around the store.<br />

Calling the doctor entails asking for medical assistance while suing the doctor has no<br />

such common consequences. Likewise, going to the store entails going shopping while<br />

going around the store implies no such typical activity. Similarly to (8), the following<br />

restrictions can also all be accounted for by checking whether semantic enrichment<br />

occurs or not.<br />

Some nouns never occur as the head of weak definites, others only in singular or<br />

plural form. (9a) <strong>and</strong> (9b) are examples for these lexical <strong>and</strong> number-morphological<br />

restrictions. In each example, only the definite in the first sentence has a weak reading.<br />

(9) a) Anna went to the store. vs. Anna went to the school.<br />

John called the doctor. vs. John called the surgeon.<br />

b) Anna checked the calendar. vs. Anna checked the calendars.<br />

John went to the mountains. vs. John went to the mountain.<br />

A further restriction also pointed out by Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts is the modifiability<br />

of weak definites. Modifiers that establish subtypes of weak definites can maintain<br />

the weak reading while others always block it. This holds for both prenominal <strong>and</strong><br />

postnominal modification. In (10a) <strong>and</strong> (10b), only the modifiers psychiatric <strong>and</strong> eye<br />

establish subtypes <strong>and</strong> maintain the weak reading.<br />

2 Examples (8b), (9b), (10b) <strong>and</strong> (13) from Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts (2010). Examples (7), (8a),<br />

(9a), (10a), (11) <strong>and</strong> (12) analogue to examples from Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts (2010).<br />

6


(10) a) Anna went to the psychiatric<br />

hospital.<br />

vs. Anna went to the new hospital.<br />

b) John went to the eye doctor. vs. John went to the doctor who<br />

works in the medical center.<br />

Another property of weak definites is closely related to their non-uniqueness. When a<br />

weak definite occurs together with a quantifier, the weak definite takes narrow scope.<br />

In (11a), the newspaper takes narrow scope with respect to every man <strong>and</strong> each man<br />

can read a different newspaper. This effect is blocked in (11b) where each man has to<br />

read the same book.<br />

(11) a) Every man was reading the newspaper.<br />

b) Every man was reading the book.<br />

Finally, it seems that weak definites do not establish discourse referents <strong>and</strong> cannot<br />

be used as antecedents for anaphors. This is in contrast to indefinites which share the<br />

non-uniqueness of weak definites but actually establish referents.<br />

The second sentence of (12a), which needs an antecedent for the pronoun it, seems to<br />

block the weak reading of the hospital in order to make the anaphoric relation possible.<br />

Such a subsequent change is not needed for the indefinite in (12b).<br />

(12) a) Anna went to the hospital. When she arrived, she found out that it<br />

was closed.<br />

b) Anna went to a hospital. When she arrived, she found out that it was<br />

closed.<br />

Definite NPs in subject position show a different behavior than those in object position.<br />

As the subject of episodic sentences, only the strong reading is available. These<br />

are always statements about known entities, as seen in (13a). Definite NPs in generic<br />

sentences, as in (13b), however, have properties that closely resemble those of weak<br />

definites. This might be the case because both classes show kind reference (see section<br />

2.4).<br />

(13) a) The newspaper lies on the table.<br />

The hospital has a well-known research centre.<br />

b) The newspaper brings people their daily news.<br />

The hospital is the place where most children are born.<br />

1.3 <strong>Weak</strong> definites <strong>and</strong> other nominal expressions<br />

1.3.1 Idioms<br />

One approach of dealing with weak definites is to regard them as idiomatic expressions.<br />

According to Nunberg, Sag, & Wasow (1994, pp. 492–493), conventionality is the<br />

only necessary property of idioms which are otherwise hard to define precisely. They<br />

are conventional in the sense that their meaning cannot be predicted based on their<br />

structure <strong>and</strong> their components alone. This also holds true for weak definites, although<br />

to a lesser degree. The individual words of an idiom like kick the bucket do not contain<br />

the information necessary to deduce its intended meaning, namely die. It has to be<br />

learned explicitly due to its figurative nature. The meaning of its parts is completely<br />

7


lost: dying has nothing to do with hitting an object with one’s foot or with a container.<br />

In contrast, the conventional semantic enrichment of weak definites is more closely<br />

related to the literal meaning, which is always preserved. A sentence like (2), Anna is<br />

reading the newspaper, necessarily describes an event where the action is reading <strong>and</strong><br />

the theme, that is, the object that is read, is a newspaper. Reading the newspaper is<br />

conventional insofar as the semantic enrichment takes place only due to the familiarity<br />

of the speaker with the use of the phrase.<br />

One can imagine a society where news are not published in a vast variety of print<br />

media but where every newspaper is specialized on one topic. In such a world, the<br />

identity of the newspaper would be much more important than it is today <strong>and</strong> the<br />

weak interpretation would be blocked (14).<br />

(14) A: “Anna is reading the newspaper.”<br />

B: “Which one?”<br />

A: “The one dealing with politics.” vs. “?I don’t know.”<br />

The figurative nature of most idioms makes them informal <strong>and</strong> allows them to convey<br />

an emotional judgement, for example, the euphemism to kick the bucket for dying.<br />

This does not hold true for weak definites which are always formal <strong>and</strong> neutral.<br />

As suggested by Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts, it is reasonable to regard weak definites<br />

as idiomatically combining expressions, as introduced by Nunberg et al. (1994, p. 496).<br />

An idiomatically combining expression has an idiomatic nature but the meaning of its<br />

parts is not completely lost. Indicator for this compositionality is the modifiability<br />

of idiomatically combining expressions. The idiom leave no stone unturned can be<br />

altered to leave no legal stone unturned without losing its idiomatic status. The<br />

resulting change in meaning is similar to the subtype change which is possible for<br />

weak definites as between go to the hospital <strong>and</strong> go to the psychiatric hospital. Seeing<br />

weak definites as idiomatically combining expressions satisfies both the intuition that<br />

they have an idiomatic status as well as their compositional properties.<br />

1.3.2 Bare singulars<br />

Another class of nominal expressions that shows close resemblance to weak definites is<br />

the class of bare singulars. A bare singular is a singular NP without a determiner, for<br />

example, church <strong>and</strong> bed in (15a). While it is common for abstract nouns such as grief<br />

<strong>and</strong> happiness (15b) or mass nouns such as wood <strong>and</strong> milk (15c) to occur without a<br />

determiner, bare singulars are very restricted.<br />

(15) a) John went to church in the morning. He is in bed now.<br />

b) He was stricken with grief. Happiness filled her heart.<br />

c) The shelf was made of wood. Milk was spilled over the counter.<br />

Carlson & Sussman (2005) show that weak definites share their restrictions as well<br />

as their other properties with bare singulars. Bare singulars are lexically restricted,<br />

that is, it is a feature of the noun itself whether it can occur without a determiner<br />

(16a). Which verb or preposition can govern the noun is also a feature of the noun<br />

itself (16b). When they occur together with quantified phrases, bare singulars take<br />

narrow scope. In (16c), every criminal could have been sent to a different prison. Bare<br />

singulars also show semantic enrichment. The criminals in (16c) did not only move to<br />

8


a building that serves as a jail but they went there because they were incarcerated.<br />

Finally, bare singulars do not introduce discourse referents (16d).<br />

(16) a) *John went to store in the morning. *He is in kitchen now.<br />

b) *John went around church in the morning. *He works in bed now.<br />

c) Every criminal went to prison.<br />

d) John went to church. ?It was built in the 18 th century.<br />

One difference between weak definites <strong>and</strong> bare singulars is pointed out by Scholten<br />

(2010, p. 9). While weak definites allow subtype modification (17a), bare singulars<br />

can never be modified (17b).<br />

(17) a) John went to the psychiatric hospital.<br />

b) *John went to Catholic church in the morning. *He is in double bed<br />

now.<br />

<strong>Weak</strong> definites <strong>and</strong> bare singulars have a complementary distribution. When a bare<br />

singular construct is available, the weak reading of a definite in the corresponding<br />

VP is blocked. Since the VP go to prison is grammatical in English, the reading of<br />

the prison in go to the prison is necessarily strong (18a). The reading of the newspaper<br />

in read the newspaper can be weak because there is no VP read newspaper (18b).<br />

(18) a) John went to prison. vs. John went to the prison.<br />

b) *Anna is reading newspaper. vs. Anna is reading the newspaper.<br />

Stvan (2009) argues that some VPs containing bare singulars are cases of semantic incorporation.<br />

The verb incorporates the bare singular that is its direct object, forming<br />

a strong union. The meaning conveyed by such a VP contains the meaning contributions<br />

of its parts <strong>and</strong> can contain semantic enrichment. This is the same for weak<br />

definites <strong>and</strong> their governing predicates.<br />

It is interesting to note that there are less VPs containing bare singulars than VPs<br />

with weak definites in object position. It seems plausible to assume that the tighter<br />

bond between verb <strong>and</strong> bare singular restricts their availability more than the looser<br />

bond between verb <strong>and</strong> weak definite, resulting in a smaller number of bare singular<br />

constructs. Another interesting difference is the lack of a determiner. This syntactic<br />

peculiarity always prevents bare singulars from referring to specific objects, while the<br />

difference between the weak <strong>and</strong> the strong reading of potential weak definites is at<br />

least partly context-dependent.<br />

9


2 Formalization by Aguilar-Guevara <strong>and</strong> Zwarts<br />

Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts (2010) develop a formalization of weak definites that captures<br />

all of their properties, especially their non-uniqueness <strong>and</strong> their semantic enrichment.<br />

The formalization also supports the traditional uniqueness interpretation<br />

of definites. This seeming contradiction is resolved by distinguishing object <strong>and</strong> kind<br />

level. A realization relation, a usage predicate <strong>and</strong> a kind lifting rule are the central<br />

components of the formalization.<br />

For the formalization, Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts follow Parsons (1990) in assuming<br />

that propositions describe events. The predicate of the sentence determines the nature<br />

of the event <strong>and</strong> assigns roles to the other constituents of the sentence. The most important<br />

roles in the following examples are agent, theme, source <strong>and</strong> goal. The agent<br />

is the one performing the action, that is, the subject in an active sentence. The theme<br />

is the entity acted upon, that is, the direct object of the predicate. The source is the<br />

starting point <strong>and</strong> the goal the end point of a physical movement. (19a) describes a<br />

reading event where Anna is the agent <strong>and</strong> a book is the theme <strong>and</strong> (19b) is a formalization<br />

inspired by Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts where the variable e st<strong>and</strong>s for the<br />

event <strong>and</strong> the variable x for the book.<br />

(19) a) Anna is reading a book.<br />

b) ∃e[read(e) ∧ Agent(e)=anna ∧ ∃x[book(x) ∧ Theme(e)=x]]<br />

2.1 Realization relation R<br />

A strong definite denotes a unique, specific object. The existence of the object is<br />

formalized by using an existential quantifier <strong>and</strong> the uniqueness by appending an exclamation<br />

mark 3 (20a). Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts argue that weak definites do not<br />

denote specific objects but instantiations of specific kinds. The nature of these kinds<br />

<strong>and</strong> whether they are the same kinds used to explain generics will be discussed in<br />

section 2.4. To indicate that an object is an instantiation of a kind they use the twoplace<br />

relation R. The second argument of R is a kind, in (20b) the kind newspaper,<br />

<strong>and</strong> the first one is an instantiation of that kind, in (20b) represented by the variable xi.<br />

(20) a) Anna is reading the book.<br />

∃e[read(e) ∧ Agent(e)=anna ∧ ∃!x[book(x) ∧ Theme(e)=x]]<br />

b) Anna is reading the newspaper.<br />

∃e[read(e) ∧ Agent(e)=anna ∧ ∃xi[R(xi,newspaperk) ∧ Theme(e)=xi]] 4<br />

The realization relation covers some of the properties of weak definites <strong>and</strong> also maintains<br />

the traditional uniqueness of definites. Although the newspaper does not denote<br />

a unique newspaper, it denotes a unique kind, namely the kind newspaper. The instantiation<br />

itself does not have to be unique. Thus, R enforces uniqueness on the kind<br />

level <strong>and</strong> allows non-uniqueness on the object level.<br />

3 See Heim & Kratzer (2009, pp. 84-85).<br />

4 The index i of xi indicates that x is an object or a sum of objects. xk is used to indicate that x<br />

is a kind.<br />

10


The instantiation is not always a single object but can also be a sum of objects. That is<br />

useful in situations like (21), assuming that John did not take a single train from Munich<br />

to Hamburg but had to switch trains in Cologne, that is, he took in fact two trains.<br />

(21) John took the train from Munich to Hamburg.<br />

∃e[take(e) ∧ Agent(e)=john ∧ ∃xi[R(xi,traink) ∧ Theme(e)=xi] ∧<br />

Source(e)=munich ∧ Goal(e)=hamburg]<br />

<strong>Weak</strong> definites do not seem to introduce discourse referents. This can be formalized<br />

by not explicitly introducing a variable for the instantiations <strong>and</strong>, instead of using<br />

an existential quantifier, setting the filler of the role as the first argument of the realization<br />

relation. Both formalizations are truth-conditionally equivalent but since a<br />

formalization like (22a) introduces a discourse referent <strong>and</strong> one like (22b) does not,<br />

their discourse properties are different.<br />

(22) Anna is reading the newspaper.<br />

a) ∃e[read(e) ∧ Agent(e)=anna ∧ ∃xi[R(xi,newspaperk) ∧ Theme(e)=xi]]<br />

b) ∃e[read(e) ∧ Agent(e)=anna ∧ R(Theme(e),newspaperk)]<br />

The formalization in (22b) also works for the VP ellipsis test. This test demonstrates<br />

that for weak definites the theme of the predicate can be different in both sentences.<br />

Since the instantiation is not introduced by a variable, this is formalized easily by<br />

conjoining two events (23).<br />

(23) Anna read the newspaper <strong>and</strong> John did, too.<br />

∃e[read(e) ∧ Agent(e)=anna ∧ R(Theme(e),newspaperk)] ∧<br />

∃e[read(e) ∧ Agent(e)=john ∧ R(Theme(e),newspaperk)]<br />

That weak definites take narrowest scope can be formalized similarly. For every couple<br />

in (24), there is a new go-to event with a new, potentially different goal.<br />

(24) Every couple goes to the cinema.<br />

∀x[couple(x) → ∃e[go_to(e) ∧ Agent(e)=x ∧ R(Goal(e),cinemak)]<br />

2.2 Usage predicate U<br />

The semantic enrichment of weak definites is not arbitrary. For weak definites in direct<br />

object position, the additional meaning evoked reflects the most typical circumstances<br />

under which the action takes place. In (25a), the go-to action is usually combined<br />

with getting medical assistance or working as a medical professional oneself. Aguilar-<br />

Guevara & Zwarts capture this stereotypical enrichment with the two-place predicate<br />

U (25b). The first argument of this usage predicate is an event <strong>and</strong> the second a kind.<br />

The predicate is true if <strong>and</strong> only if the event is a stereotypical usage of the kind.<br />

(25) a) John went to the hospital.<br />

b) ∃e[go_to(e) ∧ Agent(e)=john ∧ R(Goal(e),hospitalk) ∧<br />

U(e,hospitalk)] 5<br />

5 As Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts point out, this kind of formalization is not completely precise. The<br />

hospital is not used during the go-to event e but e is the necessary requirement for another event<br />

e’ during which the stereotypical usage of the hospital occurs. This is unproblematic because the<br />

11


λe[U(e,hospitalk)] is the set of all stereotypical events for hospitals <strong>and</strong> λe[go_to(e)]<br />

the set of all go-to events. If the intersection of both sets is non-empty, that is, there<br />

exists an event e such that e is a go-to event <strong>and</strong> in e a hospital is used in its stereotypical<br />

function, then this e renders U true <strong>and</strong> the weak reading is available.<br />

Modifying hospital with a non-subtype modifier like nearby leads to an empty set of<br />

stereotypical usage events. The intersection of any set with this empty set is also<br />

empty. Consequently, there is no event satisfying the usage predicate <strong>and</strong> the formula<br />

is always false, that is, the weak reading is blocked.<br />

Subtype modification usually leads to a smaller subset of stereotypical usage events.<br />

For example, λe[U(e,hospitalk)] contains all events in which a patient with a broken<br />

leg is in a hospital but these events are not elements of λe[U(e,psychiatric_hospitalk)].<br />

This reduction raises the question whether subtype modification with several modifiers<br />

can lead to an empty set <strong>and</strong> block the weak reading completely.<br />

Canceling the implicit semantic enrichment of (25a) can be done by explicitly stating<br />

the reason why John went to the hospital (26). To clean the windows overwrites the<br />

assumed stereotypical usage of the hospital, resulting in a blockage of the weak reading.<br />

Since cleaning is not part of the semantic enrichment, there is no cleaning event<br />

e that is element of λe[U(e,hospitalk)] <strong>and</strong> can satisfy U.<br />

(26) John went to the hospital to clean the windows.<br />

The stereotypical usage can give a first explanation of the restrictions on weak definites.<br />

Only some nouns can occur as the head of weak definites <strong>and</strong> weak definites<br />

can only be in object position of some verbs <strong>and</strong> prepositions. For a noun to have a<br />

weak reading, it has to have a stereotypical usage. Otherwise, λe[U(e,noun_kindk)] is<br />

empty <strong>and</strong> U never satisfied. To have such a usage, it cannot be too general. While<br />

the actions performed at a store or at a hospital are clear, this does not hold for their<br />

hypernym building. λe[U(e,buildingk)] is empty due to the unspecific nature of building<br />

<strong>and</strong> the building cannot have a weak reading. Furthermore, the phrase containing<br />

the definite must support its stereotypical function. Suing the doctor or going around<br />

the store prevents getting medical assistance or doing some shopping, respectively,<br />

thus blocking the normal functions of the kinds doctor <strong>and</strong> store. Aguilar-Guevara &<br />

Zwarts show that verbs <strong>and</strong> prepositions which allow weak readings are often related<br />

to locations (go to, be at, visit), name necessary conditions for the stereotypical usage<br />

(open [the window]) or refer directly to the usage (read [the newspaper], listen to [the<br />

radio], play [the piano]).<br />

One aspect not discussed by Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts is that specificity of the kind<br />

is not a sufficient condition for a definite to have a weak reading. The means of transportation<br />

in (27) are all at different levels of specificity but none can have a weak<br />

reading.<br />

(27) Anna went to the {vehicle, car, truck}.<br />

relation between e <strong>and</strong> e’ can be formalized explicitly.<br />

12


It is not clear what else contributes to the restrictions on nouns that can be the head<br />

of weak definites. There seem to be nouns denoting objects with very stereotypical<br />

functions that nonetheless cannot occur in weak definites. A hotel is normally used to<br />

stay over night there. Yet, according to Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts, the weak reading<br />

in (28) is blocked.<br />

(28) John went to the hotel.<br />

2.3 Kind Lifting Rule<br />

The normal analysis of verbs <strong>and</strong> prepositions happens on the object level. That is<br />

appropriate for strong definites. To introduce the realization relation R <strong>and</strong> the usage<br />

predicate U <strong>and</strong> to lift the interpretation from the object level to the kind level,<br />

Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts introduce the Kind Lifting Rule, quoted below:<br />

(KLR) Kind Lifting Rule: If V is a transitive verb (or verb-preposition combination)<br />

with interpretation λxiλe[V(e) ∧ Theme(e)=xi] then V also has the meaning<br />

λxkλe[V(e) ∧ R(Theme(e),xk) ∧ U(e,xk)].<br />

In the common interpretation, the verb V takes an individual, xi, <strong>and</strong> an event as<br />

arguments. After the shift from object to kind level, V takes a kind, xk, <strong>and</strong> an event<br />

as its arguments. While KLR is defined on all transitive verbs, the actual availability<br />

of the weak reading is regulated by the usage predicate U. For verbs that can never<br />

have a weak definite as their direct object, U will always be false. For other verbs the<br />

kind argument determines whether U is true or false.<br />

The application of KLR results in ambiguous verb meanings. The common interpretation<br />

of the verb read leads to a contingent formula (29a). So does the interpretation<br />

after the application of KLR with a kind argument whose stereotypical usage event<br />

set has a non-empty intersection with the set of reading events (29b). For kinds where<br />

U is always false, the resulting formula is a contradiction (29c) <strong>and</strong> only the common<br />

interpretation can be true (29a).<br />

(29) a) John is reading the book.<br />

∃!xi∃e[read(e) ∧ Agent(e)=john ∧ book(xi) ∧ Theme(e)=xi]<br />

b) John is reading the newspaper.<br />

∃e[read(e) ∧ Agent(e)=john ∧ R(Theme(e),newspaperk) ∧<br />

U(e,newspaperk)]<br />

c) John is reading the book.<br />

∃e[read(e) ∧ Agent(e)=john ∧ R(Theme(e),bookk) ∧ U(e,bookk)]<br />

With the realization relation R, the usage predicate U <strong>and</strong> the Kind Lifting Rule, the<br />

formalization of weak definites by Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts is complete.<br />

The formalization can be used to show that weak definites are truth-conditionally<br />

similar to indefinites. Indefinites also only require existence <strong>and</strong> not uniqueness. They<br />

are usually formalized with an existential quantifier but for the comparison with weak<br />

definites, the realization relation R can also be used. Both formalizations for the<br />

indefinite, (30a) <strong>and</strong> (30b), are truth-conditionally equivalent <strong>and</strong> the only difference<br />

to the weak definite in (30c) is the truth value of U.<br />

13


(30) John is reading a newspaper.<br />

a) ∃e[read(e) ∧ Agent(e)=john ∧ R(Theme(e),newspaperk)]<br />

b) ∃e[read(e) ∧ Agent(e)=john ∧ ∃x[newspaper(x) ∧ Theme(e)=x]]<br />

John is reading the newspaper.<br />

c) ∃e[read(e) ∧ Agent(e)=john ∧ R(Theme(e),newspaperk) ∧<br />

U(e,newspaperk)]<br />

A central theoretical concept of Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts’s approach to weak definites<br />

is the kind term. The discussion of these kinds concludes the description of the<br />

formalization.<br />

2.4 Kinds<br />

Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts argue that the kinds used in their theory of weak definites<br />

are the same as the kinds used to explain generics. Generic statements are statements<br />

like (31a) <strong>and</strong> (31b) 6 which are not about specific entities but, in this case, about<br />

potatoes, gentlemen <strong>and</strong> transistors in general.<br />

(31) a) A potato contains vitamin C.<br />

A gentleman opens doors for ladies.<br />

b) The potato was first cultivated in South America.<br />

Shockley invented the transistor.<br />

There are two types of genericity (Krifka 2003, p. 180). The examples in (31a) are<br />

characterizing statements which state general properties of sets of entities. The definite<br />

NPs in the examples in (31b) show kind reference. Only these kind-referring usages of<br />

definite NPs are of interest in the context of weak definites. 7<br />

2.4.1 Nature of kinds<br />

The denotation of kind terms is not in the domain of objects but in the taxonomic<br />

domain, that is, in the domain of kinds <strong>and</strong> subkinds. The difference is illustrated in<br />

(32) where the lion in a) refers to a specific lion while the lion in b) refers to the kind.<br />

(32) a) The lion sleeps in its cage.<br />

b) The lion is a carnivore.<br />

For the formalization 8 of (32a), the common noun lion is used. Its denotation is the<br />

set of all individual lions (33a). The denotation of the lion is the single element of<br />

λx.lion(x) that matches the description in the situation (33b). In contrast, the denotation<br />

of the taxonomic noun lion as used in (32b) is the singleton set that contains<br />

as its only element the kind Panthera leo (33c). Accordingly, the denotation of the<br />

lion, when used generically, is the single element of λxk.lionT (xk), that is, Panthera<br />

leo. The set of all instantiations of Panthera leo is the set of all lions, that is, λx.lion(x).<br />

6 Examples from Krifka (2003).<br />

7 Bare plurals like Dogs in Dogs bark. which are kind-referring as well are also not of relevance<br />

here because we am only interested in definites.<br />

8 The indices T <strong>and</strong> k are used to mark that the noun is taxonomic or refers to the kind, respectively.<br />

The iota operator ι marks that x is the only element matching the description.<br />

14


(33) object reference:<br />

a) [[lion]] = λx.lion(x) = {lionA, lionB, lionC, ...}<br />

b) [[the lion]] = ιx.lion(x) = lionA<br />

kind reference:<br />

c) [[lion]] = λxk.lionT (xk) = {Panthera leo}<br />

d) [[the lion]] = ιxk.lionT (xk) = Panthera leo<br />

When modifying weak definites, only those modifiers still allow a weak reading that<br />

keep the noun in the taxonomic domain (Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts). For hospital, the<br />

modifier psychiatric is in this way taxonomic while the modifier new is not. Accordingly,<br />

psychiatric_hospital is an element of the set of all subkinds of hospital <strong>and</strong> the<br />

psychiatric hospital can receive both the object <strong>and</strong> the kind reference formalization,<br />

as shown for lion in (33). In contrast, new_hospital is not an element of the set <strong>and</strong>,<br />

therefore, can only have object reference.<br />

2.4.2 Restrictions on kinds<br />

<strong>Generics</strong> are less restricted than weak definites. According to Krifka et al. (1995,<br />

p. 11), generics can refer to any well-established kind. A definition of well-established<br />

kind is not given but the term is introduced to distinguish the Coke bottle from the<br />

green bottle in (34) <strong>and</strong> to capture the intuition that the former refers to a kind while<br />

the latter must refer to a specific object.<br />

(34) a) The Coke bottle has a narrow neck.<br />

b) The green bottle has a narrow neck.<br />

As example (34) shows, kinds are not restricted to the kinds established by biology or<br />

other sciences. As Carlson (2009) points out, the example also shows that familiarity<br />

is not enough for a kind to be well-established. At the time the example was created,<br />

all Coke bottles were light green. Therefore, every experience with a Coke bottle was<br />

also an experience with a green bottle, resulting in green bottles being more familiar<br />

than Coke bottles.<br />

In (34b), the green bottle cannot refer to a kind like green_bottle. However, Dayal<br />

(2004, p. 425) demonstrates that green_bottle can be established as a new kind by<br />

appropriate context. In (35), the introductory sentence establishes the new kind<br />

green_bottle <strong>and</strong> allows the green bottle to refer to this newly established kind in<br />

the second sentence.<br />

(35) The factory produces two kinds of bottles, a green one for medicinal purposes<br />

<strong>and</strong> a clear one for cosmetics. The green bottle has a long neck. The clear<br />

bottle ...<br />

Definite generics are only restricted by the availability of well-established kinds, although<br />

example (35) shows that kinds can even be introduced in the situation. <strong>Weak</strong><br />

definites, on the other h<strong>and</strong>, are much more restricted. They also have to refer to<br />

kinds but are additionally lexically restricted.<br />

15


3 Problems with the formalization<br />

3.1 Blockage by discourse referent<br />

The Kind Lifting Rule is a general rule that can be applied to any verb. Since not<br />

every definite in object position of every verb can be weak, the formalization has to<br />

ensure that strong definites are filtered out. This is done by the usage predicate U. If<br />

U is false, the weak reading is blocked, otherwise it is accessible.<br />

There are some problems with this kind of filtering. One is concerned with the discourse<br />

context. It is an advantage of the formalization that it does not establish weak<br />

definites as discourse referents (see section 2.1). In (36a), the hospital can only act as<br />

the antecedent for it when it has a strong reading. Also, if a referent for the definite<br />

is already established as in (36b), the weak reading is blocked.<br />

(36) a) Anna went to the hospital. When she arrived, she found out that it<br />

was closed.<br />

b) They can read a book or a newspaper. While John has picked the<br />

book, Anna is reading the newspaper.<br />

It is not clear how this blockage is integrated into the formalization. The Kind Lifting<br />

Rule (KLR) is a general rule that does not take into account the discourse context.<br />

Therefore, the blockage does not occur through a restriction on the applicability of<br />

the KLR.<br />

The usage predicate U filters according to the usage of the kind, where only stereotypical<br />

usage events allow weak readings. However, in (37), a doctor serves as an<br />

antecedent for the doctor whose weak reading is thereby blocked. Still, in the event in<br />

which the doctor occurs, he is used in his stereotypical function, namely he is called<br />

<strong>and</strong> asked for medical advice. This stereotypical usage makes U true which in turn<br />

allows the weak reading. Thus, although the context allows only a strong definite,<br />

neither the KLR nor U block the weak reading.<br />

(37) We have a nurse <strong>and</strong> even a doctor in our small village. When she needed<br />

medical advice, Anna called the doctor.<br />

One solution for this over-availability is to restrict the applicability of the Kind Lifting<br />

Rule to verbs in situations where no referent for the direct object is already established<br />

or the object is not needed as an antecedent in the subsequent discourse.<br />

3.2 Blockage by modification<br />

Another reason for blockage of the weak reading is modification of the noun. While<br />

the hospital in (38a) has a weak reading, it is blocked by the modifier new in (38b).<br />

It is not clear how the modifier should be included in the formalization. One problem<br />

is that the instantiation of the hospital can be introduced without a variable. Yet,<br />

even if a variable x <strong>and</strong> a predicate like new(x) 9 can be used, U is not affected by this<br />

modification, thus still allowing the weak reading.<br />

The modifier can also be used to modify the kind directly as in (38b). This is reasonable<br />

in cases where the modification leads to a new kind, for example psychiatric_hospital<br />

9 A modifier like new brings further problems for a formalization but those are not of interest here.<br />

16


in (38c). The result of the modification in (38b) does not seem to be a new kind. This<br />

difference can be used to solve the problem.<br />

(38) a) John went to the hospital.<br />

∃e[go_to(e) ∧ Agent(e)=john ∧ R(Goal(e),hospitalk) ∧ U(e,hospitalk)]<br />

b) John went to the new hospital.<br />

∃e[go_to(e) ∧ Agent(e)=john ∧ R(Goal(e),?new_hospital) ∧<br />

U(e,?new_hospital)]<br />

c) John went to the psychiatric hospital.<br />

∃e[go_to(e) ∧ Agent(e)=john ∧ R(Goal(e),psychiatric_hospitalk) ∧<br />

U(e,psychiatric_hospitalk)]<br />

To formalize the solution, we define the null kind null <strong>and</strong> the modification function<br />

Mod. The set of stereotypical usage events of null is empty <strong>and</strong> every identity check<br />

of any object with any instantiation nulli of null is false.<br />

Mod is a two-place function that takes as its first argument a modifier <strong>and</strong> as its<br />

second argument a kind. Mod yields null if its second argument modified by its first<br />

argument is not a new kind, otherwise the new kind. Since Mod always yields a kind,<br />

it can be applied recursively when dealing with several modifiers. This change in the<br />

formalization as in (39a) <strong>and</strong> (39b) solves the modification issue.<br />

(39) a) John went to the new hospital.<br />

Formalization:<br />

∃e[go_to(e) ∧ Agent(e)=john ∧ R(Goal(e),Mod(new,hospitalk)) ∧<br />

U(e,Mod(new,hospitalk))]<br />

Values of R <strong>and</strong> U:<br />

R(Goal(e),Mod(new,hospitalk))<br />

⇔ R(Goal(e),nullk)<br />

⇔ false<br />

U(e,Mod(new,hospitalk))<br />

⇔ U(e,nullk)<br />

⇔ false<br />

b) John went to the psychiatric hospital.<br />

Formalization:<br />

∃e[go_to(e) ∧ Agent(e)=john ∧ R(Goal(e),Mod(psychiatric,hospitalk))<br />

∧ U(e,Mod(psychiatric,hospitalk))]<br />

Values of R <strong>and</strong> U:<br />

R(Goal(e),Mod(psychiatric,hospitalk))<br />

⇔ R(Goal(e),psychiatric_hospitalk)<br />

⇔ true or false, depending on Goal(e)<br />

U(e,Mod(psychiatric,hospitalk))<br />

⇔ U(e,psychiatric_hospitalk)<br />

⇔ true or false, depending on e<br />

17


This formalization always blocks the weak reading in (39a) because nulli is always<br />

different from Goal(e) <strong>and</strong> U(e,Mod(new,hospitalk)) is always false but allows the<br />

weak reading depending on e in (39b), which is the desired result.<br />

3.3 Extension of the set of stereotypical usage events<br />

Another problem of the formalization is the extension of λe[U(e,kindk)], in the following<br />

called Uk, that is, the set of stereotypical usage events of kindk. This extension<br />

is crucial for the distinction between weak <strong>and</strong> strong definites in the formalization.<br />

Yet, it is not apparent how to determine this set.<br />

The usage predicate U has to reflect the restrictions on nouns that can be the head of<br />

weak definites <strong>and</strong> on phrases in which they are contained. The discourse properties of<br />

weak definites <strong>and</strong> the restrictions on their modifiability can be ignored here because<br />

they can be accounted for by the solutions mentioned above.<br />

To determine Uk seems to be relatively easy for some kinds. The doctor has a weak<br />

reading in (40a) <strong>and</strong> in (40b). Both examples show semantic enrichment. Calling<br />

the doctor <strong>and</strong> going to the doctor entail asking for medical advice. This means that<br />

doctor is used in its stereotypical function.<br />

(40) a) John called the doctor.<br />

⇒ He asked for medical advice.<br />

b) John went to the doctor.<br />

⇒ He asked for medical advice.<br />

Semantic enrichment occurs in exactly those cases where the weak reading is available.<br />

Consequently, the semantic enrichment can be used to determine Uk. For e to be an<br />

element of Uk, it has to be an event that evokes semantic enrichment <strong>and</strong> that satisfies<br />

this enrichment. We formalize this as a conjunction. The first conjunct is a disjunction<br />

of predicates that in combination with the kind evoke semantic enrichment. The<br />

second conjunct is a disjunction of stereotypical functions which we introduce here as<br />

two-place predicates. Their first argument is the event <strong>and</strong> their second argument a<br />

kind that should be used in its stereotypical function in the event. (41a) <strong>and</strong> (41b)<br />

are examples for doctor <strong>and</strong> hospital.<br />

(41) a) e ∈ λe[U(e,doctork)] ⇔ (call(e) ∨ go_to(e))<br />

∧ ask_for_medical_advice(e,doctork)<br />

b) e ∈ λe[U(e,hospitalk)] ⇔ go_to(e)<br />

∧ (get_medical_help(e,hospitalk)<br />

∨ work_as_doctor(e,hospitalk)<br />

∨ work_as_nurse(e,hospitalk))<br />

While λe[U(e,doctork)] <strong>and</strong> λe[U(e,hospitalk)] are relatively easy to determine, other<br />

kinds are more problematic. As observed by Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts (2010), the<br />

tape recorder can never have a weak reading. There are no predicates evoking semantic<br />

enrichment <strong>and</strong> no stereotypical functions of the kind tape_recorder. Formalized, this<br />

results in the default interpretation false <strong>and</strong> an empty set λe[U(e,tape_recorderk)]<br />

(42a).<br />

18


For the kind radio, which can have a weak reading as the radio in listen to the radio,<br />

the first conjunct of the conjunction is listen_to(e) (42b). The problem is the second<br />

conjunct.<br />

(42) a) e ∈ λe[U(e,tape_recorderk)] ⇔ false<br />

b) e ∈ λe[U(e,radiok)] ⇔ listen_to(e)<br />

∧ ?<br />

There does not seem to be any semantic enrichment for listen to the radio. If this<br />

was true, listen_to(e) should not be a disjunct of the first disjunction because this<br />

is limited to predicates that evoke semantic enrichment. Also, the second conjunct<br />

would be false, λe[U(e,radiok)] would be empty <strong>and</strong> the radio would always have a<br />

strong reading. This is not the case <strong>and</strong> it raises two questions.<br />

The first question is why is there a weak reading of the radio in listen to the radio<br />

<strong>and</strong> why is it limited to listen-to events. For doctor <strong>and</strong> hospital, their corresponding<br />

verbs are special because they contribute to evoking semantic enrichment. If listen to<br />

the radio does not evoke any semantic enrichment, there has to be another factor that<br />

distinguishes listen-to from other verbs. This factor then also needs to be included in<br />

the intension of Uk.<br />

The second question is about the difference between the kind tape_recorder <strong>and</strong> the<br />

kind radio. If both do not have stereotypical usages, why does the tape recorder never<br />

have a weak reading?<br />

A short answer to both questions is that the kind radio actually has stereotypical<br />

usages but in a broader sense. In sentence (43a), it is clear what the semantic enrichment<br />

is. Therefore, determining λe[U(e,doctork)] is easy. In sentence (43b), on the<br />

other h<strong>and</strong>, the semantic enrichment is not so clear. One might argue that semantic<br />

enrichment is not either present or absent but gradual <strong>and</strong> that the stereotypical function<br />

of the kind doctor is established to a higher degree than that of the kind radio.<br />

This might be the case but the problem with this solution is that if the concept of<br />

stereotypical usages becomes fuzzy, it no longer works as a good filter. With a broader<br />

underst<strong>and</strong>ing of stereotype, one could argue that the kind tape_recorder also has a<br />

stereotypical function, only established to a lesser degree than that of the kind radio.<br />

Such an approach to stereotypes would make it hard to distinguish stereotypical functions<br />

that are established enough to allow weak readings from those that are not.<br />

(43) a) John is calling the doctor.<br />

⇒ He is asking for medical advice.<br />

b) John is listening to the radio.<br />

⇒ ?<br />

c) John is listening to the tape recorder.<br />

⇒ ?<br />

3.4 Scope of the formalization<br />

Another question regarding the formalization is its scope. It is intended to cover the<br />

semantic enrichment subclass of weak definites but it seems to be inappropriate for<br />

other subclasses. The class of body parts as in (44) is an example where the formalization<br />

does not work.<br />

19


(44) Anna gave John a shot in the arm.<br />

∃e[give(e) ∧ Agent(e)=anna ∧ Theme(e)=shot ∧ Recipient(e)=john ∧<br />

R(Location(e),?armk) ∧ U(e,?armk)]<br />

The realization relation R yields an instantiation of the kind that is given as its second<br />

argument. In (44), it is not clear which kind that should be. It is not reasonable to<br />

assume a kind such as John’s arm, consisting only of both his arms. The kind arm<br />

is more likely to exist but is not restricted enough. The set of possible instantiations<br />

is limited to both of John’s arms <strong>and</strong> cannot be altered under normal circumstances.<br />

This is different from semantically enriched weak definites where, for example, the<br />

set of possible instantiations of the kind newspaper can be altered by buying a new<br />

newspaper in reading the newspaper events.<br />

The kind problem also exists for the usage predicate U. If an appropriate kind were to<br />

be found, it is not clear how the stereotypical usage of that kind would look like. No semantic<br />

enrichment takes place in a sentence like (44) which makes the set λe[U(e,?arm)]<br />

to appear empty. This would block the weak reading in every situation which is not<br />

the desired result.<br />

This example with problems both for the realization relation <strong>and</strong> the usage predicate<br />

shows that the formalization cannot simply be applied to all weak definites.<br />

3.5 Intermediate conclusion<br />

A theory of weak definites has to explain two peculiarities of these nominal expressions.<br />

The first one is the lack of a uniqueness presupposition. Unlike strong definites,<br />

weak definites do not refer to unique, identifiable objects. Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts<br />

(2010) successfully formalize this lack of referentiality with a realization relation that<br />

introduces weak definites as instantiations of kinds <strong>and</strong> not as specific objects. These<br />

kinds are also used to explain the second peculiarity.<br />

<strong>Weak</strong> definites are often involved in evoking semantic enrichment. In most cases, VPs<br />

containing weak definites convey more meaning than their constituents <strong>and</strong> their structure<br />

alone carry. The explanation for this semantic enrichment by Aguilar-Guevara<br />

& Zwarts focusses on kinds. They regard kinds as having stereotypical functions <strong>and</strong><br />

whether or not a kind is used in this function determines whether a definite is weak<br />

or strong. As seen in section 3.3, this focus on kinds is problematic. Not all kinds to<br />

which weak definites can refer seem to have stereotypical functions. Also, the question<br />

whether it is plausible to explain semantic enrichment with stereotypical usages of<br />

kinds must be asked. Kind-referring definites alone do not evoke semantic enrichment<br />

but it occurs only in certain PP or VP contexts. Therefore, it might be more plausible<br />

to focus not on kinds but to look at the PPs or VPs containing weak definites.<br />

Bosch (2010) suggests such an approach to weak definites that sets the focus on VPs.<br />

This approach is explained in the next section.<br />

20


4 <strong>Weak</strong> definites <strong>and</strong> concepts<br />

Based on the work of Carlson (2006), Bosch (2010) argues that weak definites may<br />

not serve as arguments for verbs or prepositions but as incorporated modifiers. An<br />

example is the weak definite the newspaper that modifies the verb read, resulting in<br />

read the newspaper.<br />

An incorporation approach can explain why semantic enrichment often occurs with<br />

weak definites. The meaning conveyed by an incorporated phrase is not determined<br />

by the meaning of its parts <strong>and</strong> its structure alone but can include additional aspects.<br />

Since not all arguments are easily incorporated, this approach also explains why weak<br />

definites are lexically restricted. Finally, the lack of referentiality of weak definites can<br />

also be explained by incorporation because the definite does not exist as an isolated<br />

constituent that has to refer to a specific entity but only contributes to the meaning<br />

of the phrase.<br />

According to Bosch, the weak reading <strong>and</strong> the incorporation depend on the availability<br />

of suitable concepts. As an example, the concept of reading the newspaper is available<br />

while the concept of reading the journal is not, resulting in a weak reading for the<br />

newspaper in (45a) <strong>and</strong> a strong reading of the journal in (45b).<br />

(45) a) Anna is reading the newspaper.<br />

b) Anna is reading the journal.<br />

Whenever a concept is available <strong>and</strong> the context does not suggest otherwise, a definite<br />

does not refer to a specific entity but to a specific type. In (45a), this is the type<br />

newspaper which can be used to create an abstract reading the newspaper situation.<br />

In contrast, the type journal in (45b) cannot be used in the same way.<br />

This approach by Bosch is similar to the approach by Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts who<br />

speak of kinds <strong>and</strong> of stereotypical usage events instead of types <strong>and</strong> abstract situations.<br />

In Bosch’s approach, the uniqueness of the type justifies the usage of the definite<br />

determiner just like the uniqueness of the kind does for Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts.<br />

A conceptual approach has theoretical <strong>and</strong> formal consequences. These can only be<br />

outlined here.<br />

First of all, it might be more appropriate to take the availability of a concept as the<br />

defining property of Carlson & Sussman’s weak definites <strong>and</strong> not semantic enrichment.<br />

As seen above with listen to the radio, semantic enrichment does not occur with all<br />

weak definites of this class or at least it is only gradual. The availability of concepts,<br />

on the other h<strong>and</strong>, is easier to determine <strong>and</strong> semantic enrichment can be seen as being<br />

entailed by the concept.<br />

One open question is to what extent these concepts are compositional. They always<br />

include the meaning of the verb <strong>and</strong> the meaning of the definite. For example, listen<br />

to the radio necessarily refers to a listen-to event in which an instantiation of the<br />

type radio is present. However, there are strong restrictions on which components<br />

can combine to build up a concept. In addition, modification of the definite is only<br />

possible when the type remains abstract.<br />

Another open question is whether <strong>and</strong> how new concepts can be introduced. The<br />

reading club example by Cieschinger shows that new concepts are not easily available.<br />

21


The context of this example is a reading club where every member of the club gets<br />

to read one book per month but no two members read the same book. This seems<br />

to establish read the book as a new concept <strong>and</strong> the book as a new weak definite.<br />

However, when asked which book a member reads, one can identify the book. It is<br />

the one assigned to the reader. This shows that new concepts are not that easily<br />

introduced. Only the modifiability of weak definites allows some flexibility but this is<br />

limited to certain dimensions.<br />

For the formalization this means that it must take care of three tasks. It has to check<br />

whether a VP represents a concept, whether modification of the concept yields a new<br />

concept that is still abstract, <strong>and</strong> whether the concept is present in the event. Not<br />

combining the first two tasks has the benefit that not every modified concept has to<br />

be stored explicitly. However, this only yields correct results if modification along the<br />

abstract dimension is generally available.<br />

This sketch of Bosch’s concept approach raises some questions but these go beyond<br />

the scope of this thesis. In the final section of this thesis, we look at weak definites in<br />

German to see whether an equivalent class to the semantic enrichment subclass exists<br />

in German <strong>and</strong> whether its elements behave similarly to those in English.<br />

22


5 <strong>Weak</strong> definites in the German language<br />

When looking for a subclass of weak definites in German that corresponds to the semantic<br />

enrichment subclass in English, it is most promising to look at definites that<br />

are arguments of prepositions. <strong>Weak</strong> definites outside of prepositional phrases (PPs)<br />

exist, but few of them belong to the semantic enrichment subclass (46a). Most are<br />

elements of other subclasses, for example the subclass of body parts as in (46b).<br />

(46) a) Ich fuhr mit dem Zug.<br />

I went by the train.<br />

(I took the train.)<br />

b) Ich brach mir das Bein.<br />

I broke myself the leg.<br />

(I broke my leg.)<br />

There are two forms of PPs that are relevant in this context. One consists of a<br />

preposition, a definite determiner <strong>and</strong> a noun <strong>and</strong> the other of a contraction of a<br />

preposition with the definite determiner <strong>and</strong> a noun. Not all possible contractions are<br />

commonly used, especially in written German. They are limited to certain preposition<br />

<strong>and</strong> determiner combinations where the gender <strong>and</strong> the case of the determiner are<br />

relevant. Der Duden - Grammatik (2005, p. 622) lists the following contractions (47)<br />

as the ones which are often used in writing. They all contain very frequent, short <strong>and</strong><br />

simple prepositions.<br />

It is interesting to note that whenever a contracted form is easily available in written<br />

German, it is used much more frequent than the non-contracted form. The numbers<br />

in parentheses in the table give the ratio of non-contracted forms to contracted forms<br />

in modern written German. 10<br />

(47) zu dem ⇒ zum (3:97) (to the) (masculine/neuter, dative)<br />

zu der ⇒ zur (3:97) (to the) (feminine, dative)<br />

in dem ⇒ im (3:97) (in the) (masculine/neuter, dative)<br />

von dem ⇒ vom (6:94) (from the) (masculine/neuter, dative)<br />

bei dem ⇒ beim (10:90) (at the) (masculine/neuter, dative)<br />

in das ⇒ ins (15:85) (into the) (neuter, accusative)<br />

an dem ⇒ am (at the) (masculine/neuter, dative)<br />

an das ⇒ ans (at the) (neuter, accusative)<br />

auf das ⇒ aufs (on the) (neuter, accusative)<br />

When the contracted form exists, the non-contracted form also exists. In the following<br />

section, we look only at those PPs with prepositions that allow contraction.<br />

5.1 Prepositional phrases headed by contracted forms<br />

The reading of the definite in a contracted prepositional phrase (CPP) is usually weak<br />

<strong>and</strong> the definite in the corresponding non-contracted prepositional phrase (NCPP) is<br />

always strong. In (48a), Anna went to any supermarket to do some shopping but in<br />

(48b) she went to one specific supermarket.<br />

10 Numbers from Der Duden - Grammatik (2005, p. 622). No numbers are available for am, ans<br />

<strong>and</strong> aufs.<br />

23


(48) a) Anna ging zum Supermarkt.<br />

Anna went to–the supermarket.<br />

(Anna went to the supermarket.)<br />

b) Anna ging zu dem Supermarkt.<br />

Anna went to the supermarket.<br />

(Anna went to the supermarket.)<br />

Cieschinger & Bosch (2011) use example (48) to illustrate another usage of CPPs.<br />

The normal reading of zum Supermarkt in (48a) is weak but it can also be a common<br />

ground definite. Common ground definites are similar to strong definites in that they<br />

presuppose a unique referent. This has to be either generally known or unique in a<br />

local domain. For example, if Anna lives in a small village with only one supermarket,<br />

then the set of possible referents for Supermarkt is a singleton. In this context, zum<br />

Supermarkt in (48a) can receive the unique, common ground interpretation. Common<br />

ground definites also exist in English. Similar to the German example, the supermarket<br />

in to the supermarket in (48a) can receive a strong reading in situations where only<br />

one supermarket is there.<br />

One difference between CPPs in German <strong>and</strong> weak definites in English is that CPPs<br />

are generally available <strong>and</strong> are not restricted by the noun. This explains how CPPs<br />

can be so frequent in comparison to their corresponding NCPPs.<br />

CPPs <strong>and</strong> NCPPs have different properties <strong>and</strong> different distributions. Der Duden -<br />

Grammatik (2005, pp. 623–624) lists several obligatory usages of contractions. Contractions<br />

are used when the noun is a nominalized verb (49a) or a nominalized adjective<br />

(49b). They are also used before abstract (49c) <strong>and</strong> mass (49d) nouns as well as with<br />

unique referents (49e) <strong>and</strong> proper nouns (49f). Other uses are with time <strong>and</strong> date<br />

specifications (49g) or in idioms (49h). 11<br />

(49) a) beim Essen stören (disturb dinner)<br />

zum Arbeiten tragen (wear for work)<br />

b) im Freien spielen (play outside)<br />

ins Reine schreiben (write a fair copy)<br />

c) im Vertrauen sagen (say under the rose)<br />

zum Trost gereichen (take comfort in)<br />

d) im Wasser spielen (play in the water)<br />

ins Holz ritzen (carve in wood)<br />

e) zum Mond fliegen (fly to the moon)<br />

zur Sonne blicken (look at the sun)<br />

f) beim Papst vorsprechen (call on the Pope)<br />

ans Schwarze Meer fahren (go to the Black Sea)<br />

g) am Montag (on Monday)<br />

im Mai (in May)<br />

h) H<strong>and</strong> aufs Herz (cross my heart)<br />

vom Regen in die Traufe (from smoke to smother)<br />

11 Examples (bii), (c), (e), (fii) <strong>and</strong> (h) from Der Duden - Grammtik (2005). Examples (a), (di),<br />

(fi) <strong>and</strong> (gii) analogue to examples from Der Duden - Grammtik (2005).<br />

24


Beside these rather restricted usages, CPPs are also used in generic sentences. An<br />

example for a generic sentence is given by Schwarz (2006) in (50a) where Schreibtisch<br />

does not refer to one specific but rather to some desk or another. This is in contrast<br />

to (50b), the corresponding sentence without the contraction, where dem Schreibtisch<br />

refers to one specific desk whose identity must be known.<br />

(50) a) Hans saß am Schreibtisch.<br />

Hans sat on–the desk.<br />

(Hans sat on the desk.)<br />

b) Hans saß an dem Schreibtisch.<br />

Hans sat on the desk.<br />

(Hans sat on the desk.)<br />

The differences between CPPs <strong>and</strong> NCPPs are illustrated by Schwarz (2006) <strong>and</strong> Bosch<br />

(2010). The former shows that only NCPPs can refer to discourse anaphors (51a) <strong>and</strong><br />

the latter points out that only NCPPs easily establish discourse referents (51b). Furthermore,<br />

Schwarz shows that only NCPPs can co-vary with antecedents in donkey<br />

sentences so that in (51c) only an dem Schreibtisch refers for each individual student<br />

<strong>and</strong> his desk to that particular desk.<br />

(51) a) Hans hat einen neuen Schreibtisch.<br />

Hans has a new desk.<br />

Er sitzt den ganzen Tag {an dem, �=am} Schreibtisch. 12<br />

He sits the whole day {at the, at–the} desk.<br />

(Hans has a new desk. He sits the whole day at the desk.)<br />

b) Hans ging {zu dem, ?zum} Supermarkt.<br />

Hans went {to the, to–the} supermarket.<br />

Er ist nur bis 22 Uhr geöffnet.<br />

It is only till 10 pm. open.<br />

(Hans went to the supermarket. It is only open till 10 pm.)<br />

c) Jeder Student, der einen großen Schreibtisch hat,<br />

Every student who a big desk has<br />

verbringt den ganzen Tag {an dem, �=am} Schreibtisch.<br />

spends the whole day {at the, at–the} desk.<br />

(Every student who has a big desk spends the whole day at the desk.)<br />

As noticed by Bosch, CPPs cannot be modified (52a). This is plausible since modification<br />

helps to further identify a referent but CPPs do not introduce any. CPPs can also<br />

not be contrasted (52b). For contrasting, a reference object is necessary. Since CPPs<br />

neither pick up nor introduce discourse referents, no specific object for contrasting is<br />

available.<br />

12 “�=” is used to indicate that am Schreibtisch is a generic expression without reference.<br />

25


(52) a) Hans sitzt {an dem, #am} Schreibtisch,<br />

Hans sits {at the, at–the} desk<br />

den ihm sein Onkel geschenkt hat.<br />

that him his uncle given has.<br />

(Hans sits at the desk that his uncle has given to him.)<br />

b) Warst du schon {in dem, #im} Supermarkt?<br />

Have been you already {to the, to–the} supermarket?<br />

Der <strong>and</strong>ere hat zu.<br />

The other one is closed.<br />

(Have you already been to the supermarket? The other one is closed.)<br />

Schwarz shows that covariation is also possible for NCPPs with antecedents that either<br />

c-comm<strong>and</strong> 13 (53a) or that do not c-comm<strong>and</strong> (53b) the PP but that it is not possible<br />

for CPPs. In contrast, if no antecedent is given, only CPPs can be used (53c). This<br />

also holds for unique referents which are either globally known or at least known in<br />

the situation but not previously mentioned (53d).<br />

(53) a) Jeder Student hat einen Schreibtisch, den er so hinstellt,<br />

Every student has a desk that he so places<br />

dass er gut {an dem, �=am} Schreibtisch arbeiten kann.<br />

that he well {at the, at–the} desk work can.<br />

(Every student has a desk that he places so that he can work well at<br />

the desk.)<br />

b) Die meisten Studenten haben einen großen Schreibtisch und<br />

The most students have a big desk <strong>and</strong><br />

verbringen den ganzen Tag {an dem, �=am} Schreibtisch.<br />

spend the whole day {at the, at–the} desk.<br />

(Most students have a big desk <strong>and</strong> spend the whole day at the desk.)<br />

c) Wenn ein Student viel zu tun hat,<br />

When a student much to do has,<br />

verbringt er den ganzen Tag {#an dem, am} Schreibtisch.<br />

spends he the whole day {at the, at–the} desk.<br />

(When a student has much to do, he spends the whole day at the desk.)<br />

d) Hans geht heute {#zu dem, zum} Papst.<br />

Hans goes today {to the, to–the} Pope.<br />

(Hans visits the Pope today.)<br />

Wir sehen uns {#in dem, im} Institut.<br />

We see each other {in the, in–the} institute.<br />

(See you at the institute.)<br />

13 C-comm<strong>and</strong>ing is a term from Binding theory. For an introduction see Sag et al. (2003). The<br />

examples are included to show that the difference between CPPs <strong>and</strong> NCPPs also has syntactic<br />

consequences.<br />

26


Two more properties of CPPs are mentioned by Schwarz. They can be accommodated<br />

<strong>and</strong> they can be used for bridging. Im Garten in (54a) is accommodated <strong>and</strong> therefore<br />

the usage of the definite determiner is accepted although the identity of the garden in<br />

the discourse context is unknown. This is typical for weak definites where the definite<br />

determiner is used despite the fact that the identity of the referent is not known.<br />

In (54b), am Dach bridges the two sentences. The house is not mentioned again in<br />

the second sentence but the bridging CPP links both sentences which results in the<br />

roof belonging to the aforementioned house.<br />

(54) a) Calling Hans’s house for the first time, his wife answers <strong>and</strong> says:<br />

“Einen Moment, bitte, Hans ist {#in dem, im} Garten.”<br />

“One moment, please, Hans is {in the, in–the} garden.”<br />

(“One Moment, please, Hans is in the garden.”)<br />

b) Das Haus ist schon alt.<br />

The house is already old.<br />

{#An dem, Am} Dach sind undichte Stellen.<br />

{At the, at–the} roof are leaky spots.<br />

(The house is already old. The roof has leaks.)<br />

5.2 Prepositional phrases headed by non-contracted forms<br />

In this section, we look only at those preposition <strong>and</strong> determiner combinations that<br />

cannot contract, at least not in st<strong>and</strong>ard written German. Among these are in der<br />

(in the, feminine, dative), in die (in the, feminine, accusative), auf dem (on the,<br />

masculine/neuter, dative), <strong>and</strong> an die (on the, feminine, dative).<br />

<strong>Weak</strong> definites contained in these PPs show restrictions similar to weak definites in<br />

English. Most importantly, it seems that these are more lexically restricted than CPPs<br />

<strong>and</strong> limited to object position of certain verbs. Der Zeitung in (55a) can have a weak<br />

reading while the reading of der Zeitschrift in (55b) is always strong. Lesen (55a) can<br />

have in der Zeitung with a weak reading of der Zeitung as its object but eingewickelt<br />

sein (55c) can not.<br />

(55) a) Das las ich in der Zeitung.<br />

That read I in the newspaper.<br />

(I read it in the newspaper.)<br />

b) Das las ich in der Zeitschrift.<br />

That read I in the journal.<br />

(I read it in the journal.)<br />

c) Der Fisch ist in der Zeitung eingewickelt.<br />

The fish is in the newspaper wrapped.<br />

(The fish is wrapped in newspaper.)<br />

Like CPPs, these weak definites neither pick up (56a) nor introduce (56b) discourse<br />

referents <strong>and</strong> are not freely modifiable without losing their weak reading (56c). Der<br />

Zeitung only has a strong reading in all three examples.<br />

27


(56) a) Auf dem Tisch liegen eine Zeitung und eine Zeitschrift.<br />

On the table lie a newspaper <strong>and</strong> a journal.<br />

Den Artikel las ich in der Zeitung.<br />

The article read I in the newspaper.<br />

(On the table lie a newspaper <strong>and</strong> a journal. I read the article in the<br />

newspaper.)<br />

b) Über den Sk<strong>and</strong>al las ich in der Zeitung.<br />

About the sc<strong>and</strong>al read I in the newspaper.<br />

Ich kaufte sie am Kiosk.<br />

I bought it at–the kiosk.<br />

(I read about the sc<strong>and</strong>al in the newspaper. I bought it at the kiosk.)<br />

c) Das las ich in der Zeitung,<br />

That read I in the newspaper<br />

die dort auf dem Tisch liegt.<br />

that there on the table lies.<br />

(I read it in the newspaper that lies there on the table.)<br />

5.3 Semantic enrichment subclass in German<br />

The semantic enrichment subclass in German consists of some CPPs, some NCPPs<br />

<strong>and</strong> some definites outside of PPs. All of these weak definites are in argument position<br />

of certain verbs <strong>and</strong> lexically restricted. Lexical restrictions are needed for weak<br />

definites in NCPPs or outside of PPs because these forms do not differ from strong<br />

definites. The difference between the weak reading for the definites in (57a) <strong>and</strong> in<br />

(57c) <strong>and</strong> the strong reading in (57b) <strong>and</strong> in (57d) is only due to a different status of<br />

the nouns.<br />

(57) a) Das las ich in der Zeitung.<br />

That read I in the newspaper.<br />

(I read it in the newspaper.)<br />

b) Das las ich in der Zeitschrift.<br />

That read I in the journal.<br />

(I read it in the journal.)<br />

c) Ich fuhr mit dem Zug.<br />

I went by the train.<br />

(I went by train.)<br />

d) Ich fuhr mit dem Cabrio.<br />

I went by the convertible.<br />

(I went by convertible.)<br />

Many CPPs belong to the class of weak definites <strong>and</strong> they are generally available for<br />

some prepositions. For example, all combinations in (58) are grammatical.<br />

28


(58) Hans {liegt, arbeitet, schläft, ist} im {Garten, Büro, Wald, Keller}.<br />

Hans {lies, works, sleeps, is} in–the {garden, office, forest, cellar}.<br />

(Hans {lies, works, sleeps, is} in the {garden, office, forest, cellar}.)<br />

The restrictions on prepositions that can contract are not semantical. The contractibility<br />

depends on the frequency of the prepositions <strong>and</strong> their lengths (Der Duden - Grammatik,<br />

2005). It also depends on phonology. Combinations like in dem can contract<br />

to im but in der cannot contract to in’er.<br />

Given these restrictions, it is not plausible to add all CPPs which are not common<br />

ground definites to the semantic enrichment subclass. However, they belong to a superclass<br />

that does not have semantic enrichment as a necessary property but whose<br />

defining property is neither picking up nor introducing discourse referents. This superclass<br />

might be the class of all weak definites.<br />

The CPPs that belong to the semantic enrichment subclass furthermore have the property<br />

of entailing additional meaning. Ist im Krankenhaus in (59) does not only mean<br />

that Hans is in a building classified as a hospital but also that he is there to get medical<br />

treatment. None of the examples in (58) shows semantic enrichment, including those<br />

starting with Hans ist im, in contrast to (59).<br />

(59) Hans ist im Krankenhaus.<br />

Hans is in–the hospital.<br />

(Hans is in the hospital.)<br />

5.4 Conclusion<br />

The data of this section shows that the semantic enrichment subclass also exists in<br />

German. In fact, many definites that are weak in English are also weak in German, for<br />

example, read the newspaper (die Zeitung lesen), go to the hospital (ins Krankenhaus<br />

gehen <strong>and</strong> listen to the radio (im Radio hören). Interesting about German definites<br />

is the availability of different syntactic forms for weak <strong>and</strong> strong definites in some<br />

prepositional phrases. Normally, definites in prepositional phrases with contraction<br />

are weak while those in the corresponding non-contracted prepositional phrases are<br />

strong. However, as pointed out by Cieschinger & Bosch (2011), common ground definites<br />

have the syntactic form of weak definites but they refer to uniquely identifiable<br />

objects. This is possible because the set of potential referents is a singleton.<br />

The main question about weak definites is how they cause semantic enrichment. Both<br />

approaches from Aguilar-Guevara & Zwarts (2010) <strong>and</strong> from Bosch (2010) point in<br />

promising directions but leave questions open. Further work on kinds <strong>and</strong> on concepts<br />

might answer these questions <strong>and</strong> maybe also additional questions about language use<br />

<strong>and</strong> underst<strong>and</strong>ing in general.<br />

29


References<br />

Aguilar-Guevara, A., & Zwarts, J. (2010). <strong>Weak</strong> definites <strong>and</strong> reference to kinds. In<br />

N. Li, & D. Lutz (Eds.) Semantics <strong>and</strong> Linguistic Theory (SALT), vol. 20, (pp.<br />

179–196). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.<br />

Bosch, P. (2010). <strong>Weak</strong> definites <strong>and</strong> German preposition-determiner contractions.<br />

Workshop Specificity from theoretical <strong>and</strong> empirical points of view, Institut für Linguistik,<br />

Universität Stuttgart.<br />

Carlson, G. (2006). The meaningful bounds of incorporation. In S. Vogeleer, & L. Tasmowski<br />

(Eds.) Non-Definiteness <strong>and</strong> Plurality, Linguistik Aktuell series, vol. 95, (pp.<br />

35–50). Amsterdam: Benjamins.<br />

Carlson, G. (2009). <strong>Generics</strong> <strong>and</strong> concepts. In F. J. Pelletier (Ed.) Kinds, things, <strong>and</strong><br />

stuff: mass terms <strong>and</strong> generics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.<br />

Carlson, G., & Sussman, R. (2005). Seemingly Indefinite <strong>Definites</strong>. In S. Kepser,<br />

& M. Reis (Eds.) Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical, <strong>and</strong> computational<br />

perspectives, (pp. 71–86). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.<br />

Cieschinger, M. (2011). Definite Reference. Talk at Retreat Seminar of the Research<br />

Training Group Adaptivity in Hybrid <strong>Cognitive</strong> Systems, University of Osnabrück.<br />

Cieschinger, M., & Bosch, P. (2011). Seemingly <strong>Weak</strong> <strong>Definites</strong> - German Preposition-<br />

Determiner Contractions. SuB-Workshop <strong>Weak</strong> Referentiality, University of Utrecht.<br />

Dayal, V. (2004). Number marking <strong>and</strong> (in)definiteness in kind terms. Linguistics <strong>and</strong><br />

Philosophy, 27(4), 393–450.<br />

Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (2009). Semantics in Generative Grammar, vol. 13. Oxford:<br />

Blackwell, 12 ed.<br />

Krifka, M. (2003). Bare nps: Kind-referring, indefinites, both, or neither? In R. B.<br />

Young, & Y. Zhou (Eds.) Semantics <strong>and</strong> Linguistic Theory (SALT), vol. 13, (pp.<br />

180–203). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.<br />

Krifka, M., Pelletier, F. J., Carlson, G. N., ter Meulen, A., Link, G., & Chierchia, G.<br />

(1995). Genericity: An Introduction. In G. N. Carlson, & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.) The<br />

Generic Book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.<br />

Nunberg, G., Sag, I. A., & Wasow, T. (1994). Idioms. Language, 70 (3), 491–538.<br />

Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the Semantics of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.<br />

Russell, B. (1905). On Denoting. Mind, 14 (56), 479–493.<br />

Sag, I. A., Wasow, T., & Bender, E. M. (2003). Syntactic theory: A formal introduction.<br />

Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 2 ed.<br />

Scholten, J. (2010). <strong>Weak</strong> <strong>Definites</strong> <strong>and</strong> Bare Singulars: Their Syntactic Peculiarities.<br />

Master’s thesis, Utrecht University.<br />

30


Schwarz, F. (2006). A morphological distinction between bound <strong>and</strong> free definites.<br />

Workshop Presupposition Accommodation, Ohio State University.<br />

Strawson, P. F. (1950). On Referring. Mind, 59 (235), 320–344.<br />

Stvan, L. (2009). Semantic incorporation as an account for some bare singular count<br />

noun uses in English. Lingua, 119 (2), 314–333.<br />

Wermke, M., Kunkel-Razum, K., & Scholze-Stubenrecht, W. (Eds.) (2005). Der Duden<br />

in 12 Bänden, vol. 4: Grammatik. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut & F.A.<br />

Brockhaus AG, 7 ed.<br />

31


Hiermit erkläre ich, Steffen Vogel, die vorliegende Arbeit <strong>Weak</strong> <strong>Definites</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Generics</strong><br />

selbstständig verfasst und keine <strong>and</strong>eren als die angegebenen Quellen und Hilfsmittel<br />

benutzt zu haben.<br />

Osnabrück, September 21, 2011

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!